1911-01-24

[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 99) to incorporate the Niagara, Welland and Lake Erie Railway Company.-Mr. German.
Bill (No. 100) respecting the Orford Mountain Railway Company.-Mr. Hunt.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CONMEE moved for leave to introduce Bill (No. 101) to amend the Electricity and Fuel Exportation Act. He said: In introducing this Bill, I desire to make a few explanations. The object of the Bill is to amend chapter 16 of the Act to Regulate the Exportation of Electrical power and certain liquids and gases. That Act was passed in 1907, and it provides for the export of certain quantities of electrical power or energy in cases where there is a surplus over the quantity that may be used in Canada. The purpose of the amendment is to make that. Act a little more specific. In the Act as
[Stage Direction]
*2256
it now stands the word ' power * is defined by subsection (d), as follows:-
' Power ' means electrical power or energy produced in Canada.
Then,
' Fluid ' means petroleum, natural gas, water or other fluid, whether liquid or gaseous capable of being exported by means of pipe lines or other like contrivances and produced in Canada.
Then the Act provides that no person shall export 'electrical power or fluid without a license, and prescribes the conditions under which licenses are to be granted. Subsection 2 of section 3 provides that:
No person shall, without a license, construct or place in position any line or wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or other like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
The word ' power ' in this case is used in this section of the Act, and is not accompanied by the word 'electrical/ as in subsection (d). In the definition of the word ' power ' it is stated that power means electrical power, or energy, produced in Canada, while in this section power is referred to without any reference to electricity. Then, by subsection 4, and especially by subsection 5, the conditions upon which power is to be granted are set up. I may say that cases have arisen in which there has been some little difficulty in administering the Act. In one case that I have knowledge of the company claimed that they were not entitled to provide power. Power, as generally defined by that word ' mechanical,' means mechanical, or hydraulic power, the power of the water wheel, and they held they were not bound to furnish any power of that kind, but that it must be electrical energy or none at all. I assume that the intention in passing this Act in 1907 was to provide for, first, the use of power so far as power was required by Canadian consumers, whether that power was in the form of mechanical power or electrical energy. I assume the intention was that Canadian users should be first supplied, and that then any surplus remaining over and above the Canadian'demand might be exported. The object of the amendments are to make that plain. For that purpose I propose to amend section 1 of the Act, chapter 16, by repealing that section and substituting a new section in lieu of it to this effect:-
This Act may be cited as the Power, Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.
The difference is that in the present Bill it is stated:-
'This Act may be cited as the Electricity and Fluid Exportation Act.'
Mr. CONMEE.: I introduce the word ' power ' there so that it may be carried on through the different sections of the Act. Then I propose to repeal paragraph (b) of section 2 of the said Act and to substitute the following :-
Power means and includes mechanical or hydraulic power and electrical power or energy produced in Canada.
The only difference is that the words ' mechanical power ' are introduced in that section. Thep, section 3 provides for the export of power and fixes the conditions, and subsection 3, as it stands in the Act, reads:-
No person shall without a license construct or place in position any line of wire or other conductor for the exportation of power, or any pipe line or any like contrivance for the exportation of fluid.
It is proposed to amend that section in this way:-
No person shall without a license construct or place in position any line of wire, cable or other .means of transmitting power or any conductor for the exportation of power or electrical energy.
The difference between the two is that the word ' cable ' is introduced in the amendment, and for the reason that power can be transmitted otherwise than by electrical energy. I know a case where power has been transmitted by cable for mining purposes a distance of one mile and a quarter, and it is, therefore, necessary to provide that such a contingency shall fall under the regulations of this Bill the same as if it were transmitted by wire. Subsection 5 of the Bill deals with the question of supplying power in Canada, and it reads:-
Any . such license may provide that the quantity of power or fluid to be exported shall be limited to the surplus after the licensee has supplied for distribution to the consumer for use in Canada power or fluid to the extent defined by such license at prices and in accordance with the conditions, rules and regulations provided by the Governor in Council.
That is the section under which the difficulty to which I alluded a moment ago arises. The company in the case I speak of claim that the word ' power ' used in this section does not mean hydraulic, or mechanical power, but that it referred to electrical power, and no other. Now, in amending the section, the language I am suggesting is as follows, which I propose in substitution:-
Any such license shall provide that the quantity of power or fluid to be exported shall be limited to the surplus after the licensee has from time to time, as in this Act provided, supplied power or fluid, and has also provided all proper or necessary means of supplying such power or fluid for use by consumers in Canada to the extent defined by such license.

I think that amendment is very necessary, and I believe it will make the Bill much more workable, for the reason that the provision that power has to be supplied to Canadian consumers does not appear to go far enough. The Bill, as it stands, provides that prices may 'be regulated by the license, but in this it goes further and provides that the conditions and means by which the power shall be furnished shall be provided by the license. The power is no use to the Canadian consumer if he cannot get it. For instance, ir. the case to which I refer, where the power was locked up in the power house, and the door barred, and the Canadian consumer could not get it, it would not be of any value even if a price were fixed as he could iiot Use it, and tlhe purpose of the Act was defeated. The question of the means and methods of using as well as to distributing power is just as important as the question of the power itself. I think every one will agree that it must have been the intention in drafting this Act and providing that the power should be supplied, that reasonable means should be employed for supplying it. That being so, I think the Act should be more definite, and should stipulate with regard to these matters.


Mr. HAGGAET (Lanark).: Would the hon. gentleman explain in what form is hydraulic power transmitted?


James Conmee: It is transmitted by cable for considerable distances. There may be other means of transmitting it, but in my own experience I have dealt with power which was transmitted three-quarters of a mile by cable, and I know a case where it was transmitted one mile and a quarter, and I see no reason why it should not be transmitted farther. But if it were transmitted 1,000 or 2,000 feet, that would be quite enough to span an international stream and convey it from Canada to the United States. If the power is to be used in the form of hydraulic power for certain purposes, either the machinery must be connected direct with the waterwheel or the power must be transmitted by some means. If you transform it into electrical energy, you have to add two sets of machinery. You have to generate the electric current, and then you have to transmit it to the motor. Thus you greatly increase the cost of the power, and tlie Canadian consumer should not be placed at a disadvantage in that respect. I can illustrate that in this way. So far as I am aware, it is not practicable to operate pulpwood grinders by electrical energy, and nowhere is it done. Attempts have been made to do it, and there are perhaps favourable conditions at some places; but no engineer or business man acquainted with the operation of such works will for a moment deny that if it is done at all, it is done at 72
a disadvantage and at a very much enhanced cost. In certain cases it is utterly impracticable to use power for that purpose unless you can get direct connection with the waterwheel, either by connecting the grinders with the shaft of the waterwheel, or by belting or cable and that is one very important purpose for which power is used. In the case to which I refer, where some little difficulty arose, that was the trouble. It was at Fort Frances, where there is a power developed on an international stream. 15,000 horse-power from that development is to-day being used on the American side in a power-house built for the purpose of operating wood pulp grinding machines. There the grinders are connected direct with the shafting of the waterwheel, while on the Canadian side the difficulty arose because the company refused to permit any Canadian user to connect with the wheels, although there is a Canadian power-house in which power is developed, and although the plans that were filed, upon which the work was authorized, showed that the grinders were to be connected direct with the waterwheels on the Canadian side as well as on the American side. However, that is only an incident that might occur in any other place as well as there, and it seems to me the Act should provide for it. My reason for referring to these difficulties is that the department having the administration of this Act, chapter 16, interpreted it practically in the light in which I am proposing to amend it, because they asked the company to name the prices at which they would supply power to Canadian consumers by a series of questions. In those questions they asked the price for mechanical and hydraulic power as well as the price for electrical power; and indeed the regulations founded on the Act provide for fixing a price. There is really a necessity for the amendment if the Act is to be made more workable and plain, and if we are to remove difficulties which at present retard the use of power in Canada. I will take the liberty of reading some of the regulations founded on chapter 16, and dated November 7, 1907. Section 8 of those regulations reads as follow's :
Where a supply of electrical energy, gas or fluid is provided in any part of Canada by the contractor for export and home consumption, then the price charged to any person or company in Canada by the contractor shall not exceed the prices at which electrical energy, gas or fluid is sold by the contractor for export in like quantities under like circumstances.
In the regulations the generating company is referred to as the contractor. The protection here provided for Canadian users of power falls a good deal short of what appears to me should have been provided or perhaps urns the intention to provide. There is no safeguard



in that clause of the regulations against a great many contingencies, that can arise. All the company has to do is not to sell its power at all, but to use it itself. Then there would be no price at which the exported power was sold, and that provision of the regulations would not come into play. That is exactly what occurred at Fort Frances. The portion of power exported was not sold, but was used by the generating company, and no price has been fixed by them for power on the American side, for either the American or Canadian portion of the power, or for the power which they desire to take from Canada for use, after they have supplied the Canadian consumer. Therefore, I think provision should be made for the fixing of prices, and I propose the following in substitution for section 5 :
5. Any such license shall provide that the quantity of power or fluid to he exported shall be limited to the surplus, after the licensee has from time to time, as in this Act provided, supplied power or fluid and has also provided all proper means of applying such power or fluid for use by consumers in Canada, to the extent defined by such license.
Every such license shall stipulate:
(a)	The price at which power shall be supplied for municipal, domestic, commercial, manufacturing and other purposes for use in Canada.
(b)	The conditions and regulations under which the respective units of power shall be supplied.
(c)	The methods to be employed in supplying power, the methods of distribution and the hours of service.
I submit that it can be no hardship to any company or person dealing with power under these circumstances if he is asked, previous to getting a license, to fix the price at which he will furnish power _ to Canadian consumers and the conditions and methods of service under which the power will be delivered. It seems to me that should necessarily be provided for, and the amendment seeks to provide for it. Then, there is the following section:
3. Every such license shall provide power for use in Canada for any of the purposes aforesaid upon the request of any municipal corporation or of any bona fide applicant for power or energy, and such license shall supply such power within a reasonable time after such request.
That is practically what the Act now provides, but the word ' municipality ' is introduced. It seems to me that where a demand is made by a municipality upon a company for power or to fix the price,, the company cannot very well complain that to comply with that request is a hardship. The Act provides that prices may be regulated by the Governor in Council, and that is not interfered with by these amendments. Where that power exists, it Mr. CONMEE.
can operate no hardships to have it defined. I submit that in the case I am dealing with, we are carrying out practically the intention of legislation which has already passed this House. I refer to chapter 139, intituled an Act Respecting the Ontario and Minnesota Power Company, and to the latter part of section 4 of that Act The section provides for the settlement of disputes and the fixing of prices, &c., by the Railway Board of Canada. And the latter lines of the section read as follows:
Such disputes shall, notwithstanding the provisions of section 13 of the Railway Act of 1903, be settled by the Railway Board of Canada on the application of any user or applicant for power or of the company or of the town of Fort Francis.
That same principle is embodied in these amendments. The other provisions in these amendments do not disturb the Act as it stands.


Mr. SPROULE.: This is clearly a Bill affecting trade and comes under rule 50, which provides that no Bill relating _ to trade or alteration of the laws concerning trade is to be brought into this House until the proposition shall have been first considered in the Committee of the Whole House. This Bill, therefore, should be preceded by a resolution.


James Conmee: I understand the objection raised to be that this Bill should be introduced by resolution because it affects trade and commerce or the revenue. But there is no reference to revenue in it.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER.: The point is not that it will affect the revenue, but that it is a Bill affecting trade and commerce, and therefore under rule 50 should
be preceded by a resolution.


Mr. SPEAKER.: The Bill will have to stand.


James Conmee: I would ask that it stand as a resolution.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: It will have to be withdrawn and the hon. gentleman will have to give notice of his resolution.


Mr. FOSTER.: Might I raise the point of order as to whether the hon. gentleman will not have to withdraw his speech.


Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).: I raise the point of order that he will not be obliged to make his speech over again.


James Conmee: If this Bill is to be treated as a matter affecting trade and commerce, we are going to have a very live issue of provincial rights to deal with before long.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: Stand.



THE GEORGIAN BAY CANAL.

Mr. GERMAN.: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to call the attention of the government, and particularly the Minister of Railways and Canals to an article which appears in yesterday's Toronto ' Globe It reads as follows:
It is now regarded as a settled fact that this year will see a start on the Georgian Bay canal. A special estimate of three million dollars, allowing for a beginning, has been prepared, and it is expected that it will shortly be brought down. Confirmation of the report is indicated in the remarks of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux at Montreal, and also in statements that have been made by some of the ministers to members for constituencies particularly interested in the work.
There is more in this article, but I need not read the rest of it. I think this is of sufficient importance to entitle me to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) if there is any foundation for the article, and to ask if he intends to place in the estimates next year the sum of $3,000,000 or any other sum for the beginning of the Georgian Bay canal.


Mr. GRAHAM.: iSo far as I know, no *such appropriation has been discussed by council. As it is not in my department, I have no knowledge as to whether the head of the department in which it is, had it in mind to bring in such an appropriation. Personally I would not be disappointed to see both the Georgian Bay and Welland canals started.


William Manley German: I think I am within the rules of the House, but, if hot, I ask to be allowed to speak again. If this is not in the Department of the Minister of Railways and Canals, it is probably in the Department of Public Works. I would put this question to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) or to the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), who, I presume, knows what is going on in his government.


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend (Mr. German) had better wait until the supplementary estimates are brought down, and then he will see.



THE MINISTER OF MILITIA.

Mr. CROSBY.: I desire to ask the Prime Minister (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) if he has any idea where the Minister of Militia (Sir Frederick Borden) is at the present time, if he knows what that gentleman is about, and if that gentleman had his permission for being where he is just now? My reason for asking this question is that about a week ago, we were discussing the estimates in this House-which, as we all know, form one of the most important matters that this House has to deal with -and we found that we had to lay aside
one estimate of $100,000 for the construction of a. barracks in the city of Montreal-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Crosby) will have to confine himself to a question.


Adam Brown Crosby: But, if you please, Mr. Speaker. I am going to give my reason for asking this question.


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: That may be given on going into supply, but not on the orders of the day.


Adam Brown Crosby: But, surely if I am to ask a question, I must give a reason for it. I do not wish to put the Prime Minister to the trouble of answering without giving a reason-


Wilfrid Laurier: I can answer my hon. friend (Mr. Crosby) without puc-ting him to that trouble.


Adam Brown Crosby: But, if you please, I would like to give all the information so that the Prime Minister can answer. I would like to let the Prime Minister know where his Minister of Militia is, in case he may not know ; then he would be better able to answer. But, Mr. Speaker, if you are going to rule that I cannot ask this question-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The rules allow a question to be asked on the order of the day, but not an argument-


Adam Brown Crosby: I do not propose to put up an argument-not the slightest. I only refer to this item in supply being laid aside because it was for the reason that the Minister of Militia was not in his place in this House that it was laid aside, and it has not been taken uip since that time. I wish to read, if you will permit, from a paper that gives a statement as to where the Minister of Militia is.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


Adam Brown Crosby: I hold in my hand a copy of the ' Western Chronicle,' dated Thursday, January 19, in which there is an advertisement of a public meeting to be held in the county of Kings. A byelection is going on there, a very serious one, because in the local legislature of Nova Scotia, the Liberal government have 33 out of 38-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I think the hon. gentleman (Mr. Crosby) should confine himself to a question, or wait until a motion for supply is made.


Adam Brown Crosby: May I read this paper?


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I understand that it has been settled by the House under our rules that no debate is allowed on the orders of the day, but a question may be asked. This would be more regular on a

motion to go into supply, which, I understand, is to be made in a few minutes.


Adam Brown Crosby: If you rule, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot ask this question-[DOT]


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: I have ruled that the hon. gentleman (Mr. Cros'by) may ask a question.


Adam Brown Crosby: I would rather await a better opportunity.



DISPUTED PATENT TO LAND.

Air. OLIVER (Minister of the Interior).: I desire to make an explanation in regard io a matter which was before the House yesterday on a motion of my hon. friend i'rcm New Westminster (Mr. J. D. Tavlor), for certain papers. There seemed to be a question as to a fact which I had stated, and, as I had not the details before me at the time, I was not able to give the House the case as I understood it. If I may, I would like to do so now. The matter related to the issue of a patent to one Fanny Louise Irwin and to certain legal proceedings by the Justice Department to secure the cancellation of the patent on account of it having been issued in error, so that there might be substituted for it, a patent which would convey the title which was originally intends, to be conveyed. I find on reference to the papers, that the homestead was taken by one Thomas Vance, who squatted upon it in 1888. He made application for homestead entry on October 19, 1891. He applied for patent on July 22, 1892, and the issue of patent was approved by JJre Commissioner of Dominion Lands and certificate of recommendation issued by him November 11, 1892. This gave to Thomas Vance an assignable right under the regulations, which provides,

under section 28:
A person whose homestead may have been recommended for patent by the local agent or senior clerk, and who has received from such agent or clerk a certificate to that effect in the form K in the schedule to these regulations, countersigned by^ the Commissioner of Dominion Lands, or in his absence, by any member of the Dominion Lands Board, may legally dispose of and convey, assign or transfer his right and title therein.
On the 7th December, 1895, the agent at New Westminster forwarded an assignment from Thomas Vance to Fanny Louise Ir-wm, dated November 30, 1895, and on the 24th December, 1895, the department replied, stating that the assignment in question had been registered in the books of the department and that the land stood in M.iss Irwin's name. That is to say, Fanny Louise Irwin acquired, under the law, the right to a patent to this particular land without any notice of any reservation therein. That was the question of fact between myself and my hon. friend from New Westminster. The department was in fault


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: in afterwards granting the patent to Fanny Louise Irwin-but the patent was granted to her because she had already acquired tier rights from Thomas Vance and under the law-without notice of any reservation in the right that was given to Thomas Vance. So, Fanny Louise Irwin was in exactly the same position when she applied for her patent, as the assignees of Fanny Louise Irwin are now, in contesting the r:ght of the limit holders to the timber on that limit.


John Graham Haggart: What was the date of the license to cut timber ?


Frank Oliver: I have not the figures before me, but I understand it was in 1886 that the license was issued.



THE FARMERS' BANK.

Mr. SCHAFFNER.: Before the orders of the day are called, I wish to direct the attention of the right hon. the First Minister to an article that appears in the Toronto ' News ' of yesterday, and to ask him if the facts are as there stated. I will read the .heading and the article:-



HOW TRAVERS' GOT ENDORSATION OF PREMIER,

[Stage Direction]
Sent one of the first notes of Farmers' Bank
to Sir Wilfrid Laurier. A courteous reply.
An interesting development in connection with the wrecking of the Farmers' Bank was discovered this afternoon when it became known that a letter written by Sir Wilfrid Laurier to the bank was largely used by General Manager Travers to secure shareholders and depositors.	,
The manner in which the letter was obtained from the Premier of Canada by Manager Travers was by sending to Sir Wilfrid Laurier a new $100 note at the time the bank commenced business. In reply, Sir Wilfrid wrote a letter to the Farmers' Bank, thanking them for the gift and prophesying a bright future for the institution when under the management of such a well known bank official as Mr. Travers. The letter was framed by the general manager, and was also photographed. Whenever a proposed depositor or shareholder entered the bank he was always shown the letter, and told that it was the Premier of Canada's statement to the effect that the bank would be a brilliant success.
I ask if the facts are as stated in that article ?
Sir WILFRID  LARUIER@: 

SUPPLY-ABSENCE OF MINISTER OF MILITIA AND DEFENCE.

[Stage Direction]
Sir WILFRID LAURIER moved that the House go into Committee of Supply.
["My hon. friend seems-to think that his duty before the Public Accounts' Committee is just to get in such facts as suit him, and suit his side. I have always taken the position that the duty of the Public Accounts Committee was to get at the facts and to investigate the truth. If my hon. friend had been desirous of knowing what was the real value of this property, what it was fairly worth, when he found that a valuation had been put in signed by two gentlemen w-ell known in the city of Ottawa, one who had been the city assessor and the other a prominent architect of this city, if my hon. friend had really wished to get at the valuation of this) property he would have said to the chairman:\tI would like these two gentlemen\nto be subpoened so that I may examine them as to the valuation. But that was not the course the hon. gentleman was pursuing. He dealt with the matter just as if he were a prosecuting attorney, and not a very good one at that, whose duty it was to get out such facts as suited him, and then leave it to the other side to break down his case if they could do so.\n1 At six o'clock, House took recess.", "After Recess.\nHouse resumed at eight o'clock."]
Adam Brown Crosby: Before that motion is put, I desire to ask the right hon. the Prime Minister, if he has any knowledge of the whereabouts of the hon. Minister of Militia and Defence (Sir Frederick Borden) at the present time. I would ask whether he is away, if he has permission to he away, and to engage in the work he is now doing in the county of Kings, Nova Scotia. My reason for asking this question is that about a week ago, when we were in supply, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley), placed before us an item of $100,000 to build a barracks in the city of Montreal, and nobody in the House knew anything about these barracks, and consequently, we could not vote the supply. We had to drop it for the reason that the Minister of Militia was not in this House, and he has not been in this House from 'that, day to this. As I was anxious to know his whereabouts, I made inquiries, and I found in a paper published in Kentville, Nova Scotia, called the ' Western Chronicle,' of January 19, the following item of news:-



[Stage Direction]
Political meetings in the interest of the Liberal party, addressed by the . candidate, H. H. Wickware, K.C., Sir F. W. Borden, A. E. Wall, M.P.P., and other prominent citizens will be held as follows: Port Williams, January 21; Delhaven, January 23; Halls Harbour, January 24; Wolfville, January 25.
Now Mr. Speaker, the reason these meetings are being held is that a by-election is going on for the local legislature in the province of Nova Scotia. In this connection, I may inform the First Minister, and other hon. members of this House who may not be acquainted with the conditions in that province, that we have a Liberal administration in Nova Scotia, and out of 38 members, 33 are Liberals. You will see therefore, that there is no reason for anxiety with regard to the probable loss of the province by the Liberals; though I can well understand that intimate relations
may exist between local Liberals and the Liberals in the Dominion parliament. However, I fail to see any reason why a minister of the Crown, during a session of parliament, when he should be here attending to the duties for which he is paid by the country, should not be here, performing those duties. I wish to ask of the First Minister if the Minister of Militia and Defence has his permission to absent himself from his duties in parliament, and t >
engage in a local election. The Minister of Militia has been appointed to the head of the Department of Militia and Defence, and is paid a good salary for performing the duties thereof, and he should be here to attend to them.
Wilfrid Laurier: I have no hesitation at all in saying to my hon. friend that I knew that my colleague was in Nova Scotia. He did not consult me before going, but he consulted me afterwards, and told me he was engaged in an election. My colleague the Minister of Militia and Defence is not only a member of this House but I understand he is an elector of the county of Kings, and at the present time ht is exercising his duty as a citizen of that province, and nobody can find fault with him for so doing.


THE POSTMASTER GENERAL AND THE FISCAL POLICY OF CANADA.
Mr. PERLEY.: I would like to correct the memory of the Postmaster General with regard to a matter which came up in the House on Friday last, in connection with his speech before the Canadian Manufacturers' Association on the previous evening. On Friday the member for Humboldt (Mr. Neely), called attention to a portion of the report in the Montreal *' Gazette ' of the Postmaster General's speech.
Our commercial ascendency, thanks to the wise fiscal policy adopted by this country twenty-five years ago, is the admiration of the world to-day.
The hon. Postmaster General, in replying to the criticism of his speech by the hon. member from Humboldt, practically denied the accuracy of this report, and, among other things he said:-
In the Montreal French papers of this morning I am quoted as having said that it was the policy adopted fifteen years ago; and that is in fact what I said. There is only a difference in figures, the English papers have a two instead of a one.
That struck me as being an extra-, ordinary excuse for a minister to give for this report in the Montreal ' Gazette,' because the word ' Twenty-five ' was not printed in figures but in letters. I therefore took the trouble to look over the

French papers, and I have here two of them which I think the hon. gentleman will not question. One is ' La Patrie ' and the other is ' La Presse.'


Mr. LEMIEUX.: Evening papers.


George Halsey Perley: Well, these are the evening papers which support the hon. gentleman. I propose to read from them extracts covering this point. First, I shall take ' La Patrie.' I shall not read the whole article, but simply the sections which refer to this particular matter.
Notre politique fiscale, adoptee il y a quel-que vingt ans, est le sujet (1 'ad mi ration de 1 umvers entier.
Our fiscal policy adopted twenty years ago is the subject of admiration for the whole world.
In another place, to support the argument which the hon. gentleman evidently was making that evening, it says:-*
Mais il ajouta qu'il fallait reconnaitre que le Canada etait l'oeuvre grande et magnifique de sir John A. Macdonald et de sir George Etienne Cartier.
.; but he added, it was necessary to remember that Canada was the great and magnificent work of Sir John A. Macdonald and of Sir George Etienne Cartier.
Now, ' La Presse reports:-
Quoique la confederation ne soit un fait accompli que depuis 47 annees seulement,-et M. Lemieux rend ici hommage a sir John Macdonald nous avons joliment grandi, et dans it? miJ,,c*oute que le dominion ne compte 2a,000,000 d habitants.
Although confederation had only been an accomplished fact for 47 years-Mr. Lemieux paid a tribute here to Sir John Macdonald- we have grown immensely and in 20 years, without doubt the Dominion will count 25,000,000 of inhabitants.
La politique fiscale adoptee par nous, il y a vingt-cinq ans, fait l'admiration du monde entier.
Our fiscal policy adopted by us 25 years ago makes us the admiration of the whole world.
* La Patrie ' reports him as saying ' 20 years,' while ' La Presse,' which is the organ par excellence of this government in Montreal, reports him as saying ' 25 years.' When the Postmaster General was in Montreal before the manufacturers at their dinner he evidently made up his mind to give credit where credit is due, and I understand that he was applauded for his breadth of view in acknowledging the great work of his political opponents.
I think, Sir, that the minister should be proud to bear evidence on behalf of the great Conservative party instead of being anxious to deny those sound utterances even though one of his supporters, the hon. member for Humboldt, finds them somewhat distasteful.


