1914-05-23

PAPER PRESENTED.

[Stage Direction]
Copy of Order in Council concerning the organization of the Naval Volunteer Force. -Mr. Hazen.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 209, respecting certain patents of the F. N. Burt Company, Limited.- Mr. Burnham.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Dav being called:
Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: There has been a persistent rumour that the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company has been asking for assistance from the Government, and there is a statement in the newspapers to the effect that it has withdrawn its application. Can my right hon. friend give us any information in regard to the matter?


Mr. BORDEN:: There has been some negotiation and disc, 3ion with regard to. the matter. There has iseen no withdrawal, so far as I am aware.



INSPECTION AND SALES ACT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. George E. Foster (Minister of Trade and Commerce), Bill No. 134, to amend the Inspection and Sales Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-R.S., c. 85, s. 2, amended:
Mr. FOSTER:: The chief purpose of the Bill is to amend this Act so as to include feeds, which are now a very important article of commerce, in the same category as flour and meal. A Bill was passed through this House, I think in 1912, on this basis; but it was at the latter part of the session, and it failed to get consideration in the Senate. This Bill has been introduced in the Senate, and has been pretty thoroughly thrashed out there, and the Bill, as it comes to us from that body, is practically

unanimously agreed upon by them. The various boards of trade, the associations of vegetable dealers in Montreal and Toronto, the Dominion Millers Association and other bodies, have 'been, during the last three years, consulted with reference to this matter, and have come practically to a unanimous opinion with regard to it. The same precautions are taken in this Bill with reference to the weight and brand of feeds as are taken in the original Act with reference to flour and meal.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-feed:
George Eulas Foster: There is a typographical error in this section. The word 'feeds should be 'seeds,' and I want the word ''whole' prefixed to that, so that it will read 'includes the whole seeds.' After the word 'mixed' the words 'or unmixed' have been left out. The section will therefore read:
In this part, ' feed ' means and includes the whole seeds or mixed or unmixed meals or other feeding products.
The purpose of the section is to give a definition to feeds.


Mr. ROBB:: Ts the minister not mistaken? It does not sound quite right. I think the section is right as it is in the original Bill.


Wilfrid Laurier: I think my hon. friend is right. His idea is that feed means the ground article. The section, as it stands at present, reads:
3n this part, ' feed ' means and includes the pseds . . . made from the entire grains of wheat-
And so on. Evidently that means feeds which, have been ground.


George Eulas Foster: The instructions that I have are as follows:
Clause 2 is amended by substituting ' whole seeds ' for the word ' feeds ' in the first line of the clause, and by inserting ' or unmixed '-
Errors made when the Bill was first printed.


James Alexander Robb: I think the clause reads
fairly well as it is, and I cannot see any common sense in the change suggested. As I understand it, ' feed ' is defined as made from the whole grain. Further on, I suppose, there will be something that applies to adulterated feed.
[Mr. G. E. Fostml


Mr. OLIVER:: Does the expression
' whole seeds ' cover other than seeds specified latex on in the Bill?


George Eulas Foster: I should think it meant
whole seeds of wheat, rye, barley, etc., and not other kinds of seeds.


Frank Oliver: Then, why include the
words? It makes no difference whether it is made from the whole grain or from broken grain.


James Alexander Robb: I fancy that some one has
made the suggestion, because it was believed they might use other seed in making feed at the Fort William elevator.


George Eulas Foster: It is true that at these
elevators large quantities of feeding stuffs are made of other seeds than the ordinary cereals.


Frank Oliver: If you are going to allow weed seeds >as feeds, it would be desirable to be more specific than you will be by changing the wood ' feed ' into the word ' seed.' It should be thoroughly understood what you mean. If you ore going to authorize this feed and give these weed seeds a legal status, you had better say so in so many words.


George Eulas Foster: How better could you define it than by the expression 'whole seeds'? There are a thousand and one different seeds that -are used for this purpose.


Frank Oliver: It might be the 'refuse' under the present law and could be so defined.


George Eulas Foster: Recently there went
through my office a very elaborate .analysis of these weed seeds taken out in the cleanings at the elevators, showing that in some cases they have very excellent feeding qualities. And at the Experimental Farm they are experimenting upon the value of these different seeds for feeding purposes. The expression ' whole seeds ' was undoubtedly left in to include such seeds, and I do not see what better definition could be given.


Frank Oliver: But three or four capable and important members of Parliament seem to question how far this goes. Would it not be better to make it so clear that even those who are not members of Parliament would know what it means?


George Eulas Foster: I think my hon. friend
from Huntingdon (Mt. Robb) agrees that the expression ' whole seeds ' should go in,

and I do not see any better place than where it is.


Frank Oliver: Is it not contrary to good policy to allow whole seeds of weeds to be sold as feed? Should not the fertility of these seeds be destroyed by breaking or grinding before they are allowed to be treated as feed?


George Eulas Foster: They could not be used
whole for feeding purposes, I imagine. They are ground or broken up, and as feed their germinating quality is destroyed.


Frank Oliver: Yes, but if the law provides that the whole seed of weeds shall be recognized as a marketable and standardized feed, is it not possible that they may be transferred as 'whole seeds'? I contend that they should not be allowed to be moved until they are broken up.


George Eulas Foster: But they have to be moved to be broken up. How would it do to make the section read:
In this part, * feed ' means and includes the feeds or mixed or unmixed meals or other feeding products made from the entire grains of wheat, rye, harley, oats, Indian corn, buckwheat, or flaxseed or other seeds or other feeding stuffs, and the bran and middlings from wheat, rye, oats, peas, Indian corn, buckwheat, flax or sugar beet.
Section so amended, agreed to.
On section 4-section 163 amended:


George Eulas Foster: This adds rolled oats and rolled wheat to the original provision, which included only flour and meal. The reason is of course, that these are important articles of commerce and if there is any reason why the Act should apply to flour and meal, these is reason why it should apply also to these two products. As subsection 4 of this section is provided for in section 6, which adds a new section 164a, I would suggest that it be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
James Alexander Robb: What does the minister understand by subsection 2:
When any such article is contained in a wooden package other than a barrel or a halfbarrel.


George Eulas Foster: These articles are put up in other packages and this provides for any package made out of wood other than the barrel or half-barrel and applies to the net weight of the contents. That is the rule which is taken all through this Act and it is the same as applies in the enactments along this line of the United States Congress and in eight different states of the
United States where they have similar legislation. That does away with disputes as to the weights of packages; the man who gets the article must get what is the net weight of the contents of the package.


James Alexander Robb: What does the ministerthink of putting in after the word ' wooden *' the words ' or other ' ? They might use a, heavy tin.


George Eulas Foster: There is no objection to
that.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 5-section 164 repealed:


George Eulas Foster: This allows co-partnerships or incorporated companies as well as persons themselves to put on the brand.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 6-new section:
George Eulas Foster: This section provides that what has hitherto applied to barrels and half-barrels shall apply to bags and packages. Subsection d is unnecessary, as it is provided for in section 7, 164b, and I move th A it be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Frank Oliver: Why is there in subsection b an exception to the requirements stating weight in the case of feed?


George Eulas Foster: That is that the provisions of subsection b as to brand shall not apply to feed. The reason is that these feeds have not settled down into what you may call standard qualities and it is considered better that the brand should be omitted from feeds. The weights and the composition, however, shall be stated.


Mr. KAY:: Where the feed is made from weed seed, will that toe stated on the package?


George Eulas Foster: Yes.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 7-exceptions from provisions as to marking.


Mr. CARROLL:: What is the reason for subsection b?


George Eulas Foster: The object of the first subsection is to avoid interfering more than is necessary with people who go into a store to buy flour for themselves, who have their own packages and have the flour weighed out in their presence. They are supposed to be able to look after themselves. Subsection b was placed in the Bill when it

passed the Senate before, chiefly, I am told, on the representation of the late Senator Campbell. The reason is that there are many buyers of Canadian flour doing business in foreign countries who do not want all these marks upon the flour. They buy the flour and put on their own brands or marks; if brands are placed on before it is sold by the miller in Canada that restricts the sale. The situation is similar to that [DOT]with respect to binder twine which was [DOT]dealt with by the House this session.


Frank Oliver: I wish to put in the same -protest against this as I did against the [DOT]other. I think it is a very short-sighted provision. I think we should make it our first principle, in dealing with foreign countries especially, that what we sell will be according to specifications and will be as represented. I certainly cannot appreciate the attitude of mind of dealers who do not want to have the facts as to the commodity they deal in stated plainly, and shown by the certificates and authority of the Government of the country in which the article is bought.


William F. Carroll: Might this not hurt Canadian trade in flour and hurt the Canadian miller through foreign dealers misrepresenting Canadan products?


George Eulas Foster: As to being injurious to
millers, it is the millers who wish to have this done. This does not go as a Canadian flour, and so the use of these brands does not depreciate Canadian brands. There are no brands upon it as it leaves this country. The buyer puts his own brands on.


James Alexander Robb: The large dealer in Liverpool who deals with a Canadian miller generally knows whether that miller is honest or not and whether he is going to get what he buys on sample. The brand is put on to suit the market where it is going.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 8-requirements as to barrels:
James Alexander Robb: Has the minister had any
representations as to permitting the use of other material than wood?


George Eulas Foster: No.


James Alexander Robb: 
George Eulas Foster: ' Or other suitable material ' might be quite proper. If it should be found that it is desired to use other material in these barrels it would be an easy matter to amend the Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 14-deficiency in weight:
George Eulas Foster: A representation has been made to me since this was passed. The old section concludes:
Unless such deficiency of weight appears to be occasioned by some accident unknown to such manufacturer or packer and happening after the packing of the barrel or half-barrel.
I have been asked to put in after the word ' packer':
Or normal shrinkage due to natural causes.
This seems a fair thing, and I have no objection to its insertion.
Section, as amended, agreed to.
On section 15-selling flour, etc., in bags, not properly marked:


James Alexander Robb: Taking this and the previous clause together, how would they affect the farmer who has a large grist ground and weighed out at the mill in his presence, and who subsequently offers it for sale to his neighbours?


George Eulas Foster: The clause seems to be very inclusive. Whilst we are making provision to ease off the restrictions in the case of a farmer who wants to buy from the miller, it was not with the idea of putting him in a position to go into the selling business. It seems to me the clause is inclusive enough to catch any one violating it. (Reading):
Every person who sells, offers for sale, or has In his possession for sale, any bag, sack or similar packages of flour, meal, oats, rolled wheat or feed, which is not marked in accordance with the requirements of section 164a of this Act, shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a penalty-
Is there any reason why he should not be? For instance, he might get these small quantities weighed out to him at the mill, and then go out and sell them even though they were not up to brand and might be underweight. So long as we give the smaller buyer a chance to buy for himself, we have to include him in the penalty if he sets up as a seller afterwards. Otherwise, we should be opening a very wide door indeed.


Mr. CARVELL:: Is the word 'person' interpreted in the original Act? Would a



MAX' 23, 1914

[Stage Direction]
joint stock company be responsible for its clerk, for instance?
George Eulas Foster: I suppose they would be responsible for what the clerk did.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 16-inspector's weekly statement:
George Eulas Foster: This simply substitutes the Department of Trade and Commerce for the Department of Inland Revenue, which formerly received these statements.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 17-weight of bushel of certain articles:
Frank Oliver: Are there any changes?


George Eulas Foster: I will try to explain. Let us look for a moment at the description of articles given in the section. Artichokes were not in the old law, but they are brought under this new'law and the weight is fixed at 56 pounds a bushel. No change has been made in the following articles: Beans, beets, bituminous coal, blue grass seed, castor beans, clover seed, hemp seed, lime, malt, onions, potatoes and timothy seed. Carrots were sixty pounds in the old Act, and are now made fifty pounds. Parsnips were sixty pounds in the old Act, and are now made forty-five pounds. Turnips were sixty pounds in the old Act and are now made fifty pounds. In regard to the weight of bag for certain articles, the rule observed is to make the bag the equivalent in pounds of a bushel and a half, so that there is agreement between the bag and the bushel in relation to the real weights included in each package. This has been a bone of contention for a good many years and it has been found very difficult to get a thorough accord. At the present time, I may say there is a general consensus of opinion in regard to the weight, and although everybody is not satisfied I think the great majority are. This Bill, passed by the Senate about four weeks ago, has been distributed, but I have had no protests from any sources with reference to the weights. I take it, therefore, that this is probably as good as we can do. It has the advantage of making a uniform weight for both bushels and bags all through the Dominion, and that is a great gain when interprovincial trade is increasing to such a large extent.


Frank Oliver: The same principle has
not been applied to parsnips.


George Eulas Foster: No, we did not want to be pedantically uniform.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 18-barrel of potatoes:
George Eulas Foster: The last legislation in regard to potatoes, introduced iby the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Carvell), in 1911. placed the weight of a barrel at 160 pounds. This section places it at 165 pounds. We have taken opinions in regard to this, and I am able to say that my hon. friend is in favour of the change.


William F. Carroll: A different measure can be agreed upon between buyer and seller.


George Eulas Foster: Yes, it does not detract from their power to contract.
On section 19-weights of vegetables:


George Eulas Foster: The old section only provided penalties for the province of Quebec; this makes the penalties common to the Act.


James Alexander Robb: Will the hon. minister explain under what rule of equity he fines a miller ten cents for putting up a bag of flour or feed of short weight, while if a farmer puts up his vegetables short weight he is fined twenty-five dollars?


George Eulas Foster: The general rule, I think, has always existed, that we are better to the farmers than to any other class. They are, so to speak, smaller potatoes than the millers.


Mr. BURRELL:: I cannot agree to that.


George Eulas Foster: Well, in the line of fines. We may say, without going too far, that the farmers are generally known to be honest, and whatever the penalty be, they are not liable to incur it.


Mr. GRAHAM:: Are you a farmer?


George Eulas Foster: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 21-date of coming into force of Act:
George Eulas Foster: 

COLD STORAGE REGULATION.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 113, to regulate cold storage warehouses.- Mr. Burrell; Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: When this Bill was- up
before it wasi criticised on the ground that it did not make any specific declaration in itself but merely enabled the Government to do as it pleases in regard to cold storage. For my own part, I do not intend to impede unduly the passage of the Bill, but now that it is before the House I wish to emphasize the position I took on the former occasion. I say that this is of too great importance and touches too closely the well-being of the producer and consumer throughout Canada, and has too intimate a bearing upon the high cost of living to warrant its being dealt with by Order in Council instead of by legislation. This Bill is simply an abdication of its functions by Parliament, giving the Government full authority to do as it pleases under Order in Council. I think it is an altogether unwise proceeding on the part of the Government to make such a demand on Parliament; I do not think it is in the best interests of the country and I take this opportunity of saying so. I think the Bill should have been introduced at an earlier period in the session, when the whole question of cold storage could and ought to have been threshed out by the House, not with any view to partisan considerations but with a view to ascertain the experience, and knowledge, and intelligence, and necessity, of each part of the country affected by cold storage, and, therefore, necessarily affected by this legislation. I think that course would have resulted in very valuable information to the Government and to the House and would have probably brought about a more satisfactory result than will be achieved by the present Bill. The Government have seen fit to delay bringing the Bill before Parliament until this late date of the session, when it is not possible to give that full consideration to the whole question of cold storage that is desirable and necessary, if the matter is to be adequately dealt with. However, the Government have assumed the responsibility and they will have to bear it.


Martin Burrell: I frankly admit the force 6f some of the contentions of my hon. friend (Mr. Oliver). It was the intention to have referred this Bill to the
12 noon. Committee on Agriculture for the express purpose of obtaining evidence and going into the question very thoroughly. I regret that delay. It was

partly owing to the pressure of other important business that the matter was not attended to; but meanwhile it seems to me that we should pass this Bill. The questions raised in the discussion the other night I do not think the Government will be able to deal with in statutory provisions without perhaps making unfortunate mistakes; and it is our feeling that, even if the Bill, as my hon. friend states, gives too much power -to the Governor in Council to make regulations, it will have good results on the general question of cold storage throughout the country, -and meanwhile it will give us an opportunity of getting more light on the whole matter, because there is a great deal we do not yet know in regard to it. The different States are continually appointing commissions to find out where they have made mistakes. The federal authorities in the United States have not yet come to any conclusion as to a Bill; and it seems to me that, under the difficulties presented, a Bill such as this, that would give us power to do these things through the Governor in Council, would at all events have a beneficial effect; and it would be a good thing in another session, when we have that fuller light, for hon. members on both sides of the House to endeavour to arrive at some conclusion, and to embody further provisions in the Bill. In the meantime I would ask my hon. friend to let the Bill pass as it is.


William F. Carroll: I do not intend to make any further serious objection than I did the other night to the passing of this Bill. I am one of those who argued as strongly as I could against giving the Governor in Council power to make laws with regard to cold storage or any other matter that might come before Parliament. As has been very properly pointed out by the minister, perhaps the department have not got as full information as they would like to have in regard to this matter; but my objection in bringing down legislation in that form is that any department of the Government, if they are going to attempt to give us good legislation, should not bring it down until they have the fullest possible details as to the whole matter that the legislation is to cover. This legislation, however, may have some good effect, and I hope it will. Section 3 reads as follows:
The Governor in Council may make such regulations as he deems necessary or expedient, to provide for a supervision of all cold storage warehouses.
That gives the Governor in Council power to make any regulation, any law,

any rule whatever. Section 4 deals with certain specific phases of the situation. Is it the intention of the Government to grant by section 3 wider powers than are specified in section 4?


Martin Burrell: This Bill, of course,
was gone over very carefully by the law officers of the Crown. I would take it that section 3 is modified by section 4, which points out the particular form the regulations may take. I do not think section 3 would be a blanket charter to provide anything; I think it would be limited by section 4.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House again in Committee on Bill No. 173, respecting British Nationality, Naturalization and Aliens-Mr. Doherty; Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 2-certificate of natpraliza-tion:
Mr. NEELY:: Will the minister tell us what the word ' adequate ' means in subsection b, and who will be the judge as to the meaning of the word?


Mr. DOHERTY:: I should think that ' adequate ' means ' sufficient.' If one stops to think what the effect of naturalization is one gets light on what should be * sufficient ' knowledge. The man is to become a British subject. It seems to us, as it seems to those in the old country, that if you are going to make a man a British subject, to give him the rights and privileges and subject him to the obligation of the status, it is but fair that you should require of him that he should understand the language in which the laws of the country are enacted. For my part I think that, in view of the purpose to be attained it is an 'adequate' knowledge of either of our official languages to be able to understand and make one's self understood in the language. It probably would be desirable that in making the regulations which under a subsequent section the Governor in Council is empowered to make, to define the word in that sense. In England they go further in their interpretation of the word ' adequate ' and require that a candidate for naturalization should be able to read, write and speak the English language. I think, as I have said, that the circumstances of this country
do not call for such a definition. Now, if Parliament is willing to leave it to us to judge what is ' adequate ' without defining it in the Act, we have the advantage of having our statute in this respect the same as that of the Parliament of Great Britain with which we are endeavouring to cooperate. And they are evidently willing to leave to us the interpretation of the word for ourselves while they interpret it for themselves. As one who will have something to do with making the regulations, that is the meaning I would attach to the word ' adequate.'


