1909-11-26

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GERVAIS presented the first report of the Select Standing Committee on Debates as follows:
Your committee recommend that, commencing with this session, the printing of both the English and French Revised Editions of the Debates for distribution to the public and the press be discontinued and that [DOT] the King's Printer be authorized to have printed during the course of the session for the use. of senators and members of the House 600 copies of the current sheets of the English Revised Edition and 100 copies of the French Revised Edition.
Mr. GERVAIS moved the adoption of the report.
Mr.'SPROULE. We have not had an opportunity of examining that report yet.
Mr. W. F. MACLEAN.: I would like to suggest to the hon. gentleman who proposes the motion, that I think he ought to make provision for the distribution daily of the unrevised edition of the 1 Hansard ' to the press and especially to the daily press.


Mr. GEO. TAYLOR.: That is provided for.


William Findlay Maclean: Does it cover that?


Mr GERVAIS.: Yes, that is provided for in the regulations. As a matter of fact this report is merely to save a few dollars to the exchequer of Canada by discontinuing the useless distribution of a few thousand copies of the revised edition. The unrevised edition is distributed daily to the press and to the general public. I think that the press and especially my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean) will be satisfied. During last session every one was satisfied with this arrangement. This motion is



51G
really to confirm that practice and to comply with the request made by the King's Printer.


George Taylor: We have been in the habit of issuing to the weekly and daily press a revised copy of the ' Hansard.' We decided there was no use in sending that out, that we would send the unrevised edition instead, and this is merely to authorize the King's Printer not to send out both the revised and the unrevised to the press generally. We merely discontinue the printing of a number of extra copies of the revised edition which we have been sending to the press.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 42), respecting the Edmonton and Slave Lake Railway Company-Mr. Cash.
Bill (No. 43), respecting the Hudson Bay Insurance Company-Mr. Knowles.
Bill (No. 44), respecting the Montreal Central Terminal Company-Mr. Ethier.
Bill (No. 45), respecting the Phoenix Assurance Company, Limited-Mr. Macdonald.
Bill (No. 46), to incorporate the Pine Pass Railway Company-Mr. W. H. White.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LEWIS moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 47) to provide for inspection of vessels not now inspected.
Some hon. MEMBERS: Explain.


Mr. LEWIS.: Mr. Speaker, the object of the Bill which I now ask permission to introduce is two-fold. In the first place, clauses 1, 2, 3 and 4 refer to barges and vessels not now inspected. I know for a fact, Sir, that what I am about to say with reference to this matter is absolutely correct as far as the great lakes are concerned, and I am informed that the same conditions .exist in the maritime provinces. The custom is for old wooden boats and vessels, out of which the engines and masts have been taken, to be towed by other boats. While the government of Canada does not allow well found boats to leave a harbour unless they are properly equipped, no such provision for the safety of the crew is enforced in reference to these barges. One section of this Bill provides that they shall be inspected. Another section refers to steam yachts under five tons, clause 6 refers to fishing boats. These boats under a certain tonnage are not obliged to carry either a life boat, life raft or other apparatus for the saving of human life. In 120 Ontario reports, Sturgeon vs. The Port Bur-Mr. GBR VAIS.
well Fishing Company, page 154, it is clearly laid down in the judgment that had the boat in question, which is of the class referred to in this Bill, been equipped with life-saving apparatus, the lives of one or two men lost on that occasion would have been saved.
The last section refers to steamships towing vessels of steel which have not motive power. As is well known, these steel vessels cannot approach close to one another and the consequence is that when a line breaks, as frequently happens, the men on the tow are almost invariably lost. I desire by this amendment to provide that all steamships towing other boats shall have on board a rocket gun by which a heaving line can be sent 300 or 400 feet and a vessel with motive power can thus pick up her derelict tow. The United States steel trust which owns the largest number of vessels on the continent obliges all its vessels to carry rocket guns.


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

Mr.  J. A.@: CURRIE (North Simcoe) moved for leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Inspection and Sales Act. He said: I find that under the British North America Act, this parliament has exclusive jurisdiction in matters relating to weights and measures. This parliament in its wisdom has seen fit to pass legislation fixing standards for weights and other measures. Parliament has also passed an Inspection and Sales Act which deals with the standard weight of certain articles, such as a bushel of grain, a barrel of flour, a barrel of salt, a load of hay and a bag of potatoes in Quebec. Parliament has also fixed the weight of a dozen of eggs at one and a half pounds. I find, however, that the most important article of food entering into every-day consumption, that is the loaf of bread, has not been standardized by this parliament and the various municipalities and provinces have from time to time been struggling with this question, some of them endeavouring to fix the weight at one figure and others at another. Thus there is confusion and the law is not carried out. In consequence the public, especially the poorer classes, have suffered. I think that we should follow the wise legislation of the mother country and the other colonies in this respect and fix the weight of a loaf of bread as clearly as we have the right to do under the British North America Act.
This Bill is intended as an amendment and to become part 11 of the Inspection and Sales Act. The first clause defines the terms ' baker ' ' inspector ' and ' officers.'

The second clause provides that all bread sold by bakers shall be in loaves of one two and four pounds. That fixes a standard for the whole of Canada. Provision is made in the Bill for the carrying out of its provisions. It provides that inspectors under the Inspection and Sales Act, inspectors appointed under the Inland Revenue Act or other inspectors appointed by this government for special purposes, shall be considered inspectors under this part of this Bill. It also provides that the officials appointed under provincial statute or under municipal by-law, whose duty it would be to see to the enforcement of this Act, shall have jurisdiction in certain cases. Penalties are fixed for having bread under weight and also against a baker if he or the man who delivers his bread does not supply himself with proper scales and appliances to weigh the bread he is selling. I trust that the Minister of Inland Revenue, under whose care I presume this Bill will come, will expedite its passage through the House. I ask the indulgence of the House in reference to it because I think it is a measure in the interests of the public. It is an absolute necessity that we should have a standard weight for a loaf of bread and that standard should be so fixe'd that there will be some legal redress in case of a baker breaking the law.


Hon. SYDNEY FISHER (Minister of Agriculture).: There is a question as to whether a Bill of this kind should not be introduced by resolution. It seems to me to affect and regulate trade, which, under the general rule of the House, is a subject matter that must be introduced by resolution. If we are going to regulate the weight of a loaf of bread that regulates the trade in bread as much as any possible treatment of that trade can. It is well understood that Bills of that kind must be introduced by resolution.


Mr. SPROULE.: If that be the fact, the minister must be a great offender, because he has introduced such measures without resolution.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I think my hon. friend will find that I have invariably introduced such Bills by resolution.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Perhaps not this session, but I think last session and the year before he did.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: The hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


Mr. R. L. BORDEN.: Has it not sometimes been the practice to have the Bills introduced and the resolutions brought in afterwards.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: That has been done, I am merely drawing attention to the fact.
17J


Robert Laird Borden: It is quite proper that attention should be drawn to it, but I think that practice has been followed. Whether it be a correct practice or not I do not know.


Mr. PATERSON.: It is against rule 48.


Mr. SPEAKER.: Rule 48 reads:
No Bill relating to trade, or the alteration of the laws concerning trade, is to be brought into this House, until the. proposition shall have been first considered in a Committee of the Whole House, and agreed unto by the House.
If it is a Bill in restraint of trade it will have to be preceded by a resolution, unless the House consents to the introduction of the Bill with the understanding that a resolution will be introduced later.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: There is no objection to that.


Mr. J. A. CURRIE.: I do not wish to cause any misunderstanding. The measure is not a measure in restraint of trade in any way, and the Bill provides clearly that there shall be no charges against the consolidated revenue fund by any of its provisions. I could quite understand that in the measure contained a clause whereby there was to be any charge against the\ revenues of this country it would be necessary to introduce it by a resolution. As far as restraining or regulating trade is concerned, it fixes the weight of a certain article. I would like to know from the minister if, when the weight of a barrel of apples was fixed by this House, that legislation was initiated by a resolution of the House.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I cannot say, but I think it was. Certainly if it was not it was contrary to the rules of the House. Bourinot says:
Rule 41 of the Rules of the House provides that no Bill relating to trade or an alteration of the laws concerning trade is to be brought into the House until the proposition has been considered in a Committee of the Whole House.
Then, later on it says:
Both in the English and Canadian Commons the rule, just cited, has been held to apply to trade generally, as well as to any particular trade, if directly affected by a Bill. It has also been decided that to bring a Bill under the rule it should properly propose to regulate trade as a subject-matter.
Under these circumstances, it seems to me that the Bill ought to be preceded by a resolution. I am not taking this objection for the purpose of blocking the Bill, but simply for the purpose of having it proceeded with regularly. The hon. leader of the opposition is quite right in saying that Bills have been introduced, probably on

several occasions, which, it has been afterwards found ought to have been .preceded by a resolution, and then the resolution has been proposed and put through the committee, and afterwards the Bill proceeded with.


Mr. HENDERSON.: Of course, I do not need to argue that two wrongs make a right; but if the hon. member for North Simooe is wrong on this occasion, the Minister of Agriculture was wrong yesterday. He introduced a Bill, and in the latter part of his explanation said:
The last clause defines the weight of a barrel of potatoes when potatoes are sold by the barrel.
I am quite sure that Bill was not preceded by a resolution.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: My hon. friend is quite right. My explanation is that I referred the matter to the law clerk of the House of Commons, and he informed me that that Bill did not require to be preceded by a resolution.


David Henderson: Then plainly the one before the House now does not require a resolution, because both Bills are of exactly the same character.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Of course, it is for the House to say whether the rules are to he observed or not. Strict adherence to the rules is always advisable, and if I have to rule on the question of this Bill, my ruling will be that it will have to be preceded by a resolution.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: It is always preferable to conform to the rule, and it may be that my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture will have to revise his own Bill and have it preceded by a resolution. But I would observe that the Bill of the hon. member for North Simooe seems to be objectionable in another respect, not on its merits, but as being under the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. The weight of bread is generally regulated by municipal authority, and it is^ very questionable if we have jurisdiction in the matter.


Mr. J. D. REID.: What about a barrel of. potatoes?	'


Wilfrid Laurier: The same thing would apply.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the Bill had better stand in the meantime until the matter is looked into further.


Robert Laird Borden: What aTe we going to do about the one of yesterday?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I may have been in error in allowing the Bill of yesterday to be Mr. FISHER.
introduced without being preceded by a resolution.
Question allowed to stand.



MANITOBA GRAIN ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. SYDNEY FISHER moved that the House go into committee now to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to amend the Manitoba Grain Act, chapter 83 of the Revised Statutes, 1906, as follows:-
By repealing subsection 5 of section 17, subsection 5 of section 47, and subsection 2 of section 109, and amending section 104, by substituting for the words ' license fee of two dollars J the words ' required license fee/
By authorizing the Governor in Council to fix the respective fees to be paid for licenses issued under the Act, and by providing fines for contravention of the said Act.
Robert Laird Borden: What is the reason that sometimes resolutions of this kind are dealt with by way of notice that proceedings will be taken on the following day, and sometimes the House is moved into committee at once? In the first case the motion goes on government orders and is taken up accordingly. Is there any distinction with respect to the character of these motions?


Sydney Arthur Fisher: No, I think not. If they are proceeded with at once, it is simply by consent of the House. I will give notice that I will take it up on Monday.


Mr. BRODEUR.: In the case of a money Bill, notice should be given in advance, and then it becomes an order of the day. When it is a notice concerning a question affecting trade, it does not go on the Order Paper, and may be taken up at once.


Robert Laird Borden: Where is that to be found?


Louis-Philippe Brodeur: In Bourinot.


John Allister Currie: Is it in the rules of the House?


Wilfrid Laurier: No. I think in order to guard the rights of the people over money Bills, they must be preceded by a notice in advance. That is the reason of the rule.


Robert Laird Borden: This particular motion involves the payment of license fees.


Sydney Arthur Fisher: I give notice that I will take it up on Monday next.
Motion allowed to stand.



THE NAVAL DEFENCE BILL.

Robert Laird Borden: Before the orders of the day are called, I would like to ask the Prime Minister when we may expect the Bill announced in the speech from the Throne with regard to naval defence? There

has been considerable delay already, and I observe in the speech from the Throne that a plan had been adopted before the opening of the session. I presume there is no reason why we should not have the Bill at the earliest possible moment, and I merely rise for the purpose of inquiring when we may expect it.


Wilfrid Laurier: If my hon. friend will kindly renew his question on Monday, I think I shall be able to satisfy him.



REPRESENTATION OF DUFFERIN.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: In compliance with the Act in that behalf, I desire to inform you, Mr. Speaker, that the representation of the county of Dufferin in this House is vacant, owing to the death of the late member, Dr. Barr, so that you may address your warrant to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery for the issue of a writ to fill the vacancy, that that county may be represented in this parliament during the present session.



REPRESENTATION OF OTTAWA AND QUEBEC EAST.

Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see in the Toronto ' World ' of November 25, the following in the correspondence from Ottawa:-
Two statements of uncommon interest and eo-related were made in official quarters to the correspondent of the ' World ' to-day. The first of these is that Sir Wilfrid Laurier's present intention is to sit for Ottawa, and the second is that the Hon. S. N. Parent, Chairman of the Transcontinental Railway Commission, has been asked to resign his commissionership and contest the vacancy for Quebec East when the premier elects to sit for Ottawa.
I desire to ask the premier if that is correct?


Wilfrid Laurier: I am afraid that the official quarters of the Toronto 'World' are better informed than I am. I have not heard anything either of, the one case or the other.



INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS ON ALCOHOLISM.

Mr. FOSTER.: I would like to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister with reference to the International Congress on Alcoholism which was held last July in London, England. It seems that this is an institution which has its regular meetings, and at its last meeting some twenty _ or 30 nations were represented. An invitation was extended to the Dominion government, as I am informed, and I would like to ask whether or not that was accepted and a reply sent or what were the reasons one was not sent. It may be more more convenient for the' hon. gentleman just to lay the papers on the table, as they are not
voluminous, without the form of a motion.
Sir WILFRID' LAURIER. I would have to refresh my memory on this point. I have no objection to bringing down the papers.



INQUIRY FOR RETURNS.

Robert Laird Borden: Would it not be possible to have the returns brought down in better shape? I mentioned this matter a couple of sessions ago. The grievance is a very frequent occurrence. I refer in particular to the papers brought down in connection with the resignation of Mr. Lumsden. They were not only up side down but inside out. They began at the end but did not end at the beginning. They were in such bad shape that it was impossible to ascertain where to look for any particular document. I went to the officials and asked them to take some steps to have the papers properly arranged and some kind of index made. The_papers were brought down in such a condition that any member who wants to examine them, loses an hour to an hour and a half, which means great aggregate loss of time to a number of the members. This might be saved by a little attention on the part of some of the officials in the first instance.


Wilfrid Laurier: Hear, hear.



INLAND REVENUE ACT-AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 9) to amend the Inland Revenue Act-Mr. Templeman-read the second time and House went into committee thereon.
On section 1,
Mr. TEMPLEMAN.: This only increases the amount to be paid for a bonding warehouse license from $20 to $50 per annum. The charge has been lone too low, and it has been considered proper to increase it to $50.
On section 2,


William Templeman: The only change is the introduction in the fourth line of the words ' one-sixth/ providing that snuff may be put up in packages of one-sixth of a pound. The trade have asked for it and that is our only reason for making the change.
On subsection (e).


William Templeman: The change in this subsection is the introduction of the words 'twenty-five'? providing that cigarettes may be put up in packages of twenty-five. At present there is no provision for packages containing twenty-five; and as many are imported containing that number, it means that the packages have to be broken up and repacked to conform to our law which requires the packages to be of twenty or fifty as the case may be.
52.3

On section 3,
Paragraph (h) of section 311 of the said Act is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:-
(h) for determining the time and manner of payment of the duties on foreign raw leaf tobacco and other materials taken for use in any tobacco or cigar manufactory.


William Templeman: The only change is the addition in the second line of the words 'and other materials'. The duties are paid in tobacco factories in three kind of packages, ten, twenty and thirty. We have authority to provide for the arranging of the manner of payment of the duties on foreign raw leaf tobacco, and we want to use the words 'other materials'. Since the last change in the Inland Revenue Act, there is a duty of 16 cents per pound on other materials that go into the manufacture.
Bill reported.
Mr. TEMPLEMAN moved the third reading.


Mr. BLAIN.: I would like that this Bill should stand over for a third reading.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Next sitting of the House.



SUPPLY-LIEUTENANT GOVERNORSHIP OF BRITISH COLUMBIA.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. FIELDING moved that the House go again into Committee of Supply.
["They are well on toward completion.\nAt six o'clock House took recess.\nAfter Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Mr. J. D. TAYLOR (New Westminster).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I desire to call the attention of the House to a doctrine laid down by the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) recently in dealing with a question which I had placed on the Order Paper in pursuance of the privilege conferred by rule of this House that members may, on due notice given, ask questions relating to public affairs. Sir, the question which I put related to the public affairs of this country, inasmuch as it referred to an appointment which is not exceeded in importance by any other appointment in the gift of the Dominion government, the office of Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia. We had an intimation through the newspapers that a political organization in British Columbia had by formal resolution passed, made a recommendation to the government at Ottawa that a certain gentleman should be appointed Lieutenant Governor of that province. This recommendation was made in the most public manner as a notification to other persons concerned to 'keep off the grass.' It was a notification that the British Columbia executive of the Liberal party having made such a recommendation, it was idle for any one else to butt in on that preserve, and that all should govern themselves accordingly. To my mind, that was a most shocking interfer-


