Mr. WALLACE.

The policy was declared last year.

The policy to have a site was declared last year. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Wallace) knows that when he was a member of the government the same item was put in the estimates year after year, and yet nothing was done. Does the hon. gentleman remember the case of Peterborough, where the item was in the estimates for five consecutive years and no action was taken.

Mr. WALLACE.

The action taken was that the member resigned his seat in parliament on the head of it, because there was a difference about the selection of a site.

If this case has the same ending and if it should drive my hon. friend (Mr. Wallace) from parlia-(ment, I would be very sorry indeed, but I would try to console myself.

Mr. WALLACE.

It was the other chap who ran. against me who got out of parliament.

I submit that it is abusing the privilege to move the adjournment of the House on a matter like this.

Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).

Question No. 5 relates to something that is supposed to have taken place in the past, and with all due deference to the right hon. gentleman, the answer, that the matter is under the consideration of the government, does not seem to me to be a sufficient answer.

It seems to me that the minister is considering about the site.

Motion to adjourn the House (Mr. Wallace) negatived.

1. Did the government receive a copy of a resolution passed at a numerously attended meeting of the British Columbia Mining Association, held at Nelson, B.C., praying for the creation and establishment by the government of a portfolio or bureau of mines with a responsible minister of the Crown in charge of such department ?

2. If so, is it the intention of the government to make such an appointment forthwith?

The government has received the resolution, I think, from the association mentioned in the question, and several representations on the same subject. The government has come to no conclusion yet upon this matter.

1. Is it the intention of the government to erect a lighthouse this season on Green Islet, Chatham Sound, B.C.?

2. Is it not a fact that this island is considered one of the mo.st dangerous points in the navigation of northern waters on the Pacific coast ?

3. Is it the intention of the government to place a fog signal on Brotchie's Ledge; also distinguishing lights on Sehl Point and Hospital Point, Victoria Harbour?

1. A petition asking for such a lighthouse was received in my department on the 22nd of March, 1901. This is the first request made for a lighthouse at that point, and is now receiving consideration.

2. No.

3. A fog signal was put in operation on Brotchie's Ledge on the 19th of March, 1901.

The question of placing lights on Sehl Point and Hospital Point will be considered, there are harbour lights already maintained near both points.

1. Has the government received a letter from the British Columbia Board of Trade inclosing copy of a letter from Capt. Chas. E. Clarke, harbour master of the port of Victoria, B.C., to Capt. J. G. Cox, chairman of the committee on harbours and navigation of that board of trade, setting forth sundry alterations necessary to be made in the sailing directions, &c., for ships entering the Straits of Juan de Fuca, as contained in the * British Columbia Pilot ' ?

2. If so, is it the intention of the government to have Capt. Clarke's suggestions carried out at once?

1. The letter referred to was received in this department on the 22nd of March, 1901.

2. The sailing directions referred to are a publication of the Imperial Admiralty. Captain Clarke's letter has, consequently, been forwarded to the Hydrographers of the Admiralty.

That from this date to the end of the session, Government Orders have precedence immediately after questions put by members on Wednesdays.

Mr. R. L. BORDEN (Halifax).

This will leave no opportunity for making any motions, and that might result very awkwardly. For example, the Minister of Railways did not answer the first question on the Order paper to-day, but suggested that the hon. member should give notice of mo-