1916-05-02

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1916-17.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1917, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. 
Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Sir ROBERT BORDEN (Acting Minister Militia and Defence) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 97, for granting to His Majesty aid for military and naval defence.
Motion agreed to, and Bill read the first time.

Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: A list of decorations, medals, etc., awarded to members of the Canadian Expeditionary Force was received some time ago and a copy of the same was laid on the table of the House on the 12th April. It was afterwards ascertained that the list so received contained certain errors. It was therefore checked-by the Records Office with the London Gazette to the above date, and I lay upon the Table the corrected list.



SITTINGS AT TWO O'CLOCK.

Robert Laird Borden: It has been suggested to me by some hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that it might be more convenient, and would tend to the equal expedition of business, if, instead of arranging foT morning sessions, the House should meet at two o'clock. I am ready to accept that suggestion if it meets with the approval of the House, and therefore, if there is no objection, I would propose the motion on the Order Paper in that amended form:
That on and after Wednesday next, the third day of May, and until the end of the session, this House shall meet each day at two o'clock in the afternoon.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: I understand
that the Government have nothing further to bring down?


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think there is anything more of an important character. There may be one or two trifling measures. I recall to mind possibly a slight amendment to the Exchequer Court Act. It is to meet a difficulty that my right hon. friend encountered-


Wilfrid Laurier: There is no objection at all. Any matters of that kind-would not count. I had in mind important legislation. There have been persistent rumours that the Government was contemplating railway legislation. I see that in the Estimates that have just been placed

upon the Table there are appropriations for the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern. I presume this is the legislation the Government had in contemplation, and nothing more.


Robert Laird Borden: That is the legislation contemplated.


Wilfrid Laurier: And no more railway legislation of any kind?


Robert Laird Borden: I am not quite sure about that, but if there should be I do not know that meeting at two o'clock would greatly interfere with the discussion of it. Nothing has been decided upon up to the present time.


Wilfrid Laurier: I understood my right hon. friend to say a moment ago that nothing more of consequence would be brought down-only an amendment to the Exchequer Court Act and things of that character. If that be so, there is nothing more to be said. What I wanted to know was whether we were to expect any more railway legislation of an important character.


Robert Laird Borden: Nothing has been decided upon so far. The only thing that has been decided upon is what I mentioned to my rignt' hon. friend a moment ago.


Wilfrid Laurier: The motion
'as amended by my right hon. friend is not so objectionable as a motion for morning sittings would have been, but my right hon. friend knows that as a general rule the mornings are not taken until we know what the programme of the Government contains in the way of important legislation. We resort to the morning sittings only when the business remaining to transact is not of a contentious character, though it may be important. At present on the programme of the House there is nothing of any consequence, barring the resolutions which have been brought down to-day and the measure relating to the war loan. As to the war loan there is no contention on our side; it will be scrupulously looked into, but not in any contentious spirit. But I will not say that of the very important resolutions that have been brought down to-day. I see that it is proposed to give further aid to the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Canadian Northern. These resolutions must have been the result of negotiations between the Government and the respective companies, and there must have been important and voluminous 208i
correspondence between the Government and the two companies in regard to it. The only suggestion that I have to make to my light hon. friend is that before we change the programme and meet at two o'clock in the afternoon we should have that correspondence. I hope it will be brought down immediately.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand
that the Minister of Finance will be able to lay on the Table to-morrow any documents that are available.
As my right hon. friend has observed, we are not proposing to make any very important change. Some hon. members, to my certain knowledge, would be very glad to see the House meet at two o'clock in the afternoon instead of three, as a general rule. I departed from the proposal to hold sessions in the forenoon because there was a feeling, possibly well grounded, among some hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House that we should really get through more business by beginning at two in the afternoon than at eleven in the morning, as the latter would necessitate hon. members coming a long distance from their various places of residence in the city to this Chamber as at present located, and then going back home at one o'clock, and returning again for the afternoon sitting. So I thought the proposal which I have made would tend to an almost equal expedition in the despatch of business, and would at the same time meet the convenience of hon. gentlemen on both sides of the House.


Wilfrid Laurier: After tihe
statement of my right hon. friend, the correspondence respecting these appropriations will be brought down to-morrow, I have no objection to the motion.


Mr. GRAHAM:: I should like to make a suggestion to the Prime Minister, and it is perhaps worthy of the consideration of the House. During the session we are sitting (here night after night-at 'least, some of us are-


Robert Laird Borden: A few of us.


George Perry Graham: Sitting here night after night is wearying work, and <a man cannot do as good work the next day as he could if he had had the ordinary hours of rest. At one time I had the honour to be the leader of the Liberal party in the province of Ontario when the late Sir James Whitney was Premier, and without any undue

publication we made an arrangement by which we sat only three nights a week during that one session. The result was that the members were all fit for work the next day, the business was just as well done, and the session was no longer than it otherwise would have been. I would suggest that it would not be a bad idea for the Government to try an experiment of that kind next session, perhaps having the programme in better shape when the House meets, and cutting out the night sessions partially, and nearly all of the late hours.


Robert Laird Borden: Does my hon. friend mean that the Legislature met earlier in the day?


George Perry Graham: We met at exactly the same hours and I think the business went through just as rapidly. Possibly some of us did not speak at so great a length as we do now. At all events, the business wenit through, and the session was no longer than when we were accustomed to sitting every night.


Mr. ROGERS:: You had no Maritime
Province affairs to deal with.


Robert Laird Borden: If we could get into a reasonable frame of mind in regard to business, and possibly cut out some matters of rather a trivial character that are frequently brought up and consume a good deal of time, I daresay the proposal of my right hon. friend might result as he anticipates; but of course the number of members in this House is very much greater than the number in the Ontario House, and members naturally have regard to their usefulness and the importance of the constituencies which they represent. I am afraid it would be rather difficult to get through the business of the session by sitting only between the hours of three and six. In the United States they meet in the forenoon.


Wilfrid Laurier: They meet at twelve o'clock.


Robert Laird Borden: And I do not believe they sit in the evening, as a rule.
. Sir WILFRID LAURIER: Very seldom. The hours are from twelve to six.


Robert Laird Borden: If any such consummation as that could be brought about, I am sure that no one in the House would welcome it more warmly than I should, because, while very late sessions are trying upon all members of the House, and especially upon those who remain to the end, they 
are naturally more trying upon members of the Administration than upon any other members of the House, as my hon. friend from South Renfrew will have realized during the time he was a member of the late Administration. I shall be very glad to consider what he has in mind, and if it should be thought desirable that we should meet earlier in the day, and hold committee meetings in the evenings, as far as I personally am concerned, I shall be very glad to try the experiment.


Mr. MARCIL:: If the House does not sit, at night there is no reason why the committees should not meet earlier in the morning, or why the business of the House should not be transacted between two and six in the afternoon. Experience has shown that the afternoon sittings are the ones at which most business is done, and if the evening sittings were cuit out the committees could meet at nine-thirty or ten in the morning, and get through by twelve or half-past, and the House could meet at two and go on till six or even seven, if necessary.
Motion amended as proposed, agreed to.



PRIVILEGE.


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr; KYTE: I desire to say a word or two on a question of privilege. I notice in the Montreal Gazette of to-day's date the following despatch:
A feature of the testimony to he taken by the Royal Commission investigating- the Kyte fuse contract charges which is being awaited with interest in Ottawa is that which will show from what source the member for Richmond obtained the information on which he based his series of allegations as to million dollar commissions. There has been considerable speculation ever since Mr. Kyte's speech, in which he read an alleged contract for the division of huge commissions among Messrs. Yoakum, Cadwell and Bassick, as to the source from which the contract came. It has already been. stated, and has not been denied by the Opposition, that no such contract has ever been executed. It is now understood, however, that information was obtained from a firm of German-American lawyers in New York, and how Mr. Kyte obtained possession of it is the mystery to he solved. That statement is being freely made in the corridors that it was the Arm in question which was the source of his information, and if this is the case it is of interest that the same firm has never had any hesitation in acknowledging its strong pro-German sympathies. If this is brought out in evidence there will be little sympathy for Mr. Kyte in Canada.
That article contains two- statements which I desire to contradict in the most

32vt7
emphatic terms. The first is as to whether or not a contract actually existed between Yoakum, Cadwell and Bassick for the division of the 51,000,000. I state most emphatically that ,my information is that a contract signed, sealed and delivered between these parties does exist. As a matter of fact, its existence was not denied by the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence when he made his speech in this House in reply to me. As to the second statement, with respect to the source of my information, I desire to say that my information came from sources as loyal to British interests as those which are associated with the Montreal Gazette. I do not make the statement with any desire to be offensive towards or to impugn the loyalty of any person associated with that newspaper. I think it is important that this denial be placed upon record at the earliest possible moment, and, as the evidence comes before the Royal Commission from day to day, it will be time enough for the Montreal Gazette, or any other newspaper, to comment upon the value of it.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Charles Marcil: In the absence of the hon. member for Kamouraska (Mr. E. Lapointe), I would ask the Minister of Justice if he would kindly complete the return which he has brought down with respect to certain legislation of Ontario re the bilingual schools. The hon. member for Kamouraska would like to have the Order in Council with the report made by the minister upon which it was based, as well as the correspondence exchanged with the Government of the province of Ontario.


Mr. DOHERTY:: I understand that all that I was asked for was the petitions, and they were produced by the Secretary of State. I shall be happy to bring down the Order in Council.


Charles Marcil: And the correspondence exchanged with the Ontario Government.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have not yet seen the Order in Council.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I will bring down the Order in Council, with the report on which it is based. I did not understand it had been asked for.



ALLEGED CAPTURE BY RAINBOW.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: May I ask the hon. Minister of Marine and Fisheries if he has read the despatch which I read to the House yesterday about the capture of a German ship toy the Rainbow? I would like to know if the statement is true.


Mr. HAZEN:: I believe that some vessel was captured toy the Rainbow. There is in the department some information about the matter, and I will get it for my hon. friend.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: Was it a German vessel ?


John Douglas Hazen: I am not sure whether it was a German vessel or not, but it was a vessel carrying goods for the enemy.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The despatch stated it was an American vessel, but flying the German flag.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. EDWARDS:: Three months ago I asked for some information in regard to certain expenditure at Fort Henry and the Royal Military College. Part of that information should come from the Militia Department and the rest from the Department of Public Works. I understand that both departments have prepared their answers', but they have never reached this House. I think I have been fairly patient in regard to the matter, and I would like to have the information.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not think, so far as the Militia Department is concerned, that my attention has been directed to the matter. I will make inquiries and endeavour to expedite the information.



SALE OF SMALL ARMS AMMUNITION.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the day:
Mr. MACDONALD:: Yesterday the right hon. Premier laid on the table a return relating to small arms ammunition. In the memorandum apparently prepared toy the minister for submission to Council there is no Order in Council, and I would like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether an Order in Council approving the sale was ever passed.


Robert Laird Borden: No Order in Council has ever been passed. The subject came up in the absence of the minister,

and it was delayed until his return. As the papers were asked for in the House, and as certain allegations were made "by the right hon. the leader of the Opposition, the matter stood in that way until the papers were brought down.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I might call attention to the fact that the memorandum which was apparently submitted to council was dated January 5, 1916, two months before the .minister went away, and there was ample time to obtain an Order in Council if one oared to (be Obtained. In ' addition to that, the memorandum speaks of tlhe fact that assurances were given that the ammunition sold to Col. J. Wesley Allison was to be used for testing purposes, and also that assurances bad been given that no commissions were to be paid. There do not appear within the file any letters or any documents that would indicate that any such assurances were given in writing. Will the right hon. gentleman see that the return is completed in those respects?


Robert Laird Borden: If there are any other documents that are relative to the matter I will see that they are brought [DOT] down. My impression is that everything has been brought down which touches the matter mentioned in the order.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The minister has
filed a memorandum in which he says that assurances were given. I assume that, if those assurances were considered of any value, they would be in writing.


Robert Laird Borden: I am not sure that there are any assurances of that kind in writing. I will make inquiry and ascertain.



CANADA TEMPERANCE ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. C. J. Doherty (Minister of Justice), Bill No. 90, to amend tihe Canada Temperance Act, was read the second time, and the House went Into committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Charles Joseph Doherty: As hon. gentlemen will see on looking at the Bill, the sections of the Canada Temperance Act proposed to be amended are sections 120 to 124 inclusive, and also sections 127 and 139. As regards the amendments to sections 120 to 124 inclusive, they consist merely in the insertion in the existing sections of the Act of words intended to impose upon -persons to whom the sale of liquor is permitted under 
the Canada Temperance Act in a Canada Temperance district the .prohibition enacted by the Bill which recently went through this House in aid of provincial legislation, namely, the prohibition of the sale of liquor for the purpose of its being sent into any part of a province to be used in violation of any prohibitory law in force in that province.
As hon. gentlemen understand, the Bill to which I have just referred, which passed this House, had to do with the selling of liquor for the purpose of its being sent from one province into another. The effect of the bringing into force of the Canada Temperance Act in a district or portion of a province being to oust from that particular district or portion of the province the provincial legislation, that particular portion or district, as regards prohibitory legislation, is in the same position as though it were outside of the province. It was thought, therefore, that to he consistent the same rule should be laid down with regard to the sale of liquor in cases where it is permissible under the Canada Temperance Act, as was laid down with regard to the sale of liquor in one province to be sent into another province for use in violation of the law of that province. This covers the amendment proposed to be made to the four sections : 120, 121, 123 and 124. These are the four sections of the Canada Temperance Adt which grant permission under certain restrictions to sell liquor within the district in which the Act is in force. The effect of the amendment is to add the further restriction that it should not be sold unless it is to be sent outside of the district in which the Canada Temperance Act is in force, and not into any other portion of the province to be there dealt with in violation of the provincial law in force therein.


William Pugsley: Has the minister given any thought to the subject of the suspending of the operation of the Canada Temperance Act in a province which has adopted provincial prohibition? I recently received a very strong letter from a gentleman in the city of St. John who has taken a very warm interest in the prohibition movement, and he is of opinion that the operation of the Canada Temperance Act should cease in a province which has adopted total prohibition for the province. I can see the force of that, because it is not desirable to have a conflict of laws in any province. . I would think that where the Provincial Legislature brings into force a prohibitory

law, ipso facto that should suspend the Canada Temperance Act.


Sir GEORGE FOSTER:: Is it not true
that the Act as passed in the province of New Brunswick does not come into force this year, and that Scott Act counties will have time to repeal their Act if they wish to do so? The same suggestion was made to me as was made to my hon. friend but it struck me that the people in a Scott Act county might feel that their Act was better than the one which had been passed by the province. After their having, by exercise of local option and a vote upon it, got what they wanted, it would seem to be arbitrary that we should take that away from them without any expression of opinion being possible from the people of the county itself. That, I thought, was an objection to the suggestion made to me along the line of the suggestion that my hon. friend has just mentioned.


William Pugsley: If the Government has given thought to the subject, I have nothing further to say. The matter was brought to my attention by a gentleman who is very sincere in the matter of prohibition, and I thought it well to bring it to the attention of the minister.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I had similar representations made to me as were made to the hon. member for St. John and my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I did give consideration to the matter; I had an opportunity of discussing it with at least one gentleman who was very much disposed to support the proposition. What occurred to me was what my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce has already pointed out and further, that several provinces are introducing new prohibitory legislation and that this House has passed an Act in aid of prohibitory legislation. It seemed to me wise that we should not at once, anticipating the working of these laws, cut off the application of the Canada Temperance Act. There was the objection suggested by my colleague the Minister of Trade and Commerce; furthermore, this consideration presented itself to my mind and rather appealed to me: the legislation of one province might, to those interested in the cause of temperance in that province who were in districts where the Canada Temperance Act was in force, appear more effective than the Canada Temperance Act. That might, perhaps, not be the case in
another province and with regard to other districts, so that it seemed to me that it would be wiser to allow the new prohibitory legislation of the province to go into operation and to allow the Act that this House has just passed to go into operation, * with the view that after experience people would probably be in a better position to determine which of the two systems, the Canada Temperance Act or provincial legislation, was preferable. Then we- might legislate to make some provision enabling parties in districts where the Canada Temperance Act was in force to express in seme way their desire to have it done away with before we would proceed absolutely of our own authority to do away with it. The latter course involves, as the hon. Minister for Trade and Commerce has pointed out, our taking away from people something that they voted that they wanted, without opportunity for consultation with them or of learning their desire in the matter.


William Pugsley: I understand that by
this Bill it is proposed to provide practically the same penalties for taking liquor into Scott Act counties as are provided for taking it into another part of the province where the prohibitory law is in force?


Charles Joseph Doherty: That is not quite what is intended. The four sections of the Canada Temperance Act that are dealt with are sections that permit certain classes of people and for certain restricted purposes to sell liquor, and the object of this legislation is to bring those persons under the restriction that they must not allow it to go into any other portion of the province to be used in violation of the law of the province. The Canada Temperance Act area is, for the purposes of the liquor law, taken out of the provinces, so to speak, and persons who are permitted to sell liquor in that portion of the province are not governed by the provisions of the provincial law. The purpose of the added restriction is to prohibit them, in the exercise of the limited right of sale, which is granted them by the Canada Temperance Act, from selling liquor to be sent into another part of the province to be used in violation of the provincial law.


William Pugsley: Would there be the
same penalties against a wholesale dealer or manufacturer in any province of Canada sending liquor into another province for special use in a county where the Canada

Temperance Act is in force, as would apply in another part of the province?


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is already in the Canada Temperance Act as it stands a prohibition against sending liquor into the Canada Temperance Act district. Under section 117 of the Canada Temperance Act, as amended in 1908, it is prohibited for any person:
To send, ship, bring or carry, or cause to be sent, shipped, brought or carried, to or into any such county or city, any intoxicating liquor.
That is to- say, into a county or city where the Canada Temperance Act is in force. So that, so far as protecting the Canada Temperance Act districts from the importation of liquor is concerned, the Canada Temperance Act already protects them. The purpose of these amendments is to protect the remaining portions of a province, which are not under the Canada Temperance Act, from liquor sold within a Canada Temperance Act district 'being sent into those portions of the province-, to'be used in violation of the provincial law there in force.


William Pugsley: Let me put a concrete case. In the Act recently passed by this House there is provision for enforcing a penalty -in the province from which the liquor is sent. Suppose the liquor is sent from Quebec into a county in New Brunswick where the provincial prohibitory law is in force, but where the Canada Temperance Act is not in force, can that manufacturer, or that wholesale dealer, he prosecuted in the province of Quebec under the law passed at this session?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, because the law passed this session was one in aid of provincial legislation, not in -aid of the Canada Temperance Act. The Canada Temperance Act, as I have said, already makes- it an offence to send liquor into any district, in which the Canada Temperance Act is in force. It does not contain that provision enabling prosecution to be brought elsewhere than where the offence was committed. There is not any special provision in the Canada Temperance Act as it stands with regard to the place of prosecution.


William Pugsley: That presents very clearly and very strongly an argument in favour of suspending the operation of the Canada Temperance Act in a province where provincial prohibition is brought into force. Otherwise I am afraid that there will be a
very great deal of confusion. For instance, suppose a manufacturer is proceeded against in the province of Quebec for sending liquor into the province of Prince Edward Island. His answer will be: it is true that I sent liquor into Prince Edward Island, but it was destined for a county where the Canada Temperance Act is in force. Then the prosecution would fail in the province of Quebec. You are going to have a lot of legal difficulties arising and a very considerable amount of confusion in connection with the prosecution of offenders, and I should think-I. am not going to press this view, but I throw it out as a suggestion to the minister-that where provincial prohibition has been brought into force it would be better to have the one law applying to the whole province rather than to have one law applying to a part of the province where the Canada Temperance Act is in force and another applying to the parts- of the province where the Canada Temperance Act is not in force. I think myself that for greater certainty and for greater ease in the enforcement of the law, it would be better to suspend the Canada Temperance Act in those provinces where provincial prohibitory laws have been brought into force.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I hardly think we would be justified, in anticipation of the operation of laws that have not yet come into force, in taking away from counties the Canada Temperance Act, which in some cases they have adopted within the last few months. That is the case notably in Ontario. We have had no information from those counties that they want to have taken away from them the very thing that they, by their vote, expressed a desire to have. I do quite realize that there would be advantages in having a province all under one law, and I think it is rather to be anticipated that that condition of affairs will come about. But I do not think that this is quite the moment to attempt to bring that about. It would be premature to do so. I think we can quite safely leave consideration of that question until we have had some opportunity of seeing the newly proposed laws in operation.


Mr. LOGGIE:: I understood the minister to say that the Canada Temperance Act would be so amended that we could punish those who sent liquor to any county from another province.