William Templeman: ence on the part of a political organization in the appointment to an office which should be non-political, should be kept strictly apart from all political considerations. I had hoped, when I saw that intimation in the press, that, upon receipt of that recommendation at Ottawa, the Prime Minister, if it came to his notice- as I suppose it would come to his notice as the man most concerned in the appointment-would administer to the committee in British Columbia the snub which their course deserved, would have informed them that, with respect to the office of Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia, they were exceeding their jurisdiction, they were violating the laws of propriety, in making any recommendation of that kind, particularly in making it in the public and theatrical manner in which they did make it. In pursuance of that idea, I placed a question on the Order Paper in the hope that the Prime Minister in answering it would have clearly laid down the principle I have indicated, and that his answer to that committee in British Columbia would have been a warning to political associations everywhere that here was an office upon which they must not lay their hands. I may say frankly that I was disappointed when I received the reply from the Prime Minister that,
Information of the description asked for in the first part of his question would be considered by the government or by any minister as absolutely private matter.
Sir, I must dissent from the doctrine that a recommendation on tne part of a public association such as the association I have described can properly be considered by the government of this country a private matter. To my mind it is an essentially public matter, a matter as to *which we are entitled to have the most complete information. To my mind, we are entitled to know what has been done with respect to that application. We would be entitled to it even under ordinary circumstances; but I claim that we are very specially entitled to that information in view of the very special circumstances respecting the gentleman recommended by this resolution for the Lieutenant Governorship of British Columbia.
We have observed toy the press that an election has been in progress in British Columbia. We have observed that one of the candidates in that election is the very gentleman whose application for the appointment of Lieutenant Governor has been favoured by the chief political association in the province. We find that gentleman, with this appointment as good as in his pocket-unless the government had turned down the recommendation in the manner in which I thought it should have been

turned down; unless the government consider that the publication of the recommendation of the patronage committee was absolutely fatal to the claim of the gentleman to whom I have referred-I say we have this gentleman, with the appointment of the Lieutenant Governorship of British Columbia as good as in his pocket, campaigning in that province against that very government on which he expected to sit in judgment as soon as that appointment was made. I invite the attention of this House to the condition these facts indicate, to the intolerable condition so far as the provincial government is concerned-that a man should toe one day on the hustings making most scandalous charges against the provincial government and the next day be called to the office of Lieutenant Governor. I do not wish to go into details, because this is a question of principle which I do not wish to befog with a cloud of words. But I wish to indicate the nature of the charges which this Lieutenant Governor designate has been making against the government of British Columbia, charges so grave that thejrhave Ibeen made the subject of an editorial in the chief Liberal organ of Canada, the Toronto ' Globe.' We read in the Toronto ' Globe ' the following:
The British Columbia election campaign has brought out the startling news that Premier McBride issued a secret order in council directing the sale of 3,238 acres of land in the Okanagan Indian reserve to a political favourite. The price at which this alleged sale was effected was $2.50 per acre, and as similar lands are sold in the neighbourhood for $300 and $400 per acre the fraudulent nature of the transaction is obvious. .	.	[DOT] The disclosure was made by Mr. Wade, K.C., in a campaign speech at Nelson, and it has not only startled the province, but has caused an uneasy feeling throughout the Dominion.
Here, Sir, we have, as the ' Globe ' sums it up in referring to the incident, a charge by the man who, so far' as we know, it is proposed to make Lieutenant Governor of the province-because, when the government had an opportunity to deny it they did not deny it, but said it was their private affair-that the McBride government has made a fraudulent sale of the public lands. Before referring to the bearing of that charge upon the question I am discussing, I might say, in justice tojthe McBride government, against whom charges of fraud do not lie and never have, that this allegation of this Lieutenant Governor designate is purely gratuitous, since the provincial government has no power to sell the lands referred to. So far as this alleged agreement of sale is concerned, it was merely an agreement between the provincial government and a gentleman who was applying to the Dominion government for
the sale to him of these lands, that, provided he could obtain the lands from the Dominion government having paid to them whatever price they saw fit to declare, the reversionary interest of the province of British Columbia in these Indian lands would be conveyed to him on the payment of the sum stipulated in this bargain. But we have this gentleman on the stump making a charge of deliberate fraud -a charge certainly so understood by the public and by the chief Liberal organ in Canada, and spread broadcast over the whole Dominion.
I think we are entitled to a pronouncement from the government on that question, an assurance that no man who has so stultified himself shall be considered to be eligible for appointment to the office of Lieutenant Governor, that our provincial governments may be protected from the insult to which they would be exposed by such appointments. I believe that we are entitled to have it laid down and clearly understood by the government and by ail applicants for office, that public office^ is not to be given as a reward for participation in a. political campaign, that we should have it made clear in British Columbia that these expedients will not be resorted to when it is impossible to get candidates to appear voluntarily against a government such as that of Mr. McBride, which has the confidence of the whole people of British Columbia-I believe there was one Liberal elected, a despatch apneared this morning in the newspapers, indicating that three Liberals had been elected, but I am told that the Minister of Inland Revenue, who represents British Columbia in the government, has subsequent returns which bring down the number of Liberals elected in British Columbia to one, or at the most two. So I say we are entitled to have from the government some assurance that possible candidates will not be induced to enter the field of politics by promises of appointment such as lieutenant governor-shios, or. positions on the Supreme Court and appeal court benches of British Columbia. I refer to the Appeal Court bench more particularly because of information which I gather from the newspapers, that a very serious wrong has been perpetrated there because of the holding up of the appointment of judges to the Appeal Court I'euoh until after the election which was decided yesterday when the gentlemen who were in the field as candidates would be released from the embarrassment of that position.	I find that a
man is imprisoned in the district of New Westminister, consigned to prison by a county court judge there conditionally upon the appeal court answering certain questions referred to them in a certain way. I find it stated in the press

that the judgment intimated that the Appeal Court was meeting on November 2, and therefore no hardship was involved by this peculiar sentencing, pending an appeal to that court. This unfortunate man is now appealing to the county court for a rehearing on the ground that there is no appeal court to which his case can be referred and in the meanwhile he languishes in prison while the bench of British Columbia is being made a football for what appears to be the political convenience of the persons who have the appointment of these appellate court judges. I think that this in'cident of the lieutenant governorship and of the withholding of the appointment of judges is a scandal. That it is so regarded by the people of British Columbia was made evident yesterday in no uncertain way. By their vote they showed the opinion they hold respecting the action of this government in these transactions, and I believe that as one of the representatives of British Columbia in this House it is my duty to call the attention of the government to these facts, as possibly otherwise they might fail to recognize the voice of the people expressed at the polls yesterday, as indicating to them the state of public sentiment in British Columbia with respect to our treatment by the government at Ottawa, in their manipulation of offices such as that of lieutenant governor and Appeal Court judge. I would like to have it brought out here that even if this thing has occurred, even if, for diplomatic reasons, the government do not like to admit having received the recommendation I have indicated, and do not like to indicate whether or not they have made a promise to these particular gentleman, we shall receive an assurance that nothing else of this nature will be tolerated.


Wilfrid Laurier: On a previous occasion my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. J. D. Taylor) put the following questions to the government:
1- Has the government or any member thereof received from the executive of the Liberal Association for British Columbia, or any other political organization, any recommendation purporting to be made by resolution of that body, in favour of the appointment of I. C. Wade, Iv.C., as Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia? If so, what reply has been made?
2. Is the office of Lieutenant Governor one as to_ which the jurisdiction of patronage committee is recognized?
I have no objection to admit that we are responsible for, any action which we may take. At an early date we shall have to make the appointment of Lieutenant Governor for British Columbia because we Mr. J. D. TAYLOR.
have been notified by the present incumbent of the office that he does not intend to occupy the position beyond a certain date, and when that date arrives, it will be our duty to make an appointment and then we shall be open to censure or approval upon the recommendation we shall make to His Excellency, the Governor General. If at that time the selection which we make is not satisfactory to my hon. friend or to any member of the House we shall be open to criticism, but I think it would be fair of my hon. friend to wait until we have taken action before he criticises us.
.My hon. friend tells me we should have rebuked the gentleman who presumed to advise us to appoint Mr. Wade if any person did presume to give such advice. ' I do not know but there may be some merit in the suggestion of my hon. friend that we should rebuke any such attempt whenever it comes, but if we are to rebuke every one who offers us advice that we should appoint Mr. Wade, what are we to say to or how shall we treat that gentleman who says we should not appoint Mr. Wade? Does my hon. friend see any difference at all between the one advice and the other? If somebody from British Columbia says Mr. Wade is a fit and proper person to be Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia and if this be, in the eyes of my hon. friend an offence, how should we characterize the condjict of the gentleman who tells us that Mr. Wade is not a fit and proper person to be Lieutenant Governor of British Columbia? I fail to see why if it is wrong in one case it can be right in the other. I have to say to my hon. friend that it will be our duty to canvass the condition of th'ngs and try to make the best appointment possible in British Columbia. I go further. I have no hesitation in saying that the appointment which we shall make in British Columbia will be unimpeachable even in the very particular eyes of my hon. friend. As to the advice which is. offered to us, we are liable to receive advice from all quarters and from everybody. This Is a free country. It is the privilege of any body to offer advice whether it is proper or improper, but we receive such advice wherever it comes from. If it comes publicly we receive it, if it comes privately we receive it also, but I dissent altogether from the view advanced by my hon. friend that if any one chooses to write to us with a recommendation to make an appointment whether to the position of a messenger or any other position, that is a thing to be disclosed to parliament. I refuse to accede to that position and this has always been our attitude. We are liable only for the action we take. It cannot be seriously contended that we must be responsible for the letters tendered to us, on this or that question, above all on questions of appointments which are sent to the ministers for their guidance. I

have no hesitation in saying to my hon. friend that sometimes advice is offered to us in matters on which I think we should not receive any, and as to which we should be competent to discharge our duties, but we should not canvass these things too critically and too minutely. I have only to say that we must be judged in these matters by the result and by our actions and the time will come before many days are over when we shall have to take action. Then I shall invite the criticism of my hon. friend.


Mr. BURRELL.: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out, in very briefly replying to the right hon. the First Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), that this question is rather more important in its bearings as to the people at large in this country than he seems to imagine, and before saying another word I would 'also like to point out that the hon. member for NewWestminster (Mr. Taylor) did not specially offer the government any advice as to the appointment or non-appointment of Mr. Wade, but he rather indicated a line upon which Mr. Wade's appointment in this case would not be in the interest of the community at large because he would necessarily be a partisan after his indulgence in the political contest prior to the provincial election. Any man who had participated in the way he had done in this contest would necessarily put himself^ out of the pale of strict impartiality, which quality is so desirable in the occupant of the distinguished position of Lieutenant Governor. I also want to say one word upon this for the reason that this whole matter was discussed in connection with the appeal court the other day, and as it has a distinct bearing upon this question, I have to make some extended explanation touching upon this debate to-day. Referring ^ to the delay on the part of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Aylesworth) in filling up the appointments to the new Court of Appeal of British Columbia, I made a statement regretting that those whose names were being bandied about by the press and the people of British Columbia as being likely appointees to the bench had unfortunately dipped strongly into the partisan politics of the day and, in saying that, I made this remark:
So far has it gone that some time ago despatches were published in the chief Liberal newspapers announcing that the late leader of the Liberal opposition in British Columbia, a gentleman who has the unfailing respect of all people in British Columbia, Liberals and Conservatives, and that gentleman and his friends seem to have attached such full credence to that report that he retired from the leadership of the Liberal party in British Columbia and, to his credit, is not taking any part in the campaign now in progress.
I would like to add that, while I do not take anything from my words in regard to the respect in which that gentleman, the late leader of the opposition, is held in British Columbia, it is my firm impression that much as he might have regretted dipping into the campaign, he was forced by the exigencies of party pressure to take part in it because it is very singular that on the very day on which I made that reference in this House, November 12, I have a report that:
J. A. Macdonald was the last speaker of the evening.
I am referring now to the gentleman who is to be made chief justice of the new court of appeal according to the despatches which have been printed. The report is of a meeting at Rossland:
He devoted his time principally to throwing cold water on the McBride railway policy.
Not very effectually, Mr. Speaker, as, of course, you can see. The point is of the greatest importance, and I think not only that my hon. friend from New Westminster is within his rights but that it is a timely thing to insist that, whether one party or another is in power in the Dominion or in a province, good government is impossible, and it will be impossible to fill high positions which should be above party, such as appointments to the judiciary and Lieutenant Governorships, if we have to wait and give these [appointments as political rewards to those who will work for their party to the eleventh hour and the fifty-ninth minute. That is the point that I want to make. I think it is a point that cannot be too strongly insisted on. The Minister of Justice, the other day, in his reply on this matter, stated that they would take their time, that it was not his delay or the delay of his department, and that he hoped to make the appointment from a list of gentlemen who were qualified to fill these positions on the court of appeal. Well, that may be true and while it is significant that the old Greeks represented justice as blindfolded because it was in the interest of no side or of no party and because justice should be dispensed evenly, it seems , that if the head of the department was blindfolded the bandage must have slipped a little down so that he could get a view of the situation as it occurred in that western province, and I am sure we will agree that his last view must have been extremely discouraging. I do hope that in the interest of good government all over the country the Prime Minister himself-and we recognized, I think, that he is not always driven by the exigencies of party politics, that he must clearly see how subversive it is of the best interests of the country-we will see less of these practices which have been followed of late in British Columbia and

that they will put these high offices so much above political partisanship that they will be entitled to the respect of every member of the community whether he be Liberal, Conservative, Socialist or Independent.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the right hon. the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) that the government cannot be responsble for the tendering of advice, but that is an entirely different thing from what apparently goes on in practice. The government does become responsible when it recognizes the suggestions and recommendations of these patronage committees all over the country and if what comes to us from very authentic sources is to be regarded as accurate the patronage committee or executive committee, in British Columbia was only doing in this case what it has been doing right along and what other patronage committees have been doing right along, and in doing that they have received the recognition and endorsement of this government in many cases. I am speaking of it only from information gathered as to what I believe has actually taken place. The hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Taylor) put forward a consideration which should appeal to the Prime Minister. How would it be possible to carry on government in this country decently when a man who has gone into an election campaign as a candidate and uttered the most serious charges against the provincial administration was doing that upon the promise or understanding after the election campaign should be over he should receive his reward in the office of Lieutenant Governor?


Wilfrid Laurier: There was no such promise; not even hinted.


Robert Laird Borden: But that is the standpoint from which my hon. friend from New Westminster was arguing and he w'as pointing out to the Prime Minister that if anything of that kind had taken place conditions would he intolerable as I am sure the Prime Minister would himself consider them intolerable. Look at it for a moment. Suppose a Lieutenant Governor in this Dominion were to be selected in the person of some man who had been campaigning immediately before his appointment against the government who were to be his confidential advisers. The thing would be absurd, monstrous and ridiculous, and I am glad to have the assurance of the Prime Minister that there is absolutely nothing in the suggestion. But it does seem to me to be altogether another matter that he should dismiss so lightly the delay" in the appointment of the members of the court of appeal in British Columbia. I do not know of my own knowledge anything about the assertions which have been made by my hon. friend from New Westminster.


Martin Burrell: He has made them upon his own responsibility as a member of this House and, as I gather from his remarks, they are to the effect that a man is languishing in prison in British Columbia to-day because he cannot get his remedy under the law owing to this default on the part of the government and of the Minister of Justice. A more intolerable and a more disgraceful condition than that I cannot imagine. It is absolutely intolerable that the appointment of men to the court of appeal in British Columbia should have been delayed with such results as that. What was the answer the other day? The answer of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice was, forsooth, that the wheels of justice must stop because ne was away in Europe. The Act was proclaimed on the first day of September. He came back somewhere about the middle of October, I think, and he would not count the intervening six or eight weeks. Justice must stand still, the courts of British Columbia must remain without judges because he, on official duties, no doubt, had found it necessary or convenient to absent himself in the British Isles. When the Minister of Justice went from here in June or July last did he leave no other member of the government to preside over his department? Was there no other minister of the Crown, was there not the Prime Minister or some other member of the government, who could take up and who did take up the duties of that department? The excuse put forward by the Minister of Justice is absolutely unworthy of consideration. I say that within a week or ten days after that Act had been nroclaimed by the government of British Columbia the corresponding Dominion Act should have been proclaimed by this government and there should have been constituted a court of appeal in the province of British Columbia not later than the 20th of .September last, in which case the man who is now lving in prison because his rights under the law are denied him through the laches of this government would have been able to obtain his proper remedy under the law. Under these circumstances the country and the House ought to ask the Prime Minister and the government for some adequate explanation of the delay of now nearly three, months during which the machinery of justice in British Columbia has been absolutely out of gear.


Hon. W. S. FIELDING (Minister of Finance).: I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the leader of the opposition hardly gave a fair statement of what the Minister -of Justice said. I remember that the Minister of Justice said that he did not think the proceedings required such very great activity in the case of these British Columbia judges -because he pointed out that the government of British Columbia, after causing

the enactment of this measure, failed to proclaim it for very many months. And, curiously enough during that interim there was an election pending, and gentlemen on the other side are so ready to suggest that elections have something to do with things, might I mention that it was even rumoured that the reason why the British Columbia Act was not proclaimed was that the British Columbia government was waiting for the results of the Dominion elections in the hope that a Conservative government might have a chance to make the appointments.


Martin Burrell: May I ask a question?
Mr. FIELDING, Yes.


Martin Burrell: Is it not true that during the time the British Columbia government failed to proclaim their Act, there was an efficient and available court of appeal in existence?


William Stevens Fielding: I was merely pointing out that when the leader of the opposition undertook


Some hon. MEMBERS: Answer.


William Stevens Fielding: One of my weaknesses is that I never undertake to answer a question when I am not familiar with the facts.


George Eulas Foster: Or when you are in a tight place.


William Stevens Fielding: Well, I do not know that; I think hon. gentlemen opposite will give me credit for being ready to answer questions whenever I can. I was pointing out that the- leader of the opposition had hardly put the position of the Minister of Justice fairly, and I rose specially to take exception to some very dangerous doctrines that -were laid down 'by my hon. friend from New Westminster (Mr. Taylor). I took down the words of my hon. friend, and he says he wants this government to lay down as a principle that public office is not to he given to any one as a reward for service in a political campaign.


James Davis Taylor: Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: My hon. friend says hear, hear, but I refuse to subscribe to that doctrine. The hon. gentleman himself holds an honourable and important office as a member of this House, and I have no doubt he received that office as a reward for his services in political campaigns. If my hon. friend did not get his office in that way, I should think he did not very well deserve it. In my opinion participation in political campaigns is not a crime. Politics is the business of the people at large, and the men who engage in politics, according to their respective views of public affairs, ought to 'be regarded as the best citizens in the country. It is the duty of every good citizen to participate in politics, and far from being a cause for condemnation, participation in political campaigns ought under proper conditions to be a cause for reward.
I hold a rather important office in the government of the country, and I venture to say that had I not taken a part in a good many political campaigns I would not have the pleasure of occupying it. This idea that a man is to be ignored and condemned because he takes a part in a political campaign is certainly a very strange notion. Then, my hon. friend from Yale (Mr. Burrell) went a little further; he said: Look at this question of the judgeships; here is the former leader of the opposition-a gentleman whom he spoke of and deservedly so in terms of respect-he actually went out and poured cold water on the McBride government and the hon. gentleman asked: Would you dare to make that man a judge after that? What a monstrous thing it would be to appoint a man to the bench after he has dared to pour cold waiter on a local government? Well, I have had a long experience along these lines. It was my pleasure and duty for a great many years to be the leader of a local government and I remember on one occasion that my chief opponent in the constituency of Halifax was a gentleman of the legal profession [DOT] and a very eminent one. He went out through the length and breadth of the province, he poured cold water and sometimes hot water upon the government which 1 had the honour to lead, and, fortunately,
I was successful and he failed. And, a very short time after that he was appointed by the Conservative government of the Dominion to the high and honourable position of Judge of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.


Robert Laird Borden: Was it not some years afterwards?


William Stevens Fielding: No, it was not some years afterwards.


Robert Laird Borden: In what year was the campaign?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot tell my hon. friend, but I will remind him of the case.


Robert Laird Borden: I know the case.


Martin Burrell: Would the Minister of Finance permit me a brief explanation.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Martin Burrell: The only point I desired to make was in reference to the statement of the Minister of Justice, that he hoped to make the appointments at the end of the month, and that was why I said that sneaking on the 24th of No-, vember he only had six days in which to do it.


William Stevens Fielding: I am referring to whether participation in a political campaign on one side or the other ought to be regarded as a disqualification for public office in this country, and I am dissenting most emphatically from the position taken by my hon. friend. Now, this gentleman to whom I referred was my opponent in the campaign in Halifax and very shortly afterwards-the leader of the opposition says several years, but I think he is is-taken in that; I am speaking from memory entirely, and I quite realize that memory may fail-very shortly afterwards; speaking now in good faith, a very few weeks afterwards that gentleman was appointed to the bench.


Mr. B. L. BOEDEN.: I do not think so.


William Stevens Fielding: I will look it up as a
matter of curiosity, and if I am wrong I will tell my hon. friend.