David Bradley Neely: The minister has not said whether in his opinion it would be necessary for the applicant to write the language as well as speak it.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I thought I had. I said that in my view ' adequate ' knowledge of the language was sufficient knowledge to understand and make one's self understood. That does not imply the necessity of being able either to read or write it. I endeavoured to point out in what respect that definition differs from what was required in England.


David Bradley Neely: Then how is it to be established that an applicant has an 'adequate' knowledge of the language? As I understand it he is not required to appear personally before the examiner who, in most provinces, will be a judge of the Supreme Court or of any district court. How will it be established that the applicant has ' adequate ' knowledge? The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. Carroll) says by affidavit. But that hardly fills the bill. The applicant is not required to sign his name in English-all he is required to do is to make his mark, and as to his knowledge of the language, anybody might declare his knowledge was ' adequate '. It is virtually left to the applicant himself.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Under section 21 the applicant must adduce evidence that will satisfy the judge that he complies with the conditions. We all know how things can be proved and no necessity exists for making special provision here in regard to that. The judge knows the laws of evidence. One effective means of proof would be to call the man before him; or, if that were not possible, the man's knowledge of English or French could be established by the evidence of those who have talked with him in either English or French. The fact of his knowledge would be proven like any other fact.


Wilfrid Laurier: To my mind the important provision of this section is the period of probation, which is changed from three years to five years. The only reason given is that this is the position taken in Great Britain.


Charles Joseph Doherty: No; the other reason is that representations have come from different parts of the country, I think I may say more particularly from the West, that the time in which a man should have lived in this country or in some other country where the benefit of British institutions is enjoyed should be longer than is now provided. That is not an additional requirement with regard to residence in Canada; the residence in Canada might be even shorter than it is to-day. But the Bill does add to the period of time during which the man must have lived under the institutions that we live under.


Wilfrid Laurier: The information is certainly new to me. So far as I can remember, and I think so far as the hon. gentleman himself can remember, the period of probation for naturalization in Canada has always been three years. The hon. gentleman says that representation is made from the West to the effect that this should be extended to five years. There are members from the West who can speak on that subject. For my part, I can only say that my information is to the contrary. For my part, I have not heard a single protest against the period of tTiree years, and I am surprised that any such information has come to my hon. friend. This feature of the case is not without importance. Thousands of people are induced to come here every year upon the strength of our law, which is always held before them, providing that after three years' residence they may obtain naturalization. It is true that we can change the period, but if we do so we must change also the land laws. In my judgment, the provision for three years' residence to obtain naturalization and, consequently, all the political and other rights which, as a matter of course, go with that neturalization, is an inducement to many persons to come here. Many persons who are waiting for expiration of the three-year period and looking forward to their obtaining the privileges of Canadian citizenship will have their hopes deferred for two years or more, as the case may be, if the change proposed by my hon. friend is effected. The privileges of naturalization and the rights of franchise were among the most important causes which led to the troubles

in South Africa. One of the grievances of the Uitlanders was that President Kruger, after inviting them to South Africa, changed the period of probation before they could obtain the rights of franchise. I would urge my hon. friend seriously to consider the matter 'before he makes this change. He told me that this change was not being made to conform with the British Act, but I do not think my hon. friend would have thought of changing this law if it were not for the British Act, which requires a residence period of five years. Why they require that period is a matter for them to determine, but it seems to me that there is no reason why we should follow them in that respect if the three-year period is more desirable for Canada.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I did not say that the fact that that was the requirement of the authorities in the United Kingdom was not one of the reasons for the change, but when my right hon. friend said that that was the only reason, I pointed out that there was another. With regard to the information which I received, I may say that last fall when I had occasion to make a journey through the West, I was surprised to find how generally my attention was called to that and to find from how many sources- and I met people at large non-political gatherings-that representation came. I have had letters not only from the West, but also from one or two of the eastern provinces, pointing out the desirability of extending the period. With regard to the position of men who came here under a law that provided that in three years they might obtain naturalization, I may point out, in the first place, that while we aTe now extending the period, we are also going to give them a very much moTe valuable naturalization. In the second place, I hardly think that it can be taken that when a man comes into a country in which there exists a certain condition of law, there is any implied contract on the part of that country that it will not change its law. These people have come in, it being provided that after three years' residence in Canada they could get the very limited and restricted naturalization which is given under our present law. If in the judgment of Parliament it is better for this country that we should have a naturalization law requiring a longer period of residence within the British dominions and conferring the quality of a subject throughout the British dominions, I hardly think that the person who came in here when there was a law allowing a limited naturalization within three years

has any ground for complaint because of the enactment of the law that we are now proposing. As I said, 1 cannot recognize that there is any contract on our part that we will never change our law and the person who is affected by the change in the sense that he will have to wait a little longer, shares with everybody (who will obtain naturalization under this law the counterbalancing advantage of getting the wider naturalization. It does seem to me that under these circumstances there is no serious ground for complaint. If this law be considered desirable in the interests of this country; if we want to have a system of naturalization that will extend throughout the empire and if the passing of this law,	in	addition to	whateveradvantage	it	may bring	to us,
is furthermore the accomplishment of a condition necessary to our arriving at an empire-wide naturalization, we should not be asked to stop simply because there are some people in this country who, when they came in, thought that they would get this limited naturalization at the end of three years.


David Bradley Neely: I think that the attention of the Minister of Justice was called yesterday by the hon. member for Regina to the practical question that would arise under this extension of time in reference to the administration of the land laws and the granting of patents to homesteaders. I presume that the minister will have to find some way out of that difficulty, because the land laws permit the granting of a patent at the end of three years1' residence. I suppose that the Government will not pass a law or make regulations permitting the granting of a patent for homestead to one who is not a full-flediged Canadian citizen. 'During the discussion that took place upon a motion offered iby the hon. member for Pietou last session, the Minister of Justice, referring to the point as to whether or not we should have the two statutes of naturalization, admitted that it was quite possible. He said:
There is nothing to prevent us granting a man who has been three years resident in Canada all the rights that naturalization now gives him in Canada, even though we should not call it naturalization.
I do not know how the minister, in the course of his trip through the West, got the idea that a large number of people in the West were anxious that the time should be extended from three to five years. I know there are a few supercilious Canadians who always look with a sense of superiority on those of our citizens who were born on foreign soil, and say: Oh, we grant the rights and privileges of Canadian citizenship too easily, too readily, to these people, and the term should be five or seven years. In my judgment, this extension of time is absolutely unnecessary. The great mass of the people of the West, born on Canadian soil, born within the British Empire, are not anxious to have this time extended. A man coming to this country comes here solely for the purpose of bettering his condition, to spend his life here, to raise his family here; and he can have but one object in mind. He must become a permanent resident, and must adopt the flag and the ideals of citizenship of the country to which he comes. I think that the three years' probation is quite sufficient. To adopt the five years period to meet the requirements of the Imperial Act when you are granting Imperial naturalization is another proposition. Even if we do that, I think we should still retain the three year term for the purposes of local naturalization that will give all the rights and privileges that are enjoyed under our present naturalization laws.


Mr. MORPHY:: I have not had the pleasure of listening to the views propounded by the Minister of Justice, but I desire to fall in with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely). It has often appeared to me that the longer period of residence you require for the naturalization of aliens, especially those from southern Europe, the longer it will take them to recognize the responsibilities they owe to the country of their adoption. I believe if the period were shortened these men would more quickly realize not only the privileges they share in the new country to which they have come, but also the liabilities, the duties that they owe to the Government of that new country; in other words, the quicker they would appreciate in every way the new status that they had taken upon themselves. From a Canadian point of view, I have a very strong feeling that we have not been sufficiently aggressive about this matter. I have, and have had for many years, a strong feeling that the Imperial Parliament has not come as closely to us as it should have come. I do not see why, twenty years ago, the Imperial Parliament, having voiced the sentiment of British world power, even although they tend to look upon Canada as a colony, should not

have been so advanced in their legislation as to have put upon the statute book of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland an Act that would have made British subjects throughout the world recognize that they all had the same status as British subjects, whether they lived in the colonies or not. I feel that under these circumstances a strong protest should be made from Canadians that would reach the central authority in England and impress the Government there with the idea that there are hundreds of thousands of Canadians living in Canada, native-born British Canadians, who, feel that for lack of legislation of the proper kind they have not reached that status of world-wide British citizenship which they desire and deserve. I cannot conceive of a more (ridiculous position than the state of affairs that we have in this country. We, as an independent legislature, legislating so far as Canadian territory is concerned, have put upon on statute-book ami Act which says that we may naturalize an alien, but that our work is limited territorialy to the land under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament. Surely the day has come when we ought to have, if we have not got it, some power-[DOT] and every British colony should have the same power-to declare that an alien, naturalized under the law of any colonial Parliament, is a British subject the world over. I understand that that is the intention, and I do not think that there should be any delay about it.
*Clause 2 of this Bill provides that the alien must be of good character and must have an adequate knowledge of eitheir the English or French language. Now, we have a very great German population in Canada, a population which is rapidly advancing in numbers, of the most estimable citizens that any state can have. I recognize that the language of the Bill is in keeping with our constitutional limits. Still that clause seems to me to be more or less offensive in specifying these two languages, English and French, and leaving out a language which is represented by people in every province of this Dominion, and in many places, in western Ontario, for' instance, in very large numbers. Take the whole Waterloo and Perth tract; any one living there would almost think that he was living in Europe so far as the nomenclature is concerned. You have your Berlin, your Hamburg, your StrasbuTg, your Mannheim, Your Nithburg,

Wartburg, Rostock, Neustadt, and so on. I merely wish to draw the minister's attention to the fact that in this country we have a splendid body of German citizens who deserve consideration in connection with this question. I am not prepared to offer a remedy myself, but I am drawing the minister's attention to this condition in the hope that the legislation may free up to some extent. A certain time must elapse before a language can ibe learned, but I agree to a very large extent with the hon. member for Humboldt (Mr Neely) that the sooner a man is naturalized, the sooner he will get into our way of living.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I agree entirely with
the remarks of the hon. member for North Perth (Mr. Morphy). This measure contains two contradictory principles; one is liberal, the other is reactionary. The measure is liberal in that it provides that a British subject shall be recognized as such in every part of the empire. That has been sought for a good many years without success, the question having been discussed on several occasions at the different Imperial Conferences. As the right hon. leader of the Opposition said yesterday, my hon. friend has at last found a convenient way of removing the obstacles in the way of empire-wide naturalization. We agree with that principle. A British citizen in Canada should be a British citizen in every part of the empire. The reactionary principle is in extending the period of residence in Canada from three to five years before one can be recognized as a British subject, and giving the Secretary of State very arbitrary powers. I do not see why the period has been extended. This country invites immigration; in fact, it advertises for immigrants of the agricultural and domestic classes, I can quite understand why the period of residence is longer in England. As was stated by several hon. gentlemen yesterday, England does not want immigrants, and it is obvious that the British Government is not going to invite aliens to share in the good things provided by recent social legislation in England. Why should England invite the aliens of central and southern Europe to participate in Mr. Floyd George's old age pensions and other similar laws? Another reason why England does not want immigrants is that the area of the British Isles is limited and cannot sustain the population that a large country like Canada can. But I see no reason why

in a country like ours, with 400,000 or perhaps 500,000 immigrants coming in every year, we should extend the period of residence. As the hon. member for .North Perth stated a moment ago, the sooner our immigrants realize the advantages of British citizenship, the better it will !be for them and the country.
This being a bilingual country my hon. friend has included in the Bill a clause by which the two official languages are to be the test for immigrants, and I am very glad to see that principle embodied in the Bill. But I am broad and generous enough to also consider the claims of other races. As has just been said by my hon. friend from North Perth, we have a large community of Germans in this country and I daresay there are no better immigrants. My friends from the West can testify to their worth not only as regards conforming with the laws and conditions of the country, but generally as being an exceedingly desirable class of immigrants. Not very long ago I had the pleasure of meeting here the Bishop of Regina, Mgr. Mathieu, and he told me how prosperous and progressive the German residents of his diocese were and how clean and healthy. If, therefore, we bar the naturalization of these immigrants 'by a stringent language test, we shall certainly be injuring the German immigration movement to this country. No section, I venture to say, is so interesting, so rich, and so far advanced as the German section of Ontario.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: Do not the most of them know English?


Rodolphe Lemieux: Yes, but the older immigrants do not. I daresay that in the two Waterloos-I am sorry the hon. member (Mr. Weichel) is not here-there are old Germans who do not speak a word of English, just as in Nova Scotia there are old Scotchmen who speak nothing but Gaelic. In the western provinces the Germans are far away from schools; they do not come into contact with the English and French-speaking people; they are almost segregated-for Germans mostly live in a community by themselves-it is therefore very' difficult for them, especially those of the older generation, to learn either of the official languages. I dare say that only a very small minority of the older generation can speak English. At all events, I think my bon. friend should certainly extend the courtesy of the test to the German language, for after all it is a sister language of Teutonic origin. It seems to me it would be in the
interests of Canada to extend that privilege to the Germans. The German and English languages are very similar, although, of course not so similar as the English and French languages, for in an ordinary page of English half of the words are French. In South Africa, any European language is the test.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If this were a matter
of exercising courtesy to the different classes of immigrants, there is no doubt a great deal in what has been said by the hon. member for North Perth and the hon. member for Rouville in connection with the languages. But we have to remember one thing-and a very valuable thing which we are getting under this legislation. We are providing for naturalization that will extend throughout the empire, and we can only get that by co-operation between the home Parliament and the legislatures of the different dominions. Therefore, we alone cannot dictate the conditions.
In England there is only one language and the requirement is that there shall be an adequate knowledge of the English language, and as far as they were willing to go with regard to the outside possessions was that wherever in an outside possession there was a language that was also official, either the English language or that language would meet the requirement. We are passing legislation to make British subjects in England, and in England they take the view that as they are not willing to accept British subjects unless they have a knowledge of the English language they attach importance to the naturalized person knowing one of the languages that is official in the dominion that is doing the naturalizing. The purpose of all these requirements is to assure ourselves that people will understand the language in which the laws they have to obey are enacted, and in Canada the laws are enacted in English and in French. I quite share in the high appreciation of our German population, expressed by hon. gentlemen, and one of the things that goes to indicate what an intelligent people they are and how they realize the conditions under which they live, and how desirous they are to fit themselves in every way to be good British subjects, is that it will be very rare that one of that race who has lived five years in this country has not attained sufficient knowledge of the English language to understand it and make himself understood in it, and that is the extent of the requirement. There are numerous languages throughout our western provinces and the suggestion leads us

to the place where we will have to sit down and discriminate .between different languages and take them all in. We are safe in following the line adopted by the British legislation and assented to by all the other dominions and keeping to the two official languages.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Let it be well understood that as regards British citizenship in the empire I quite agree with this legislation. As regards Canada, we have had a local naturalization law which would admit worthy citizens like the Danes, the Norwegians, the Swedes, who are the best immigrants, hut under the test provided for in this Act they could not get naturalization.


Charles Joseph Doherty: We could pass another Act for that purpose.
At one o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at three o'clock.


David Bradley Neely: Notwithstanding the explanation of the Minister of Justice with reference to subsection 3 of section 2, it seems to me that the minister is asking a great deal when he asks us to pass without protest the provision by which absolute discretion is given to the Secretary of State to decide whether or not he shall grant certificates of naturalization on application. After looking into the whole question, I think that this legislation is absolutely and totally uncalled for, so far as superseding the present Naturalization Act is concerned. The more I think of it the more I am confirmed in that view. I cannot see where any possible advantage is going to come to the Dominion by extending the term of probation from three years to five, and I do not see where any injury or harm has been done to our standards of citizenship by the three years' probationary period under the present law. If any naturalized citizen in Canada wants to have the status of a British subject in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, all that is necessary is that the minister bring in legislation providing the special procedure by which that may be done. The minister has gone beyond the necessities of the case altogether in raising the standard, as is done in this Bill, by extending the term of probation by two years. For my part, I think the minister would be well advised if he would leave the naturalization law as it now exists. I take the position taken by my hon. friend (Mr. Morphy) this morning, that the sooner we

put the responsibility upon the new citizen of Canada, the better for the citizen and the better for Canada; and three years, in my judgment, ought to be quite sufficient for a new-comer to this country to become fairly familiar with our laws so far as they concern and affect him as a citizen. In my own constituency, I have, a number of people who do not speak, read or write the English language, or the French language for that matter; but I have had occasion more than once to discuss with these people through interpreters public questions and the laws of this country as they affect the average citizen, and it has been a matter of great surprise to me-to see the breadth of knowledge and the grasp of the conditions and the laws of this country that these people possess. As a matter of fact, we are going to impose this onerous condition when all that a great majority of these people who come here from foreign countries need is the status of British subjects within the Dominion of Canada. If any of these naturalized citizens become sufficiently well off after a number of years in Canada and wish to travel in foreign lands, then they may desire to have the status of British subjects the world over. In such cases it ought to be possible for them to take the necessary steps under legislation of this Parliament in order to acquire that status. To say that no man shall enjoy the rights of Canadian citizenship without putting in this longer term of probation, is making the condition of citizenship in this country altogether too onerous.
I have not yet heard the Minister of the Interior explain how he is going to amend the land laws in order to meet this altered condition. Something will certainly have to be done, because at the present time the Department of the Interior, as we all know, require that the applicant for a homestead on our western prairies must take the oath of allegiance and become a naturalized British subject in Canada before he can obtain his patent. That matter has not been adjusted up to the present time, and I see nothing on the Order Paper to show that the Minister of the Interior is going to bring down legislation to amend the land laws during this session. It is proposed that this Bill shall become law on the first of January of next year. Before we get to the point next session when such legislation can be introduced, when an applicant applies for his patent after three years' residence on a homestead, the Department of the Interior will require that he furnish the oath of allegiance, which he will be unable to do.


Michael Clark: What is the
term of probation in the United States?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Five years, the term that we are providing here.


David Bradley Neely: Does not the applicant in the United States enjoy many of the privileges of citizenship before the period of probation of five years is completed?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That depends upon what you define as the privileges of a citizen. Anything a man enjoys before he becomes a citizen is necessarily not the privileges of a citizen. We may grant rights to people who are not citizens just as we provide with regard to the matter of the -land laws. This is entirely a question of when a man is to be recognized as a British subject, and it has nothing to do with other rights which may or may not be given.