George Halsey Perley: 


Rodolphe Lemieux: This is indeed a very big question. My hon. friend from Humboldt (Mr. Neely) brought my attention to a report which appeared in the Montreal [ Gazette,' and wanted to know if, speaking on the fiscal policy of 'Canada, I had referred to the policy which had given Canada her ascendency as a policy adopted 25 years ago. I answered, and I wish to answer my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) again this afternoon, that I did not use the words ' twenty-five years ago,' but that I used the words ' fifteen years ago.'


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Mr. LAKE.: It was the fiscal policy of the Conservatives which was enforced fifteen years ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I used the round figures ' fifteen years ago it is fourteen years ago since the policy of the Hon. Mr. Fielding was adopted. At all events, I said that I used the words ' fifteen years ago.' Now my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) says that I drew the attention of the House to the fact that some of the newspapers had used the words ' twenty-five,' some others ' twenty ' and some others ' fifteen.' I think I have corroboration from him, because he has read from the evening papers, ' La Patrie ' and ' La Presse,' words to that effect. But, there is a better means of settling this great difficulty. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax), my hon. friend from St. Antoine (Mr. Ames) and my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) were present at the dinner. Now, to settle this very serious question, I am ready to throw myself into the arms of the leader of the opposition. If I really used the words ' twenty-five years ago,'
I am very guilty indeed for having deceived this House, but I am quite positive, and I am quite sure my hon. friend from Pictou is quite positive, too, that I used the words ' fifteen years ago.' There is another point. My hon. friend seems to take exception to the compliments I paid before this very representative gathering to the memory of Sir John Macdonald and Sir George Etienne Cartier. The Manufacturers' Association of Montreal is an organization composed of the most important members of the Conservative party and one in which the Liberals are to a large extent in the minority, although I have always been on very friendly terms with both parties in that organization. But, my hon. friend seems to be under this delusion that a member of a Liberal government, speaking in the city of Montreal before manufacturers belonging to the Conservative party, is simply playing with them by saying something before them which he would not have the cour-

age to repeat in the House of Commons of Canada. Let me tell my hon. friend that the compliments, and deserved compliments, I as a young Canadian paid to the giants of the Conservative party of 30 and 40 years ago, I am ready to repeat before the House of Commons. I hope that if ever my hon. friend is invited to speak before the Manufacturers' Association, and that if it comes to his mind he should say something in praise of Alexander Mackenzie, the great Reform Prime Minister of Canada, he will not be afraid to pay the memory of that great man a little compliment, as I did to the memory of Sir John Macdonald.


Robert Laird Borden: I have been appealed to by the Postmaster General, but I regret that my recollection of the occurrence is entirely different from his. There was a gentleman present who bore the outward appearance of the Postmaster General, and who said most distinctly, not 25 years ago, but 20 years ago.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The ' Gazette ' says 35 years.


Robert Laird Borden: I do not care what the ' Gazette ' says. I know what I heard. It may be that the word 'five ' was added, but I know that the word ' twenty ' was used, and I know that the word ' fifteen ' was not used. The reason that I am positive about it is that I turned to a gentleman on my right and I said it is rather a curious date for Mr. Lemieux to fix. I would have expected, if he were going that far, he should go back still farther. My hon. friend the Postmaster General must be a little confused in his recollections of it. But it really is of no moment; he is at perfect liberty to state 15, or 20, or 25, or 30, but as a matter of fact he did, on that occasion, in my hearing, use the word twenty.


Mr. RHODES.: It may not be a matter of great moment, but now that the subject has arisen, I may say that I was present at that dinner, and I heard a gentleman whom I believe to be the Postmaster General deliver an address, and I can say positively that the word * fifteen ' was not used, but that the words ' twenty years ' were used, as stated by the leader of the opposition. On that occasion the gentleman who sat beside me remarked that instead of using the word twenty, the Postmaster General should have mentioned thirty-two years. However, as is the custom with the Postmaster General, he was very pleasing and gracious on that occasion, and I thought it a particularly happy thing that he, as spokesman of the government of this country, should pay a well merited tribute to the fact that there was still in
effect the policy inaugurated by Sir John A. Macdonald, to whom the Postmaster General made reference. I thought it a splendid tribute by the Postmaster General that he should state that fact at a gathering of that kind, because our Liberal friends are disposed to admit, outside of this House, but not inside of this House, that we are to-day living, in effect, under the National Policy as laid down by Sir John Macdonald. I am sorry that, in spite of the admiration I hold for'the Postmaster General, he should see fit to be influenced by the sentiments of a few free trade protectionists, who support the government, and should find it necessary to revamp his remarks. I can understand that in addressing an audience one does not speak with the same accuracy as he would write, but 1 have a positive recollection of the incident at that, dinner, and so far as my ears can be relied upon, the facts are as I have stated.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou).: The fact that my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) thought this incident of sufficient importance to bring it before the House a second time, is an evidence of the lack of material in the possession of hon. gentlemen opposite to attract the attention of the people of this country. I attended the dinner referred to, and I may say it was a delightful dinner, where all seemed to enjoy themselves, and I was seated in the immediate proximity of the Postmaster General.
I do not know what is responsible for the lack of memory and accuracy evidenced by some hon. gentlemen opposite, but certainly those who sat at the guests' table, in my immediate proximity, are aware of the fact that the Postmaster General used the words ' fifteen years.' The mental calculation was made at the moment that was made by my hon. friend from Assiniboia a moment ago who was so technical that he wanted to draw the inference that because the Postmaster General used the words fifteen years he was referring to some imaginary policy the Conservatives had in the year they went out of power. But there were other gentlemen present who did make the calculation, and they saw that, as we were now in 1911, and as the Liberal party came into power in 1896, the Postmaster General was sufficiently accurate in describing the period from which Canada's prosperity began to date. That was the period to which the Postmaster General referred, and that was the date from which Canada's prosperity began.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The ordinary man listening to what has been said in the House on this subject, and the divergent recollections of the incident, must come to the conclusion that the city of Montreal is not under the local option law.


INQUIRY FOR RETURN.
Mr. HERRON.: When may I expect the return ordered by the House some two weeks ago with reference to the communications between the Alberta government and the Dominion government as to the restoration of the lands to the province? I am very anxious to get that return.


Mr. MURPHY.: I will have the matter inquired into.


ANGEO-JAPANESE TREATY.
Mr. MIDDLEBRO.: On Thursday last I asked the Prime Minister with reference to the Anglo-Japanese treaty, and he said he would give an answer on Monday.


Wilfrid Laurier: Correspondence has been going on, and is going on, with reference to the treaty, and as it is not yet completed it would not be advisable to bring it down.


William Sora Middlebro: I also asked whether or not a notice to discontinue the treaty had been given. Is there any objection to answer that?


Wilfrid Laurier: Notice has been given by the Japanese authorities of the denunciation of the treaty, and a new treaty is being negotiated between Great Britain and Japan. It is with reference to this new treaty that correspondence is now going on.


George Eulas Foster: As I understand, Japan gave notice of the denunciation of all her foreign treaties.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is my understanding.	'


WASHINGTON NEGOTIATIONS.
Robert Laird Borden: Has the Prime Minister any announcement to make as to the present condition of the negotiations at Washington?


Wilfrid Laurier: My hon. friend refers to the tariff negotiations?


Robert Laird Borden: I do.


Wilfrid Laurier: I have a telegram from Mr. Fielding saying that he expects to reach Ottawa to-morrow afternoon, and he hopes to make an announcement on Thursday.


RENTED GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS.
Mr. RICHARD BLAIN (Peel).: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair, I wish to direct the attention of the government and the House to a resolution, notice of which was given before the adjournment of the House last evening. It reads as follows :


Thomas Simpson Sproule: That all the words after ' that ' be struck out and the following substituted therefor: ' In the opinion of this House the action of the government in renting certain buildings in the city of Ottawa at prices which give the owners annually from 15 to 18 per cent net on the cost of their property is unbusinesslike, indefensible, and merits the censure of this House.
In 1909 my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works leased on behalf of the government a building on the corner of O'Connor and Queen streets, in the city of Ottawa, known as the Regal Building, for five years, with the privilege of renewing the lease for another term of five years, at an annual rental ot $16,095.73. The owners of the property are required by the lease to pay the city taxes, which amount annually to $1,186.07, for tw* stone walks that were put down by the city corporation $24.13 per annum, and for two roadways $75.75 per annum; and they will, of course, pay the insurance upon 'the building, which if insured for $50,000 at the rate of 65 cents per annum per $100, makes an annual payment of $325.	These sums make
a total of $1,610.95 which has to be paid by the owners of the building. Deducting tins amount from the annual rental paid by the government leaves the net amount paid by the government to the owners of this property at $14,484.80 per annum. Now, the first question that arises is why should the government rent this building at all? This property was owned originally by the Young Men's Christian Association of this city. They were seeking a purchaser for it for upwards of a year and a half. The right hon. the Prime Minister had taken into his government a brand new administrator in the person of the hon. Minister of Labour, and the government were seeking new quarters for my hon. friend. So, I presume the Minister of Public Works was approached by the Minister of Labour, and although the Minister of Public Works was well aware that this property was for sale and could be purchased by the government if they had any faith at all in the policy of government ownership. But my hon. friend decided that it was much better to rent the property from his supporters ; and so the middleman, who has been so much talked about in this House, and in this country, appears on the scene, and purchases the property from the Young Men's Christian Association in 1909 for the sum of $47,500. The owners of the property expended upon it a little less than $32,500, adding two new stories; so that their total investment was $80,000. On this amount the net rental they receive from the government gives them the handsome return of 18 per cent per annum after they have paid all their charges. I cannot understand why

the hon. Minister of Public Works did not arrive at the conclusion that it would be in the interest of the people of this coun-trv. if not in the interest of the government, that he should take some of the boasted surpluses that we have heard so much about for the last 15 years, and purchase this property, which it was well known to everybody, was on the market. But my hon. friend, the Minister of Public Works is well versed in the methods of dealing with property in the interest of his friends in the city of Ottawa as well as in other parts of Canada, and he concluded that the policy of public ownership of tins building would not suit the government. So the middleman steps in and purchases the property. There are some other charges on the property which have to be paid by the government, such as water rates, lighting and heating, the caretaker's salary, and the operating of the elevator. The basement and the first and second floors are occupied, or are supposed to be occupied, by the Minister of Labour and his staff, the third floor by the Minister of Militia, and the top story by the Finance Department. I had the pleasure of going through the building the other afternoon, and I found in the top story one room about 30 feet square in which there was nothing at all. And alongside of it another room, not quite the same size, and in that story at present, notwithstanding the fact that my hon. friend has rented it at this enormous price, and has had it rented for more than 12 months, there are five vacant rooms absolutely unoccupied. The Militia Department, a little lower, is not at all crowded because there are several vacant rooms in that part of the building. The Minister of Labour is brand new of course, and he has filled up his department metty well except the basement, about one-quarter of which is not occupied. Therefore I am quite safe in saying that a little more than one-third of this building, for which we are paying this enormous rent, is not occupied at all. I do not wish to criticise too closely my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, but every man who has resided in Ottawa for the last few years realizes that property in this city has been rapidly increasing in value, and my right hon. friend (Sir Wilfrid Laurier), when he came into power was well acquainted with the city and its outlook. One of the things for which the people of this country, and the opposition in particular, condemn my right hon. friend and his government, is that, notwithstanding the opportunities given them to purchase property at low prices they have allowed these opportunities to go by and rented from their friends at enormous prices. I may say that if my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works had taken out of the
treasury $80,000, the amount put into these premises by the owners or had borrowed it at 4 per cent-if he had taken out of the treasury $80,000 to purchase and improve this property and allowed 6 per cent on the investment, it would have been a fair investment, considering the increase in value from year to year, and if he had taken the balance of the amount paid these gentlemen-being the difference between 6 per cent and 18 per cent-in eight and a half years the government would have owned the building altogether and have had in addition $2,320.80 in the treasury. Why did not my hon. friend adopt that policy? It is not only yesterday that these gentlemen have been seeking for properties in the city of Ottawa. They have been on many streets in the city finding properties that were once owned by Conservatives find now owned by Reformers, looking up properties, in the interest, not of the people, but of their friends in the capital. The condemnation I have to offer is that my hon. friend lias been more careful of the interests of his political friends than of the great trust vested in him as Minister of Public Works. I am not going to add one statement after another in respect to public buildings, but I present this as a clear cut statement of the unbusinesslike policy of the Minister of Public Works.


George Eulas Foster: What was the rental period ?


Richard Blain: Five years with the privilege of renewing the lease for another five years.


Mr. PUGSLEY.: That is a privilege to the government and not to the lessor.


Richard Blain: Yes, a privilege to the government that makes it all the worse in my opinion. The assessed value of this property by the city when it was owned by the Y.M.C.A. was $30,000. If he has any criticism to make about the amount expended by the present owners $32,500, I answer by saying that after it was improved and enlarged, the assessment was increased from $30,000 to $55,000 by the city. Therefore there cannot be much doubt as to the amount expended upon it. The opposition and the newspapers have been criticising this government for allowing middlemen to step in between the people and the administration; the Liberal Conservative party moved a resolution condemning tl'.is government for allowing these middlemen to enter in and supply goods without public competition. In the Marine Department, in the Department of Railways and Canals, properties and goods were purchased from middlemen who repealed enormous profits in connection with the Intercolonial railway, and in connection with their busi-

ness. In the Department of Militia, articles were purchased at enormous prices from middlemen, and when difficulties arose in some of the departments, American bookkeepers were brought in and paid to straighten out the books of the department at $15 each per day. According to the Auditor's statement of the Printing Bureau scandals, the country lost more than $70,000 by purchasing goods outside the country, and giving the advantage to foreigners. These conditions the people are anxious should be done away with. The policy of the Liberal Conservative party is that no middleman shall live at the expense of Canada; that middlemen shall not be allowed to stand between the people and the government and make enormous profits, in one instance of 185 per cent.


James Conmee: When was that oolicy adopted ?


Richard Blain: My hon. friend must know if he knows anything, that I had the honour of moving a resolution in this House calling on 'this government to put out of business entirely middlemen, and my hon. friend stood up and voted to keep them there.


James Conmee: T had reference to the Conservative policy. That was not the policy followed in the building of the Langevin Block, for instance. -


Richard Blain: The Langevin Blockvwhat-ever may be said for or against it, is a monument of good administration, compared with other buildings to be found here at present. I shall not continue the discussion further. I have put the case fairly and honestly before this House, before the right hon. gentleman and the Minister of Public Works, who is particularly responsible and who had an opportunity of purchasing this property for the government and saving the people thousands of dollars. The people will expect my hon. friend to explain how it is the government leased these premises from their own supporters, when they might have purchased in the open market, and when by so doing they would have saved the country these thousands of dollars.


William Pugsley: I hope my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) will allow me to express my sympathy with him by reason of something which must have happened between yesterday and to-day. I do not know What it is, but something has certainly affected my hon. friend. Yesterday he gave notice of motion :
That in the opinion of this House the action of the government in renting certain buildings in the city of Ottawa at prices which give the owners annually from 15 to 25 per cent net on the cost of their property Mr. BLAIN.
is unbusinesslike, indefensible and merits the censure of this House.
Between yesterday and to-day he has changed his motion from ' 25 per cent ' to ' 18 per cent,' and from ' certain buildings ' in the city of Ottawa he has come down to one 'building-


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) say where it was stated at 25 per cent?


William Pugsley: In the motion sent to my office this morning.


Richard Blain: If I may be permitted, the statement of my hon. friend (Mr. Pugsley) is absolutely aside from the facts ; and I will submit my case to you, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. friend can hand to you the copy of the resolution I sent to his office this morning. .


William Pugsley: All I can say is that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) stated last evening that he would have a copy of the amendment sent to me, and that amendment came to me in the form I have just read.


Richard Blain: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I say that ' 25 per cent ' is not in that document. It is ' 20 ' per cent in that document, and I changed the resolution myself to ' 18 ' per cent.


William Pugsley: It was 20 per cent, was it? In the copy the hon. gentleman sent me, the figures look to me like ' 25 '. The typewritten figure has been changed, but apparently it should read ' 18 ' per cent.


Richard Blain: Hand it to Mr. Speaker, and ask him to read it.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) says it reads ' 20 ' per cent. Then, I congratulate my hon. friend on the change from 20 per cent to 18 per cent. I congratulate him further that whereas, yesterday, he proposed to ask the House to condemn the government because they bad been in the habit of renting certain buildings, giving the owners a net profit of from 15 to-he says now-20 per cent, he has not only changed it to 18 per cent but has limited it to one building known as the Begal building.


Robert Laird Borden: On what evidence does the hon. minister say it was 25 per cent?


William Pugsley: It was 25 per cent, I thought, in the copy sent to me.


Robert Laird Borden: When the hon. gentleman makes a positive statement, I should think he would have the evidence. I have the original typewritten copy-


William Pugsley: What is it there?


Robert Laird Borden: It reads * 20 per cent.'

Mr. PUGiSLEY. Very well, put it 20 per cent if you like.


Richard Blain: With the permission of the Minister of Public Works-for I think this is rather a small thing for a minister of the Crown to deal in-I may say that on this side of the House there are several typewritten copies of the same resolution, *and in not one of them is ' 25 ' per cent stated.


William Pugsley: And, wbat are they- twenty?


Richard Blain: Yes, 20 per cent.


William Pugsley: I take the hon. gentleman's	explanation-' 20 ' per cent.
It shows that, since yesterday he has done a little more	figuring and
has come down two per cent on the net profits,	and	two	per cent on
the net is a very important reduction to make. And will the hon. gentleman deny that in his motion yesterday he charged that the government had paid rents yielding to the owners of these buildings a net return of from 15 to 20 per cent, and to-day he limits it to from 15 to 18 per cent, and leaves out the word ' net'?


Richard Blain: My hon. friend knows-


William Pugsley: Am I correct in that?


Richard Blain: With the permission of my hon. friend-I do not wish to interrupt him, and will not if he does not think it fair-


William Pugsley: I am asking a question.


Richard Blain: What is it?


William Pugsley: The question i3 whether, in the resolution, the hon. gentleman has actually submitted to the House, he left out the word ' net ' which he had in the resolution submitted yesterday.


Richard Blain: There was no such resolution submitted to the House by myself or any other hon. member on this side yesterday. And my hon. friend knows that very well. At the close of the session last evening, the leader of the opposition rose in his place and courteously stated that the hon. member for Peel would move a resolution to-morrow, if convenient to the government. No resolution was read by the leader of the opposition or anybody else, and no resolution was forwarded to the Minister of Public Works other than the one to which I have referred which bears ' 20 per cent ' since changed to ' 18 per cent '-and ' 25 per cent ' is not to be found there.


William Pugsley: We passed that some time ago. What I am asking is as to the word ' net.' In the copy of the resolution sent to me, it was stated that the owners
were receiving a ' net ' profit. Has the hon. member omitted that word ' net,' in the resolution before the House?


Richard Blain: The resolution that I moved, and that is now in your hands, Mr. 'Speaker, is an exact copy of the resolution that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugsley) holds in his hand, if it is the copy I sent to him this morning.
Mr. PUGiSLEY. In the copy I have received from the hon. gentleman the word ' net ' appears.


Richard Blain: Then, would the hon. gentleman read the resolution that I placed in the hands of the Speaker?


William Pugsley: The resolution read by the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain), as I recollect it-


Richard Blain: Oh, ' recollect '! I make the statement that exactly the same words that are in the resolution in the hands of Mr. Speaker now, and that I read are in the copy of the resolution that I sent to the hon. gentleman.


William Pugsley: There is no necessity.


Richard Blain: No, that'3 what I say- there is no necessity.


William Pugsley: There is no necessity of getting excited. I listened to the reading of' the resolution, and if ' Hansard ' has taken the resolution as read by the hon. gentleman, I think it will be found that he did not use the word * net.'


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend allow Mr. Speaker to read the two resolutions, his and mine?


William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker has just sent it to me, and the word ' net ' is in the resolution. All I want to know is whether that is the charge of the hon. gentleman, that he was speaking of a percentage as the gross revenue upon the investment If he had said that he meant a net profit, we would have been saved any further discussion.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend knows that I did say net profit, and I repeat that it is in both resolutions. And I am not at all excited, as my hon. friend seems to be just now.


William Pugsley: ' Hansard ' will show whether my hon. friend used the word ' net ' or not. At all events, perhaps he will not deny that in the copy of the proposed resolution which he sent me, he charges me with having rented a number of buildings yielding to the owners this revenue, and that to-day, in his speech, he is limiting his charge simply to one building, namely the Regal building.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend want an answer?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: My answer is that two lion, gentlemen will follow in this discussion, and they will give other buildings, and we will increase them to half-a-dozen if necessary.


William Pugsley: I am glad my hon. friend has said that, and I can only regret that he did not himself go into details as to all the buildings on which he invited his hon. friends to make their remarks to the House, before I was called upon to reply on behalf of the government. I appeal to you, Sir, and I appeal to members on both sides of this House, if that would not have been a fair course to pursue. What does my hon. friend do? He makes a charge against the government. He is the gentleman who makes the substantive motion, he simply makes a charge in regard to one building, and I, assuming that is the only charge that is to be made to-day, rise for the purpose of replying. Then the hon. gentleman proposes, after I have made my answer as head of the Department of Public Works, to call upon other gentlemen to make their charges, to which I will have no opportunity of making reply during this discussion. Whatever my hon. friend may think of that course, I am quite sure it is not one which will commend itself generally to* the good judgment of members of this' House.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend think I am responsible for that?


William Pugsley: Clearly my hon. friend must be, because his statement evidently shows that he is in concert with other hon. gentlemen who are to follow up his charges and refer to other buildings, different from the one to which he has referred. Now let me say that with regard to the charge the hon. gentleman makes that I should have invited my colleagues to approve a considerable time ago of the purchase of the Regal building from the Young Mens' Christian Association, I am quite willing that the charge of the hon. gentleman, so far as that is concerned, shall be judged by the House and by the country. I did not think it was desirable for the government to be going around the city of Ottawa purchasing buildings for the temporary accommodation of the different departments, becoming owners of them, and I am satisfied that had I done so the hon. gentleman, instead of commending me for purchasing those properties, would have been the first to condemn me and to say that I should have made some temporary arrangement for the rental of buildings. It is to be remembered that we have already taken large appropriations for the purchase of land and for the construction of the new departmental block which is to be erected upon Mackenzie avenue and Sussex street. Does my hon. friend think that in view of Mr. BLAIN.
that fact, when we propose a very large expenditure which will run into three or four million dollars, including land, in view of the fact that we are making provision for housing all the different departments of the government, does he think that I would have been justified in making the purchase of the Regal building for the government? Yet the hon. gentleman says that it would have been much better to do that instead of renting the building. When the new departmental block is finished, we expect we will no longer need the Regal building, or a good many other buildings which are rented in different parts of the city. So much with regard to the charge that I ought to have purchased the property.
With reference to the rental, my hon. friend says that this building only cost the present owner the sum of $47,500. I do not know whether my hon. friend is correct as to that, I have no knowledge of what the building cost. Then my hon. friend states that the owners have expended upon it the sum of $32,500. Now, Mr. Speaker, I do not understand that the cost of this building has been under investigation before the Public Accounts Committee; I do not understand that there has been any evidence given before any committee of this House as to what the owners have expended on that building. I would be glad if my hon. friend would give me the source of his information as to the expenditure by the owners.


Richard Blain: I will be very glad to do so, I will be glad to take this matter up in the Public Accounts Committee with the hon. gentleman, and I will be able to substantiate every statement I have made this afternoon.


William Pugsley: And yet Mr. Speaker, today, in answer to a courteous invitation to my hon. friend


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend accept the challenge?


William Pugsley: In answer to a courteous request that my hon. friend should give me the source of his information as to the expenditure, the hon. gentleman declines to do so. And yet, Mr. Speaker, without affording to this House the source of his information as to the expenditure by the owners, not giving to this House a particle of information which they should require as to what the owners have expended upon the building-because my hon. friend could not have personal knowledge of that himself-he asks this House to condemn the Department of Public Works because they have paid the rental to which lie has referred.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend say the figures are incorrect?


William Pugsley: I know nothing about them, one way or the other, I do not profess to know anything about the figures. But I would be very sorry indeed to ask this House to condemn the department in tills matter unless I was prepared to furnish the House with positive proof of the . amount which was expended, and to give to the minister and the House the source of my information, if I were in the place of my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: I am prepared to do that in the manner I have suggested.