George Eulas Foster: Tell us all.


William Stevens Fielding: I would if I thought you were interested. At all events it is not important, for what I want to point out is that when this occurred it never seemed to any of us that there was any great wrong in appointing mat gentleman to public office. True, he poured cold water on that most excellent and virtuous government of which I was the leader.
Some hen. MEMBEES. Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: As I have said, sometimes he made it rather hot for us. but when a short time afterwards he was appointed to the honourable position of a judge, far from finding any fault, when his professional associates-including the leader of the opposition-desired to do him honour, it was my pleasure and my privilege to preside at the dinner which was given to him on the occasion of his appointment.
Some hon. MEMBEES. Hear, hear.


William Stevens Fielding: And so I should think that my hon. friend ought not for a moment to lay down the doctrine that because a man has participated in a political campaign in any province of the Dominion it ought to be regarded as a cause of offence. From my point of view-always supposing he exercises his right as a good citizen properly and reasonably-I would say that instead of that being a reason why a man should not be appointed to a public office it may be a good reason why he should be honoured by such an appointment.


Mr. MIDDLEBEO.: How does the Minister of Finance reconcile his statements to-dav with a resolution which was pass. ed in this House some years ago and voted on unanimouslv by the then Beform party, and which enunciated the solemn principle Mr. BURRELL.
that no man should be appointed to an office of emolument under the Crown during the time he was a member of this House or within two years afterwards?


William Stevens Fielding: If I had voted for any such resolution my hon. friend would make a good point, and I might not be able to square my views with that, but if the hon. gentleman will look up the records he will find that no such a resolution .was ever unanimously passed, and I do not think it was ever passed at all. At all events, speaking for myself, I never approved of it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House went into Committee of Supply.	.
Public Works chargeable to capital-Ottawa Astronomical Observatory - additional buildings, &c., $11,000.
['If I had voted for any such resolution my hon. friend would make a good point, and I might not be able to square my views with that, but if the hon. gentleman will look up the records he will find that no such a resolution .was ever unanimously passed, and I do not think it was ever passed at all. At all events, speaking for myself, I never approved of it.']
Mr. PUGSLEY.: This afternoon my hon. friend who represents Jacques Cartier (Mr. Monk) asked me if I would take up the items for public buildings in the province of Quebec. I told him I would try and do so. The hon. gentleman is not now in his place, and I do not know whether he is still desirous that I should take up the Quebec items. In the meantime, -with regard to the residence for the chief astronomer, which we were discussing when the House was last in committee, I stated that it was not intended to charge the chief astronomer any rental for the residence, following an example which was set by the Conservative government when the Experimental Farm was established. At that time a residence was erected for the director of the farm, Dr. Saunders, at a cost about the same as that of this building. The contract was for some $12,000 in addition to which there was the heating and lighting, just as in this case. The policy of the government then was not to charge the director of the Experimental Farm rent for the building, and the same policy was afterwards followed with regard to other residences erected in connection with the farm. I thought the same xiolicy would be adopted with regard to the residence for the chief astronomer. I may say, however, that since the matter was last under discussion before the committee, I have given further consideration to me subject and have conferred with the Minister of the Interior with regard to it, and we have come to the conclusion that as the chief astronomer, if he resided in the city of Ottawa, would be obliged to pay a rental for a dwelling house, it would not be unreasonable that he should pay for the residence near the observatory which the government is providing, such rental as he would have to pay for a suitable residence if he resided in the city of Ottawa.


Mr. BOYCE.: $1,000 a year?


William Pugsley: I am not prepared to say what a reasonable rental would be, as we have not conferred with Dr. King on the subject.


Arthur Cyril Boyce: I asked the minister what would be a reasonable rental for this residence, and he said $1,000.


William Pugsley: I said $1,000, but I am not in a position to say whether or not Dr. King would be prepared to pay that. Of course, it must be borne in mind that the government could afford to rent the house at a somewhat lower rental than a private individual, because the government pays no taxes on its property. Whether that would be $1,000 or not, I am not prepared to say at this moment, but it would approach that I should say.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: An allowance is to be made to him for the house he is to occupy close to the observatory, not that you intend to rent a house for him in the city.


William Pugsley: Oh, no. Ete would pay for the house we are constructing for him near the observatory.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: The members of the committee will agree that some good result has come from the motion I made at the last sitting of this committee. At the time I had a conviction that the Minister of Justice had some purpose out of the ordinary in discussing the motion at the length he did in order to reach the hour of 6 o'clock. However, a regrettable feature of the repentance to which the Minister of Public Works has come in the interval is that he strikes home at-the innocent official instead of at his own department. I do not wish it to be understood that the purpose of this motion was in any way to affect Dr. King or the emolument that he receives. If the government were to go further and build a grander house still at the expense of the country, it would be no kindness to Dr. King. It would be just about as much unkindness to him as now to charge him $1,000 a year rental in order, if possible, to meet the wishes of the public in regard to the resolution which I have proposed. If they were to build a residence for him costing some $25,000 or $30,000, the doctor might have nothing left of his salary after he_ paid the expense of keeping it up. The principle I wanted to establish by the motion I made was this, that the government should adopt the rule of building for a salaried officer, if they built at all, such a house as the average man in this country would build for himself were he in receipt of the same salary. I do not wish to assent to the proposition that the government should undertake the construction of these residences at all; but this one is under construction, and I think a very good object would be served by cutting down the appropriation. It might serve the object of
having the residence built at a reasonable cost, because it will certainly be an exception if it is so built. Therefore, if the government has come to this late repentance in order to meet the public wishes by striking home at Dr. King, I think the better course would be to strike home at themselves and cut out $5,000 of the appropriation, and then they would have a house somewhat in excess of what a man in receipt of a salary of $3,000. usually occupies in Eastern Canada. I beg to renew the motion which I made at the last sitting of the committee, to the effect that $5,000 be struck off that appropriation, the same to apply to the residence to be built for the chief astronomer.


Mr. TURRIFF.: I feel that possibly I may have been responsible for some of this discussion. But when I referred to the matter, I had no desire to speak of this building particularly, but simply to draw the attention of the government to a few other buildings that they might have in contemplation. I do not agree for a moment to the suggestion of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) that Mr. King the chief astronomer, should pay a rental. I think he is punished sufficiently when he has to live in a house that costs $17,000, because it costs more to live in a house of that kind than in one which costs $8,000 or $9,000 which would be about the right amount for the residence of an official getting three or four thousand dollars a year. I would be sorry to see Mr. King punished to any greater extent than he is going to be, as it is. But I hope-in view of what I believe, namely, that the officials of the Public Works Department have been responsible for the extra cost of a lot of buildings -that they will be compelled to make their plans of a more moderate character. In my remarks I had no intention of singling out this building in particular but of dealing with the buildings in general. Take those erected for the officials of the Militia Department. There ought to be a general cutting down of the cost of such buildings. In this case the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Oliver) was perfectly satisfied to have a house of moderate cost, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) only wanted a house of reasonable cost, but the officials increased the cost. I have heard men say on this side that in the case of post offices and the like, it is almost impossible to get the officials to make plans that insure a perfectly suitable and less expensive building for certain places. I make this explanation because I do not want to be put in the position of hurting Mr. King in any way. If Mr. King has now to pay rent in addition to living and furnishing an expensive house, you are punishing him twice, and I should be sorry to be responsible in any way for that condition of things.


Richard Blain: We on this side welcome the remarks of the hon. member for Assini-boia (Mr. Turriff) in condemnation of the party and the government of which he is a prominent supporter. But I take issue with my hon. friend on one point. I do not subscribe to the policy that a government can shift their responsibilities on to a paid official. If the government had done their duty in this case, the Minister of Public Works would have said to the chief architect: We want you to submit a plan for a building that will cost not more than six or seven thousand dollars without the lot. Does the hon. gentleman suggest that if the chief architect were so directed, ihe would bring in a plan for a building to cost, as this one did in the first instance, I am informed, more than $25,000?


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend stated last year that when the chief architect submitted the plan for his consideration, he sent it back and asked him to reduce the amount.


William Pugsley: I do not think he named $25,000.


Richard Blain: Perhaps not, but I am sure the minister will not say that it would not have cost $25,000. Does he say that the first plan submitted would not cost that? He does not reply. I was quite sure he would not. Therefore it is not fair to condemn an official when the responsibility rests with the minister and the government themselves. I have sufficient respect for the chief architect of the Public Works Department to believe that if the minister had instructed him to submit a plan for a residence to cost not more than $6,000 or $7,000 he would not have submitted one to cost $17,000 or $18,000.


William Pugsley: I desire to correct the impression under which some hon gentlemen are labouring, and that is that some injustice will be done the chief astronomer by providing him with a house of the character of the one which is being constructed. The plans were submitted to Dr. King and everything done in connection with this plan had his entire approval.


George Eulas Foster: Was he told he would have to pay rent?


William Pugsley: No, but that he would have to keep up the house and that the expense of so doing, outside the rent, would have to be borne by him. That is what my hon. friend (Mr. Turriff) referred to when he talked of the expense of keeping up a larger as compared with keeping up a smaller residence. Therefore no injustice could be done Dr. King except in requiring him to pay rent, if that be an injustice.


John Gillanders Turriff: 


Arthur Cyril Boyce: It is proposed to cut down the item $5,000 and the minister objects, but he wants to charge a rental for a $17,000 house. Would it not be a mercy to Mr. King to have the estimate reduced $5,000?


William Pugsley: No, this is just the kind of house Dr. King wants. Indeed he asked for a house somewhat larger. My hon. friend (Mr. Blain) made the remark that if the chief architect had been directed to plan a house to cost $6,000, he would have done so. I do not think my hon. friend does justice to his knowledge of buildings when he suggests that it would be creditable to this country to erect at the public expense a residence for so prominent an official as the chief astronomer and to direct that it should not cost more than $6,-
000.	That would not be a suitable residence. You must bear in mind that this is not a brick cased residence. It is not a building with wooden partitions in the cellar, but the partitions are of brick. The house itself is a brick building, the joists are of iron or steel, the house is built as nearly fireproof as it is ordinarily possible to build a residence. The policy of the government in the construction of public buildings is to make them as nearly fire proof as possible and so substantial that the ordinary depreciation will be as light as possible. The cost of the building in question is substantially the same as that of the dwelling erected by the former. government for Dr. Saunders, director of the experimental farm.


Mr. LALOR.: How much is it?


William Pugsley: The price paid to the contractor was about $12,000, which is about the contract for this residence. In addition, in the case of Dr. Saunders' residence, there were the heating and lighting and certain contingencies also to be nrovided for. And Dr. Saunders' house was built about twenty years ago, when the wages paid to workmen were not within fifty per cent of what they are to-day-and that I leave to the judgment of every member of this House who has hp/d any experience in building.


Mr. BRADBURY.: Is Dr. Saunders' house about the same size as this? I understood the minister to say this was a two-story house.


William Pugsley: Two stories with an attic.


George Henry Bradbury: Is it the same size as the house built for Dr. Saunders years ago?


William Pugsley: Dr. Saunders' house is a wooden house and ought not to be so expensive as the one we are now building for the chief astronomer; yet the contract price is practically the same. This is a brick house, a more substantial structure and in every way better than the one erect-

ed by the old government for Dr. Saunders, and, as I have said, was put under contract for practically the same amount. Now let me say a word to my hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) with regard to his motion to cut down this estimate. I submit to him that the time to have mov.ed such a motion was last session. At that time when this matter was before the Committee of Supply last session, I stated what was the contract price; I stated that we had called for tenders and that the lowest tender was $12,300. I informed the committee as to what would be the probable cost of the complete residence and asked for authority to proceed with the work. The committee voted the sum of $14,000, and upon that the contract was entered into. The country is; now under obligation to pay to the contractors $12,300; and if the committee were to act upon the suggestion of my hon. friend and reduce this vote we should have to break faith with the contractors. We cannot now alter the plans for the building; we cannot provide for aTiuilding at a lower cost, because the country has agreed to this building and to pay the contractor this price. I think my hon. friend will see upon reflection, that now is not the time for his motion, but that, the contract having been entered into and the building substantially completed, the contractors must be paid the amount of their contract.


George Taylor: The minister says that the contract price ior Dr. Saunders' house was about $12,000. Will he say that that contract did not include everything?


William Pugsley: It did not; I say that on the authority ot the chief architect.


George Taylor: Will the minister (Mr. Pugsley) lay that contract on the table, that we may see what it did include? I am under the impression that it included everything except some minor fittings.


William Pugsley: I will lay the contract on the table.


Mr. SCHAFFNER.: As the minister has made the comparison between the building erected some years ago and this one, I would like to know, for my own information, if the minister can state definitely what was the size of that house and what it cost. He says he thinks the contract was about $12,000. But, before I attempt to discuss the matter, I would like to know the exact facts. This comparing of indefinite sums is not very satisfactory.


William Pugsley: I stated to the committee on a former occasion what this house will cost, but I will give it again. The total expenditure, which includes the printing and advertising, the heating and boilers, the electric wiring and fixtures, the sidewalks and fencing and the cost of superintendence, will be $17,041.49. Deduct $500 for fencing and sidewalks, and the cost of printing and advertising and you have about $16,400 as the cost of the building.


Mr. URIAH WILSON.: Without the land?


William Pugsley: Yes,


Mr. DANIEL.: Did the minister take into consideration the $11,000 or $12,000 of which he spoke on a former occasion?


William Pugsley: Yes, that is all included. The total cost of the building alone is about. $16,400. I would say to my hon. friend from Souris (Mr. Schaffner) that, as to the cost of Dr. Saunders' residence, it would be better that I should lay the contract on the table, for so we shall have the exact facts before us. But the Chief Architect tells me that the contract price was about $12,000, and that did not include heating or lighting.
_ Mr. SCHAFFNER. What will the heating and lighting of this house cost?


William Pugsley: About $2,500.


Mr. S. SHARPE.: The minister has said that it would be a breach of faith to dissolve the contract for this building. It seems to me it is for the House to decide whether it would be a breach of faith with Dr. King to charge him rent for a building more expensive than he expected to have. I remember that when this matter came up last session it was opposed by every member on this side of the House. We thought that this was too expensive a house for an official enjoying the salary of Dr. King. Dr. King might readily agree to a reduction in the cost of the house if he knew that he was to be charged rent.


William Pugsley: I did not say that it would be merely a breach of faith; it would be a breach of contract. The building is nearly completed and we shall have to pay the contractor.


Mr. CROCKET.: I do not understand how the minister accounts for the $25,000 vote for this building. Last year, $14,000 was voted, and we are asked to vote $11,000 this year. The minister has stated the cost of the residence at $17,000 or less, and I under*-stand that two other buildings are being provided at a cost of about $6,000. There would seem to be nearly $3,000 unaccounted for.


William Pugsley: Perhaps my hon. friend (Mr. Crocket) did not hear my explanation. The same question was asked by another hon. gentleman when the matter last came before the committee. It will be seen by the wording of this vote that it is not confined to this residence but covers 'Ottawa Astronomical Observatory-additional buildings, etc.' That is the way the vote has been carried on since we began the con-


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are those other items for the other building in addition to the $6,000?


William Pugsley: Oh, yes.


William Sora Middlebro: I understood the minister to say that he considered $1,000 to be a reasonable rental for this House and that he would charge Dr. King the same rental as Dr. King would be likely to pay for a house in the city. Six per cent of the cost of this house, that is $17,000, would make a rental of $1,020. Does the minister think it would be fair to charge an official more than one-third of his salary for rent, and has Dr. King consented to pay more than one-third of his salary for rent?


William Pugsley: The conclusion at which I have arrived, after considering the matter since we discussed the item the other day is that it would be fair that Dr. King should pay the same rental that he would be required to pay in the city foT a suitable residence for him. I do not know whether that would be $1,000 or a less amount. Of course, we must bear in mind that it would be fair to allow, in respect to government moneys invested in the building, say four per cent. That is the very highest the government pays for money. Then there are no taxes, but there would be a certain wear and tear each year. Possibly somewhere between $600 and $800 would be a reasonable rental for the government to charge. My idea is that he should pay such reasonable rental as he would have to pay for suitable accommodation in the city of Ottawa.


Arthur Meighen: The Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) has put it very pointedly to me that I should have introduced this resolution when the same subject was under discussion on the 4th of February last. During that discussion the viciousness of the whole undertaking was very thoroughly laid before the minister. Every opportunity was then given him for repentance both along the line of his present repentance, and on the broad principle of the transaction. The minister, however, having everything laid before him on that occasion did not see fit to reduce the esti-mite himself, or to come to the conclusion he came to last night to make the astronomer pay rent. Therefore, I retort on him, would it not have been far better for him then to have frankly told the House that they did not purpose making this gentleman pay rent. I find at page 619 of ' Han-Mr. PUGSLEY.
sard ' of last year that the question of having Dr. King pay some rent for the house was brought to the attention of the minister and he then frankly told the House that he did not purpose making Dr. King pay any rental at all.
The facts laid before the House by the minister on the 4th of February last were quite different from those laid before us now. On the 4th of February last, the dis-eussion proceeded all along the line of the ultimate cost of this residence being $15,-
000.	To-day it is $17,000. Is that not a reason


William Pugsley: Is my hon. friend sure I said $15,000? Did I not say about $16,000?


Arthur Meighen: In one place in the remarks of the minister he seems to have been misread by other members. The minister did say about $16,000, but further op he was asked if $15,000 was not the ultimate cost and the sainister did not dispute the figures. And furthermore throughout the discussion


William Pugsley: That is very different. I did state $16,000.


Arthur Meighen: But the point was put very direct to the minister at page 619 by Mr. Staples, who said;	.
Are we to understand that $15,000 will complete this residence? My experience is that these buildings cost twice their estimated cost.


William Pugsley: That shows that the gentleman was a long way astray.


Arthur Meighen: It shows also that the minister took advantage of the opportunity not to put him right.


William Pugsley: That would be a very heavy contract generally.


Arthur Meighen: There was the opportunity of his life then to put the far-astray member for Macdonald right, but this is his reply;
This contract is for the building alone, and then there will be the heating and wiring and I assume, from information I have, that $3,000 or $4,000 additional will be necessary.


William Pugsley: That would make it $16,300.


Arthur Meighen: But why did not the minister so state? It was one of the characteristic replies of the minister.


William Pugsley: I supposed the hon. gentleman could add the two figures together.


Arthur Meighen: Where were the other figures? The whole matter, may I inform the minister, is on a par with many others that came before this committee last ses-

sion. There was not an apportioning of the cost of the residence and the coelostat hut and other matters, but all were lumped in a single vote of $14,000. The same expedient is used this session. In the course of one of his remarks he used $16,000 and throughout the whole discussion $15,000 was used as the cost of the residence, and the minister, courteous as usual and more than courteous in this case, continued not to correct us in the impression that $15,000 was the limit. How much of this $11,000 that he asks for this session is to be applied to the residence and how much to the other buildings?


William Pugsley: There is still due on the contract $8,320. Then we purpose spending an amount for heating boilers, estimated by the chief architect to be $1,500; electric wiring and fixtures, $1,000. We expect it will cost $500 for sidewalks and fencing, and that contingencies with superintendence will cost $1,700, and all this vote will be used for these purposes.


Arthur Meighen: That amounts to the whole $11,000? Then I understand the whole $11,000 is to be applied to the residence.