David Bradley Neely: The minister will recognize that this affects other questions than that of a settler obtaining the patent for his land. It will affect a man's use of the franchise', making necessary still further revisions. That bears out my contention that if the present naturalization laws of Canada had been left unamended so far as Canada is concerned and special legislation brought in for the benefit of those who wish their Canadian citizenship advanced to imperial citizenship, all these difficulties would have been avoided.


Wilfrid Laurier: This point, I suppose is settled, and we must take the decision of the minister that the period of probation must be five years. I have serious objection to subsections 3 and 5 granting new powers to the Secretary of State. Subsection 3 says:
The grant of a certificate of naturalization to any such alien shall be in the absolute discretion of the Secretary of State of Canada, and he may, with or without assigning any reason, give or withhold the certificate as he thinks most conducive to the public good, and no appeal shall He from his decision.
In other words, you provide machinery for aliens who desire to become citizens, but when the alien passes through that machinery, when he has gone before the judge and has the judge's decision that naturalization should be granted him, the Secretary of State may, without reason given and without possibility of appeal, deny him that privilege. The reasons given for this by the Minister of Justice yesterday do not seem to me to be adequate. I understand him to say that there may be cases in which for reasons which cannot 1 e
told, it may be conducive to the public welfare that a man should not be given aaturalization. In other words, you re-establish in the hands of the Secretary of State the power which at one time was he'd by the King of England but which no ionger exists. I do not know any justification fcr that. This section provides that a man must be of good character in order to be naturalized and when he establishes bis good character before the judge I do not see why he should not be naturalized.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I endeavoured to give
yesterday as fully as I could the reason which justifies this provision. I do not think I can add anything further.


David Bradley Neely: The minister has evidently made up his mind that this provision also must stand. As I recollect his explanation of last evening, he said that the Secretary of State would not dare to act in an arbitrary manner because of the indignation that such a course would arouse in the country. He said also that the Secretary of State would have to defend himself before Parliament. But under the law he is not called upon to give reasons for his refusal to give the certificate either to Parliament or to anybody else. This seems an extraordinary condition. But what I wish to know is this: The minister has determined that the period of probation shall be five years. In that case a man will not have the privilege of voting for five years. The minister has pointed out that that is the period of probation in the United States. My information-which may not be correct but I think it is-is that if a man declares his intention of becoming a citizen, he has the privilege of the federal and state franchise one year after the date of his making that declaration. I would like to know if it is the intention of the Government to keep the alien coming into this country from enjoying the privilege of the franchise until his full period of probation has passed.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The conditions under which a man may exercise the franchise must be fixed by the provincial Legislature in its own judgment. If it choses to give the right to vote to a man who has not yet become a British subject, that is within its power, and I am not saying whether I think that wise or unwise.


Mr. STEVENS:: I do not wish to prolong the debate; but, in view of the opposition that has been voiced in the discussion of the Bill, I should feel myself derelict in my duty if I did not declare my approval
41fcC

of the measure. The point which seems to *agitate the minds of some of the hon. gentlemen opposite is that an alien will be denied the franchise until he has been a resident for five years. In my estimation that is one of the best features of the Bill. There can be no question that in the Dominion of Canada for many years we have treated the privileges of citizenship altogether too lightly. We have been naturalizing and endowing with the privilege of the franchise thousands of persons coming to Canada from countries which have no such democratic institutions as we have, people who do not understand the value of the franchise in a democratic country, and without attempting to qualify them for that privilege I am not now condemning any particular political party; I am simply saying that this has been the practice, and the hon. gentlemen who have placed their objections to this Bill upon record know perfectly well that what I say is true. Not only is that the case, but we have coming into Canada, or desiring to come into Canada, from different parts of the world aliens whom I consider, and many other persons in Canada consider, to he entirely undesirable. It is true that many persons who come in may be fit for the franchise and for full citizenship within a year or even within six months after their arrival, hut the number is small compared with those who are entirely unfit for Canadian citizenship. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this committee will seriously contend that immigrants coming from southern and western Europe, from countries whose customs and practices are not in any sense of a democratic character, are entitled to just as much participation in the affairs of this country as the most intelligent Canadian citizens. The principle of manhood franchise gives to every voter an equal power and an equal right to take part in the affairs of this country. We have no plural voting; we have no land or property qualifications. It we are going to uphold that institution, which I consider to be one of our most valuable institutions, I contend that we must surround it with all the safeguards necessary to establish a high type of citizenship in Canada. I am very pleased indeed to see this Bill introduced in its present form, making the *period of probation five years. I have for many years contended that we should extend the period from three to five years, and I have never yet met Canadian citizens in any 
part of our country who oppose that idea. Indeed, some of the most careful students of political economy and of Canadian conditions, from a practical standpoint, uphold the view that the five-year period is the more desirable.
Another 'feature of the Bill which the right hon. leader of the Opposition himself approved yesterday is that which makes it possible for a man to become a citizen of the empire. We have all wanted that for a long time; we have all recognized that it is a difficult problem to solve, but I believe that this Bill goes a long way towards solving that problem and making it possible for a desirable type of persons to become citizens of the empire at large. There is another feature of the matter which would, I think, bear even a fittle more restriction than is provided in this Bill. It may be easily understood that it may not be very desirable to extend to some of the natives of the overseas dominions, not self-governing possessions, the privileges of citizenship. That, however, is a penalty that we have to pay for the sake of the empire, and I do want to point out that we are going just as far as we dare go in connection with the extension of the privileges of citizenship to persons coming from various parts of the empire. In my estimation, it might have been better to have restricted the provisions of the legislation to persons coming from the self-governing colonies, thus acting in accord with what I believe to be the sentiment of many of the other overseas dominions. So far as that point is concerned, however, I. am not urging any particular objection. I do believe that we should stand behind this Bill; that its provisions are not in the slightest degree too strict, and that in this country and in every part of the empire we should seek to build up a standard of citizenship consistent with the traditions and the history of our empire as a whole.


Wilfrid Laurier: To-day, if a man is born in Canada, he is a British subject not only in Canada but everywhere throughout the British Empire. That is a normal condition which is approved by everybody. But if a man owes his naturalization in Canada not to the mere accident of birth but to the will of the people as expressed in the law of the land; in other words, if he is a naturalized Canadian citizen, the privilege which is extended to those who are natural-born British subjects is denied to him. That is certainly an anomaly which cannot be defended in any



MAI' 23, 1914

[Stage Direction]
way. The argument made this morning by the hon. member for North Perth on this point is unanswerable. But in this Bill we have at last the provision that naturalization granted in any part of His Majesty's possessions shall be recognized elsewhere throughout the whole British Empire; this is the only valuable feature of the proposed legislation. I assumed that it was only to meet the wishes of the British authorities that the provision for the extension from three to five years was made, but in this I was corrected by my hon. friend the Minister of Justice, who told us this morning that this was not the only reason; that upon the merits of the case it was better to have a longer period of probation than three years. So far so good, or so far so (bad. But there is another provision in this Bill which is absolutely indefensible; the provision which gives to the Secretary of State the arbitrary power, by his mere ipse dixit, of denying or of granting the privilege of naturalization to any person. I .move that subsection 3 of section 2 ,be struck out.
Amendment lost on division.
William F. Carroll: Will the department make regulations that will prevent the Secretary of State from giving any person a certificate of naturalization before the expiration of the period of five years?


Charles Joseph Doherty: The Secretary of State may in special cases exempt persons from the requirements that the four years shall be within the last eight years, but there will have to toe the five years of residence within the Dominion. There is no exemption from the period of five years; the provision is merely to provide for cases where there may possibly be some reason why the Secretary of State should dispense with the requirement that the four years shall be within the last eight.


Wilfrid Laurier: The hon. gentleman behind me has not at all comprehended the effect of the last subsection. Subsection 5 simply means that the Secretary of State may, within the law or without the law, grant a certificate of naturalization. He can do as was done for some time in England before the law of 1844 was passed, when naturalization would be granted to some rioh Jew, to a foreign prince, or to an important personage from a foreign country. But it will not be King George IV, as it was in the days of old-it will be King Louis Coderre-who will grant the naturalization to anybody he pleases. I move that this section be also struck out.



REVISED

[Stage Direction]
Amendment lost on division, and section agreed to.
On section 3

effect of certificate of naturalization :
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the
meaning of this?


Charles Joseph Doherty: This is the reproduction of section 25 of the existing law. It is to provide that where there are doubts about a man's British nationality the Secretary of State, for the purpose of quieting those doubts, may give him a certificate of naturalization. That certificate puts him in no better position than any other naturalized alien; it simply serves to prevent it being inferred from the fact that he asks for naturalization that he was not a British subject before asking for it.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is this intended to meet the case referred to yesterday of double nationality?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Of course, the effect of the certificate would not be to alter the fact that a man has some outside nationality. It is to meet the case of a man who is not in a position to absolutely establish his British nationality, where there are doubts about it. Under such circumstances he would not want to apply as an alien for naturalization. This might be of service, for instance, in connection with the requirement of the Merchants Shipping Act that all the owners of a vessel must be British subjects. A man might find himself met with the suggestion that he was not a British subject and might not be in a position to absolutely clear up the fact. To make himself absolutely right without applying for naturalization as an admitted alien or abandoning his right to establish British citizenship in regard to other matters, this provision is made for naturalizing a person who may be in reality a British subject.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 7-revocation of certificate of naturalization:
Wilfrid Laurier: What is the meaning of the words at the end of subsection 1:
The order of revocation shall have effect from such date as the Secretary of State of Canada may direct.
Why is it not from the date the certificate is given?


Charles Joseph Doherty: If a certificate was obtained by manifest fraud, the ordinary



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
practice would be to have the revocation take effect from the day on which the certificate was granted, just as if the certificate had never been granted. But in a case of this kind other persons who might have had dealings with the person naturalized, for instance, might be injured by that course, so this provision is made.
Section agreed to.
On section 8-power of Governments of British possessions to grant certificates of imperial naturalization:
Wilfrid Laurier: I think we require a little fuller explanation than was given yesterday.


Charles Joseph Doherty: It is under the operation of this clause that the certificates granted by the Secretary of State in the United Kingdom under the authority of the British Act and the certificates granted in other self-governing dominions become effective in Canada. The effectiveness of our certificates in the United Kingdom results from the fact that in the Act of the United Kingdom power is conferred upon this Government, and on other self-governing dominions that adopt this Act, to issue the certificates. We, in turn, in order that the certificates of the others may be effective in Canada confer like powers upon the authorities of the United Kingdom and the other dominions, provided always- that the certificates in the United Kingdom are granted in pursuance of the Act now being enacted there and provided in regard to the other self-governing dominions that the certificates are issued in pursuance of a similar Act.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 9-power of Governments of British possessions to grant certificates of imperial naturalization:
Wilfrid Laurier: That is to say, section 8 would not apply to New Zealand, Australia, South Africa and Newfoundland? All other British possessions are covered by the Imperial Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: Yes.


William F. Carroll: Suppose a man makes
application for naturalization before this law comes into force and that before he is granted a certificate the law is in force. Would he have to comply with the conditions in the new Act?


Charles Joseph Doherty: I do not think he could be granted a certificate on the strength of an application.


William F. Carroll: I think the minister
should do something to correct the Act. I know a case


Charles Joseph Doherty: This Act will not come into force at the earliest until January 1, 1915.


William F. Carroll: Oh, that is all right.
Progress reported.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Amherst drill hall, $70,000.
["No.\nAt six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Wilfrid Laurier: Before my
hon. friend proceeds with his Estimates, will he permit me to ask him a question in regard to improvements in the city of Ottawa, although perhaps he is not in a position to give me the information, as it concerns the Department of Finance. Has he any idea of what the commission intends to do this year for the improvement of the city?


Mr. ROGERS:: I am afraid I cannot give my hon. friend accurate information, for I have not given the subject much attention; but I understand that the usual amount will be expended by the commission.


Wilfrid Laurier: Can my hon. friend tell me when the customs building on Sussex street and Mackenzie avenue will be finished?


Robert Rogers: It is very hard to say. I must confess that we are not making very good progress. The difficulty we had with the foundations has been removed, however, and the contractor is going on with the work, though not as rapidly as we should like. We are pressing him as much as possible.


Wilfrid Laurier: The reason I ask this question is because Mackenzie avenue is now closed to the public at great inconvenience to the citizens of Ottawa. What I had in mind was that Mackenzie avenue should be at the earliest possible moment freed from all the material now on the street, paved and thrown open to the public. I do not think my hon. friend can have it done this year, but he might keep the matter in mind and try to have it done next year.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid we could not do it this year while construction is going on. Of course, people are able to pass

through the park along the same line as Mackenzie avenue. As soon as possible we will have Mackenzie avenue paved and thrown open.


Wilfrid Laurier: Has anything been done in regard to the new public buildings for Ottawa, of which plans have been exhibited?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has been done
beyond the selecting of the six plans by the Board of Assessors. We really have not had time to make any further progress.
In regard to the Amherst drill hall. This item stood over to give gentlemen opposite an opportunity of discussing the question of drill halls with the Minister of Militia. I presume they have had that opportunity, and will have another, so if there is no objection we can now pass this item. There are several similar items, any one of which could stand over in order to give hon. gentlemen an opportunity for discussion.


Air. McKENZIE:: Whem these Estimates were up before, we did not ask for this particular item to stand over. What we did say was that while these Estimates for drill halls weTe amongst the Public Works Estimates, they in reality are Estimates of the Militia Department, and that the Minister of Militia should be here while they are being considered. Of course, if the Minister of Public Works will take full responsibility for this militarism and extravagant expenditure of the Militia Department, we shall direct our attention to him, but we thought he could get along more easily if we were allowed to place the responsibility where it belongs.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is very
kind, and if he wishes the item to stand until the Minister of Militia is present I shall be glad to consent. At the same time, I am prepared to take full responsibility.


Mr. A. K. AIACLEAN:: The item for the Canning public building w.as allowed to stand at my request, and a discussion is desired on it by some hon. gentlemen who are not now present. Is the Minister of Public Works still determined to buy the piece of land owned by one Air. Eaton, in preference to accepting a more desirable site which has been, offered to the department for nothing?


Robert Rogers: I understand that the
Department of Justice is looking into the title of some piece of property.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not important what the Department o;f Justice is doing; the important question is, what is the Department of Public Works going to do? As I understand it, a piece of land considered undesirable by the citizens of Chinning has been recommended as a site by some officer of the department, and it is to cost something over $2,000. I am informed that a much better location has been offered free of charge to the department by Sir Frederick Borden. Is the minister going to accept the better and cheaper site, which is offered to him for nothing, or is be going to pay for the less desirable site?


Robert Rogers: The report from the officer of the department is not in accordance with the suggestion of my hon. friend as to the cheaper and better site. I understand that we purpose purchasing a certain property We have not, as I understand, been offered direct by Sir Frederick Borden any site. I understand he offered a site to the council, who in turn are willing to give it to the-Government for the purpose of erecting a public building on it, but the officer of the department who went there to examine the property recommends the purchase of a site.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am under the
impression that there -is among the papers a distinct and clear offer from Sir Frederick Borden of a certain piece of land free of charge, and which I think is far more suitable than what is known as the Eaton lot, which apparently the department purposes purchasing. I say that, partially from my knowledge of the locus, and also from reading impartially the papers contained in the return brought down in connection with the matter. I think the minister is making a grave mistake in undertaking
4 p.m. to buy this unsuitable piece of land, costing some two or three thousand dollars, in preference to accepting the admittedly better site offered for nothing. If the minister persists in making this mistake, I shall have to ask the item to stand. Meanwhile it would be well if he would give his personal attention to the matter, rather than leave it to the officers of the department, and if he does I think he will change his mind.
Fort Cumberland (Fort Beausejour), restoration, $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the reason for this expenditure on Fort Cumberland ? Perhaps the ihon. gentleman who repre-

sents that county (Mr. Rhodes) can tell. I am not much in favour of lavish expenditure on these old forts, but I do not think any useful purpose can be brought about by it. If the sulbject be dealt with by a commission generally throughout the whole Dominion, as has been suggested, that would be a different matter; but why single out this old fort in Cumberland and deal with it separately?


Mr. RHODES:: I am sorry the hon. member objects to this appropriation, but possibly his objection is due to the fact that he is not familiar with the history of this old fortification. As evidence of that want [DOT]of familiarity, he makes the statement that the fort is in Cumberland county, whereas the fact is that it is situated in the county of Westmorland, represented by the hon. gentleman who sits in front of him (Mr. Emmerson).


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The geography is immaterial.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: This fort was first constructed in 1751. It took some four years to 'build, and it was well and solidly built. It was the scene of a very important battle in 1755. It is situated on the isthmus of C'hignecto, on the route 'between Quebec and Louisburg, and is the scene of many historic events. There has been for many years an agitation in favour of the preservation of this old fort, and I am sure I have the hearty sympathy of the hon. member for Westmorland in what has been done up to the present. Last year I saw the Minister of Militia and made the statement to him that the restoration would have to be undertaken immediately, or otherwise there would be very little to be restored. The piece of work which required immediate attention was the old magazine which was in a fair state of preservation until a few years ago, when it was struck by lightning, and damaged to such an extent that it became practically a crumbling ruin. It has always been my idea that all these fortifications should be taken care of in a systematic manner under a commission, such as the Quebec Battlefields Commission. Pending the settlement of a fixed policy, and in order to save further delay in restoring the ruins of the old fort, I asked that a special appropriation be made for the purpose of taking care of this old magazine and having it restored. I am happy to say that the minister gave *careful consideration to my representation; and as a result, we were able to secure a
fMr. McKenzie.]
certain amount of a general appropriation last year for the purpose of taking down the old magazine at a cost, roughly speaking, of $200. Every stone was taken down and the mortar removed from it in such a way as not to cause any damage. Captain Osier, of the Department of Engineers of Halifax, came to Amherst, and I went over the site with him. Photographs were taken of the old fort before the work of demolition began, and the utmost care is being taken to place the old magazine back in exactly the same position in, which it was originally. This $5,000 item is intended to reconstruct the old powder magazine; and I feel that the urgency of the work calls for a special vote until such time as all old historic forts are placed under one general commission. If there is any further explanation required, I shall be happy to give it. There is nothing political about the matter. This fort is in the county of my hon. friend from Westmorland (Mr. Emmerson); the men employed on the work have been largely taken from his county without regard to their political leanings, and it is a work, I believe, in which all should concur.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: It is probably difficult
for the wayfaring man to tell just which is Cumberland and which is Westmorland, because they are adjoining counties. I take the hon. member's word for it that this fort is in Westmorland; but a man going by train, with the county of Westmorland on one side and the county of Cumberland on the other, is to be excused if he does not know in which of them the fort is. I may be lacking in some of the essentials of patriotism, but I cannot for the life of me understand why these old spots, which do not amount to very much, should not be forgotten as speedily as possible. If two sets of people, for instance, French and English, met on some corner of Westmorland county in the province of New Brunswick and had a fight in which two or three or ten or twenty of them were killed, so far as I am concerned, the incident should be forgotten as quickly as possible; the French and the English became good friends again, and their children know nothing about it. I do not understand why $5,000 of the hard-earned money of the people of Canada should be taken to commemorate this old hole. I do not see the utility of it. I can understand why such a place as Louisburg, a city that has stood for many years and that has some history around it, such as the Plains of Abraham or some of the fortifications around Quebec, places of national

interest and recognized in history, should be preserved; but I do not see any use in keeping up in any country any monument of dissension. I speak for myself; I do not profess to have the wide national ideas that perhaps some other people have; but my opinion is that these monuments of dissension between our people should be obliterated and forgotten and that the Canadian people should go forward as if such things had never happened. You cannot find in the United States any monuments commemorating the eld troubles when the Americans broke away from Great Britain, when we were obliged to give up our hold of that country, and when the Loyalists had to flee the country.