William Pugsley: It seems to me that the hon. gentleman, having made the statement, owes it to this House, and owes it to himself, to give the source of his information, so that the House may judge as to whether that information can be relied upon. Now, Sir, with regard to the owners of the property, the hon. gentleman has made the charge that we dealt with a middleman. Let me say to my hon. friend that I throw back at him that charge, and I say there is not a shadow of foundation for it. The department has not dealt with a middleman, the department has dealt with the owner of the property, and with him alone. There has been no middleman concerned with, or dealt with, or negotiated with. When the first negotiations began, when I first heard of the subject of renting this property, it was owned by Dr. Hanna of this city," whether any other gentlemen were associated with him, I do not know. The hon. gentleman speaks of political friends of the government. -Sir, I do not know what the politics of Dr. Hanna are, I do not know whether he is a Liberal or Conservative. But I say that we dealt with him as a business man, and simply as a business man. The accommodation which could be provided in this building was convenient for the department, and we had an opportunity to rent the building from Dr. Hanna. We made every inquiry, we had examined it thoroughly, it was reported on by the officials of my department, and we agreed upon the rental. If my hon. friend had taken the trouble to inquire as to what rental is being paid for buildings similarly situated and of similar value in other parts of the city, he would have found that the rental is a very reasonable one indeed. Now, Sir, when we rent buildings for my department we do not enter upon the business without due consideration, and do not agree upon the rental or the terms without exercising the utmost care.
I do not personally intervene until all the information has been acquired, and until the reports of the proper officers in the department are made. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, the rental which is being paid per square foot for this building. and that is the only way in which you can judge as to whether the rental is
a reasonable one or not. We pay 81 -28 cents per square foot of space. We have made inquiries as to what rental is being paid in other buildings, and I find that upon Sparks street, in the ' Citizen ' building, a building which would be no better adapted for departmental offices than this, the average rental is 90 cents per superficial foot, and that includes all parts of the building which are rented as against 81 -21 cents per -square foot for this building.


Richard Blain: What street is that on?


William Pugsley: The ' Citizen ' building is upon Sparks street.


Mr. REID (Grenville).: There is a difference in the value of property on that street, and the street on which that other building is situated.


William Pugsley: Not very much of a difference. As far as the ground floor is concerned I suppose there would foe quite a difference, but the Regal building is admirably situated for a departmental building, and we pay 81 -28 cents in rental as compared with 90 cents which the owners of the ' Citizen ' building receive. Then we also made inquiry regarding the Carleton chambers upon Sparks street, and we have been informed that the owner of that building receives $1.25 per superficial foot of space or 44 cents per superficial foot more than we pay for the Regal building. Then, Mr. Speaker, there is a building which was rented quite a number of years ago when property was not so valuable as it is today in the city of Ottawa because we all agree with what the hon. gentleman stated that real estate is advancing with great rapidity in Ottawa. Does my hon. friend not know that one of the absolute essential and certain results of the advancement of real estate is that rents go up because it is the rental which a person receives which largely determines the value and, as real estate goes up, of course, the owners charge a larger rental. The Corry building was rented some years ago for the purpose of the Railway Commission, and the amount that is paid for that including taxes is 9G 50 cents per superficial foot, or 15 cents per superficial foot more than we pay for the Regal building. If I am any judge I would say that the Regal building is just as well situated as the Corry building is. When the Corry building was rented inquiries were made as to what accommodation could be got in other parts of the city, and what other buildings were available, and after very careful consideration, as I am informed, the Corry building was rented, and the rental for that including the taxes is 15 cents per square foot more than we are paying for the Regal building.


John Dowsley Reid: I would like to ask the minister, if, in renting these buildings, he does not take into consideration the location of the property that is on the most valuable streets. He is giving us the rentals on the main street in the city of Ottawa as compared with those on a back street.


William Pugsley: Necessarily the 'experts of the department would do that, hut still we also have to consider the description, and the conveniences of the building because all these enter iiito the consideration. On Sparks street there might be a building which would not be at all adapted, or well adapted, for housing the officials of a department. My hon. friend knows that in each department-or, speaking generally, it is the case-there is a large number of clerks to be accommodated as nearly as possible in the one building ; at all events, the clerks who are engaged in a particular branch of a department must necessarily be housed in one building. It is not every building that will accommodate them, and there are very few buildings on Sparks street which will be suitable for the accommodation of the officials of a department. For the Railway Commission building we pay 98-48 cents per superficial square foot or 17 cents per square foot more than we pay for the Regal building. Then, Mr. Speaker, take the Canadian and the Woods buildings. I suppose I shall have to refer to these because I presume that my hon. friend, with that wisdom of which he appears to be so proud, has kept back the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) in order to bring up the Woods building and the Canadian building after I have taken my seat ; therefore, it will be necessary for me to make reference to the Canadian building, and the Woods building. I have heard it said that the Imperial Realty Company receive an exorbitant rent for those buildings, I have gone into the matter very carefully, and I am prepared to assert in this House what is my belief that the Imperial Realty Company only receive a net revenue of a shade over 7 per cent on their investment in those buildings. I am speaking now of the Canadian building, the Woods building, and the Queen street building, and I say that they are receiving a revenue of a shade over 7 per cent. I remember, Sir, that before the Committee on Public Accounts, there was an attempt made to show that the Woods and Canadian buildings had only cost somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000. The hon. member for North Ontario called somebody who had had a contract simply for the four walls, and floors of the building, or rather he tried to impress the committee with the fact that the evidence of this witness


William Pugsley: showed that it had cost $100,000, and this sum practically represented the whole cost of the building. He called Mr. Charles Holbrook of the firm of Holbrook & Sutherland, the gentleman who had built the four walls and floors of these two buildings-the Woods building, and the Canadian building, and I find on page 452 of the evidence taken before the Public Accounts Committee that Mr. Holbrook makes this statement :
Q. I would like to ask you as a practical man, what would you say would be the value of the Woods building at the present time?- A. I take it about $300,000-from $250,000 to $275,000.
That, Mr. Speaker, is entirely outside of the land which has to be added as a part of the cost. In regard to the other building, Mr. Holbrook says that it is larger, and that it will be worth about $300,000. If Mr. Holbrook is right in putting the value of the Woods building at $275,000, the value of the Canadian building would be very considerably more because it contains at least 200,000 cubic feet more than the Woods building. Assuming that Mr. Holbrook's value of the Woods building is correct, I would think that it would bring the value of the Canadian building up to from $350?000 to $375,000, or $380,000 at the very least to which also would have to be added the value of the land.
The Queen street building, with the land, would be something like $65,000 or $70,000, and if your add these two together and then take the ordinary expenses of insurance, and wear and tear, and cost of management, I believe the net revenue would only be a shade over seven per cent. The hon. gentleman from North Ontario, if he speaks on this question will possibly tell you that these properties are assessed at very much less than the valuation of Mr. Holbrook, but I think it will be generally agreed that the assessment value is not always a correct test of the value of a building. The hon. gentleman from Peel told us that the Regal building, although it cost about $50,000, and although the present owners have spent about $30,000 on it making $80,000, it is only assessed at $50,000, which would show that the assessors do not attempt to get near the value of these large buildings. Then, we have had it in evidence before the Public Accounts Committee that the cubic contents of the Canadian building are something over 1,200,000 feet, while the cubic contents of the the Woods' building are between 900,000 and 1,000,000 cubic feet. We have also had it in evidence by Mr. Ewart, the chief architect, that speaking roughly the fair average cost of a fire-proof building would be 30 cents per cubic foot, and taking the cubic contents of the Canadian building at 1,200,000 feet you would get $360,000 as the fair value of that build-

ing. To that, you have to add the value of the land. The hon. gentleman from North Ontario said this land was only assessed at a few thousand dollars, but that was a number of year ago, and to-day no expert in real estate would say that the land occupied by the Canadian building is not to-day easily worth between $40,000 and $50,000, that the land on which the Woods5 building stands is not easily worth between $30,000 and $40,000, and the land of the Queen street building is not easily worth upwards of $20,000. Now, the total rental paid for the Canadian building and the Woods' building and the Queen street building is $72,000 per annum. If you take the valuation of these buildings with the land as being in the vicinity of $800,000 which I believe is a fair valuation for these three properties, you will find that after paying expenses of management and wear and tear and other charges that rental would give a little over 7 per cent, which, the evidence before the Public Accounts Committee shows is what the Imperial Realty Company gets out of these buildings. There is another very good way of testing whether or not we are paying too high a rental for these buildings. If you take the total amount we pay, including one-half the cost of the building of partitions, &c., which was paid by the government, it would amount in the case of the Canadian building to 96 09 cents per square foot. But if you distribute the cost of these improvements over the ten years during which the government has arranged to occupy that property you will find that it figures out at 60 -85 cents per square foot, and it is one of the very cheapest properties which the government has been able to rent in the city of Ottawa. Of the three buildings which the government rents from the Imperial Realty Company, it is a remarkable fact that for the Queen street building, as to which there has been no criticism by hon. gentlemen opposite, we are actually paying 98 48 cents per square foot, or more than we are paying for the other buildings. Hon. gentlemen opposite have for a long time been criticising the rent we are paying for the Canadian building and the Woods' building, but they have never had one word of criticism in regard to the building on Queen street occupied by the Railway Commission.


Richard Blain: We are coming to that building later.	[DOT]


William Pugsley: My hon. friend has been a long time getting to it. Now, as to the value of these buildings. It was proved before the Public Accounts Committee that in the year 1908-I am not sure whether that was before the government rented the second portion of the Canadian building,
but it was about that time-it was proved before the committee that the, Imperial Realty Company which owns this building had, according to the evidence of Mr Finnie, manager of the Bank of Ottawa, purchased it from Mr. J. W. Woods for $1,000,000.


Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).: That was in stock.


William Pugsley: It was stock, but it must be borne in mind that while Mr. Woods received stock for the building, there were, as Mr. Finnie swore, a number of other gentlemen who bought stock in the company, and who would therefore be interested greatly in the value of the property because they were investing their money in it. However, in 1908, the company was proposing to raise money upon the security of these buildings, either through or from the Royal Trust Company. The property consisted of the Canadian building, the Woods' building, the Queen street building, and two other small properties of comparatively little value. As an act of precaution, the Royal Trust Company caused a valuation of this property to be made, and I shall read the report as to that valuation. The valuation was made by two experienced men, Mr. A. Pratt, formerly city assessor, and Mr. James Mather, a prominf ent and reliable architect in the city of Ottawa, and these gentlemen were engaged, not by Mr. Woods, or the Imperial Realty Company, but by this large financial institution in order to determine whether in justice to their shareholders they would be warranted in making an advance of $400,000 upon bonds to be issued against the property. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, it is very seldom that these companies lend over 50 per cent of the value of real estate. The Royal Trust Company was of course most desirous to have a correct valuation of this property.
Now, Sir, who are the Royal Trust Company? I suppose that if hon. gentlemen opposite did not know who they were they would be attempting to cast doubt upon their sincerity, and to insinuate that they had colluded with the Imperial Realty Company to boost the value of this property. The Royal Trust Company is a company closely allied with the Bank of Montreal. Its directors are: Right Hon. I.ord Strathcona and Mount Royal, president; Sir Edward Clouston, vice-president; Sir H. Montagu Allan, R. B. Angus, A. Baumgarten, E. B. Greenshields, C. M. Hays, C. R. Hosmer, Sir W. C. Macdonald, Hon. R. Mackay, A. Macnider, H. V. Meredith, David Morrice, James Ross, Sir T. G, Shaughnessy, Sir William C. Van Home. These are the directors of the Royal Trust Company, and when the Imperial Realty Company went to them in 1908 for a loan of $400,000 on first mortgage bonds, it was

expected that they would either lend the money themselves, or would, as a trust company, give the sanction of their name, which would enable the Imperial Realty Company to borrow this large sum on the property. I am told that the Royal Trust Company themselves underwrote the bonds. Therefore, you will see what value is to be attached to the report of their valuator, and I will take the liberty of reading that report. It is dated Ottawa, December 17, 1908. It is addressed to J. J. Gormully, Esq., barrister, &c., who, I presume, would be the solicitor of the Royal Trust Company, and is as follows:-


RB IMPERIAL REALTY COMPANY&quot;.
[Stage Direction]
Dear Sir,-Herewith you will find report as requested on the value of the properties in schedule A belonging to the above company, being parcels numbers 1, 2, 3, 4. and 5. Parcel number 1 being composed of the easterly thirty-three feet from front to rear of town lot number 25 on the south side of Queen street, numbering eastward towards the Rideau canal; size of land, 33 feet in front by 99 feet in depth. On this land is a substantial fireproof building, 33 feet by 81 feet, 5 stories high, stone front, steel and concrete construction, occupied by Canadian
government.
Yralue of land	$ 20,000
Value of building	 48,975
[Stage Direction]
And yet, Sir, upon that building the total rental which we pay is $5,300, or less than 8 per cent of this valuation. Then the report proceeds:-
Parcel number 2 being composed of town lot No. 62 and the w hole easterly portion of town lot No. 61 on the south side of Slater street; size 99 feet by 157 feet more or less. On this land there is erected a first-class -fireproof building, 70 feet by 157 feet, 7 stories high, built of Indiana sandstone, brick walls with steel and concrete construction and terra cotta partitions, occupied by Canadian government. This building is known as the 'Woods Building.'
Value of land	$ 23,314
Value of building	 265,036
288,350
Now, Sir, if you compare the value which these gentlemen have placed upon the Woods building with the value which Mr. Holbrook, the gentleman who built the foul walls and the floors, and who is well qualified to speak, placed upon it, you will find that they very nearly agree. Mr. Holbrook puts the value at from $250,000 to $275,000, while these gentlemen, who were valuing for the Royal Trust Company, put it at $265,036; that is the militia building, and upon that the gross rental which we pay, outside of the heating, the lighting, the elevator and the taxes, is $25,777, or less than 10 per cent. Out of that would have to come the wear and tear of the building, Mr. PTJGSLEY.
the expenses of management, the insurance end the local improvement tax; yet my hon. friend has taken no account of these, although, according to my information, the same information was given 'before the Committee on Public Accounts. These reduce the net revenue to the Imperial Realty Company down to a shade over 7 per cent.
Richard Blain: Do I understand my hon. friend to say that I made no statement as to the taxes, &c., in respect to the Royal buildingp I mentioned them all, and he will see them in * Hansard.'


William Pugsley: I am now speaking of my hon. friend's resolution. I am not speaking of the emasculated speech with which he attempted to cut down the force of his resolution, and in which he simply referred to one building when he made a charge with respect to others. I am referring to his resolution, in which he says that we have rented buildings at 'prices which give to the owners from 15 to 18 per cent net on the cost of the properties.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask whether that statement is correct with respect to the Regal building, to which I referred?


William Pugsley: 
Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Is there any evidence on record that the Royal Trust Company put a dollar of their own money into that building? They lent the mojiey on the security of the rentals, but not their own money-other people's money.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman says the Royal Trust Company lent other people's money. As I understand, that is what a trust company does every day; it lends the money of other people. But it is trust money; it is the money of the widow and the orphan, which they are

bound to guard more securely and carefully than they would the money of their own shareholders; and there is the implied guarantee that they would exercise the utmost prudence in dealing with it. When I show now, following up the evidence of Mr. Holbrook before the Committee on Public Accounts by the valuation given by these experts of that land and building, according to which it was worth $288,350, that the rental we pay is only $25,777, apart from the heating, running the elevator and the taxes-this is what would come to the owners, out of which they have to pay insurance, cost of maintenance, wear and tear of the building and local improvement taxes. When I show all that and show that necessarily it would reduce the amount down to somewhere between 7 per cent and 8 per cent, surely the hon. gentleman would not ask this House to vote for a resolution, false on its face, declaring that we have been in the habit of renting buildings at prices which net to the owners a revenue of from 15 per cent to 18 per cent.
Parcel No. 3 being composed of lot 63 and broken lot 64 on the south side of Slater street and also being composed of the northerly portion of lot 63 and 64 on the north side of Laurier avenue (formerly Maria street); size about 121 feet in front and 226 feet in depth, superficial area 27,530 square feet. On this property is a building eight stories high and of the same construction as the Woods Building. It is known as the 'Canadian Building/ and occupied 'by the Canadian government.
Value of land	$ 41,295
Value of building	 392,575
Total	$ 433,870
That was the total valuation in 1908, two years ago, since which time the values of the land and buildings has been very appreciably increased. What do we pay for this building? We pay $42,536.90, or less than 10 per cent, upon the valuation these experts have placed upon it, and as I stated with reference to the Woods building, out of this must come the local improvement taxes, the insurance, cost of management fmd wear and tear. All that has to come out of the 10 per cent. What justification then would there be for my hon. friend putting a resolution of this kind on the table?
Let me go on further with this report. It takes up then two pieces of land on the north side of Laurier, which I need not deal with, because they are not rented to the government, but they put them at $13,300 and $23,565 They are:-
No. 4, Nos. 87 and 89 Laurier avenue, $13,300.
No. 5, lots 62 and EJ, 61 Laurier Avpuue, $23,565.
And they make the total value of the properties-taking out the two last I have 73
mentioned, of $36,000-$790,000 in round figures. Yet all that we pay for the Woods building, the Canadian building, and the Queen street building, is $72,000 per year, or a gross revenue to the owners of less than 10 per cent upon their value.
Mr. BLAlN. That does not include the Regal building.


William Pugsley: No, I am speaking now of the' Woods building, the Canadian building, and the Queen street building. The Imperial Realty Company has nothing to do with the Regal building. The Royal Trust Company have nothing to do with it, as my hon. friend must know. I am reading the reports of the Royal Trust Company, which had the properties owned by the Imperial Realty Company examined, on which the latter were asking them to advance on their bonds the sum of $400,000, and this the Royal Trust Company did. The report concludes:
We the undersigned have carefully examined the several properties named in the above report and are of the opinion that the value set opposite each property is a fair cash value thereof, and that the total value of the five parcels of land is $828,060.
Out of that has to be taken the $13,300, and the $23,565, which are not rented to the government, leaving a net valuation of very close to $790,000. The rental upon the three buildings is $72,000, which would be less than 10 per cent on their valuation by these experts, and out of that the owners would have to pay the various charges for insurance, local improvement taxes, cost of management and wear and tear. The net result would be to give the Imperial Realtv Company a net dividend of a shade over 7 per cent on the moneys invested.
Of the total rentals paid by the government, those which are paid for the Woods building, the Canadian building and the building on Queen street constitute the largest items. The hon. gentleman, has I suppose, in his mind, the Corry building. I do not know if he has anything in his mind beyond the Regal building, but hon. gentlemen who follow him may take up the Corry building, thus taking a course which, in all my parliamentary experience, is unprecedented.	-


Richard Blain: It has been done in every debate in this House.


William Pugsley: I have * never known it to be done. I have known lawyers, examining witnesses sometimes, pass over intentionally many things in the leading examination which they thought might he investigated, hoping they would escape the cross-examining counsel, and then would bring them out in the re-examination. But that is not considered good practice.


Richard Blain: I think I.was very fair in giving the hon. gentleman notice that this is not all.


William Pugsley: Take the Corry building which was rented a considerable time, like the Queen street and the Woods buildings, before I became minister.


Mr. HUGHES.: Where is it?


William Pugsley: Immediately adjoining the new Grand Trunk Railwav station. It is that tall building which the Transcontinental Railway Commissioners occupy. What does my hon friend say to that? The total square feet in that building is 11,234. We pay a rental of $10,200, and the total, without taxes, amounts to 90 50 cents per square foot. Does he say that is too much?


Richard Blain: I say, from a valuation of the property given in a correct way, it is altogether too much.


William Pugsley: Does he say, having reference to what other buildings cost, that it is too much.


Richard Blain: I say yes. I say that, speaking of the whole three buildings to which my hon. friend has referred, some of these will show not 18 per cent, as the resolution states, but 25 per cent.


William Pugsley: That is too absurd for serious consideration. This is what we pay for the Corry building. As my predecessor had to do before I became minister, in renting these buildings we have to look around; we have to send the experts of the department to interview this owner and that owner to see where the requisite accommodation can be had and to test the fair value of the buildings by finding out what other property owners receive. Since I became minister, whenever we have rented a building, we have gone to owners on Sparks street, Elgin street, O'Connor street, in whatever locality the building was, and have exercised the best judgment we could and got the building at oh 3 lowest possible figure. Here is another building and the rent we pay per square foot is 90-80 cents. The taxes add something to that, bringing the total up to 96-50 cents per square foot.
Now, take the Seybold building. It may he that some charge will be made in connection with that building. The Seybold building has a total superficial area of 12,047 square feet. We pay a rental of $6,500. The heating costs $1,600 and the running of the elevator $966 and taxes $1,811.46. For that building, the owner receives 90 cents per square foot.


Mr. TAYLOR  .@Leeds: How much did you spend improving it ?


William Pugsley: I am not able to tell my hon. friend. I am speaking of what
' Mr. PUGSLEY.
we pay for the building. Not knowing what would be charged in respect of the Seybold building, I am at a great disadvantage in attempting to answer. I do not know whether my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), will follow the example of my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain), and, without having a particle of evidence to submit, and without making known the source of his information, will declare that the Seybold building cost $10,000, $20,000 or $30,000 or any other sum. He may draw on his imagination even more copiously than the hon. member for Peel did. But hon. members will see, at what a disadvantage I am placed, when I attempt to answer a terrible charge of this character, not knowing definitely what that charge may be.
Now, take the Trafalgar building. Is any charge to be made in regard to that, may I ask my hon. friend ?


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman v ant an answer ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend seems to be guilty not only in respect to the Regal building, hut all along the line.


William Pugsley: Statements of that kind do not count for much. I was about to speak of the Trafalgar building.


Samuel Hughes: Would the minister please locate these buildings as he names them; some of us are ignorant of where they are. I know where the Militia building is, and the one adjoining it, but I am not sure about the others.


William Pugsley: The Trafalgar building is on Bank street; it is occupied by the Department of Interior and the Civil Service Commission. This building is owned by Mr. Brennan. It has a superficial area of 14,991 feet, and we pay a rental of $11,964, which would amount to about 80 cents-or, to be absolutely accurate, 79.81 cents-per square foot. But that building is heated by the owner, and he also runs the elevator; we pay nothing besides the rent, except water rates; otir total rental there is, as I have said, 79 -81 cents a square foot. Now, let me ask my hon. friend (Mr. Blain), with his superior knowledge as to what buildings ought to be got for, is that too much or too little ? I venture to say he cannot answer.


Richard Blain: I will answer that. I may say, since the hon. minister is putting me in the witness box and cross-questioning me, that the records of ' Hansard ' and of the Public Accounts Committee will show, that he paid an enormous amount for the rental of this building, and that the percentage will reach higher than that stated in the resolution I moved this afternoon.


William Pugsley: It is a satisfaction, at all events, to know the lengths to which my hon. friend will go. He objects to my putting him in the witness box.


Richard Blain: No.


William Pugsley: He has gone into the witness box himself this afternoon, for he told us what the Regal building cost. There is a class of witness who refuse to take the oath, but affirm and expect every one to take what they say, whether they know the facts or not.


Richard Blain: Will my hon. friend permit me?


William Pugsley: Certainly.


Richard Blain: My hon. friend is careful to keep away from the charge I made against the department, and deals with other matters. But I repeat that if he doubts, as he seems to do, the correctness of the statement in regard to the cost of the Regal building and the amount bf money spent in improving it at $80,000, I repeat tjie challenge I made: I am willing to take the matter before the Public Accounts Committee and ask the minister to appear there. Will he accept that challenge?
_ Mr. PUGSLEY. The hon. gentleman has jumped before he came to the stile. He asks the House to condemn us in regard to the Regal building without having the evidence. Just at the moment I was speaking of the Trafalgar building.


Mr. LENNOX.: Would the hon. minister state what ground he has for suggesting that the statement of a gentleman who makes that statement upon affirmation is not as reliable as if made on oath?


William Pugsley: What I was rather suggesting was-


Haughton Lennox: I would like to have an answer.


William Pugsley: Well, Mr. Speaker, in my experience, when a gentleman goes on the stand under oath, as he would before the Public Accounts Committee, he would be obliged to produce the evidence, he would be obliged to show his knowledge. A witness there could not say: That building cost so much; I have no knowledge of it, but I heard it on the street corner, A witness could not act in that way before the Committee on Public Accounts. But an hon. gentleman in this House might rely on hearsay evidence, which might be unreliable.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman say that my information is unreliable?


William Pugsley: It might be. And my hon. friend (Mr. Blain) might be entirely-innocent. I would not think for a moment * 731
of accusing him of wilfully deceiving the House. But I. am sure he has had too much experience to suppose that a body of intelligent men would condemn a government upon what must necessarily be a hearsay statement without having the facts produced before them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Will the hon. minister permit me a question? Is not what he has given us concerning the valuation of the Woods building hearsay evidence?


William Pugsley: Not at all.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They were not put in the witness box; they dare, not go.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman makes a statement which it would surprise me-much to learn was accurate. It seems to me that when a company of high standing like the Royal Trust Company, proposing to invest in this property on first mortgage the large sum of $400,000 of funds held by them in trust, employs two experienced men to make the valuation upon which this transaction was to be based, I would not Tegard that as hearsay; I would regard that as most reliable testimony.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Why were not they called as witnesses?


William Pugsley: Why did not the hon. gentleman call them?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: We objected to the written report going in to the Public Accounts Committee and asked that witnesses be called.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend seems-to think that his duty before the Public Accounts' Committee is just to get in such facts as suit him, and suit his side. I have always taken the position that the duty of the Public Accounts Committee was to get at the facts and to investigate the truth. If my hon. friend had been desirous of knowing what was the real value of this property, what it was fairly worth, when he found that a valuation had been put in signed by two gentlemen w-ell known in the city of Ottawa, one who had been the city assessor and the other a prominent architect of this city, if my hon. friend had really wished to get at the valuation of this) property he would have said to the chairman:	I would like these two gentlemen
to be subpoened so that I may examine them as to the valuation. But that was not the course the hon. gentleman was pursuing. He dealt with the matter just as if he were a prosecuting attorney, and not a very good one at that, whose duty it was to get out such facts as suited him, and then leave it to the other side to break down his case if they could do so.
1 At six o'clock, House took recess.

After Recess.
House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill (No. 92) respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company.-Mr. McCraney.
Bill (No. 93) to incorporate the Alberta Electric Railway Company.-Mr. McCarthy.
Bill (No. 94) respecting the Western Central Railway Company.-Mr. Rankin.

