1914-03-20

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1913-14.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ending March 31, 1914, was presented by Mr. White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 120, to correct a clerical error in the Act 1-2 George V. chapter 118, an Act respecting the National Weekly Indemnity Company, and to change its name to the Merchants and Employers Guarantee and Accident Company.-Mr. Doherty.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 115, for the relief of Gertrude Carmen Birks.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 116, for the relief of Rose Ethel Freedman.-Mr. Fripp.
Bill No. 117, respecting the Montreal and Lake Victoria Railway Company.-Mr. Achim.
Bill No. 118, for the relief of Ella Rose Morris.-Mr. Douglas.
Bill No. 119, for the relief of Alicia Hill. -Mr. Douglas.

[Stage Direction]
Report of the Department of Railways and Canals for the year ended March 31, 1913.- Mr. J. D. Reid.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. OLIVER:: I would liKe to draw the attention of the Premier - to an interview which appears in the Vancouver Province relating to a matter of considerable public importance. I will not read the whole of the interview, which is contained in a despatch from Washington to the Province. The purport of it is that Sec-

retary Franklin K. Lane, of the Department of the Interior of the United States, has been in communication with Premier McBride, and has also had a satisfactory conference with Premier Borden, of the Dominion Government, in regard to the construction of a railway from British Columbia through the Yukon to Alaska. That is a very large enterprise. If there is such a project- on foot, I am sure the House would be glad to be informed in regard to it.


Mr. BORDEN:: 

MONTREAL PROPERTY PURCHASE.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being called:
Mr. LEMIEUX:: I do not see the Minister of Public Works, but possibly the Postmaster General can inform me whether or not the Government has bought, for postal purposes, the building called Carslake hotel, near Bonaventure station, Montreal?


Mr. PELLETIER:: I am almost certain that proceedings for expropriation are going on in regard to the matter.



ERRONEOUS REPORT.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day being, caked:
Robert Laird Borden: My attention has been directed to an issue of the Ottawa Free Press of Thursday, March 19, which contains what purports to be a Teport of a caucus of the Liberal-Conservative members of Parliament on Wednesday last. The statement contained in the report that a caucus of the Liberal-Conservative members was held on that day is correct, but apart, from that the report is a tissue of falsehoods from beginning to end. I would like to observe further that those who are admitted to the precincts of the House and the Press Gallery for the purpose of reporting the proceedings here have certain responsibilities as well as certain rights. Among those rights, the practice of deliberate mendacity is not included.



CIVIL SERVICE INSURANCE.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. T. WHITE (Minister of Finance), Bill No. Ill, to amend
the Civil Service Insurance Act, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-Revised Statutes, chapter 18, amended;
Mr. WHITE:: This Bill contains certain amendments to the -Civil Service Insurance Act, which is to be found in the Revised Statutes of Canada, chapter 18. There are two principal features to which I directed the .attention of the House upon the occasion of the consideration of the resolution preceding the Bill. The first is that the benefits of the Act are extended to female members of the service, so that the sexes are placed on an equality in that regard. The second feature is that the maximum amount of insurance is increased from $2,090 to $5,000. The other provisions of the Bill relate principally to these two features. For some time past the Civil Service have requested that legislation of this character should be enacted.


Frank Oliver: I do not happen to be
familiar with the original statute. The question has been asked, in what particulars does the status of female members of the service differ from that of the male members at the present time.


William Thomas White: I was under the impression, that my hon. friend was familiar with the statute. The Civil Service Insurance Act was enacted in 1893. Under its provisions any male member of the service occupying a permanent position is entitled to take out an insurance policy for an amount not exceeding $2,000 payable upon his death, upon paying premiums based upon fraternal society actuarial rates. The Act does not include the female members of the' service, for the treason, I presume, that at the time tne Act was passed, there may have been comparatively few females in the service. There seems no good reason why there should be a discrimination .against the ladies, and this legislation is introduced to place them upon an equality with their male fellow members of the service. The .life insurance companies generally accept risks upon the lives of women as they do upon the lives of men. At the time this Act was passed, it was considered that $2,000 would be a proper maximum amount. It is now considered that $2,000 is too small as the -maximum, having regard to the increased cost of living and other matters which I need not mention,

and that the maximum might well be increased to $5,000. The Act is administered through the Insurance Department, and therefore at comparatively little cost. According to the information I have received from the Insurance Department, the premiums paid are sufficient from an actuarial standpoint to justify the insurance granted.


Frank Oliver: I assume that taking out policies under the Act is optional with the members of the service. Do a large proportion of the service take advantage of the terms of the Act?