Mr. HAZEN:: Bunker Hill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That monument commemorates the patriotism of the men who died there in defending their country. It does not celebrate any victory or triumph on the part of the British who bravely fought for their rights. I am simply giving my candid opinion that it is not essential to the greatness of this country or to the greatness of Canadians as Britishers that anything should be kept on our soil commemorating dissension of olden days. There may toe a few places surrounded by sentiments, but personally I have no sentiment about the matter. I am a Canadian pure and simple and I do not recognize such sentiments. There may, however, be people who have such sentiments regarding these matters and I do not desire to interfere with them just as I would not interfere with the people holding different religious ideas.
I cannot, however, bring myself to think _ that there is the slightest necessity for the expenditure of this money.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: If the horn, member would take the trouble to read Bradley or Park-man, he would find pages in either of these w<5rks writh respect to Fort Cumberland. This fort was originally built by the French in 1751; it was captured in 1755, and was garrisoned by the English afterwards. The fight at Fort Beausejour was participated in by no less than 2,000 colonial troops apart from regulars, most of whom were sent by Governor Shirley of Massachusetts under command of Colonel Winslow who fought under Colonel Monckton. These are all historic names, and the Winslows are one of the old historic families of New Brunswick. For many years there was a British garrison at Fort Cumberland and many distinguished men were in command,
among others the Duke of Kent, who was in residence for some time. I am very sorry, indeed, that my hon. friend should so little appreciate the circumstances as to call this-magnificient old historic ground an old hole.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there anjr
poetry about it?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I have no doubt there is plenty of poetry.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Give us a verse and we will let the item pass.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is not intended that
these monuments should mark differences, of race or of religion. Rather do they mark the sites of deeds of valour in bygone days and the settling of what were formerly differences. The reasons for the preservation of this fort are precisely the same as those which have called for the preservation of the battlefields of Quebec.
I am sure that our Freneh-Canadian confreres do not regard the preservation of the battleground at Quebec as marking any difference between French and English. Rather this is a common ground, and the monuments there are monuments to Montcalm as well -as Wolfe. Only in this sense do I advocate the preservation of these landmarks. I am sure that nine hundred and ninety-nine out of a thousand people in the Maritime provinces will not agree with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for North Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie).


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the Halifax north end post office site yet been settled upon?


Robert Rogers: We have bought a site on Gottingen street. If that is in the north end-


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Before we pass from
public works in Nova Scotia, and a3 I may not have another opportunity, I desire to get some information from the minister as to Government telegraph lines. I understand that in Nova Scotia they are changing certain telegraph lines into telephone lines, and I have received letters indicating an anxiety on the part of the people to know whether the whole system in Cape Breton is to be turned into a telephone system. I desire also to bring to the attention of the minister what I regard as a very

serious matter in connection with the management of the telegraph lines. Last season I had occasion to be in the county of Victoria and to do more or less business with the telegraph lines. There is a telegraph system extending the whole length of the county, a distance of a hundred miles, with quite a number of offices. At certain seasons of the year that telegraph line is the <' nly means of communication of some places with the outside world, navigation being closed and there being no railways. On the occasion of the local election in Victoria county in February last, I was rather annoyed to find that the Government telegraph system had been converted into a machine for Tory politicians in that county. That whole system is entirely under the control of a man named *I * G. Dunlop, who is the superintendent. He went over that whole system and instructed the officers that he was authorized by the Minister of Public Works to authorize them to receive and send free all messages from representatives of the Conservative party during the time of the election. There was a swarm of these politicians all over that county and every one of them had free use of that line. Of course, those on the other side had no such privilege. For myself, any message that I [DOT]sent I paid for. I represented that county for years as a Government supporter, yet never sent a message without paying for *t as I did on any other line-I would not think of doing anything else. I submit to you, Mr. Chairman, that for this officer to take upon himself, without authority, I am sure, from the minister, to wire from his headquarters from Baddeck to the operators along that line instructing them to receive and send free messages presented to them by the agents of the Conservative party was an act which should earn his instant dismissal. I asked some of the operators the meaning of this thing and by what authority they sent these messages free. They answered that it was by the authority of the superintendent. And when I asked them om what authority the superintendent acted, they answered: We questioned him and he answered that it was on the authority of the minister. During the session I put a question on the Order Paper asking if there was any such authority and received the answer that there was not. So,
I bring to the notice of the committee, and particularly of the minister, the facts of the case and submit that such conduct cannot by any possibility be permitted. I have tMr. McKenzie.]
complete proof of the facts I allege. In fact, all the minister has to do is to ask his own officers if during the three weeks or so of that election campaign such instructions were not given by the superintendent. In view of the law laid down by no less an authority than the Prime Minister early in the career of the present Government that no officer should be permitted to take an offensive and unwarranted part in elections, I submit that while we fight our elections as vigorously as we can, it is altogether unfair that a Government system of communication should be placed at the disposal of one side absolutely free-and that the only system by which a telegram could be sent-while the other side can use it only by paying for it. Of course, paying for its use is altogether proper while the other is highly improper. What confidence can one have in a system of communication when we find the superintendent running the whole system in the interest of one side? What confidence can one have in sending a telegram over such a line? There is no secrecy about it-one might as well post his telegram on the side of the barn. I submit that abuses of this kind should be removed at once and steps taken to provide that they shall not occur again, no matter which party is in power.
I take the full responsibility for the truth of my statement of the facts. If the minister has any doubt about the matter, all he has to do is to inquire of any of his operators along the system from Baddeck to bay St. Lawrence, and he will find that what I am saying is true. I submit that an official who takes such a bold step as that without any authority from the department, should not hold his position for one day.


Robert Rogers: As regards the matter of changing the telegraph to a telephone system, I may say that, in response to a petition and request from the people 'in certain localities, certain changes have been made, and it is the object and purpose of the department to make those changes where they are deemed to be desirable and in the public interest. In regard to what my hon. friend has said in respect to the conduct of a certain officer of the department in connection with the telegraph'line, I may say at once that if this gentleman made the assertion that he had any authority from me so to use the telegraph line, he certainly stated what was absolutely untrue, for I certainly was not consulted in the matter; nor did I give

him 'permission to do what he did. The statement of my hon. friend is undoubtedly a serious one, and I will have the matter investigated at an early date with a view to ascertaining for myself what the facts are, and undertaking to deal with them as they should be dealt with.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the department any information with respect to the proposed new 'quarantine station buildings on Lawlor's Island?


Robert Rogers: I understand that it has been decided not to go on with those buildings.


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: I should like to know Jiow these telephone officials are appointed. Under ordinary conditions any person can get a telephone put in his house or in his office, but under the present Government system only a few persons have these telephone boxes. In my county offices have been established .in certain districts, and these offices have been placed in charge of staunch Tories; every other consideration seems to have been disregarded. I need not enumerate these officials; it will be readily understood that the purpose of the telephone system will be defeated if the minister continues to carry on that policy, which is absolutely contrary to the policy adopted and followed by any private telephone concern. If I happen to live along the line of this telephone .system, can I get a telephone if I apply to the Government for one?


Robert Rogers: If it were in the public interest and my hon. friend's application were justified, he would certainly have the same consideration as is given to any other citizen of the district. As I understand it, however, these boxes are simply pay stations, and are not for the use of individual citizens.


Alexander William Chisholm: The minister gives me to understand, then, that any of the citizens in that district applying for a telephone will get one?


Robert Rogers: Oh, no.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is it the minister's
intention to establish a telephone system similar to other telephone systems found all over the country? There is this difference between the telegraph system and the telephone system:	any one
can use the telephone, but only a skilled operator can use the telegraph. In my profession I would be glad to see a
number of people in various sections of the district have telephone boxes; they are willing to pay for them, and I can see no fairness in refusing these persons the privileges of the telephone system because they happen to be of one political persuasion rather than another.


Robert Rogers: It is not the purpose or the intention of the department to extend the telephone system beyond having it take the place of the telegraph system. In my judgment, the operation either of telegraph or of t"lenhone systems is a matter entirely for the provincial authorities. I for one would be prepared to recommend that the different telegraph systems should be taken over by the provinces. It is not our intention, however, to extend the telephone system to the use of individual persons.


Alexander William Chisholm: I am sure the hon. minister will appreciate the absurdity of the position. When we had the telegraph, if I wanted to send a message to a friend twenty miles away, I could do so with some degree of secrecy, but now there is absolutely no secrecy, as our telephones are what they call the farm system, and everyone can listen to what is being said over the line. The minister can see clearly that to adopt such a system in substitution for a telegraph system is simply no good.


Robert Rogers: Does that not apply in the case of every telephone system in existence in the country?


Alexander William Chisholm: Quite so, but if the hon. minister will extend the whole system to everybody who wants to take advantage of it, we will have some advantages with the disadvantages; as it is now, some of us have all the disadvantages and no advantage.


Robert Rogers: I cannot see that there is any particular disadvantage, but I can see that it would be impossible for us to extend the telephone system beyond having it take the place of the telegraph. We do not propose going into the telephone business.


Alexander William Chisholm: The other telephone
system in the county is carried on as I suggest.


Robert Rogers: That is their business,
they are interested in it. We are only putting in the telephone in the place of the telegraph.


Alexander William Chisholm: I suggest that the
Government get out of the business alto-

get-her. That would leave the system as it was before.


Robert Rogers: I would be very glad to get out of it. I do not think we should ever have gone into it.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I had a special purpose in asking as to the purpose of the minister to extend the operations of this telegraph line. They have a law in Nova Scotia under which, by some co-operation between the farmers and the Government, a cheap system of telephone lines is established throughout the country for the benefit of the farmers. I have a letter from a section of my county where the intention was to proceed under this local law to put in telephone lines and give the farmers the benefit of a telephone service, but some friends of the Government told them that there was no need to do that because the Government at Ottawa were going to put in a telephone system, and that there would be no need of duplicating the service in the county. We ought to have it distinctly understood as to whether the Government are going generally into the business of supplying telephones. If they are only going to put in a telephone where they had a telegraph office, that, of course, would only answer a certain purpose; Ibut if they intend to put in telephone connections generally along their lines wherever it is asked by any individual, of course there would be no sense in duplicating that same system by putting in a local system. The minister now says they are not going to do anything more than to put in a telephone wherever they have a telegraph office; that should be distinctly understood.


Robert Rogers: As I understand that is the length to which we propose to go.


William F. Carroll: Was a survey made of Sydney harbour on the authority of the Public Works Department, and if so with what end in view? Has the survey been completed and under whose supervision has it been made?


Robert Rogers: A survey has been undertaken, but the report has not yet been made. It is being made by the district engineer.


William F. Carroll: What was the survey
ordered for, and at whose request was it made?


Robert Rogers: It was made at the request of the Board of Trade, who repre-

sented the capabilities of the port of Sydney, suggesting that it was adapted for a national harbour, and we are looking into it to ascertain the facts.


William F. Carroll: Is it a fact that the
engineers were making this survey while there was about one and one-half feet of ice in Sydney harbour?


Robert Rogers: That is sometimes the best way because in taking soundings through the ice it is possible to take them more accurately than at other times.


William F. Carroll: When does the minister expect the report? I understand the survey has been completed.


Robert Rogers: If the survey has been completed we ought to have the report very shortly, although it takes some time to get the plans and plotting done.


William F. Carroll: Was any interim report received by the department?


Robert Rogers: No.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I have a letter from
my constituency asking about a survey that had been made at a place called New Harris, in Victoria county, on the Bras d'Or lakes, six or seven miles from New Campbellton. I understand that a survey was made some time last winter but that later a survey was undertaken six or seven miles nearer the ocean. Has the minister any information as to the reason for the change of location and is any provision being made for the building of a wharf at either place?


Robert Rogers: I have no recollection of the case, but when we are dealing with harbours and rivers I shall have the explanation before me and shall be very glad to furnish it then.


William F. Carroll: Have any representations been made to the department with reference to dredging at Glace Bay harbour? I shall ask the minister about this when his Harbours and Rivers Estimated are before the committee.
Buctouche public building-, $10,000.


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


Robert Rogers: 


William Pugsley: What is the population? Mr. ROGERS: 1,325.
Fredericton-new public building, $100,000.


William Pugsley: What is the total estimated cost?



Robert Rogers: 


William Pugsley: This is for a post office and custom house, I suppose.


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Hampton public building:, $21,000.


William Pugsley: What is the estimated cost?


Robert Rogers: The contract is for $25,000.


William Pugsley: What is the population if Hampton?


Robert Rogers: I have not the figures
here.


Mr. DEVLIN:: Has it any population?


William Pugsley: When I was minister I took an appropriation for a small amount to purchase land at Hampton which would cost something under $1,000. My idea was to erect a building costing about $5,000. Hampton is a very small place, though very attractive. In view of the settled policy laid down by both sides of the House I did not feel justified in spending more than $5,000 for a building in a place so small as Hampton, which has not sufficient population to be incorporated. It has a population, I suppose, of about 150, and to spend $30,000 for a post-office in a village which certainly does not contain more than 200 is something which can hardly be justified. Hampton is the shire town of the county of Kings, which I formerly represented in the Legislature. There is a village called Hampton village a mile away, but it has a post-office of its own and consequently would not be served by this new building. I think my hon. friend ought to explain why this very large expenditure is being made, and which is so contrary to every declaration which was made in this House during the time I was Minister of Public Works. Member after member to my knowledge rose in his place and condemned the construction of a building costing $25,000 even in places with a population of 3,'000 or 4,000. It may be said I am responsible for this expenditure because I made provision to buy the land, but, as I have said, it never occurred to me to spend more than $5,000 on the building.


Mr. FOWLER:: I think it is quite clear that when my hon. friend bought the land he was only trying to fool the people, and that he had no intention of spending any money whatever on a building. It is only another instance of how he made promises when he was in power but never fulfilled them. Hampton is the shire town of the
county of Kings, which is one of the most important counties in the province of New Brunswick. It has a population of more than five times what my hon. friend has stated at the least 1,000.


William Pugsley: Within what radius?


George William Fowler: I am speaking of the
people who will be served by this post office. Hampton is a rapidly growing place on the main line of the Intercolonial, and the revenue from the post-office is sufficient to justify the erection of the proposed building.


William Pugsley: What is the revenue?


George William Fowler: I have not the figures
here. When I say the revenue is sufficient to justify the erection of the building I am speaking generally. If they have a postoffice at all it should be a decent one that will reflect credit on the Government which erected it. The building proposed to be erected is a very plain one and not at all expensive, costing some $25,000 including the land. I think it is a very proper expenditure which will reflect credit on the Government.


William Pugsley: What did the land cost?


Robert Rogers: 


William Pugsley: When was it purchased?


Robert Rogers: Expenditure from the 1st April, 1912, to the 3rd September, 1913, $700.


William Pugsley: What is the revenue from the postoffice?


Robert Rogers: $600: money orders issued, 10,000; money orders paid, 7,738.


William Pugsley: I think my hon. friend from Kings and Albert was getting off a joke on the minister when he induced him to spend such a large amount of money in this small village. My hon. friend may say that Hampton has a population of 1,000, but he may have in mind the whole parish. Certainly I do not think that the population within a reasonable radius can be oveT 200. My hon. friend says that when I thought of erecting a building to cost $5,000 I was simply humbugging the people. There is no warrant for that. I had intended to erect a building on land costing something less than $1,000 and that idea has evidently been carried out so far because the land has been bought quite close to the station at a cost of $700. My idea was to put up a nice stone or concrete building of one storey, which would be quite adequate for the business done in this small village. I congratulate

my hon. friend for Kings and Albert on his ability in getting such a large appropriation for his county, but I do not think the intelligent people of Hampton will appreciate this waste of public money. Especially is .it a matter of wonder that the minister would do this in view of the repeated criticisms which were made against myself as minister when I was spending amounts similar to, or smaller than, this in towns with a population of 3,000 or 4,000. Never did I dream, of spending one-third of this sum in a small place like Hampton.


George William Fowler: I may say that the postoffice at Hillsborough was built during the time my hon. friend was Minister of Public Works, although not completed. Hillsborough is not a county town; it is not even incorporated; it is a village scarcely the size of Hampton.
Mr. PUGSLEY; Three or four times as big


George William Fowler: The Hillsborough building will cost about the same as this one. The village of Hillsborough is smaller, and the post office at Hillsborough only serves the immediate vicinity. There is another village across the bridge which is served by a post office of its own. I doubt if the income from that post office is any larger, if as large, as from the post office at Hillsborough. If my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) wants to enliven these proceedings, which he thinks are somewhat dull, of course we can have no objection to his taking the course he does.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I do not wish to interfere in New Brunswick matters, but the information before me is that the site for the Hampton post office cost $700, while the revenue of the post office is only $600. My hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) informs us that the population is about 200, and the Government proposes expending $31,000 there upon a post office, and that such an expenditure in such a place is something of a joke. Unless there is some very grave reason for erecting such an expensive post office in so small a place, it would seem to be somewhat of a scandal. If the minister gives this as a precedent, I would point him to many villages and even towns in the county I represent, which is one of the largest in Canada, with a far greater population, where there is no public building at all. If I consent to vote for this, perhaps the minister will assure us that in places with a population not of 200, but of 1,000, he will put up a building costing at least $20,000 or $25,000.
[Mr. Pugsley.!


Robert Rogers: The other evening the question of the cost of public buildings was discussed, and it having been drawn to my attention that at a few points public buildings which might be considered too expensive were being erected, I gave definite and distinct instructions to the chief architect that in future no plans must be made for any public building in any town with a population of 1,000, that would cost more than $12,000 or $14,000. That is the rule of the department now, and it will be carried out.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: There does not appear to be any justice meted out by the department in this matter, because the city of Hull, with its present population of over
20,000,	is asking for a custom house and inland revenue building and cannot get it.
Milltown public building, $10,000.


William Pugsley: What wall this cost?


Robert Rogers: The contract is $30,000.