Charles Joseph Doherty: The only reason we did not amend the Act so that we could do that

is that the Act already does that. The provision of the existing Canada Temperance Act is:
From the day In which this part comes into force (the following- things are made offences) :
No person shall, except as in this part specially provided, by himself, his clerk, servant or agent. ...	(c) ship, bring or carry, cr
cause to be sent, shipped, brought or carried, to or into any such county or city, any intoxicating liquor.
So that you have an absolute prohibition in the law as it now stands against anybody in the Dominion of Canada sending any intoxicating liquor into a county or city in which the Canada Temperance Act is in 'force. Clearly there was no need to amend the Act to bring about that result. It is true, as I said to the hon. member for St. John, that we have not the special provision enabling the offender to be prosecuted except in the particular place where the offence is committed, but in that regard the Canada Temperance Act is only in the position in which it has been, and there never has been any suggestion that there was a weakness in that direction.
When we came to pass the Bill, which was passed, it did seem to us that because we were dealing with a matter which in all cases was what one might call an interprovincial offence, it was wise to make the special provision which we made. But I should fancy that in a large number of cases, where it is a question of sending liquor into a district under the Canada Temperance Act, you will have it sent in from the neighbouring counties that are not under the Canada Temperance Act, but which are in the same province. Probably "when that Act was enacted the same necessity for such a provision did not occur to those who drafted it as occurred to us with regard to the other Bill. There will remain, even if this Bill is passed, that difference between the two situations.


William Stewart Loggie: Do I understand the
minister to say that the shipper, who is obliged under the Act that has already been passed to label the liquor sent into a province that has provincial prohibitory legislation, is obliged to mark the liquor which he sends, say, from the province of Quebec into the county of Northumberland the same as he would be required to mark if it were going into the province of Ontario. I refer to districts where the Canada Temperance Act is in force.


Charles Joseph Doherty: I have not before me
the exact text of that Act, but it seems to me that we are falling back into a discussion of the Act that was passed. If that Act, as passed, does not cover the case in its terms-and I am free to admit that my impression at this moment is that it does not-this, act will not produce the necessity of labelling in that particular case. But the Act, as it is passed, will apply to all sending of liquor from one province into another when in the province there is any prohibitory law. I am not quite certain whether it says any provincial prohibitory law or simply any prohibitory law.


Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister tell me whether there is any provision to preserve the rights of those who are now in the courts with regard to offences committed against the Act which he is repealing? The minister will remember that a period of three months is allowed to bring a prosecution, and offences may have been committed that have not yet been prosecuted in Scott Act counties. Sometimes they are not even found out for a couple of * 4 p.m. months. Will the right to prosecute those offences lapse when the old Act is repealed by this Act? . I understand that the old Act is absolutely repealed by this Act, and that new provisions are substituted. The minister will see my point. I feel interested in the matter owing to the fact that my county is a Scott Act county, and I know that prosecutions are occasionally brought. I would like to know whether this Bill would disturb the cases that are now in the court or take away any rights that exist.


Charles Joseph Doherty: There is no real repeal. What is done here is to add something to the old Act, only it takes the form of repealing the section and of enacting exactly the same section with the additions. I think there has been a general consensus of opinion in the House that it is more convenient to draft legislation in that way,. because, in the Bill before the House, the members see exactly the section as it will be when amended. But the effect is exactly the same as if we had said that section 120, for instance, of the Canada Temperance Act is amended by inserting certain words. There is no moment of time during which the disposition as it stood before without the addition that we are making, is not in force. It is repealed and substituted simultaneously by exactly the same disposition, while a further disposition is added, so that there is no lapse of time during which, whatever was an offence under the Canada Temperance Act, as it stood, ceases to be an offence.


John Howard Sinclair: That is quite true. It is a legal point, of course, but what struck me was that if a prosecution is brought in court under the Act of 1908, that Act being specially mentioned, and when the case comes up for trial'it is folind that there is no Act of 1908 but instead an Act of 1916, the point may be one which a lawyer would make. He might say that the prosecution was invalid, I think it is usual to provide that existing rights will not be interfered with.


Charles Joseph Doherty: If there was any real
repeal I would agree with the hon. gentleman, but there is no real repeal here. The Act of 1908 still continues in force. What is done is to say that section 127 of the Act of 1908 is repealed, and the same provisions are substituted, so that everything that was in the Canada Temperance Act remains the law.


John Howard Sinclair: It is exactly the same.


Charles Joseph Doherty: With something added. There is something more that is the law, 'but everything that was in is still in. We have created another offence; that is all.


Charles Marcil: I am sorry that I was not present when the amendments were made to the other Bill, 'but out of the mass of amendments some doubt has arisen which I would like to clear up. In the province of Quebec, where municipalities have adopted prohibitory legislation to the extent of refusing to grant licenses, and, on top of that, where the county council has also refused to grant any license and has passed a resolution covering the whole county, is there anything in the new legislation which will prevent liquor from being brought into that county for any purpose whatever?


Charles Joseph Doherty: No, not for any purpose whatever, but for any purpose which the provincial legislation prohibits.


Charles Marcil: The provincial legislation prohibits the sale.


Charles Joseph Doherty: Then nobody can bring liquor into that county for the purpose of its being sold, but if the provincial legislation permits one to have liquor, then, under the Act which was passed, there , would be nothing to prohibit the sending of if.


Charles Marcil: Then so far as the province of Quebec is concerned, out of 44 constituencies that have adopted prohibition, the

Dominion legislation will have no effect whatever?


Charles Joseph Doherty: It will certainly prevent any man who wants to use liquor within the province for the purpose of violating the law having it sent in for that purpose. We have not undertaken, and I have never suggested that we were undertaking to impose upon any province, or upon any part of a province, more prohibition than it wanted. All we pretend to do is that we will not let the outside man bring about within the province a violation of the provincial law. I would like, with the permission of the committee, to amend the clause for the purpose of .making an amendment to an additional section. The clause itself provides, as will be seen, for the repealing of a certain number of sections and the substitution of sothething else. There is another section of the Canada Temperance Act which I desire to amend. It is section 136 and it provides for the right of search upon a warrant for that purpose being obtained. The section as it now stands provides that the search may be carried out in the daytime only. It has been represented to me from very numerous sources that the presence in the Canada Temperance Act of that limited right of search during the daytime presents a very serious obstacle to its effectiveness. I desire to amend the section which provides for the right of search by striking out the words "in the daytime." I beg therefore to move:
That clause 1 be amended by inserting the following words after "twenty-seven" in the ninth line on page one:

"Section one hundred and thirty-six and form R";
That the following clause be inserted immediately after clause one hundred and twenty-seven on page three:
136. If it is proved upon oath before any judge of the sessions of the peace, recorder, police magistrate, stipendiary magistrate, two justices of the peace, or any magistrate having the power or authority of two or more justices of the peace, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that any intoxicatipg liquor is kept for sale in violation of Part II of this Act, or of The Temperance Act of 1864, or is stored, warehoused, or kept for delivery, in violation of Part II of this Act, in any dwelling house, store, shop, warehouse, outhouse, garden, yard, croft, vessel, building, or other place or places, such officer may grant a warrant to search such dwelling house, store, shop, warehouse, outhouse, garden yard, croft, vessel, building, or other place or places, for such intoxicating liquor, and if the same or any part thereof is there found, to bring the same before him.
"2. Any information under this section may be in form Q and any search warrant under this section may be in form R".

And that the following form be inserted immediately after clause one hundred and thirty-nine on the said page three:
Form R.
Form of Search Warrant.
Canada Pi evince of
District (or county, or as the case may be) of
To all or any of the constables or other peace officers in the district (or county or as the case may be) of	
Whereas K. L. of	in the
said district (or county, or as the case may
be) of	 (yeoman) hath this
day made oath before the undesigned one of His Majesty's justices of the peace in and for the said district (or county, or as the case may
be) of	 that he hath just
and reasonable cause to suspect and doth suspect that intoxicating liquor is kept for sale (or is stored or is warehoused or is kept for delivery) in violation of Part II of The Canada Temperance Act, in the (dwelling house, etc.,)
of one P. Q. of	in the said
district (or county, or as the case may be) of
	-	 These
are therefore, in the name of Our Sovereign Lord the King, to authorize and require you, and each and every of you, with necessary and proper assistance, to enter into the said (dwelling house, etc.,) of the said P. Q. and there diligently search for the said intoxicating liquor ; and if the same, or any part thereof, shall be found upon such search, that you bring the intoxicating liquor so found, and also all barrels, cases, boxes, packages, and other receptacles of any kind whatever containing the same before me to be disposed of and dealt with according to law.
Given under my hand and seal at	
In the said district (or county, or united counties, or as the case may be) of	
this	day of	 in the year
of Our lord	
(Seal)	W.S.
A justice of the peace in and for the said..
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



GOVERNMENT RAILWAYS SMALL CLAIMS ACT AMENDMENT.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Reid, Acting Minis ter of Railways and Canals, Bill No. 91, to- amend the Government Railways Small Claims Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On the preamble:
Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: I think the Bill should be amended toy making it retroactive so that it would apply to the Prince Edward Island railway from the time the first. Bill was enacted.
There is no question but Parliament thought that the Bill passed in 1910 applied
to all Government railways; that is obvious from the discussion that took place at the time. It would be an anomaly to have the Bill apply to the Intercolonial railway and not to the Prince Edward Island railway, simply because the Intercolonial railway happened to be mentioned in the Bill and the Prince Edward Island railway was	not. I know	one	case, at	allevents, where the complainant in a suit	was	non-suited	just	because	the
Prince Edward Island railway was not mentioned' in the Bill. Lawyers on the island have told me that they have advised other parties who have consulted them in regard to bringing suits not to enter on an action because the Bill did not apply to the Prince Edward Island railway. Now, this is an injury to the people of that province. It is putting them in a different position from the people of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Quebec, and I presume that it was not the intention of Parliament to pass legislation of that kind. In order to provide a remedy I would ask the committee to make the Bill retroactive, so that these people will be in the position they would have been in if the intention of Parliament had been carried out in the first instance. I therefore beg to move, seconded by Mr. Turriff, that Bill No. 91 be amended by adding thereto section 2, as follows:
The said Acts shall be deemed to have applied to claims arising out of the operation of the said railways, branches and ferries, on and from the respective dates at which the said Acts were passed, and shall apply thereto in the same manner and to the same extent as they apply to claims arising out of the operation of the Intercolonial railway.


Mr. REID:: I was asked some days ago by the Prince Edward Island members to introduce an amendment to the Small Claims Act, bringing the Prince Edward Island railway under the Act. In 1910 the Act for the adjudication of small claims arising in respect of the operation of the Government railways was passed, section 2 of which reads as follows:
Subject as hereinafter provided, any claim against His Majesty arising out of the operation of the Intercolonial railway and not exceeding in amount the sum of two hundred dollars, for damages alleged to be caused by negligence, or made payable by statute, may be sued for and prosecuted by action, suit or other proceeding in any provincial court having jurisdiction to the said amount over like claims between subjects.
In 1913 an amendment was made increasing the amount from $200 to $500, When this'matter was brought to my attention I



S304 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
took it up with officials, and we thought it well that the whole Government railway system should be included, instead of having an amendment relating merely to the Prince Edward Island railway. If the Act is good for the Intercolonial and good for the Prince Edward Island railway it is good for the other parts of the Government railway system, and it is was with that idea in view that I introduced the amendment to the Government Railways Small Claims Act. I certainly could not agree to my hon. friend's suggestion to make the Act retroactive and apply to any suits or actions since 1910, and if he presses his amendment I would rather withdraw the Bill and let it stand until another session, when I could look into it further. Under the circumstances I would ask that the Bill go through as I have introduced it.
William Pugsley: Is the minister's objection that he does not wish to make valid any suits that have already been brought? Would he have any objection to allowing this Act to apply to actions brought in the future in respect to claims that have arisen before the Act came into force; in other words, make-the Bill retroactive as to procedure?


John Dowsley Reid: My object in introducing this amendment is to make the Act apply to any suits or actions brought in future against any part of the Government railway system. For instance, there may be claims against the Transcontinental. Any claims arising in future will be dealt with under the law as it stood before this Act was passed. I think it would be unfair to make the Bill retroactive and apply to cases that have already been disposed of. It does seem to me that as this Bill has been on the Order Paper for quite a while the Ihon. member might have done me the courtesy of sending me a copy of the amendment he proposed to make; this is the first time I ever heard of it. I have tried to carry out the wishes of t'he members for Prince Edward Island by having the Act apply not only to the Prince Edward Island railway, but to the whole Government railway system. I would rather have the Bill stand than have it amended at this time, as my Ihon. friend suggests.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the minister is not drawing a proper distinction between the mode of enforcing the claims and the giving rise to the claim itself. I do not understand that my hon. friend
[iMr. J. D. Reid. ]
from Kings wants to have any different law applied to the right of action; what he wants is that the remedy which is afforded by this Bill shall apply to causes of action which may have arisen before this legislation comes into force as well as to those which may arise afterwards. Take the case of a man who has a perfectly just claim against the railway. Before this legislation comes into force, an animal has been killed on the railway. Because the owner happens to live in Prince Edward Island, why should he be compelled to bring his suit in the Exchequer Court of Canada where the costs would amount to ten times the value of the animal? Why should he not be permitted to avail himself of this cheap remedy and use the provisions which have been made for the enforcement of the collection of small claims? Surely the minister might go that far, not in any way to alter the cause of action, nor the circumstances which would give rise to a claim, but only as to the mode of enforcing a claim. I understand that is all the member for Kings wants. The minister should not refuse to accept the amendment just on account of any pique or resentment against the hon. member for Kings because he did not let him know before that he was going to move the amendment. The amendment is so simple in its character that the hon. member assumed that the minister would at once grasp the justice and the reasonableness of it and would allow it to be passed.


John Dowsley Reid: The Act of 1910, as it was
introduced, was not made retroactive.


Mr. A. A. McLEAN:: It is only a matter
of procedure. Supposing a person has a claim against the Government for damages for negligence, he must, before the passing of the Act of 1910, commence proceedings in the Exchequer Court. Under the Act of 1910 he has a very simple remedy in the courts of the province, and that Act was of great benefit to the people who had claims 'against the Government. When I came here in the early part of this session, I was requested by certain people who had commenced suits in the courts to ask the Government to amend the Act so that the remedy would apply to all claims which had arisen since 1910. was told by one of the legal officers of the Crown, who had something to do with the drafting of the Act of 1910, that the omission to include the Prince Edward Island railway was a mistake; that they overlooked it, and they thought that the words " Intercolonial railway " in the Act and the words " Govern-

ment railways " in the preamble included all the railways controlled by the Government. It was evidently a mistake, and I would ask the minister, if he is not inclined at the present time to pass the Bill as I first asked him to introduce it, to apply to all claims, to let the matter stand for a, day or two and give it further consideration.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman in favour of the amendment?


Angus Alexander McLean: Yes. I was the first man who spoke to the minister about this legislation and I asked him to make it retroactive. A suit was commenced by a friend of mine in Charlottetown who thought that the words " Intercolonial railway '' included the Prince Edward Island railway: but when he got into the court he found that the definition of the words " Intercolonial railway " in the Railway Act meant the Tailway as it existed in the provinces of Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. When, however, the law officers of the Grown were drafting the Small Claims Act of -1910, they thought that the Intercolonial railway included the Prince Edward Island railway, and for that reason I would ask the minister to let the matter stand until he gets further information from the law officers connected with the Railway Department.


William Pugsley: If the Act of 1910 in any way spread the liability of the Crown or in any way broadened out the right of action, then I would say that the minister might very well hesitate, but it does not do that; it applies only to the mode of procedure. Section 2 reads:
Subject as hereinafter provided, any claim against His Majesty arising out of the operation of the Intercolonial railway, and not exceeding in amount the sum of $200 for damages alleged to be caused by negligence or made payable by statute, may be sued for and prosecuted by action, suit or other proceedings in any provincial court having jurisdiction to the said amount over like claims between subjects.
Upon consideration, I think the minister will see that it is reasonable that if a man has a claim not exceeding $200, which arose last week or last month, he should toe permitted to toring an action for that claim in an ordinary court of law j'uet the same as he could bring it if the damages arose upon the Intercolonial railway. No harm can come to anybody; the Crown can not suffer; the Crown can have no advantage by refusing to have the amendment pass unless it is an advantage to the Crown to compel the people to go to the expense
of commencing suit in the Exchequer Court where the costs might amount to ten times the value of the property destroyed or injured as the case might be. If any fundamental principle was involved, it there was any attempt to enlarge the right of the subject, to give him a claim that does not exist, it would be a different matter, hut this amendment provided only as to the court into which the litigant may go for the purpose of enforcing his claim against the Crown. The minister might fairly consent to enlarge the scope of the Bill by accepting the amendment moved by the hon. member.


John Dowsley Reid: As the Bill does not seem to be satisfactory to the members from Prince Edward Island, I think we had better let the matter stand. I beg to move:
That the Committee rise and report progress.


James Joseph Hughes: As the minister seems to think that I have shown him some discourtesy by not mentioning the matter to him before to-day, I may say that yesterday I asked the Prime Minister when this Bill would likely he taken up and he was unable to give me an answer. The Acting Minister of Railways was absent yesterday, and I could not see him, and not knowing that the matter was coining up to-day, I did not think it was important to see him specially. I may say I mentioned the matter to him some little time ago. Further than that, I introduced a Bill having the retroactive feature in it, and the minister, or at least his law officers, would have an opportunity of seeing that. I understand the senior member for Queens (Mr. McLean) has stated that in the early part of the session, he said to the minister that it would toe desirable to have legislation of that kind made retroactive. Therefore, for all these reasons, the minister was not taken unawares.


John Dowsley Reid: ward Island, tout all parts of the Government railway system under the Act of 1910.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister will remember that I spoke to him two or three times about legislation of this kind.


John Dowsley Reid: Across the floor of the House?


James Joseph Hughes: No, in the corridor; whenever I had opportunity of speaking to the minister.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. gentleman never
mentioned the retroactive part of it.


James Joseph Hughes: Yes, I did. The minister, having a great deal to do, has forgotten that part of it, but that was the feature that I was particularly anxious about. The only object of the Bill is that the people of Prince Edward Island be placed in the position that they would be in if the intention of Parliament had been correctly set forth in the first Bill that was passed. The only object of this amendment is to rectify the error that was made in the first Bill.


William Pugsley: It ought to be borne in mind that, as legal gentlemen know, a statute which provides for a mode of procedure is in effect retroactive even though the statute does not say so, because procedure is regarded as different from the right of action. Therefore, I think the minister should consent to remove the doubt and make this procedure applicable to existing claims.


James Joseph Hughes: Will the minister say
when he will likely consider the matter again?


John Dowsley Reid: No, I cannot say. _


William Pugsley: The committee will have leave to sit again? [DOT]


Charles Marcil: Does the minister intend that this Bill shall apply to the Transcontinental railway in the province of Quebec?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes, it applies to all Government railways.


Mr. McKENZIE:: Before the minister finally makes up his mind to strangle this Bill, I suggest that if the Bill is a good measure, although it be not retroactive, it should be allowed to pass. I am sure that the province of Prince Edward Island should prefer legislation making the old Act applicable to Prince Edward Island from the date of its passing to no legislation at all. It could toe amended so as to make it retroactive at a later date, if that should be thought desirable. It would be too bad

to deprive all the claimants along the long stretch of Government railways which we have now, and which we did not have in 1910, when the first Act was passed, of the simple remedy that this legislation gives them, simply because the minister refuses to make it retroactive in Prince Edward Island. I do not suppose that any one along the line of the new roads is asking that this Bill be made retroactive, and it will be well to give the people along these lines the benefit of this legislation. I think the minister should insist upon the legislation passing as it is; it can be amended later if thought desirable.


John Dowsley Reid: I think the legislation should pass as it is. I certainly am opposed to making it retroactive.	,


William Pugsley: The minister was not so opposed when the question of taxes came up.


John Dowsley Reid: I am talking now about this Small Claims Act.


William Pugsley: A horse of a different colour.


John Dowsley Reid: If satisfactory, we will have the Bill passed now as it is. If not, I cannot say when I will consider it again.


Charles Marcil: The minister realizes the importance of having the Bill, passed not only for the Prince Edward Island railway but for the Transcontinental railway in Quebec. We voted money here the other day for the purpose of building fences, and so on, along the new sections in Quebec, and towards the West. Settlers are coming in there, and claims may be arising every day. It is only fair that settlers along the line of the Transcontinental should have the same treatment as that accorded to those who have settled along the Intercolonial or the Prince Edward Island railway.