William Pugsley: To the residence.


Arthur Meighen: But the minister told us last year that it would only take $3,000 or $4,000 to finish the residence. It is no wonder that we do not know where we are at. Furthermore, it seems to me that in arriving at a fair value of a house good enough for any servant of this government-


William Pugsley: I assumed my hon. friend would understand that we have yet a part of the vote of $14,000 of last year to be used during the current year, which will not expire until March 31 next.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that, but no man can understand how much of the vote of the year before last and of last year and of this year is being applied to this residence. The point which I wish to make is that the salary received by a civil servant is about all this committee has on which to judge as to the character and expense of a house that would be appropriate for him. Where was the minister on February 4 last when we asked what salary this man was getting? He *was absent, he could give no information at all. We were, on the 4th February last, absolutely in the dark as to what salary this man obtained, and, therefore, absolutely in the dark as to one of the main principles that should govern us in deciding how much should be provided for his residence. Therefore, there is ample reason for moving at a later stage for a diminution. If the fact that the minister 18
has entered into a contract is going to tie the hands of the committee, why submit it to the committee at all? It is before the committee for approval or disapproval. The circumstances have altered since last February. Facts are before us that were not before us then. We could vote in perfect honour and in justice to our constituents that a man should be given a house such as an ordinary citizen of this country might occupy performing like service, and receiving like, remuneration.


William Pugsley: I would not trouble the committee were it not for the fact that my hon. friend has sought to convey the impression that there was some misstatement of fact to the committee when this matter was up last session. Before any hon. gentleman undertakes to make an insinuation of that kind with reference to a minister he should be absolutely sure of his facts.


Arthur Meighen: I made no insinuation; I made an absolute statement.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman said that I led the committee to believe that this building was going to cost $15,000.


Arthur Meighen: That is not the statement I made.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman made that statement unless there is something very defective in my memory.


Arthur Meighen: I did not.


William Pugsley: I know the hon. gentleman made the statement and, unless he says he did not-
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER I must point out that where a member denies that he made a statement that denial must be accepted.


Mr MEIGHEN.: The statement that I made-
Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER I think it also extremely desirable that any decision of the chairman should be received in silence with neither approval nor disapproval.


Arthur Meighen: What I said was that the discussion proceeded on the assumption that $15,000 would be the ultimate cost and that when the minister was questioned whether it would or would not be he did not deny it.


William Pugsley: Let me read the first statement I made when the item came before the committee. The item was :
Ottawa Astronomical Observatory-additional buildings, &e., $14,000.
This is the explanation I made to the committee:
This vote of $14,000 is asked to make provision for the construction of a residence for the chief astronomer, and also to complete


George Henry Bradbury: Every one who listened to the reply of the Minister of Public Works must realize that it is in keeping with the manner in which he gets out of a very close corner. From the little experience I have had the minister has led me to believe that he is very apt to get out of any corner he has got into before the committee. The minister has stated that he did not lead the committee to believe that this building was going to cost $15,000. What the hon. member from Portage la Prairie did say was that the discussion was conducted freely during that debate on the assumption that the building was going to cost $15,000.


William Pugsley: May I ask the hon. gentleman what warrant he has for that statement when I made the specific statement that it would cost $16,000?


George Henry Bradbury: Just because the Minister himself stated so. I will read his statement to him before I proceed further. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) asked:
Are we to understand that $15,000 will complete this residence? My experience is that these buildings cost twice their estimated cost.
The Minister of Public Works said:
This contract is for the building alone and then there will be the heating and wiring, and I assume from the information I have that $3,000 or $4,000 additional will be necessary.


William Pugsley: Add $4,000 to $12,300 and what does it make? 1 Mr. PUGSLEY.


George Henry Bradbury: The whole discussion proceeded along the same line and every one who asked a question did so under the belief that the building would cost $15,000. Later the Minister of Public Works said:
The lowest tender is a little over $12,000 and with the heating, wiring and plumbing it will likely cost somewhere between $15,000 and $10,000.
I do not think the minister has any right to assume or suggest that my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie has misquoted him or has tried to make it appear that he had endeavoured to lead the committee to believe that the building was only going to cost $15,000. The assumption last year was that that was the cost of the building and my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie made that quite plain.


Mr. GOODEVE.: The Minister of Public Works gives as a reason why this vote should pass that a residence was built by a previous government costing a similar amount of money. Admitting that for the sake of argument and believing as I do that every item of this kind and every change should be decided upon its merits, in order to make that a parallel on which to pass our judgment it will be necessary to have all the facts in connection therewith. While I do not pretend at this moment to have full knowledge of these facts I would like to know whether when the house was built for Dr. Saunders at the Experimental Farm it was not the case that his residence was understood to be a part of the emolument. It was thoroughly understood at that time that the building erected for the manager of the farm would be occupied by him free of cost. It was practically an official residence. His office, altogether likely, was situated in the building and probably part of the staff occupied quarters there. In any case he would there entertain a number of visitors who would require to go there from time to time on official business. So that the case the minister has cited is not parallel with the one we have here and for that reason I do not belive that any member of the committee should be asked to take that into consideration.
Amendment negatived. Yeas 42, nays, 67.


James Davis Taylor: The hon. member from Quebec came into the House after the question was put.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER.: The rule is that an hon. member cannot vote unless he has heard the question put.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New departmental buildings, Ottawa, $300,000.
['The rule is that an hon. member cannot vote unless he has heard the question put.']
William Pugsley: The question of these new departmental buildings has been before parliament during the last few sessions and as last year and the year be-

fore I gave full explanations I do not sup^ pose it will be necessary for me to go into details now. This $300,000 is to make provision for the completion of the payments for the land and also to enable the department to ask for tenders and enter into the contract for the construction of the buildings.


George Eulas Foster: Is that all the information the minister proposes to give?


William Pugsley: Unless some questions are asked.


George Eulas Foster: There will be questions asked.


William Pugsley: I fully explained the matter last session.


George Eulas Foster: This is the first vote for the construction and we would like to know what the proposed buildings are to cost, what their capacity and what use they will be put to.


William Pugsley: The building will have one frontage on Sussex street and another on Major Hill park; length 590 feet and width 250 feet; two large courts 154 by 79; the building will have six stories and a basement on the park and seven stories and a basement on Sussex street; it will be 125 feet high on McKenzie avenue and 150 feet high above Sussex street; the centre of the building will face York Street which is quite a wide street. The lower end of the building will be 503 feet from St. Patrick street and the upper end 247 feet from the Lindsay property. It will be built of stone.


George Eulas Foster: What kind of stone?


William Pugsley: Something similar to that in the Museum. The floor areas will be substantially laid: ground and first floors 148,256 superficial feet, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors, 360,110 superficial feet. The basement on Sussex street will have 51,080 superficial feet, the tower rooms 9,984 or a total area in superficial feet of 596,430 or a net office area of 350,000 superficial feet.


George Eulas Foster: How many officials will it house?


William Pugsley: It will be sufficient to house all of the clerks who are now accommodated in rented buildings or perhaps even more than that.


George Eulas Foster: How many is that?


William Pugsley: What we rent to-day is about 300,000 superficial feet and this is 500,000 superficial feet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Will this do away with the necessity of renting offices?


William Pugsley: We hope it will, but the business of the country is expanding so 184
rapidly that what may be our hope to-day in that respect may not be realized five years hence.


George Eulas Foster: What is it to cost?


William Pugsley: It is estimated that the cost will be $3,439,200.


George Eulas Foster: What does that include?


William Pugsley: This includes everything but furniture; it will include the building and the heating, and the lighting, incidentals, contingencies, everything which ordinarily forms part of a building.


George Eulas Foster: The minister must be able to give the cost of the building itself and also the cost of the fittings.


William Pugsley: I am afraid I cannot. The architect estimates upon the total cubic contents. The plans are not worked out sufficiently in detail so that I cannot tell just what the heating or lighting is going to cost.


George Eulas Foster: The plans are not fully worked out?


William Pugsley: No.


George Eulas Foster: How do you get at the cost then?


William Pugsley: An architect can estimate pretty well what a building will cost taking the cubic contents.


George Eulas Foster: Does that include elevators?


William Pugsley: Yes, it includes everything.


George Eulas Foster: Everything but the furniture?


William Pugsley: Everything but the furniture.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is the site included?


William Pugsley: No.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the cost of the site?


William Pugsley: Up to the 21st of September, 1909 we have paid for properties $528,000 and they have all been purchased but two.


George Eulas Foster: What was the last one purchased?


Mr. PUGSLEY  M.@: and F. B. Hayes and F. McDougall; that purchase was completed on the 14th of July.


George Eulas Foster: Who were the purchasing agents?


William Pugsley: Mr. Riopelle?


George Eulas Foster: You had agents besides Mr. Riopelle?


William Pugsley: No, we had valuators some time ago, but Mr. Riopelle has been the agent to make the purchases.


George Eulas Foster: No one else has been associated with him?


William Pugsley: Except as valuers.


George Eulas Foster: Of any particular lot?


William Pugsley: In the expropriation proceedings; also the solicitors.


George Eulas Foster: Who are the solicitors?


William Pugsley: Mr. A. W. FraseT and Mr. McLean. There aTe two properties still to 'be purchased. We have expropriated them, but have not paid the money. One lot is that of Mr. James Inglis, 100 feet by 150 feet 9 inches. For this w"e have made an offer of $38,000, which has not been accepted. Then the other is a half lot, 33 feet by 155 feet 9 inches, of Martha and Columbus Eagleson. For this we have made an offer of $7,750, which they have declined to accept.


George Eulas Foster: That would make a total of about $575,000?


William Pugsley: Adding together the three amounts I have mentioned, that would be the total cost of the land, assuming that our offers are accepted. It is estimated that buildings and land together -will cost a little over $4,000,000.


George Eulas Foster: What is to be the inside style of these buildings? Are they to follow the style of the other departmental buildings, and have small offices with a few clerks in each, and a few larger rooms, as in the later buildings, or has the minister, and the architect under his direction, had occasion to look at other business buildings, and if they have, have they decided on some other plan of inside arrangement?


William Pugsley: That has been considered, and provision will be made to meet the very idea my hon. friend puts forward.


George Eulas Foster: Then the minister might give us an idea of what is proposed.


William Pugsley: What we propose to do in the first instance is to have a number of large rooms, to be arranged in consultation with the different departments. We shall have to have, of course, a number of small rooms as well. These will be decided upon after consultation with the ministers whose officials are to be accommodated in the building. We shall have a great many more large rooms than aTe contained in the present buildings. We recognize the desirability of affording accommodation for many clerks in one room under the eye of the chief of a branch of that department. We have not the details worked out yet.


George Eulas Foster: 


Mr. WRIGHT.: How near will the centre of the building come to the sojcalled Lindsay block?


William Pugsley: About 247 feet.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This new building will
accommodate the Militia Department, the Census and Statistics Department, part of the Interior Department, the new' Naval Department, I presume, and what others?


William Pugsley: All that are now in the rented buildings-the Department of External Affairs, the Department of Labour, the Civil Service Commission, the Inspectors of Penitentiaries

	[DOT]


John Waterhouse Daniel: The Transcontinental
Railway Commission and the Navy Department?


William Pugsley: Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: How much is now paid in rentals for the offices that will be taken care of by this building?


William Pugsley: About $140,000 a year.


William Sora Middlebro: For what length of term are the various leases?


William Pugsley: For from three to five years. There are none longer than five years. We have made the leases so that we shall be able to get rid of the leased properties about the time we hope to have the new departmental buildings completed.


William Sora Middlebro: When does the minister expect that the proposed building will be completed? -


William Pugsley: That is a pretty difficult question. It is a pretty large building. I should think that if wo got it completed in four years we would be doing pretty well.


William Sora Middlebro: As this is going to involve an expenditure of $4,000,000, that is, more than half the original cost of the parliament buildings, we should have more detailed information about this building.


William Pugsley: The public buildings in Ottawa, I think, cost between $9,000,000 and $10,000,000.


William Sora Middlebro: I do not think we should vote any appropriation upon the estimate of an architect who has made his estimate solely on space. I think the House is entitled to further information as to the kind and size of this building, and the plans and specifications should be submitted to the House; because we shall probably have the same experience w'ith regard to this building that we have had with regard to others. After we have committed ourselves to the proposed building by voting this $300,000, we shall be charged with having assented to a great

many details that we shall probably object to later on. On such an expenditure we should have a great deal of information, probably all that the minister has and a great deal that he has not got yet.


William Pugsley: I have given to-day, I think, pretty full information. I have given the size of the building, the height of the building, the materials out of which it is to be constructed. Surely my hon. friend does not expect me to go into all the details of the construction of the building. I think that would be very unreasonable.


William Sora Middlebro: Has the minister yet got a regular series of plans and specifications?


William Pugsley: The plans are pretty well completed.


William Sora Middlebro: Does the minister think he should not submit these to the House?


William Pugsley: I will be very glad, if the hon. member or any other member desires it, to lay the plans on the table; but I think he will see the unreasonableness of postponing this item until that is done. On concurrence I will have the plans laid on the table.


George Eulas Foster: What does the minister propose to do with this appropriation?


William Pugsley: Complete the plans and specifications, call for tenders for the building, and make a start by tearing down the old buildings and preparing the foundations of the new building as soon as possible.


William Wright: The plan I have seen included a bridge across the Rideau canal. Is it the intention of the government to have such a bridge as well as the building?


William Pugsley: That idea was thought of and a plan was prepared showing a bridge, but my own view is that we can get along quite a number of years without a bridge. The bridge would cost close on to a million dollars. There might be a small foot bridge.


David Henderson: Before passing this estimate we should have some complete statement of the government's estimates and the cost of the building to be erected on Sussex street.


William Pugsley: I have given them.


David Henderson: Does the hon. gentleman include in his figures the cost of the removal of the buildings which have to be taken down before the new ones can be erected?


William Pugsley: That is included. It will be provided in the specifications that the contractor shall remove the old buildings. In the large majority of cases, he will find the material he gets will equal, if not exceed, the cost of the removal. That will be included in the contract and is estimated for in these figures.


David Henderson: From what we have heard now, the new building when completed, is to cost a little over $4,000,000. That is practically the estimate for land and building.


William Pugsley: Yes; of course not including fixing up the grounds after the building is completed.


David Henderson: I am speaking of the cost of the building and the site.


William Pugsley: Yes.


David Henderson: Reference was made to the cost of the departmental buildings in Ottawa by way of comparison. I notice in the public accounts that the cost of the government buildings at Ottawa or their value is put down at $8,156,800. That I understand will include the cost of the buildings on the hill, the main building with the recent improvements, the library, the east and west wing and the Langevin block as well. It would also include no doubt the Printing Bureau, the Mint; and the Museum, which is now rapidly approaching completion would no doubt be included in the valuation of the government buildings in Ottawa up to the time these public accounts were prepared. Also the Archives, and there may be some other buildings which I have overlooked. I had always understood that the buildings on the hill including the Langevin block practically only cost about $5,000,000. But we have since then erected some pretty costly buildings. Tlje Museum is a costly building, and is now, I understand, _ rapidly approaching completion. The Mint is a costly building, and I trust now is nearly completed. As I have said, we have the Printing Bureau, the Archives and some others. So, no doubt the $8,156,800 is a correct valuation of all the public buildings in Ottawa, and what is proposed now, is to erect one building at a cost at any rate of half the value of all the public buildings we have in Ottawa at present. All I desire to. do is draw attention to this and have a distinct understanding of what the estimate of the minister is because he may expect to be held down to his estimate very closely by those who may be here in future years.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend bear this in mind, that we are>
paying today for outside buildings 4 per cent on $3,500,000?


David Henderson: I am not criticising the propriety of erecting this new building because I understand that is a foregone conclusion. But when the previous vote

was taken, determining that a building should be erected, we had not such full details of the size and cost of the building as we have now, but in a few years no doubt, attention will be drawn to the statement made here to-day, and the minister may expect to be held down very closely to the estimate he has given. And I trust we shall not be called upon inside of the four years, in which it is thought this building will be completed, to expend more than one half the amount that the entire public buildings we now own in Ottawa actually did cost.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the minister should expect us to enter upon this expenditure of $4,000,000 or more without a little more discussion and a little more details with reference to the plans and what is proposed to be done. It is rather a startling statement to find in the public estimates that we are going to expend on one building about half as much as it has cost us to construct all the government buildings we have. It is all very well to say you are going to keep within that estimate, but what we particularly want to know, is wheuier that is an extravagant estimate or not. How did the minister arrive at that estimate? What skill, if any, outside his departmental officers, did he have? Then a very important inquiry would be as to what is the space provided by the government buildings which are now erected and which have been built for about $8,000,000, and how does that compare with the space to be provided by this building. We want to find out whether this is an extravagant estimate or not and whether it is not possible to erect a building for our accommodation at a less cost than $4,000,-
000.	We must take into account the fact that wages have increased and some kinds of building materials cost more as well, but the main thing to be used is stone, and the cost of the stone itself would not be very much increased. But we are asked to sanction an expenditure, to give the minister an initial vote upon which a hard and fast contract may be given before we meet again, and we are entitled to have a look at the plans and see whether or not there are any suggestions to be made. We want to have a thorough explanation of these plans and what they provide for from- the minister himself. It is rather absurd that we should spend only fifteen minutes authorising an expenditure of $4,000,000 about which we have never seen the plans and know very little. It may be that some of us will not know much more after seeing the plans, but it is still better that we should have a look at them and have an explanation.


William Pugsley: I think the suggestion of my hon. friend (Mr. Foster) is only-reasonable. I should he glad to have the Mr. HENDERSON.
plans brought here and give all in detail that it is possible to give. Perhaps it might be better to let this item stand, and, this evening, take up items with regard to which there might not be the same


George Eulas Foster: Don't forget the floor-space.


William Pugsley: I might just say that the Langevin block contains 90,000 superficial feet of floor-space, and cost $1,250,000. The whole three blocks of departmental buildings contain 315,000 superficial feet. Therefore, we shall have nearly fifty per cent more space than is contained in all three of the present departmental buildings.


George Eulas Foster: I do not think the minister has given us the floor-space of the buildings covered by this amount of $8,000,000.


William Pugsley: No.


William Wright: Would there he any objection to allowing us to look at the plans not accepted, but for which a certain amount of money was paid as prize-money?


William Pugsley: Not at all. They were all here last year in the Railway Committee room. I may say we could hardly display them in the Chamber. They are on file in the department, and the chief architect will he glad to show them to any hon. member who would like to examine them.


George Eulas Foster: It would not be too much trouble to have the plans that have been accepted hung in the Railway Committee room for the information of members?


William Pugsley: These buildings are not 'being constructed upon any plan accepted from outside. The plans on which it is proposed to proceed with construction are prepared by the chief architect of the department. We could have these brought in.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister say that the plans are completed?


William Pugsley: They are well on toward completion.
At six o'clock House took recess.
After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 27) respecting the British North American Mining Company.-Mr. Geoffrion.
Bill (No. 28) respecting the Campbell-ford, Lake Ontario and Western Railway Company.-Mr. Fowke.