William Pugsley: Will that finish it?


Robert Rogers: All hut the fittings.


William Pugsley: What is the population of Milltown?


Robert Rogers: 2,044.


William Pugsley: What is the revenue?


Robert Rogers: $1,232; money orders
issued, $12,800; money orders paid, $5,287.
Sackville public building, $15,000.


William Pugsley: What will be the cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: The estimated cost is $30,000.
Shediac public building, $18,000.


William Pugsley: What will be the cost of this?
Mr. ROGEito: The chief archi-
5 p.m. te-ct says it will cost $30,000.
The population is 1,042.
Coaticook armoury, $20,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that under contract?


Robert Rogers: Yes; Mr. W. J. Welsh.
Quebec-Dominion public buildings-renewals, improvements, etc., $30,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are those public buildings generally in the province?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Gaspfi public building, $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: As regards this building, I have recently received a communication from a gentleman who has resided at Gaspe for many years. He says that the site selected by the Department of Public Works is not where it should be. If the construction has not been started, I would ask my hon. friend to revise the selection made by his officers, because a much better site could be secured for possibly the same price. I am told that, in view of that selection, the cost of the foundation of the building will be very large. I know the location of the site, and it is certainly in a very poor place.


Robert Rogers: The matter is held up at the present time owing to the fact that the plans originally prepared for the building seem to be rather large for the necessities of the place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think that the amount to be expended there is justified because, since the completion of the railway, Gaspe, or Gaspe Basin as it was formerly called, has become quite an important point, especially during the summer. A large number of tourists go there, and besides, the place is becoming more and more populated in view of the various industries which are being established there. I do not know that my hon. friend the Postmaster General has been in Gaspe Basin; I think he has been there, and perhaps he will remember that the post office at present is on the wrong side of the highway. For many years I know that the building, which is made of wood, is very dangerous if a number of people are in the post office at one time. The site selected is a very dangerous place to put a foundation in; you will have to spend a large amount of money for the foundation alone, and the building will lose from an architectural point of view by reason of its being placed on that side of the public highway. If my hon. friend will place the building on the other side of the road, the people will certainly thank him for doing so. My informant as regards the location of the building is a man who has been in the employ of the Government for the last forty years. I refer to Commander Wakeham. I met him while he was here on his official duties in connection with the Department of Marine and Fisheries, and he told me he regretted that the site had been selected on the wrong side of the highway. He is a very modest gentleman who would not care to impose his views; but I know how sound his judgment is and how well he
knows the Gaspd Basin. I would ask my hon. friend to communicate with him, because he is considered one of the fathers of Gaspe Basin; he is one of the old landmarks there, and his opinion is always given very great consideration. There is no doubt that the building is needed; but since you have decided to erect one, why not have it erected at the proper site?


Robert Rogers: The matter will be looked into.
Grand'Mere public building, $20,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is the work
going on there?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Wilfrid Laurier: Have tenders been asked for?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-new building, $250,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are these new buildings?


Robert Rogers: A new hospital and a
third-class detention building.


Wilfrid Laurier: Are these in addition to the building now existing, or to replace it?


Robert Rogers: We are going to use the one in existence for other purposes. These are new buildings.
Hull post office-repairs to fence, levelling and sodding grounds, etc., $1,000.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: A few moments ago, when the minister was discussing Hampton village with its population of 200, I thought it strange that he was expending $31,000 on a post office there and expending so little with respect to buildings in the city of Hull. What class of work is to be done with this $1,000? I would like to call the minister's attention to the fact- and it is not the first time that I have urged it on the department-that the post office in the city of Hull is altogether too small for the requirements of the population. The post office is not at all modern.
For instance, there is but one door by which everybody goes in and out. There should be two doors, in order to avoid congestion. The 'building should be enlarged and re-painted and finished, for it certainly does not add to the beauty of the place.
Joliette-new public building, $10,000.


Robert Rogers: I move that the word
' new ' be struck out and that after the

word ' public building ' the words ' addition to ' be added.


Wilfrid Laurier: What is the nature of this addition? It seems pretty-expensive.


Robert Rogers: It is quite extensive. At first it was proposed to have a new building, but afterwards the officers made the recommendation that it would be possible to make an addition that would meet all requirements.
LSvis-armoury and gun shed, $35,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the name of
the regiment there?


Robert Rogers: The information supplied by the Militia Department is that there are no guns at present in charge of the 6th Tegiment and no accommodation available. The strength of the Quebec and Levis 6th regiment is 265 officers and men, and of the 17th regiment 196 officers and men. The officer in command of the 6th regiment is Lieutenant-Colonel J. E. P. Bergeron, and of the 17th regiment Lieutenant-Colonel 0. E. Talbot.
Maisonneuve-Postal station ' M,' Montreal, $75,000.	'


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
minister visited Maisonneuve recently and that at the request of the municipal authorities he has decided to change the site that had already been selected in order not to mar the scenic effect of the present municipal buildings which, I am informed are of great architectural beauty. Will he tell me where he is locating the new building and what amount he intends to spend. Will this be a building commensurate with other public buildings in the locality? Maisonneuve is a very progressive city. In fact, I think that, industrially speaking, after Montreal and Toronto, it is the first city in the Dominion.


John Douglas Hazen: Ahead of Hamilton?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I am not certain of its position, but it certainly is one of the great industrial centres of the Dominion.


Robert Rogers: I had occasion to visit
Maisonneuve a short time ago and found a very prosperous condition indeed. They had erected there a public building that was a credit to the place, and the post-office site that had been selected would certainly have interfered with the view from the maginfi-cent building which the municipality of Maisonneuve had erected. We are simply

crossing the street and exchanging the property we had for a property directly opposite on Ontario street. We propose erecting a public building in keeping with the other public buildings being constructed at the present time.
Montreal-Postal station * A,' St. Janies street $30,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that a new building? And where is it?


Robert Rogers: This is the proposed new building on St. James street. It is what is known as the Carslake purchase.


Rodolphe Lemieux: You are not going to
do that for $30,000?


Robert Rogers: We may hear from it again in the Supplementaries.


Rodolphe Lemieux: With all due deference to my hon. friend, I think that this purchase of the Carslake site is not warranted. On the 27th of April last, I put some questions in this House which were answered by the Minister of Public Works, and which I quote from ' Hansard ':
Mr. Lemieux:
1.	Has the Government disposed of the property purchased a few years ago near Bona-venture station, St. James street, Montreal, for postal purposes?
2.	What is the superficial area of said property?
3.	What was the purchase price?
Mr. Rogers :
1.	No.
2.	15.732 feet.
3.	Taken in exchange, in 1907, for property on Cathedral street.
A few days afterwards the minister corrected the statement as regards the superficial area of the old property on St. James street, which Sir William Mulock bought when he was Postmaster General. The site purchased by Sir William Mulock is but a stone's throw from that which the Minister of Public Works contemplates purchasing- the Carslake hotel site. In his corrected statement the minister put the superficial area at something like ten or eleven thousand feet. I think that this area is quite sufficient to provide a building for the purpose proposed. I understand that this building is for the handling of the newspapers and parcel post. Now my hon. friend is going to invite much criticism if he does not exercise the greatest care in the purchase of the Carslake hotel property. First, it is not needed, as the Government already have one property, a property which it has held for years without using. In the second place it is known that a syndicate have secured the Carslake hotel for speculative

purposes. I do not know that the minister is aware of this, but as expropriation proceedings have toeen initiated, he will probably know very shortly that the price he will be asked before the valuation is made will be simply exorbitant. I predict that if the Government persist in obtaining that property from the speculators they will have to pay in the neighbourhood of half a million dollars for it. What are the facts? There is in Montreal a gentleman by the name of Harry A. Dorsey, who leased the present Carslake hotel from George T. O. Carslake. I have here the deed which was signed before Henry Fry, notary public for the province of Quebec, at Montreal on December 1, 1910. It is as follows:
Before Maltre Henry Fry, notary public, for the province of Quebec, residing and practising in the city of Montreal.
Harry A. Dorsey, of the city of Montreal, manager, hereto present and accepting, for, during and until the full end and term of five years and five months to be counted and reckoned on and from the first day of December, nineteen hundred and ten:
That certain building fronting on St. James Street, in the city of Montreal, near the corner of Windsor Street, and known as Carslake hotel, and being numbers 571, 573 and 575 St. James street with all the rights, members and appurtenances thereof, including the cost of electric fixtures, bar fixtures, counters, cigar counter, kitchen fixtures, range, heater, gas stove, sinks, racks, boilers, refrigerators, ice-box, fix tables, heating apparatus and cellar, pantry and other fixtures, which are considered as part of the property. The land included in this lease being lot number 725, on the official plan and book of reference of the St. Antoine ward, which fronts on St. James Street, the land immediately in the rear therof, being the southeast portion of lot number 726, on the said official plan and the southeast portion of lot No. 723 of said official plan ; the whole as shown edged in red and in green on a plan thereof made by Joseph Rielle, P.B.S., and of record in his office dated the fifth day of June, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and which property is that acquired by the lessor from the Royal Institution for the Advancement of Learning by deed of sale before Henry Fry, N.P., the third day of November, nineteen hundred and nine, etc.	.
The present lease is made for the sum of four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500) per annum during the said term, which said lessee doth hereby promise and oblige himself to pay by even and equal consecutive quarterly payments of eleven hundred and twenty-five dollars ($1,125) each.
Then follow the ordinary clauses usually contained in such leases.
The lessee will have the right to buy property hereby leased at any time until the first day of May, nineteen hundred and sixteen, for the sum of ninety thousand dollars ($90,000) by giving to the lessor notice in writing of his
intention at least two months before the date on which he intends to purchase.
In the event of the premises being destroyed by fire in whole or in part, it is understood and agreed that the amount of the purchase price fixed by the present option shall be reduced by in amounts which the lessor may receive from the insurance company of the premises hereby leased and which is not expended in replacing damage caused by fire.
The lessor shall not be obliged to expend in repairs after the fire more than he received from the insurance, but the moneys so received are to be approved of by both parties.
The option to purchase hereby given shall be cancelled and ceased in case the lease itself is cancelled, provided always the lessee has a right to exercise the option to purchase within three months of the cancellation of this lease.
Whereof acted; at Montreal on the first day of December, nineteen hundred and ten, and of record in the office of the undersigned notary under number nine thousand six hundred and nine.
(Sgd.) Geo. Carslake.
Here is a property leased to Mr. Dorsey with an option to buy extending until the first day of May, 1916, for the sum of $90,000. This option and lease has been registered in the registry office at Montreal. I am certain that when the Government come to buy this property they will have to pay half a million dollars for it. This amount may startle my hon. friend, but I predict now that it will cost them that much. Is it worth while paying that amount when the Government already have the site which has been used for several years, which is still available and which is certainly sufficiently extensive for the needs of the public service? In Montreal it is common talk that this is a matter of speculation. Several real estate men in that city have written me since the matter became known to the public press declaring that the amount which is said to be about to be paid to the syndicate is certainly abnormal. If expropriation proceedings are going on, I would advise my hon. friend ro get as many real estate men as possible to establish the actual value of the property. I do not say that the property is not worth more than the $90,000 mentioned m the option to Mr. Dorsey, because property has increased in value since Mr. Dorsey leased the Carslake hotel, but there is a wide gap between $90,000 and $500,000, and I hope my hon. friend will see that the interests of the public are protected in this matter.


Robert Rogers: The committee may depend upon it that the greatest possible caie will be exercised in regard to thi3 matter.

For six ocr eight years the Post Office Department has been pressing for the erection of a building such as the one now proposed for the convenient handling of mail to and from the different stations in the city of Montreal. With that object in view, as far back as 1896, a site was purchased upon which to erect such a building and the Postmaster General of that day Sir William Mulock, purchased a large quantity of pneumatic tubing in order to convey the mails under ground to and from the Canadian Pacific and Grand Trunk stations'. For some reason or other, at the request of the Grand Trunk Railway Company the site at that time selected and purchased, which was apparently a very desirable site, and, if we had it to-day, would undoubtedly be the most desirable site for the purpose, was exchanged with the Grand Trunk Railway Company for the site t-o which my hon. friend refers as containing 15,000 square feet. Unfortunately the city of Montreal have established what they call a homologated line by which they take away from us about 4,500 feet of that particular property; and in doing so they leave the property in such an irregular state that it is entirely unsuited according to the officers of the Post Office Department, for a post office building at this particular point. That is the recommendation of Mr. Gaboury and the other officers of the Post Office Department.
As to the purchase of the Carslake hotel property, that has been done entirely on the recommendation of the officers of the Post Office Department who claim that it is the most desirable site for the purpose for which it is intended, desirable in that it is centrally located between the three stations in Montreal, the Canadian Pacific railway, the Grand Trunk railway and the Canadian Northern railway; and it is proposed eventually that we shall adopt the system suggested and intended to be adopted by Sir William Mulock of transferring the mails underground to the three railway stations. We have on hand a very large quantity of pneumatic tubing purchased at that time ' by Sir William Mulock and still available for that purpose. In respect to the price of the CaTslake hotel property, every care will be exercised. We are not placing a valuation upon it but are simply leaving the value to be fixed by Judge Cassels of the Exchequer Court, and every care will be exercised and all evidence will be produced in order that the department and the Government may
[Mr. Roger- '
not be asked any more for the property than it is really worth. As to the option which my hon. friend has read, when this property was recommended by the officers of the Post Office Department we had no knowledge whatever as to who the owners were and it was only at a later date that they became known to us. We have had valuations made of the property by some of the leading real estate agents in the city of Montreal. The valuations range between $280,000 and $325,000. I can assure my hon. friend and the House that every precaution and every care will be taken that there will be no chance for anybody making any speculation or any money out of the country and out of the Government in respect of the purchase of tlhis property.
Montreal Postal station * G,' St. Lawrence division, $50,000.


Robert Rogers: That is at Prince Arthur and Elgin streets.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I think this vote is warranted; but I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the needs of the eastern section of St. Catherine street. From the papers of Montreal favourable to the Government it will be seen that there has been a general outcry in the eastern division of Montreal, say from Bleury street as far as Amherst, for more postal facilities. The large organs of public opinion have clamoured in vain during the last two or three years for better postal equipment on this street. For a number of years it has seemed as if St. Catherine street was becoming the real nerve centre of Montreal, and certainly the postal facilities are not sufficient in that district. I would ask my hon. friend, the next time he goes to Montreal, to make himself acquainted with that district and see that proper postal facilities are provided.


Robert Rogers: I have already promised to visit that district, because there is certainly a pressing necessity for a post office on St. Catherine street at some point between Maisonneuve and the post office we now have close to St. Catherine street on a side street. A post office will be erected there as soon as possible; but, of course, we cannot build all the post offices asked for in such a short time. I shall take the matter up as soon as I possibly can.
Murray Bay public building, $15,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Have you selected a site for the Murray Bay public building?

Murray Bay is like Gaspe Basin, it becomes really a town during three months in the summer, and the expenditure is justified, because there is a large revenue derived from these offices in summer.


Robert Rogers: The site is at Main Street and St. Antoine Street. The site is 60 by 100 feet, and the proposed -building is required for post office and customs purposes.
Quebec post office-enlargement and alterations, $250,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this extension to be on the front or the side of the building?


Robert Rogers: It is to make the building longer, but it will not interfere with the front.
Quebec-iso'ated cottages for contagious diseases and disinfecting building, etc., $18,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: How many cottages are you building ?


Robert Rogers: It depends on the reports of the officers of the department.
Quebec-immigration building on Louise Embankment, $170,000.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is that near completion ?


Robert Rogers: The building is already completed and occupied, but we are adding another story.


Wilfrid Laurier: That will not cost $170,000.


Robert Rogers: That amount is to take care of another item as well. This extra story is required for the detention of those immigrants suffering from contagious diseases.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: Before we leave the Quebec Estimates I would like to ask the minister whether he intends doing anything for Riviere du Loup public building. Some ornamental work is being done in connection with that building, and I would like to know if it is to be proceeded with. I do not see any item here. There is a small piece of land behind the building which would be very useful for a park for the citizens of the town. It would not cost very much and I would like to ask whether any item will be in the Supple-mentaries for that purpose ?


Mr. PELLETIER:: Something was done last year.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: The work has not been completed. I would also ask the minister if he could put a tower and a clock on the
building. I think the citizens of the town have already sent in a petition to that effect.


Robert Rogers: Such a petition may have been sent in, but I have no recollection of it. If my hon. friend desires the information, I will obtain it for him. In regard to improving the grounds, I might say that we are doing some work there now and I will have the matter looked into.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: In case the minister finds no petition in his department asking for a tower and a clock, I petition him myself to have them erected, and I think the Postmaster General will second me.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid I have no amount in the Estimates. If my hon. friend had made his request earlier, we would have taken it into consideration.


Charles Arthur Gauvreau: I thought the petition had been sent in and I expected there would be an item in the Supplementaries.


Robert Rogers: 1 do not remember having received the petition.
Caledon public building, $1,500.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the population?


Frank Oliver: I have some knowledge of that country, but I do not know of such a place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It would facilitate the
passing of these Estimates if the minister would give the population in each case.


Robert Rogers: The population is put
down here as 3,000, but that is evidently a mistake.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What county is it in?


Frank Oliver: Peel.


Mr. W. H. BENNETT:: I have passed through the town and should say it has a population of 500 or 600, possibly 800. It is on the Owen Sound branch of the Canadian Pacific railway.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister
should instruct his officers not to refer to the census returns for information of this kind, because it has been proved time and again that they are incorrect and that a place mentioned in the Estimates and designated by the same name in the census returns do not comprise the same territory, the latter being much more extensive than the former.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend may be quite right, but still the census returns can

be analysed to see whether a township has been added or anything of that kind. I think that it is the safest plan to consult the census returns. If you get away from that, you are bound to get into trouble.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister is sure there is such a place as Caledon?


Frank Oliver: There is a township called Caledon and a railway station called Caledon East, but I never heard of Caledon village.


William Humphrey Bennett: The hon. gentleman is mistaken. It is quite a considerable village. I think the large brickyards that supply Toronto are near there.


Robert Rogers: The revenue of the post office is $476; money orders, $10,945; money orders paid, $4,300.


Frank Oliver: The item with reference to the Brantford public building might stand until the Ontario members are .'ere.


Robert Rogers: They can bring it up any time they like.
Georgetown public building, $20,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will this be built of Georgetown or American stone?


Mr. HENDERSON:: I have asked the Minister of Public Works to build it of Georgetown stone without fail, and he has assured me that if the difference in cost, will not be too much he will do so. The Georgetown people are extremely anxious that this building should be built of stone, and if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Maclean) were up there himself he would second the proposition.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Can you satisfy the minister that it is good stone?


David Henderson: The chief architect is here, and he is able to tell you that no better stone can be found.