John Dowsley Reid: I am willing to let the Bill go through, but I will not agree to make it retroactive on the Transcontinental and on the Prince Edward Island ifailway.v I think it would be a great advantage to the Transcontinental and t'he Prince Edward Island railway to have this legislation on the statute book. It is good legislation for the Intercolonial railway; therefore, it is good legislation for all Government railways. This would apply to all Government railways.


James Joseph Hughes: Why should not the people of Prince Edward Island be put in the
/

same position that the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Quebec were placed in some four or five years ago?


John Dowsley Reid: I cannot say why the Bill was made to apply to the Intercolonial railway only.


James Joseph Hughes: That was a mistake.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member sat in this House in 1910.


James Joseph Hughes: The hon. member was here also.


John Dowsley Reid: Other hon. gentlemen from Prince Edward Island, friends of the hon. member, were here in 1910, when this Bill went through, and they never raised a voice against it. They were willing that the Bill should go through this House as it did in 1910.


James Joseph Hughes: Thinking it applied to Prince Edward Island.


John Dowsley Reid: Without its applying to Prince Edward Island.


James Joseph Hughes: No.


John Dowsley Reid: The Bill of 1910 did not include Prince Edward Island.


James Joseph Hughes: The matter was brought up in court, and it was discovered that there had been a mistake.


William Pugsley: The very title of the Act of 1910 is misleading and shows that a mistake was made. The heading is-Chapter 26 of the Acts of 1910:
An Act to provide for the adjudication of small claims arising in respect of the operation of the Government railways.
It is not limited to the Intercolonial. Then, when we come to the first section, it says: " This Act may be cited as the Government Railways Small Claims Act," showing that a clear mistake was made in drafting the Bill. It was intended to apply to all Government railways. It was a clear mistake made in 1910, and if the minister is going to correct it, why not do it right; why half correct it? He gives twice who gives quickly; in the same manner, he does a good thing twice who does it quickly.


John Dowsley Reid: The hon. member was here in 1910, as well as other members.


William Pugsley: And admits that a mistake was made.


John Dowsley Reid: The first section says:
Subject as hereinafter provided, any claim against His Majesty arising out of the operation of the Intercolonial railway-


William Pugsley: Read the title.


John Dowsley Reid: The title does not count in the Act.


William Pugsley: Yes, as showing the intention.


John Dowsley Reid: If the title was part of the Act, why was that not considered in the courts?


William Pugsley: The title shows that the mistake was made in the enacting part of the Bill. It showed clearly that the intention of everybody was that it should apply to the Government railways. It was not limited to the Intercolonial, because the title is an anomaly if it applies only to the Intercolonial.


William Cameron Edwards: Is it not possible the mistake was made in the title?


William Pugsley: Not likelj


The CHAIRMAN:: There is a motion
before the Chair which is not debatable. The hon. member for Kings, P.E.I. (Mr. Hughes) immediately rose and said: " By the consent of the committee, I should like to say a word to the committee;"-and there have been words from so many members that I hardly know where to intervene. But as it is my duty to administer the rules as I deem them to exist, I must either request that the motion be withdrawn or insist upon putting it to the committee.


John Dowsley Reid: I am willing to withdraw the motion if the committee are willing to take the Bill as it is. If not-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Reid moves that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.


William Pugsley: What does the hon. member from Prince Edward Island (Mr. Hughes) say?


James Joseph Hughes: I would prefer to have the Bill as it is, rather than not have it at all. But as I said, at the request-


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I' must respectfully draw the attention of the committee to the circumstance that I have ruled that the motion is not debatable.


John Dowsley Reid: If the hon. member will withdraw his amendment, we will pass the Bill as it is. I think that it is in the interest of all1 the people living along the road.


James Joseph Hughes: If the minister has decided that he will not accept the amendment, I will withdraw the amendment if there is nothing else to be done.


John Dowsley Reid: Then I withdraw my motion and he withdraws his amendment.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I understand that the hon. minister withdraws his motion that the committee rise, and also that the hon. member for Kings withdraws his amendment.
Bill reported,
Mr. REID moved the third reading of the Bill.	_


James Joseph Hughes: I wish now to present the same amendment. I move that the Bill be not now read the third time, but that it he referred back to the Committee of the Whole House for the purpose of considering the amendment which I offered.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Mr. Reid moves that the Bill be now read the third time; to which Mr. Hughes, Prince Edward Island, moves in amendment that the said Bill be not now read the third time, tout that it be referred back to the Committee of the Whole for the purpose of considering certain amendments.


John Dowsley Reid: Mr. Speaker, while we were in committee the hon. member withdrew his amendment and said he would not press it, that he was willing that the Bill should go through as I introduced it. Taking the hon. member at his word, the committee passed the Bill and it is now before us for the third reading. I certainly think it is breaking faith with members of this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Dowsley Reid: -to introduce an amendment in this way, and I certainly cannot accept it. If members opposite think that this is fair, after our agreeing in committee that the Bil should pass as reported, 1 thing it is much better to withdraw the Bill.


James Joseph Hughes: I wished to make a few remarks in the committee, but the chairman ruled that I was Out of order and this is the only way in which it was possible for me to make these remarks. I want to say to the minister, and to say in all sincerity, that I much prefer the Bill as it stands to having no Bill at all. At the same time I must say again that it is very unfair indeed, in my judgment, for the minister to insist on passing it in 
this way, very unfair to the people of Prince Edward Island who have claims against the Government railrway-s, who have brought these claims on the advice of counsel, thinking that the Act was all right, who have been non-suited, and who have now no remedy unless they take up these claims in the Exchequer Court. Men with small claims cannot go to that expense. I cannot for the life of me see why the minister should refuse to allow these men the *simple method of procedure under this Bill. The Government could not be injured, no interest in Canada could be injured, no one could be injured.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I wish to call attention to rule 21, which says:
A reply shall be allowed to a member who has moved a substantive motion or the second reading of a Bill, but not to any member who has moved an order of the day, not being the second reading of a Bill, an amendment, the previous question, an adjournment during a

I understand that the hon. member has moved an amendment, and consequently, according to this rule, is not entitled to speak now.


James Joseph Hughes: Is not the third reading before the House?


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: No, an amendment.


William Pugsley: The amendment is that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to committee. The hon. member is proceeding to give reasons why it should be referred back.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The hon. member should have done that when making the amendment. Now he is making a reply. He moved an amendment and the Minister of Railways answered.


William Pugsley: You are taking the
ground that he had already spoken once.


James Joseph Hughes: I thought I would have to wait until the amendment was read before being allowed to speak on it.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: The amendment was
that the Bill be not now read a third time but be referred back to the Committee of the Whole not in order to consider . an amendment, but to examine it de novo. The question is on the amendment.


William Pugsley: I trust the Minister of
Railways will not feel that he ought to withdraw the Bill simply because the member for Kings moved an amendment. You see that the effect of that would be to de-

prive any member of the House of freedom of thought or of action. I am sure the Minister of Railways would not want to do that. He is not a man who would want to apply the lash to this House, particularly to both sides of the House. He might try it on one side, but he would not like to try it on this side too. See what the minister proposes to do. He says to the hon. member for Kings: "If you diare to press this amendment, if you dare to ask this House to vote upon the amendment, I will withdraw the Bill; much as I value the Bill, much as I think it would be in the public interest if it passes the House, if you venture to move an amendment I will withdraw it." It seems to me that the better way for the minister to do would be to allow the vote to be taken first, and then, if the amendment is carried, the minister can say: Well now, the amendment having carried and I not approving of it, I will not press the Bill to the third reading but will withdraw it. Surely he should allow us to vote on the amendment of the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Hughes) and not make a threat against us as he has done. I am sure the minister will realize that is hardly the kind of threat that should be made to members of the House. With regard to the amendment itself, I wish to repeat what I said in committee, that it is evident a mistake was made in 1910 in not making this Bill applicable to all the Government railways. There was no possible precedent that could influence Parliament in having one law prescribing a mode of procedure in respect to claims against the Intercolonial Railway and another law in respect to claims arising in connection with the Prince Edward Island Railway. Both railways are owned by the Government, and both are -under the same management; therefore, the same law should apply to both, so far as claims are concerned. That is the first reason. You cannot conceive of any reason why any distinction should have been made. Secondly, it was obviously intended to apply to Government railways, for that is the title of the Act, " to provide for the recovery of small claims against the Government railway system," or words to that effect. If it had been intended to limit the Act to the Intercolonial Railway, the title would have been an Act to recover small claims against the Intercolonial Railway; but it does not say that; it refers to claims against the Government railway system. Then the first section of the Act, which declares what the title shall be, repeats almost the same words, showing clearly, as I have said, that who-209
ever drafted the Bill was under the impression that the words " Intercolonial Railway " included all branches operated in connection with the Government system of railways, including the Prince Edward Island Railway. Therefore it seems to me that it is reasonable that the mistake which was made in 1910 should be corrected. The minister pointed out that I was a member of Parliament at that time, but that does not make any difference. No man could be more ready than I to admit that I was a party to the mistake which was made by Parliament at that time. I have no doubt whatever that it was a mistake, and as a member of Parliament, and as a member of the Government at that time, I am prepared to take the responsibility of that mistake upon my shoulders as one of the parties to it. But if I was a party to the mistake I ought to be the first to try to remedy it. There is no earthly reason why the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Kings should not be passed. I hope that even yet the minister will ibe able to accept that amendment; if not, let us take a vote upon it, and if the amendment is defeated, the Bill will go to the third reading. If the amendment happens to be carried, I hope that better views will prevail with the minister and that he will allow the Bill to go through with the amendment.


Mr. MORPHY:: Is there anything in the way of limitation with regard to the prosecution of claims?


William Pugsley: Do you mean as to time?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Yes.


William Pugsley: I do not think so.
/Mr REID: We /understood in this committee that the amendment was
5 p.m. withdrawn, and if a vote is to be pressed I would ask that the Bill be withdrawn altogether.


Mr. KNOWLES:: Personally I am opposed to the withdrawal of the Bill because it is one which interests the employees and residents alongside the Grand Trunk Pacific railway so far as it is operated by the Government. In northern Ontario, especially, the people are far from law offices and the settlers are without means to prosecute their claims, and it would be a very serious thing for them if the Bill were withdrawn and they had to go through the cumbersome procedure of getting a fiat before they could sue. Either the minister thinks that this



is a good Bill, or be does not. I will give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he thinks it is a good Bill. Why then does he not want to have the Bill passed? We all agree that it is a good Bill, so far as it goes; there is no doubt about that. If the amendment is defeated, the House will be unanimous in passing the Bill, or what is left of it, but why, for the sake of punishing the hon. member for Kings or the hon. members on this side of the House, or for the sake of getting us in wrong with reference to legislation which the minister heretofore thought was good legislation, the Bill, should be withdrawn is something I cannot understand. More than that, I question whether it is within the power of the minister to withdraw a Bill at this stage. The fact that a man is the father of a child does not mean that he can strangle that child, and I question the propriety and the legality under the rules of the House-of course I defer to your "judgment, Mr. Speaker-of a motion to take away from us a Bill which we cherish, so far as it goes, and which we are endeavouring to improve. I object to the Bill being withdrawn and urge that it be proceeded with.


Charles Marcil: I remember very well the circumstances under which this Bill was passed. The constituency which I have the honour to represent is traversed by the Intercolonial railway, and the farmers living alongside the railway had been urging the Department of Railways and Canals ' for years to come to their relief by enabling them to prosecute their claims, for the loss of a cow or of a horse, and small claims of that kind, without obtaining a fiat and going to a lot of expense and annoyance. The Government consented to bring in a measure to enable such claims to be prosecuted before the ordinary courts, limiting the amount. No member of the House imagined that this treatment was to be. meted out only to the people living alongside the Intercolonial railway. We all admitted that it should be extended to the people living alongside the Government railways generally. There is no reason in the world why the people of Prince Edward Island should be excluded from the benefit of a measure of this kind. It was passed by the House to relieve the farmers who were living alongside the Government railways.
I am sure that it was altogether unintentional that the Prince Edward Island railway was emitted. The title of the Bill 
showed that it was intended for the relief of people living alongside the Government railways generally.


Angus Alexander McLean: The omission of the Prince Edward Island railway was not the fault of the people of Prince Edward Island; it was the fault of the law officers of the Crown; there is no doubt about that. There can be no doubt in the mind of any member that the man who drew- that Act believed that it was to apply to- the Prince Edward Island railway. In the body of the Act, however, the reference is to the Intercolonial railway, and when the judge, who recently tried a case in Prince Edward Island, looked up the definition of Intercolonial railway he found that in the Railway Act it applied to the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Quebec only. But that was- not the belief of the law ofli-cer-s of the Crown who drew the Act. I have particular knowledge of that fact. I have been informed by one who knows that the law officers believed that the Prince Edward Island railway was included in the Act, and were astonished that a judgment had been given to the effect that the Act did not apply to that railway. I think it is only fair that this Bill should be amended in some way so as to make it apply to all claims which have arisen against the Prince Edward Island railway since 19)10. After all, it is only a matter of procedure. If it is not amended those people who have claims against the Prince Edward Island railway will 'be under the necessity of going to the Exchequer Court and of filing petitions of right, and will be put to great expense. I hope the minister will1 take the matter into consideration, and I have no doubt that he will arrive at the same conclusion as my colleagues and the hon. member for Kings county have arrived at. This Act was intended to apply to Prince Edward Island and the people who diew it believed that it did apply. It is nothing but right and just that this amendment be made making the procedure apply as if this Act had been passed in 1910.


John Dowsley Reid: In order that the matter may be in proper order before the House, I beg to move in amendment to the amendment that the order for the third reading of Bill No. 91 be discharged, and that the Bill be withdrawn.
Mr. PtTGSLEY: That motion is not in order; it is not an amendment. It negatives ta motion which the hon. member has already made and he cannot do that.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: When there is a motion for the House to go into Committee of Supply only one amendment can be made. It is then forbidden to move an amendment to the amendment, but in this case I think it is permissible to move a sub-amendment.
Mr. PUGSiLEY: The .point is that this is not in the nature of an amendment. The minister has already made one' motion for the third reading of the Bill. There is an amendment that the Bill be not now read a third time, but that dt be referred back to the committee for the purpose of making a certain amendment. Then, the minister, the same member who moves that the Bill be now read a third time, undertakes to amend his own motion by moving that the order for the third reading be discharged. I submit that it is clearly out of order.


Auguste-Charles-Philippe-Robert Landry: I think the point of
order is well taken, because the main motion was made by the hon. Acting Minister of Railways and Canals, and consequently he is presenting a sub-amendment to amend his own motion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question, question.
should be disposed of in this way. There was no thought of making any distinction between the Prince Edward Island railway and the Intercolonial railway as such. Later on, the phrase, " The Government Railways of Canada," was adopted by an amendment of the Act, but the intention of every one connected with the measure of 1910 was that a new policy should be laid down by which, instead of driving claimants to the Exchequer Court with all the expense and difficulty that would attend upon such a procedure, jurisdiction should be conferred upon the county courts along the line of railway, so that, in regard not merely to the Intercolonial railway but to all Gov- ernment railways, these matters should be disposed of in that way. That is the history of the manner in which this measure was introduced, and I think the minister ought not to raise the technical point when it was a mere matter of phraseology that caused the Prince Edward Island railway to be omitted from the Act at that time.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I may be permitted to say a word in regard to this matter. This legislation was introduced in 1910, when Sir Allen Aylesworth was Minister of Justice. I personally had pressed upon him, and also upon the Minister of Railways of that day for a long period of time previous to that, the propriety of providing for some simpler method by which the claims of parties living along the Government railway or the Intercolonial railway, as it was then called, should be submitted to some "local tribunal and disposed of. The then Minister of Justice took very serious exception, as a matter of law, to the taking out of Exchequer Court of any cases in which claims were made against the Crown by virtue of the old principle which always applied in actions against the King. Towards the end of the session, with very great reluctance, he assented to the introduction of a measure which was submitted to him, but confining the jurisdiction of the court to the jurisdiction of a claim amounting to $200 only. If hon. gentlemen will look over the statute they will find that that is so. The Minister of Railways and Canals of that day, the Hon. Mr. Graham, accepted the measure, the principle of which was that the small claims arising along the line of the Intercolonial railway 209!
Messieurs	
Buchanan,	Marcile (Bagot),
Copp,	Michaud,
Delisle,	Nicholson,
Fortier,	Oliver,
Gauvreau,	Pacaud,
Graham,	Papineau,
Hughes	Sinclair,
(Kings, P.E.I.),	Thomson (Qu' Appelle),
Lanctot,	Turgeon,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),	Turriff,
Loggie,	Verville,
Macdonald,	Wamock.-24.
McLean	
(Queens, P.E.I.),	
NAYS:	
Messieurs	
Armstrong (Lambton),	L'Esperance,
Armstrong (York, O.),	Macaonell,
Ball,	Meighen,
Bennett (Calgary),	Merner,
Best,	Morphy,
Blain,	Morris,
Bowman,	Munson,
Boys,	Paquet,
Brabazon,	Porter,
Broder,	Reid,
Burnham,	Rhodes,
Clark (Bruce),	Roche,
Clarke (Wellington),	Rogers,
Currie,	Scott,
Descarries,	Sexsmith,
Edwards,	Smith,
Fisher,	Steele,
Forget (Sir Rodolphe),	Stevens,
Foster (Sir George),	Stewart (Hamilton ),
Girard,	Thompson (Yukon),
Glass,	Walker,
Gray,	Wallace,
.5312


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: Not noticing the absence of my pair, the hon. member for Shelburne and Queens (Mr. McCurdy), I inadvertently voted, and I desire now to recall my vote.


Charles Marcil: I was paired with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Doherty). Bad I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was paired with the Postmaster General (Mr. Casgrain ). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. SEGUIN:: 1 was paired with the hon. member for Cbambly and Vercheres (Mir. Rainville). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Charlton). Had I voted I should have voted against the amendment.


Mr. DEVLIN:: I was paired with the hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. G. White).

Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.	[DOT]


Mr. McCOIG:: I was paired with the Minister of Labour (Mr. Crothere). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I was paired with the hon. member for Lunenburg (Mr. Stewart). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


William Pugsley: I was paired with the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Hazen). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.


Mr. W. CHISHOLM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Annapolis (Mr. Davidson). Had I voted I should have' voted for the amendment.


William Erskine Knowles: I was paired with the hon. member for ComoxVAt'iin (Mr. Clements). Had I voted I should have voted for the amendment.
Amendment negatived:
Main motion agreed to, and Bill read the third time and passed.



SUPPLY.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Telegraph and telephone lines, Quebec-improvements to repair service, $3,000.
["I think we could get a statement of that sort.\nAt six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.\nThe House resumed at eight o'clock."]
Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the Government still the owner of the telephone line in the county of Charlevoix running from a point near Murray Bay to Chicoutimi? If the minister will let me know how many miles of that line the Government controls. 1 shall then air a little grievance I have.


Robert Rogers: I have not the information here, but I can get it for my hon. friend. The Government have not sold any telephone lines for many years.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The reason I mention it is that a business man with whom I am more or less connected was complaining the other day that it was practically impossible to be heard on the long-distance line between Montreal and Chicoutimi, on account of a subsidiary line. As this subsidiary line does not belong to the Bell company I thought perhaps it was a, Government line. It is really in bad order; I am not referring to the poles, but to the wire, which is not up to the long-distance standard. My hon. friend might perhaps inquire whether the line belonging to the

Government on the north shore below Quebec is in proper order, whether a report has been made lately concerning its inefficiency and whether repairs could not be made so as to facilitate business between Montreal, Quebec, and the Saguenay river. I have heard some people simply shrieking over the line from Montreal to Chicoutimi in order to make themselves heard, simply on account of the bad condition of the wire. I do not know that this is a Government line, but it is certainly not the Bell line, and I do not know of any subsidiary company. Perhaps my hon. friend will see what can be done to improve matters. .


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend will appreciate that it is impossible for me to give him any information at the moment, but I shall be very glad to inquire into the matter.
Harbours and rivers, Saskatchewan and Alberta-Sturgeon river improvements, $9,500.


Mr. OLIVER:: How much was spent on
improvements in jhe Sturgeon river last year?


Robert Rogers: We did not spend anything there last year. This amount is required for the removal of weeds and log jams, and the construction of a dam on the Sturgeon river. There is a growth of weeds in the Sturgeon river that requires to be removed, and also a log jam in the same river, in the vicinity of Devil's lake, Onoway, and Lac Ste. Anne that will also have to be removed in order to create a current and thereby reclaim hay lands for the settlers. The dam is proposed to be built about one mile east of St. Albert, a village on the Sturgeon river, and is for the purpose of raising the water in the river and in the Big Lake, a couple of miles west of the village, so that navigation for pleasure craft may be had at any time during the open season. The work is necessary in the interest of navigation on the Sturgeon river, which under the existing conditions is at a very great disadvantage, and it has been asked for by the district engineer.