Bill (No. 29) respecting the Columbia and Western Railway Company-Mr. Goodeve.
Bill (No. 30) respecting the Eastern Townships Railway Company.-Mr. La-vergne.
Bill (No. 31) respecting the Kamloops and Yellow Head Pass Railway Company - Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 32) respecting the Nicola, Kamloops and Similkameen Coal and Railway Company.-Mr. Burrell.
Bill (No. 33) respecting the Northern Mortgage Company of Canada.-Mr. Hag-gart (Winnipeg).
Bill (No. 34) respecting the Ottawa, Northern and Western Railway Company. -Mr. McGiverin.
Bill (No. 35) respecting the South Ontario Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.
Bill (No. 36) respecting the Union Life Assurance Company.-Mr. McGiverin.
Bill (No. 37) respecting the Walkerton and Lucknow Railway Company.-Mr. Donnelly.
Bill (No. 38) respeecting the West Ontario Pacific Company.-Mr. Nesbitt.

[Stage Direction]
The hour for Private Bills having expired, the House resumed Committee of Supply.
Royal Mint, refinery, buildings and equipment, $57,000.
['I will undertake that information will be furnished to the committee from both my own department and the Militia Department.\nSome resolutions reported.\nMr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House. He said: On Tuesday next I propose to proceed with the Bills representing the French Treaty.']
William Pugsley: This amount is for payment upon the refinery which is being erected in connection with the Royal Mint, the construction of which was authorized at the last session of parliament. The total cost of the building of the refinery and equipment is estimated at a little over $60,000. The equipment is quite expensive and consists of very delicate and expensive machinery. It will cost $32,000, including customs duties of $2,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is the building now under construction?


William Pugsley: It is partly constructed now, by contract.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Will this complete the building?


William Pugsley: The amount of the contract is $31,047.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: You had $30,000 voted last year and have spent $10,000, and now ask $57,000, which would make $67,000 if you spent it all.


William Pugsley: $57,000 and $10,000 make $67,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Instead of $63,000?


William Pugsley: I will show my hon. friend how this $67,000 is arrived at. Amount paid for advertising, $358.84; supplies, hardware, repairs to roof and boiler, $205.42; amount of this contract, $31,747; equipment, fitting, machinery, $32,000; sidewalks and grading, $500; superintendence, $1,943; total, $66,754.26, or within $240 odd of the amount that we are asking.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: How many men will be employed in this refinery?


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid the Minister of Public Works will only be able to deal with the construction of the building. If the hon. gentleman desires information as to the kind of operations which are carried on there and if he will be good enough to state the point on which he desires to be informed I will be very happy to take a note of it and bring the information at another meeting. I could not tell off-hand, but the refinery will not call for many officers. We had hoped to have avoided the necessity of having a refinery at all. We had reason to believe that the refining could be done outside by corporations and we were hoping to save the expense of a refinery, but after carefully inquiring into the matter the mint officials informed us that the material they could get outside was not of sufficient purity for coining purposes and so, reluctantly, we had to undertake the construction of a refinery. I do not understand that it calls for many officials in addition to the present staff, but upon that, as upon any other point in connection with the administration of the mint, if any hon. gentleman will mention the point that he desires information upon I will be very glad to bring it down at another meeting.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the minister be good enough to tell us the total cost of the Royal Mint, including the refinery?


William Stevens Fielding: It is on ' Hansard between $500,000 and $600,000.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I understand the hon. Minister of Public Works now to say that this will cost about $66,000.


William Pugsley: Nearly $67,000-$66,-754.26.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister first gave the figure as $63,000.


William Pugsley: I had not these additional figures in my mind then.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Do you not see how we are misled? We accept that as correct and if the minister afterwards corrects his statement it rather discredits .the information given by him.


David Henderson: I understand that I the present vote is only for the refinery.

What we call the Royal Mint is something different altogether?


William Pugsley: This is part of the mint.


David Henderson: What would be the entire cost of the Royal Mint, refinery and everything connected with it? Would it amount to three-quarters of a million?


William Pugsley: It is less than three-quarters of a million. The total expenditure on the Royal Mint up to the 31st of March last was $535,238.62. That includes the site. I do not imagine there has been anything expended since that outside of what has been spent on the refinery, amounting to $66,754.26. That will make it a bit over $600,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Does the minister remember the original estimate that was given to the House?


William Pugsley: No, I do not.


William Stevens Fielding: It was certainly very much below that.


David Henderson: About half.


William Stevens Fielding: The original estimate was between $300,000 and $400,000. But, of course, all public buildings have cost more since the time that estimate was made. The work was undertaken on a somewhat broad scale and I am sure the feeling of the hon. gentlemen is that if you are to have a mint you should have a good one. I confess that I was anxious that instructions should be given- that if the mint was to be placed there we should have the most perfect machinery that it was possible to procure, and I believe we have it. I do not know how many hon. gentlemen have had an opportunity of visiting the mint, but if there are any present who have not been there, I think they would find it a very interesting place to go. I believe that every hon. gentleman who has gone to the mint has realized the fact that the work done there is of a very fine character. It was all done by contract and I have reason to believe that it was carefully and well done. I was surprised at the cost myself, but when we were doing an expensive piece of work of this kind we thought we should have it thoroughly well done by scientific men.


David Henderson: I am very glad the minister has extended an invitation to visit the mint. I had it in mind to visit it to-morrow and I was not sure if they would require a letter of introduction from the Minister of Finance in order to get inside to see what was being done.


William Stevens Fielding: I am sure that any 'member of parliament presenting his card would be welcomed there. It would be a convenience if hon. gentlemen would let them know the day before. I would not


David Henderson: I advise the hon. gentleman to go on Saturday because that is a short day and he might not see as much as he would upon another day. But if any hon. gentleman would telephone any afternoon that he would like to go on the following day, I am sure he would be welcomed and that it would be very interesting.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: The hon. gentleman will require more than his card as a member of parliament to get in there. The mint officials require a letter. I found that out myself.


William Stevens Fielding: I do not blame the mint people for being a little more stringent than at ordinary places, but there are a number of instances in which hon. gentlemen have asked me and I have said: Go down and present your card, and I rather think they admitted these hon. gentlemen without question. However, there should be no difficulty on that score. If any hon. gentleman intimates to me the time when he wishes to go to the mint they will be only too glad to have him.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the Minister of Finance give an idea of the amount of loss that the country has sustained from the operation of the mint during the last few years?


William Stevens Fielding: As the question before the House is merely that of a contract work upon the refinery I did not anticipate questions of that character. I would rather bring in a statement at a later date. I would not care to answer the question from memory.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Is there a residence in connection with this establishment for any of the employees?


William Stevens Fielding: No. The imperial authorities were very anxious that there should be a residence, but I advised the Minister of Public Works to try and disregard that for the present, and we have no residence. It is the practice in connection with Royal Mints elsewhere that the chief official resides in the mint and there is an advantage in it. However, the building was proving so much more expensive than we had anticipated that I have ventured to take the risk of the displeasure of the imperial authorities up to the present time and have not asked for a residence.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Do you pay the rent of the chief officer's residence in any other part of the city?


William Stevens Fielding: I think we make an allowance. It is done under the regulations of the Royal Mint and we contribute a lump sum for maintenance and upkeep generally. My recollection is that there is an allowance granted for the residence of the deputy master. .


John Allister Currie: The hon. gentleman stated that members' of the House could get in on presenting their cards? I presented my card at the mint and I was told I could not be admitted unless I made an appointment a day or two before.


An hon. MEMBER.: You looked suspicious.


John Allister Currie: I was also given to understand that the officials were not under the control of this parliament, that they were the appointees of the British government, and that though we had the privilege of paying for the mint we had nothing to say about its engagement. I would like to hear from the Minister of Finance on this matter.


William Stevens Fielding: Last session a notice was placed before all members of parliament intimating the times at which it would be most convenient to have them visit the mint, and many hon. gentlemen took advantage of it. I thought they were now sufficiently democratic to admit any gentleman who was a member of the House, although not necessarily at any moment he thought fit to apply, because I fancy that a large number of gentlemen going down there at different times might make it very inconvenient. The mint is something like a bank and it would not be possible to take visitors to the vaults of a bank at all hours of the day. I do not think it unreasonable that the director should be notified a day before of the visit of a number of members of parliament, and if that were done I have no doubt they would be received at once. It is a fact that the control of the mint is under the British government and that is so for reasons which we thought were good. We decided we would have a branch of the Royal Mint in Canada, and one great advantage of that has been that the building has been erected and the machinery installed on the advice and under the supervision of gentlemen who I have no hesitation in saying are the most experienced mint officials in the world. Had the mint been built as a purely Canadian institution we would have had great difficulty in obtaining equal supervision. While it is true that the mint is under the control of the Royal Mint, I have not the slightest doubt that every courtesy would be extended to every member of parliament who wished to visit it, and that far from desiring to put obstacles in their way the director of the mint would be most happy to welcome them. Last session one gentleman opposite came to me and said: I have just visited the mint, and I do wish that every member would visit it, because I had no conception of what an interesting process was carried on there, and I think every member who goes to the
mint will come away proud of it and pleased with it.


John Allister Currie: The minister states that the advice of the Royal Mint authorities was taken with reference to the machinery. I had the pleasure of visiting that mint and I noticed that about eighty per cent of the machinery was of American manufacture. Can the minister tell us what proportion of the machinery in that mint is of British manufacture, and what. proportion of American manufacture?


William Stevens Fielding: The Minister of Public Works who has charge of that would be able to give the information, but if it should turn out that all the machinery is American, that does not show that there is anything wrong with the mint, because the American mints are amongst the most modern and best equipped in the world. I am quite sure that the officials of the mint would get the best machinery possible, and in fact we sent them to Philadelphia, to observe the latest process there. I think it is quite possible that the American mints are more modern and better equipped than even the Royal Mint in England.


John Allister Currie: When does the government intend to proceed with the coinage of gold?


William Stevens Fielding: The object of this vote is to complete the refinery, and we cannot coin gold on any extensive iscale until we have a refinery. They are able to do a little refining now on a very small scale, and they have already turned out a few British sovereigns, under .authority which comes to us by virtue of its being a branch of the Royal Mint. Several of our gold mining companies have sent their gold to the mint and British sovereigns have been produced, but to embark on gold coinage generally you must have a refinery. I hope there will be the least possible delay in turning out the gold coins of Canada.


John Allister Currie: Is it the intention to coin a five dollar Canadian gold piece?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the relationship between the Royal Mint and our Mint?


William Stevens Fielding: The Royal Mint of England is an imperial institution having branches in several parts of the British empire, and we asked that ours might be treated as a branch of the Royal Mint. One of the reasons which led us to that were it a Canadian mint proper we could not coin the British sovereign. How far our Canadian people will make use of gold coins is a debatable question and a very interesting one, and as we believed it desirable that we should find a market-if I may so express it-for the gold of the Yu-

kon and British Columbia, we thought it desirable that we should have the privilege of coining not only Canadian gold coins but the British sovereign, which is current throughout the world. There are many people who believe that our gold should be kept in our own country as much as possible instead of it being sent to the mints in the United States. In consideration of the privilege of coining the British sovereign we had to relinquish some measure of control. The chief officials have been sent out from England, the appointments are made under the English competitive system; we surrender something of what might be called patronage, and I am bound to say that as a general result it has worked well.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is no chance for defeated politicians getting in there?


John Gillanders Turriff: It is hard enough for members to get in.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: This refinery is being built for the purpose of refining the gold to turn into coinage?


William Stevens Fielding: We have to have gold of a certain standard for coinage and this refinery will be for that purpose.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: As I understand it a large portion of the gold produced in Canada is minted in the United States at the present time. If we coin our own gold we will have to pay for the gold which comes from our western country, and mint it, and in the end there will be no profit on the process but rather a loss.


William Stevens Fielding: We quite anticipate that the gold to be used at the Canadian mint will be the gold of Canada. We will have to purchase it as others have to purchase it. There is a profit in coining bronze coins and a large profit in coining silver but there is no profit in coining gold. You take a given amount of bullion and you convert it into coins and after you have done so it is not worth any more than it was before, so that to that extent there will be a loss on the process of coinage.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Then I cannot understand the wisdom of going to the expense of building a refinery when at present we can receive our gold coinage from the old land without cost.


William Stevens Fielding: Wisely or unwisely one of the objects of the Canadian mint was that the gold which my hon. friend says goes from Canada to the United States should be as far as possible kept within Canada. It was claimed that the city of Seattle has been largely built up by the trade of the Yukon country because the miners who produced the gold from our Canadian Yukon, went to Seattle and even to San Francisco with their gold. It was argued by our friends from British Colum-Mr. FIELDING.
bia, with very great force, that if we could induce these miners to come to Vancouver or any other place in Canada, and could provide there a market for their gold, the trade would follow the gold, and we would keep in our own Dominion, particularly in British Columbia, the trade associated with the gold industry. How far that will work out is, like many another economic question, very debatable; but that is one of the reasons why this mint project commended itself very strongly to hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House.


William Wright: In your arrangement with the British government, is there any limit to the number of British or Canadian coins in gold that you may turn out1


William Stevens Fielding: No. The Mint Act provides that any person possessing gold may tender it to the mint and have it converted into British sovereigns at a stated charge, which is fixed in the Act or the regulations. In that we suffer no loss. Indeed, I think there has been a slight profit from the minting of British sovereigns. When we come to mint our own gold coins, there may be a slight loss.


William Wright: Is there any limit to the number of Canadian coins you may mint?


William Stevens Fielding: No. That will be determined by the law of supply and demand. We will make as much coinage as the people absorb in their business. When thev cease to absorb it, we shall cease to make it. British gold is not practically current in Canada at all. While it is the standard of our currency in a certain sense, the British sovereign, which is equivalent to $4,861 of our money, is not available for general circulation in Canada, and, excent in the case of a company which for some reason of its own wants these coins made, I do not think we may look for any very general demand for the making of British sovereigns.


David Henderson: I understand that it is the intention of the government to coin a $5 gold piece of Canadian currency?


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, $5 and $10, and we are free to make others if we wish.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would like to ask the minister if he proposes to ta>:e any steps this year to arrange with the banks to get rid of the large amount of American silver coinage circulated throughout Canada, and have the mint coin a great deal more Canadian silver coinage, which he _ says gives considerable profit in the making.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes, we have such an arrangement whereby the banks, for a very small commission, I forget the exact amount, undertake to collect the foreign silver and ship it to the United States. In

that way I think there will be a considerable increase in the work of the mint in coining Canadian silver, on which there is a very large profit.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Will the Minister of Finance be good enough to tell us how he expects the miners of the Yukon to bring their gold to Ottawa and do their trading in Ottawa instead of going to Seattle?


William Stevens Fielding: I did not compare Ottawa with Seattle, but I did compare Vancouver with Seattle. I would not expect them to bring their gold to Ottawa, but we have an assay office at Vancouver, and we expect to get Yukon gold there. The question still remains how far the government will go to get the gold. We have to get Canadian gold for the Canadian mint, and if we have to go to the Yukon to get it, we will go,


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Are all the officials of the mint given an allowance in lieu of rent, and, if so, are these allowances included in the general allowance for maintenance, or are they kept separate?


William Stevens Fielding: My impression is that there is no allowance made for rent to anybody but the Deputy Master of the Mint, and the reason we make that is that we were required by the British government to provide a residence for him in addition to the salary fixed, and as we preferred not to construct a residence for him, we have made him a moderate allowance for rent instead-I cannot remember the exact amount. Under the statute there is a general vote of $75,000 for the maintenance of the mint. We have been trying to keep it down to that, but it is possible that in closing the account we may have to ask parliament to increase that amount.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What are the coins turned out at the mint-gold, silver, copper and other metals?


William Stevens Fielding: It is proposed to turn out all the coins which Canada requires- the silver coins of the various denominations, the bronze cent, and gold coins of $5, $10 and $20.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Nothing less than $5?


William Stevens Fielding: We have the right under the Act to make coins corresponding approximately to the British half sovereign, that is, $2.50. Some said that was too small a coin. However, that is a matter of detail.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What of silver?


William Stevens Fielding: 50 cents, 25 cents, 10 cents and 5 cents.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: No dollar?


William Stevens Fielding: Not of silver. We use our dollar note.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: 
William Stevens Fielding: Yes, it is intended that any work of that kind should also be done by'the Mint.
Ottawa Victoria Memorial Museum, $260,000.


William Pugsley: This building, all members of the committee know, has been under construction for a considerable time. This amount will complete the building with the exception of about $21,000. It will also provide for the fittings, the furniture, and the general equipment. The contract for the building was let some time ago to Mr. George Goodwin of Ottawa for the sum of $950,000. He was the lowest tenderer, and I think it is generally recognized by those who have seen the building that he is doing his work thoroughly and standing up under his contract in the most creditable manner. The chief architect's estimate of the cost of the building was $300,000 higher than Mr. Goodwin's tender, and the next tender was something like $300,000 more than his. Quite a number of tenders were received.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much has been expended on it up to date?


William Pugsley: Up to the 30th of September last $870,494.52.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What will the total cost of the building be?


William Pugsley: The total estimated cost under the present contract, including $75,000 for furnishing, heating, wiring, electric fixtures, elevators, &c., is $1,395,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the contract call for wiring and heating?


William Pugsley: No, the contract for these was given to the present contractor of the building.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the cost of the wiring?


William Pugsley: Including the fixtures, $30,500.


Oswald Smith Crocket: And the heating?


William Pugsley: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: What was the original estimate of the cost?


William Pugsley: For the building alone, $1,250,000. And, if the fittings, furniture and everything of that character were added, it would be about $1,500,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I quite understand that. Is that the architect's estimate?


William Pugsley: His estimate was $1 -250,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: And the contractor tendered for $950,000. The architect was pretty far out.


William Pugsley: The contractor may probably have been out.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He seems to be satisfied.


William Stevens Fielding: No, he is not.


William Pugsley: The next lowest tender was the same as the architect's estimate.


William Sora Middlebro: What proportion of the $1,400,000 was not let by tender?


William Pugsley: The heating apparatus, the electric wiring, the elevators and the ventilation.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Have they all gone to Mr. Goodwin?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How was the price arrived at?


William Pugsley: Our own staff went carefully into the matter.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: And did Mr. Goodwin accept their estimates?


William Pugsley: He did, reluctantly and after a good deal of discussion and negotiation.


John Waterhouse Daniel: He is an experienced contractor?


William Pugsley: Yes, and a very reliable contractor.


William Sora Middlebro: How does .the hon. minister justify the letting of $450,000 of this work without tender in view of the resolution passed by this House last session that public works should be let by tender? Because we had got a good bargain on a contract, we then proceed to let the balance to this same contractor without tender.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman must remember that there is still $100,000 of furniture which has not yet been let. What I said was that the heating apparatus, estimated at $38,600; the electric wiring, $30,000; elevators $32,000, and ventilation $27,000-total about $127,600 not $,450,000, as the hon. member said had been let without tender. If I am asked to justify this, I do it on the principle announced last session and I happen to know that my statement then met with the approval of some of the most prominent of hon. gentlemen opposite, men who know Mr. Goodwin, the contractor, who know what a thoroughly honourable, reliable contractor he is,and who were satisfied, as I am satisfied, that he is standing up under a load which means $300,000 less than the work he is doing for the country is fairly worth, $300,000 less than the chief architect, who is a man of large experience, has certi-Mr. PUGSLEY.
fied the work to be worth. Under the practice which has prevailed ever since confederation, upon the certificate of the architect, the contractor for a building may be given the contract for the fittings also. And this is often to the great advantage of the country. I thought that under the circumstances of the present case it was not unreasonable that this work should be given to Mr. Goodwin at reasonable prices as ascertained by the chief architect after careful consideration. I believe that my course in this matter will meet with the approval of the majority of the members of this committee on both sides.