Frank Oliver: Are not the Georgetown people sufficiently patriotic to ensure that the price of the Georgetown stone will not be any more than the price of the imported stone?


David Henderson: If the Minister of Public Works will build it of Georgetown stone, the people of Georgetown will take no exception to that, you may be sure.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Speaking of these Militia buildings, I think the Minister of Public Works promised last year that .he would have them placed under a separate

heading, and not intermixed with what are public works expenditures proper. That is a good suggestion, and I think it ought to be arranged for next year.


Robert Rogers: The Minister of Militia
may have made the statement, but I have no recollection of having done so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you think it would be a good thing?


Robert Rogers: I think it is the business of the Public Works Department to erect-all buildings.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes, but if we ask the Minister of Public Works to justify an expenditure on one drill hall or a militia building he cannot be expected to do so.


Robert Rogers: There may be something in the suggestion.
Milton public building, $20,000.


Frank Oliver: How much will this building cost before it is completed?


Robert Rogers: We are calling for tenders. The architect's estimate was $20,000; the population is 1,657.


Frank Oliver: Surely the building is going to cost more than $20,000?


David Henderson: I hope ,so.


Frank Oliver: If it did not cost more
than that the House would be astonished at the moderation of my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson).


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It does seem to me that in connection with expenditures on public buildings the present minister is responsible for departure from the established policy under the late Government. In many cases here we have been voting money for public buildings in towns of 100, 200, or 300 population. In my opinion the minister is embarking upon a very dangerous policy in that respect.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He has embarked on the steamer Dashaway.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If this is to be continued it will entail a much larger expenditure than the country is justified in making. The late Government, on the whole, confined public buildings to towns of 1,500 population and up, but there are scores of instances now of public buildings contemplated in places with a population of 500 and less.


Robert Rogers: I have said several times that while we acknowledge a few cases

where public buildings are being erected in places wheTe the population is not sufficient to warrant a large expenditure, in no case now do we adopt the idea of erecting a public building in a place unless it has
1,000	population.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: You are voting here
money for the purchase of sites in towns where there is not one-quarter of a thousand population.


Robert Rogers: I. fear you are exaggerating.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 206, to incorporate The General Council of the Canadian Branch of the St. John Ambulance Association.-Mr. Alfred Thompson.
Bill No. 207, for the relief of William Ewan Laurie.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 208, for the relief of Margaret Van Du sen.-Mr. Schaffner.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Public works, chargeable to income-Ottawa departmental buildings

fittings, etc, $75,000.
['Oh, yes.\nProgress reported.']
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is that actually required?


Robert Rogers: It is for steel files and
adjustable roller bookshelves required for the departmental offices and buildings generally.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are these purchased by tender and contract, or from political friends?


Robert Rogers: All by tender.
Ottawa departmental buildings-Langevin block-new elevators, etc., $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you going to add
elevators or to repair the old ones?


Robert Rogers: We are replacing the old hydraulic elevators with electric ones.
Ottawa customs building, $500,000.


Frank Oliver: How much was spent last year? There was $500,000 in last year's vote, and there is $500,000 this year.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will remember that the foundation cost over $520,000. Last year's vote was all spent on it. We discussed that before.


Frank Oliver: What is the customs building estimated to cost altogether?


Robert Rogers: The estimate is $999,000
outside of the cost of the foundation.
Ottawa Mines building (old museum, Sussex street)-alterations, etc., to complete, $2,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are you going to do with that building?


Robert Rogers: This- item is to make
provision for the complete remodelling of the fireproof throughout the old museum building on Sussex street to suit the requirements of the Department of Mines according to the following estimate submitted by the chief architect: Window enlarged for doorway and stairs, $829; covered boiler and pipe in basement, $722; contingencies, $449; total, $2,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What are you doing with that building now?


Robert Rogers: It is occupied by the
Mines Department.
Ottawa-new drill hall, $50,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What will become of
the drill hall at Cartier Square?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has been settled about the site of the new building yet. I suppose if we decide to buy a new site the present building will have to be sold.
Ottawa Parliament	buildings-improvements, $17,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What improvements
are to be considered?


Robert Rogers: This vote is to cover the cost of a new copper roof and skylight for the House of Commons and the Senate Chambers. The galvanized iron roof will no longer hold solder. This is also to cover other improvements which may be required during the fiscal year.


Rodolphe Lemieux: While repairing the elevators in the Langevin block, the minister might think also of the elevators in the House of Commons. I understand that recently my hon. friend from Halton (Mr. Henderson) was caged in the elevator between this story and the next.


David Henderson: I got out again.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Almost every day the
elevator is stopped at great inconvenience



to members. One elevator, I think, is not sufficient for that section of the building, and there should foe another. And now I am to repeat my old request. The Government is spending large sums every year for public works in every part of the country, but it is neglecting, it seems to me, the interior of the Parliament buildings. This Parliament building is probably one of the noblest buildings in the world. As a massive and imposing pile, I think few public buildings can compare with it. But, while architecturally splendid on the outside, the interior is rather poor. This House of Commons is a very poor assembling place as compared with the House of Commons in South Africa and similar Chambers elsewhere. Our walls are bare, and there is nothing inspiring in the appearance of the place. Visit the Parliament buildings in England, and you find the walls covered with historical tableaux and the .halls crowded with the statues of the great. I think the Minister of Public Works would do well-and I believe he has still some ideals left, though he has been so long in Manitoba politics-[DOT] to think of giving this House an interior in keeping with the splendid exterior of the place. Why not have the history of the country written in paintings on our walls? We might have, for instance, a concourse of our distinguished painters to give us valuable representations of Canadian history. The library, too, is getting very crowded and is in a very poor state. You find the avenues blocked with newspaper files, blue-books and documents. I think the Minister of Public Works should see to it that the interior of out Parliament buildings is given more beauty.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate the force of my hon. friend's argument concerning the interior of these buildings. Certainly great improvements could be made. Yet I do not quite agree with him as to this Chamber being so much inferior to that of other countries. I confess that I think our Chamber is as good as the House of Commons in England. If we can get the time, we will give more careful consideration to the question of improvements here. One thing I might mention while on this point. It has been represented to me by several members that carpet on the floor of this Chamber is objectionable and this floor should be covered with the best linoleum we can procure. I would like to know the views of members on that subject. I think it would be desir-

able, before the assembling of the next Parliament, to try linoleum for a time. The present carpet is about worn out. Yet I would not like to make the change without consulting the members. As to improvements in the library, we have had a vote as the hon. member knows for a couple of years, but there have 'been so many things claiming attention that nothing has been done. But the vote is in for this year also, and I hope we shall 'be able to reach the matter.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps it is not quite fair to occupy the time of the committee at this late date discussing a matter of this kind, yet I cannot quite resist the temptation to say a word. It is unfair to complain of the Minister of Public Works, whoever he may be, about the condition of this building, and especially of this Chamber. That is a domestic matter that ought to engage the attention of members, and I assume that, as the minister has intimated, he will do nothing without consulting the members.
I notice that every Minister of Public Works promises consideration regarding the interior of the Chamber. My hon. friend has been here two or three years, and but little- time remains for him to distinguish himself in this Parliament. Either of two things may remove him from his position of influence: his departure for London, or, in the course of a very short time, his sitting on this side of the House. I think that there are two matters which ' should be considered seriously during the recess, and I would like to ask the minister to take them into consideration, and to submit some kind of proposal at the beginning of the next session. I have often thought that another floor or story might be added to this building in order to afford proper accommodation to the members. That, of course, is a question for the architect to decide; perhaps it could not be done, -but I think it is worth looking into. I have thought, too, that we need a new chamber -here, which could be supplied by building to the rear of the library, and by building a new library. I think these are matters to which we do not pay sufficient attention. It is quite true that the stay of any one of us in this House is very uncertain, but I think that we should take as deep an interest in this matter as if we were fully satisfied that we would -be here as representatives of the people for a great many years.


Robert Rogers: In reference to the serious portion of my hon. friend's remarks,

I realize that it is quite possible that the condition of the interior of the Parliament buildings has probably never received that careful consideration which it should receive, by reason of the fact that it is often difficult, on account of pressing business, to give to the matter the consideration which its importance requires. I would be entirely opposed to the placing of an extra story on this building, believing, as I do, that it would destroy its architectural beauty. As to the matter of a new chamber, there is some force in what my hon. friend says, but I would suggest that the most desirable location would be not where the library is, but on the west end. At any rate that is a matter well worthy of consideration. If I can possibly get the time during recess, 1 will endeavour to prepare some ideas to submit to Parliament when it assembles again with a view to bringing about improvements. If there is no objection from the members, I will undertake to see whether we can improve on this carpet in some way, as I think it is time it was removed.


William Humphrey Bennett: Permit me to make a suggestion. I think that we would have to go a long way to find a room as beautiful as the library, but the whole effect is spoiled by the appearance of the ceiling. The practice of colouring summer kitchens indigo blue may have been in vogue forty years ago, but it certainly should not be permitted in that room. I would ask the minister to consider during the recess the advisability of having the whole dome ceiled with light oak or pine, in order to make it consonant with the beauty of the rest of the library. I do not think it would cost a great deal, and I am sure that we would all like to see the last of that indigo blue dome.


David Henderson: I do not agree with the hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) in his comparison of this Chamber with that of the House of Commons in England. I was utterly astonished when I entered the House of Commons in London and the Chamber of the House of Lords. Ours is a palace compared with the Imperial House of Commons, in beauty, in size, and in any way you have a mind to take it; and we have nothing to be ashamed of in the House of Commons in Canada. I am sure that visitors who have seen both buildings can go away with but one opinion: as regards accommodation and in every other way, we have the superior Chamber of the two. Speaking of the 265$
library, two years ago a gentleman and his daughter whom I met on the way from Toronto came to Ottawa, and I took the opportunity of showing them through the buildings. Amongst other places, I showed them the library. The moment the door was opened, the girl exclaimed: ' Oh, this beats Washington,' and the father was obliged to say, ' hush '-he did not want anybody to hear it. I think we have in the library a beautiful structure of which we may well be proud. With regard to the carpet, in these times of falling revenue we can put up with the old carpet; I do-not think it is so bad after all. Let us make additions to some of our public buildings in the country; we need them more than we need a new carpet. At any rate, I do not approve of covering the floor with linoleum; I am afraid that that suggestion came from some manufacturer who has linoleum to sell. As to the enlargement of these buildings, I think that is a matter that Parliament should consider not at the end but at the beginning of a session, and I shall not attempt to discuss it at this stage.
Manitoba public buildings-Winnipeg drill hall, $300,000.	,


Mr. MOLLOY:: I notice that something is voted for every county in Manitoba except Provencher. That must be an oversight on the part of the minister. I have not raised any objection to any amount voted for any of these towns. I am glad to see them get the amounts and I think they are entitled to them; but at the same time I think that Provencher, which is the oldest county in Manitoba, should receive something. All I would ask is a post office for the town of Morris, not to exceed $10,000; perhaps it could be built for $7,000. The accommodation for the public in the present post office is sufficient for about six people. I hope that the minister will be able to provide for a new post office in the Supplementary Estimates, or else that he will provide for it next year.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is rather doing me an injustice in suggesting that 1 have not attempted to do anything for Provencher. We are providing in the Supplementary Estimates for a post office for Norwood, in my hon. friend's county, a growing and thriving town. I quite appreciate the suggestion that there is a reasonable necessity for a new post office in Morris, one of the oldest towns in the province and a very growing and prosperous place; and I can
I

assure my hon. friend that if I am not able to include it in the Supplementary Estimates, I shall make my recommendation and endeavour to include it in the Estimates for the next year.
Winnipeg'-railway postal station, $100,000.


Robert Rogers: I beg to move that this item he struck out. I might explain that Winnipeg requires a new postal station, and also a new immigration hall. The present immigration hall at Winnipeg has been condemned by the health authorities. Several of the rooms were dark, and it was impossible to get proper ventilation; for these and other reasons the building was condemned, and consequently some arrangement had to be made for a new building. It was found that the immigration building, when remodelled, would do very well for the postal station we require immediately adjoining the station, and we are therefore going to use the immigration building for that purpose. In the Supplementaries 'an item will he found providing for a new immigration hall. I therefore move that this item be dropped.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and item dropped.
Battleford public building-improvements, $5,500.
["I beg to move that this item he struck out. I might explain that Winnipeg requires a new postal station, and also a new immigration hall. The present immigration hall at Winnipeg has been condemned by the health authorities. Several of the rooms were dark, and it was impossible to get proper ventilation; for these and other reasons the building was condemned, and consequently some arrangement had to be made for a new building. It was found that the immigration building, when remodelled, would do very well for the postal station we require immediately adjoining the station, and we are therefore going to use the immigration building for that purpose. In the Supplementaries 'an item will he found providing for a new immigration hall. I therefore move that this item be dropped."]
David Bradley Neely: I have no criticism to offeT of the votes under the head of Saskatchewan except to the number, which I think is 'altogether too small. The minister knows very well that in point of population the province of Saskatchewan is the third province of this Dominion. I do not think I am speaking boastfully when I say that presently we expect Saskatchewan to be the great producing province of Canada, and as regards population, I think it will not be very long before it stands next to this great province of Ontario, and not very long after that before it is the leading province of Canada in point of population. I notice that the total amount appropriated for public buildings in Saskatchewan is less than a million dollars. Alberta, with a smaller population, is getting over $400,000 more than Saskatchewan, and British Columbia almost $1,000,000 more. The province of Manitoba, from which the minister comes, with a smaller population and a very much smaller area of settlement, has $300,000 more for public buildings than Saskatchewan. I think the committee has been very generous in the treatment accorded to all these votes in Ontario, especially in view of the fact that
I Mr. Rogers.]
the western provinces are fairly well represented on this side of the House to-night. In looking over the list of public buildings for Ontario, I notice that a great many small villages have items of considerable importance for drill halls, post offices, and so on. I would like a little better consideration to be given the province of Saskatchewan in the future Estimates of the Minister of Public Works. In the constituency which I have the honour to represent, I think the town of Humboldt is the only one where public money has been expended on a public building by the present Government, although I see the minister has an item of $20,000 for a public building at Wadena, Saskatchewan. Three great transcontinental railways run through my constituency: the Canadian Northern railway; south of that the Yorkton extension of the Canadian Pacific railway; and still further south the Grand Trunk Pacific. In view of the minister's generosity to all these little towns in Ontario, British Columbia and other provinces, I think that at least the divisional points on these three transcontinentals ought to have a little consideration. Take the Grand Trunk Pacific for instance. In Humboldt constituency Watrous is the divisional point and is widely known not only throughout the West, but throughout the East as a famous health resort due to its proximity to lake Manitou, the waters of which are supposed to have splendid medicinal qualities. Suiely a town of this importance with a population of 2,000 or thereabouts, ought to have at least one public building for a post office or something of that kind. The subland agency there might be accommodated in the same building. Another divisional point in my constituency is Wynyard, south of Quill lake, on the Canadian Pacific railway. Then there is also Lanigan, the junction point of the Pheasant Hills branch and the Yorkton branch of the Canadian Pacific railway. It is in a welhpopulated district and has a population of about 1,500. I recommend that the minister take into consideration the claims of at least the three points I have mentioned: Watrous, Lanigan and Wynyard. I do not think my criticism is at all unfair; in fact, I think it is eminently fair as I think the minister must recognize when he looks at the grand totals of the Estimates of the various provinces for public buildings. I hope the minister will take into consideration the three places I have mentioned. So far as the rest of the province is concerned, I think

hon. gentlemen should speak for their own constituencies.


Robert Rogers: I agree with my hon.
friend in this respect at all events, that the West is not getting any more than her share from the Parliament of Canada. So far as I am concerned, as a western man, I am always ready to lend a sympathetic ear to any legitimate expenditure in any of the growing towns in western Canada. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Neely) rather attempts, although I hope he did not intend it, to do me an injustice in comparing my attitude towards Saskatchewan with my attitude towards Alberta and Manitoba. I do not think, so far as I can remember, that any fair request has been made to me for the construction of a public building in any of the growing and thriving towns of Saskatchewan that is not recognized in the present Estimates, or which will not be provided for in the Supplementary Estimates. If this appropriation is smaller than my hon. friend thinks it should be, it certainly is not my fault, because if my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman made a request for a public building and was able to show, as undoubtedly they could in certain cases, that a public building was in the interest of the people and was a necessity, I can assure him that it would have been recommended by me, and I would hope that it should be included in the Estimates. If my hon. friend will renew his request before the next Estimates are brought down, he will find that I will be ready to endeavour to secure the necessary sums for the erection of public buildings in the growing towns of Saskatchewan, in common with the other provinces of the West.


David Bradley Neely: I am glad to hear the Minister of Public Works speak in this way. The members of this House have no opportunity of knowing what will be in the Estimates before they are brought down. I appreciate very much the attitude he assumes towards, the erection of public buildings in Saskatchewan, and I give him notice in advance, and I hope he will make a note of it, that from every point of view there should be public buildings erected in Watrous, on the Grand Trunk Pacific, and Wynyard and Lanigan on the Canadian Pacific railway.
Athabaska Landing-addition to public building, $5,000.


Frank Oliver: The building that has
been occupied there has been very inadequate; what sort of a public building is to be erected at Athabaska Landing?


Robert Rogers: I was just going to move that this item be amended by leaving out the words ' addition to public 9 p.m. building.' In view of the fact that the old building is so inadequate, the officers of the department recommended that a new building be erected at Athabaska Landing.


Frank Oliver: Will that building be
commenced this year?


Robert Rogers: Oh, yes.


Frank Oliver: What will be the total
cost?


Robert Rogers: I have not the architect's report yet, but it will be a building adequate to the requirements of the place. As my hon. friend knows the population there is not large at present, but it is the gateway to the great West beyond, and a building of reasonable proportions will be required.


Frank Oliver: I am not urging a large-expenditure, but I would like to know what particular branches of the public service will be accommodated in the old building and what branches in the new.


Robert Rogers: We will have a post office and a customs house, if required, in the new building.


Frank Oliver: What use will be mads
of the old building?


Robert Rogers: I do not know, but I am advised that it is not of much account.


Frank Oliver: Will the new building be on the site of the present building?


Robert Rogers: The people there are
petitioning for a different site.


Frank Oliver: Then it means the purchase of a new site and the erection of a new building.


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: So that there will be two public buildings.


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Calgary-customs examining warehouse, $300.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is Calgary a grow ing place?


Robert Rogers: Of course, it is. Has my hon. friend ever been in western Canada?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Yes.
[DOT]4202


Robert Rogers: Then he had better go
again and see the growth of Calgary.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is Edmonton a growing place?


Robert Rogers: Very much so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I see there is a great disparity in the appropriations for the two towns.


Robert Rogers: Wait until you see the
Supplementaries.


Frank Oliver: I cannot be bribed by that.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Wait until you see us next year.