Frank Oliver: Can the minister say how much money has been spent altogether upon this project up to the present time? He says that nothing was spent last year, but there have been expenditures in previous years.


Robert Rogers: I have no record before me of any expenditure on this particular work. There may be something in the department, but it was not last year nor the year before, or I would have had it before me.


Frank Oliver: There has been some expenditure on the same Sturgeon river, although it may have been under a different heading ox have been given a different description. I had occasion to bring to the attention of the minister, by correspondence and also at a previous session, the complaints of certain farmers owning land along the stream whose fences had been taken down and whose bridges had been blown up by the officers or employees of the department in the work of improving the navigation, I supposed that this vote was simply a continuation of that work.


Robert Rogers: I have nothing to show that here, but I shall be glad to get the information from the department for the hon. gentleman; if there is any there at all. I will ask the deputy to send it to the hon. member.


Frank Oliver: The point is that there was money spent, I do not know what amount, on a project that, while we are all glad to see money spent in our constituencies, is unique in this, that while it purports, according to the statement made by t'he minister, to lower the level of the water in one lake in order to create hay land, it includes a project to raise the water in another lake, and thereby flood hay land, I presume to, at any rate, a corresponding degree. White I do not wish in any way to discourage the idea of money expenditure, especially in that particular constituency, I would respectfully suggest to the minister that he look into this matter somewhat carefully, and find if there is not some other place where an equal expenditure could be made with better results than draining the hay land of one lake and flooding the hay land of another. I would think that under all the circumstances it would be in the interest, not only of the treasury, but of the country, to leave the matter severely alone if there is no other object to be attained, and, I am bound to say, I do not know of any other object to be attained. I am aware that the people who own hay land at the outlet of lake Ste. Anne would be pleased to have that hay land drained by the lowering of the level of the water, but I am not at all sure that the people owning shore front on lake Ste. Anne at other points would be pleased to have the level of t'he water in the lake lowered, thereby giving them a frontage of mud, whereas at

the present time they have a frontage of water. The minister would be well advised to go over this whole project again, and, unless there is some better reason for it than has as yet been given, it would be well to leave it alone. I do not wish either to prevent the expenditure of money in the Edmonton constituency or to guard the Government against mistakes; but this is such an obvious case that I do not think I would be protecting myself if I did not 'take the opportunity of drawing attention to the fact that the proposal, as stated by the minister, is to drain the one lake and to raise the other, clearing th ay land in the one ease and flooding it in the other. My interest, of course, was principally in regard to the improvements which had been made to the course of the river in past years, and which had brought the officers of the department in collision with the owners of the land in connection with the matter of fences and bridges, and I wanted to know what the status of the project was, that is, whether the Government had still in mind the making of this little water course a channel by interfering with the rights of the farmers who owned land on both sides of it.


Robert Rogers: This is one of the items
that we do not intend to spend during the coming year, so that we shall have plenty of time to look into the matter.


Frank Oliver: In that case I would certainly advise the minister to look carefully into it.


Robert Rogers: We will have another report made.


Mr. TURRIFF:: Will the minister say
how an item such as this appears in the estimates at all where apparently the mem. ber for the constituency thinks it an absolutely absurd manner of expending money? Can the minister say who applied to have the work done.


Robert Rogers: It was recommended by
the district engineer at Edmonton.


John Howard Sinclair: I have never before
heard of such a proposal as the draining of land by the Dominion Government unless there is some question of navigation connected with it. It appears to me that the proposal is altogether irregular. It would be a different matter if the minister were embarking upon a project of draining -all the swamps and low places in the country.


Robert Rogers: The dam is proposed to
be built about one mile east of St. Albert, a village on the Sturgeon river, and is for the purpose of raising the water in the river and in the Big Lake, a couple of miles west of the village, so that navigation for pleasure craft may be had at any time during the open season. The work is necessary in the interest of navigation on the Sturgeon river, which under the existing conditions is at a very great disadvantage, and it has been asked for by the district engineers. The estimated cost is $9,500. St. Albert village is located about ten miles north of Edmonton on Sturgeon river. The river and Big lake .are a considerable attraction for campers and boating parties from Edmonton, and this attraction will probably be increased next summer, as a suburban electric railway has been built to St. Albert, and no doubt large industries will be established at Lake Ste. Anne. Both points are located in a well-settled farming district.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the report give the depth of the water?


Robert Rogers: I am just reading the
report of the engineer.


Mr. NESBITT:: Is the minister going to spend the money this year? *


Robert Rogers: No.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: In that case, what is the use of discussing it? I have a grove on my farm to which the people come very frequently. There is a river which is crooked, and it would be a great advantage if the minister would straighten it, so that the people could indulge in boating.


Robert Rogers: Will there be an electric railway there?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I will have one built.
The people drive up in their motors and camp in the grove. I think the case is as good as the other one, only there are no weeds to pull up because the bullfrogs have got them all cut out.


Frank Oliver: With regard to the item
of $3,500 for an office and dwelling at Dunvegan, is it the intention of the minister to place this offiee at the river bank, or where the present office is located?


Robert Rogers: This amount of $3,500 is required for the purchase of a site and the erection of an office at Dunvegan on the Peace river line. The estimated cost is $3,500. It is asked for by District Superintendent Macdonald who, in a telegram dated March 6, 1912, states as follows.:

Present quarters at Dunvegan are inadequate; a building similar' to one under construction at Grouard should be provided. As the cost of the material delivered would be somewhat higher, an appropriation of $3,500 would be required.	*
Superintendent R. C. Macdbnald, in a letter dated Nov. 8, 1915, states the following:
Having reference to the appropriation of $3,500 for an office dwelling at Dunvegan, at the request of the Conservative Association permission was given to have this appropriation diverted to a building at Waterhole.
Nothing has been done; the matter stands,


Frank Oliver: This is not at all in the same class as the other expenditures that I was mentioning. There is a peculiar geographical condition there that I think attention ought to be drawn to. The valley of the river is about 800 feet deep. It is a navigable stream, and the stores of the Hudson Bay Company and Kevillon Bros., the steamboat landing, of course, and the ferry crossing, are down at the river. The telegraph line crosses there, but the telegraph office is on the hill 800 ' feet above the river and a mile or two back from it. It is not as far away as WateT-hole is, but unfortunately it is too inconveniently situated to be of any benefit to those navigating the river. I would be inclined to believe that the proper place for the telegraph office is at the river crossing, at the ferry, where it would lbe of convenience to the people crossing and going up and down the river. There is	a rented telegraph
office at Van Rena, eight miles or so from Dunvegan. This office is in charge of a farmer, who, I assume, gets a small salary for handling the business. WitJi the office at Van Rena for the accommodation of the adjacent upland territory, and Waterhole being not inconveniently situated from there, if the Government is going to erect a permanent building the proper place would be in the river valley, at the ferry crossing, where the business places are located.


Robert Rogers: We will have that looked into.	-


Frank Oliver: There is an office called
Van Rena, is there not?


Robert Rogers: We have no note of that here.


Frank Oliver: It is a rented office. There are telegraphic facilities at Van Rena which serve a reasonable radius of upland country, extending, I suppose, as far as the place
called Waterhole. There does not seem to be necessity for two' offices so close together, especially when that leaves the valley without a telegraph office.


Robert Rogers: How far is the valley
from Waterhole?


Frank Oliver: About five or six miles.
It is the difference in level that has to be considered: what is on the hill is not convenient for anything in the valley and what is in the valley is not convenient for anything on the hill. To have two offices on the hill and none in the valley seems to be hardly a fair division.


Robert Rogers: I will have it looked into before we make any expenditure.


William Erskine Knowles: I understand that when the shortage of money occurring by reason of the war was fully impressed on the Government, they did not enter into any new contracts for the erection of public buildings. May I ask whether that policy was put in force decisively and in clean-cut fashion as of one date throughout all Canada, or was it put. in force at one time in some places, and later in others?


Robert Rogers: When war broke out we did not decide definitely not to go on with public buildings for some time, but as conditions grew more pressing and as our expenditure in connection with the increased number of troops recruited at various places kept creeping up, we kept on refusing more largely, every day almost, the extension of public buildings. I do not know that there was any specific date, but in the year 1915, the latter part of it, at all events, we were very definite in our refusals to go on with any public buildings.


William Erskine Knowles: With regard to tenders that were in a few days prior to the breaking out of war, were these accepted and contracts closed?


Robert Rogers: We had a number of tenders in; a large number of them we did not go on with. Wherever we could possibly find an excuse for not proceeding with the work, we have not gone on with it. Wherever there was evidence that the locality could get along without it, we have delayed the expenditure.


William Erskine Knowles: That policy was put in force, then, to a degree, at any rate, from the hour that war broke out?


Robert Rogers: Not so mueh in 1914. We did not then think that the war was going to be so serious.


William Erskine Knowles: With regard to tenders that were in, say, by the first of August, before war broke out, were they all accepted and the contracts closed?


Robert Rogers: Oh, no, they were not all accepted.


William Erskine Knowles: I do not understand, then, how the minister can say that it was not until after end of 1914 that there was any embargo on the construction of public buildings.


Robert Rogers: Well, there was a considerable embargo, but not so complete as it wae made later.


William Erskine Knowles: I suppose where the hon. minister found the pressure of his friends or his enemies to be strong enough, he went on with the work; otherwise he did not.


Robert Rogers: We do not do that sort of thing.


William Erskine Knowles: I would not think any less of the minister if he did. We are all human, and the minister is not yet leady for wings. If that was not the guiding star, then what was? In some places work was gone on with despite the war, until the pressure became so strong that a general policy was adopted, What was the guiding principle during this transition stage, if it was not political influence or anything of that kind, as the minister says ?


Robert Rogers: We were guided by the position of each locality and the necessity for public buildings. Very few public buildings have been gone on with since the outbreak of the war. In some c,ases tenders had been called for and contracts let, and we were perhaps more considerate of those than of others where tenders had not been called for. But there has been no definite or fixed rule.


Frank Oliver: I see two items here- Grand Prairie office, $3,500, and Dunvegan office, $3,500. Is it the intention of the Government to make any expenditure at either of these offices this year?


Robert Rogers: We have an idea that we should go ahead with them. They are marked as items to be proceeded with, and there is a pressing necessity for them.
CMr. Knowles.]


William Erskine Knowles: The minister said that they were considerate of those buildings for which tenders were called before the war.
I take the case of the Prince Rupert public building. Tenders were to close in June, but the time was extended for some reason and the contract was not let. The time for receiving tenders, as originally set, expired early in the summer. This was an important building, to cost somewhere between $60,000 and $90,000. A very large sum has been expended for a site, such as it is, and the minister is paying out money every month to pump the water from it so that he will not be -sued fo-r damages for maintaining a nuisance. Why was that building stopped ?	-


Robert Rogers: Of course, it is not the only one. But let us take Prince Rupert as a fair sample. That would toe one of the first places where we would delay -construction, because the populatiq-n is not very large and is of rather a floating character; and when war broke out the population became rapidly less. So I think we we-re perfectly justified in delaying the'' construction of a public building there, under present circumstances.


William Erskine Knowles: -Could the minister let us have a list of the cases in which at the time of the outbreak of the war tenders were called for and not accepted, and have not since been accepted, and the other cases where tenders were in and were accepted despite the war?


Robert Rogers: I think we could get a statement of that sort.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
. SECOND READING.
Bill No. 96, fo-r the relief of David Whimster Rhodes-Mr. Boys-read the second time, and referred to the Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
Frank Oliver: At six o'clock I asked the minister if it was the intention of the department to proceed with the construction of dwellings and offices at Grand Prairie and Dunvegan. I understood him to say

that these were expenditures that were listed to be made?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Frank Oliver: I notice that the amounts are similar in the three columns, and that is why I asked whether the expenditures were to. be made. Grand Prairie may now be considered a fixed point. The railroad has been Ibuilt to Grand Prairie City, which certainly seems to be a proper and desirable place at which to establish permanent office accommodation for the government telegraphs. The Dunvegan Railway Company are not, I understand, establishing a commercial telegraph system. They propose to operate by telephone, which leaves the commercial business foT the government lines. Therefore, it seems quite in order, now that Grand Prairie City has be. come a railroad point, and indeed, a railroad terminus, that the Government should make that expenditure upon permanent offices there.	.
At six o'clock I was speaking with regard to Dunvegan. The situation there is not at all the same as at Grand Prairie. The office, as at present situated, is entirely inconvenient. It is not convenient for anybody, and it is a Government building. It is not a large building, though quite adequate for present purposes, but it is not conveniently situated; it was placed where it is now, I think, in promotion of townsite speculation, which, of course, has fallen entirely flat. At the moment, there is* no Tail-road development on the north side of the Peace river, and, until there is Tailroad accommodation, permanent points of business cannot be established. Therefore, it would seem to me that, unless there was plenty of money available to meet all demands, it would hardly be the part of wisdom to make an expenditure for a permanent establishment at a point that might in the end, and within a year or two, be left aside from railroad facilities which might be established nearby. There is a prospect of railroad construction on the north side of the Peace; it is a prospect which we hope will be realized, but it is not an immediate prospect, and, until it becomes a definite prospect, it would seem to me to be hardly wise to make a large expenditure on a permanent building at a place that might practically be of no value after the railroad was constructed.
I have this suggestion to make to the minister. For the time being telegraph facilities can be maintained without any larger permanent expenditure than has been made at present. On the north side of the river there is as I have said a toll office at Van Rena. I do not know whether there is an office at Waterhole. There is an office at the top of the hill overlooking Dunvegan where it is not convenient for any body, and there is no office at the fort in the valley where the Hudson Bay and Revillon Bros, are. That could be established as a toll office without going to any capital expenditure, waiting'the time when, by the construction of the railroad, permanent centres of business on the north side of the river will be established.
By reason of railway construction, a new centre of business has been established on 'the south side of the river, that is to say Spirit river. Spirit river is practically at the junction of the Grand Prairie branch with the main line of the Dunvegan railway. For the time being, it is the terminus of the main line of the Dunvegan railway. It is situated about 15 miles south of Dunvegan itself, in the centre of a very fertile piece of country, and is rapidly becoming a business centre. Of course, if the minister has plenty of money to spend north of the river as well, I would be very glad, and would not like to put any restriction upon the expenditure. But if he has only $3,500 to spend on permanent telegraph accommodation in that vicinity, I would certainly suggest that Spirit river, having become an important railroad point, is the place that should receive that accommodation at the present time. It has become a fixed centre of business by reason of railway construction, and therefore the minister could rest thoroughly assured that an expenditure made at that point would be of permanent value and would not by any possible chance be left as it were on the side track and of little value in proportion to the expenditure made. I urge the building of an office at Grand Prairie. I suggest the giving of accommodation at the actual site of the fort of Dunvegan in the river valley, and that any permanent expenditure of this character be made at Spirit river.


Robert Rogers: I quite appreciate the importance and the immediate necessity of providing a building at Grand Prairie by reason of its definite location and of the definite condition existing there. I agTee in great measure with what my hon: friend says regarding the location at Dunvegan, by reason of the fact that apparently it is not a definite centre yet. There are Water-

hdle and the Crossing, two points which might have temporary accommodation. As far as Spirit river is concerned, if my hon. friend will look at the Supplementary Estimates that came down to-day he will see that we are providing for a building there for immigration, and I was in hopes that we would be able to use a portion of it, temporarily at all events, for the telegraph and telephone services. It will supply the needs of Spirit river this year, at all events, or until we are able to go on with something more permanent. As far as Dunvegan is concerned, we will1 not spend any money unless we are able to locate at a point that is going to be a definite centre for all time to come, something we have not been able to do up to the present moment. So far as Grand Prairie is concerned, we are going ahead. At Spirit river we will go ahead with the immigration building and find accommodation temporarily for the office there. In the meantime we will not settle anything with respect to Dunvegan.


Frank Oliver: 
Robert Rogers: How many miles would that be?


Frank Oliver: Not more than ten miles at the outside. It would give a maximum service on a minimum extra capital expenditure. I would urge that upon the minister's best consideration. It is an extension that might be made at any time.


Robert Rogers: I have not heard of the desired extension mentioned by my hon. friend but I will get a report from the department and see whether it is possible to do it. We have no special vote for it and as this is only 8 or 1(L miles we might be able to provide for it.


Frank Oliver: That was my idea. In regard to the McMurray telegraph line, I take it for granted that it is the intention to operate that line continuously now that it has been completed.


Robert Rogers: The Fort McMurray line
-yes.


Frank Oliver: What are the points at which operators are to be maintained along the line 'between Athabaska and McMurray?


Robert Rogers: I am afraid I have not that information here. My deputy will send it to my hon. friend.


Frank Oliver: If it will be convenient the deputy -might send it to me privately.


Robert Rogers: Yes.
British Columbia mainland telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements, $14,000.


George Perry Graham: There was nothing under this item last year.


Robert Rogers: This -amount is required for repairs and improvements to the mainland telegraph and telephone lines as follows :

Resetting poles Kamloops to Merritt
Douglas Lake line, 5 miles of poles required on this line which was run on fence posts when constructed in
1913	 600
Rebuilding line from Fairview to Princeton, 64 miles. (Reset two years ago but must be rebuilt next
year)	 9,000
General repairs Kamloops-Vernon 75
miles	 700
Resetting poles and general repairs on
Marron Lake spur	10	miles	 300
General repairs on Nakusp Edgewood
line 57 miles	 590
Extension across North Thompson river
to Black Pines	 300
Resetting poles and general repairs on
Lumby line 16 miles	east	of Vernon. 600
_	$14,000
Public Works - miscellaneous-Architectural Branch-salaries of architects, clerk of works, inspectors, draughtsmen, clerks, and messengers of outside service, $60,000.


George Perry Graham: Is that outside of the Civil Government staff?


Robert Rogers: That is outside of the
Civil Government staff.


George Perry Graham: Who is the chief architect under this heading?


Robert Rogers: Chief Architect Horwood.
iMr. GRAHAM: Does he not come under the Civil Government vote?


Robert Rogers: These are his outside officers. Take, for instance, Charlottetown, P.E.I.: J. J. Macduff, $800.


George Perry Graham: How many people would there "be on that staff?


Mr ROGERS:: Thirty-one.


George Perry Graham: What position does our old friend, Mr. Ewart, hold?


Robert Rogers: He is consulting architect for the whole thing-our general walking boss. He has been of great service to us this year.


George Perry Graham: Has not Mr. Ewart prepared and submitted a plan for the Parliament building?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Ewart has been of great 'assistance to the architects in the preparation of the plans, and has given them ideas that to my mind are very valuable. He also prepared a sketch plan, some of which at all events has been used. The architects consider that he has been of very great assistance. He has done splendid [DOT]service in every way.
Public Works-miscellaneous - Engineering Branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draughtsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $435,000.


George Perry Graham: How big a staff is that?


Robert Rogers: There are 280 on the staff. It includes engineers all over Canada.


George Perry Graham: It is the staff of engineers looking after public works all over the Dominion?


Robert Rogers: Yes, and the vote is the same as last year.


George Perry Graham: Are building inspectors included in this staff?


Robert Rogers: No.


George Perry Graham: They would be in the outside service. I do not mean special inspectors.


Robert Rogers: This vote has to do with harbours and Tivers, and has nothing at all to do with inspectors on public buildings.


William Chisholm: How many engineers are in the province of Nova Scotia?


Robert Rogers: There are five districts
there. The one I can recall at the moment are North Sydney, Halifax and Shelburne.


William Chisholm: I notice in the
Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1915, that the cost of the office at Antigonish was $14,689.18, and the one at North Sydney $11,593.64, or a total of $26,282.82. In 1909 and 1910 there was one office for the Island of Cape Breton and the counties of Antigonish, Pictou and Guysborough, the office for the whole district being in Antigonish. A few years ago another office was established at North Sydney. I find that for the year 1909 the total cost for the whole district of the Island of Cape Breton and the counties of Antigonish, Pictou and Guysborough was $8,409.68 (p. 310-V Auditor General's Report). For the year 1910 the cost was $10,384.86, and for 1911 $13,632.80. The average cost for the whole district for the three years 1909,
1910	and 1911 was $10,782.45. The cost for the whole district at the present time- there are now two resident engineers' offices in the district-is $26,282.82, an increase of over 150 per cent. It is well known that during the years 1909, 1910 and
1911	the engineers in that district were kept pretty busy; wharves, breakwaters, and harbours required a great deal of attention and there was a large amount of work to be done. In those years, when business was' booming and work was being carried on, the

average yearly cost was only $10,782.45, while the cost in the last year for which we have the Auditor General's report and during which, as the Estimates show, there has been practically no work done in the counties I have referred to in the way of improvements to harbours, wharves, breakwaters and such like, has been $26,282.82. I should like the minister to explain how it is that the cost has gone up so enormously, while the work has been going down practically to a minimum? There has been really nothing for the engineers to do; the breakwaters and wharves are allowed to tumble into the dock, and yet the cost has increased. As there has been no new work the engineers could simply turn in the same reports they made the year before. I should like the minister to explain how it is that the expense of looking after that section of the country last year,-$26,282.82-when there was no work doing, is so very much greater than the average cost for the three years 1909, 1910 and 1911, when a great deal of work was being done?