[Stage Direction]
The order for private Bills having been exhausted, House resumed consideration of the motion for supply and the amendment of Mr. Blain thereto.	[DOT]
['I recognize the capacity of my hon. friends opposite to talk, and I, therefore, move that the committee rise.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 12.45 a.-m. Wednesday.\nMr, ARMSTRONG.', 'Wednesday, January 25, 1911.']
William Pugsley: Mr. Speaker, I had referred, before the recess, to a number of buildings which had been leased by the department, but there are a few others to which I have not yet referred. One is the Imperial building on Queen street, belonging to the estate of one Mr. Pearson. The net office area is 12,082 feet, and the rental has been $4,200 per annum, which would be at the rate of 35 -76 cents per superficial foot. This includes the power for the elevator, but the rest of the charges are borne by the government. We have agreed, upon the renewal of the lease, to make some increase in the rent, because it was lower than the building was fairly worth. Just what it will be I am not in a position to say at the moment. Then, there is another building occupied by the surveyor general's branch of the Department of the Interior, at the corner of Slater and Metcalfe streets. The net office area is 9,811 feet, and the rental $3,000 per annum. That is at the rate of 30-6 cents per superficial foot. We pay the taxes, heating and some other charges, which bring the total up to 45-26 cents per square foot. I gave the Trafalgar building, the rental of which is 79-81 per square foot; the Seybold building, the Corry building, the Canadian building, the Militia, or Woods, building, and the Railway Commission building.
Then, there is another building, a portion of which we are renting from the Molsons Bank, on Metcalfe street. It has an office area of 4,294 feet, and the rental we pay is $2,340, or at the rate of 54 -5 cents per superficial foot. We also rent some premises in the Great Northwestern Telegraph Company's building, 1,006 superficial feet, for which we pay $420 rental, which is 41 -75 cents per superficial foot. There is another building in which we rent premises; it is in the new station of the Grand Trunk Railway Company. We have rented three flats there for the Railway Commission. The Railway Commission was very much Mr. PUGSLEY.
crowded for room in the building on Queen street, and we have had a very strong requisition from the members of the board that we should provide increased accommodation. We made an arrangement with the Grand Trunk Railway Company under which they will fit up three flats especially for the use of the Board of Railway Commissioners. At first they asxed us a rental of $23,000. We carried on negotiations for,
I think, about three months, and finally we succeeded in getting them to accept a rental of $19,500. That includes heating, elevator service and everything except lighting. My hon. friend may say that is higher than the rental we pay for some other buildings. So it is, but we get very superior accommodation, and, of course, we must have regard to the accommodation that is furnished. The building is to be specially fitted up for the accommodation of the Board of Railway Commissioners. I may say with reference to this, as with reference to the Woods, the Canadian and all the other buildings -which the government leases, that when the government ceases to occupy these buildings, as it will naturally do when the new departmental block is erected, the owners may have their buildings idle for a considerable time while they are making alterations to accommodate the buildings to the wants of the new tenants who may be desirous of renting.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman give the floor area?


William Pugsley: I was just about to give that. There are 23,758 superficial feet in the three flats, for which we are to pay, as I said, $19,500 per annum. That is at the rate of about 82 cents per superficial foot, -which includes heating and elevator service.	-
What I have done has been to refer all these matters with regard to rental, since I have been minister, to the proper officials of my department, and I feel sure, from the reports that they have made to me from time to time, and before recommending a rental to be agreed upon by me as head of the department, that they have made careful inquiry as to what rentals are charged by other owners of property in the city of Ottawa, and that they have based their recommendations accordingly. Let me call attention to the matter in another way for the purpose of showing that none of these rentals are excessive. When negotiating with "the Grand Trunk Railway Company we made inquiries as to what would be charged for property in thq city of Ottawa and as to \vhat would be charged for property in the city of Montreal. I found that for a building conveniently situated in the city of Ottawa the rental would run from 90 cents per superficial foot up to, I think, as high as $1.25 per superficial foot, while in the city of Montreal there are very few
JANUARY 24, i*n
offices and fiats in office buildings which are rented at a less rate than $1.50 per superficial foot. If lion, gentlemen desire to ascertain what would be a fair rental for an office in the city of Montreal they could make inquiry with regard to the point. They could go to the Messrs. Rosenthal, to the Canada Life Company, to Mr. Hope, who owns a new building which has recently been put up, to the ' Citizen ' Company, and to the owners of other buildings, which are conveniently situated in Ottawa, and I will venture to say that they will not be able to find that it would be possible to rent premises as conveniently situated as those which the government has rented at a less rental than the government is paying for the accommodation which it is now enjoying in these different buildings. And, Mf- Speaker, is not that the test?
Suppose my hon. friend's information is correct as to the price paid for the building formerly belonging to the Young Men's Christian Association by the present owners. As to that I know nothing, and the hon. gentleman has given us no evidence except his statement, which must be based upon hearsay. Is that the ground upon which we should act if we desire accommodation in the city of Ottawa, and, looking around, we find that accommodation can be had in a certain building? Are we to ascertain what the property was bought for? Is it not our duty rather to judge what the accommodation is worth to the government compared with what similar accommodation can be got for in other buildings in the city of Ottawa. I think that is the true test. If these gentlemen purchased the building for $50,000, they got a remarkably good bargain. I venture to say that that building with the land represents a cost to the association of a very much larger sum. The cost of this building to the government, including the heating and the lighting and the elevator service, does not exceed 81 -28 cents per superficial foot. For an office 15 feet square, that would be a little over $180 a year. Why, Sir, in the city of St. John, wliere real estate is not worth within 50 per cent of what it is in the city of Ottawa, $150 a year is regarded as a reasonable rent for an office of that size, which is heated and lighted and has elevator service. I doubt very much if any office accommodation can be got in Ottawa for a less price. My hon. friend has not gone around in Ottawa and sought information as to what other owners have got from other rented properties; he has not ventured to produce a single owner to testify what such premises are fairly worth; and yet, without a tittle of evidence to support him, he asks this parliament to say that I and my predecessors have been guilty of some great wrong for which we ought to be condemned. I think I have shown that we have exercised good judgment and have acted with reasonable prudence, and are paying no more as rental for these properties than would be obliged to pay to the other owners of similar properties. When the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Samuel Sharpe) comes to speak, he will say that there was a witness before the Committee on Public Accounts, who was a city assessor, and who assessed the Woods' building at 13 cents per cubic foot. Well, Mr. Speaker, if that is the basis on which the assessors value buildings of that character, which are fireproof in construction, and which have all modern conveniences, elevator accommodation, properly wired for electric lighting and provided with the best heating apparatus, all I can say is that they are assessing such property at only one-half of its cost, and less than one-half of its value. As against the statement of that witness, who is not a builder, we have the evidence of the gentleman who erected the Woods' building that it was worth in the vicinity of $270,000, and that the Canadian building which had 200,000 feet more of cubic contents, would be worth in the vicinity of $300,000. In addition to that, we have the Dominion architect, who estimates the cost of buildings which are not fireproof at not less than 23 cents per cubic foot, and buildings which are fire-proof at not less than 30 cents. As further evidence that these are thoroughly well built buildings, which are fire-proof, let me call attention to the fact that the owners receive the very lowest insurance rate which is put on the most up-to-date fire-proof buildings in Ottawa, being only 45 cents per $100 for a period of three years. There are many business men in this House who know that the insurance companies very rarely insure for more than from 75 to 80 per cent of the value; and these two buildings, which the appraisers of the Royal Trust Company have valued in the vicinity of $790,000, are insured for the sum of $590,-
000.
Now, Sir, in view of what I have stated with regard to these buildings-the Woods [DOT] building, the Canadian building, and the Queen street building; in view of the statement of the builder that the Woods building was worth from $250,000 to $275,000, and that the Canadian building would be worth in the vicinity of $300,000; in view of the fact that the appraisers of the Royal Trust Company have put the values of these three properties at about $790,000; in view of the fact that Mr. Woods some years ago disposed of these properties to the Imperial Realty Company, for stock, it is true, to the extent of a million dollars, but a considerable portion of which was sold to bona fide investors at what was regarded as a fair value; in view of the fact that the Royal Trust Company, who are the eus-



[Stage Direction]
todians of the money of widows and orphans, and whose duty it is to see that that money is safely invested, and who, in accordance with the practice of loan companies, do not advance more than 50 per cent of the value of real estate, acted on a valuation of $800,000 when it lent $400,000 on the bonds on these properties; in view of the fact that the net rental, according to the figures I have given, only slightly exceeds seven per cent; I think my hon. friend cannot censure the government on the ground that they rented buildings which net the owners from 15 to 18 per cent. As to the other buildings we have no evidence whatever, as to the cost, but I have given you the average rental per superficial foot, I have spoken of the care exercised in renting these buildings, and I have challenged the hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) to produce the testimony of a single witness before the Public Accounts Committee, or elsewhere that these offices are not worth the amount the government is paying, or that equally convenient accommodation could be obtained for less money elsewhere. The hon. gentleman has suggested that in respect to the Regal building, middlemen were employed. I deny it and I say that we knew no one in this transaction except the owner. The government desired this building for the accommodation of one of its most important departments and we rented it at so much per superficial foot, as we thought was reasonable and fair. The hon. gentleman (Mr. Blain) says we rented it from friends of the government. Let me tell him that I have no knowledge whatever of the politics of Dr. Hanna, who owns the building, but on inquiry I am informed that he has never been identified with the Liberal party in this city. So far as I know he may be a Conservative or a Liberal when he casts his vote at the poll.
Richard Blain: Who are his associates?


William Pugsley: I do not know. Does the hon. gentleman know who they are? If he does he is at perfect liberty to mention their names to the House, and I invite him to do so. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that it is too much of a habit of my hon. friend and some other hon. gentlemen who sit on the other side to hurl insinuations in regard to middlemen and insinuations as to graft in connection with public buildings and public works. To-night and at all times I defy that hon. gentleman to show that so far as my department is concerned I have ever, in connection with public buildings or in connection with any other matter, employed a middleman to negotiate for a property. Every such transaction has been carried on between the department and the owners of the property and in the light of day. We did not buy the Regal Mr. PTTGSLEY.
building because we knew that in a few years when we had the new departmental block erected we would not require it, but accommodation was needed temporarily and we obtained it at a reasonable rent. We dealt directly with the owner and every transaction in connection with it was open and above board, and having negotiated for a considerable time we got it at the lowest rental and upon the best' possible terms. I have not examined in detail all the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee, but I have cited the evidence of an experienced builder who erected the walls and the floors, and the evidence of two men whose duty it was to place a reasonable value upon it for the Royal Trust Company. I have given, and I defy my hon. friend to contradict it, what are considered fair rentals in this city and in Montreal, where the rentals per superficial foot for these office buildings are double what we are paying in Ottawa. I feel that I can appeal with the utmost confidence to the members of this House to say that the hon. gentleman who moved the motion has not presented the slightest evidence upon which he can ask the House to vote for this amendment. In view of the facts which I have presented, I think it is an insult to the intelligence of the members of the House to ask them to sustain such an amendment.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If, Mr. Speaker, I have any objection to the wording of this resolution, it is that it is too moderate and temperate in tone. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) finds the net return to the owners on the basis of the rent paid by the government as 18 per cent, but I think the facts will} show that the rent which the government are paying comes nearer 25, and even 30 per cent in many cases. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Peel deals generally with certain buildings, but the minister failed to answer the specific case made out by my hon. friend (Mr. Blain), although he lashed himself into a frenzy and fury in connection with a charge yet unmade in regard to the Canadian building and the Woods building. There is an old adage that a guilty conscience needs no accuser, and when the Minister of Public Works indulged in frenzy and fury in defending the Woods and Canadian buildings no doubt his conscience told him that, to use his mild term, the government was paying more than a shade over 7 per cent. The whole defence set up by the Minister of Public Works was based upon a wrong hypothesis. He rested his case with regard to the Woods building and the Canadian building on the valuation made by two men on behalf of the Royal Trust Company, but it is sig-

nificant that these two valuators were not produced as witnesses before -the Public Accounts Committee to tell us on what their valuation was based. I have heard . the Minister of Public Works object to accepting secondary evidence but there never was a clearer case of secondary evidence than the evidence he produced tonight, when the men who pretended to value the Canadian building and the Woods building were not called jbefore the Public Accounts Committee but their written report was put in. I am safe in assuming that their valuation wras based, not upon the actual value of the land and the cost of construction, but on the exorbitant and outrageous rentals guaranteed this company for ten yeaTS by this government. Any one who has any knowledge of the conditions in this country knows that a fair net return to a landlord is not much more than 6 per cent on his investment; and in Ottawa, by reason of the speculative value of property, landlords do not, according to the evidence of the city assessor, get more than 31 per cent net. The Minister of Public Works himself in this House said that 6 per cent was a reasonable return on money invested in real estate; but when he rented a building constructed by this government to one of the officials of this government, and was asked -what rent he was going to ask, he replied that he would ask for the reasonable return of 4 per cent. Yet he has been paying 25
per cent, in the case of the Woods building, as the landlord's net return, and 30 per cent on the Canadian building.
The hon. minister says that the assessment is not a proper method of calculating the cost of the building. I admit that in most cases the assessment will not show the actual cost of construction. But in this instance the assessor, when put in the box, was asked how he arrived at the estimate he had made, he replied that he compared the property with the valuations of other properties in the surrounding district and on that based his assessment. This assessment, however, was objected to by Mr. Woods. Mr. Woods said:	You have assessed too high and I want you to lower the amount; here are my books. And he opened his books and showed the assessor the cost of construction. The books of the Imperial Realty Company showed the cost of construction, and based on that cost, the return to W'oods and his associates is 25 per cent on the Woods building and 30 per cent on the Canadian building. In respect of those buildings, the assessor said they had a lifetime of 150 years, yet strange to say we are paying a return on their cost which will amount to a refund of the whole capital in four years in the one case and three and a third years in the other. Yet these buildings have a lifetime of 150 years. For the benefit of the House, I will put upon ' Hansard ' the exact figures sworn to by the assessor:
Name of Building.	Asst. Building.	Real Estate.	Total.	Rental.	Permanent Improve- ment.	Return.Woods	8 110,000 131,000	$ 5,500 7,800	$ 115,500 141,800	S cts. 25,770 20 42,536 90	S cts. 15,675 74 45,990 69	p. c. 25 30
244,000	13,300	257,300	68,314 10	61,666 43	
In the case of the Woods building, the assessment of $110,000 was taken, so the assessor swore, from the books of the company which constructed the building. The real estate cost $5,500 and the total cost of building and real estate was $115,500. Yet on this building we are paying a rental of $25,777.20. And in addition we have spent on permanent improvements the sum of $15,675.74. In other words, with respect to the Woods building we are paying a net return of 25 per cent to the landlord and in addition have improved his property to the extent of $15,675. The Canadian building is assessed at $134,000, and the real estate at $7,800 or a total of $141,800. And for a building that only cost $141,800, we are paying a rental of $42,326.90, and in addition we have paid the exorbitant sum of $45,645.69 on permanent improvements. In
other words we are paying to the landlord 30 per cent net Teturn on his investment and in addition we have expended over $45,000 on permanent improvements of a building which it only cost $134,000 to build.
The method of calculating rent is one peculiar to the present administration. In all my experience, I never before heard of a tenant renting a whole building by the superficial foot. I could understand renting one office in a building by the superficial foot; but to have the government calculate the rental it pays on the number of superficial feet in the whole building is a most extravagant method of proceeding. Of course the purpose is to give these enormous returns to the landlord by calculating the rent on the basis of the number of superficial feet. The rent is not, as it

should be, based on the cost of [DOT]construction by the landlord. It is not an amount which should give a fair and reasonable return to the landlord, but it is fixed so much per superficial foot including all the waste and vacant space, such as the elevator space, the stairway space, even the furnace room.	i


William Pugsley: Probably my hon. friend has in his mind some evidence before the committee to the effect that, including all the corridors, the rental would be 36 cents per superficial foot. The figures I have given are for the rooms actually rented and do not include the corridors or furnace room.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I would suggest that in future the minister should not continually contradict without being sure of his position and the facts. I have sat here many times and have listened to the hon. gentleman, who is usually most courteous, but he has a faculty of contradicting members on this side without being sure of his facts. In connection with this rental, I want to read a passage from the ' Hansard/ of 1909, volume 1, page 615. My hon. friend from Grenville (Mr. J. D. Reid), was questioning the minister with reference to this matter:


Mr.  J. D.@: Reid.-It has been reported to me and the proof is that judging from the size of the building I do not believe you could figure out such a rental unless they measured the hall.


Mr.   J.@: I). Currie.-And the roof.


Mr.  J. D.@: Reid.-Yes, and the cellar as well.
Mr. Pugsley.-The honourable gentleman has the unhappy faculty of assuming things to exist which do not exist in fact. The honourable gentleman is entirely mistaken in saying that the corridors were included in estimating the area. We have the most correct measurement of every room in the building.
Now, in the committee, I put this question lo the chief architect of his department, who was a witness:
Now when Mr. Pugsley stated that Mr. Reid was mistaken in saying that the corridors were included in estimating the area Mr. Pugsley was mistaken wasn't he?-A. He was mistaken in one of the buildings anyway.
Q. Referring to the Canadian building?- A. Well, the Canadian building, we have had the last lease exactly measured out.
Q. And it includes corridors you told us the last day, and the stairway?-A. That is right.
Q. And the elevator shaft?-A. That is right.
Q. As to the cellar?-A. That is right.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Public Works specifically contradicted the hon. member for Grenville (Mr. Reid), we find his chief architect of the department coming forward and declaring under oath that these measurements include all this waste space. I spoke a mo-Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
rnent ago of the enormous sums paid out for permanent improvements on these buildings.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me a moment ? Does not he remember that the lease which was based upon the superficial area, and which, as he said, included the corridors and other waste spaces, was on the basis of 36 cents or 37 cents per superficial foot


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No, I do not remember that.


William Pugsley: That is my information. The figures I have given to-night are the figures given me. by the chief architect, which are considerably more than 36 cents but in which all the corridors are excluded for the purpose of comparison and the superficial area actually occupied is alone ''considered.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I was speaking of the permanent improvements on these buildings, and said that, in addition to the permanent improvements on the Woods building amounting to $15,675.74, the sum of $45,990.69 had been spent on the Canadian building, a total on the two of $61,666.43. Now, Air. Woods stated-and the letter is on file in the minister's department-that the cost of alterations in connection with the Woods building would be only $16,000 and that he 'would make these alterations of his own accord and at his own expense. Yet, notwithstanding this letter, which shows that Mr. Woods was anxious to rent the building to the department, we find the department assuming that liability and of a total of $31,351 paying one half or $15,675.74, as I have said- within a few dollars of what Air. Woods stated would be the wdiole cost of the alterations. In other wrords, though we were supposed to pay half the alterations, according to Air. Woods' calculations, we paid all the alterations in connection with the building.
But these leases are most extraordinary, and have most extraordinary features. As I said, under the first lease, dated October 17, 1903, we find Air. Woods agreeing to make all the alterations. And before the second lease dated August 30, 1905, was executed we find Air. Woods offering to make the alterations. He was so anxious to rent to the department that he offered in a letter to the department which is on file there, to put the buildings in condition for them to immediately move into, without expense to the department. But we find the extraordinary fact that the department executed a lease under which they agreed to assume half the expense of these alterations. In other words, in the face of Mr. Woods' letter offering to make the alterations at his own expense, the department assumed half the expense

amounting to over $15,000. The government voluntarily obligated itself, under all the other leases, to pay the expense of alterations, which amounted to $61,666.43, though Mr. Woods had voluntarily offered to make these alterations at his own expense. I say that the officials of the department who are responsible for a lease of that character, and in the face of a letter such as I have spoken of, on the files, cannot be charged with incompetency; 1 think a stronger term is applicable. It is absolutely dishonest to the people of this country to have a lease executed obligating the government to spend over $60,000 in improvements when the lessor had offered to make the alterations at his own expense.
I have another charge to lay at the door tf the minister, and that is in connection with the nature of the improvements, and I say it is a very serious charge, because we know that these leases cannot be executed without authority of the Privy Council. We find q memorandum of the Privy Council which says that the government agrees to pay one-half of the ' interior fittings ' and ' necessary alterations.' But many of the improvements paid for are neither ' interior fittings ' nor ' necessary alterations,' but consist of such things as storm-sash, permanent walls,., expensive stone floors, iron stairways and even elevators-and we pay half the expense of these. By what stretch of imagination can you call elevators ' interior fittings ' or an iron stairway ' necessary alterations '? Not only that, but at page 187 of the records of the Public Accounts Committee, we find that we paid half the expense of elevators that had already been installed before the lease was excuted.


Haughton Lennox: Is that established by the evidence? .


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Yes, by the sworn evidence.


Robert Laird Borden: And no explanation of it?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: No explanation forthcoming. The renting of the Woods building was so profitable that Mr. Woods wanted to erect another building and let it out to this easy department with an easy conscience. It was a profitable business. The department determined to rent the Canadian building, and when the rental was fixed the building had reached only about the first story. Yet at the time when the department made up its mind to rent the Canadian building, there was a report from the chief architect that they required no more space. Why does the department negotiate an extraordinary lease of this kind when the chief architect declares that no more space is required by the various departments? Further,
the order in council confirming and ratifying this proposed lease speaks only of ' alterations,' half to be paid by Mr. Woods and half by the department. But they were not alterations in any proper sense, but were new work put in as the building was being erected. The architect furnished the plans for each floor as it was constructed. The order in council did not contemplate this. Only ' necessary alterations ' required after the building was erected were contemplated. But we paid some $45,990.69 for work put into the new building that was being erected * by Mr. Woods. And to-day we are paying $42,536.90 annual rental. So, in three and one-third years we would pay for the whole building.
Then, we have-shall I say?-a more discreditable feature of these leases. We find that the rents are payable months before the execution of the lease, and the owners are drawing rentals months before the buildings were taken possession of.


Haughton Lennox: Is that sworn to?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: That is sworn to, and the documents show it. The lease dated September 13, 1906, carries rent from the 1st of January, 1906, eight months and a half before the lease was executed. The lease dated April 16, 1908, carries rent from December 1, 1907, four and a half months before it was executed. Under the first lease, dated September 13, 1906, the rent runs from January 1, 1906, although possession was not given of the basement and second and third floors until May following, and of the fourth and fifth floors until February 6, of the seventh floor until January 30, 1906. So we have the government of this country paying rent four and five months before possession was secured and seven and eight months before the lease was actually executed. In other words, the lease was dated on a certain date and the rent was made to run months prior either to the execution of the lease or the taking of possession. Then we find, under the second lease, dated April 16, 1908, the rent is dated back to the 1st of December, 1907. Of the second and third floor, possession was not given until April 8, and of the fourth floor until May, of the fifth floor until December, 1907.' Consequently we find the department paying enormous' sums in rentals, and they are high rentals, for five months under the first lease, amounting to $11,387.50, before the department has any use of the buildings at all. I say the Department of Public Works is responsible for this condition of affairs. Under the second lease we paid rent for five months, amounting to $6,336.25, before the department ever took possession of the building at all.
Now. the Minister of Public Works spoke about the heating and lighting of the

buildings. I want to show that the heating of this particular building had the same extraordinary features as the rentals had. It is not based on the cost of the service, but is based on the cubic contents of the building. You have to come to the city of Ottawa and enter into the Public Works Department in order to get some knowledge of this peculiar method of paying for the heating of public buildings. It is only these two public buildings in Ottawa, under government supervision, where they hire the heating done according to the cubic contents. And how does it work out? On the sworn testimony of the chief architect of the department, he says he cubed the whole building, outside measurement. The walls are included, and the country is paying four-tenths cents per cubic foot for heating these two buildings, no allowance for outside walls, no allowance for inner walls, no allowance even for the furnace room. We are paying for heating the furnace room according to its cubic contents. Mr. Woods even claimed pay for heating the space under the sidewalk outside the buildings. Well, when we summoned witnesses before the Public Accounts Committee we find the department paying the cost of the coal, the wages of the men, and repairs, which are all the ingredients making up the cost of heating, an amount of $6,047.55. And what was this department paying for that same service? They were paying this Imperial Realty Company $9,163.51, leaving a rake-off of $3,115.96. Now, when these facts were brought out in the Public Accounts Committee they voted down a resolution which I propose to read, calling upon the government to cancel that contract. But the facts were brought out so clearly by their own witnesses, by the chief architect of the department, and by other witnesses, that the department has since cancelled the contract for heating, and has effected a saving to the country of over $3,000 in that respect. Then the Minister of Public Works referred to the lighting of the buildings. Strange to say, the government paid on the meter basis, although a commercial rate is always a flat rate. The city treasurer of Ottawa, when placed in the witness box, said that these were properly commercial rates, they should not have been paid on the meter basis at all, but should have been on the flat basis. Then we find that the department, instead of paving the city of Ottawa direct for the lighting of these buildings, pays the Imperial Realty Company, and the Imperial Realty Company pays the city of Ottawa, and the middleman again comes into evidence, and makes out of the government something like $3,000 or $4,000 a year on lighting contracts alone.


Haughton Lennox: What minister is responsible for that?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Minister of Public Works, it is in his department.


Haughton Lennox: He defied us about the middleman.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: He said there was no middleman in his department, but there is the evidence.


William Pugsley: An arrangement made before I became minister, and the amounts paid on vouchers furnished by the city of Ottawa-the identical amounts.


George Eulas Foster: Do not mention those vouchers.


William Pugsley: Yes, I will.


George Eulas Foster: Then the hon. minister will mention anything, if he will bring up a transaction like these vouchers. The minister has never looked into it.


William Pugsley: I have looked into it.


George Eulas Foster: Then for the sake of Mr. Woods, never open your mouth about it.