Mr. LANCASTER.: Are we to understand that the minister (Mr. Pugsley) justifies the violation of a resolution of this House by the plea that some man who is honourable gets the benefit of that violation? That is the way I understand it-that, because Mr. Goodwin has the reputation of being an honourable man, the minister is justified in dealing with him in violation of the resolution of this House.


William Pugsley: I do not understand that I have violated any resolution of this House.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is there not a statute which requires all public works of the value of over $5,000 to be put up for public competition?


William Pugsley: No, not in the way the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crocket) states it.


Oswald Smith Crocket: There is some statute of that nature. I have not it before me. Did the minister let this work without tender on his own responsibility, or was there an order in council?


William Pugsley: There was an order in council authorizing me to take this course. I may say also that the making of that order in council was absolutely within the authority granted by the statute. I would also say that in the completion of a building of this character it is desirable that there should be no conflict beween those who are doing the electric wiring, putting in the heating apparatus and so on, and those engaged in the work of construction, There is, therefore, great advantage in having the work done by one contractor, provided that it is done at fair prices.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the system of ventilation of which the minister has spoken operated by means of fans?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Mr. SEXSMITH.: Do I understand that the contractor is making a loss of $300,000?


William Pugsley: I stated that the contractor is doing the work for $300,000 less than the chief architect's estimate of the

cost, and $300,000 less than the next lowest tender, and I believe he is carrying a very heavy load in connection with it. How much he is losing I do not know. Mr. Goodwin belongs to the other side of politics but I give him credit for being too courageous a man and too good a contractor to come to us and cry about conditions which he has accepted. He has not stated to me what his loss is, but I beleive he is, as I have said, carrying a heavy load, and also he is doing his work in a very creditable manner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister know whether the contractor is sustaining any loss at all?


William Pugsley: I do not. All I know is that the chief architect was of the opinion he could not do the work without sustaining a loss.


Mr. DONNELLY.: What was the reason that the heating apparatus and lighting was not included in the original advertisement for tenders?


William Pugsley: Certain practices grew up in the department.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: And this practice began at a time which my hon. friend from Grenville and Leeds (Mr. Reid) said was the good old time, and it continued more or less until recently. The practice has been changed, and the chief architect has been instructed as far as nossible to let all the work under one contract.


Richard Blain: Why was not the policy applied to the construction of the residence we had under discussion this afternoon?


William Pugsley: We had two under discussion, one was the departmental building and it will apply to that absolutely.


Richard Blain: What about the other?


William Pugsley: That was done under the good old Conservative way.


Richard Blain: When was the hon. minister converted?


William Pugsley: Quite a while ago.


George Henry Bradbury: Was any change made in the construction of the building after the contract was let?


William Pugsley: The tower was changed, but it was not much of a change.


George Henry Bradbury: What did the change amount to?


William Pugsley: There was no extra cost and no saving either way. It did not add to the cost or take from it.


George Henry Bradbury: If I understand rightly, there was quite a tower, 40 or 50 feet high, which was taken off. Surely that was some saving.


William Pugsley: Only the crown was taken off.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: When will the building be ready for occupation?


William Pugsley: I think in about six or eight months.


John Albert Sexsmith: The hon. minister says he does not know that the contractor is losing any money at all. I think that usually when a government contractor is about to make a loss on his contract of some two or three hundred thousand dollars, he will make that public; and since this contractor has not done so, my opinion is he is not losing anything. Is the minister still employing' that architect. There is $300,000 difference between the contract and the estimate of the chief architect. Is the minister still employing an architect who will make an estimate $300,000 more than the work will actually cost, according to the tender accepted? It seems to me that this was pretty wide of the mark.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend surely does not suggest that because a contractor' may have made a mistake in his figuring and tendered at $300,000 less for an expensive building then he ought to have done, that implies that the chief architect had estimated the cost of the building as more than he ought to have done? There were several tenderers, men of the widest experience, some of the most practical and experienced contractors we have, whose figures were very close to the estimate of the chief architect, but some $300,000 higher than the tender of Mr. Goodwin. Had Mr. Goodwin not put in a tender, the government would have given the contract to the next lowest whose figures were very close to those of the chief architect. With regard to the latter, let me say this. Hon. gentlemen opposite have passed criticisms on his estimates. The hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Staples) said that his estimate for the residence of the chief astronomer -would be no doubt doubled when the actual cost of the completed building was ascertained. All I can say is that during the time I have been in the department, I have learned to have the very highest respect for the judgment, care and knowledge possessed by the chief architect. He has been in that position some 25 or 30 years, and has held, and deservedly enjoyed, the confidence of all governments which had charge of the administration of our affairs down to the present. I believe that he carefully safeguards the public interests in every way possible.


Mr. STAPLES.: The Minister of Public Works appears very anxious to keep reiterating the question I put him a year ago. It is somewhat satisfactory for me to know that it was I who opened over a j^ear ago the discussion that -was settled on the floor

this afternoon. On that occasion the minister was gliding along with his estimates in that smooth manner of which he is past master; and when last year I asked certain questions, he assured us that this building would be constructed for not more than $16,000. I then made the statement that, from our past experience in the case of other public buildings, the cost of which very often doubles the original estimates, we might expect something similar in this case. Let me tell the minister that I think I can verify that statement even tonight. If he will go back to the first discussion on the Grand Trunk Pacific, he will find that the right hon. the Prime Minister told this House and the people that its cost would not be more than $13,000,000. What has that public institution cost up to date? Let me ask him what was the original estimated cost of the institution we are now discussing. Was it not about $300,000, and it has now amounted to over '$600,000. You can go through the long list of smaller institutions, post offices, and other public buildings throughout the country, and if the hon. gentleman will take time to look through the Auditor General's Report and compare the actual costs with the original estimates, he will find that in many cases the former has doubled the latter. I hope the minister will now be satisfied and not again bring up my assertion that the cost of the residence of the chief astronomer would be double the original estimate. Let him wait until the residence is completed. Possibly then he will find, if the general reputation of this government for extravagance is lived up to, that I was not very far astray in that statement which I made a year ago. You are not through with the building yet. Next year the minister may listen to what we will have to say when he comes asking for a further amount to complete the construction of that building. I hope the minister will give me a little credit for the statement I made, and I think I would have no difficulty in verifying my statement if I desired to go back and review many of the buildings constructed by this government.
Eastern Departmental Block, revote, $75,000.


William Pugsley: This is for the purpose of undertaking a -work which was considered necessary some years ago and which was actually provided for but which the government thought might stand over, even although it was at some inconsiderable inconvenience to the departments which are occupying the Eastern block. The Finance Department particularly is in very great need of additional room. Additional room is required in connection with the Treasury Branch of that department which ought really, in the public interest, to have been provided some years ago. The Justice Department also requires additional room Mr. STAPLES.
and it is very desirable that just as soon as possible the Department of External Affairs should be located in that building. The Minister of Finance reminds me that he is afraid that the room will all be required for the extension of the Finance Department. Still I hoped we might _ be able to have some of the other officials there. The total cost of this extension is estimated by the chief architect at $200,396. The addition will be 120 feet by 64 feet exclusive of the tower, two stories high, with an attic and basement It will contain 31 offices and 8 vaults. This estimate does not include the vault linings, which of course will necessarily cost a considerable sum.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Just before dinner the minister stated it was the intention to place the Department of External Affairs in the new building on Sussex street.


William Stevens Fielding: I am afraid I will have to put in a word on this subject. I discover that a vote originally designed for the Finance Department is being appropriated to others and I want to warn the Minister of Public Works that until he provides adequate accommodation in that building for the Finance Department I do not want him to allot space to any other. If there is more 'than enough space to accommodate the Finance Department I do not object, but this vote was taken to provide much-needed accommodation in the way of vaults, etc. for the Finance Department ; it has been presented to the House in that way and I wish the Minister of Public Works to have it understood that he is to give only surplus accommodation to any other department.


William Pugsley: That is my understanding, the Finance Department is to have first claim on any accommodation constructed.


John Waterhouse Daniel: The minister stated that among other things this is to provide vaults.


William Stevens Fielding: Yes.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: 1 suppose that is where he keeps the surplus.
Mr.	FIELDING.	In these growing
times the vaults that keep the surplus have to be enlarged.
Ottawa Public Buildings-instrument testing and standardizing building, Cliff street, revote, lapsed amount, $5,000.


Richard Blain: What is a standardizing building?


William Pugsley: A small building to be erected on the ordnance lot on Cliff St. for the purpose of standardizing the different instruments, such as surveying instruments, tape and chain measures. It is for

the testing and standardizing of the various instruments used in the Surveyor General's Branch of the Department of the Interior.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: My understanding is that the standardizing of weights and measures is done in the Inland Revenue Department, and if they have a building for that purpose it would not seem to be in the interest of economy to establish another building to carry on the same work for the Interior Department.


William Pugsley: This is for instruments to be used in the Surveyor General's Branch. The Interior Department send out many surveying parties during the year, and of course it is highly desirable that their instruments should be absolutely correct. If there is such a building in connection with the Inland Revenue Department, I am satisfied it is not sufficiently modern or sufficiently large to meet the demands of the Interior Department, because I have been informed there was formerly a building upon this lot for testing purposes belonging to the Inland Revenue Department. That building was destroyed and I do not think any building has been erected to take its place. The demand for this building has been before the Public Works Department for many years. It has been urged from time to time by the Department of the Interior and it has been represented in the strongest way that there was a necessity for a testing room where engineers can adjust and test their instruments.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much will the building cost?


William Pugsley: The total estimate is $10,000.
Before passing from this item, why should we not pass the item of new departmental buildings and discuss it upon another item,later? This afternoon the hon. member for North Toronto (Mr. Foster) suggested that we might let the item for the new departmental buildings -stand until the plans had been examined by the committee. But, I would think that it might be better to pass the whole item with the understanding that the matter could be discussed on concurrence.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I think there would be a very serious objection because every one of these items requires to be questioned.


William Pugsley: Very well; it was only to save time.
Public Buildings, Nova Scotia-Digby public buildings, rewiring, &c., $1,000.


Mr. JAMESON.: Will $1,000 -complete the work which the minister has in view?


William Pugsley: Yes, that will complete the wiring.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What kind of building are you rewiring?


William Pugsley: It has been reported that the building at Digby requires to be rewired to make it safe.
Halifax Dominion Building-improvements, repairs, &c., $60,000.


William Sora Middlebro: I would suggest that as the members for Halifax are not here, we -might pass over these six items.


William Pugsley: I would agree to that if it were a new item, but it is simply to pay the contractor for the work being done on -the building. I will let them discuss it on -any other item.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Perhaps the minister would give us a statement as to the cost and of the nature of the work.


William Pugsley: This is to make a payment upon the work of remodelling the whole interior of the Halifax Dominion building. The floors are to be removed, only the walls and roof remaining.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it the customs house or post office?


William Pugsley: It is the old post office, and we are fitting it up now for post office purposes and for the Assistant Receiver General's office. The customs examining warehouse and the Inland Revenue office were removed to the new customs house building.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much will it cost?


William Pugsley: 


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the size of the building?


William Stevens Fielding: I cannot give the dimensions, but the hon. gentleman will remember, from his visits to Halifax, that this is the building facing the parliament buildings. It was erected before c-onfedera-ton and is commonly known as the post office building. It was taken over by the Dominion government in an unfinished condition. It was then finished and several of the departments were located in it. The customs house was in one end, the post office in the otheT and half a dozen minor departments upstairs. Gradually it became necessary to hire three or four places in the city and some years ago it was determined to erect a new building right below, or nearer the waterside, for customs purposes. The customs house was removed and temporary accommodation was secured by the post office. This building, which is a very handsome one, is now being reconstructed for post office purposes. Nothing now remains but the walls and

part of the roof. It is really almost a new building. It is intended to be chiefly used for post office purposes, but there will be some space available for others. My own department is hiring quarters in another part of the city, and it is proposed to provide offices for the Assistant Receiver General in this new building. I think there may also be some space remaining for minor offices.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will it take in the savings bank?


William Stevens Fielding: The Assistant Receiver
General's office is the savings bank.


William Pugsley: I can now give the hon. gentleman the dimensions of this building. It occupies 125 feet on Cheapside and George streets, and 55 feet on Hollis street and Bedford road.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is it built in a fire proof
manner?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this the building in reference to which the minister received a report of defective work on the part of the contractor?


William Stevens Fielding: No, that was the customs house.


Clarence Jameson: Who is the contractor?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. Mr. M. E. Keefe.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What was the contract price?


William Pugsley: 


Oswald Smith Crocket: How does the minister account for the other $50,000?


William Pugsley: In addition we require for heating and boilers, $7,500; electric fixtures, without wiring, $1,500; elevators, $8,500; vault lining and doors, $7,000; contingencies and superintendence, $14,150.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Were these matters put up to tender?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Oswald Smith Crocket: In all cases?


William Pugsley: With the exception of the elevators, for the reason that we make a contract for the Otis-Fensom elevator because we think it-perhaps it is quite a strong thing to say-the only thoroughly safe electric elevator built in Canada.


Oswald Smith Crocket: That is a good advertisement.


William Pugsley: It is. If it were not for that we could not justify the letting of the contract without tenders.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did just one contractor get the work?


William Stevens Fielding: 


William Pugsley: No, not the same contractor.
Halifax Quarantine Station, on Lawlor's island-repairs and renewals, $3,500.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is, this for?


William Pugsley: Repairing the wharf. It was reported in a dangerous condition.
Lunenburg Public Building-improvements,


William Pugsley: This is to complete the payment in conxrection with the installation of the clock in the tower and for wiring. The building is to be lighted by electricity.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: If an election comes on in Ottawa I would like either to have a new clock put in the< tower ot this building or some very great improvement made in the clock, because it is now impossible to tell the time by it. I think we have a right to expect that the government will take steps to have this clock repaired remembering what they have done in that direction in Waterloo.


William Pugsley: I admit the clock is acting very badly and I have taken the necessary steps to have it put in order.


David Henderson: I would also remind the minister that we are very badly in need of a clock in No. 89.


William Pugsley: That has been ordered. Mr. HENDERSON. Ordered a year ago.


William Pugsley: It wrill be there in a few days, possibly to-morrow, but I do not think so,


Richard Blain: Last year I called the attention of the minister to the fact that the cellar of this building got flooded during rainstorms, and that there were some complaints with regard to the quality of the cement wrnrk, and saying that the contract was not being properly carried out.


William Pugsley: It must be some other building.


Richard Blain: No, it was this building.


William Pugsley: I don't remember anything of the kind.


Mr BLAIN.: I have it here on ' Hansard.' The minister did not know anything about it last year and he seems to know less now.


William Pugsley: Would the hon. gentleman read what is in ' Hansard? '


Richard Blain: I will send over ' Hansard' and the hon, gentleman can read it for himself.


William Pugsley: Oh yes, I see that the hon. gentleman did make a complaint but I regret that I do not remember making any inquiry about it as I seem to have

promised. My hon. friend did not mention it again during the session and I suppose when the rain stopped there was no further ground for complaint.


Richard Blain: I had a complaint before me that the sidewalk was not completed according to contract and the minister led the committee to believe that he would inquire into it.. He now seems to have forgotten all about it.


William Pugsley: There has been no complaint in the department and I have asked the chief architect to make a further note with reference to what my hon. friend says.
North Sydney immigration shed, $2,500.


Clarence Jameson: Where will the shed be located?


Mr PUGSLEY.: It is an addition to the Intercolonial railway shed for the accommodation of immigrants.
Parrsboro' public building, $15,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Does the department own the site?


William Pugsley: We bought it.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What will be the total cost of the building?


William Pugsley: We have not the plans but Parrsboro' is quite a nice town, and 1 suppose we would give them a building that would run up to $25,000. It will be for a custom house, post office, &c.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Have you called for tenders?


William Pugsley: Not yet.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What did the site cost and from whom was it bought?


William Pugsley: It was bought from Mrs. Vickery for $3,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the size of the lot?


William Pugsley: It fronts on Main street, Station street and Spring street, on one street 69 feet, on the other 96, and the other 77 feet.


Clarence Jameson: When will tenders be asked for this work?


William Pugsley: During the coming year; as soon as we get the plans ready.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How does it come to front on three streets; I do not understand how that can be unless the block is very small?


William Pugsley: It is quite possible that it can front on three streets. You will find a building fronting on three streets in St. John city, and for example the Flat Iron building in New York.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I would like the minister to give the facts about this and not be drawing on his imagination?


William Pugsley: Strange as it may seem these are the exact dimensions on the various streets.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I do not see how it can possibly front on three streets unless of course the block is very small.


William Pugsley: Why, my dear friend-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh!


William Pugsley: Oh pardon me. I was going to say that it almost paralyses one to think that my hon. friend does not know that a building could have a frontage on three streets.


John Waterhouse Daniel: They must be very small lots in that town.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What streets will it front on?


William Pugsley: On the three streets.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: How many sides on the building?


Mr. GRAHAM.: Two, the inside and the outside.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I think the committee should get down to business and have some sensible information from the minister.


William Pugsley: Did the hon. gentleman ask me a question?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister seems to think this is a great joke.


William Pugsley: The minister is the most serious man in the room.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The minister thinks it a great joke to compare this building with a flat iron building or a round iron building or a smooth iron building in New York.	*


An hon. MEMBER.: Hear, hear.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Minister of Railways says hear, hear.


George Perry Graham: No he did not.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Perhaps the minister will now tell us the dimensions of the building on each of these three streets.


William Pugsley: The building has not been laid out, but if you take the dimensions you will find that the lot is just of a size upon which you can construct a building suitable for a town of that size and having a frontage on three streets. Of course there may not be an entrance on each of these three streets but it will have a frontage on each.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Which is the main street it will front on?


William Pugsley: On the Main street.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I might want to go down there to see this wonderful building



and I do not want to get mixed up looking
for a building something like the flat iron . building in New York which the minister has referred us to for a comparison. The minister ought to be able to give us some description of the building before he asks us for a vote.


William Pugsley: I am surprised that an hon. gentleman who is usually so serious should, now when we are dealing with the important question of voting public moneys lapses into frivolities and attempt to disturb the serious calm of this committee.
Shelburne public building, $3,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Did the Minister of Finance promise that at the by-election or the general election?


William Stevens Fielding: I did not promise it either time.
Wolfville public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to enter into a contract for the erection of a building at Wolfville which is a very rising town.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost?


William Pugsley: We have not the plans prepared as yet but I should think this building ought to be erected for $20,000. It is a very nice town and there should be a building which would be creditable to it, but I think $20,000 would cover the cost.


William Wright: Are we to understand that when the minister gives an estimate of the total cost of these buildings that under the new arrangement, that includes the heating and the lighting and everything pertaining to the building.


William Pugsley: Yes, I intend to cover that; I may be astray of course until the details are worked out.


Richard Blain: What did the site cost?


William Pugsley: 


Richard Blain: What is the total cost including site, and everything else when the building will be ready, for occupation?


William Pugsley: I cannot say absolutely but what we have in mind is a building which will cost, including the site, in the vicinity of $25,000.


Richard Blain: There was a vote for this building in 1908 and how does it come that although the $900 voted then was not expended he is asking for this sum now?