Robert Rogers: The increase is due to the fact that shortly after this Government came into power a new district was formed at North Sydney. Prior to that, the North Sydney district was looked after by the engineers stationed at Antigonish. This new district formed about 1911, accounts largely for the increased expenditure to which my hon. friend has referred.


William Chisholm: I could readily
understand that the fitting up of buildings and offices and the cost of heating and lighting them would cause an increase, but the expenses I have referred to have nothing at all to do with the buildings. I am referring to an increase in the salaries and expenses of the engineers when they are out on duty. When two offices were opened it was only natural to expect that the number of engineers and assistants in each office would be very much smaller than when;there was only one office. They surely would not have to double the staff simply because they opened a new office. Por the district attended to by the engineer for Antigonish, we will say, that is, the counties of Antigonish, Pictou and Guys-borough, surely not such a large staff would be required as was required to look after those three counties and the whole island of Cape Breton as well. But the fact is that the office at Antigonish alone cost

$14,689.18 last year, as against an average for the three years 1909, 1910, and 1911, of $10,782.45, before the change wras made. One would suppose that when the two districts were created and the two offices established, the expenses of the Antigonish office would have fallen off very considerably, as the territory to be looked after was not nearly so large, and the work had been reduced practically to a minimum. Instead of that we find that the cost of the North Sydney office alone was $11,593.64 or more by $1,000 than the cost of the Antigonish office when it attended to the whole island of Cape Breton as well as the three counties of Antigonish, Pictou and Guysborough. So the explanation of the minister cannot be accepted as explaining this increase. To recapitulate, when the whole island of Cape Breton and the three counties of Antigonish, Pictou and Guysborough were under one engineering district, with a central office at Antigonish, the average cost previous to 1911 was $10,782.45. In 1911 the district was divided and' two offices were established.
We find that the cost of the Antigonish office alone was $14,689.18 last year, or nearly 50 per cent more than when the whole island of Cape Breton was attached to the Antigonish office. We find, also, that the cost of the North 'Sydney office of looking after the island of Cape Breton alone was $11,593.64, or nearly $1,000 more than the average cost when it was all in one district. The explanation of the minister is unsatisfactory, in that regard. Surely an increase of 150 per cent should not take place.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend can readily understand that when you establish a new district the engineers in charge of that district feel themselves as important as the old ones, and look for the same condition of affairs, and, of course, there is naturally a large increase as soon as a new district equal to the old one is established. That accounts, so far as I can see, for the increased cost. I have not before me the detailed figures which my hon. friend appears to have, because I have not had occasion to look the matter up.


William Chisholm: Will the minister explain to what extent the salary of the resident engineer was increased when he took charge at North Sydney, as compared with the salary he was receiving
I

when he was assistant engineer at Anti-gonish?


Robert Rogers: We do not appear to have the details of any increases. The chief engineer at Antigonish gets $2,700; the chief engineer at North Sydney gets $2,500.


William Chisholm: What did the latter get when he was assistant engineer at Antigonish?


Robert Rogers: We are not sure about that. The deputy thinks he got $2,100.


William Chisholm: That is an increase of only $400, and yet the total increase is, as I have stated, $16,000. The fact of the matter is that the office at North Sydney and the office at Antigonish are filled with office-seekers irrespective of what work there is to be done. The office at Antigonish has to-day more employees than it had when that office had to look after the whole island of Cape Breton and the counties to which I referred. [DOT] The office at North Sydney has to-day as many employees as Mr. Milledge had when he had charge of the whole district. They fill the office with office-seekers irrespective of the necessities of the ease.


Robert Rogers: Probably you were not
doing the same amount of work then.


William Chisholm: 'There is no work to be done there. As the minister knows, they are doing nothing. The amount of money spent in Antigonish, Guysborough, and Pictou counties, outside of East River, Pic-tou, is a negligible quantity, and has been for the last two or three years. They did not require all that staff. Assistants and assistants were appointed when they were really not needed.


John Howard Sinclair: In Guysborough county not a blow has been struck for the last four years.
Mr. ROGER'S: A lot of money has been spent.


John Howard Sinclair: Not a single dollar has been spent in Guysborough county on public works during the last four years. Only one wharf has been built since this administration took office, .and that has been humbugged so that it is of no use. The site was changed so that the boats could not reach the wharf on account of there not being a sufficient depth of water. That is the only thing that the department during the present Administration has done in my constituency, which forms a large part of this territory. I sympathize with the attitude taken by my hon. friend, although the trouble is not confined to the offices in eastern Nova Scotia. I pointed out the other day that it was general throughout the Dominion, and I gave the statistics supplied by the department itself showing that, taking the whole Dominion, the increase in the staff is enormous. The minister has not yet justified that increase and I question if he can.


Robert Rogers: I have no recollection of my hon. friend ever presenting any desire on the part of the people of Guysborough for the expenditure of any money by the Public Works Department.


John Howard Sinclair: I am afraid my hon. friend's memory is not good.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend the other night undertook to support the statement of the hon. member for Kings, P.E.I., (Mr. J. J. Hughes) in respect to increased expenditure, additional 6taff, and so on, but I did not then have the figures before me. I took occasion, however, to look up the matter in. order to see what justification there was for the statements made by those two hon. members and one or two more, and I shall be very glad to supply my hon. friend with the information in order that he may better understand the administration of the Department of Public Works which he undertakes to condemn. During the last three years of the late Government, 1909-10, 1910-11, 1911-12. $330,000 was spent in Prince Edward Island. It is true that 'a certain increase has taken place in the number of employees, but during the .three years, 1912-13, 1913-14 and 1914-15, we have spent in Prince Edward 'Island $764,178.59 or $434,178,159 more than was spent in the three previous years. iMy hon. friend from Kings said the other night that they had only one man in the office of Mr. Hegan. I have, looked up the record and I find that at that time there was a Mr. Hegan, a Mr. Hyndman, a Mr. Miller, a Mr. White and a Mr. Matthews, or five men. We were condemned the other night because we had eight employees during the last three years, although the increased expenditure in that province for that period amounted to $434,178.59, which, I am sure my hon. friend will agree, justifies the appointment of two or three additional employees. I desire to be fair in the statements which I make in respect to the/ department, and I always endeavour to give 'hon. gentlemen opposite full and complete information. I have not the in-

formation which my hon. friend from Antigonish has asked for to-night, but as in the case of my hon. friend from Kings, P.E.I., I shall be glad to look the matter up, and I venture to say I shall be able to supply him with a statement that will justify the department and the statements that I have made. I am sure my -hon. friend from Guysborough understands the necessity of increased help when one is spending $434,178.59 additional to assist in the betterment of conditions in a province like Prince Edward Island.
Mr. 'SINCLAIR: I am not familiar with the expenditures in Prince Edward Island, and I am not in a position to discuss them; but it seems to be useless to appeal to the minister for economy or for reduced expenditure, because he is actually boasting that in the last three years he has spent over $400,000 more in Prince Edward Island than was spent by the former Administration in the previous, three years. He looks upon it as a creditable thing to have done during the hard times when it was found difficult to borrow money. I think his memory must be short in regard to thb other matter to which I referred, because I have frequently asked him for improvements along the coast line of my constituency. I made an, appeal to him in this House not more than two or three days ago in regard to the wharf at Cole harbour, and I did my best 'to induce him to spend money that had been voted by the former Administration and had been kept standing ever since, ' although the public work at that place is very much needed.
I have not bothered the minister very much about public works, but I have presented several requests to him, and have always failed to move him. So far as my constituency is concerned, I see no necessity of keeping a large staff at Antigonish or anywhere else as long as the minister maintains the attitude that he and his party have maintained in regard to expenditures in my constituency; that is, they are not making any. The minister has not given any explanation as to the large increase in his staff throughout the Dominion. The figures as to the staff of the Public Works Department, which were furnished, I assume, by that department, showed last year an increase of some 700 employees since the present Government took office. If you allowed these 700 new employees a salary of $1,000 each, that means $700,000 a year which is taken from the people of

this country in order to find places for friends of the Administration. Everyone knows that the expenditures in the Public Works Department during the last two or three years have been very small indeed in the Maritime Provinces. The items are kept standing from year to year and almost nothing is done; in the meantime, the number of employees has enormously increased. Can there be any justification, after making * allowance for dismissals, deaths and superannuations, for an increase in the staff to the extent of 700 persons? I do not think there can be. $700,000 is a very large sum of money to add to the yearly expenditure of one department.


William Chisholm: The minister has certainly the virtue of consistency. It is not surprising to members of Committee that he should boast of the increased expenditure in Prince Edward Island. As against $11,807,035 expended in 1910-11 under the late Government, $29,283,316 was expended in 1914-15, during eight months of which there was war. Undoubtedly that is an enormous increase. You find also that there was an increase of $1,291,979 in the expenditure of the year 1914-15 over that of the year 1913-14. The minister, therefore, is quite consistent so far as expenditures are concerned; he has a right .to boast of how he makes the money fly. I do not want to be in the same position as the hon. member for Guysborough; I do not want the minister to taunt me hereafter by saying that we did not ask for appropriations in Antigonish county. We realize that the war is on and if the minister practices economy in every other part of the country, we are quite satisfied ij during these critical times we are denied the conveniences that are afforded by wharves and breakwaters, but we expect to be treated as other parts of the country are treated. I may remind the minister that on December 28, 1912, when he wrote a letter through his secretary to the man in charge of the patronage in Antigonish country, he promised that an expenditure of $200,000 would be made in that county. He has not kept that promise. The money has not been expended; the same items have been in the Estimates year after year. The people have been waiting patiently, longingly, hopefully, I was going to say-no, they have lost all hope. They have come to the conclusion that the minister intended to use this letter merely for election purposes-there was a by-election on in the constituency at that time.

If the minister has money to expend I would remind him that he is in honour hound to redeem that pledge that he made. It is true that it amounts to $16 per head of the population of Antigonish and to about $85 per voter. Although that is a large amount, the minister promised it; the pledge is there. The letter reads:
Your letter of the 24th instant, addressed to the Minister of Public Works, received, and in accordance with your request I am enclosing you herewith a ,list of the items which have been placed in the Supplementary Estimates for Antigonish county for 1913-14.
It is true that the Supplementary Estimates were not prepared at that time or for some months afterwards. It is true that the main Estimates were not prepared at that time; yet that letter was sent broadcast all over the country and there were people who believed that the minister was sincere in making that promise. Practically nothing has been spent; the promise has not been kept. The minister told me the other evening that it was not the intention to spend any money down there this year. The same was the case last year and the year before, these items were in the Estimates, but not a dollar was spent. I make a modest demand that the minister carry out his pledge, and I hope that I shall not be taunted as the member for Guysborough has been taunted on the ground that he did not ask for anything. I would ask the minister to refer to the letter which he wrote; he will find the items there. I have no doubt that he recognized the propriety of the expenditure, or he would not have made the promise that he did on that occasion.


Robert Rogers: 
George Perry Graham: In writing the letter.


Robert Rogers: If any person is to blame, I am sure that my hon. friend will be willing to share the blame with me in respect to expenditure in Antigonish county. He dealt with -the matter so fully during the session after that famous letter was written that great care has been exercised to
see that no expenditures should be made that would grate upon the feelings of the hon. gentleman or disappoint him in his desires and hopes as the official representative of the constituents in that county. I think that my hon. friend will be good enough to share at least to some extent the blame in respect to the non-fulfilment of the promise made at that time.
Mr. WILLIAM -CHISHOLM: I am surprised that the hon. minister should take the course that he has taken. He adopted the same course in replying to the remarks that I made in 1913 on this question. It would be called, in common parlance, a bluff, but the bluff did not work on that occasion. Let me quote the words I then used, -so that we may see how much justification there is for the statement of the hon. minister that I threw cold water on the proposition to have these moneys expended. I quote from Hansard:
It is quite true that these items amount to a large sum in bulk even without taking into consideration the dredging and other repairs referred to in that letter. These supplementary estimates alone amount to $195,000-$16 for every man, woman and child in the county, or $81 for every vote polled in the election. It is true these sums bulk large. But, as I have pointed out, if those had been voted and expended last year or the year before as they should have been, the vote would not have bulked so large in the estimates of this year. But that is not the question; you should not consider what it amounts to for each individual, what you should consider is:	Are these
works necessary and proper? I submit that these works should be built. Let me ask the minister then, that when the estimates are brought down every one of these items will be found there and that the money will be spent. It is right and proper that the money should be voted and spent. He owes that to the people; he owes it to himself; he owes it to the reputation of Senator Girroir. It is true that the Conservative workers in that county had to drink a cup of humiliation that was filled to the brim. If the Minister of Public Works wishes to give an antidote to the political poison these people had to drink, he will see to it that all those items are provided for in the estimates.
Is that language that indicates that I was opposed to the expenditure of these moneys? On the contrary did I not endorse every single one of the items and ask the minister to spend the appropriation? I urged and importuned the minister to spend the money, and yet he stands up this evening and in that calm, bland, assuring way of his, states that in deference to my remarks in regard to these Estimates, he did not expend them. Is that not the most absurd thing you ever heard of?


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I was not here the other night when the Public Works Estimates were up. Would the minister tell me the position of the work on the East river, and whether the depth of water in the upper lock is sufficient to permit vessels to pass up to Trenton and New Glasgow, or whether there is any change in the plans?


Robert Rogers: There is no change in
the plans. Vessels will be able to go up to New Glasgow. There is some dredging to be done at the entrance and on the way up to the pftint where we are now preparing for the lock gates. My hon. friend will see an item in the Supplementary Estimates which finishes all the work. Tenders are being called for the lock gates.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Were not the tenders called for some time ago?


Robert Rogers: A short time ago, but they have not yet been considered.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Does the minister
expect the work to be completed this year?


Robert Rogers: ' That is our intention and our hope.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: And this vote in
the Supplementaries of $66,000 is to complete it?


Robert Rogers: Completes everything.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Will the work, when completed, include a channel to deep water and the construction of looks to enable vessels to be taken up to the town of Trenton? Is that the general scope of the work?


Robert Rogers: As I understand it, it includes a channel as far up as New Glasgow.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Trenton is not as far up as that.


Robert Rogers: It is to go to New Glasgow.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Where is the dredging to be done?


Robert Rogers: At the entrance. I know there was a report the other day that there was a necessity for some dredging, but not a very laTge amount.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Nothing has been done in the way of improvements farther up the river, above the town of Trenton.
The dredging of which my hon.
9 p.m. friend speaks is below the locks, and in order to facilitate

the entrance to- the looks from the deeper water of the harbour.


Robert Rogers: That is correct.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is there any proposition to go on and dredge' the river from Trenton up to New Glasgow, which is above where the improvements are now being made?


Robert Rogers: I was not aware that any dredging was required between Trenton and New Glasgow. We have not with us the report which we had the other evening, but I shall be glad to send my hon. friend a copy of it.
Monument of His Hate Majesty King Edward VII, $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where does the minister intend to erect that monument?


Robert Rogers: It is proposed to erect it at the corner of the East block, overlooking Connaught place and the po-st office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I wish to congratulate
my hon. friend and the Government upon the decision arrived at. The old rival of England, France, has erected in Paris and Nice, two cities which in his lifetime the late King Edward visited, and where he was facile princeps, if I may use the expression, monuments in his memory. His late Majesty was perhaps more beloved in France than in any other country in the world, although he was the most popular sovereign of his time. I may say that he was a benefactor to humanity, the father of the entente cordiale between France and England. It was just and fair that a monument should be erected in his memory in old France. The citizens of Montreal, a few months after his death, decided that a monument in his homoulr -should adorn Phillips Square, and I am pleased to say that the artist on that occasion fairly exceeded his own reputation by giving us a splendid statue of -the old King. It is a work of art which is admired by all who come to Montreal, and I am glad to learn that the Dominion Government have decided to have this statue erected at a very central place, so that- the sight of that monument may be a real inspiration for all Canadians who love France, who love England, and who love Canada and the British Crown.


Robert Rogers: I am very pleased indeed to endorse all that the hon. member has said, and to join with him in the view that the name of our late honoured King

Edward should never be mentioned in any assembly without the highest possible feeling of respect and admiration for the great services he rendered to the Empire and to the world. I am glad to say that I was one of those present at the unveiling of the monument in. Phillips Square, Montreal, and certainly I appreciate the great work that was done by the artist in preparing that monument. It is a credit to the artist and to the city of Montreal, and a source of pride to all who realize the importance of cherishing the memory of our late beloved King Edward. I am glad to know that the location which we have selected for the monument in Ottawa is one which meets with the approval of my hon. friend. I trust that we shall have the same success that they had in Montreal, and shall have a monument that will be a credit to the -city of Ottawa and to the Dominion of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the minister going to ask Canadian artists to tender for this monument?


Robert Rogers: We have had a competition already, and Mr. Allward has the contract.
Construction and operation of water storage dams on the Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith, and settlement of land damages, $115,000.


William Pugsley: I would ask the minister if the work of providing storage dams upon the upper Ottawa and its tributaries has been successful. When the project was started I was Minister of Public Works and I took a very great interest in the work, believing it would be of great advantage. I would like to know whether my expectations have 'been realized, and whether the dams have had the effect of steadying the flow in the Ottawa and of giving a greater depth of water during the dry season, which was one of the principal objects of the undertaking.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister explain what these storage dams are for?


Robert Rogers: They aie for the purpose of storing surplus water.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: For drinking purposes?


Robert Rogers: No. For the navigation of the Ottawa river it is necessary to store the water from the heavy freshets and preserve it in order to have continuous navigation on the river.
210 .


William Pugsley: And foT increasing the water-power on the Ottawa.


Robert Rogers: Yes, for increasing the water-power also. I am glad to be able to inform my hon. friend from St. John that the arrangement made some years ago has proved very satisfactory. We have had continuous navigation that would not otherwise have been possible. I look upon this as a splendid work, which has rendered great service to the city of Ottawa especially, and to transportation and navigation on the Ottawa river.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to hear that. It is a matter of great importance.


James Joseph Hughes: A few evenings ago, when the Estimates of the Department of Public Works were under consideration, I pointed out to the minister the large increase in his staff that had taken place in Prince Edward Island. He said he was under the impression that the department there was doing far more work now than it did some years ago, and that he would have a statement prepared, a copy of which he would give to me. I understand that the minister has already referred to that matter tonight, but I happened to be out of the Chamber at the time, and perhaps he would kindly send me a copy of the statement.


Robert Rogers: I will do so.
International Commission, river St. John, N.B., $7,000.


William Pugsley: Is this about finished?


Robert Rogers: This finishes it. I presented the report to the House the other night.
The National Gallery of Canada, including' the purchase of paintings by the Board of Trustees, $25,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Does the minister intend to spend this amount this year?


Robert Rogers: Not if we can help it.


John Howard Sinclair: I do not think there is very much need for buying paintings for this gallery at the present time, or during the ensuing year.	-
Monument to Lady Latour at St. John-contribution, $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There is evidently an
error in the title given to Madame Latour. I think that " Madame" should be substituted for " Lady." She was undoubtedly a lady, but she had no such title.


Robert Rogers: I beg to move that the
word " Madame " be substituted for the word " Lady."


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Georgian Bay Ship Canal Royal Commission, $25,000.
Rodolphe Lemieux: I would ask the minister to see that the interim report on the Georgian Bay canal is translated into French. The reason why I suggest that is that the people of Montreal, and in the Montreal district generally, are very much interested in that project. I am quite sure that my hon. friend from Jacques Cartier (Mr. Desearries) has received many requests for it from his constituents, who take a great deal of interest in that project. The sooner we have the translation the . better.


Robert Rogers: I am glad that my hon. friend has mentioned that matter. I quite appreciate the necessity of printing the Georgian Bay Canal Report in French. The deputy minister informs me that we have already provided for French copies.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Saskatehe-wan, $44,000.