William Pugsley: I am not concerned about Mr. Woods, what I am concerned about is that Mr. Ellis, the treasurer of this city, should have furnished these vouchers professing to show the identical allowance which were paid by the Imperial Realty Company to the city of Ottawa, the identical amounts contained in the accounts which were rendered by the Imperial Realty Company to the officers of my department and which were paid.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The chief architect of the department was put in the witness box before the Public Accounts Committee and gave evidence. Speaking about the electric lighting contracts that this government had with the Imperial Realty Company, and speaking as to the illegitimate and illicit profit that the Imperial Realty Company was making out of the department, Mr. Ewart gave this evidence on page 182:
In view of the evidence that has been adduced before the committee, would you, as chief architect of the department would recommend the cancelling of them?-A. Well, I would.
Then on page 204 we have the evidence of the deputy minister, Mr. J. B. Hunter, who says:
Q. So that if the Imperial Realty Company were not paying the city the amount they were collecting from the department, the department would be entitled to reimbursement? -A. I would certainly go after them and get it. That is our understanding, that they pay the city and we pay them. If they are not doing it I will have to go after them.
Q. In that case you are entitled to reimbursement?-A. We are.

Now, in answer to a question that was placed upon the Order Paper not long ago, whether they had instituted an action against the Imperial Realty Company to recover this amount, the Minister of Public Works, although an astute and clever lawyer, said he had referred it to the Justice Department for an opinion. Now surely, with the minister's experience, and parliamentary knowledge, and astuteness, and cleverness in the law, he did not need to refer a question so simple to the Department of Justice before taking action against the Imperial Realty Company. I desire at this juncture to say a word in regard to the lighting contract where the facts were so conclusively proven, notwithstanding all the obstruction that was possible in the Public Accounts Committee on the part of the Minister of Public Works himself, and of the Liberal members of that committee. In this connection I desire to call attention to a matter that came up not long ago in the House when the Minister of Public Works said that he was not present in the Public Accounts Committee when this contract was ruled out which would have disclosed the whole facts, and that the Imperial Realty Company were getting an illegal profit out of the lighting contract. I quote from page 874 of ' Hansard ':


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Minister of Public Works objected to the production of the original contract because he said it was a private document.


William Pugsley: No, I was not present when the chairman ruled out that contract.


George Eulas Foster: Hear, hear.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Did I hear the minister say ' hear, hear '?
Mr. PUGSLEY'. No, it was from your own side.	.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: What does the minister say now?


William Pugsley: You will hear from me by and Iby if you give me an opportunity.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The Minister of Public Works, and all his cohorts surrounding him, objected to the production of the original contract, because it would disclose the amount this company was paying the city of Ottawa for its light.


William Pugsley: I have made the statement that I was not present in the committee when objection was taken to the original contract, and when it was ruled out.
I want to say, with reference to that particular statement, that I have here a certified copy of the proceedings ibefore the Public Accounts Committee, certified to by Air. Thomas S. Howe, and this i.s another instance when the Minister of Public Works was so ready to contradict
a member of the House without being sure of his facts. I had not this document in my hand at the time, but the minister deliberately contradicted me in this House and stated that I was not stating facts, and that he was not present. Now, we have the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee certified under the hand of the clerk.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend
give me the page?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 874 of 'Hansard.'


William Pugsley: No, but the reference to the proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I will send you over this document when I read it,
Ottawa, Friday, April 29, 1910.
Committee met at three p.m., Afr. War-burton presiding.
Examination of Mr. Ernest Linton resumed by Mr. Sharpe.
During the examination of this witness he was asked to produce a contract between the Woods Company, Limited, and the Ottawa City Electric Light Company, and he refused to produce the contract.
Whereupon the chairman was asked for a ruling, and he ruled that the witness need not produce the said contract unless he chose so to do.
From this ruling Mr. Sharpe appealed.
The yeas and nays being asked for, and the question being put, the ruling of the chairman was sustained on the following division, namely:-
Yeas-Messrs. Chisholm (Inverness), Cong-don, Fowke, Lanctot (Richelieu), Logie, MacNutt, Michaud, Nesbitt, Pardee, Prowse, Pugsley


Some hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


William Pugsley: Would my hon. friend give me the date of that?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: April 29, 1910.
-Reid (Restiguoche), Richards, Schell, Sinclair-15.
Nays-Messrs. Blain, Boyce, Crosby, Good-eve, Lennox, Aliddlebro, Rhodes, Roche, Sharpe (Ontario), Wallace-10.
The result 'being fifteen to ten.
I hereby certify that the foregoing is a true extract from the Minutes of Proceedings of the Public Accounts Committee held on Friday, April 29, 1910.


TBOS. S. HOWE,
[Stage Direction]
Clerk Public Accounts Committee. Ottawa, November 25, 1910.
Does the Minister of Public Works dispute the certificate of the clerk of the Public Accounts Committee? Does he still persist in saying that he was not present obstructing' the work of the committee and upholding the rulings of the chairman ruling out legitimate, and pertinent evidence which would disclose the facts with regard to this nefarious contract?
William Pugsley: My recollection now that I have seen this statement is exactly the same as it was when the matter came up previously. My recollection is that the chairman had ruled out the agreement before I came into the committee room.


Some hon. MEMBERS: No, no.


William Pugsley: That is my recollection of it. Will my hon. friend pardon me for saying that it is rather a strange thing that my hon. friend has not the proceedings of the committee for April 29.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I could not get them.


William Pugsley: How could my hon. friend get the certificate and not get the report itself?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Because the proceedings are on file and posted in the book of the clerk of the Public Accounts Committee. He has only one copy of them posted in his book. Does the minister dispute it?


William Pugsley: I do dispute it ; I am satisfied it is not true.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: There is Mr Howe's signature.


William Pugsley: Well, I am satisfied it is not true. My recollection is just as clear as it can 'be-I may be mistaken, but I do not think I am. I am sure I am not mistaken because I remember distinctly that what took place was this-


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Speaker-


William Pugsley: Mv hon. friend appeals to me, and I have the right to answer, Mr. Speaker.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Mr. Speaker-


James Kirkpatrick Kerr: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Sharpe, Ontario) has the floor.


William Pugsley: Very well, but the hon. gentleman asked me


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I asked you what your recollection was ; that is all.


William Pugsley: My recollection is that when I came into the committee room tlie hon. gentleman sought to give secondary evidence of the contents of a document which had been previously ruled out by the chairman, ruled out before I entered the room, and that is what I objected to. I took the ground that as the chairman had ruled that document out, as I was informed when I came into the room, my hon. friend ought not to be allowed to give secondary evidence of its contents.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If that is the hon. gentleman's understanding with reference to the chairman's ruling, how can my hon. friend, in face of that document Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).
certified under the hand of the clerk _ in Public Accounts Committee and which shows that his recollection is in direct conflict with the facts as set out in that certificate, make the statement which lie has? But, notwithstanding all the obstruction to which we are subjected in this investigation before the Public Accounts Committee


William Pugsley: To which you were not subjected.
Mr. SHARPE (Ontario)

the facts were
so patent that at last we succeeded in having them given and placed upon the record in such a clear and distinct way that even the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) and the Liberal members of the committee voted unanimously for a resolution to request the government to cancel the electric light contract and save the country $3,000 or $4,000 a year.


William Pugsley: Which they all voted for.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Which they all voted for!
Moved by Mr. Sharpe, seconded by Mr. Carvell, that whereas the expense to the government during the last year for lighting the Woods and Canadian buildings amounted to $9,465.91, paid to the Imperial Realty Company, which company is not an electrical lighting company; and whereas the city of Ottawa has a standard schedule of prices whereby the lighting would cost only $5,040 or less, thereby effecting an annual saving to the country of $4,425.91 or more; therefore this committee desires to urge upon the Minister of Public Works and the government the desirability of cancelling the present arrangement and recovering the excess unjustly paid to the Imperial Realty Company, and giving the city of Ottawa or some other company the contract at lower rates; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minister of Public Works.
The question having been put, it was declared carried in the affirmative.


William Pugsley: Unanimously, was it not?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: It was carried unanimously. There was no objection to it.


Mr. TAYLOR (Leeds).: The minister did not vote against that?


William Pugsley: No, sir, I was in favour of it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Acting on the strength of that resolution unanimously [DOT] adopted by the committee the government has cancelled the contract and saved the country $3,000 or $4,000 a year, but they have not taken any action yet to recover the amount of the illegal profit from the Imperial Realty Company.


William Pugsley: The hon. gentleman has cut it down fifty per cent. Some time ago he said that it was $6,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: How the hon. gentleman does like to interrupt and draw a red herring across the trail.


William Pugsley: There is no red herring about it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: If the minister will agree to lay the papers and documents in connection with the investigation on the table of the House the House will see that the Imperial Realty Company took a rake-off of at least $6,000 a year. We knew it was $6,000, but we kept well within the mark in order to get the unanimous endorsement of the committee for the resolution that the government should cancel this contract.


William Pugsley: All I did was to call the hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that he now says it was $3,000 when before he said it was $6,000.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The resolution says it was $4,000, but the actual facts show that it was $6,000 that the company were making out of the government.


George Taylor: Were they middlemen?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: They were middlemen operating by and through and in the Public Works Department.
As we all know, the Public Works Department might have telephoned to the Electric Light Company in Ottawa and secured the same rate of $3,000 a year, but the government chose to pay the company $9,000 instead. In connection with the heating the following resolution was moved :
Mr. Sharpe moved, Mr. Blain seconding, that whereas the heating of the Woods and Canadian buildings, contrary to all established custom of the present and past governments, has been contracted for and let out to the Imperial Realty Company at the price of four-tenths of a cent per cubic foot of the total contents of the buildings, and whereas the cost of the heating of these two buildings last year amounted to the sum of $9,163.51; and whereas the cost of the coal, the wages of the men and the repairs amounted to only $6,047.55; therefore, this committee is of the opinion that the government should cancel the present arrangement, and should do its own heating, thereby saving at least $3,115.96 per annum in this item alone.
The yeas and nays being asked for, and the question being put, the motion was lost on the following division:-	_
Yeas-Messrs. Blain, Crosby, Currie (Sim-coe), Goodeve, Hughes, Lake, Sharpe (Ontario)-7.
Nays-Messrs. Allen, Carvell, Congdon. Log-gie, MacNutt, McAllister, McKenzie, Neely, Parent, Proulx, Rankin, Reid (Resfigouche) 12.
That resolution was voted down but immediately after the committee rose the department cancelled the heating arrangement, and they are to-day doing the heating themselves at a saving of $3,000 a year to the country, but when the motion being put above it was lost on the division stated in the quotation, and in the majority will be found the names of all the government supporters present. The second resolution has to do with the rentals, and as it summarizes the evidence I shall place it on record.
Moved by Mr. Sharpe, seconded by Mr. Hughes, that whereas the government has entered into certain leases with the Imperial Realty Co., respecting the Woods and Canadian buildings on Slater street, in the city of Ottawa; and whereas the annual rental of the Woods building amounts to $25,777.20 and taxes, in addition to which the government has expended $15,675.74 on capital expenditure on the building, including payment of one-half the cost of elevators in the buildings, expensive Ferrozo floors, iron stairs, &c.; and whereas the annual rental of the Canadian building amounts to $42,536.90 and taxes, in addition to which the government has expended $45,990.69 on capital expenditure on the building, including payment of one-lialf the cost of elevators erected before the lease was executed, expensive floors, iron stairway, &c., therefore this committee is of the opinion from the evidence adduced that the terms and conditions of these leases are unfair to the government and display an utter lack of care and good judgment on the part of those persons negotiating the same on behalf of the people of Canada.
The question being put, the motion was lost on division as above recorded.
On account of the obstructive tactics employed by the Liberal members of the committee this resolution was moved ;
Moved by Mr. .Sharpe, seconded by Mr. Goodeve, that whereas one of the chief functions of the Public Accounts Committee is the investigation into all questions as to the fair and reasonable price paid by the government for the various commodities sold and services rendered to the government; and whereas to properly discharge this duty it is absolutely necessary that the greatest latitude be given to members of the committee to inquire into the first cost of such commodities and services to the persons selling same to the government; therefore, the committee deprecates the unwarranted and continued obstruction of the work of the committee by some of its members, and regrets that the rulings of the chairman, Mr. War-burton, in the present investigation before the committee prevented a full and free inquiry into all the facts of the case.	,
The question being put, the motion was lost on division as above recorded.
Now, to summarize the results of the investigation into this peculiar contract- the government were forced to cancel the lighting contract, and the government were forced to cancel the heating con-

tract, and on these two items alone $8,000 or $9,000 a year was saved to the country. Again, the government were buying electric power from the Imperial Realty Company-a company that never developed any electric power at all, tout purchased it from the city of Ottawa, and on this transaction there was a rake-off on the power for the elevator alone of $1,000 a year- In connection with these contracts we have these extraordinary facts : The improvements which -were supposed to include only internal fittings or alterations but which included storm sashes. Ter-razzo floors, iron stairs, elevators already erected, all permanent improvements amounted to $61,666.46. Again we have had the leases drawn to carry the rentals for months before they were signed, and before possession was taken which involved a loss to the country of $17,723. On the heating the rake-off was $3,159.60, on the power the rake-off was $1,000, the electric light rake-off was at least $4,000 a year, making a total illegal payment to this company of $87,390, which was utterly indefensible, improper, and dishonest. The Minister of Public Works referred to the Royal Trust Company of Montreal, and I desire to say to this House that there were most extravagant speculations by reason of these extraordinary and extravagant, and outrageous rentals the minister was paying to this company. We find that the formation of the Imperial Realty Company was in contemplation when the first lease of the Canadian building was executed. _ The date of the first lease of the Canadian .building was 10th September, 1906 ; letters patent were issued to the Imperial Realty Company on 4th October, 1906;. the bargain and sale from Mr. Woods to the Imperial Realty Company was on the 20th of October, 1906 ; the date of the second lease of the Canadian building was 16th April, 1908 ; the date of the supplementary letters patent to the Imperial Realty Company 20th November, 1908 ; the trust mortgage from the. Imperial Realty Company to the Royal Trust Company was on the first of January, 1909, just a few weeks afterwards. We find that bonds were issued on January 1,	1909 for $500,000. There was no
great difficulty in negotiating bonds for $500,000 with the Royal Trust Company or any other company that had the funds to loan, on buildings the rental of which was paying 10 per cent on a capitalization of over $700,000.


William Pugsley: Hardly, if the building was not worth that.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The rentals were for ten years, and the total rentals came to something like-


William Pugsley: The lease of one building was only for five years.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: 


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: With the option of renewal.


William Pugsley: The option was to the government-, and not to the company, and it might or might not be renewed.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Knowing how easy the Department of Public Works was the Trust Company had no doubt the rentals would continue, and the lease renewed.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend think the Royal Trust Company would invest the money of the widow and the orphan on a speculation of that kind?


George Taylor: It would pay it all up in five years anyway.


William Pugsley: No.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The total rental was $68,314.10 or 10 per cent return on $680,000. There was no difficulty in negotiating a loan of $500,000 when the government guaranteed the rentals amounting to half as much again as the bond issue. But I want to say something about the bond issue. The bond issue was made on January 1, 1909, and this is a case of modern high finance. Talk about Sheldon and George Munroe, tout in this instance the Department of Public Works working in conjunction with a party favourite could put Mr. Sheldon, and Mr. George Monroe in the shade. Here we see the Imperial Realty Company negotiating the bond issue on January 1,. 1909, for $500,000 payable the first of January, 1939, or earlier, with interest at 6 per cent payable half yearly, numbered from 1 to 500, repayable by a sinking fund of $8,500 a year. To redeem a bond issue of $500,000 in 30 years they only required a sinking fund of $8,500 a year. They were getting $68,000 a year rent or in other words they were having profits of $60,000 a year, along with a sinking fund of $8,500 a year to redeem this bond issue, and out of this bond issue or mortgage they built the handsome Roxtoorough apartments. Let me do a little figuring for the benefit of the Minister of Public Works. The annual rental of the Woods building was. $25,777.20, and 30 years rent at the rate that the Minister of Public Works is paying these landlords would amount to $783,316. The Canadian building was rented for $42,536.90, and if they continue to rent the buildings at the rate the minister of Public Works rented them for, that building will bring them in $1,276,107 in the 30 years. In other words the total rentals to the Imperial Realty Company, during the currency of the bond issue will amount to $2,059,425.


William Pugsley: That assumes that after the' government lease has terminated, the-

company would be able to rent it at the same rental to other parties.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: When probably the Minister of Public Works will renew the lease.


William Pugsley: I quite agree with the hon. gentleman that the company could easily calculate on the same rental from other parties afterwards.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The hon. gentleman knows that, by reason of the growth of the city and progressive values of real estate, rentals are higher to-day than they were when he negotiated the lease; and I have no doubt that at the end of 10 years the company could rent the buildings to the Minister of Public Works at higher prices.


William Pugsley: Or to anybody else.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: At any rate, the total rentals of these two buildings In 30 years would net the company $2,059,425. The cost of these buildings, according to the evidence of a city assessor, was $257,300. So that there would be a net profit to the company of $1,802,125 in .30 years, and they would still own the building free of any claim. Among the shareholders of this company are:-J. W. Woods, 550 shares; D. R. Finnie, 800 shares, in trust; G. C. Edwards, 100 shares, in trust; Sir H. M. Pellatt, 250 shares; and Judge McTavish. There are a number of other shareholders, but I have not the list under my hand. Now, the total rentals are:-On the Woods building, $25,777.20; on the Canadian building, $42,626.90; a total of $68,314.10. The government can borrow money at 31 per cent per annum, and hence with the annual sum of $68,314.10, have borrowed $1,951,830 with which they could have erected these buildings at a cost of $300,000, and then would have had $1,651,830 in the treasury to the good. That is to say: The rent equals net income at 31 per cent on an investment of $1,951,830, while the company expended less than $300,000 in the construction of both buildings, towards which we contributed $61,666.43 in permanent improvements. Now, I submit, in conclusion, that the people of this country do not desire the various departments, under the control of ministers who are paid high salaries, conducted in this manner. Again we find that the hon. Minister of Public Works was in Winnipeg last July, and while there he made some speeches, in which he said that the only charges brought against the government "were in reference to the sawdust wharf and the electric light contract, and these were utterly untrue. The Manitoba 'Free Press,' quoting his speech, under date of J uly 13, 1910, said:-
Mr. Pugsley touched upon some criticism which he had received from the leader of the
opposition (referring to the sawdust wharf and the electric light contracts). The charges dealt with were two, which Mr. Pugsley proved to have been absurd and unfounded.
The Winnipeg 'Telegram' also of July 13, 1910, quotes the hon. minister as making that statement with reference to the electric light contract:-
There was nothing in the transaction that was not straightforward, and the opposition dare not challenge me on the floor of the House, though they make bold to use these insinuations against me in their speeches outside of the House.
When you reflect that one of the good old principles of the Liberal party was ' the ancient and undoubted right of the House of Commons to inquire into all matters of public expense,' you wonder why these hon. gentlemen go to the Public Accounts Committees and use every effort in their power to strangle investigation and to suppress the facts. When. Mr. Ernest Linton, the secretary of 'the Imperial Realty Company, was in the witness box, as there were significant features about these contracts which impressed me very seriously, I asked him if there was any official of the Public Works Department who was residing in the Roxborough apartments. At first he refused to answer, bdt finally the chairman ruled that he had to answer. Then he said that the only officials who were residing in the Roxborough apartment were the hon. member for Carleton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) and the hon. Minister of Public Works.


William Pugsley: And I suppose my hon. friend suggests that we get free rent, does he?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: I simply state what was the evidence of the secretary of the Imperial Realty Company, and the House and the country can draw their own inference. I say that the contracts were so outrageously unfair to the interests of this country that the right hon. the First Minister should appoint a royal commission to investigate the whole transaction from beginning to end.


Mr. F. T. CONGDON (Yukon Territory).: Mr. Speaker, I think the House would have more highly appreciated the course of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat if he had made the many charges which he has made throughout his speech, at a time when it was within the power of the Minister of Public Works to reply to him. It may be the practice of this House to entertain charges of this kind made in the partial manner in which these charges have been made; it may be the policy of the opposition to call the minister to his feet to reply when only a portion of the charges are made; but I venture to say that no fair-

minded man can have listened to the speech of the hon. gentleman who has just resumed his seat without coming to the conclusion that it is not a fair way in which to make charges of this character. The matters to which these charges relate are such as to be more within the knowledge of the hon. minister than of any other member of this House. He has control of them, he knows of them; matters which are unfamiliar to other members of the House are quite within his knowledge; and I have no doubt that had he the opportunity now to reply to the hon. member, he would answer him as completely and as fairly as he did the hon. member who made the motion. The hon. gentleman has recited the various leases in a way which tends to confuse the House in regard to the subject. One would think, from the manner in which he referred to them, that they all related to the same premises. If a little attention is paid to them, however, it will be found that the earliest one related to the east half of the Woods building, and as to that, the proprietor bore all the expenses of the alterations. The next related to the west half, and contained a clause by which the proprietor was to make the alterations and the government was to pay one-half the cost. The third lease related to the portion that was not included in either of the previous leases. There are two leases relating to the Canadian building, one for the west half, and the other for the east half. Now, to my mind, the question under discussion as to the propriety of the rentals paid must depend wholly upon the value of the buildings rented. It must be remembered that at the time the first lease was made there was a vast increase in the business of this country, and it was absolutely essential that the government should obtain premises in which that business could be properly carried on.	No one who is
familiar with the conditions in Ottawa as far back as 1903 can doubt that it	was utterly impossible for	the
government to secure another building as suitable for their purpose as the Woods building. At that time that was the only building in this city that could be secured. Of course it is easy to go back to many years ago when real estate in Ottawa could be bought for a song, when building was much cheaper, and take the valuation then as basis for an estimate, but that is not a fair way in which to arrive at a reasonable rental on these properties leased by the government. In making a lease for ten years, the rental is not based wholly on the value of the year of making, but on the return which the building ought to bring during the period covered by the lease. It may well be that the government, in this lease made in 1903, will be considerably the gainer, before 'its termination, Mr. CONGDON.
by the fact that the rental was fixed at that time.
I know of no way in which the value of real estate can be fixed except by taking the testimony of men who are accustomed to estimate such values. It would not have been possible to have brought before the committee better evidence of values than that given by the valuators to the Royal Trust Company. It is absurd to say that in 1908 the Royal Trust Company was influenced, in the loan it made to the Im-oerial Realty Company, by the fact that there were still a few years to run on the leases made in 1903 and 1905. That certainly would be a very -small element in determining the value put upon the buildings as security for the loan. Turning, then, to the report of these valuators, we have the most explicit evidence as to what they considered to be the values of these different buildings. We have these values defined in various ways. We have the Queen street property estimated to be worth $68,975. On this the rental paid is $5,300, and I do not think that can be called an excessive rental. The next lot is the Woods property, which is estimated as worth $288,350. There is a lease of that building reserving a rental of $25,777. The next building is the Canadian, estimated by these valuators at $433,870, and the rental is $43,536. Taking these various properties as estimated in this valuation, they aggregate $791,195, and the total rental is $73,000, very considerably less than 10 per cent, and only about 10 per cent if, from the $791,000 you deduct the amount paid by the government on alterations.
My hon. friend criticised the various provisions in the leases and the various transactions with regard to alterations, and apparently confused the leases. No doubt in the first lease the cost of the alterations was paid wholly by the proprietor, but only half in the second lease. And in a second lease it is not unusual for tne proprietor to change the terms of the first. No doubt in 1903 every one -who knew anything about real estate in Ottawa expected a prompt and quick rise in prices and values. In 1905, when the second lease was made, such a rise had taken place, and from time to time since there has been such an increase that the rentals paid by the government are fair and just, if you take the whole period covered by these leases and strike the average.
My hon. friend talked of a rake-ofi as though there was such a thing in respect to the heating and lighting. The evidence shows clearly that the Imperial Realty Company meant to obtain a larger amount for these purposes than they were entitled to, but the moment the minister discovered that the vouchers were not in accord with the amounts charged, he suggested that

action should be taken to cancel the contract.
My hon. friend charges some of the members of the Public Accounts Committee which investigated this matter with having obstructed the investigation, and put every obstacle possible in the way of securing a full disclosure. Well, in my opinion, no one can read the report of the evidence taken before that committee without coming to the conclusion that the very fullest and freest investigation was allowed. The very statement my hon. friend makes that the committee unanimously recommended the cancellation of this lighting contract shows that the committee was ready to do what was fair and just. There may have been one or two rulings of the chairman in which the hon. gentleman did not agree, but that frequently happens. In any court of justice one occasionally meets with decisions ruling out evidence, which decisions the counsel on one side is sure not to approve. But you cannot read the evidence given before the Public Accounts Committee without seeing that every possible opportunity was given to investigate these matters in every line and branch, and if the members of that committee did not do so the fault was their own.
The charge has been made that middlemen were employed, but there is no evidence to sustain it. The evidence, on the contrary, shows that the original owner was the only party who had any dealings with the minister. Even with regard to the heating and lighting, to which the hon. gentleman refers as though there was a rake-off, the profit, whatever it was, was made by the proprietor, who wrote to the minister that he was charging only what he paid those who did the heating and lighting.
I.	submit that the ground of this matter could have been better covered by the minister himself than it could possibly be by any other member of this House. Had these charges been made, as they should have been, covering all the various buildings, covering fill the items in respect of which any accusation is made by the opposition, and the minister thus given an opportunity *of meeting them, there would be some satisfaction in our knowing that the gentleman who possessed {ill the knowledge and information with regard to these matters was given a fair and just opportunity to meet these charges. It is easy enough to go into figures. An hon. gentleman who can work out such figures as my hon. friend from Ontario has is wasting his time when he spends it on an investigation by a committee of this House. He ought, instead, to be out in the high financial world engaged in making money. It is easy to take figures and estimate the cost of buildings at a less amount than they are actually worth and then estimate the rental
r.i
cn that estimate and say that what is paid is excessive. It is easy to do this and then point out what a saving would have been effected had the rent been based on a lower value than the proprietor wrould have accepted.