William Pugsley: I explained in the House last year that owing to the state of the revenue a large number of these public works were dropped in the estimates and Wolfville was one of the number.


Clarence Jameson: Will the buildings at Shelburne and Wolfville have clocks and towers?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: 


William Pugsley: I have not yet thought of a clock for the Wolfville building but there is one to be provided for Shelburne.
Charlottetown drill hall extension, $4,000.


William Wright: Is this the total cost?


William Pugsley: Yes, for the work we intend doing.
Summerside public building, $5,000.


William Pugsley: This is to replace the present slate roof which is in a bad state of repair. This will complete.


Mr. FRASER.: Is it the intention to call for tenders for this work?


William Pugsley: We have not yet decided as to that, but I think very likely we shall. We shall if the work can be done by tender as well as by day's work.


Richard Blain: That is rather indefinite. Surely the minister has a policy as to that.


William Pugsley: The policy of the department is to call for tenders as far as possible for all public works, but in some cases we find that certain works, such as repairs to a wharf, can be done more cheaply by day's work than by tender. In some cases we have called for tenders, and the tenders have been higher than the chief architect or the chief engineer has reported to be fair and reasonable, and we have done the work by day's labour and done it for less than the amount of the lowest tender. The present work, I think, we can do by tender, and we intend to ask for tenders.
Public Buildings, New Brunswick-Bathurst public building-repairs and renewals, &c., $1,000.


William Pugsley: This amount is to make provision for repairs and renewals and also for a concrete sidewalk along the front and side of the building.


Richard Blain: In the New Brunswick items I notice five revotes of amounts previously voted which have now lapsed. May I ask if every vote for the province of New Brunswick which has lapsed is renewed in these items, or has my hon. friend made a selection of some?


William Pugsley: I do not remember any items that have been dropped.
Fairville public building-revote of $3,000 lapsed, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This is to enable us to enter into a contract for the building. The site was purchased pursuant to a vote passed in 1908.


John Waterhouse Daniel: How much will the building cost?	.


William Pugsley: About $25,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What will it contain?


William Pugsley: A post office, and we trust also a savings bank.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will there be room for a janitor in the building?


William Pugsley: Yes.


John Waterhouse Daniel: This is not on three streets?


William Pugsley: No, it fronts on the main street. I may say that Fairville is a very important town. The monev paid out in wages alone averages about $450,000 in the year. My hon. friend knows that it is one of the most important manufacturing cities in the Dominion of Canada. It has a large number of mills, a very large pulp industry and other industries, quite a number of important business houses and some fine residences. There is a very thrifty population settled at Fairville and its vicinity, and I think it is well entitled to a public building.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I quite agree with the minister that the town of Fairville is growing and increasing rapidly, and that it is as much entitled to a post office building as other towns of the same size, or towns of even smaller size which are getting them.
Fredericton Dominion public buildinggovernment share of cost of permanent pavements put down by the municipal corporation on Queen and Carleton streets, $2,934.87.


William Pugsley: This payment is in accordance with the principle of paying the frontage tax where granolithic sidewalks or asphalt pavements are being constructed by the municipality.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is this the whole of the government's share of the cost?


William Pugsley: It is the whole, as made up by the officials of my department, though there is a little difference between the city and my department. This will be paid to the city.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is the government's share half the cost?


William Pugsley: My understanding is that we shall pay half the cost of the pavement on that side of the street immediately in front of the government building; in other words, one-fourth of the total cost of both sides.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I think the impression in Fredericton is that the government was agreed to pay one-half of the whole cost. I suppose the department has an agreement with the city in the matter?


William Pugsley: Yes.
19i
Grand Falls public building-revote of $4,050 lapsed, $15,000.


William Pugsley: This will enable us to enter into a contract for construction.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the total estimated cost?


William Pugsley: No. The total cost will be $20,000 or $25,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are the plans prepared yet?


William Pugsley: Not yet. Grand Falls is a thriving growing town with magnificent water-power, the best east of Niagara, and it is expected that there will be development . of that power very soon. I think that the town is well entitled to a public building, and there is at present no public building in the county of Victoria of which Grand Falls is the shire town.


Richard Blain: When the hon. gentleman first introduced this proposed expenditure, he said to the committee that the cost of the building would be only $15,000 or $20,000.


William Pugsley: That probably did not include heating and wiring.
Hartland public buildings, $5,000.


Mr. MAGRATH.: I do not object to revotes, but when it comes to a question of voting for the first time public moneys for public buildings in this country, I want to remind the hon. gentleman of a question I brought to his attention last year. That was the necessity for a post office at Lethbridge, not for the purpose of beautifying the city of Lethbridge but of meeting the necessities of the people. Over a year ago I received a communication from the post office authorities stating that relief could only be secured by a public building. My duty, I presume, ends when I draw the attention of the government to that feature. I did that very fully last year. I see that no provision is made for a post office there in the estimates this year. I realize that this country is growng and that it is almost impossible to keep pace with its needs, but at the same time there are instances, this is one, when something must be done. Only to-day I received a letter from a business gentleman in the city of Lethbridge referring to business matters, and he added this postscript:
Can you not impress on the department the necessity of providing a post office here. The congestion is out of all reason.
I suppose the hon. minister is aware of that. I do not know that I could do any more than what I did last year and what I am attempting to do now. I have a question on the Order Paper that wall come up on Monday, and I want to put myself on

record now. When it comes to providing votes for new buildings, I would like the hon. minister to understand that the people in the west will have every opportunity to consider these matters and will hold the government responsible. It is not a question of partyism but merely of meeting the needs of the people in the country.


William Pugsley: I may say to my hon. friend that there are not many new votes for nublic buildings in these estimates. I . have endeavoured as far as nossible to implement the pledge which was given parliament two years ago. I said then that the public works which had been provided for previously and which had been left out on the estimates were works which were simply postponed, and that when the turn in the tide came, so far as revenues are concerned, I would ask parliament to revote the amounts in order to enable the Department of Public Works to proceed with these various undertakings except in cases where, on further investigation, I was satisfied that they were not required, or not immediately required in the public interest. I think it will be found that in nearly all cases that promise has been carried out in the estimates now before the committee. The case of Lethbridge is one which certainly appeals to me. I have been very glad to learn of the rapid progress which has been made by that enterprising town; but it will be found, in the estimates on page 60, that three amounts are given for Lethbridge. We are asking for a vote of $10,000 for an armoury, we are asking for a vote of $6,000 for the enlargement of the customs house and Dominion land office and also for a vote of $6,000 for the immigration building.


Mr MAGRATH.: These are revotes.


William Pugsley: I do not care, you are going to have them. It does not seem unreasonable that the question of erecting a post office at Lethbridge might stand over for consideration at the next session of parliament in view of the fact that we are asking for three expenditures on public buildings in that town.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Our view points appear to be different. It is not a question with me of satisfying the people of Lethbridve by distributing some of their taxes within their own boundaries, but a question of supplying the absolute needs of the people. 1 have not raised my voice in this committee with reference to any revote, and I do not propose to do so; but when it comes to new votes I want the fullest information as to the absolute need of this money being spent.


William Pugsley: As regards Hartland, it is proposed that this building shall be utilized for a post office and also for an ar-Mr. MAGRATH.
moury. I am inclined to think that Hart-land has grown to be a place of sufficient importance to have a branch customs house there also, which will be accommodated in this building. The militia have been urgently asking for an armoury, and I think I can say that there is just -as much demand, at all events for this building, in the town of Hartland as there is for a post office in the town of Lethbridge. I may say further that there is no other vote foT any other purpose in Hartland, while_ there are votes for three different purposes in the town of Lethbridge.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Perhaps we might as well settle this matter now. Do I understand the hon. minister to say that there is no possibility of anything being placed for a post office in the city of Lethbridge? We have there to-day a population of 15,000. There is no place in the country which is growing so rapidly. It is growing by leaps and bounds, and people have to stand out in the street waiting their turn to get into the post office and everybody is complaining. If it is understood that absolutely nothing is available for a post office in Lethbridge this year, we ought to know it.	-


William Pugsley: There is nothing in the estimates for a post office there this year, and I cannot put anything in them now. I am not aware that there will be any supplementary estimates. There may or may not be. On that point, I can give no assurance whatever. All I can say now is that there is no provision for a post office for Lethbridge in the present estimates. I am glad to know that Lethbridge is growing so ranidly, but it has only begun to take on its rapid growth in the last year or two. If it is a place the size my hon. friend says it is-and I have heard from other sources that it is-I recognize that we must very soon provide a post office for that town.


Charles Alexander Magrath: I must call the hon. gentleman to order-for that city.


David Henderson: I am not sure that the principle laid down by the hon. minister for the erection of public buildings is just what it should be. I understand he proposes to complete all the public works that were promised some two years ago before he undertakes any new ones.


William Pugsley: No, I did not say that.


David Henderson: Is that not the policy of the hon. gentleman?


William Pugsley: No.


David Henderson: I think we were told a year ago that the intention of the government was that where a public building had been promised prior to the time when

the revenues of the country began to fall off and the government was forced to drop a great many public works which they had intended to'prosecute, they would, before putting any new votes on their list, complete what they had promised. Is not that, m fact, the policy of the government?


William Pugsley: My hon. friend may have drawn that conclusion from my remarks, but it is possible that he was not here during all the time when I was urging these estimates in committee-because I had to answer a good many questions put by hon. members who were annoyed at certain items being left over last year. I said that, speaking generally-I used that expression advisedly-that would be the policy of the department. But I also said that there would probably be cases in which, on making further investigation, I might be satisfied that there was not the urgent demand in the public interest for the work which I had been led to suppose there was, and that there might be buildings in other cities or towns, other harbour or river works, more urgently required and for which we must provide. But, I repeat, I said that, speaking generally, the public works provided for in the estimates of 1907-8, but which we were obliged to postpone on account of the condition "of the public revenues would be the first taken up.


David Henderson: There is little difference between the minister's recollection and my own on that point. As to my possibly not having been present at the debates on the estimates, I may say that I came here last session on the day of the opening of the House, I left Ottawa after the gun had fired for prorogation, and I had never been out of the city during the entire session and had never missed a day sitting in this House. So, possibly, I may have been present-I think I was present at practically all the discussions that took place with regard to the estimates.


William Pugsley: The hon. member (Mr. Henderson) was here pretty often.


David Henderson: Yes, and the minister may find that I shall be here pretty often this session.


William Pugsley: I hope so.


David Henderson: I mink we have a right to arrive fairly at the conclusion that there is practically no difference between my recollection and the minister's recollection of what the policy was. I do not mean to say that there was to be absolutely no exception to the rule. But I would remind the minister that in the estimates prior to the last general election a great many buildings were promised. They were preelection promises.


William Pugsley: Oh, no.


David Henderson: The hon. minister knows as well as I do that a great many public buildings were promised throughout this country just prior to the general election.


William Pugsley: The hon. member said they were ' pre-election promises.' That would connect one with the other.


David Henderson: Pre-election promises are promises made before an election. I will allow the members of this House to draw their own inferences as to why these promises were made just before the general election. Of course, I do not accuse the minister -I should decidedly refrain from accusing him-of making these promises for any ulterior purpose. But there is the fact-public buildings were promised from one end of this country to the other which this House did not regard as being urgently needed, and the general impression was that they were pre-election promises made for election purposes. These were all buildings that came under the estimates of 1908. Now I mention that it would not be fair, these buildings having been promised prior to the general election, and especially if they were offered for election purposes, to give them the preference over other buildings that are urgently needed, such as the post office in the city of Lethbridge. I do not see why, if a post office had been promised in my county-which it was not-prior to the election and for the purpose of influencing the electorate, but yet not needed, the government should go on and build that public work to the neglect of other places that have not been so fortunate as to get a promise prior to election. All these preelection promises should be dropped, and the minister should start afresh and deal with the needs of each county as if these pre-election promises had not been made. Only so will justice be done to all localities. I hope that on reconsidering the matter, and in considering the supplementary estimates, this idea will be allowed for-because I can inform the minister, we will and are likely to have supplementary estimates. In twenty-two sessions I have never seen a session in which there were no supplementary estimates, and, as I have observed, new work generally appears in the supplementary estimates.


William Pugsley: There were not many last year.


David Henderson: That was immediately after the election-no, there were not many, but there were some. As I say, new works generally appear first in the supplementary estimates. No doubt, we should have a recurrence of that this session, though not perhaps to the same extent as in former years. I hope that my hon. friend from Lethbridge (Mr. Magrath) will not

be forgotten when the supplementary estimates are in preparation.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is to be the total cost of this building?


William Pugsley: We hope that it will not exceed $10,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understand that it is to be for post office and armoury. Is it not unusual to build these two together?


William Pugsley: It is; but I believe it would be a very good idea to adopt the practice more generally-in towns of this character to have part of the public building used as an armoury in which the arms and stores of the militia are to be safely kept. "


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is the size of the garrison in Hartland?


William Pugsley: I do not know, and the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is not here at the moment.


Charles Alexander Magrath: Has the minister any idea of the population of this place?


William Pugsley: I should say from 1,200 to 1,500. My hon. friend from York (Mr. Crocket) would know.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I should think the minister's estimate is not far astray. What proportion of the cost is assigned to the armoury in the estimates?


William Pugsley: It is not divided; it all comes under my department.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I should think the architect could tell us how much the armoury would increase the cost of the building.


William Pugsley: We have not the plans prepared. I will be able to give the hon. member that information next year.
Hillsborough - public building-revote of $1,970 lapsed, $15,000.


William Pugsley: The site for this building, which is admirably suited for the purpose, has been given free to the Crown by the Hillsborough Manufacturing Company. I have about the same statement to make with regard to this building as with regard to the other; I think this work should be entirely completed, including heating apparatus and fixtures, for something under $20,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I suppose this site was given by Mr. Osman in return for the wharf made for the manufacturing company by the Public Works Department.


William Pugsley: The wharf?


Oswald Smith Crocket: Yes.


William Pugsley: I do not know of any wharf given to the company. My hon.


David Henderson: friend is mistaken. The wharf built there is a public wharf, built for the convenience of the public.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The money was voted and expended for an extension of a wharf which is used exclusively by the Albert Manufacturing Co. That is the information I have in regard to the Pink Rock wharf and that the public derive no benefit from that wharf.


William Pugsley: It would be more convenient to discuss the item of the Pink Rock wharf when we come to harbours and rivers. The trouble with my hon. friend is, and I think it is a misfortune for him, that he is all the time thinking of hidden motives and interested motives and improper motives. As far as Mr. Osman, the manager of the Albert Manufacturing Company, is concerned, I say to my hon. friend that he cannot get a man in New Brunswick, outside of himself, to deny it -there is no more honourable, straightforward man in the whole Dominion of Canada than Charles J. Osman. His company is carrying on an enormous manufacturing business whose sales extend throughout the eastern United States and a large part of the Dominion of Canada. As far as this wharf at Pink Rock is concerned, the company gave the right to use 'it to the public and the Crown is extending that wharf for the public convenience and to facilitate a large business in connection with which hundreds of men receive employment in that vicinity ana many thousands of dollars are expended annually. I do not know of any wharf built by the Crown for such a small amount which affords so much convenience or gives such accommodation as the extension of this wharf. As far as the public building is concerned, the comoany were anxious to see a public building erected and they generously gave a site for the purpose.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I understood the minister to state that he did not propose to discuss the subject of the Pink Rock wharf, and then he proceeds to discuss it. My reference to the Pink Rock wharf was simply in connection with the minister's statement that this site for a post office was given so generously by his friend, Mr. Osman. I am not here to make any reflection upon Mr. Osman. It is a favourite method of the minister, whenever a fact is stated which might inure to the detriment of his department, to sound the praises, the high character and great reputation enjoyed by this and that gentleman. The House will remember that in the session of last year he sang the praises of another very distinguished friend of his in New Brunswick as one who enjoyed the highest reputation from end to end of the

Dominion, against whom not one word could be snoken, his bosom friend, George McAvity.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear, as honest a man as any in Canada.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The gentleman who got away with the $36,000 rake-off in the Mayes contract, Mr. Mayes being the same gentleman from whom the Minister of Public Works received the $2,000 note which he would have the members of this House believe was received for professional services.


William Pugsley: And what does the hon. gentleman insinuate it was received for?


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I think the discussion is wandering away from the item before the committee. I must ask the hon. member to confine himself to the item before the committee.


Oswald Smith Crocket: The minister has asked a question


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The minister may ask a question which it is not proper to answer, within the rules of the House. I rule that the hon. gentleman is wandering away from the point at issue and ask him to confine his remarks to the item before the committee.


Oswald Smith Crocket: I am simply replying to some observations made by the minister which grew out of this item, and you will remember, Mr. Chairman, how the matter arose. The minister was referring to his friend's great generosity in donating a site as if he were a public benefactor, and in connection with that statement the thought came to me of certain information which had been communicated to me.


William Pugsley: I rise to a point of order. The way the matter arose was this. I stated


Thomas Simpson Sproule: What is the point of order.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has not stated correctly how the matter arose. I stated that this site had been donated by the Albert Manufacturing Company. The hon. gentleman then said: I suppose it was in return for the wharf which the government generously built for Mr. Osman at Pink Rock. That was an insinuation, in my judgment, which is not worthy of an hon. member of this House.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: The point is, I think; scarcely a point of order; it is rather one of correction. I will still ask the hon. members to confine themselves to the item before the House. I think I cannot properly allow the discussion to wander to the items the hon. gentleman has been bringing forward.


Oswald Smith Crocket: You will understand that I am speaking solely because of a statement and some reflections that the minister sought to cast on myself. I did not rise to a question of order when he described me as a gentleman always seeking for some hidden motives, which statement,
I think, transgressed the rules of the House; and it was because of that state ment and that statement solely that I rose to reply to the minister. When I referred in connection with this observation of the minister to matters that grew out of the very reference of the minister, then the minister seeks to call me to order.


William Pugsley: I did not call the hon. gentleman to order.


Oswald Smith Crocket: But if the minister wishes me to answer his question as to what I suppose and believe he got the $2,000 note for I am prepared to state my belief. I believe the statement of Mr. Mayes.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has made the statement to this committee that he believes the statement of Mr Mayes.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: Order.


William Pugsley: The statement of Mr. Mayes is false, and the hon. gentleman should take that back, Sir.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Gilbert Howard McIntyre: I have refused to allow the hon. member for York (Mr. Crocket) to continue the discussion along the lines on which he was proceeding. I must still adhere to that. I did not want to be too abrupt, I could not tell to what extent he desired to go in continuing _ to speak, but the point that is under discussion is the Hillsborough public building. I will not, as far as my power goes, allow the discussion to wander to the items that have been brought forward. It is always impossible, where there has been attack and reply to cut short discussion at a point that will please each hon. gentleman. In that respect I mav not be able to satisfy every one, but I must ask the committee to confine itself entirely to the Hillsborough public building.


William Pugsley: Did you hear the hon. gentleman state that he believed the statement of Mr. Mayes?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: A man who either in this House or outside-


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order, order.


William Pugsley: I say that Mr. Mayes is a shameless and wicked perjurer.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.

Moncton-public building-addition to building and alterations to fittings, $10,000.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Perhaps the minister will explain this?