Frank Oliver: Might I have the minister's permission tc revert to a little matter in connection with the northern telegraph lines again. I just wish to say that there is a system of Government telegrapn lines extending in the north country long distances. Of course it is not a money making institution but these lines are of very great benefit in the development of the country, and one way in which their usefulness would be increased would be as a means of transmitting news from these outlying points to the business centres. The suggestion I take the opportunity of offering the minister is that he arrange a rate on press messages from points on the Government system in the north that would be less burdensome than that prevailing at the present time. There is, I believe, a reduced rate for news matter but it is on a basis that makes it decidedly too burdensome to be carried out. It must be understood that news from Fort McMurray or Fort St. John will not carry as heavy a tariff as news from New York or the seat of war. It has to do with matters of trifling general importance, although of very great importance to the people interested and of very great importance in the development of the country, but still not of such importance that a newspaper could afford to pay a very 
large amount for the use of the lines. These lines are not overworked and it would be undoubtedly in the interest of the greater usefulness of the system, of the development of the country and the bettering of the conditions generally, if a press rate proportioned to the conditions were established so that the people on the outside could have the advantage of knowing what was going on in the north, thereby circulating interesting news, advertising the north country, drawing attention to it and promoting its settlement.


Robert Rogers: We have such a rate as my hon. friend suggests in connection with the Yukon service. This was brought to my attention a short time ago, and I have already taken the matter up with Mr. Keeley, the head of the telegraph department, with a view of trying to adopt a similar plan in the Peace river and north country, where we have our telegraph and telephone lines. I will take it up to-morrow, and urge that the suggestion of my hon. friend shall be carried out far as it is possible, because I think it is very desirable in war time that they should have a service up there in order to get the news as rapidly and cheaply as possible. We will do everything we can to meet that situation.


Frank Oliver: Has an office .been put in at Beaver Lodge on the line from lake Saskatoon to St. John and Hudson's Hope?


Robert Rogers: I do not remember that. My deputy will find out and let my hon. friend know.


Frank Oliver: When I was there last summer, although the wire passes through the settlement, in which there is a store, post office, 'blacksmith shop and an illustration station of the Department of Agriculture and which is to a certain extent the nucleus of a village with a very prosperous settlement, there was no telegraph office and the people had to go 20 miles to the nearest office at lake Saskatoon and much further in the other direction. If an office has not been established there I would urge that the matter be taken up. I am sure that an arrangement could be made with some of the local people to take the office and it would be a very great convenience to the people of the settlement and be of great use in the promotion of settlement in that area.


Robert Rogers: We will take note of it.


Frank Oliver: It is a very important settlement in the Peace river country and it forms the western part of the Grand Prairie settlement which is. about 25 or 30 miles west of Grand Prairie city. It is on the line of telegraph from lake Sas'k. atoon to PouceJCbuipe', St. John and Hudson's Hope.
Mr. ALLREL) THOMPSON: I rise to supplement the remarks made by my hon. friend from Edmonton (Mr. Oliver) and to say that I took tha-t matter up with my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works some time ago, and that he was good enough to assist us in getting a war news service for the Yukon. It was very much appreciated, and in these outlying districts to which my hon. friend from Edmonton refers, we who live in cities, cannot appreciate the advantage of having the news from day to day over the wires operated by this Government. I am glad to know that .my .non. friend from Edmonton is bringing this matter to the attention of the^ minister in behalf of the Mackenzie Valley because a news service of this kind will be very much appreciated in these outlying districts.


Mr. W. M. MARTIN:: I see there is an increase in the Saskatchewan vote of $7,000.


Robert Rogers: New offices are being established and extensions made.


William Melville Martin: What I am trying to find out is whether there have been extensions to the line to the value of 87,000 over the Estimates of 1915-16. The cost of maintenance last year was $37,000, and this .year we are voting $7,000 more for maintenance, and I want to know whether any new lines have been built.


Robert Rogers: We have now a central office in Saskatoon, whereas formerly Saskatchewan and Alberta were bulked together. We thought it wise to make this change.


James Joseph Hughes: There is an error in the statement the minister has sent me giving the number of employees in his department in Prince Edward Island. The names oif Mr. McDonald and Mr. O'Brien, who are now in the service of the department, do not appear in this memorandum, and as there is one error in it there may be others, particularly in the figures. If the minister would let me have a list of the works that have been constructed under the management of his department in the province of 210i
Prince Edward Island for the periods he used in his comparison I .should be much obliged. He is certainly astray as to the number of employees.


Robert Rogers: I do not think I am astray. We were dealing with the engineering department in Prince Edward Island, and I supplied the names of those connected with that department. Mr. McDonald and Mr. O'Brien are connected with the Dredging Department, not with the Engineering Department. A good deal of dredging has been done there lately.


James Joseph Hughes: Mr. Hegan did the work that McDonald and O'Brien are doing now, in addition to carrying on other work that fell to. him as the engineer of the department. Mr. Hegan was the engineer who looked after the dredging before Mr. McDonald and Mr. O'Brien were appointed. Consequently, these two men are additions to the service.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is mistaken; the dredging was looked after from St. John before.


James Joseph Hughes: The minister is in error. There was a superintendent of dredging at St. John, who visited Prince Edward Island perhaps once or twice a year; but Mr. Hegan was the man who actually d-id the work. The superintendent at St. John was a supernumerary, and had practically nothing to do with the dredging. I know he was supposed: to have some kind of general oversight over the work, but it was Mr. Hegan who did the work that McDonald and O'Brien are doing now.


Mr. MORRIS:: Perhaps I might be allowed to say a few words on this item with regard to independent telephone companies throughout Canada, particularly one in the province of Quebec. These companies axe receiving no. recognition from this Government. I have felt in the past that if ever I had the opportunity of bringing the matter before the House, I would call the attention of the Government to the work these companies are doing; they are of great benefit to our country. In the counties of Chateauguay, Huntingdon, and Beauharnois we have the Farmers' Independent Telephone Company. This line is in operation for 150 miles, and is giving splendid service. The line is absolutely independent; it is receiving no support from this Government or any one.else; and I feel it my duty, as a representative of a rural district, now that other institutions

are receiving so much aid, to call the attention of the Government to what this telephone company is doing. The farmers could not get the telephone service they wanted, and so they got together, and without any assistance from the Government or anybody else, furnished the capital, and built the line; they did this in opposition to one of the greatest corporations there is in our country, and I think the service they have rendered to the farmers in my constituency should be recognized by the Government. The company has received no assistance from the Government or anybody else. But, like the Canadian Northern at the present time, it is perhaps in a little difficulty. The proposition is a big one for the farmers .when they .get no support from any one. We are doing this work absolutely on our own responsibility; we have asked nothing from any one; and I feel that the Farmers' Independent Telephone Company should be recognized, because what the farmers are doing, is in the public interest. Previous to the organization of that company there were, away in the back concessions, many -men who did not know what was going on. Now they have simply to ring the telephone bell in order to learn wihat is 'happening in the outside world. They will know to-morrow what has transpired here to-night, and my friends at all events will rejoice to know it. I am not coming here begging; we did not come to this Government nor to the Government of -Quebec begging; we went down into our pockets and furnished what was necessary. Unfortunately an hon. member opposite who has helped ns out in this matter is not here, but I am here as a representative of that county, an important county in the -province of Quebec; I am representing an independent people. The proposition is a difficult one, and it is up to this Government to come to our help. All we ask of them is a little'encouragement in a public work that I feel is worthy of this Government and of the country.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I must congratulate my hon. friend from Ohateauguay (Mr. Morris) on his very eloquent and splendidly presented speech. I -am sorry he did not tell us earlier in the speech the amount that he wanted, because I am sure we would all agree to give it to him. I am sorry I have not very much hope that he will get much money from this Government. I have looked through the Estimates and I see nothing there for Chateauguay.

Some things were done for that county some years ago, but there is nothing visible anywhere in these Estimates.
The hon. gentleman has spoken to the minister of things the like of which have never happened before, and I take this opportunity to mention to the minister for about the twentieth time something about something else the like of which has never happened before.
The county of Victoria is another rural district which I am proud to represent just as my hon. friend is proud to represent his constituency. We both represent rural constituencies, and therefore have a bond of union and a somewhat sympathetic feeling in regard to farming districts. I wish to bring to the notice of the minister something that happened with regard to telegraph lines in the county of Victoria in February, 1912. I brought it to his notice before and received plausible smiling promises that something would be done; but I am afraid that those promises, like many others of this Government, have gone the way of all flesh-nothing has come of them. We have in the county of Victoria a Government telegraph system which is of great service to that county. We have, no railway communications there, and the telegraph line is really the only connection we have, particularly during the winter season, with the pulsations of the outside world. Private as well as public business goes over that line, and therefore it is of supreme importance that it should be properly conducted; that the messages should pass through the hands of independent men who will take care of the secrets that are thus put into their possession. At the time of the election in 1912, the whole system, some 120 miles or more of telegraph line, was placed entirely at the disposal of the Conservative candidate. All the ramifications of that line, all the officers, and everything connected with it, were for at least three weeks or a month placed entirely under the control of the Conservative party. Everything that was said on our side of the line was open to the public; we might as well have posted our telegrams on the side of a barn as to hand them to any of those agents, because every one knows what we were sending. The chief operator in the business, who is still the prime mover of the whole system, took upon himself, without any authority from the department-I say that in fairness to the minister-to place the whole system as it was at the disposal of the Conservative party. Since then he has given evidence under oath in the election

trial, and that evidence is at the disposal of the minister. He swore that he took npon himself to place the service at the disposal of the Conservative party and that, while tons of literature were going over the line, he never collected one cent for it. Although he is still in office, the money has never been returned to the department, and nothing has been said about it. Is it fair to the public in the county of Victoria, who are paying their money for service over that line, that such a man should be handling their business, private and public, and some of it necessarily political? Is it fair that a man of that character should be able to say that he was never asked to make any return of the money? From that day to this the money has never been returned to the department, and it was put at the disposal of our opponents in the election. The matter is getting old, but no change has been made. The day is not far distant when we shall have another local election in the province of Nova Scotia.


Robert Rogers: Can you give us the date?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I can assure my hon. fiiend that it will be within the next six months. That will give my hon. friend plenty of time to put this telegraph line in proper order, so that he has no excuse. To my hon. friend, who is not only Minister of Public Works, but Minister of Elections as well, we with confidence appeal, that the proper machinery be provided, that that telegraph line be used properly, and that no man dare in future under his administration to use the property of the Government in such a high-handed and improper manner as it was used on the occasion to which I have referred.


Robert Rogers: I deprecate what the
hen, member has had to say with respect to the use made of this line by whoever the gentleman was in charge of it, and especially his statement that this gentleman admitted on evidence that he had thrown the line open for the opponents of my hon. friend. That to my mind is a very serious condition, and one of which I myself will certainly complain. I will take notice of what my hon. friend has .said, and I assure him that when his local elections1 come on he may depend absolutely upon the line being safe for the sending of messages. I will see that proper men are being put there, men worthy of confidence, so that my hon, friend need not be afraid to use the line for any telegraphic communications that he wishes
to have with his friends in the various portions of Victoria county or elsewhere. I certainly believe that the telephone and telegraph lines should be managed in the interests of the public, and that the most absolute secrecy should toe maintained in connection with their operation. Complaints of this kind are not confined to the Government lines, in Canada. I myself have had occasion to complain, with respect to the larger lines in the Dominion, that very serious leaks had taken place. I think that this is a good notice to serve on all telegraph and telephone lines in Canada to the effect that this circumstance is observed by gentlemen on both sides of the House. As far as our power to deal with it goes, I shall be glad to join in seeing that, it is corrected, and that 'all lines in Canada, whether under the control of the Government or not, shall be required to exercise that caTe for their messages and respect for their customers that they should exercise.


William Melville Martin: I was not in the House the other night when the public buildings of Saskatchewan were dealt with, and I assume that I have permission to refer to one or two matters connected with these public buildings before this resolution carries.. I want to ask the minister a question with respect to the construction of a proposed armoury and drill hall in the city of Eegina. In 1911, before the late Government went out of power, an Estimate was passed for the construction O'f an armoury in that city, and plans were actually prepared. The understanding was that we should get exactly the same kind of armoury as was proposed to be built and has since been built in the city of Edmonton. The years 1912, 1913 and 1914 came and went, and each year an item was put in the Estimates for the construction of that armoury and drill hall in Eegina. The war came on in the month of August, 1914, and we were faced with the condition that we had no accommodation for soldiers in Eegina. The city itself very kindly provided the winter fair building there, which has been used since August, 1914, and is being used at the present time for recruiting purposes. If the Government had done its obvious duty in 1912, 1913 and 1914, we would have had some means of properly accommodating the numerous soldiers who have been recruited in the city of Eegina and the surrounding country. I am not finding fault with the min-

ister for not building this armoury since 1914. I recognize the great desire for economy on the part of the minister and his department, and of necessity he could not very well have constructed an armoury in the city of Regina since the war began. But I do criticise the minister and the Government for not having taken some step to construct that armoury and drill hall prior to the commencement of the war. There is a very well defined rumour in the part of the country from which I come that the minister will not construct anything at all in the city of Regina. I must say that in that respect he has not treated that city very lavishly. I do not know why, because whenever he comes there, which he does not do very often, we try to use him properly. I can say also that if the minister sees fit to come there again, we shall try to use him properly. But as the representative of that city I think I am justified in finding a little fault with the conduct of the minister in connection with the construction of the proposed armoury and drill hall. I would like to know if the minister has any explanation to offer for not having taken some steps to construct that building the first three years that he was in office as Minister of Public Works?


Robert Rogers: My- hon. friend probably understands that the Public Works Department undertakes the construction of armouries in the various cities of Canada when urged to do so by the Department of Militia and Defence. I have no recollection of what caused the delay in so far as Regina is concerned. I am sure that if the necessity for the immediate construction of the building had been represented to us by the Department of Militia and Defence, we would have gone on with it as we did with buildings in various other places. This is. not a matter of which we have full control in the Depart-tment of Public Works. I confess that when I was in Regina last autumn I did recognize the necessity for an armoury in that city, in view of the large number of soldiers who were enlisting and preparing to serve their country. I am pleased to recognize here, as I did in the city of Regina, the generous treatment accorded to our soldiers by that city in their contributing the winter fair building. In all my travels I have not witnessed a more perfect location or more comfortable quarters than those which our soldiers were enjoying in the city of Regina. I appreciate the kind 
reception that I received from the civic authorities there; - I am sure that I can have no other feelings hut those of the very kindest towards that city. ,1 shall be glad at all times to lend any assistance that I possibly can in the public interest in the matter of the construction of the buildings that are required for the public services. Regina is a growing place and deserving of everything that can be done, and as soon as we are operating again in the way of construction of public buildings, in so far .as they come within the control of my department, there is no doubt that Regina will receive the fairest possible consideration .at my hands.


William Melville Martin: What the minister says may be all right, but to the chief question that I put there is no answer .at all. In 1911, an estimate was passed in the House for the construction of an armoury and drill hall in the city of Regina. That was before the late Government was defeated. Plans were actually prepared in the Public Works Department-I saw them myself- by which we were to have exactly the same kind of armoury as they were getting in the city of Edmonton. The city of Edmonton got their armoury, and we got nothing. I do not know how the minister can explain that. He says that the fault was with the Minister of Militia and Defence. I asked the Minister of Militia and Defence in this House in 1912 or 1913 what steps were being taken in connection with the construction of an armoury and drill hall at the city of Regina, and whether it was true that plans had been prepared in the year 1911. He answered yes, it was true, and that the reason why they had not gone ahead on the old plans was that those plans were not considered ample or good enough for a city of the importance of Regina. As a matter of fact, at that time we were perfectly satisfied to get the same kind of armoury as they were getting in the city of Edmonton. During 1912, 1913 and 1914 this matter was absolutely neglected by the Government-whether by the Militia Department or the Department of Public Works, I care not; the fact is that the Government was negligent in its duty in the matter of providing accommodation for recruiting in Regina. I am not criticising the Government for not building during the past two years. From the statement o.f the minister I do not imagine that he has any intention of proceeding in the immediate future.
With regard to the question of the con-

struction of a Customs examining warehouse in the city of Moosejaw, I see that there is an Estimate of $90,000 for this building. Do I understand that this $90,000 includes the co-st of the purchase of a site5
Mr. ROGER'S: That, I understand from the deputy, includes the site, but I do not remember the facts.


William Melville Martin: If it includes the site I do not know what the $90,000 is now in for, because the site for the customs examining warehouse in Moosejaw was purchased two years ago, and must surely have 'been paid for before this.


Robert Rogers: In that case t'his would not be for the site, but for the building.


William Melville Martin: The site for the customs examining warehouse at Moosejaw cost in the neighbourhood of $62,000. It was purchased from a strong party friend of the minister in that city. I do not know if the minister is acquainted with. him. That property was purchased by this gentleman not very many months before at $39,000 or thereabouts, and the statement is made throughout that part of the country that the condition on which this particular man was allowed to sell was that-he would make a contribution to the Tory newspaper in Moosejaw of $5,000. That is a matter which the minister should investigate. I have not any direct evidence that that is the case, but I am satisfied it can be proved if it comes 'before a proper committee of this House. It is generally believed in Moosejaw and Regina. Will the minister investigate and see if there is anything in the rumour?


Robert Rogers: It is evident that it is impossible for me to satisfy my hon. friend in so far as Regina is concerned. So far as I can recollect the facts, an armoury was proposed some years ago in Regina, but, unfortunately for the province of Saskatchewan, there are four great centres, Regina, Moosejaw, Saskatoon and Prince Rupert, all rival's for first position, and there was always a difficulty owing to the division of territory and the rivalry of these great centres. Then there was the further fact	that
Regina and the territory tributary to it as a military district, belonged to district No. 10, with headquarters at the city of Winnipeg. I do not know how it would be possible for any one. to have been more fair to Regina than I have been. After my visit to Regina last year, when
I had an opportunity of seeing the conditions, I continuously urged on the Department of Militia and Defence the advisability of dividing district number 10 and establishing a headquarters at the city of Regina. It is seldom that a member representing a constituency such as it is my privilege to represent, the city of Winnipeg, takes such .a position as that. I have taken every care to do everything I possibly could, in the common interest of all, for Regina and other cities in Saskatchewan. I conclude that the reason why an armoury was not built -at .an earlier date was this division of territory, coupled with the fact that Regina was on the outskirts of military district number 10, which extended as far east as Port William, Winnipeg being its centre. We have established in Saskatchewan a military district for that province, with Regina as its centre, which I think was a creditable move on the part of the Government. It was one which from the very first I urged on the Minister of Militia and Defence, with the result that it was accepted and carried into effect.
_ As to the purchase of the site at Moosejaw, I have no knowledge of the circumstance; in fact, I do not really know whether a site has been purchased or not;
but in view of the statements
10 p.m. the hon. member has made, I will -make inquiry and ascertain what facts it is possible for me to secure.


William Melville Martin: The minister speaks of the establishing of Regina as the headquarters of a military district. I am very glad the minister had something to do with making Regina the headquarters of a military district. The citizens of Regina appreciate that very much. But it is a peculiar thing that the militia business of the country is under the charge of the Minister of Militia, and when I spoke of the non-completion of the armoury, the Minister of Public Works blamed the Minister of Militia or the Militia Department.


Robert Rogers: I did not say that.
IMr. MARTIN: The Militia Department has to shoulder the onus for tan armoury not being constructed.


Mr ROGERS:: I did not say anything of the kind.


Mr MARTIN:: But when it comes down to the question of establishing a military

centre, for which somebody desexves some credit, obviously it must be the Department of Militia, because that department controls affairs of this kind. But the minister chooses to say he did that himself. Where anything occurs for which some one should be blamed, the minister places the responsibility on the Militia Department; but where credit is to be given for anything that is done, the minister takes that credit to himself.


Robert Rogers: I did nothing of the kind. The hon. gentleman should not make statements which are not in accordance with ' the facts. I said nothing of the kind, and nothing approaching it.


William Melville Martin: I can understand pretty
well the English language, and if the minister did not say that I have no quarrel with him; but I am satisfied that is what his words meant. A site for a public building was purchased by the Department of Public Works in Swift Current in March, 1914, and the Government paid $25,000 for it. Any person living in western Canada knows that in March, 1914, and throughout the year 1914, the real estate boom had burst and a financial stringency was upon us. This particular site, lots 19 and 20, block 55, in the town of Swift Current, had been bought some time previously by the man who sold it to the Government, Mr. Mountain, and on January 13, 1913, he registered title in the land titles office, and swore that the value of one of these lots, lot 20, was $6,000; and two years previously, in registering title to lot 19 in plot 55, he swore that its value was $1,300. I do not pay much attention to the valuation given in 1911, because that was some years ago; but in 1913 this very man who sold the' two lots to the Department of Public Works for $25,000, swore that the reasonable value of one of them was $6,000, at a time when the real estate boom was at its highest. Property in the first six months of 1913 was higher than at any time before or since, in all parts of Saskatchewan. It was at this time that Mr. Mountain swore that the value of one-half this property was $6,000. The next year the value of property decreased by leaps and bounds, still he sold it to the Government for $25,000. If that is thought by the Government to be an economical way of purchasing sites, they are much mistaken; and the great majority of the sites purchased in Saskatchewan are on exactly the same basis:	the Government have paid in each ease from 25 per 
cent to 50 per cent too much for them, to my personal knowledge.