Frank Oliver: How far have the Calgary buildings progressed in construction?


Robert Rogers: The examining warehouse will be finished in August next.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the Canadian Northern into Calgary yet?


Robert Rogers: It is.
Calgary-new post office, site and building, $250,000.


Robert Rogers: We are taking down the old building and erecting a new post office on the same site.


Frank Oliver: When will that be finished?


Robert Rogers: It will take all this summer to finish it and we have arranged for *quarters to take care of the business in the meantime.


Frank Oliver: I understand there is some dispute about the site of the drill hall at Calgary? There was a question of acquiring land in the park for some of these public buildings. Does the Government intend to acquire the land in the park or have they purchased a separate' site?


Robert Rogers: There was some difficulty about the site, but not so far as the Government is concerned; the difficulty was with the people of Calgary. Some wanted the site in the park and there was opposition to it. That condition appears to exist at the present time, and the Government are simply waiting until they settle upon the matter themselves at Calgary.
Edmonton post office-addition, $100,000.


Frank Oliver: What progress . is being
made with this addition ?


Robert Rogers: Chief Superintendent Ross of the Post Office Department reports as follows:

I would point out that I have been closely pressing on the attention of the department the necessity for additional floor space at Edmonton for some time past; and I would urge that consideration be given to the whole proposition, namely: either to acquire the lot immediately adjoining the Edmonton building and to erect thereon an addition to the present building for post office purposes, or to turn over to the post office the space on the upper floor of the Edmonton building.
When I was in Edmonton, on looking around I found rather at the back of the building, a piece of property on which the buildings were old and low, and which I thought would be a valuable piece of property for us to acquire in order to extend the post office. On the street the post office is on, and immediately adjoining it, there is a very large block which would make it difficult for us to extend the post office in that direction. Therefore I thought an extension at the back of the post office would be more desirable and the site easier to acquire.


Frank Oliver: Has the property been acquired, or what action has been taken ?


Robert Rogers: We sent the chief inspector, Mr. Ross, of Toronto, to report on the matter, and he agrees with my idea. The property has not yet been acquired.
Edmonton customs examining warehouse, $75,000.


Frank Oliver: Is that building under construction ?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Frank Oliver: Where is it to be erected ?


Robert Rogers: The site is on Peace avenue, 100 feet frontage by 150 feet deep.


Frank Oliver: Has the property been purchased ?


Robert Rogers: Yes, for $63,000.


Frank Oliver: Has the contract been let ?


Robert Rogers: No.
Edmonton-new drill hall, $50,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the position in regard to this building?


Robert Rogers: The contract is let-


Frank Oliver: Has the property for this building been purchased or been provided by the city?


Robert Rogers: The city purchased the site from the Hudson Bay Company, and turned it over.


Frank Oliver: When is the .building to be completed?

Mr? ROGERS: Two years from the time the contract was let.


Frank Oliver: Was the contract let last fall or this spring?


Robert Rogers: Last fall.
Grande Prairie immigration hall, 53,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the total cost of this immigration hall?


Robert Rogers: This item of $3,000 is to provide for the erection of the immigration hall. The appropriation in 1913-14 was $5,000. The expenditure was $2,000, requiring a revote of $3,000.


Frank Oliver: Is the building being constructed this summer, or when will it be constructed?


Robert Rogers: It will be put up this summer.


Frank Oliver: There is a new town being developed at Peace River crossing. A branch of the Dunvegan railroad has been chartered, and preparations have been made to carry it to Peace river crossing. That will be the first point at which the road will strike the navigation of the Peace river. There is a measurable boom in progress there now. There is no question about it being a permanent point, and I would like to take this opportunity of bringing it to the attention of the minister with a view to consideration in the future, although there has been nothing there until the last month or two. Owing to the fixity of that point as a railroad point, there has been a very strong direction of public attention and occupation to it; and I think the minister will be acting in the public interest, if, when preparing his next Estimates, he will take into consideration the requirements of this particular point.


Robert Rogers: We shall be glad to take notice of my hon. friend's recommendation and endeavour to meet his wishes in the matter.
Red Deer public building, $35,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May we have an assurance from the Minister of Public Works that this vote of $35,000 is not intended to seduce the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark) away from the paths of economic and mental rectitude, or is the building actually required?


Robert Rogers: If I thought a monetary consideration would induce my hon. friend from Red Deer to depart from his economic ideas, it would not be an item of $35,000
that I would place here, but perhaps $35,000,000.
Vegreville public building, $30,000.


Frank Oliver: Is this building under
construction?


Robert Rogers: No, the contract has not yet been let.


Frank Oliver: Has the property been purchased?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we have the site.
Vermilion public building-$20,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the position in regard to the proposed Vermilion public building?


Robert Rogers: We have got the site, but no contract has yet been let. Both the VegTeville public building and the Vermilion public building will be gone on with this summer.
Duncan's Station public building, $40,000.
Mr. A. K. MAjCLEAN : How big a place is Duncan's Station?


Mr. SHEPHERD:: I may tell the hon. member that the building is completed and occupied. The population of the place is about 2,000, tout there is a very large contributory country. The building is built and the janitor appointed.
Mr. MAC-LEAN: Then, what is this $40,000 'for? Surely the contractor would not 'be waiting all this time for $40,000 if the building were completed.


Robert Rogers: There is a re-vote here of $20,000. Th-e contract was $37,000, and it was let on the 12th of August, 1913. I think my hon. friend (Mr. Shepherd) is mistaken about the building being completed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps it has not been commenced yet.


Robert Rogers: Yes, it has.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there any doubt about that? Perhaps the janitor was appointed before the building was commenced?
Mr. -SHEPHERD: I know I have had an application to appoint a janitor.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Only one?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Only one; I may say that the building is not yet completed; it lacks the clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When was it completed?


Francis Henry Shepherd: I tell the hon. member it is not yet completed; it lacks the clock.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When was it completed minus the clock?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Very recently.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Within twelve months?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Yes, I think so.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Was the hon. member ever in this' building?


Francis Henry Shepherd: Does the hon. gentleman wish it to be inferred that I am a stranger in Duncan?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I could infer a great
deal. I am almost afraid he is a stranger in Duncan, though that seems hardly possible. Yet I am inclined to think that he is mistaken about this building being completed. If he is sure about it and is not a stranger in Duncan he can tell me when it was completed. Was it a year ago-two years ago-three years ago?


Francis Henry Shepherd: If the hon. gentleman will read the Estimates he will surely not gain the idea that it was two or three years ago. I can assure the hon. member the building is fairly complete within the last year. Is that the information he wants to get?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It is not very definite. Can he tell me, was the building completed in July or August of last year?


Francis Henry Shepherd: I hardly know what the hon. gentleman wishes me to tell him. But I might remind him that I have been here about six months and the building was completed before I came here in January. Does that satisfy him?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: No, it does not. Perhaps the minister can tell me-am I correct in assuming that the building is not commenced yet?


Robert Rogers: Yes, it has been commenced.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I suppose nothing substantial has been done, seeing that $40,000 is wanted.


Robert Rogers: The time for completion is fixed in 1915.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Well, the building is not finished. Or is it finished. I want to know what this $40,000 is for. Strike it out if it is not wanted.


Alexander William Chisholm: If the building is not finished, why has the janitor been appointed?


Robert Rogers: Nobody said he was appointed, but only that an application had been received.
Prince Rupert drill hall, $35,000.


David Bradley Neely: Perhaps some one can tell us the present population of Prince Rupert. I understand it is a comparatively new place.


Robert Rogers: It is growing very rapidly. The census of 1911 gives it a population of 4,771. It is the terminus of a transcontinental line and will undoubtedly grow.


David Bradley Neely: I have been told that the population of Prince Rupert is less than it was when the census was taken.


Robert Rogers: Oh, no.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: The minister invited
inquiry regarding military matters. Will he please tell us when the regiment was established for which this drill hall is intended and what is the strength of it? How long is it since they started military operations in that part of the country?


Robert Rogers: A free site has been donated and deeded to the department by the corporation of Prince Rupert. This site is located on Borden street and extends through Summit Avenue. Prince Rupert is under military district No. 11, headquarters of Earl Grey's Own Rifles, one company, Captain A. D. Stork. The following particulars are given by the Department of Militia and Defence, February 15, 1913:
Re Prince Rupert drill hall. There is at present no drill hall or armoury accommodation for the company of Earl Grey's Own Rifles stationed here. As the place is growing rapidly it is altogether likely that other units will be raised in the near future. It is understood that a suitable site will he provided.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Do they go to camp there and drill year after year?


Robert Rogers: They will have annua]
drill as do the volunteers in other parts of Canada.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is that a guess on the part of the minister, or does he know?


Robert Rogers: In common with other
regiments of volunteers, they will go out during a certain period Of the year for annual camp and drill.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is a matter of reasoning. Does the hon. minister know

anything about the camp strength of the regiment?


Robert Rogers: I have no report as to
that.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is but another of the fanciful ideas of the Minister of Militia designed for .the purpose of throwing away $35,000 on something that is not required at all. Many other works are required in this country on which this money could, properly be expended. I do not wish to put the responsibility of these expenditures on the Minister of Public Works, as he inherits them in an indirect way, but he is stepping into the breach and must take the responsibility for these extravagant expenditures which have not the slightest conceivable justification.
Vancouver public buildings-improvements, renewals, repairs, etc., $5,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: There is a general vote under item 5 for Dominion public buildings, and one would naturally assume that this would include general repairs to public buildings in the province in question. Should that not be sufficient for the whole province?


Robert Rogers: It has been the practice of the department to have a vote for the public buildings in the cities; this $5,000 is to meet the requirements for repairs, and so on, to public buildings outside the principal cities.
Victoria-new drill hall, $150,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why is this new drill necessary? Is the old one insufficient to accommodate the militia at Victoria?


Robert Rogers: I have not before me information with respect to this, but I shall be glad to let the item stand until we get the information.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think that would be better. I was quite serious the other night when I told the minister that the Minister of Militia and Defence, who is responsible for these things, should be here to see them through the House. The expenditure of such a large amount of money as this is a serious matter, and we should have some satisfactory explanation with regard to it.
Item stands.
William's Head quarantine station-new buildings, improvements and repairs to existing buildings, fittings, etc., $75,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where is William's Head?


Robert Rogers: Near Victoria.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is the quarantine station for Victoria?


Henry Herbert Stevens: All incoming vessels clear there.


David Bradley Neely: The expenditure for improvements to the Victoria post office seems to be very large. What are they going to do to the post office?


Robert Rogers: That is a very extensive and a very necessary work. They are sorting the mails outside.
Public building generally-burglar alarm installation, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Are you going to install burglar alarms in the Public Works Department?


Robert Rogers: This is for the receiver general's offices in the different provinces.
Ottawa public buildings-elevator attendants, $50,000.


William F. Carroll: I understand that the elevator men in the buildings here have had their wages cut during the present session, and that on Sundays they do not get the same rate as they used to receive. I think that when public servants are required to work on Sundays they should get half as much again as they get on ordinary working days. Our public servants in this- country as a rule receive too little pay as it is. When you require an elevator man to work here for twelve hours on Sunday, when the rest of the people of the country are supposed to be resting and going to church and praying, and that sort of thing, these men should at least receive one-half more than they do for an ordinary day.


Robert Rogers: There has not been a reduction in the salaries.


William F. Carroll: Are they not working longer hours ?


Robert Rogers: They are getting extra pay for their Sunday work. Nothing has been brought to my attention in connection with the matter.
Ottawa public buildings-heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $175,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the department have installed a new heating apparatus called the Presto heater.


Robert Rogers: Certain changes have been made in some of the furnaces to increase the draft, and two Presto heaters have been installed in the Langevin block. The chief

architect informs me that they are working very well.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the cost ?


Robert Rogers: $1,600 apiece.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $600,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the reason ' for the great increase in rent, from $375,001 to $600,000 ?


Robert Rogers: The service is growing and we require more space all the time.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Not at that rate, though.


Robert Rogers: Pretty nearly. That includes items for the various provinces.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is it the practice of the department to accept tenders for coal for Government buildings that are not the lowest tenders ?


Robert Rogers: It is always the practice under ordinary circumstances to accept the lowest tender in everything.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What would be the cause for not doing so ?


Robert Rogers: It would be some extraordinary cause, perhaps a coal strike.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have papers here in answer to an Order of the House in connection with the supply of coal for the public building at Lunenburg. Tenders were asked last year for that building, and one John B. Young was advised that his tender was the lowest, and the caretaker of the public building was advised to so instruct Mr. Young. I am sure I did not get all the papers, because I know that some correspondence passsed with the department which is not upon the file. Mr. Young was advised by the architect in charge of maintenance that his tender was accepted. There was a hiatus after that and nothing could be learned as to what was going on or what was to be done by the Department of Public Works. A little later it transpired that the contract had been awarded to another party who had tendered at the same time as Mr. Young. If, as the department said, Mr. Young's tender was the lowest, it is a very serious matter to have the contract awarded to another party. I would like to hear w>>
at the minister has to say about it.


Robert Rogers: If such is the case I have no knowledge of it. My hon. friend will understand that it is impossible for me to keep in mind the details of a multitude of contracts. I have no recollection of ever

awarding a contract to other than the lowest tenderer. I think there must be some mistake about my hon. friend's statement that he did not receive all the information that is on the files in the department. Since I have been in charge of the Public Works Department I do not believe a return has ever been brought down that did not embody all the information asked for that was on record in the department.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On August 2, 1913, the caretaker of this building was advised that the contract had been awarded to Mr. Young, but on August 9 that letter was cancelled by a telegram to the caretaker, as follows:
Cancel letter of second instant re coal contract. Contract not yet awarded.


Robert Rogers: Who signed that letter?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: P. Shearson
Gregory. I have not the slightest doubt in the world myself Mr. Young's tender was the lowest and that the Government awarded the contract to him, but something has since occurred which I think is hardly creditable to the department. Of course I do not expect the minister to carry all the facts in a matter of this kind in his head, but if possible I would like the minister to look into this matter and write me.


Robert Rogers: I will.
Water, $39,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is no reason why I should bring this matter to the attention of the minister any more than any other member, but those of us who are obliged to keep house in Ottawa find it an extraordinary thing that we cannot have pure water without going into the highways and byways and buying it. This water question has been a disgrace to the city of Ottawa for the last ten years. I have frequently brought it to the attention of other ministers of Public Works as well as the present minister. Surely something can be done to remove this difficulty. I asked the late Minister of Public Works, Hon. F. D. Monk, to stop paying for any water until we got a proper supply. In any other line of trade, whether it is Ibutlter, beef, potatoes, or anything else, you must sell a merchantable article before you can expect to be paid; but it seems to be different with water. The city of Ottawa is selling water to those of us who come here for a short time and to the residents, but we cannot use it. We have to go out in the streets

to 'buy water, otherwise we are in danger of pestilence breaking out in our families. At the same time we are compelled to pay for this undrinkable water, and the Government are paying hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for water that is not fit to be used at all. Strong language could be used in connection' with this water question and in connection with the civic government of Ottawa, but that is no good, and I am not going to do it. There is only one way to protect ourselves, and that is through bringing the influence of the Government and the Department of Public Works to bear upon the subject. The minister knows what it means to live in a city where you do not feel safe in drinking the water. Every member of the House and every man in the city knows what it is just as well as I do, and surely something should be done to help along whatever proper steps are being taken by the city to remove this difficulty, and the tax- although that is a comparatively small matter-but, most of all, the enormous inconvenience that is caused to people coming here by having to go outside to get their drinking water, because the water connected with the House is not fit to use; and, even then, they do not know' what they are getting. I hope the minister will use the large influence of his department in trying to bring about a better state of affairs in regard to Ottawa's water question.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend can quite understand that it would be difficult for me to undertake to regulate the civic government of Ottawa. At the same time I am bound to acknowledge that I personally very largely share tire views of my hon. friend as regards the water supply of Ottawa. I might say that the water supplied in the House of Commons and in all the public buildings is absolutely pure and absolutely safe. lit is all sterilized, boiled or filtered, and is as pure as it is possible to make water. We have it tested regularly and invariably the tests show that the water is entirely pure 'and therefore safe. Ini regard to outside conditions, if it were possible for me by any means at my command to remedy conditions in Ottawa, I would be veTy glad to do so. I shall not lose sight of any such opportunity.	i


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Is the ice used in
the public buildings taken from the Ottawa river?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: It is artificial ice mechanically made.
Nova Scotia-harbours and rivers, $889,550.


William F. Carroll: I have a few words
to address to the Minister of Public Works in connection with the harbour at Glace Ray which is the distributing point for foodstuffs for a population of some 35,000 or
40,000	people. The railway facilities at Glace Bay are not good. The terminus of the Intercolonial railway is at Sydney, and the residents of Giace Ray and the surrounding country have to pay a double freight rate upon their food-stuffs. The harbour at Glace Bay is perhaps not a public harbour, but a former government spent money in extending the breakwater .there and dredging the harbour. They recognized that it was a harbour for the public benefit. Glace Bay used to be the shipping port of the Dominion Coal Company and other companies operating in that section, but now they use Louisburg and Sydney and have given up looking after Glace Bay harbour. In the last two or three years the harbour has filled np, and last year it was almost impossible for the ships from Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick to enter it owing to its being filled up with sand. I would like to ask the minister if he can do something towards improving that harbour. I know all the Pa-inee Edward Island members take a deep interest in this matter. It would take very little money to improve the harbour. The Government steamer Canada formerly used to come in there, but a ship of half that size cannot get in now. I hope it will not be said that this is not a public harbour, because the late Government recognized it as such, and spent money in di edging and in extending the wharf. It is a serious matter for the thirty-five thousand people in the vicinity that they cannot get their produce other than by hauling it over two railways at a large increase of cost. I hope the minister will see that the entrance to the harbour is dTedged this year.


Robert Rogers: In going over the dredging programme for the coming year, we have already made arrangements to do a certain amount of work to meet the requirements at Glace Bay. I am afraid it will be impossible to do anything on the wharf this year, but we will endeavour to look after the dredging.

Baddeck-repairs to wharf, $550.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: W'hat is the matter with this wharf; dt is comparatively new?


Robert Rogers: The amount is requested by the district engineer to renew the covering of some of the stringers and beams in the wharf which are in a -bad condition from wear and decay.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am told that the
wharfinger now attempts to collect dues on this wharf while formerly there were none charged. A large traffic for the Intercolonial railway comes over the wharfs at Iona and Baddeck, and I have always contended that they are essential to the Government railways, and that therefore no charge should be made to individuals using them. The same observation would apply to the public wharfs in Victoria county, many of which are breakwaters built to afford shelter to the boats of the fishermen. If, as I understand, an attempt is made to charge the fishermen who take their boats to these wharfs, and spread their nets, I must enter a most vigorous protest against any such proceeding. It was never the intention of the Government to charge the fishermen any dues.