Mr. A. S. GOODEVE (Kootenay).: The hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Pugs-ley), in answering the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), attempted to read into the resolution something which had not been put there by the mover of it. As a mere matter of courtesy, following the usual precedent, the hon. member for Peel had notified the Minister of Public Works that this question would be brought up. And I would say to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Congdon), and to the Minister of Public Works and the members of the government, that this investigation has been before the House and the country since last session, so there can be no complaint on the part of the Minister of Public Works that he has no knowledge, when he was notified by the hon. member for Peel, what matter was to he taken up or what the subject of the amendment would be. But I wish to refer again to the peculiar manner of entering into the debate of the Minister of Public Works. He suggested that the member for Peel had been rather ashamed or afraid of what he had undertaken, and had reduced the percentage rental of these buildings by two percent, and the minister suggested that this was a very serious thing. He did not hesitate to read into the resolution a matter of 25 per cent, and, setting up that straw man in an attempt to deceive the House in the argument he adduced. As the percentage named, was 20 per cent, and not 25 per cent, he attempted to read into the resolution an increase of 25 per cent. In the same way, in arguing the rent per superficial foot of these buildings, the Minister of Public Works does what he -attempted to do before in a similar debate in this House. He referred to the Citizen building, but he did not tell this House that any one going in to rent a room there was paying 90 cents a square foot for the space he occupied and that he got heat, light, repairs, snowcleaning, taxes, insurance and all the expenses in connection with the building, together with the advertising of a large central newspaper building of that kind which in itself is no small matter to any man doing business. These were not figured in in the comparison he made of 81 cents per square foot. That covered the entire building. And not only was he paying 81 cents per foot of the building, basement and attic included, hut, in addition, he was paying for heating, lighting, repairs, and the remov'd of snow'. This was the lease made in regard to the Seybold building. The Minister



of Public Works refused to accept the certified copy of one of the officials of this House, but I have here a printed report of the Public Accounts Committee, printed by the King's Printer, and dated Ottawa, 1910, No. 3. Though the minister refuses to accept a statement certified by one_of the officials, he surely will not refuse to accept the report of one of the committee of this House, printed by the King's Printer. At page 142, I find in a discussion of the very contract we have had before, the House to-night, and on which the arguments of the hon. member for North Ontario were based, the following:-


William Sora Middlebro: -The hon. minister has begged the whole question.


William Pugsley: -In what way?


William Sora Middlebro: -Because you are presupposing that you know this witness is going to say he will not answer the question.


William Pugsley: -Not at all.


William Sora Middlebro: -Excuse me, now, by your interjection you are intimating to the witness that he need not answer, before you know whether he will object or not.


William Pugsley: -Not at all, what I am objecting to is this, and every member of this committee has the right to object to it, to the giving by verbal evidence the contents of a contract which is not produced and which the witness has declined to produce.


William Pugsley: Hear, hear.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I will go on to show that the witness was willing to produce the contract had it not been for the attitude of the minister.


William Pugsley: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me a moment ?


Some hon. MEMBERS: Order.


William Pugsley: I am appealing to the hon. gentleman himself, not to those who are crying ' Order.' But, with the permission of my hon. friend, I will ask him if he does not think that that absolutely corroborates my statement when I say that Mr. Middlebro is seeking to get verbal evidence of the contents of the document? Previous to that time, the document had been produced, and had been taken possession of by the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), but the chairman had ruled it out of evidence, and had ordered the hon. member to hand it back. That is the information that was furnished me, and that was why I said before the committee at the time of which he speaks that Mr. Middlebro was trying to get in verbal evidence of the contents of a document.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: But the minister said, notwithstanding the evidence as certified by the clerk, that he was not present on that occasion.


William Pugsley: I must correct my hon. friend. I made no such statement. I Mr. GOODEVE.
said I was not present when the chairman ruled out the written contract. I came in afterwards and took objection to the attempt to get in secondary evidence of the contract. The hon. member for North Grey (Mr. Middlebro) tried to get in, in a very ingenious way, verbal evidence as to the contents of a contract that had already been ruled out by the chairman.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: But the evidence shows that the minister was there from the beginning and remained to the end, for his name appears as voting when the vote was taken.


William Pugsley: I may have been there at the end, but not at the beginning.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The minister was present and refused to allow us to hold that contract until we were through with the investigation. That was the whole dispute. We desired that the papers, as in all these investigations, should be freely and frankly laid before this committee and this House. I will show that the minister was there, not as the Minister of Public Works, to assist in making known the facts, but he was there to prevent the witness giving evidence which the witness was prepared to give, and a portion of the committee desired to hear:-[DOT]


William Sora Middlebro: -The Minister of Public Works, by taking the stand that he has, is taking the stand that he is the private solicitor for this gentleman who is in the box.
That is exactly what I understood, and I was present.


William Pugsley: -How absurd.


William Sora Middlebro: -He is, because supposing after you had made this objection, the witness says, ' I do not mind answering at all.'


William Pugsley: -That is not proper evidence.


William Sora Middlebro: -Then you have no right to interject your objections until you know whether the witness objects to answering or not. You are taking the position of oounsel on this question for the witness.
Hon. Mr. PUGSLEY-The ground I have taken is this-	.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: -You have taken it three or four times already.	[DOT]
Yet the hon. minister said on the floor of this House that there was no desire to prevent a free investigation into the questions that were at issue at that time.


William Pugsley: And I say so still, but it should be by proper evidence.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: 


William Sora Middlebro: -Supposing the witness
says, after you have made that objection, ' I do not mind giving the contents of that document.'


William Pugsley: -He might say it, but he has not the right to say that.


William Sora Middlebro: -He has the right to say

it if he likes, he is the only man who has the right to say whether he will answer the question or not.


William Pugsley: -No, he is not. Will you say that a witness has the right to enter into a dispute here and to be the judge whether he will give by verbal evidence the contents of a written document?


Mr. BOYCE.: -Are you the judge?


William Pugsley: -Yes, and every member of this committee is the judge and the chairman is the judge of that.


William Sora Middlebro: -Does this gentleman represent the Woods Company?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: -Yes.


William Sora Middlebro: -Hasn't he a right to make any admissions he chooses, hasn't he the right to give any evidence he likes if it is true?


William Pugsley: -If it is true. I will answer that in a moment.


William Sora Middlebro: -Either yes or no, has he the right to give any evidence he likes if it is true?


William Pugsley: -You cannot always answer a question with yes or no. Neither this witness or any other witness has the right to give the contents of any document without producing the document.


William Sora Middlebro: -Concerning his own company, if it is against his own company.


William Pugsley: -No matter who it is against.


William Sora Middlebro: -It is against his own company.


William Pugsley: -That has nothing to do with it. Because a man says ' I am a fool ' it does not follow that he has any right to say it.


William Sora Middlebro: -Do you mean to say that if this man came here and said ' I am getting that electricity for one-half the price I am selling it to the government,' he cannot produce the contract?


William Pugsley: -He is not obliged to produce the contract himself.
Yet in face of that evidence we find the Minister of Public Works refusing to allow the witness to give us the necessary information whereby we can learn whether this country is paying unduly through a middleman.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend deny that long before that the chairman had ruled out the contract and I was objecting to secondary evidence of it?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: That was your own opinion, to which other members of the committee took exception. The whole evidence goes to show that it was with the greatest difficulty the opposition members on that committee could get the necessary evidence to prove, as eventually it was proved, that there was a large rake-off through middlemen, in the heating, lighting and using of power in this building. I think my hon. friend from North Ontario has dealt very fully with that question, and he has proved conclusively that an investigation into this question is sadly 74}
needed. Now, there is another building that has been referred to by the Minister of Public Works, and while I am not going to deal with it along the same lines as the other buildings, I want at least to show the care and the interest that the Minister of Public Works has for those with whom he is doing business, and who are on terms of friendship with this government. On coming down to this session I found, when the Auditor General's Report was laid on the table, this letter at page V-356:
Audit Office, March 31, 1910.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your application No. 991, for $2,500, in favour of the Otis-Fensom Elevator Company, being the cost of installation of one passenger elevator in the Seyhold Block, Ottawa.
The Seybold Block is a building rented by the government for use as the local custom house.
We would like to have a copy of the lease, to see how the cost of this permanent improvement is to be distributed between the landlord and tenant.
I am, sir, your obedient servant, FREDERICK HAYTER, for A.G.
In that letter you will see that the Auditor General refused to issue his check for $2,500, the amount asked for the installation of that elevator. A copy of the lease sent by the office of the Minister of the Public Works contained a clause whereby the lessor was to provide a fully equipped passenger elevator, at the cost, of course, of the lessor: Now what is the answer of the Minister of Public Works and his department?
Public Works Department,
Ottawa, April 28, 1910.
Sir,-Replying to you favour of the 25th instant referring to terms of lease of the Seybold block, relating to elevator, I may say that on the report of the chief architect that the elevator which was in the building when leased had got into a condition incapable of repair and endangered the lives of those making use of it, the department called upon the owner of the building to install a new machine, but could get no reply from him. As an elevator in the building was absolutely essential, the department decided to make the installation and pay for same in the meantime until action was taken by the owner.
I am, sir, your obedient servant,


J. B. HUNTER, D.M.
[Stage Direction]
You will notice there that the only reason given why the Department of Public Works undertook to install an elevator at the public expense, although they had a contract under seal that the lessor was to supply the elevator, was because, he failed to answer when tKey called his attention to the fact that he had not lived up to his contract.
Audit Office,
Ottawa, May 3, 1910.
Sir,-I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of April 28, 1910, respecting the in-
[Stage Direction]
stallation of an elevator in the Seybold block, stating that the department had called upon the owner of the building to install a new machine but could get no reply, and that, as an elevator was essential, the department *decided to make the installation and pay for the same until action was taken by the owner.
As the elevator was installed under agreement with the department, the responsibility for payment to the contractor rests with the government, and with that view assent has been given to the issuance of the check to the Otis-Fenson Elevator Company.
Under the terms of the lease, the owner agrees to supply an elevator fully equipped and ready for use. Please retain from the owner of the Seybold block any sums of money which may become due to him for rental of the said building until the department has been fully reimbursed for all expenses incurred on account of the installation of this elevator.
I am, sir, your obedient servant.

[Stage Direction]
.	For Auditor General.
_ Now, having some experience last year in the Public Accounts Committee, I thought I would like to know whether the order of the Auditor General had been complied with, and whether the rents had been retained to reimburse the government for the installation of this elevator. Therefore 1 put this question on the Order Paper, 'Hansard' page 1333:
Has tbe government been reimbursed for the $2,500 paid by them for the installation of an elevator in the *Seybold building, as per letter of the Auditor General dated May 81, 1910? If so, how and when?.
William Pugsley: The Department of Justice now has under consideration the question whether owner or department should pay under the terms of the lease.
A most remarkable state of affairs. Here we have a lease regularly drawn made between the government of Canada and the owner of this building in which h# agrees to install a passenger elevator


William Pugsley: And what did he do.


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I will show that he did not do it.


William Pugsley: The question was whether he should be obliged to put in a second one.	i


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: I have read the letters up-to-date, and we have seen there was no reservation of that money, and we will see why.	[DOT]	'
Department of Public Works,
Accountant's Office, Ottawa, August 8, 1910.
Memo, for assistant deputy minister.
The account to be retained from Mr. Seybold is $2,766.29, but I do not understand the order for that retention to be so imperative as to call for immediate action.
We are in actual possession of the building on a long lease, and the rental accruing between the present time and the 31st March Mr. GOODEVE.
next will be more than sufficient to cover the amount.
Under the circumstances, and in view of Mr. Seybold's explanation in conversation with yourself and myself last week, I consider that we might safely pay him the quarter's rent which is now due.
(Sgd.) A. KINGSTON,
Accountant.
We have another letter in connection with that letter, a surprising one, because one is at a loss to know whether the writer, being a lawyer, was retained by the lessor, Mr. Seybold, or whether it is simply as a matter of friendship that he undertakes out of good will to give his advice to this government and tell them what they ought to do under the circumstances.
Ottawa, Sept. 27, 1910. Hon. Wm. Pugsley, D.C.L., P.C., M.P., Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,-Referring to the conversation which Mr. J. A. Seybold and I bad with you to-day, in reference to the claim which the department has made upon him to pay for the new elevator which was installed by the department in Mr. Seybold's building, which was leased to the government by indenture of lease, dated the 5th day of May, 1908; I beg to state that I can see nothing in the lease which calls upon Mr. Seybold to pay for the installation of a new elevator.
The facts, with regard to the elevator, are shortly these:
The department had this building under lease for the census, and at that time installed a new elevator under the terms of the lease. The lease ran out, and after ah interval of a year or so, a new lease was entered into in 1908, and the clause in the new lease which the department evidently relies on, is as follows : ' The lessor also hereby covenants and agrees to provide in said building an elevator, fully equipped and ready for use, to be operated by the lessee.'
The government took possession of the building on tlie 5th of May, 1908, and for nearly a year, or to be accurate, eleven months, maintained the passenger elevator which was fully equipped and ready for use, as provided for in the lease.
I feel sure that you will agree with me, after a perusal of the lease, that Mr. Seybold cannot be called upon by the government to pay for this new elevator.	,
I have the honour to be, sir,
Yours respectfully, (Sgd.) H. B. MoGIVERIN.


An hon. MEMBER.: Is that the member of parliament?


Arthur Samuel Goodeve: The member of parliament. We have after the reception of that letter a remarkable change. We find that evidently he has great influence with the department because we have another letter which is as follows :
Ottawa, 11th October, 1910.
Sir,-I am desired by my minister to refer to you enclosed communication of Mr. Me-

Giverin, M.P., and to ask for legal opinion whether this department is warranted in withholding, under the clause referred to in the lease, from the rent of this building, an amount to cover the cost of putting the elevator in serviceable condition.
I enclose for your information this department's file in the matter, No. 245, in which you will note a letter from me to Mr. J. A. Sey-bold, under date of March 24, 1909, calling on him to install a new machine; also correspondence from the office of the Auditor General in this connection, under date of April 25 and May 3, 1910.
I have the honour to be, sir
Your obedient servant,
(Sgd.) J. B. HUNTER,
*	Deputy Minister.
The Deputy Minister of Justice,
Ottawa.
Then we have another letter that I would like to read in conjunction with the letter from Mr. McGiverin, and it is from the chief architect :
Chief Architect's Office,
Public Works Department,
November 14, 1910.
J. B. Hunter, Esq.,
Deputy Minister,
Public Works Department.
I am returning correspondence re elevator in Seybold building. In reference to the question of the deputy Minister of Justice, ' I have to ask therefore whether the lessor provided at the time you entered into possession of the property under lease, an elevator fully equipped and ready for use.'
When the department first rented the building for Census Branch, the elevator was a freight elevator, and the lessor changed it to a passenger elevator, but it never gave satisfaction. When the building was re-leased in May, 1908, for customs purposes, the same elevator was in it, and the long room being on the second floor, the elevator was in constant use by the public, but it did not give satisfaction and was continuously requiring repairs, which were made by and at the expense of this department. Complaints were so frequent that the elevator was examined by our chief electrician, and he reported that the mechanism was beyond repair, and the elevator was dangerous. New mechanism has been put in and the elevator is now in good condition.
(Sgd.) D. EWART,
Chief Architect.
Now, after reading these letters in connection with the lease, there is only one inference to be drawn, and not an inference, as_ the letters themselves actually prove this condition. It is that the building was formerly leased to the Dominion government for census purposes. At that time there was in the building a freight elevator. There seems to be some confu->V5^.-^e*'^veen the chief architect, and Mr. McGiverin as to who altered it into a passenger elevator, the one stating that it was done at the expense of the lessor, and the other stating that it was done at the
expense of the lessee. In either case it was evidently unsatisfactory. That is admitted by both letters, but it is further proven by the fact that when the government undertook to renew the lease of this building they specifically set forth in the lease, notwithstanding the fact that they knew that there was already an old elevator in the building that the lessor should instal a passenger elevator ready for use. Why? There can be only one answer-because, having used the building before and knowing that there was already an elevator, they also knew that the elevator was dangerous, that it was unsatisfactory, and for that reason they -put a clause in the lease stipulating that the lessor should furnish the government with a passenger elevator fully equipped and, of course, inspected that it might be used under the laws of the country for passengers. The government went in and took possession, and notwithstanding that they had that document, we find the deputy minister saying that because he wrote to the owner of the building and received no answer he felt that it was his duty to order the installation of a new public passenger elevator at the expense of the people of this country. I find in the Auditor General's Report in connection with that elevator that they paid out $3,031.18 although their lease called for the installation of it by the lessor. The minister objected to the resolution on the ground that they were only paying from 7 to 10 per cent in rental, and yet we find in this one case alone, certified to by the Auditor General, certified to by the chief architect, and the deputy minister of his department, that they voluntarily expended $3,031 or an amount equal to 47 per cent of the rental for one year for an elevator in ia building that they had no right to pay for. Even in the Auditor General's Report it distinctly states that they had no right to pay it, and the deputy minister states himself in his letter that they were only paying this in the meantime because they feared the danger of the old elevator that had been condemned. Then we find them endeavouring to shelve this problem, as they shelve other problems, by saying that they had referred it to the Department of Justice. This is another instance of carelessness in the handling of the funds of the people of this country. I think we are not using too strong language when we speak of rake-offs of this kind. I have put in a question, and I hope to receive through the Public Acounts Committee the total amount which has been expended toy this government in alterations, repairs and capital expenditures on this building. I was in hopes that I would have had these returns before this question came up in the House, but we will probably find it necessary to

deal with the question later on when we get all these details. In the meantime I want at least to enter my protest against the manner in which the administration of the department with regard to these rented buildings is carried on.


Mr. D. D. McKENZIE (Cape Breton N.).: The observations of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Goodeve), who has just taken his seat do not call for any strenuous reply from the government side of the- House. He has given us some history in connection with the elevator, which history does not reflect the slightest discredit on the administration of the Public Works department. It turns out that a certain elevator used for passengers in one of these buildings is found to be in a defective condition and that human life might be jeopardized. The deputy minister in compliance with the authority which the lease gave him, called on the proprietor of the building to put the elevator ip good condition according to the terms of the lease as he understood them. The moment the deputy minister did that, he put himself in a position to charge the cost of that elevator against the proprietor of the building, should he refuse to take action, and if the government are entitled under the lease to do so, they can deduct the cost of that elevator out of the rental. The deputy minister of Public Works was charged with the responsibility of seeing that the elevator was safe, and would any sensible man suggest that instead of taking immediate action, he should go into a court of law to get a mandamus or injunction against the owner of the building, when in the meantime, those using the elevator might be killed. Had an accident happened, would it avail the deputy minister of Public Works to say that in order to avoid the criticism of members of the opposition and to save a few paltry dollars, he had delayed action in making the elevator safe for the use of passengers. The elevator story therefore may be eliminated from a consideration of the case for it affords no proof whatever that there was any remissness on the part of the government; on the contrary, the action which was taken reflects credit on the department. It is a matter of common occurrence that there is difference of opinion between landlords and lessees as to the construction of an agreement, and pending a settlement of that dispute before a proper tribunal the deputy minister of Public Works removed the cause of danger as any honest conscientious man would do. Surely it is time enough to blame the government when they are found to be in fault, and pending a decision on this point is it not at least decent, to withhold criticism. So far as I could learn from the hon. member for Kootenay Mr. GOODEVE.
(Mr. Goodeve), the case with regard to the elevator is still sub judice, and as I understand my hon. friend (Mr. Goodeve) is a lawyer, he will know well that the etiquette of the profession forbids him to come here and make a speech and discuss the evidence in a case which has yet to be dealt with by . the courts. I understand the hon. gentleman to be a lawyer and a good and experienced one, and I would expect him to leave this evidence alone until we have had a final decision in regard to the matter. I appeal to the members of this House as jurors who have to deal with the amendment presented by the hon. member for Peel to say that no evidence has been submitted in support of his indictment. The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve), tried to make a great point out of the part the Minister of Public Works took in the inquiry before the Public Accounts Committee, and I regret that hon. members of the opposition who sit on that committee are continuously complaining without reason, upon the alleged obstructions that are thrown in their way. I have been a member of that committee for some years and I challenge any hon. member of this House to say that I have objected to any honest or proper inquiry that ever took place there. I am in the hearing of hon. gentlemen who sit with me on that committee and I challenge them to say that I ever unduly obstructed any proper inquiry. I speak, of -course, only for myself, but l think I may be taken ,as perhaps a very ordinary sample of the Liberals who sit with me on that very important committee. I do not refer to what may have happened in years past when I was no-t a member of the committee, but my experience leads me to conclude that the practices then were not very different from what they are to-day. Hon. gentlemen opposite are making a great mistake if they think the people of this country will take much stock in this howling about obstruction unless they can produce more substantial proof of it, than they yet have been able to. I followed with some interest and concern the inquiry before the committee, and I give credit to the hon. member for North-Ontario for having pursued this question with a great deal of energy and industry, but he only made one point before -the committee and in that he was sustained by the Liberals as well as by the Conservatives. It came out in the inquiry that the department was imposed upon with regard to the lighting and that practically a fraud was being committed from day to day and from month to month. I do not know how long it lasted, but it came out flatfooted that fraud was being committed, and we all joined hands in passing a resolution that that wrongdoing should at once cease and that if there had been any money im-

properly received, it should be' paid back. I voted against every other resolution moved by the hon. member (Mr. Sharpe), at the close of the inquiry, because I did not think he had sustained the allegations he had made, I do not think he sustained the allegations he made about the heating or about the venting and I am still of the same opinion rafter hearing the evidence rehashed to-night. Speaking in a general way, I submit that the government of the country is in no different position to an individual, when they go into the market to rent buildings. They have no business to look for cheaper rentals than any other man. True, the ordinary man would not require such large buildings, and therefore the buildings required by the government are naturally few, in a city of this kind, and you consequently would expect to find the rentals for such buildings higher than for ordinary buildings.
Gentlemen of my own profession know that law books are dearer than other kinds of books, because there is only a limited market for them. Doctors, I suppose, have a similar experience. The class of buildings the government require in the city of Ottawa are a special class, different from any other kind of buildings, and for different purposes. Therefore, the supply is limited, apd those who have the supply can afford to put the price at a pretty steep figure. I suppose they know that and take advantage of it. All I wanted to know at the committee was whether the government was paying as much as others in the way of rental, no more and no less. I made that inquiry, and having satisfied myself that they werg^not paying more than the humblest individual in Ottawa who had to rent a building, I was content that the government should pay the same as other people, and therefore voted against the resolution of the hon. member for North Ontario. I am satisfied that there was not a scintilla of evidence given in support of the indictment of the hon. member for Peel. It was shown that we were paying 81 cents per superficial foot, or 90 cents, as the case might be. Is there any evidence that we could have got the accommodation for any less? If it can be shown th^t by the exercise of due diligence the department could have obtained a superficial area to suit the purposes of the government for one cent less they are to be condemned for not obtaining it. But when there is not a scintilla of evidence to show that they could have done any better than was clone, what is the use. of indicting them? They paid the price which the market demanded, and they could not get it lowered. I submit that there is not a particle of evidence of wrong-doing. Even if the rental was a little high, if the members of the government, and particularly the
department under consideration to-night, exercised the best judgment they possessed in the interests of the.people of this country, and gave the people the benefit of their judgment, honestly and squarely, are they to be indicted or condemned for having paid a cent per superficial foot one way or the other in renting buildings of the magnitude of those they have to deal with?


Richard Blain: Does not my hon. friend think 18 per cent a little high?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: There is not a particle of evidence that there is 18 per cent. My hon. friend from Peel has given us what is known in Scotland as a Scotch trial-he first hangs the accused and then tries him. The hon. gentleman asks for a verdict and he tells the jury: I have no evidence; I am putting the facts as I have them, and some time next week I will give you the evidence. Although not a lawyer, my hon. friend is not without experience and strong common sense, and he is one of the men who give tone and respectability to the opposition side of the House, and yet I must charge him with having a very crude idea of how cases should be tried.


Richard Blain: May 1 ask my hon. friend whether he disputes the facts I presented to the House this afternoon with respect to the purchase price of the property and the amount expended on it, to make the cost of it $80,000 in all to the present owners?