William Pugsley: This is to make an addition to the public building at Moncton, 35 x 27 feet. We are to make some alterations to the fittings, modernizing it. The estimated cost of the addition is $8,500; alter ations to the fittings, $600; contingencies-and superintendence, $900, total, $10,000. We expect this amount will finish the improvements to the building.
St. John drill hall, $35,000.	___


John Waterhouse Daniel: Perhaps the minister will explain this item.


William Pugsley: It is intended to erect a drill hall in St. John, and for that purpose the Crown has expropriated a site which I think is admirably adapted for the purpose, on Sheffield street, between Wentworth and Sydney streets, taking in two blocks near the exhibition grounds. Although we have expropriated the land, we have not yet made the payments to the owners because they have not agreed to take the amount which has been offered, and it is possible we may have to place the matter before the Exchequer Court, although I trust that an amicable arrangement will be made. We had a small appropriation last year which will -be available foT the payment of the land up to the 31st of next March, and with the vote we are asking for now we will be able to have the tenders called for and a contract for the erection of the drill hall entered into. For a good many years there has been a recognized necessity for a drill hall at St. John. The present one is quite old. It is a wooden building and it is not at all well adapted for the purposes of the militia. I think I can safely assure the committee that this work is absolutely required in the interests of the militia and the public.


John Waterhouse Daniel: From the minister's statement, I judge that the plans of this drill hall have been already prepared. Is that correct?


William Pugsley: Plans were prepared some years ago, but we have not prepared new plans for a building upon this site. It may be that there will be some change necessary. Possibly some slight alterations in the old plans will be all that will be required. We could not prepare the new plans until we got the requisite vote for the purpose.


John Waterhouse Daniel: What is to be the size of the building? Has the minister any details at all?	I


William Pugsley: 


William Pugsley: I cannot tell my hon. friend at present. We have a memorandum from the Department of Militia as to what they require, but we have not yet decided to erect a building according to the requirements of the Militia Department. However the Militia Department suggests a building 199 feet by 124, with two wings at the rear, each 40 feet square. They ask that the drill hall shall be 193 iby 80. There will be two wings upon the building according to the suggestion of the Department of Militia, and it will be two stories with a 'basement. It will contain armouries for eight companies of infantry. It will also have a gun shed, wagon shed, harness room, and armouries for the garrison artillery, army service corps and bearer company. Whether we can meet the views of the Militia Department entirely, I am not prepared to say. The estimated cost of a building such as the Militia Department ask for would be about $200,000. Whether we can afford to erect a building of that high character or not, I am not prepared at the moment to say.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Could the minister give any idea when these plans will be available so that they can be seen? Have any orders been given yet to make the plans?


William Pugsley: I could not have the plans made until the estimate had passed parliament. Just how soon the plans will be ready will depend on how soon the estimates go through; I presume some time during the spring or summer.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I take it that this item is just to pay for the land expropriated?


William Pugsley: No, to do more than that. I rather hope that we will get the land paid for out of the money which we have available during the current year.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is only $2,500.


William Pugsley: We have $12,500, and we hope that $10,000 will pretty well pay for the land.


George Henry Bradbury: There have been a great many of these buildings before the committee to-night, and it struck me as strange that the minister has never produced a plan. It would facilitate matters very much if plans of proposed buildings were laid before the committee.


William Pugsley: I am asking in these estimates for 1,200 different works. If I brought down 1,200 different plans of public buildings and wharfs they would fill this whole room and nobody would look at them. If there is any plan which my hon. friend desires to see, or any information he wishes, I will be very glad to give him a note to the chief architect and he can go and look the plan over. Plans have never been

brought to the committee unless specially asked for in some particular case.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I would like to ask the hon. gentleman to bring down a plan of the building that fronts on those three streets that we inquired about a little while ago.


William Pugsley: As soon as that plan is ready I will be very happy to do so.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: There is another duty devolving upon the minister which he has not yet fulfilled. He is proposing to undertake the erection of a building which he says, according to the judgment of the Militia Department, will cost $200,000. He asks a vote for that. Whether he has or has no plans it seems to me that an intelligent business department would reach some understanding as to what they intended to build and as to about how much it is going to cost and let the House know what that cost is going to be before we vote any money to commence the undertaking. We want to know what we are committing ourselves to, the size of the building, whether there is a need of the building or not, whether what the people ask for is more than they should get and what the government have decided that they are prepared to do in supplying the needs of the people in that place. In other words give us all the information we ought to have to enable us to decide whether we ought to vote that money or refuse to vote it. We ought to know what we are committing ourselves to because afterwards we are confronted with the arguments that we ought to have taken our objection to it when the vote was asked and before the money was spent. Now we are committed to it, contracts have been let and ,we are obliged to vote the money if we think it wise or not. We want the information at the proper time, and this seems to be the proper time to get the information with regard to this item.


William Pugsley: We have to be governed in my department very largely by what, in so far as drill halls and armouries are concerned, are the requirements of the Militia Department. My hon. friend can see that it would not be wise to erect a drill hall which, when it was completed, -would not give the accommodation required for the militia.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: It is on the basis of that information that council decides whether it is wise or unwise to put that item in the estimates.


William Pugsley: As far as St. John is concerned, it was decided years ago to give them a new drill hall. I think it was decided ten or fifteen years ago, when the old government was in power. I think it has been the view of the different ministers that when a new drill hall should be erected in the city of St. John, it should be one that would be creditable to the city and the country and would give the militia the requisite accommodation. St. John is a very important city, having a population, with its suburbs, of about 55,000. The military spirit is very strong in St. John. It has a regiment of artillery and one of infantry, and it has been felt by noth officers and men that great injustice has been done to them in not giving them a drill hall long before this. If we can get the cost of the building below $200,000, we will do so, but I cannot hold out to the committee any expectation that the cost will be less. If it costs that much, it will not be as expensive as the drill hall at Halifax or the one at Hamilton, not nearly as expensive as the one it is proposed to erect in the city of Toronto, and I doubt if it will be very much more expensive than the one erected in the city of Sherbrooke. Nobody will say that $200,000 for a drill hall and armoury in a city of -the size and importance of St. John is an excessive amount, provided it is built substantially of brick and stone and fireproof material, and we do propose that it shall be constructed in a very substantial manner.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: A good deal of what the minister has said is outside of the question altogether. I was not arguing that St. John was not entitled to a drill hall or whether it was costing too little or too much. I was arguing that when the minister submits an item for a new building or a new work of any kind, he should have some data to submit to parliament showing how his estimate was arrived at. I think he ought to tell us what data he placed before Council.


William Pugsley: I have told my hon. friend that the Militia Department has asked my department to provide a drill hall and armoury of a size which my_chief architect estimates will cost $200,000. Until the architect prepares his plans and details I am not prepared to say positively whether or not we can provide a suitable building for less. All I can say is that I do not believe the cost will exceed $200,000. If I can save anything on that, I will do so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: I may say that this matter of a drill hall for St. John has been be-for parliament on several occasions and items have been frequently placed in the estimates for it. I think that in the very first year that I came here I found an item for it in the estimates. So far nothing has materialized, and yet there is no place in the whole Dominion that needs a drill hall more than St. John. I believe that the old drill shed there now was about the first one built in Canada. It is of wood and in wet weather one cannot keep dry in it without an umbrella. The garrison there con-

sists of a regiment of artillery and a regiment of infantry besides tne Army Service corps and the Army Medical corps and we have also to house the heavy 4.7 guns which require a good deal of room. When a drill hall and armoury is to be built there, it would be very foolish to build it of anything but brick and stone. The armoury at Halifax cost from $500,000 to $750,000. In St. John we are not looking so much for extravagant expenditure as for the erection of a really needed armoury and drill hall; and comparing the cost of similar buildings in various parts of the country, members of this House will hardly expect to get anything there worthy of the name and suitable for the requirements at anything less than $200,000.	.
St. John quarantine station, Partridge island-water service and improvements, and repairs to buildings, &c., $2,500.


John Waterhouse Daniel: There is great complaint from the Water and Sewerage Board of the city of St. John of the great wastage from leaky pipes carrying water from the west side of the harbour to Partridge Island, and in connection with this I will read a short item which I have taken from one of the St. John papers:
Improvement needed.-Residents of Lancaster and Carleton Heights complain of the frequent scarcity of water. Carleton water officials say that the great trouble is the enormous leakage through the pipes to Partridge island.
This leakage, which has existed for some time, grows constantly greater despite all efforts to check it. According to dwellers on the heights, the scarcity of water is often a very great inconvenience, and the condition is such that vigorous efforts should he made to meet the conditions.
This is a statement made in the press. And -certainly statements are current that there is a very great leakage from this pipe adjoining the service in St. John West with Partridge island. The pipe is under water, and it may be difficult to find the leak, nevertheless there should be some way of finding it and stopping it.


William Pugsley: 
John Waterhouse Daniel: Whereabouts is the meter situated-on the Carleton side or on the Mr. DANIEL.
island side? In other words, who is paying for the leakage,-the government or the city of St. John?	.


William Pugsley: The chief architect is not quite sure, he tells me. He thinks that recently one was placed on the Carleton side, and if that was done, I suppose it wias to make the department pay for the waste.


John Waterhouse Daniel: That is the way it ought to be.


William Pugsley: I do not think so.


John Waterhouse Daniel: As a citizen of St. John, I would like to know whether the city is or is not paying for the leakage due to the officials of the Department of Public Works not attending to this matter. It must be quite a large amount in the run of a year, and I would like to know


William Pugsley: The department is a very good customer of the city for water.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Not very good. Where is the meter?


William Pugsley: I shall have to find that out. The chief architect says it was formerly on Partridge island, but he thinks that latterly one was put over on the Carleton side.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Will the hon. minister get that information?


William Pugsley: Not to-night.


John Waterhouse Daniel: When?


William Pugsley: On Monday, probably.
St. John quarantine station, Partridge island-to provide for full and final settlement of contractor George McArthur's claims for works performed, &e., in connection with his contract of 26th August, 1904, for the erection of two detention buildings and a hospital, $301.80.


John Waterhouse Daniel: Is that the full amount of the claim?


William Pugsley: I think so. At all
events, it is all I am prepared to recommend.
Tracadie Lazaretto-house and barn, &e., $3,000.


William Pugsley: This is a residence and barn for the doctor at the Tracadie Lazaretto. It is urgently asked for by the medical superintendent.
Public AYorks - chargeable to income- Maritime provinces generally - Dominion public buildings - renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $15,000.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Is that the same amount as last year?


William Pugsley: Yes. There is one other item that, I am sure, the committee will

pass without hesitation. I refer to the item in the supplementary estimates.
Ottawa Military Stores building-to make good the damage caused by fire, $20,000.


William Pugsley: This is necessary in order to enable the department to go on with the work.


Robert Laird Borden: How did the fire occur?


William Pugsley: So far as we can judge it must have been caused by electric wiring getting in contact with some inflammable material.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In what part of the building did the fire start?


William Pugsley: The upper part.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Was there [DOT] any insurance on the property?


William Pugsley: No, the government is its own insurer.


Robert Laird Borden: Are the government buildings all liable to be burned down through defective wiring?


William Pugsley: I do not know just what the question means. Fires are liable to occur at any moment.


Robert Laird Borden: They are not liable to occur from the wiring if that wiring is put in properly insulated. I ask if public buildings are liable to be burned down because of defective wiring?


William Pugsley: I think there ought to be very little risk, but there is a risk. The insulation may be removed from a wire.


Robert Laird Borden: Is there no supervision or regulation?


William Pugsley: Yes, the experts inspect it.


Robert Laird Borden: What do they know about it?


William Pugsley: Whatever experts know.


Robert Laird Borden: What is that?
Mr. PUGSLEY Well, for one thing, that if the wire is properly insulated and properly installed, the danger of fire from the wires is reduced to a minimum. But sometimes, I believe, the insulation may be removed. For instance a rat may gnaw off the insulating material.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I see by the press that the inspector of one of the insurance companies, looking over many Canadian buildings recently, declared that there was but a very small percentage of them wired in a reasonably safe manner, while many were very dangerously wired and liable to fire, and showing that it was of great importance that some inspector should look over
these buildings and determine whether the wiring had been done properly or not. Has the government assigned that duty to any person? Have they been in the habit of examining these buildings to see whether they are correctly wired or whether the method of wiring may give rise to danger?


William Pugsley: When government buildings are being erected, we have an electrical expert who examines very carefully the wiring to see that it is properly insulated, and from time to time we have the electric wiring inspected. In the items we have passed here are some amounts for rewiring which is the result of examination. Some years ago there was not the same care taken with respect to insulating wires which is taken to-day. Electric wiring is much safer to-day than it was some years ago, because greater care is taken to insulate the wires.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: When was this building last examined as regards the safety of the wiring and how frequently do these inspections take place?


William Pugsley: The chief architect informs me that they are inspected very frequently. I cannot say from week to week or from month to month, but from time to time inspection is made.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Is any record taken when these inspections are made?


William Pugsley: I cannot say to-night when the last inspection was made?


Robert Laird Borden: When was the building last examined for rats? '


William Pugsley: My hon. friend makes a joke of the rat question, but it is more serious than he imagines. I think that rats and mice are responsible for more fires than people give them credit for, in the friction of matches and the destroying of the insulation of wire.	[DOT]


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Did the hon. gentleman have any investigation made to ascertain what was really the cause of this fire?


William Pugsley: The Militia Department did, but my hon. friend will see how difficult it must be to ascertain just how the fire occurred, provided it resulted from the wiring, and we are not able to trace it to any other cause. If it resulted from the wiring, that is in a part of the building which was destroyed, and it will be impossible to ascertain with what the electric wires came in contact.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: What is the total amount of the loss?


William Pugsley: About $150,000.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: If the hon. minister would do what any ordinary company , would do, which had to pay that amount

of money, he would not be satisfied to guess at the cause of the fire. No insurance company would pay out that amount and content itself with guessing whether the fire was caused by rats or mice as the hon. gentleman does.


William Pugsley: The building was occupied by the Militia Department and was known as the militia stores building. I understand that the Militia Department made an investigation, but I am not in a position to say what has been the result, and the Minister of Militia is not here to give it.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Then the hon. gentleman should not ask us to pass that item without such information.


William Pugsley: We must repair the building at once. It w-ould be the greatest folly not to do so. We must have a roof put on to prevent the rain coming in and destroying valuable property.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: But we want the repairs done in such a way that the building will not burn down within another week or two.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend need have no fears with regard to the electric wiring, because now that is carried in steel conduits. I would be very glad to give all the information on this subject and will get it from the Department of Militia and lay it before the House, but I would ask the committee to pass the item so that we may get to work with the least possible delay.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Does the minister say that the government carry no insurance on the property but insure it themselves. What kind of insurance is that?


William Pugsley: Of course there is no policy issued, but owing to the large number of buildings owned by the government it has always been thought less expensive not to insure at all, because the losses would not be so heavy as the cost of the premiums.


Mr. COWAN.: If the government carries no insurance, one would think it would take the ordinary business precaution of having the wiring inspected at regular periods.


William Pugsley: If the hon. gentleman means that on a certain day in a certain month each building shall be inspected, there is no periodical inspection of that kind,, but there is a continual inspection going on.


Mr.  R. L.@: BORDEN, Is any record kept of each inspection?


William Pugsley: I cannot say to-night, but I can find out from the expert who Mr. LANCASTER.
does the inspection, and will be able to inform the House later at what time this building was last inspected and what is the system of inspection.


George Henry Cowan: I would think that he should wait until he is prepared to give that information.


William Pugsley: In the meantime a big rain might come on and destroy a lot of valuable property.


George Henry Cowan: Or a big rat. It seems to me that the Dominion government should at least take the ordinary precaution exercised by a business firm-


William Pugsley: So it does.


George Henry Cowan: I think it should either insure its own property or take steps to guard more effectively against loss. This particular item does not amount to very much, but if all the property of the Dominion, under control of the Public Works Department, is not subjected to periodical inspection, that seems to me a very startling condition of affairs.


William D. Staples: Has there been any other fire in any other public building in this city during the last year?


William Pugsley: I recall one slight fire.


William D. Staples: Caused by a mouse or a rat?


William Pugsley: I only know it was put out very quickly.


William D. Staples: What fire was that?


William Pugsley: We had better pass this item first.


William D. Staples: But it is a fair question. We are responsible to the people for these buildings, the people carry their own insurance and we should receive adequate protection, as my hon. friend says, against any fire.


William Pugsley: The chief architect says there has been no fire in any of the public buildings except a very slight fire which occurred in my own office some months ago and which was immediately extinguished by means of the hose which was just outside the door. We have a very excellent fire apparatus in the buildings and there was no difficulty on that occasion in putting it out immediately.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: In view of the position the item is in, I think it had better stand. The minister says he had no idea the item was coming up.


William Pugsley: No, what I said was that I did not know I would be asked the question as to the inspection of the wiring in the buildings and therefore I was not prepared to-night to give the information

as to that. However, I will get the infor mation and will submit it to the committee. I appeal to the good judgment o| the members of the House and ask whether they think that as this building has been so seriously damaged by fire, a building containing a great deal of very valuable property amounting in all to nearly a million dollars in value, which is liable to be injured by rain, the roof having been destroyed, it is in the public interest that this item should be delayed. Should the item not pass in order that we may as soon as possible proceed to the repair of this building?


Robert Laird Borden: For what year is it a supplementary estimate?


William Stevens Fielding: For the current year.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The minister spoke of another fire. Has he ascertained what it originated from?


William Pugsley: No.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Would it not be advisable to set apart a portion of this money to purchase a rat trap?


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman's suggestions are usually worthy of consideration and very wise and I have no doubt this is as wise as the suggestions he ordinarily makes to the committee.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: In view of the intelligence and great prescience of the hon. gentleman from whom it comes, I take it for granted it is accurate.


Richard Blain: What will be the total cost of these repairs and will they be done by public tender or day's work?


William Pugsley: The total cost is estimated at $20,000 and the intention is to ask for tenders for the work.


George Henry Bradbury: I was surprised to hear the minister say that there was so much danger in connection with the wiring of public buildings. He admitted later on that a building could be wired and made . perfectly safe. Every one who knows anything about the system of wiring a building knows that it is possible to wire it so that no mouse or rat can injure the wiring. I think that every public building in this city should be examined and that the wiring in many of them should be changed. A few years ago a serious fire occurred in the Marine Department and many very valuable documents were lost. That fire was attributed to bad wiring. Where it is an admitted fact that a building can be wired in such a way that accidents become almost impossible, every public building in Ottawa should be rewired. I think it would pay the government. Here is a loss of $150,000, an amount which would more than wire every government building in the city and make them perfectly safe. I think that is worthy of consideration.


William Pugsley: I quite agree that that is worthy of consideration. Of course when these buildings were erected the modern system of electric wiring was not in use. The new wing has the steel conduits.


Robert Laird Borden: I think the information' asked for this afternoon should be brought down later on. We should also have information as to whether or not there was any watchman in that building.


William Pugsley: The Dominion Police have charge of the building.


Robert Laird Borden: I saw the statement, I do not know what reliance is to be placed on it, that if a watchman or caretaker had been in charge very little damage would have been done.


William Pugsley: I will undertake that information will be furnished to the committee from both my own department and the Militia Department.
Some resolutions reported.
Mr. FIELDING moved the adjournment of the House. He said: On Tuesday next I propose to proceed with the Bills representing the French Treaty.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and House adjourned at 11.10 p. m.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, November, 29, 1909.