Robert Rogers: In view of the fact that
the Government of the province of Saskatchewan had purchased a site in Swift Current some time -previous to the date when we purchased the site in that city, and in view of the inflated price which they paid, we found very great difficulty in securing a site at a normal price. We exercised very considerable care and reduced the price very much in comparison with that paid by the Government of the province of Saskatchewan for the site they purchased, and with regard to which my hon. friend understands a great deal more probably than he would make clear to this Committee.
I do not propose to deal in detail with that matter however, because it does- not concern the committee. But I do say that care was taken in the purchase of a site at the price named by my hon. friend in connection with the Department of Public Works, and I am satisfied that we had the best judgment and the best advice of our officers in the province of Saskatchewan in arriving at the price which was paid by the department. I remember well the difficulty we experienced by reason of the abnormally high price which had been paid by the Government of the province of Saskatchewan in the purchase of a site close to the one purchased by this department.


William Melville Martin: The hon. minister always takes a fall out of the Government of the province of Saskatchewan. I do not know why he should be so much interested in the Government of that province. I know both of the properties in the city of Swift Current referred to. The property purchased by this Government is two blocks further east from the property purchased by the Government of the province. I am not here to discuss the prices paid by the Government of the province of Saskatchewan, but I know that as between the two properties, that purchased by the Provincial Government was more valuable than the property purchased by this Government and it is better located from a business standpoint.


Robert Rogers: That is not our information.


William Melville Martin: Then the minister has
not got the proper information. For the site purchased by this Government for postoffice purposes, if that is what is meant by the public building mentioned in these Estimates,-I understand that it is; if I am

not correct the minister will put me right- this Government paid at least 50 per cent too much to this man. I do not know what system the minister follows in ascertaining what properties are available for sites in the various towns. I presume it is left largely to some local patronage committee.


Robert Rogers: It was left to Mr. Mallard, of Eegina; the hon. gentleman probably knows him.


William Melville Martin: Anything that Mr. Mallard would recommend to the Government would he perfectly bona fide. He is an official who has been employed by the Government for a good many years.


Robert Rogers: We purchased on his recommendation.


William Melville Martin: If the minister purchased on his recommendation he got very good advice. But that does not alter the fact that the Government purchased from this man that property for which no person ip the world would have paid $25,000 at that time. The property purchased by the Government 'of the province of Saskatchewan was purchased in 1913, before the boom in real estate had broken, and there was a vast difference between the values in 1913 and those in 1914. The minister probably knows that by bitter experience in connection with real estate that he has in Winnipeg. Nobody knows better than he that it was in the beginning of 1914 that the real estate boom broke, and he cannot justify the purchase of that site by dragging in the name of the Government of the province of Saskatchewan.
The minister says he has done a great deal for the city of Eegina. ,As a matter of fact, he has done nothing at all for that city. He takes credit to himself for having made Eegina the headquarters of the military district, but he did not do that; it was the Minister of Militia who did it.


Robert Rogers: That is right.


William Melville Martin: Apart from that, what has the minister ever done for the city of Eegina during the past four or five years? He has placed two or three items in the Estimates; he has purchased two sites for buildings from political friends in that city. One site was purchased as early as 1913 for a customs examining warehouse, but not a sod has been turned up to the present day, and there is no indication of a building. He purchased from
another political friend a portion of the old Leader building for the office of the Eeoeiveir General, and I see that a large amount of money was set aside to pay for that building. However, I understand that the Exchequer Court has not decided what value should he placed upon it. That is all the Minister of Public Works has done for the city of Eegina. I do not know why he should have his knife out for that city. He does not come to Eegina very often. I rememfoer that he came in [DOT]1912 with a great blare of trumpets. The whole front page of the local Conservative newspaper was filled. with an announcement of what the minister was going to do for the city. It was just before the provincial election, and I presume that if another provincial election comes along the Minister of Public Works will visit Eegina again with a greater blare of trumpets. But since 1912, on only one occasion has the Minister of Public Works deigned to put in-an appearance in the city of Eegina. He passes that way going west to other cities, and I can assure him that if he stopped off he would find the people even more friendly to him than before.


Robert Rogers: That would be impossible.


William Melville Martin: I hope that, when the minister comes west, he will not forget to drop off at Eegina. W,e will entertain him as well as any city in the Dominion.


Mr. SINCLAIB:: 
Robert Rogers: There will be no more than are in the Estimates placed on the Table to-night.


John Ewen Sinclair: They are all in now for the present session, are they?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Ewen Sinclair: The reason I ask is that certain active politicians in Nova Scotia are using the minister's name and the name of his department for the purpose of obtaining political support by promising additional public works. There was a convention of the Conservative party in the county of Inverness a few days ago, and it was attended' by Mr. A. B. Crosby, of Halifax, who is well known to the minister.


Robert Rogers: A very good man.


John Ewen Sinclair: On that occasion he undertook to make a speech, and he is

reported in the Conservative paper to have said:
He assured his hearers that the defeat of the Murray Government was an absolute certainty and that Inverness would be in the right column. He gave his pledge to the audience that Gallant and McLean, whose election was a foregone conclusion, would have his cordial co-operation and support in securing subventions in the way of public works and railway construction for this noble county of Inverness.


Robert Rogers: He was talking about railways.


John Howard Sinclair: 
Robert Rogers: Railways.


John Howard Sinclair: Public works. Now, it appears that my hon. friend does not intend to give any public works to the county of Inverness for the present year. Mr. Crosby is depending on subventions; he has no policy. He does not pretend to have any public question to put before the people. The only thing he referred to was subventions, which he expected to get from the Minister of Public Works, but the minister now tells us that he does not intend to give any subventions; so I presume the prophecy will have to go along with the failure to get subventions.


Frank Oliver: Might I draw the minister's attention to a matter of which I spoke on a former occasion? I happen to be a member of the special committee appointed to discuss pensions, and during the discussions of the committee the matter of dealing with permanently disabled men has come up. This will require the establishment of permanent institutions, which means the erection or acquiring of buildings. I suggested to the minister that, in view of the events now occurring, there is every necessity for provision being made at an early date for this contingency that must be faced. I think the minister said that the matter would be taken up and if possible provision would be made in the Supplementary Estimates. I do not see anything in the Supplementaries, and I take this opportunity of again bringing the matter to the attention of the minister and

of urging that it is a matter of very pressing importance, and that there should be no avoidable delay in making suitable provision. I would say that in each section of the country provision should toe made for the care of those who are so seriously disabled as to be a burden on relatives, if they have relatives, and of those who have no relatives, and who would be in an even more unfortunate position.


Robert Rogers: We will appreciate the importance of providing for the returned and disabled soldiers, but my information ai the present moment is shortly this, that the committee who have been looking into that matter find that returned soldiers, when they come to a city like Winnipeg, or Edmonton, generally like to find their way to their own old 'homes from which they started out. While in some of the larger cities there are a number who require special care and provision to be made for their comfort and keep, it is surprising [DOT]how few after all by comparison are in that position. When they land they are always apparently very anxious to go back to the location from which they came and they usually have some friends or connections waiting to receive them and make them comfortable. It is true that in some of the larger cities, and probably this need will increase from time to time, provision is necessary for returned soldiers, but we. have felt that under the present conditions it is possible to secure rented buildings that will be vqry suitable and will provide the necessary accommodation. Every care [will be taken to see that in every single instance provision shall be made for the care and comfort during convalescence of every returned soldier who is not able to find a comfortable home. The various Provincial Governments have taken an interest in this matter and are endeavouring to secure employment for returned soldiers and to assist in every possible -way in cooperation with the Dominion Government. Everything possible will be done in conjunction with the provinces to add to the comfort and care of our returned soldiers.


Frank Oliver: Certain information came to the committee that I fancy has not been put before the House and cannot have reached the Government generally. While it may be in some degree premature, I feel that I shall be excused for placing it before the committee at the present time. It is inregard to those who are afflicted nervously or mentally and who now receive care in

lunatic asylums. An expert appeared before the committee and gave his opinion that such a course was very detrimental and that it was in the last degree important that men suffering in this way should not be in the environment that necessarily surrounds them under present circumstances. It is suggested that there should be accommodation provided for such cases where they would have special treatment and be under special conditions. He advised that under those circumstances there would be a very large proportion of complete recoveries, whereas, under present circumstances, his opinion was that many cases that, under favourable conditions, might recover, would become chronic and therefore hopeless. I am taking this opportunity, possibly somewhat out of order, to bring the matter as pointedly to the attention of the Government and of the Minister of Public Works as I can, as I am sure that everybody will agree that this gentleman's opinion is entitled to very great weight; and, if the opinion he expresses is correct, certainly no action can be taken too quickly or too thoroughly to meet the views that he placed before the committee.


Robert Rogers: I can quite understand
what my hon. friend says in respect to this condition. Let me give him an idea of the situation in the city of Winnipeg, and I am sure that similar conditions will be found to exist in other cities, especially in western Canada. At Winnipeg we have made provision in the immigration shed for the reception of returned soldiers. We have a small hospital in the immigration building with twenty or thirty beds where returned iSoldiere .suffering from nerve trouble receive treatment. That provision was made for returned soldiers for the first day or two after they arrived. The committee in charge of this work at Winnipeg have secured Deer Lodge, which was a hotel previous to the introduction of the prohibition measure in Winnipeg and which is a very suitable place containing about 100 beds, and such invalided soldiers as my hon. friend refers to are being cared for at Deer Lodge. This place has been provided in order that invalided soldiers may find rest and quiet. Those who are strong and do not need as much care remain in the immigration shed at present. But the same condition will apply to the various cities in western Canada. Most of the hotels in different places throughout the western provinces
that are comfortable and suitable for such a purpose, are available at a very cheap rental and my hon. friend and the country can depend upon it that every care will be taken of invalided soldiers and that provision will be made in order that those who are incapable of looking after themselves, and especially those who are suffering from nerve trouble, may have rest and quiet.
St. John Harbour-improvements, $1,000,000.


William Pugsley: This, I suppose, will
include certain works which are still going on on the western side of the harbour, and also the work at 'Courtenay bay. I should be glad if the minister would make a short statement with regard to the work at Courtenay bay, and for this reason: Owing to the fact that the agreement which has recently been come to between the provincial Government and this Government in regard to the Valley railway cancels the original contract for the construction of the railway all the way from St. John to Grand Falls by what is known as the eastern route, so far as the last 30 miles of the road nearest to St. John are concerned, there is an apprehension on the part of a good many people in St. John that it is not intended to utilize, to any large extent at all events, the facilities which it was proposed to provide at Courtenay bay. When the iplan for the development of Courtenay bay was laid out some years ago, the late Mr. Hays, who was president of the Grand Trunk Pacific railway, was consulted with reference to the terminals there, and he gave his hearty approval, being of the opinion that the new Transcontinental railroad would require at St. John all the facilities that could be provided at Courtenay bay; and he was very much averse, from a railway standpoint, to being compelled to use the facilities which the Canadian Pacific are now enjoying upon the western side of the harbour. I should be very sorry indeed if the Government contemplated either discontinuing or curtailing the work of development at Courtenay 'bay, and I am sure it would be a very great disappointment to the people of St. John. I think it would be well if no changes were made in the plans, so far as the development of 'Courtenay bay is concerned. Perhaps the minister might make a short statement to reassure and encourage the people of St. John.


Robert Rogers: I do not think that any proposed changes in the railway situation in the province of New Brunswick will in

any way affect the development of Courtenay bay. On the contrary, the proposals that have been presented will have the effect of stirring up, if that were possible, the Department of Public Works in order to prepare for the reception of traffic as soon as the road is completed. There is no doubt in my mind that the connection of the Valley railway and of the Transcontinental wilt toe with Courtenay bay. My hon. friend will agree that both sides of the House thought the original contract for the development of Courtenay bay was very desirable, but, unfortunately, the principals engaged in the work became absorbed in other undertakings, and latterly, on account of war conditions and their other enterprises, they have not devoted that attention to their contract which is desirable in the public interest. As a result, we expect to transfer the contract in the very near future, in order that the work may be gone on with as rapidly as possible, and we hope that the successors to the present contractors will make much better progress than has been made during the past year. This arrangement for transferring the contract has been practically completed, and when it is consummated I do not think there will be any delay in going on with the work. A considerable amount of work has been done on the breakwater, and in excavating for the dry dock. Nothing has been done in regard to the wharves as yet, because it is claimed that a sufficient amount of dredging must first be done to enable the men to carry on the work at low tide; but these are matters of detail. Generally speaking, the work is not as far advanced as we should like, but we are hopeful that under the new arrangement the work will be gone on with more rapidly, and will be completed in sufficient time to take care of the rapidly increasing trade of the port of St. John. I fancy there is a great deal more shipping at that port to-day than ever bbfore, and we are fortunate in having the wharves on the west side to take care of the increased traffic, pending the completion of the Courtenay bay development work. I again assure my hon. friend that every effort will toe made to complete the work as rapidly as possible.


William Pugsley: I am very glad to hear the reassuring statement .which the minister has made. Of course, the House will understand that the question of making proper improvements at the port of St.

John is one not merely of local interest but of national importance, because St. John at the present time is one of the two important winter ports we have in Canada. It is of course of the very greatest national importance that Canadian exports and imports should pass through Canadian seaports and that as much as possible Canadian traffic that now goes to American ports should toe diverted to the seaports of our own country.
If I might venture to do so, I should like to make just one suggestion to the minister. During the session I have on more than one occasion called the attention of the members of the Government, particularly the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, to the desirability of doing at once something in Canada. for the encouragement of shipbuilding, so that, to as great an extent as possible provision might toe made for the carrying of Canadian products to the markets of Europe, particularly in view of the necessarily great scarcity in ocean tonnage, which is becoming apparent from month to month and even from week to week. At St. John, as in many other places, of course, there are wonderfully good opportunities , for the carrying on of shipbuilding. If the plans which I had prepared when I was minister, having reference to the development of St. John, had been carried out, there would at the present time have been a dry-dock with a ship repairing plant, and. my idea was to be as liberal as possible in the specifications for the ship repairing plant so that with very little extra expense shipbuilding might also be carried on. As my hon. friend knows, this was the case with the Vickers-Maxim plant situated near Montreal, where some shipbuilding has been carried on since the war began. For instance, the building of submarines has been undertaken there. At the dry-dock and ship-repairing plant at Port Arthur, in addition to ship repairing, very considerable shipbuilding has been carried on. In connection with this work at St. John-and I do not speak from any sectional standpoint, because . the same thing might be done in other sections of the country-I would urge that as soon as possible some arrangement be made whereby, in connection with the dry-dock and the plant which would necessarily be established in connection with it, some provision might be made for shipbuilding; if not for ships of a large size, for ships of

reasonable tonnage, ranging from three thousand to five or six thousand tons, suitable for the transportation of goods across the Atlantic. I think the matter is somewhat urgent, and I have hopes and indeed believe that the Minister of Public Works is alive to the necessities of the situation and will be be disposed to do anything he can to give encouragement along those lines. I bring the matter to his attention, at the same time regretting the fact that so many years have been lost since the late Government went out of office. I do not think at all of holding my hon. friend the minister responsible. The circumstances have been unfortunate, but I think that something ought to be done in the way of encouraging shipbuilding, and there is a very excellent opportunity at Courtenay (bay, where these improvements are now being carried forward.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid I cannot agree with my hon. friend that anything has been lost by the downfall! of the late Government in so far as shipbuilding or anything eke in Canada is concerned. I am not, of course, very familiar with the question of shipbuilding, 'because that matter is in the hands of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries 'and the Minister of Trade and Commerce; but I know that they have been paying considerable attention to the question during tfye past few months, and I have had the privilege of attending several meetings with them and discussing the matter in some detail. I can assure my hon. friend that the matter is receiving the most careful attention possible, and I am hopeful that in the near future action will be taken with a view of going on with the shipbuilding industry at one, two or three points in Canada. I quite agree that St. John would be a desirable place, and according to the plans originally adopted for a dry-dock there, I think my hon. friend will admit that we are making as much progress as is possible under the circumstances. I will undertake for the Department of Public Works, to urge the completion of a dry-dock as soon ae possible; I will at all events carry out my end of the work and prepare for shipbuilding. At Port Arthur we are now ready for shipbuilding or ship repairing, and I hope that in the near future we shall be ready also .at Vancouver. We have a dry-dock at Prince Rupert, and I trust that before long we shall have one at Victoria- and ,one at Vancouver. There is a desire on the part of the Government to inaugurate a policy of shipbuilding as soon as it is possible to reach it, and every care and consideration is being given to the subject ,by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries along with one or two of the other ministers.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I wish to call the attention of the hon. member for St. John ,(Mr. Pugsley) to the fact that there is a war on, and that nearly every night he has [DOT]been putting forth efforts to induce the various ministers, when presenting their Estimates to the committee, to practise economy. If he would put forth a little effort to reduce the vote for St. John say by $25,000 or $50,000, I am sure we on this side of the House would -assist him in that regard.


William Pugsley: For the gratification of my hon. friend I may say that St. John is very patiently hearing itsi share of the burden so far as cutting down expenditures for improvements is concerned. The expenditure this year as compared with that of last year has been reduced by $500,000. I am not able to point to many other places in Canada where the people have consented to such a large reduction, and the people of St. John have consented very patiently and loyally to that reduction.


John Howard Sinclair: Will this complete the work at St. John?


Robert Rogers: No.


John Howard Sinclair: How much does the minister expect to spend to complete it?


Robert Rogers: The contract is $7,500,000, of which we have spent about $2,500,000.


John Howard Sinclair: I would like the minister to tell the committee about this dry-do-ck at Halifax. Is it owned by the department or by private people?


Robert Rogers: The present dry-dock is owned by private parties. We are proposing a first-class national dry-dock there.


John Howard Sinclair: Is this for a new dry-dock, or for repairs to the old one?


Robert Rogers: For a new one.


John Howard Sinclair: Will it be owned by the Government?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Where is it?


Robert Rogers: In Tuft's cove in Bedford basin.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: That is on the Dartmouth side?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: Is it for naval purposes?


Robert Rogers: Largely, yes. The Admiralty requested, that we give consideration to the erection of a dry-dock at Halifax.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: How far is it from the town of Dartmouth?


Robert Rogers: Right 'beside the Intercolonial.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Intercolonial
runs hlong the waterfront all the way.


Robert Rogers: It is up near the neck of that bay.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The Narrows?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Howard Sinclair: I presume this is preliminary to embarking on the construction of a Canadian navy. .


Robert Rogers: This is preliminary, yes.
Toronto harbour improvements, $600,000.


George Perry Graham: During the last year or so there has been a great deal of discussion about these harbour improvements. The minister, of course, does not forget the difficulties that have been encountered by the department in the work in the Toronto harbour. If I remember correctly, some dismissals of officials engaged in the inspection of this work took place. A good deal of the work was improperly done and had to be replaced'. I believe that an investigation was held, and the contracting firm, the Canadian Stewart Company, I think, were asked to rebuild a portion of the work. A big loss was entailed on account of the work being inefficient. Will the minister tell us what the investigation was, the result of the investigation, and the position of the Government as to the contract and the contractors?


Robert Rogers: A contract was let for the works at Toronto to the Canadian Stewart Company, Limited, w!m>
were the lowest tenderers. We had dismissed several of the inspectors whom we found at fault in not reporting defects in the work. We appointed two engineers and Mr. Roger Miller , to make an investigation, which they did in a thoroughly full and complete manner and to the entire satisfaction of the Harbour Board of Toronto and of the City Council,

who are taking a very great interest in the work. They recommended that a certain portion of the work be entirely rebuilt. The contractors have agreed in writing to do this entirely at their own expense, so that it will not cost the country a dollar. The contractors are making the necessary improvements and rebuilding the work in accordance with the report of the commission of which Mr. Roger Miller was the chairman. Everything is now started again, and I am satisfied that the work will be carried on in a satisfactory manner. Our engineer in the first place'apparently was not suitable; he did not look after the work as he should have done. He was an old employee of the department, but for some reason or other he did not give the care to the work that it absolutely required. This has been corrected, however, and as the contractors felt that they were in fault they agreed to put the work in proper shape and to carry it out in accordance with the recommendations of the commission. This is being done and the work will go- on as rapidly as possible. The Harbour Board of the city of Toronto are lending their assistance and giving supervision to the work. Every precaution is being taken to care for the interests of the work and to see that it is carried out in a manner satisfactory to the city of Toronto and to the department.