John Douglas Hazen: I have not the information my hon. friend asks, but if he will come to the department any day or drop me a line I will see that the information he requires is given to him as soon as possible.
Cow Bay (Port Morien)-repairs and improvements to breakwater, $4,000.


William F. Carroll: How much money was
expended last year on the breakwater at
Cow bay?


Robert Rogers: I have not that information at hand, but evidently
10 p.m. there has been a large expenditure from time to time on this wharf, as up to the 31st of March, 1913, it represented $300,000.


William F. Carroll: I would like to have a report as to the money expended there last year.


Mr ROGERS:: I shall be glad to get
that information.


William F. Carroll: Has the minister had
any application on behalf of the Broughton Coal, Iron and Railway Company for a wharf at Round island, where the company is establishing a terminus of their road as a shipping point?


Robert Rogers: We have been very
strongly pressed as to that and I think my

hon. friend will find a vote for it in the Supplementary Estimates.


William F. Carroll: That vote will have njy hearty support, because it will greatly facilitate the coal company in shipping; I much appreciate the promise of the minister.
East Bay (north side)-repairs and extension to wharf, $1,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Was any' work performed on this wharf last year? There was a small item in the Estimates last year.


Robert Rogers: The item last year was
$2,600, of which $1,600 was expended. This is a revote of $1,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: What is the minister
going to do in regard to this wharf?


Robert Rogers: Make repairs to it.
East Chezzetcook (Crab beach)-extension of breakwater, $14,500.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much was spent there last year?


Robert Rogers: 


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were tenders called for?


Robert Rogers: No, the work was done
by day labour.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why not?


Robert Rogers: Repairs are sometimes
done by day labour with advantage, when the amounts are below $5,000.
Inverness harbour improvements, $15,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: This vote has
been in the Estimates since 1911. The hon. minister gave me an assurance last year that this amount would be expended this year on the harbour of Inverness. Is he still of the same opinion?


Robert Rogers: Plans are now being prepared for the work.


Alexander William Chisholm: I take this opportunity of thanking the minister for his intention to have this money spent. The original intention of this undertaking was that this artificial harbour should be opened up for schooners, and that it should have a depth of about fourteen feet. A good deal of expensive work has been done there already. The town of Inverness has a population of about 4,000 now. There are coal mines there-a very important industry, and there is a splendid fishing bank off the coast. The intention is to develop the fishing industry of the town. Does the specification

call for the carrying out of the original plan or has the plan* been changed?


Robert Rogers: We are just getting out the plans. The explanation of this item does not appear to be here, but it is to provide piers necessary in the harbour of Inverness.


Alexander William Chisholm: There is a pier on one side of the harbour now. My understanding is that this appropriation is for building a pier on the opposite side.


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander William Chisholm: Is there any provision for dredging between those piers? The minister will understand that this is a beach, an artificial harbour, and that the piers are put there for the purpose of keeping the sand back after the dredging has been done.


Robert Rogers: As soon as these piers are completed, we intend to undertake the dredging, but we have to have the piers in first. The dredging will be done out of the general appropriation for dredging.


Alexander William Chisholm: The hon. minister will have the work pushed on as rapidly as possible?


Robert Rogers: We will do the dredging to meet the requirements as soon as the pier is completed.


Alexander William Chisholm: Can you tell me what depth of water you are going to have?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that at the moment. That would be governed entirely by the report of the district engineer in charge.


Alexander William Chisholm: I trust that the minister will see his way clear to carry out this work and that the plans will not be changed, because a great deal of the work, that has already been done, will have been done in vain if the original plans are not carried out.
Kelly's Cove-extension	to breakwater,


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is a Kelly's cove in my county. I am sorry to say this is not my Kelly's cove" that is getting this vote. People in my constituency think this item refers to their Kelly's cove, but I believe it 'belongs to some one else. I would ask the minister to make some distinction so as to show the county in which this cove is, because there is a very old place called Kelly's cove in my county.	.


Robert Rogers: This cove is in the county of Yarmouth. If my hon. friend desires it,
we shall extend title to his cove and cal! it McKenzie's Kelly's cove.
Margaree harbour-repairs to breakwater, $4,200.


Alexander William Chisholm: This appropriation is for repairs to breakwater. I am sorry to tell the minister that this is only a drop in the bucket to put the harbour in a proper condition. Some time ago I informed the minister that this process of destruction of the piers had been going on for the last two years, with the knowledge of the department. No attention was paid to my representations. The result is that the Government will be called upon to spend between $35,000 and $45,000 before this harbour is fit for anything. The piers there cost $68,756, but they are in such a condition that I do not think that $4,000 will begin to make any substantial repairs or make good the destruction that has been wrought. The minister will pardon me if I say that this has been done with the knowledge of his department. For the last two years I have called attention to this matter, and I am sure that Mr. Gallant, who has the patronage of the county, should have done his part also. Besides, the minister has the reports of his own engineers. It would be wise in the public interest to have an item in the Supplementary Estimates to put that harbour in condition that the public property may be preserved. If that is not done, the whole structure from the outer end of the pier will be carried away. It is practically carried away now, so far as tire use of the harbour is concerned.
While I am on my feet, I may refer to another public work, that of Port Hood. I think I may be pardoned for taking up a moment now, as these matters are important, and I do not usually take up much of the time of the House. The wharf at Port Hood has been destroyed, section by section, in much the same way as Margaree Harbour piers. The minister is in possession of reports of the last two years with respect to this wharf. The wharf cost the country $70,000, and of that, I am sure, at least $55,000 of the work done has been carried away, not by one storm, but by a succession of storms. The Government undertook to replace this wharf, and had an appropriation, I think, of $5,000 in the estimates last year. Through some lack of knowledge or experience, the work done last year is displaced now, and I may say practically carried away so far as its usefulness to shipping is concerned. The

wharf now would require at least $25,000 to put it into shape that it could be used for shipping. I would ask the Minister to take this into consideration, and to provide in the supplementaries an appropriation to save what has not already been destroyed.
Going further, I might refer to the work of closing the northern end of Port Hood harbour. I still have a strong faith that the Supplementary Estimates will bring forth an appropriation for the continuation of that work. As the minister knows, it was commenced six years ago. I am informed by some parties that it is the intention of the Government to drop this work entirely. The minister will know, no doubt, that this work is going to cost before it is finished some $100,000-I think that is a fair estimate. The undertaking was consented to by the leader of the present Government (Mr. Borden). I have looked over the debates that took place year after year when this work was undertaken and I find that it was consented to by both sides of the House. That being so, I cannot see how the Government can afford to let the work drop, $159,000 having been already spent. There is even a worse feature resulting from the delay in carrying on this work and that is that the harbour which was a fairly good harbour of shelter is being spoiled by the work done by the Government, narrowing the channel, and thus concentrating the force of the water, the current has been diverted and has been increased and large deposits of sand are being formed inside the harbour until the channel is closed, this condition will continue. The longer the condition is allowed to continue, the worse it will grow and the harbour will be practically spoiled, necessitating a great deal of dredging, more than the country will consent to have done. Gan the minister give me any information with regard to the closing of the northern entrance of the harbour of Port Hood?


Robert Rogers: As this is a matter for
which there is no item in the Estimates before us, I have not the information with regard to Port Hood at hand, but I shall be glad to look it up that I may answer the hon. gentleman's question, If the circumstances are as stated by the hon. gentleman, if the matter has been looked into at some previous time by my right hon. friend the leader of the Government and he gave the assurance that certain work would be carried out, you can depend upon it that that pledge will be kept. So far as the port of

Margaree is concerned, the amount we have in the Estimates at the present time is for the purpose of improving the conditions in a temporary manner, and in the meantime we are having a survey made to ascertain what is necessary to meet the public requirements with a view to carrying out the work.


Alexander William Chisholm: The hon. minister misunderstood me. I did not say that the right hon. leader of the Government had promised to carry on this work. I said he had consented to the undertaking of the work when it was undertaken. For that reason, I claim, he is in honour bound to carry on the work.	-


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: One or two of these
items should be allowed to stand. Many hon. members are absent who desire to discuss these matters.


Robert Rogers: Of course, the hon. gentleman can have any item stand that he wishes. But I can assure him that if any hon. member on the other side wishes to discuss any item, whether it has been passed or not, he will be at perfect liberty to do so as far as I am concerned.
Spry Bay (Henley's) wharf, $3,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is this for?


Robert Rogers: The work to be done consists of reconstruction of part of an old wharf, which was block and span. w;th a pile addition. When completed it will be 169 feet long, 20 feet wide, with an ell 25 feet by 20 feet and an average depth of 18 feet. Estimated cost of crib-work, 14,400 cubic feet at 8 cents, $1,224; flooring, $276; pile work, $865; land and road approach, $100; warehouse, $500.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is new work?


Robert Rogers: It is a re-vote of $1,600.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am instructed that
this work is entirely unnecessary, that there are only three people at the most who can be served by it, and that there is already a Government wharf about a mile from this one.


Robert Rogers: I understand that improvements have been made at different times, for example, in 1909 and in 1910 $1,300 was spent in improvements. The repairs seem to be necessary to keep the wharf in good shape; the wharf must be of some use or the repairs would not have been recommended by the engineer.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What engineer recommended the repairs?


Robert Rogers: Morrison.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do you propose spending the money this year?


Robert Rogers: 
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is to be
done at Tangier?


Robert Rogers: This amount, $4,200, is
asked by the district engineer for the construction of an extension to the wharf at Tangier. The proposed work will be one solid crib-work block 25 feet by 50; 30,000 cubic feet of crib-work at 8i cents, $2,550; widening and raising of road approach and contingencies, $1,650. The proposed work is of a public nature and will give additional and better accommodation for vessels loading and unloading. The appropriation for 1913 was $1,200, probable expenditure, 1913, $400; re-vote, $800; new vote, $3,400. The wharf was built originally in 1908-9.
The wharves-'breakwater, $1,500.


Robert Rogers: I move that this item be struck out. The work is completed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Windsor-harbour improvements, $25,000.
Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When will the work at Windsor be done?


Robert Rogers: The work is of a public nature, and will increase the accommodation for the berthing of vessels, provide more railway accommodation, and more room for piling lumber, etc. The improvement of the harbour is also asked for by resolution of the board of trade of Windsor. A large sum of money has already been spent there.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When do you propose spending the money appropriated by this vote?


Robert Rogers: Just as soon as we can get at the work.
Mr. iMACILEAN: Did you ask for tenders?


Robert Rogers: Plans are being prepared, and tenders will be called for as soon as they are completed.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Does that mean next year?


Robert Rogers: No, this year.
Cardigan

extension and reconstruction of ferry wharf, $10,000.


James Joseph Hughes: This is the second or third time that this amount has been voted. Does the minister intend to spend the money this coming summer?


Robert Rogers: The district engineer states that the proposed work will consist in the re-construction of the present wharf, 315 feet long; construction of extension, 40 feet; pierhead, 70 feet, and guide piers, 90 feet, etc. The contract is already let for this work, and it will be gone on with immediately.


James Joseph Hughes: Is the work to be done by tender?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


James Joseph Hughes: Why was the work not proceeded with last year?


Robert Rogers: I do not recollect;
because it was not reached, I presume.
Charlottetown harbcur, $20,000.


James Joseph Hughes: What is to be done in Charlottetown harbour?


Robert Rogers: We have a contract there now for dredging.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it the intention to build a dry dock?


Robert Rogers: No, this is all for
dredging.


James Joseph Hughes: I suppose this dredging is being done by tender, not by the Government dredges?


Robert Rogers: It is being done under contract; tenders were, called.


Robert Rogers: It is under contract after public tender.


James Joseph Hughes: Have you done anything yet with regard to the marine slip?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it the intention to
do anything this summer?


Robert Rogers: We will give the matter attention as soon as we can.


James Joseph Hughes: Will you have an item in the Supplementaries for it?


Robert Rogers: I do not recollect whether there is anything in the Supplementaries or not.

North Lake, boat harbour, $24,000.


James Joseph Hughes: This is the second time this has been voted and I would like to know why the work has not been gone on with.


Robert Rogers: There is $24,000 of revote of last year's appropriation for the construction of two piers at this place. The delay is due to the fact that we could not arrive at an understanding with the owners of the adjoining land. If my hon, friend could help us out we would be glad to have his assistance.


James Joseph Hughes: What arrangements does the department desire to make?


Robert Rogers: We are asking a release as against damages to the surrounding land.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it expected that by
opening the harbour the sand may Change its course? This is an outlet from a lake that crosses a sand bar.


Robert Rogers: To some extent. I do not know whether it would do a certain amount of injury.


James Joseph Hughes: I understand that the
Conservative candidate in the last election wished to get the farmers owning the adjoining land to sign a document to the effect that if their land was injured by the construction of this work they would waive all claims against the Government, and that they refused to do so.


Robert Rogers: That is right.


James Joseph Hughes: Is it usual to ask men whose land may be injured by the construction of public works to do that sort of thing?


Robert Rogers: It is always usual when
they would have the direct benefit they would have in this case from the work.


James Joseph Hughes: In all probability it will not be possible to come to terms with these men on the conditions laid down by the department. Would it not be desirable to construct the harbour at some other place nearby where no such land injuries are likely to result?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that it
would be. I could not give an .answer without having a report from an engineer.


James Joseph Hughes: I think there is a report in the department that a boat harbour can be constructed near there, at Long Point, without danger from drifting sands.


Robert Rogers: Could not my hon. friend convince the farmers that we are not asking too much from them? i


James Joseph Hughes: I do not know. If their land is valuable and their farms would be destroyed, I think you are asking them to do too much when you ask them to waive all claim to damages. If I owned land there I certainly would not sign such a document and I do not think it is reasonable to ask them to do so. What is the use of having the vote here if it is not intended to expend the money.


Robert Rogers: We intend to expend the money if we can get the farmers to grant a relief.


James Joseph Hughes: You cannot exipect that.
New Brunswick, Bathurst-harbour improve-merits, $100,000.


Mr. TURGEON:: In what way does the minister intend to do this work, by contract or by dredges belonging to the department?


Robert Rogers: By contract.


Onésiphore Turgeon: By a new' contract or
by an extension of the contracts of last year?


Robert Rogers: An extension of the contracts of last year.


Onésiphore Turgeon: I asked last spring to
have instructions given, either t: the captains of the dredges of the department or to the contractors, to first dredge the sand bars which are on the inside of the harbour over which the water is not so deep as in the general channel. When last summer I saw that they had not done that I called the attention of the chief engineer to it and immediately one of the dredges of the department, the St. Lawrence, went to work on the upper bar. They have done some work there. The lower bar not being dredged, however, there is no more advantage to navigation than if nothing had been done. I understand the contractors made some objections, claiming that the work belonged to them and that they were not ready to do it. I do not care how it is done, but last fall the shippers were greatly handicapped by the want of facilities. Two or three more ships could have been brought up in the late season and could have been loaded; whereas, owing to the condition of the bar, the lumber had to be kept in until spring. I would urge the minister to see that

the inside bars are dredged at once to the
level of the harbour. That could he done in a week's work. A great deal of correspondence has taken place with the department about the deposit of the spoil of the dredges into Bathurst channel. Everybody in Bathurst and Gloucester county knows that I want every inch of water possible for the main channel and when I objected to the affluent into that channel it was because it would not help navigation at all. A breastwork should be put in at the point of divergence and nobody knows that better than the chief engineer for he made a survey of that harbour twenty years ago, and conditions have not changed since. I see that the resident engineer recommends that a training wall should be built near the old mill, called at that time the Bathurst mill. He says it could be done for about $4,000 and it is certainly the only practical way of reserving the water for the main channel. I wish to impress upon the minister the necessity of having that work done.


Robert Rogers: Do I understand that my hon. friend considers the work we are doing there to be impracticable and that we should stop the dredging that is going on.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Not at all; this breastwork can be built while the dredging is going on. I wish the dredging to be proceeded with as rapidly as possible, but I urge that this breastwork be put in at the point of divergence. I think the chief engineer will understand what I mean.
Green Point (Beresford) breakwater, $10,000.


Onésiphore Turgeon: Might I ask the minister whether he intends to go on with this work. This amount has been voted and revoted since 1911 but nothing has been done. I do not blame the present Minister of Public Works for that, but it is very important the work should be done. If I were to trace the delay to its source I might find that the Minister of Marine had been the greatest sinner. I think it was he who told the late lamented Minister of Public Works, after representations had been made to him, which were not, however, justifiable, that the location was not a proper one. The lowest tenderer had already been awarded the contract, but he was later on advised that the plans and location might be changed. Reports have been made to the department recommending another site about one-quarter of a mile farther up than tne one first chosen by the engineer and recommended by myself and other gentle-266
men who know that district. The Minister of Marine knows I have made a study of these shores for the last forty years, and that it is of no consequence to me personally whether the location is a quarter of a mile further south or further north. I ask the minister to take the resident engineer into his confidence and to ask him whether he does not think the first site is the best.
I want to see this work undertaken at once.
I maintain that the first site is much more advantageous both for the present and the future, and extensions will probably be required in the course of time. Patronage probably had something to do with the selection of the new site. I am speaking with all the responsibility of a man who has the mandate of the electors of the county of Gloucester for the last fourteen or fifteen years when I say that the first site chosen is the more advantageous. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries knows I have as accurate information on this point as any of hie friends in Gloucester county. I would again urge the Minister of Public Works to take the resident engineer into his confidence, and to ask him whether the first site is not the more advantageous.
Edmonton-repairs to wharf and roadway, $2,800.


Frank Oliver: I wish to point out to the minister that there has been very strong representation made to the department in regard to the protection of the bank of the river at this point. The matter was under consideration of the department for a number of years and it has been also under the consideration of the city council. Has the minister anything in view at present except this very small amount in the Estimates'?


Robert Rogers: I do not recollect if there is any vote in the Supplementary Estimates, but I do recollect that during my visit to Edmonton I saw considerable reason why a certain amount of money should be expended for the protection of the bank of the river. I will give the matter consideration, because I appreciate the necessity of work being done at that point.


Frank Oliver: It is a very serious matter, and I think the position taken by the parties interested was that the parties owning the property immediately affected were prepared to urge that the city government become responsible for one-half of whatever expenditure would be required, on the understanding that the Dominion Government would be responsible for the other half. That was the position taken by the property owners in their recommendation



to the city council, but I cannot say what the view of the city council is. I can say that the matter is very urgent, and I am anxious that the Government should give it its best attention.


Robert Rogers: We will take the matter up with the city council.


Frank Oliver: This appropriation is
entirely inadequate for anything of that kind.


Robert Rogers: Oh, yes.
Progress reported.



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 209, respecting certain patents of the S. M. Burt Company, Limited.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at eleven p.m.
Tuesday, May 26, 1914.