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I certainly cannot accept such evidence when we know nothing about it. I am not saying that my hon. friend's statements may not turn out to be correct, but so far they are not facts at all. There is no evidence before us, and we are bound in all fairness to deal with the Minister of Public Works upon the evidence submitted to us. He is charged with all manner of political crimes in connection with the leasing of these buildings, and surely he has a right as a minister of the Crown to ask his supporters and every honest man in this House to condemn him on facts, and not upon the bald statements which my hon. friend may make, however honestly he may make them. My hon. friend was asked to disclose the source of his alleged facts, but he refused to do so, telling us that some day in the Committee of Public Accounts he would give us those facts.
It is altogether unnecessary for me to go over any of the ground that was traversed by the Minister of Public Works himself. The answer he gave to the allegations contained in the indictment of the hon. member for Peel was so complete that there is nothing left for the jury even to pass upon As the old saying is, there is nothing of it left to be buried. There have been many insinuations of bad faith and what hon. gentlemen of the opposition call rake-off

in connection with these matters. With regard to the electric light contract, is there, a particle oi evidence that there was any laxity or any wrong-doing in connection with it so far as the minister or any of the officials of the department is concerned? I think it quite proper that there should be further inquiry into that matter. I have seen the papers, and I am surprised that any official of the city of Ottawa should be allowed to be a party to a transaction of that kind. Whether wittingly or not, the city of Ottawa has become a party to a dishonest transaction in enabling certain individuals or firms to obtain money to which they have no right, and I hope the Department of Public Works will, before long, be able to tell us that proper steps have been taken to recover any moneys that have improperly gone out in that way.
When insinuations of this kind are made one is almost tempted to go back and to see whence came those men who are so very honest, what are their names, and what was their former occupation. I do not like it, and it is not according to my idea of public duty or public business to go into muck-raking of any kind. I ask the hon. member for Peel, when he goes home to-night, to think over the last 30 or 40 years, and to inquire how the public works of this country were built and what is become of certain public inquiries at certain stages of this country's political history. Having done that, if lie thinks he can come forth and be the first to throw stones from a political standpoint I shall be willing to follow out some of the points he. has endeavoured to make against us to-night, but I am satisfied that, from every standpoint, the arraignment he has endeavoured to make is completely unfounded, and that if this matter came before a judge in any court he would withdraw the charges from the jury and say that there was nothing left on which to found a verdict.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member for Cape Breton (Mr. McKenzie) has spoken about the elevator in the Seybold block and he was quite right in saying that an elevator was necessary there because human lives were in jeopardy and that the department could charge the proprietor with the cost. But unfortunately it did not charge the proprietor with the cost, and consequently did not do what the hon. gentleman said it should have done. It is hardly necessary for me to comment on the hon. gentleman's remarks with reference to the Regal building because he says no evidence was given by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) with regard to that matter, if the hon. member for Cape Breton is willing to swallow that 18 per cent rent, his capacity in that respect is unusually strong.
Mr. MeKENZIE.


William Pugsley: There is no proof whatever that it is 18 per cent or even 10 per cent except the hearsay statement of the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain).


George Halsey Perley: What strikes me as the worst feature in this transaction is the business inefficiency it has shown on the part of the Department of Public Works. The minister says that they take great care in the making of these leases. Well, they certainly take great care to pay too much. I listened with much attention to the hon. member for Peel with regard to this Regal building. As respects the other buildings I have very little knowledge, but I know a good deal about the Regal building and property in the vicinity, and in my opinion my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) showed conclusively that the government was paying 18 per cent to the owners. I have no fault to find with the proprietors for having got all they could-it was a business transaction, but I have fault to find with the department for having been so unbusinesslike as to give this enormous rental. The hon. minister said there is no proof of that. Why, that the exact cost of the building was $47,500 is a matter oi public knowledge, can be seen in the registry office. All they did afterwards was to add another story or two to the building, and when completed I am safe in saying that $80,000 would be a full market price for it in this city. The minister has tried to cloud the issue by talking about rents by the square foot for other buildings rented by this government. That is a most unfair way in which to discuss the question. When I rent an office in a building by the square foot, I get the use of the elevator free, pay nothing for the hallways and as a rule get the use of the light and have the heating without charge. But in this Regal building, the government is doing all these things. All the proprietors have to pay out of their rent is the insurance.


William Pugsley: Does the hon. gentleman say that in the figure I gave of 81 -28 per square foot, I have included the hallway? Take the Regal building and all the buildings, the figures given are for the portions actually occupied for offices and do not include anything except the actual office space.


George Halsey Perley: I still say, and I submit to the minister, that the proper way to judge this rental is to compare it with the rental of other buildings rented as a whole, and not take it by the square foot at all. Every one knows that in Ottawa, as in other places, a man who buys property in the heart of the city is very glad to rent the whole building to net him 5 per cent or 6 per cent per annum, because he gets the increased value which comes regularly and steadily in all these cities. I happen to

know from personal knowledge of a lease of property behind this Regal building, slightly larger than the Regal building, and it is on Sparks street, and for that reason worth a great deal more, and it has been rented for $7,000 per annum within the last few days, and out of that the owner has to pay the insurance.


William Pugsley: What building?


George Halsey Perley: The Bryson, Graham building.


William Pugsley: How large?


George Halsey Perley: Slightly larger than this.


William Pugsley: How many stories?


George Halsey Perley: Three or four, immediately behind and in a much more valuable part than the Regal building. I did not intend to speak on this motion, but rose to make tliat statement. I consider that it is only right and nroper that the lease of the Regal building should be compared with a building rented as a whole, and it is not good business capacity on the part of this government to pay over $14,000 per annum net to the owners of the Regal building when other people are able to rent buildings in Ottawa of greater value for half the money.


Mr. E. W. NESBITT (North Oxford).: With reference to leases, it is hard to make comparisons, but the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has said that some of these buildings were rented to net the proprietor from 18 per cent to 25 per cent. Now there are many towns in which commercial buildings are renting to pay more than that on the actual investment though perhaps not on the actual value. Values are continually changing. I know' properties in Toronto that have been rented as high as 80 per cent on the cost, but still would not bring more than 7 per cent on the actual value, considering the value of the land and the value of the building, and so far as I have been able to judge with reference to departmental buildings here, they have nearly all to be constructed almost specially for the purpose of the departments. Take the building just mentioned by my hon. friend (Mr. Perley) which he compares with the one leased hy the government. The probabilities are that the building he mentioned was rented_ as it was without any particularly extensive repairs. And the probabilities are that the building rented to the department required extensive repairs in the way of elevators and other improvements for the department.
Now, these extensive inside repairs would cost a good deal of money. My hon. friend says they only added a couple of stories. Well, a couple of stories properly added to the building, with the repairs necessary to fit the building for occupation by a department of the government, might cost a great deal of money, and it is perfectly fair to add the actual cost. Suppose they bought the building for $47,000, and expended $25,000-say $75,000 altogether. They might have so improved that building as to make it worth $50,000 more in the eyes of any real estate valuator. It is a common practice among real estate valuators to take the gross rental at 10 per cent in order to pay the investor 6 per cent net on his money. The building must be in very excellent condition in which a gross 10 per cent will net the owner 6 per cent by the time he pays his ordinary wear and tear repairs. Now, as to the Canadian building and the others that were inquired into so much in the Committee of Public Accounts: I was in the committee a good deal of the time, and when the Minister of Public Works says that when the question was raised that the chairman ruled out of order, he was not there, I believe he is absolutely right. The vote was taken on a question of sustaining the chairman's decision.


William Pugsley: And the report shows it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The members on our side did not dispute the right of members on the other side to inquire into this question, and to compare the cost of lighting and heating with that in any other buildings of a similar size in town, or to get the cost of lighting and heating-of lighting more especially-from the electrical department of the city." But I remember saying that they had no' right to inquire into the private agreement between the Realty Company and the lighting department. I said, and I still say, that that was beyond what we had the right to inquire into. I thought these hon. gentlemen had every right to compare the cost of lighting and heating with that of similar buildings elsewhere in the city. Now, as a matter of fact, when the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) and others proved that these people were getting what he calls a rake-off, that is, getting a profit' out of the light, we immediately joined with them and the Minister of Public Works cancelled the contract. It appears that the contract was made many years ago when the government were using only a part of the building, and, for the sake of convenience, the owner agreed to light the part used by the government at the same proportionate cost that he was paying. They did not suspect him, I suppose; in any event, they did not know-at least, I do not think they knew-that they were paying more for the lighting than he was paying. It turned out by the evidence before the committee, that, apparently, they were, and the contract was immediately cancelled.


Robert Laird Borden: I was not a member of this committee, and perhaps I may be allowed a question for information. I thought the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt)
. said that he was opposed to inquiring into what the Realty Company had paid for the lighting?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I said that was a private contract.


Robert Laird Borden: How would the hon. gentleman have found out about the rake-off?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It was simply the case so far as that is concerned.


Robert Laird Borden: But if you were not at liberty to inquire into it, how could you ever correct' it, suppose that an unjust amount were charged to the government?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We took it in comparison with what we knew of the cost of other buildings.


Robert Laird Borden: I am asking for information. I understood the hon. gentleman to say that the committee ought not to have inquired into what the Realty Company were paying. But if they did not get it in that way, they would not have saved the country three or four thousand dollars.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They did not get at it that way; they guessed at it.


William Pugsley: If I may be allowed: up to the very close of the inquiry it appeared as if Mr. Woods had had some old contract with the city and that the department had simply paid to the Imperial Realty Company the bills which had been rendered to it. But, towards the close of the inquiry, I learned that the city, through the electrical department, presided over by Mr. Ellis, the treasurer of the city, had, quarter after quarter, rendered accounts charging the Imperial Realty Company with the quantity of electrical current at meter rate which were turned in by the Imperial Realty 'Company to the government and charged against the department, these accounts rendered by the municipal electrical department to the Imperial Realty Company being marked settled by the municipal department of the city and sent in to my department as vouchers. The momejit that appeared, I instructed the deputy minister to say that we would take steps to cancel the contract and to recover the excess money paid by the department under these circumstances. The committee did not further investigate the matter," but the resolution was passed unanimously. I took the necessary steps by communicating with the city and demanding an account of


Edward Walter Nesbitt: what the Realty Company had really paid to the city and sent the matter to the Department of Justice. That is the way it finally wound up.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understood that, owing to the opposition to the heating contract, that also was cancelled. I understand, however, that the heating would cost more this year than it did under the contract; and, so far as I can find out, there will not be a saving to the country owing to the government doing its own heating. And you can easily understand that any private party could get this heating done by keeping the men working longer hours- you know the agitation that constantly arises here for shorter hours for government employees. Hon. members can judge of the matter for themselves, but, I understand, as a matter of fact, that the heating this year will be more expensive than under the old contract. As to the lighting, we do not know yet, but I question ser-| iously if there will be so much saved on, the lighting contract as was supposed to be saved when we cancelled the contract. We shall know at the end of the year, no doubt, how much will be saved, i understand there is a flat rate, and, if there is, there may be a considerable saving on the lighting contract.
The hon. member for Kootenay (Mr. Goodeve) made quite a fuss over putting in an elevator. I quite agree that the government did exactly what any sensible business man would do in his own interest under similar circumstances. Rather than run the risk of actions by the employees, they put in a new elevator, and they purposed taking it off the rent, judging by the deputy minister's letter. But I suppose this lessor objected very seriously to them doing that; so the government, instead of jumping into a lawsuit, which is easily done by any government, and generally getting the worst of it, referred the question to the Justice Department. Now what else would they do, as sensible men? I think they did perfectly right in that respect. There was one little thing that I thought entirely uncalled for on the part of the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), and I may say that I was very much surprised to hear him say it. He might have said it in the heat of debate, but all the same, it was a nasty little stab. He said that the hon. the Minister of Public Works was living at the Roxborough apartments, and that the hon. member for Car-leton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell) was also living at the Roxborough apartments. Now as a matter of fact I know that the Minister of Public Works, when these agreements were cancelled, and during all the time they were in force, was living at the Aylmer apartments, because I was living there myself. It was-after then that he went to the Roxborough apartments, this fall, after they

were finished. My hon. friend smiles, he is very suspicious. 'Evil be to him that evil thinks' is an old proverb that you probably all know. Now I am not so suspicious of other people as he is; and 1 repeat, that was a nasty, dirty little stab, to say about the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for Carleton, absolutely uncalled for, because it was made in such a way that it could not be got at. I was very much surprised to hear it.
Now I want to say a word with reference to this Public Accounts Committee. I go to the Public Accounts Committee, frequently, and I have heard so many suspicions voiced at it, so many insinuations- made against, it, such a hue and cry about what was going on in this committee, that I have become disgusted. There never was really anything proved to justify it. They bring witnesses there from all over Canada; it must cost something, I do not know who pays for this evidence. These men come from all over Canada, and you find there a half dozen gentlemen questioning them as if they were thieves. Why, if you were to go into an ordinary court of justice the judge would not allow witnesses to be badgered, and questioned, and subjected to all sorts of insinuations. It reminds me of an ordinary division court where there are a lot of cheap lawyers trying to plug some poor devil that owes a dollar. Now we do not try to oppose these gentlemen in ordinary reason and common sense, but they don't allow the witnesses fair play. I always like to see fair play anywhere. I don't like to see half a dozen men pile on to one poor innocent fellow, that is likely scared to death when he is in the Public Accounts Committee.


Richard Blain: What about the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The chairman of the committee is a gentleman, and he treats everybody on that committee as gentlemen.	'


Richard Blain: Does he not defend the witness?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Why, if he did, they would rag at the chairman worse than they do at the witness. The only thing that I can see for the w-itness to do is just to tell these gentlemen: Go to some-where else. But there seems to be no ordinary reasonable usage accorded a witness, especially if he happens to be a little timid when he gets up in the Public Accounts Committee; and then my hon. friend from Carleton generally steps in and tries to protect him a little, and perhaps somebody else steps in. Then our friends opposite say that he is obstructing the work of the committee. Now, I remember distinctly when that examination was going on, and I am quite sure the Minister of Public Works was just as polite as any man could
be to the members of the committee. He only tried to observe ordinary decency towards the witness, and only to that extent did he try to protect him. Now hon. members on that committee, so far as I could judge, as a spectator, at least, were really nagging the witness unnecessarily, they were trying to put words into his mouth, just as is often done in some little country court. The lawyers on that committee are trying to get from the witness just such an answer as they want: Answer'that question I put to you, yes or no. They don't give the poor fellow any opportunity to answer the question in a reasonable way, and many a question cannot be answered yes or no, and answered reasonably. Now I can tell our hon. friends opposite that if they will be reasonable, we will assist them in every possible way to investigate any question in the Public Accounts Committee; because I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we are just as much interested as they are in seeing the affairs of this country carried on economically and properly.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: I hardly think so.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Has the hon. gentleman ever seen me give any indication that I was not willing and anxious to see the affairs of this country conducted properly and honestly?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The hon. member is asking me a question. Personally, I have not seen him raise objections which I thought were wrong, because I have not been on the committee much lately; I am not on the committee. But over and over again, I have seen hon. members supporting the government on that committee interpose what I consider absolute obstruction for the purpose of preventing information coming out.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Well, it is like everything else in the world, it depends largely on how you look at it, on the point of view, as it were. I suppose the hon. gentleman means my hon. friend from Carleton, N.B., when he speaks of obstruction. Now, I have never seen my hon. friend from Carleton, unreasonable, unless the members of the opposition were attacking a witness unreasonably. _ I believe the member for Carleton, is just as anxious to see the affairs of this country conducted economically as anybody else in this House, I have always thought so, and I still think so. Now, as to the rentals paid for these various buildings by the Public Works Department. I cannot conceive that the Department of Public Works are anxious to pay these gentlemen more for their buildings than they can make out of them in other uses. You must bear in mind the peculiar position the department is in. They must have a building fit

for their purpose. It is all right for lion, members to say that the government might go on and erect a building. So they could, but there is always such a hue and cry all the time about expenses, that the department finds it better in many instances to rent these buildings instead of buying them. For instance, take that building that is earning, as they say, 18 per cent. It would not pay the government to buy that building, it is not suited for their purpose even with the repairs. It is riot the sort of building the government would put up for an office building. Therefore, they would have been shortsighted in my judgment to have bought the building. I believe that the government will, as soon as they reasonably can, erect a building to accommodate all the departments. It is a great pity that there was not sufficient foresight many years ago to retain the land around where these buildings are, so as to provide sites for all the public buildings in this vicinity. But, the government had to do the best they could to provide accommodation for the department. With reference to the calculation made by the hon. member for North Ontario, I quite agree with the hon. member for the Yukon, that the hon. gentleman is wasting his time in this House. There are many concerns in the world that, I venture to say, would give him $50,000 a year if he could float corporations and bonds in the same way as he calculated the government ought to float them. He assumed that the building would cost $650,000 and he said that there was no trouble to get a mortgage on that for $500,000. I would like to see my hon. friend go out and get it.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Bo the government guarantee it?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: For how long?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: Ten years.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Part of it for five years and part for ten years. What would that do? I would like to see my hon. friend take these bonds anywhere and try to float them.


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: In ten years the total rental would amount to $683,141.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about the repairs and interest on the money?


Samuel Simpson Sharpe: The government were doing the repairs.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That brings me to this point: The government did the repairs when they found it was absolutely necessary to get the lease. They did not agree to do the repairs in connection with the first lease. They had to undertake to do the repairs in order to get the second lease, just as any one in this House would do if Mr. NESBITT.
he were forced. They had to do it and we have not the slightest doubt that the government did the best they could in the interest of the country in renting these buildings and that they did not pay one dollar more for repairs than they were forced to pay by reason of their having to secure accommodation.


Robert Laird Borden: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Public Works has invoked the sympathy of the House, and it has been invoked on his behalf by other hon. gentlemen for the reason that the minister has not the opportunity of making a reply to the very forcible observations of my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe). My hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is too old a parliamentarian not to know that he could have asked any one of his friends who have spoken here this evening to move the adjournment of the debate and enable him to answer my hon. friend from North Ontario if he had any answer to make. He knows that perfectly well, and he cannot deny it now. Therefore, it was rather idle to appeal to the sympathy of the House on that account when he might, in five minutes, by asking one of his colleagues to move the adjournment of the debate, have obtained the right to make any answer that he saw fit. Further than that, in so far as I am concerned, I will not object to his making any answer that he has to make at this moment to my hon. friend from North Ontario.


William Pugsley: I thank my hon. friend (Mr. Borden, Halifax) for his courtesy, and after the other hon. gentlemen get through I will make a general answer to what has oeen said.


Robert Laird Borden: No, my hon. friend can take the alternative; he may move the adjournment of the debate, or so far as I am concerned I have no objection at all to his answering my hon. friend from North Ontario at once; but I hope he will extend the same courtesy to some hon. gentleman on this side of the House.


William Pugsley: The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) opened the debate by simply confining his attention to .one building out of a number. I followed my hon. friend and not knowing then what would be said with reference to other buildings I did refer to them. Now, then, it seems to me that a fair way to do would be that after other hon. gentlemen get through I may be allowed to reply.


Haughton Lennox: Oh, no.


William Pugsley: Is the hon. gentleman afraid to allow me to reply?


Haughton Lennox: I am not afraid of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Pugsley) in any way,
2.345

but I want to have a fair understanding. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Borden, Halifax) offers to allow the hon. minister an opportunity to speak no w if he thinks fit, and that is a very great concession. The minister knew perfectly well the line of argument that was going to be taken. He anticipated the argument that was taken this afternoon, and if he has anything to say, now is the time for him to say it. Speaking for myself as the minister addresses me, I say that I am not afraid of anyhing which he can do, and) I shall have a word or two to say myself before the debate closes.


William Pugsley: I have no objection to my hon. friend (Mr. Lennox), saying to me or towards me, all that he desires to say. and later on, if the House will accord me the courtesy to make a reply, I shall be very glad. If the House should decline to do that, well and good; I would be quite willing that the hon. member for Peel, who moved the amendment, should have an opportunity of speaking in reply to me if he desires.


Richard Blain: I may say, with the permission of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition, that I stated to the House that the hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), would follow with some other evidence of the extravagance of the government and the hon. gentleman dealt with it before he sat down.


William Pugsley: I did not deal at all with some features in connection with the lighting contract which were specially brought out by the hon. member for North Ontario.


Robert Laird Borden: Do it now.


William Pugsley: I shall be very glad to when hon. gentlemen get through.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, if the minister does not avail himself of the opportunity that I now present to him to give his answer, I shall continue my remarks. The opportunity still exists, because all he needs to do is to get some hon. gentleman on the other side of the House to move the adjournment of the debate.


William Pugsley: That does not require the consent of the hon. gentleman.


Robert Laird Borden: Certainly not, and he required no consent all this evening. While this .appeal has been made on his behalf, he has required no consent and he knew that perfectly well. I,desire just to say one or two words, in the first place, in reply to the very temperate observations which have been made bv the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesibitt). He will permit me to say that if I had not been convinced before of the absolute inefficiency of this government.
his own speech would give me the most ample demonstration. What does my hon. friend sav? He says that this building- taking what is called the Regal building in the first instance-was bought for $47,500.


William Pugsley: No, he does not. The hon. member for North Oxford admitted nrthing of the kind.


Robert Laird Borden: The Minister of Public Works is very prone to contradict when he ought not to contradict. I listened very attentively to the hon. member for North Oxford and he mentioned the sum of $47,500 in my hearing.


William Pugsley: He mentioned what the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), had said. The hon. member for North Oxford will verify that I am sure.


Robert Laird Borden: I understood the hon. member for North Oxford to base his argument on the price of this building at the figure of $47,500.


George Taylor: And $25,000 for repairs added to it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I did say that hon. members had said that the building had cost $47,000 and $25,000 for repairs and I went on to say that that was not necessarily the value of the building.


Robert Laird Borden: I understand that perfectly and I repeat what I said a moment ago, that the hon. member for North Oxford based his argument upon the assumption that this building had been purchased for $47,500. He said that, even so, it was a good thing for the government to enter into the contract which they had entered into for the rental of the building. He supposed that the repairs had cost $25,000. My hon. friend from Peel places them at $30,000, and he said that the building as it stands to-day could not have cost more than $80,000, which would assume the outside cost of repairs at $32,500. According to the statement of my hon. friend from Peel, which has not been contradicted, the government is paying for that building, after deducting taxes and insurance, a rental of $14,480 every year, so that in six years the government will have paid out in rental more than the actual cost of the building to-day. And yet the hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), thinks that is good business. He says the government could not have afforded to buy the building, while in the same breath he tells us that the addition of $30,000 worth of improvements and repairs would probably add $50,000 to the value of that building, which would bring its value approximately to $100,000. Under those circumstances will any sensible man tell me that it is good business not to buy that build-

ing, but to go on paying this large rental, so that in the short term of six years, the government will have paid more than it would cost them to buy the building and put the repairs upon it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What about the repairs in the interval?


Robert Laird Borden: I would simply answer that question by saying:	Well,
what about them? Suppose they would amount to $15,000, would the hon. member still think it good business to continue paying this enormous rental? Does he realize, assuming the cost of that building to be $80,000, that the rental is 18 per cent of the cost of the building? If the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt) is correct that the $30,000 worth of repairs and improvements added $50,000 to the value, the government are still paying 15 per cent on the value of that building to-day, and the hon. gentleman thinks that the government, with unlimited resources at its disposal, should enter into a number of contracts of that kind with real estate owners around the city of Ottawa. With all deference to his judgment as a business man I would not be inclined to accept his view, and I venture the statement that if the hon. gentleman (Mr. Nesbitt) had a business matter of this kind to deal with out of his own resources he would not think of pursuing the course which the Minister of Public Works has pursued in this instance. I know too well the business experience and ability of the hon. member (Mr. Nesbitt) to think for a moment that he would think of doing such a thing.
Now, let us look at one or two other illustrations of the absolute inefficiency of this government in connection with all these rentals. During the past ten years we know that the government have been thoroughly aware that as time went on the existing departmental buildings would not afford the necessary accommodation for the needs of the public service. What has the government been doing in all these years? Some years ago they purchased a huge block of land on McKenzie avenue with the idea of erecting a great departmental building which would afford accommodation for the transaction of the business of this country, and they invited the architects of Canada to send in plans, but up to the present day absolutely nothing has been done except to expropriate the land and leave it there idle, while they are paying rentals of 15 per cent, 20 per cent, 25 per cent, or even 30 per cent on the values, to real estate owners in this city. Will the hon. gentleman from North Oxford suggest that that is a striking illustration of the business efficiency of this government? According to the sworn evidence of one of the assessors of the city of Ottawa, the Woods building and the Can-Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
adian building together cost about $240,000 outside of the land.
Mr. PUGSLEY, Does my hon. friend believe that?


Robert Laird Borden: I will come in a moment to something which the Minister of Public Works will believe, and as I am making this speech I propose to make it in my own way. Now, so far as the Woods building is concerned the figures with regard to it, according to the sworn evidence of that assessor, were taken from the building account of the man who erected the building. That is the evidence as I heard it quoted to-night, but I have not yet verified it myself.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend is wrong. I think the witness said he could not say whether he saw the books or not.


Robert Laird Borden: He said he saw the books.


William Pugsley: I think he said he did not see them.	.


Robert Laird Borden: Well, until the minister is absolutely sure about it he had better not interrupt me. At all events the assessor gave the valuation at about $240,000. The hon. member for North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) spoke also of $62,000 (in round figures) worth of repairs and improvements which have been paid for by the government. I do not know whether some of this $62,000 is or is not included in the total cost of $240,000, but I will give the Minister of Public Works the benefit of the doubt, and I will say it is not included and therefore I will fix the total cost of that property at $302,000. What rental is the government paying to-day? It is paying a net rental of $68,000 a year in addition to lighting and heating and elevator service and taxes. A lease for five years has been entered into for both these buildings, and five years rental at $68,000 a year amounts to $340,000, so that if the government of Canada instead of paying that remarkably excessive and exorbitant rental of $68,000 for five years had themselves erected the building, they would own the building at the expiry of the five years' lease and have $40,000 besides. But, the Minister of Public Works thinks there is something wrong with the computation I have made. Well, I will take the evidence of his own officer. By the way, I find that the hon. minister has not departed from his usual custom. He is quite as inaccurate as usual in the correction he made. I find on page 4 of the evidence:


William Pugsley: Has the hon. gentleman the printed copy or the typewritten copy?
2.349


Robert Laird Borden: I have the printed copy, so plain that any one who runs can read it.


William Pugsley: The reason I asked the hon. gentleman is that page 4 of my evidence does not refer to this matter at all.