George Perry Graham: What was the value of
the work that they have to reconstruct?


Robert Rogers: Several hundred thousand dollars.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The other day I saw a
pamphlet issued by some of the papers in Toronto saying that they proposed spending $24,500,000 on the harbour there. Is this Government supposed to spend all that, or does Toronto pay part? .


Robert Rogers: About $5,000,000 is our
part of that work.


John Howard Sinclair: Is the harbour of Toronto controlled by a commission, or is it under the control of this Government?


Robert Rogers: A commission.


John Howard Sinclair: It strikes me that we
are drifting into a very extravagant policy with regard to these large expenditures on harbours. I see here $7,500,000 for improvements in harbours, and the committee are not giving very much attention to what these improvements are to be or why we are voting this large sum of money. Ai few years ago when wre voted money for the

harbour of Montreal we took very good care that security was given. The shipping business of the port of Montreal paid the interest, 'and the aid given was no special liability on the country. But we now seem to he putting a million here and a million there all over Canada, on the Pacific as well as on the Atlantic. The position of Canada appears to me to be different from that of any other country that I know of. The harbours in Europe are under the control of local harbour boards. At Glasgow, for instance, the Clyde Trust looks after the harbour; they borrow money on the security of their property at a very low rate of interest. They do the dredging and build the docks- and the shipping business of the port pays for it. We are apparently embarking on a policy which, if continued, will involve the country in the expenditure of very large sums oif money. I do not know whether it is the policy to collect anything from the shipping business or whether we are to get any security for all the millions that we are putting in the harbours on the coast. Would the minister tell us in a few words what the policy of the Government is in regard to these very large expenditures?
. Mr. ROGERS: In view of the fact that the Canadian people have devoted great energy to the construction of a national Transcontinental railway in order to develop traffic and trade, it becomes the duty .of this or of any other Government to see to the development of our national ports. In many cases assistance is given to these works by the city where they are located. Considerable assistance, I .believe, has been given at Halifax.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Halifax gave nothing.


Robert Rogers: Did they not assist in .some way in the earlier days?
Mr. PUGSLEY; I do not think so.


Robert Rogers: I know that in the case of S't. John the people contributed very largely some years ago to the development of their national port with a view of attracting the trade of the country to it. St. John is looked upon as our gre'at winter outlet, at all events for the western provinces, and it was the duty of the Government to undertake the construction, for example, for the harbour improvements at Courtenay bay. A contract was let'for something like $7,500,000, the works in connection with which are now in course of construction. The only regret we have is that this
work has not been carried on more rapidly. Take the port of iSt. John as an example. That port is in a very congested condition to-day. Two or three times more shipping is being handled there to-day than at any previous time in its history. We are behind in the development of our national ports. The same thing applies to Quebec. Quebec is a great port and one on whose development a very considerable sum has been spent. It is a port that properly should be developed and will continue to be developed, by the Government of the country. That principle has been recognized by both Governments in the past, and I am sure will be in the future, as the trade of our country grows. Then take the port of Montreal. What my hon. friend has said of that port is quite correct. But I do not know that ports developed in this manner really save very much money in the end to the Canadian people, as the charges incidental to the handling of freight through such a port as that are somewhat of a drawback to the general interest. The same thing applies in the case of Toronto, which is a great inland shipping port and a very large and growing city, the second largest in .Canada. There are at Toronto great possibilities for the development of an inland port. An estimate has been made by those interested in the city for the expenditure of something like $24,000,000, and the Government of Canada are contributing only $5,000,000 in connection with the portion of the work they have undertaken. Then at Port Arthur and Fort William, where we have probably the largest shipping port in the Dominion of Canada to-day, a great deal of money has been spent in the past and, of necessity, large sums will continue to be spent from year to year at that port because the industries are developing there. We have large elevators at Fort William and Port Arthur, and a great amount of dredging will be required from time to time to keep up with the development of the trade. Similar conditions exist in Vancouver. This is probably the second largest ocean port in Canada to-day, yet very little money had been spent there until a few years ago. It will be the duty of the Canadian people to contribute a considerable sum to the assistance of that particular port as a national port.
The development of our national ports is properly the duty of the Canadian Government and of the Canadian people, and must be carried on if Canada is to become the

great country we expect it to be. It is not a matter of assistance to particular localities, not a matter of Ideal conditions in Halifax, or in St. John, or in Quebec, or in Toronto, or in any other place; it is a matter for the common good of the whole people of the Dominion of Canada, who are interested in the development of the traffic of our country. It is for this purpose and to this end that large sums are being spent to keep pace with the development of trade at these ports through the construction of the different transcontinental railways we have already built. For example, we will have to assist to some extent in the development of a port at Prince Rupert, to meet the requirements of the terminus of the Grand Trunk Pacific at that point.


George Perry Graham: It is a fine natural harbour.


Robert Rogers: A very fine natural harbour, a splendid harbour in that sense. All of these are works that are necessary in the public interest, and the only fault that could be found by the Canadian people generally and those interested in the traffic and in the development of our country, is that we are rather behind in the development of our national ports than in advance of the requirements. My hon. friend must bear in mind that it will be necessary, for some years to come, for this Parliament to be called upon, session after session, to vote large sums of money to provide the necessary assistance to develop those ports in order to keep pace with the growing traffic and growing conditions that are bound to follow in the course of the development of a young and growing country such as our Dominion of Canada.


John Howard Sinclair: My hon. friend has made an interesting speech, but he has not answered my question. I do not wish to be understood as opposing the development of our national ports. I feel as
11	p.m. much interested in that question as my hon. friend, and I should be very glad to support any policy towards, that end, and have always done so. What I wanted to know from my hon. friend was whether the Government has any policy on which they spend and propose to spend these large sums of money. Is it all done by rule of thumb, or are we to have any system about it? Are we going to develop one port and leave out the others, or are we going to insist on the port itself bearing some part of the expense of its development? I think we should. I think the system my hon. friend refers to 
as being followed in the city of Toronto is a good one. He says the development of that port will cost $24,000,000, and that $5,000,000 of that money will be furnished by this Government. If that is the basis on which the expenditures are to be made I have no objection. That is about one dollar in five furnished by this Government. But is that the policy in Quebec and Halifax? We are told that Halifax as a city has not contributed anything towards the development of that port. The city of Montreal has contributed large sums towards the development of the harbour of Montreal, and the city of St. John has likewise contributed to the development of the harbour of St. John in a large measure. Has the Government any policy to cover the whole question? Will they formulate any policy such as we have in regard to the subsidizing of railways? When a railway oomes to the Government for a subsidy the Government tell the company that if it will build a railway costing $15,000 a mile the Government will contribute $3,200 a mile; if the company builds a railway costing $20,000 or $25,000 a mile, the Government will double that subsidy. We know then what our liability is, and I think we should have some system of that kind in regard-to the development of our national ports. Otherwise there will be no end to the money that will be asked for. These commissioners at the various ports will always want money, as my hon. friend says. There will be asked, year after year, millions and millions of dollars for the development of these ports. If the Government could devise some system by which part of the expense will be borne by the people in the cities at the ports, and the shipping trade will contribute a certain amount then we will be able to conduct the public business in some kind of a systematic way. The minister told us some interesting things about the development of the various ports which we all know, but he has not told us whether the Government have arrived at any system by which they are going to distribute this money in the future.


Robert Rogers: I think my hon. friend
will appreciate the fact that it would be very difficult to have any fixed policy that would have the same application at the various ports in Canada. Take the port at Halifax. It is the terminus of the Intercolonial railway, and that railway undertakes the development of the port in which it has a direct interest. In the case of St.

John, th'e situation is rather different. The St. John people undertook, through their own enterprise in the early days, to spend a large sum in the development of that particular port; they feel that they have contributed their share, and now that there is necessity for the development of St. John as a national port for the common good of the people of Canada, it becomes the duty of the Canadian people to contribute largely in the development of that particular port. The same applies to the city of Quebec, although there the harbour commission has the matter in hand, and is spending large sums of money in the development of that port under conditions similar, at all events, to some extent, to those at the port of Montreal. Of course, in the case of the city of Toronto, that port is not so much a national port as are the ports of St. John, Halifax and Quebec, by reason of the fact that it is an inland port. Therefore, the Harbour Board of Toronto are undertaking perhaps a larger share of the expense of developing that port. When you go to Fort William, the conditions are different. The people of Fort William and Port Arthur are not so specially interested in the development of their ports by reason of the fact that it is required for the carrying of the grain of the country, and has to be developed by the central government of the country if we are to have the accommodation for the carrying of our grain. Vancouver is a great national port, and a harbour commission has been established there. I am in hopes that we will not have to, spend so much money there, and that the work will be undertaken by the harbour board and carried out by them within a very short period. They have started now, and they give promise of being a board capable of carrying out the development of that national port in a manner that will be very satisfactory to all and a credit to the city of Vancouver. So that my hon. friend can see that it would be impossible, or next to impossible, to have any set policy or fixed arrangement for all the ports. Conditions and circumstances vary at the different ports, which have to be dealt with upon their individual merits. I do not find that there is much criticism, or much jealously or complaint in regard to the treatment of the different ports of Canada. The people interested in them have studied and understand the development of the sister ports, and I have yet to. hear much complaint' as to favoritism, or as to larger sums being spent on the development 211
of one port than upon another. It has been the general policy of all governments to develop the ports as rapidly as possible in keeping with the public, interest and without any set plan or set policy. I do not think a fixed plan would be workable owing to the diversified conditions which prevail at the different national ports at the present time.


William Pugsley: I am very glad that my hon. friend from Guysborough (Mr. Sinclair) brought this question up. It is well to have it discussed, and I think it was desirable that the Minister should take the opportunity to make the statement he has made with regard to our national harbours. There is one matter which, I think, ought to be kept in mind; that is, that it is desirable in the interests of Canadian trade to keep the harbour charges, anchorage dues and other charges ordinarily imposed on shipping, to as low a figure as possible. When I was Minister of Public Works, I took occasion to send Mr. Coste, who had been a long time connected with the department, to Europe, to visit the most important harbours there, and I remember he spoke particularly of the port of Hamburg, which is practically a free port where there are no harbour dues, and where the trade had grown with wonderful rapidity, largely as the result of there being no harbour dues which are generally regarded as more or less a burden on shipping. When I was minister, I adopted what I thought was a very good plan, and I am glad to see that the present minister has followed it; that is, when the Government decides that a harbour has attained such proportions as may be regarded of a national character, any expenditures upon works of that character should be placed in the capital account. That was a very good change, and it will be found on page 56 that the expenditures for Halifax, St. John, Quebec, Toronto, Port Arthur and Fort William, Vancouver and Victoria are all chargeable to capital account.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why?


William Pugsley: Because they are regarded as national harbours.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is Toronto a national
harbour?


William Pugsley: Yes, Toronto is a national harbour. I think I was the first to put it in capital account, and I did so for the reason that there are large manufactories in Toronto and there is an enormous trade between that city and the prairies.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why should the expenditures be charged to capital account?


William Pugsley: For the reason that it is one of the great ports.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why should any of them be charged to capital account?


William Pugsley: I would be prepared to argue that they should be.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We do not own them.


Mr. MACDONELL:: Certainly we own them.


William Pugsley: The expense of improving them is such that the expenditures might fairly be charged to capital account, as distance from the expenditures on small harbours throughout the country where * wharves are built. In respect to these great harbours, I think that the expenditures should be charged to capital account, and I am very glad that the minister has. followed that principle.
With regard to St. John, the'people there, when they were making a great fight some years ago, the first fight that was ever made in Canada to divert the traffic from Portland in the state of Maine to a Canadian port, met with great disappointment and discouragement, and they had to put their hands in their pockets and spend close upon a million dollars in providing the requisite deep water accommodation in the hope that the Canadian trade would be diverted to St. John in the winter season. The experiment proved a great success. The winter port business 'has developed with enormous rapidity, hut in St. John we think that the harbour duee are somewhat of a burden on shipping, and we are hoping that the time will soon come when the Government of Canada will recognize that the port should be taken over and made a free port. We believe in St. John that this is the true way to develop our harbours and that when the Government recognizes that a harbour has attained proportions of a national character, and .that its development is of national importance, that harbour ought to be taken over by the Government and made free. That view has been presented over and over again in this Parliament during the past-15 years, and has been generally accepted. It was favoured by the commission which' was appointed under the late Government, and which made a very valuable report, and I am looking forward to the -day when that idea will be carried out. I am glad

to see that the Minister of Public Works the dues are sufficient to enable the har-
So far as Montreal is concerned, of course the shipping there is very large, and the dues are sufficient to enable the Harbour Commissioners to pay the interest, but, although they have a harbour commission at Quebec, and although the commissioners borrowed money, if I remember rightly, they have not been able to pay the interest, and the Government has practically, remitted the interest, and very properly so. That has been done for a number of years past, because if an attempt were made to exact the interest it would prove a very great burden on the shipping of the city of Quebec. As I have said, it is a very good rule to treat national harbours as being in the national interest, and they should be made, as far as possible, free to the general commerce of the country.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If we control these harbours, who gets the dues?


Robert Rogers: The Harbour Commissioners get the dues, and the Harbour Commissioners at the various ports are under the direct control of the Government. Whatever property they own indirectly belongs to the Government and the rates they charge are fixed by the Government.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why should you charge the custom building on Sussex street to consolidated fund account, or to expense account, and charge these things to capital account? We own that building, do we not?


Robert Rogers: It is built out of capital.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Did we not pass an item for that building on consolidated fund account? You have numerous items charged to consolidated fund besides that all over the country.


William Pugsley: Yes, but the main buildings are all charged to capital account.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: If you build a post office does it not belong to the Government? I do not understand your >
system of bookkeeping. You really do not own these harbours, but you charge them to capital account.


Robert Rogers: We own them all.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You do not own Toronto harbour.


Robert Rogers: Yes, the Harbour Board is appointed by the city of Toronto and by this Government.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: And the Toronto people have no control over the harbour?


Robert Rogers: The Harbour Board are put in Charge and they control the harbour. The property they own is indirectly under the control of the Government.


George Perry Graham: The city selects a number of the commissioners of Toronto harbour and the Government the other portion.


Angus Claude Macdonell: A joint board.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about the harbour in Montreal? [DOT]


William Pugsley: That is owned by the Government. Under the Act of Confederation all those harbours which were of a public character at the time of Confederation passed over to the Dominion.


John Howard Sinclair: The Government does
not own the harbours any more than it owns buildings in cities. If you tie your boat up to a wharf at St. John you pay so much to the man who owns t'he wharf unless you go to a Government wharf. Harbours in that sense are owned by the proprietors, but the governing body is the board that is appointed by the local authorities and the Government. They are not the owners. They are simply the governing body that makes rules and regulations for the harbour, but the harbour itself and the property in the harbour are owned by the people who live in the cities, and they ought to contribute something towards the maintenance of the harbours, because they get the profit. If we spend a million dollars in improving the harbour of Montreal every man who has a tract of land on the water front receives an advantage, because his property is worth that much more. It is the same at St. John and Halifax; all these expenditures raise the value of property in the vicinity of the harbour very much and consequently the minister ought to have some policy by which these different ports shall contribute something towards their maintenance and equipment. That is the proper idea in dealing with this question. It iis all very well to say that we ought to have national ports, but why should the farmer out on the western prairie pay his taxes to equip the harbour of Toronto and give additional value to property in Toronto if the people of Toronto themselves will not do anything? I do not know any good reason for it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The people of Toronto are doing something.


John Howard Sinclair: In the case of Toronto, they are going to do something, but in some of these ports they are not doing anything and the minister does not seem to think that they should.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid that I cannot agree with my hon. friend. He mentions the case of St. John. It is true that if yon tied your boat up at certain wharves at. St. John you would have to pay something: for it. St. John spent a large sum of money' in the early days on the wharves referred' to by my hon. friend, they are controlled: by the city, and, of course, they have -a right to make a collection. But it all comes-back to this, that we are behind in the-development of our national ports. We-discuss day after day in this House the fact that a great portion of our trade is diverted to American channels. We have built three transcontinental railways in the hope of keeping our trade within our own country, but this cannot be done unless the Government undertake to meet the requirements and the development of our national ports for the carrying of freight in as convenient a manner as possible and in order to discourage shippers from diverting their traffic to American channels. That is the reason why the obligation rests upon the Government to see that out national ports are developed even more rapidly than they have been in the past and more rapidly than they are being developed to-day. If we are going to make a success of our transcontinental railways it is absolutely essential that we should have our ports and their development keeping pace with the conditions because a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. The people who are snipping over our railways do not get the accommodation, the connections and the services at our national ports that they should get and that they do get through American channels, with the result that trade is lost to the country. I agree with my hon. friend from St. John (Mr. Pugsley) that the time has now arrived in Canada when we should have a new policy in connection with our harbours. We first of all must arrange for such a development as will ensure traffic and trade passing through our own channels and when we can do that it will be time enough to sit down together and see if we can exact a sufficient charge to pay the interest on the capital which we have expended and which must be considered

necessary for the develpoment of our country.


Angus Claude Macdonell: The minister has
touched upon a point that is essential in the Toronto case. The opening of the new Welland canal will mean that lake Ontario will be placed upon the same [DOT] traffic basis as the upper lakes and that will make the development of harbour facilities at Toronto essential. Up to the present time practically no public money has been spent on Toronto harbour


William Pugsley: That is scarcely correct.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Very largely.


William Pugsley: When I was minister we had dredges at work there and a very nice breakwater was built out at the island.


Angus Claude Macdonell: It was only very
partial work that was done there.


William Pugsley: It was needed.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Of course, it was
needed. Public property was being washed away and the breakwater served a good purpose in the past but there was no real dealing with Toronto harbour in a serious way.


William Pugsley: Yes, it was very serious.


Angus Claude Macdonell: Merely to protect it but not to develop it. Now, the local harbour commission have taken the matter in hand and they are proceeding to spend a very large amount of money-quite the amount of money that -was mentioned by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). This Government money is being strictly expended on harbour work. The Toronto Harbour Commission is paying out an immense amount of money, part of it on real harbour work that is generally done by the Government and part of it on collateral, adjacent works that altogether will comprise the completed Toronto harbour. The Government is not doing more than its share. The harbour commission, locally, is spending many millions of dollars on real harbour work. The opening of the Welland canal will make it necessary to have some great port on lake Ontario. That is why the trade has heretofore gone by American channels and through American harbours. Buffalo gets a very large proportion of the entire freight of the upper lakes. When this new work is completed it is expected that a very great portion of this traffic will come to Kingston, Toronto and other ports on 
lake Ontario. This work is essential and is being carried out in a proper manner. The Toronto people, through their harbour commission, are spending many millions of dollars, and when the work is completed we shall have a harbour that will be equal if not superior to any on the American continent. It is expected that the work Will be completed about the same time as the Welland canal, if not before. With regard to harbour dues, which have been mentioned to-night, all the docks, shipping facilities and privileges of Toronto harbour will be vested in the harbour commission, and there will be no possibility, as the hon. member for Guysborough suggests, of a boat tieing up at A's dock or at B's dock and being charged dues at a more or less arbitrary rate, which, I suppose, is what the hon. gentleman had in mind. All the docking facilities "will be under the harbour commission, and their charges are under the regulation and supervision of the Dominion Government. As has been stated by some hon. gentlemen, the harbour commissioners of Montreal, of Quebec, and of Toronto are under different Acts of Parliament, and their powers vary. In the case of the Toronto Harbour Commission the Government has the selection of one commissioner, and the nomination of another at the suggestion of the Toronto Board of Trade. The Toronto Harbour Commission is really a Government commission. All harbour regulations, dues and charges must be either fixed by the Government or be submitted to them and receive their approval. In view of these facts harbour conditions at Toronto will very shortly be almost ideal.


George Perry Graham: Under the late Government, and before I was a member of it, I was taken to Toronto to be shown what the Government was doing there. It must be remembered by hon. gentlemen who do not know the great city of Toronto that the harbour is protected by an island which forms a natural bay or harbour. The difficulty has been with what are known as the eastern and western gaps, which are entrances to the harbour. The late Government spent a large amount of money in building breakwaters to prevent the island shore beiing washed away, and also a large amount in completing the eastern and western gaps. The entrances to the harbour are now in good condition, but it must be admitted that for years Toronto harbour was not looked after either by the city or by anybody else, and it has been notorious

among shipping men for having perhaps the poorest loading and unloading facilities of any harbour in the Dominion. Outside of the traffic to which the hon. member for Toronto has referred, Toronto is a great distributing centre for all the freight that comes by water, and that will come more and more from that whole inland country of Ontario as the harbour facilities are developed. I am strongly in favour of this vote, and I would suggest to the minister that we pass this Toronto item and then adjourn.
Progress reported
On motipn of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, May 3, 1916.