Mr. ELSON:

Is it the intention of the government to open an immigration and distribution office in the city of London, Ontario, together with a suitable building in which farm labourers and others can he cared for during the time they are waiting for employment?

Mr. ROGERS.

The matter is under consideration.

Mr. SEGUIN:

Would the hon. Minister of Public Works inform the House if the different amounts voted in the estimates for 1911-12 by the present parliament, but omitted in the estimates for 1912-13, for the construction of a wharf at L'Assomption, an ice-breaker at St. Gerard de Magella, an ice-breaker on the river L'Achigan and a public building in the town of Laurentides, will be placed in the supplementary estimates of this session, in order that these various works which are of great importance to the different localities concerned may be done during the present fiscal year?

Mr. MONK.

These works are all under careful consideration, but it will be impossible to state, at this date, what items will be placed in the supplementary estimates, which will be laid before parliament this session.

PUBLIC BUILDING AT LAURENTIDES. Mr. SEGUIN:

1. Has the Public Works Department acquired a property in the town of Laurentides for the purpose of constructing a public building thereon?

2. If not, does the department purpose in the near future making such a purchase in having such building erected, for which a sum was placed in the estimates of 1911-12?

3. If the department has given up the idea of constructing such public building in the town of Laurentides, what are the reasons and at whose request?

1. No.

2 and 3. The matter is now receiving consideration.

1. Did the department of Public Works during the year 1911 ask for tenders for the construction of an ice-breaker at St. Gerard in the County of L'Assumption ?

2. If so, who tendered and what are the amounts ?

3. Was the contract for such ice-breaker

assigned? If so, to whom and for what amount? .

4. If the contract has not been given, does the department intend to soon proceed with that work and utilize for that purpose the amount voted in the estimates of 1911-12?

5. If the department does not intend to use the money appropriated for such icebreaker and to have it constructed, what reasons are given for the abandonment of the work and at whose request was it abandoned?

1. Yes,

2. Eugene Patenaude, $3,457; Joseph Ren-aud, $4,090.

3. No. ,

4. No, the work is not considered necessary in the public interest.

5. Inquiry was made by the department, concerning this work, and from information secured, it was deemed to be unnecessary.

HON. MR. LEMIEUX AND DISMISSALS. Mr. BELLEMARE:

1. Is the government aware that in the newspaper ' Le Devoir ' on the 30th January last an article appeared the statements contained in which article are an alleged flagrant (contradiction of declarations previously by an honourable member of this House, the ex-Postmaster General, and which

article reeads as follows:-___ .

Mr Lemieux and the Dismissals.

Editor of ' Le Devoir,'

Dear sir,-In reply to the defiance of hon. Air. Lemieux to produce the names of ten employees that were dismissed in 1896, you will find enclosed a list of the names of those who were dismissed on the 30th December, 1896, by the Laurier government, of which hon. Air. Lemieux was then one of the most zealous friends, although simple member for

G On6 the 30th December, 1896, these brave fathers of families were, on the eve of New Year's Day, oast out on the street, as the hon. plenipotentiary to Japan would express it, and one of the number was my poor father. Hence it is that I speak whereof I know. They were sent off without any reason whatsoever, unless it be that they were Blues, and that the Rouges governed.

Now, Air. Editor, Air. Lemieux rages ' against Mr. Monk, asserting that he has dis-1 missed hundreds of brave fathers of families. How conies it that, even as I write, in the county that the Hon. Alinister of Public Works represents, at Lachine, no dismissals have yet been made? The Liberals of Lachme ! who may be dismissed have only to thank hon. Air. Lemieux, for, despite that we kept them in their positions, that gentleman insults a man who is by far his superior. Learn, Mr. ex-minister, that in vain you shout, rage, fume it will have no effect. We know the 5 love for the French Canadians that Mr. * Monk has, and your hysterical cries will j never make us forget the one who has ever been devoted to us.

3 You have asked for ten names; read now the following list and remember as yon count r them that these dismissals were only on the t Lachine canal, at the Lachine locks. On the 30th December, 1896, were dismissed: Adolphe s Leblanc, lockman, Lachine; Alex. Carigan, i lockman, Lachine; Ephron Picard, boom e guardian, Lachine; J. B. St. Aubin, lockman, Lachine; Alex. Clement, lockman, Lachine,

Camile Cousineau, bridge keeper, Laehine; Damase Chartrand, bridge keeper, Laehine; Osear Belanger, lockman, Laehine; Janies Teirney, lockman, Laehine; Edouard Lanzon, lockman. Laehine; Urgel Vian, lookman, Laehine; Theo. Davis, lockman, Laehine; Roderick Hogan, lockman, Laehine; Alexander Snider, lockman, Laehine.

And X will add that two years later they found a way to superannuate Messrs. J. B. Deschamps, canal collector, and Louis Pare, each with a small pension not sufficient for livlihood, happily they had some savings.

Imongst the dismissed was Mr. Damase Chartrand, who had the misfortune of losing a leg through an accident at the locks during the summer of 1896. The Conservative government had made him a bridge keeper, in order to let him have easy work. With the others, on the 31st December, he received, mercilessly, his dismissal. Is this enough, Mr. ex-Minister? You asked for ten names; count them well and let us see if the public will not take you for a joker? Get the facts before fuming against the lion. Minister of Public Work9.

Thanking you, Mr. Editor, for your kindness, I remain, &c.,

Mr. LEMIEUX.

Mr. BORDEN.

Stand.

1. Has Raoul Provost, a civil engineer employed by the Marine and Fisheries Department at Montreal, been dismissed from his position? If so, at whose request?

2. What are the reasons given in justification of the dismissal of Mr. Provost?

3. Was there an inquiry and was Mr. Provost informed of the complaint lodged against him?

1. Yes, Raoul Prevost was dismissed on the recommendation of the agent of the department at Montreal.

2. Incompetence and unreliability.

1. Has Pierre Duchaine, boomkeeper, on the St. Maurice been dismissed from his position ?

2. If so, when, why and was there an inquiry?

3. At whose request was he dismissed?

4. By whom was he replaced and who recommended his successor?

1. Yes. 2. (a) 21st November, 1911;

(b) incompetency, and so reported by the engineer in charge.

3. Answered by number 2.

4. (a) Joseph Paquin; (b) Mr. Blondin,.

1. Has L. P. Dalaire, paymaster on the St. Maurice, been dismissed from his position? If so, when, and was there an inquiry?

2 At whose request was he dismissed?

3. By whom was he replaced, and who recommended his successor?