Robert Laird Borden: I will read it:
Q. I asked you about your assessment .aiul you said $110,000?-A. So it is, but that is not an assessment I made.
Q. What is the assessment you made?-A. I told you before I do not remember.
Q. Where did you get $110,000?-A. After consulting Mr. Woods and looking at his book we reduced the building to $110,000.
I had not verified the evidence; I was depending altogether on the quotation which my hon. friend from North Ontario had made from it; but I find that This is only* another instance in which my hon. friend from North Ontario was right and the hon. Minister of Public Works was wrong. Now, the hon. minister disputes that valuation, although he pays, so far as the Woods building


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend allow me? With regard to the Canadian building, Mr. Duffy, the assessor, speaks as follows.


George Taylor: The Woods building?


William Pugsley: But the Canadian is the most important.


Robert Laird Borden: If my hon. friend has any question to ask me, I will allow him.


William Pugsley: Will my hon. friend permit me to read that?


Robert Laird Borden: No, I will not, I will permit my hon. friend to ask me any question, but I will not allow him to introduce a speech into mine.


William Pugsley: I will ask the hon. gentleman a question.


Robert Laird Borden: Does it relate to the Woods building, which we are discussing?


William Pugsley: No, the Canadian building.


Robert Laird Borden: The controversy between my hon. friend and myself related to the Woods building, and I expressly and definitely limited my statement do that, and excluded the Canadian building. Therefore I am not going to have any side issue with reference to the Canadian building.


William Pugsley: Did not my hon. friend a moment ago give a valuation of both buildings and lump them together?


Robert Laird Borden: I did, but I said at the same time, so far as the Woods building was concerned, that the valuation was based on the statement of the. assessor, who had examined the books. My hon. friend seems to be curiously obtuse to-night; he is not usually so obtuse. Every hon. gentleman in this House knows that I referred in that regard to the Woods building, and to the Woods building alone. Now, my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works finds fault with that, although it is based upon the statement of the man who erected that building, and who ought to know the value of it, and who had the assessment reduced after the assessor had examined the books containing a statement of the cost of the building. That is not true of the Canadian building, and I never said it was. I said, so far as the Canadian building was concerned, that the valuation to which I alluded represented the best judgment of the assessor, according to his sworn evidence. But we will come to something more-not the cost of the building, but the value of the building according to the sworn state-; ment of an officer of the department over which my hon. friend presides. That statement is to be found on page 189 of the evidence:
Q. Mr. Ewart, have you ever made a valuation of this building ?-A. That is the Woods building?
Q. Yes?-A. Which building, the Woods building?
Q. The Woods building?-A. Yes, I valued the militia building at $196,380.
Q. And when?-A. Well, I valued a part of it, you know, away back in 1903, that was when I reported, when I first went over the building, and I valued it at 20 cents per cubic foot, and then you take the whole building, you know, 981,900 cubic feet, which, at 20 cents, makes $196,380.
Q. And that is your valuation down to the present time?-A. Well, I would say that is what the building would cost ready to be occupied.
Q. Would that include the improvements put on it by the government?-A. It would include the partitions and work of that kind.
Q. And what about the Canadian building? A. I valued that at $287,631.
Q. When was that valuation made?-A. That one was made lately. I valued it at the same rate per foot; I consider that style of building is just about the same.
We are not depending here upon the assessors. We are depending upon the sworn evidence of the chief architect of the department, an expert in such matters; and if you add together the total valuations which he places upon these buildings, you find that they amount to $484,000. Now, let us look for a moment at the rentals. These rentals, as I have already said, are exclusive of light, heating, elevator service, and taxes, which the government pays besides. Here you have a net rental

of $68,000 upon a valuation fixed by the chief architect of the department at $484,000, or a rental of approximately 14 per cent upon the actual valuation of the buildings.


William Pugsley: Does my hon. friend think that the land should not be included?


Robert Laird Borden: I have left out the land, for the reason that I am coming to something else, and that is this; in seven years the rentals upon these two buildings will amount to the entire sum of $484,000 or thereabouts; so that at the end of seven years of payment of this net rental of $68,000 the government will have repaid to the owners of these buildings all that they cost, and will continue for a further indefinite period of seven or fourteen or twenty-one years, as long as this arrangement goes on, to hand over at every consecutive period of seven years the entire *cost of these buildings to these landlords. Does my hon. friend from North Oxford or any other hon. member of this House say that the government of Canada, with all this land expropriated in the city of Ottawa and ready to be built upon, is pursuing a wise and businesslike course in paying out rentals of that character? I venture to say that the argument made by my hon. friend from Peel (Mr. Blain) and my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe), with great force and ability, has not been met in the slightest degree by any hon. gentleman opposite. Why, the very item of light which was gone into by my hon. friend from North Ontario, shows in striking degree the utter ineptitude and inefficiency of the administration of public works. Listen to the resolution which was proposed in the Public Accounts Committee and carried unanimously-assented by every member of that committee and no doubt also by the Minister of Public Works himself:-[DOT]
Moved by Mr. Sharpe, seconded by Mr. Carvell, that whereas the expense to the government during the last year for lighting the Woods and Canadian buildings amounted to $9,465.91, paid to the Imperial Realty Company, which company is not an electrical lighting company; and whereas the city_ of Ottawa has a standard schedule of prices whereby the lighting would cost only $5,040 or less, thereby affecting an annual saving to tbe country of $4,425.91 or more; therefore, this committee desires to urge upon the Minister of Public Works and the government the desirability of cancelling the present arrangement and recovering the excess unjustly paid to the Imperial Realty Company, and giving the city of Ottawa or some other company the contract at lower rates; and that a copy of this resolution be forwarded to the Minister of Public Works.
I do not believe it has ever fallen to the lot of any minister of the Crown in Mr. BORDEN (Halifax).
Canada to receive a rebuke of that kind from his own party following. But what was the attitude of the hon. gentleman, and his followers when my hon. friend from North Ontario (Mr. Sharpe) was endeavouring to get at the facts upon which that resolution was. founded? Their attitude in the Public Accounts Committee was this, that it was absolutely no concern of the people of this country wliat the Imperial Realty Company were paying for that light for which they were charging the people $9,000 and upwards. 1 have the words under my hand. It is none of our business, said an hon. member of that committee, to make any inquiry into that. The Imperial Realty Company can get that lighting done at any price they may see fit toy the city of Ottawa, and the only thing that remains for the people of Canada is to hand over to them by quarterly payments the sum of $9,000 and upwards ip'er year. The Minister of Public Works took credit, and hon. gentlemen on his behalf took credit, for the cancellation of that contract .after the resolution had passed. Why it would have 'been absolutely impossible for him to have taken any other course.
But when there was a municipal electric light company carrying on business in Ottawa, and a private electric light company as well, how was it that the minister year after year permitted this country to pay out the sum of $4,000 and upwards in excess of what it should have paid, when a simple inquiry tftrough the telephone, as my hon. friend from North Toronto (Mr. Sharpe) has said, would have elucidated the fact that the government were paying every year $4,000 too much.
Take the whole combination of circumstances placed before the House and the country by the debate to-day, and we get a fair, but perhaps after all only an imperfect idea of the manner in which the public revenues of Canada are being squandered, not only in the Department of Public Works, but there is good reason to believe in certain other departments of tire government.


Mr. RALPH SMITH (Nanaimo).: I have no intention to discuss the general question as it has been discussed toy the several lion, gentlemen who have taken part in this debate, tout I desire very briefly to examine some of the 'statements made by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), and I have a very special reason for criticising the attitude of my hon. friend and the basis on which he founded the very emphatic and dogmatic statements toe made this afternoon. I followed my hon. friend attentively, and I took down notes, which I think he will endorse. My hon. friend said that the cost of this building to the owner, when he purchased it from the Y. M. C. A. was

$47,500. This was a private transaction between private parties, and it is very difficult for me to understand how the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) could state so very definitely what this building cost its present owner. The second statement he made was that the improvements put upon this building to make it suitable for the department cost $32,500, and he gave the total cost to the present owners as $80,000, on which he calculated the rental paid by the department was equal to 18 per cent. He made a deduction on the general rent received of $16,095, for taxes, insurance and other things which had to be paid by the owner, which brought the net rent to $14,485 ; and, dividing the sum of $80,000 by $14,485, he drew the conclusion that the department was paying in rent 18 per cent of the total value of this property. That statement wa3 endorsed by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) and again by the leader of the opposition, and I have a very special reason for bringing this matter to the attention of these hon. gentlemen.
In connection with the position taken by the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain), I submit that no question has ever been raised about the lease of that property to the government, no complaint of any description has ever been made to any department of this government, and no opportunity has been given, nor has any hon. member availed himself at any time of any opportunity to bring this matter to the consideration of any select committee of this House. And yet, upon an absolutely private contract to purchase property by a respectable, intelligent and worthy citizen of Ottawa, hon. members opposite base positive statements that the building cost so much and that the department is paying 18 per cent annually on that value. I am personally friendly, and have been very closely acquainted for years with the owner of the Regal block. I did not know this afternoon what the building cost him; I did not know what rents he was collecting; I did not know the nature of his contract. But, being closely allied with him for years, I did know' that he was the owner of the property that he had been negotiating with the government with a view to their utilizing it, and that he had arrived at a definite agreement with the government on ihat subject. When I heard the mover of this resolution (Mr. Blain) state positively, dogmatically, that he knew' what this property had cost this private individual, and knew, also, the cost of the improvements put upon it by this individual, I questioned very much the accuracy of the statements.
I question them more now since having taken the opportunity, during the afternoon recess, to approach mv friend and acquaint him with w'hat had been stated 75
here in the House. And I will give the statement made by this gentleman oil the subject. The hon. member for Peel (Mr. Blain) has thought proper to expose in this House this gentleman's business, and has attempted to show that he had entered into an extortionate agreement with this government and had demanded from them, by some influence, aij unfair rental. My hon. friend from Argenteuil (Mr. Perley) has taken a special interest in the remarks of the hon. member for Peel. May I suggest to the hon. gentleman he should seek to bring this matter to the consideration of the proper committee of this House. If he did this he would be sure of the basis of his statements of facts. Now, against the public statement of the hon. member for Peel, let me put the statement of the owner of this building. And let me say that I would not have discussed this matter with the gentleman, nor would I have taken the responsibility of saying a word in his defence if he had not said.: You are quite at liberty to inform the House of Commons that 1 am ready to be a witness before the committee, and to give all the facts in connection with the building. Now, the hon. member for Peel says that the building cost $47,500. The owner says, and is ready to make the statement on oath, that it cost $50,000. The hon. member for Peel says that the improvements placed cn the property to make it satisfactory for the use o? the department cost $32,500. The gentleman who placed these improvements there and owns them says they cost him $90,000.


Some hon. MEMBERS: Oh, oh.


Ralph Smith: Hon. gentlemen smile. Well, they have the opportunity to defend any position they take before the proper tribunal, and with the owner under oatb to tell the truth about the matter. The total cost of the property, said the hon. member for Peel, was $80,000; the total cost of the property, says the owner, was $140,000. The net Tent for this property collected by the owner, says the hon. member for Peel, is $14,485, The owner, who understands exactly what insurance premiums and taxes he has to pay, says that the net rent is $13,966. So, as against the conclusion of the hon. member for Peel, we have to divide $140,000 by $13,966 ; and, instead of getting a proportion of payment bv the government of 18 per cent, we find it is 9-9 per cent. I know by acquaintance and association that this gentleman is an honest, reliable, truthful citizen, and, so far as I am concerned, I am prepared to believe what he savs and am quite ready that mv hon. friend from Peel should cal! upon this gentleman to prove his case.
Another very important statement that my hon. friend made was that this man



procured this agreement through middlemen? Will he tell me who they are?


Richard Blain: I never made any such statement. What I said was that the government were aware that this property was in the market for sale, and that the price paid for it was $47,500, which could be proved; and I said it would have been better for the government to invest some of their surplus in buying such a property as this rather than pay the enormous rent they are paying.


Ralph Smith: I am glad to take my hon. friend's word on the point. I thought I had taken notes correctly, and that he had repeatedly said that no doubt the middlemen had profited by these transactions. But I take his word, for I am bound to say that I know, just as the minister said,-and this also I have on the authority of the owner of this property-that the owner negotiated his own agreement personally and himself entered intr the contract with the department.


Richard Blain: Will the hon. gentleman permit me a question?


Ralph Smith: Certainly.


Richard Blain: Does the hon. gentleman state that Dr. Hanna is the sole owner of that property?


Ralph Smith: I did not say
so


Richard Blain: Does he know who are his associates?


Ralph Smith: I do. And will my hon. friend inform the House who they are?


Richard Blain: Let the hon. gentleman give the names; he states that he knows who they are.


Ralph Smith: My hon. friend has asked me whether any one is associated with Dr. Hanna. I believe there is to a very small extent; but I can say that only one other man and himself together own that property.


Richard Blain: Can the hon. gentleman give the name?


Ralph Smith: I know his relation, but I do not know the name. Will the hon. gentleman dispute that?


Richard Blain: I am not disputing; I am asking a question.
Air. SA1ITH (Nanaimo). My information is that one other man and Dr. Hanna own the property.


Richard Blain: Did my hon. friend ask Dr. Hanna, in gathering this information, who the other gentleman was?


Ralph Smith: I did.
Mr. SAilTH (Nanaimo).


Richard Blain: Did he state?
Air. SAlITH (Nanaimo). I have said that 1 know the relation, but I do not know the name. My hon. friend has an easy opportunity of knowing who he is. All he has to do is to take the proper course and bring this gentleman before the committee.


George Taylor: Bring the gentlemen who sold the property, and they will swear that they sold it for $47,5C0.


Ralph Smith: Of course it would be better to give these gentlemen an opportunity to be present. Another statement made by the member for Peel (Mr. Blain) this afternoon was that the owners of this property who made this [DOT]contract were political friends of the present government.


Richard Blain: I did not say anything of the kind.


Ralph Smith: Well, then my ears have deceived me.


William Pugsley: I doubt if the hon. gentleman spoke at all.


Richard Blain: I told the truth, and uiat is what the hon. gentleman did not do-
I am not referring to my hon. friend from Nanaimo.


Ralph Smith: Well, I dare say there was some reason for the minister this afternoon denying positively that any middleman who had anything to do with this agreement, and that the men associated with it were not, to his knowledge, supporters of the Liberal party. Now, there must have been some reason for the minister making that emphatic statement. I desire to say that I have known this gentleman for many years, and as his friend I repeat that he has never in his life been associated vdth any political party. It is impossible for any individual in Ottawa to say that this gentleman has, to his knowledge, been associated in any degree, so far as I know, with any political party in this country.


Richard Blain: The Minister of Public Works stated that his information was that this gentleman belonged to the Liberal-Conservative party.


Ralph Smith: Well, the Alin-ister of Public AVorks may have informa tion that I do not possess. But I dispute that the hon. gentleman opposite had any sound reason or basis for the very positive statement he made this afternoon. No gentleman could possibly be authori-ized to stand up in this House and say to a dollar what another man paid for his property; no responsible member in tins House could possibly state that a certain

amount of money was spent on improvements on any personal property. I was astounded at the positive statements he made with regard to what was only a private transaction by a private citizen. Now, I repeat that the opportunity is presented to my hon. friend to call up these people before the proper committee and give them an opportunity to defend themselves. I think the opposition are intituled to make a thorough inquiry into these expenditures, that is what the country expects them to do. But I submit that they are too indiscriminate in their methods, they magnify cases out of all proportion, and in consequence of their excesses, it has become a disgraceful thing for an honest citizen to do business with this government and with this country, without having his name branded as a thief and a robber. There may be cases when there is reason to think that everything has not been done in the interests of the public, but that is a different thing from the indiscriminating manner in which hon. gentlemen opposite paint every thing black with a big brush. I believe every statement that this gentleman made, and the arguments upon which we are asked to censure against this government are as fallacious as tlxey can possibly be.


Richard Blain: Do I understand my hon. friend to state that the amount paid by Dr. Hanna and his associates for the property purchased from the Young Men's Christian Association, exceeds $47,500?


Ralph Smith: I have given the figures, $50,000.


Richard Blain: Now as to the question of improvements, I would like to have that made clear.
Mr. 'SMITH (Nanaimo). $90,000.


Richard Blain: Do I Understand the hon. gentleman to state that Dr. Hanna and his associates, after they purchased the property, and before they leased it to the government, expended $90,000 upon it?
and then we will deal with this matter further.


Ralph Smith: My hon friend is asking this House to pass a resolution of censure upon this government for making payments that he admits now he has not taken the trouble to inquire into.


Richard Blain: I admit nothing of the kind. I will be prepared, when an opportunity is given, to show where my information came from, and I will then leave the House to judge whether my information is correct.
House divided Blain).	on amendment (Mr. Messieurs
 YEAS:	
Armstrong,	McCall,
A rthurs,	Magrath,
Barnard,	Marshall,
Best,	Meighen,
Blain,	Middlebro,
Borden (Halifax),	Nantel,
Boyce,	Northrup,
Broder,	Owen,
Burrell,	Paquet,
Campbell,	Perley,
Chisholm (Huron),	Price,
Crosby,	Rhodes,
Crocket,	Roche,
Crothe-rs.	Russell,
Currie (Simcoe),	Schaffner,
Daniel,	Sexsmith,
Doherty,	Sharpe (Lisgar),
Donnelly,	Sharpe (Ontario),
Edwards,	Smyth,
Elson,	Sproule,
Foster,	Stanfield,
Fraser,	Staples,
Goodeve,	Taylor (Leeds),
Haggart (Winnipeg)	Taylor (New West-
Henderson,	minster),
Herron,	Wallace,
Hughes,	White (Renfrew),
Jameson,	Wilcox,
Lake,	Wilson (Lennox and
Lennox,	Addington) and
Lortie, Macdonell,	Wright.-61.


Ralph Smith: That is the statement of my friend, and he is prepared to swear to it before a proper committee, and that the taxes carried by this government, instead of being $14,000 were $13,966, and that the interest earned is 9-9 instead of 18 per cent. Now, that is an example of the arguments upon which we are asked to pass this resolution-no opportunity for this private citizen to know anything about it, without the individual being acquainted with the transactions.


Richard Blain: I may say that I will give Dr. Hanna and his associates an opportunity of making this statement under oath, 754
NAYS: Messieurs
Allen,
Ayleswortli,
Beauparlant,
Belaud,
Bickerdike,
Black,
Brown,
Bureau,
Carrier,
Cash,
Champagne,
Chisholm (Antigonish), Chisholm (Inverness), Clark (Red Deer),
McCraney,
McGiverin,
McIntyre,
McKenzie,
McLean (Sunbury), McMillan,
Marcile (Bagot), Martin (Regina), Martin (Wellington), Mayrand,
Meigs,
Michaud,
Miller,
Murphy,
Nesbitt,

Congdon,	Neely,
Conmee,	Oliver,
Currie (Prince	Papineau,
Edward),	Pardee,
Delisle,	Parent,
Demers,	Pickup,
Douglas,	Proulx*
Dubeau,	Prowse,
Ecr^ment,	Pngsley,
Emmerson,	Rankin,
Etliier,	Reid (Restigouche),
Fisher,	Richards,
Fortier,	Rivet,
Fowke,	Robb,
Gauvreau,	Ross (Middlesex),
Geoffrion,	Ross (Rimouski),
German,	Roy (Dorchester),
Gervais,	Roy (Montmagny),
Gilbert,	Rutan,
Girard,	Savoie,
Graham,	Schell,
Harty,	Seguin,
Hudgins,	Sinclair,
Hunt,	Smith (Middlesex),
Knowles,	Smith (Nanaimo),
Kyte,	Smith (Stormont),
Lachance,	Sperry,
Lafortune,	Talbot,
Lanctot (Richelieu),	Todd,
Lapointe,	Tolmie,
Laurier (Sir Wilfrid),Turcotte (Nicolet),	
LeBlanc,	Turcotte (Quebec
Lemieux,	County),
Loggie,	Turgeon,
Macdonald,	Verville,
MacNutt,	Warburton,
McAllister,	White (Victoria,
McCoig,	Alta.) and
MeColl,	Wilson (Laval).-104.
PAIRS:	
Ministerial.	Opposition.
Fielding,	Osier,
Paterson,	Porter,
Borden (Sir F.),	Forget,
Brodeur,	Haggart (Lanark),
King,	Bristol,
Templeman,	Cowan,
Harris,	Beattie,
Stratton,	Gordon (Nipissing),
Turriff,	Thornton,
Guthrie,	McCarthy,
Sealey,	Kidd,
Gorden (Kent),	Ames,
Clarke (Essex),	Clare,
Carvell,	Stewart,
Low,	Thoburn,
Law,	Reid,
Boyer,	Barker,
Lovell,	Lancaster,
Gladu, .	Worthington,
McLean (Huron),	Lewis,
Martin (St. Mary's),	Blondin,
Devlin,	Bradbury,
Molloy,	Maddin,
Tobin,	Monk,
Allard,	Lalor,
Amendment (Mr. Blain) negatived motion agreed to and House went into committee of supply.


Richard Blain: May I be permitted to ask the Minister of Pitblic Works if he Mr. BLAIN.
can furnish the committee with, a statement respecting the clock purchased by his department ?


William Pugsley: Yes, I have the information from the chief architect which I shall gladly send to my hon. friend.


Richard Blain: I would like my h-on. friend to put it on ' Hansard/


William Pugsley: 
William Pugsley: This is a revote to make provision for the procuring and installation of new boilers, a new smoke stack and increasing the height of the chimney at the government printing bureau. The total estimated cost is $11,000.


Mr. CROCKET.: Why does the minister only ask for $10,000, when the estimated cost is $11,000 ?


William Pugsley: I expect that the chief architect expects to spend $1,000 before the 31st March. He can do that out of the vote for the current y^ar and allow the other $9,000 to lapse.


Oswald Smith Crocket: We are voting $10,000 for this year ?


William Pugsley: Yes. These boilers are very much needed.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Are these to replace old boilers ?


William Pugsley: Yes.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: We voted a similar amount last year for the same purpose. If it was needed, why was it not spent ?


William Pugsley: The only answer I can give is that it was felt possibly that we might put off the work for another year.


Oswald Smith Crocket: Have tenders been called or will they be called for these boilers ?


William Pugsley: They have not been yet.


Mr. DANIEL.: I understand that it is the intention of the government to erect a new printing bureau. Is that a fact ?


William Pugsley: There has been some talk of it, I think that my hon. friend the Secretary of State (Mr. Murpihy), has the
matter under consideration, but even if that were done, it wmuld be necessary to keep the, present building in an efficient and safe condition, because the new' building would take considerable time to erect.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: This has the same defect which many of these items indicate; that it is voted year after year. It could not have been urgently required last year or otherwise I assume it would have been spent. The fact that it was voted la3t year and not spent, is evidence that it is not wanted. We have it this year again, and we do not know but what the same thing may occur next year. [DOT] It is a small amount, but we find the same thing with regard to other public works, such as harbours, rivers and public buildings. I do not think that it indicates good business management, because jf it is urgently needed and we vote the money, it "ought to be spent and if it is not needed, it should not be in the estimates.


Mr. ARMSTRONG.: Knowing something about machinery, I cannot help wondering how it is that the boilers are all played out at once, and that it is absolutely necessary to put in $10,000 worth of boilers.


William Pugsley: The chief architect tells me that the boilers which are now there, were put in when the building was erected many years ago.


Oswald Smith Crocket: At what cost ?


William Pugsley: The contract for the construction of the building w'as made in 1887, .and the boilers which are in the building were put there at that time. The chief architect says that the four boilers require replacing. They are getting in pretty bad condition, and the reason that new boilers have not 'been put in during the present year is that the chief architect let the matter run on supposing that the old ones would do for a year longer, but he now feels that they must he replaced.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: WTiat is the capacity of the boilers?


William Pugsley: The chief architect cannot say without making inquiries as to the horse-power.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: Could the minister tell us what the old boilers cost?


William Pugsley: No, I presume that they were put in as a part of the contract for the building away back in 1887. No doubt 'by looking up the old accounts the cost could 'be easily arrived at.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: That amounts to something about boilers. I cannot help feeling that $10,000 for four boilers bricked is an enormous sum to pay.


William Pugsley: That includes a new smoke stack, and raising the chimney.
Mr. AKMteiKUJNG. xnat amounts to very little.


Oswald Smith Crocket: What is the estimate for the boilers?


John Waterhouse Daniel: I presume that the Chief architect is not a boiler inspector, and that he relies on some other official for his recommendation. Has _ the minister the report of the boiler inspector, and when was it made?


William Pugsley: We have a regular inspector of boilers who reports periodically, and I understand it is about three months' since his report was made.


Mr. MARSHALL.: How long have the present boilers been in me?


William Pugsley: Since 1887.


David Marshall: What size are they?


William Pugsley: I regret I have not the report of the boiler inspector here.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: It is strange the minister should ask for $10,000 to purchase boilers, and that he .has no idea what kind of boilers he is going to purchase. Will the minister ask for tenders for these boilers?


William Pugsley: My intention is to ask for tenders.


Thomas Simpson Sproule: Since the minister has not the information, and it is near one o'clock the item had better stand, and the committee rise.


William Pugsley: Why not continue until one o'clock?


Thomas Simpson Sproule: The peculiar obstinacy of the minister's nature will iget him into trouble if' he should insist on going on.


William Pugsley: We could do quite a lot of business in 20 minutes.


Mr. MEIGHEN.: At a quarter to twelve last night the Prime Minister told us that it was too late to discuss such an important matter as the duty on farm implements.


William Pugsley: I was not consulted.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not object ; he showed passive acquiescence.


Air. CROTHERS.: No time will be saved by going on at this late hour ; you will not pass an item to-night.


William Pugsley: I recognize the capacity of my hon. friends opposite to talk, and I, therefore, move that the committee rise.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Pugsley, House adjourned at 12.45 a.-m. Wednesday.
Mr, ARMSTRONG.

Wednesday, January 25, 1911.