William Thomas White: About ten per cent of those eligible have taken advantage of it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it retroactive as
applying to employees who are superannuated?


William Thomas White: That matter was brought
to my attention by my hon. friend (Mr. Lemieux). The Act will not apply retroactively to those who have left the service or who have been superannuated. In the case of those now in the service who have taken out a policy for $2,000, upon passing a medical examination and paying from the date of the insurance forward, the amount of premium proper to the policy which they took out, they may increase their insurance up to a maximum of $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I had in mind those
who had been superannuated. I am under the impression that a superannuated officer is amenable to his minister, and is liable to be called back into the service to fill a temporary vacancy or for other cause. I would ask the attention of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Reid) to that point. For in stance: a customs inspector has been superannuated; a vacancy occurs through death' or illness of one of the employees; has the minister authority over that superannuated officer to bring him back into the service for a time?


Mr. REID:: If an officer has been superannuated, he may be recalled to the service and re-employed, but lie is not paid a salary more than will make, with his superannuation, the salary he received before his retirement.


Rodolphe Lemieux: He can be compelled to return to the service?


John Dowsley Reid: Yes.


Rodolphe Lemieux: That is the point 1
was making. The retired officer being liable to be recalled, should not the increased insurance apply in his case? For, as the 
Minister of Finance says, the maximum of $2,000 which hitherto has been fixed is very low. I know that the rate of premium is moderate and the system is a good one, and I congratulate the hon. minister on the step he is taking. It seems to me that those v ho are superannuated and who, as has been shown, are amenable to their ministers, and liable to be recalled, should get the benefit of the new Act.


John Dowsley Reid: I may say it is very seldom that an officer is recalled.


Mr. EMMERSON:: But they are subject to be recalled.


John Dowsley Reid: If their health is in such
condition as to allow it, they may be recalled, but the number of those who have been recalled is very small.


Henry Robert Emmerson: What will be the
effect upon one who has severed his connection with the service?


William Thomas White: Under existing legislation regulations are made to cover that point. As a matter of practice the insured are permitted to continue their policies, but the minister has the right to pay a cash surrender value or to issue a paid-up policy for a suitable amount.


Rodolphe Lemieux: There may be fatal
objections to the point that I raise, and if so the Minister of Finance will enlighten me. But I know as a matter of fact of one man who has been superannuated, and who, I am sure, would take advantage of the new Act.


William Thomas White: I do not know that the
objection would be fatal, but I think that such insurance would be found inadvisable. In the first place, as my hon. colleague (Mr. Reid) has pointed out, services of retired officers are very seldom requisitioned. If they were to come back to the service, I think they would be entitled to the benefits of the new Act. But superannuation takes place at the age of sixty-five or later, usually nearer seventy, and for the most part men are not insurable at that age. Having regard to these considerations, I should think it would be inexpedient to extend the benefits of the Act.


Mr. NESBITT:: This section 1 authorizes the minister to contract with ' any person to whom Part 1 of the Civil Service Superannuation and Retirement Act applies on the 1st day of April, 1914.' I am not familiar with that Act. Ms any part of the Civil Service thus excluded?


William Thomas White: Part 1 of the Act referred to takes in the entire permanent service. The change made in this section is, my hon. friend will see, in line 13 in the words 'whether civil or'military.' Heretofore the Act has only applied to the civilian members of the service. This extends it to the headquarters staff of the militia.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does it not apply to the outside service?


William Thomas White: To the permanent outside service-yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The hon. gentleman told us the contracts were on the Friendly Society basis. Is that the H. M. table of the British Institute, or what is it?


William Thomas White: The standard for fraternal societies-the National Fraternal Congress standard.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the Government add anything to this, or does it carry itself?


William Thomas White: The insurance system constituted by the Insurance Act of 1906 is self-sustaining; the Government adds nothing.


Frank Oliver: I am not an expert on life insurance, but it strikes me, considering the very small number of civil servants who take advantage of this insurance, that the increase of the amount to $5,000 may disarrange the financial aspect of the matter, so that while it works out to carry itself to-day, it may not work out to carry itself under the new arrangement. I am not urging that as an objection, I am merely asking if the possibility exists.


William Thomas White: My hon. friend and I are alike in one thing at least; we both admit that we do not know a great deal about the subject of life insurance. I am advised, however, by the actuarial officer of the Insurance Department that if the amount were increased tenfold instead of more than twofold, the matter would be on precisely the same basis; that is to say, the financial aspect of it is not in any way modified or changed by the increase in the maximum amount of insurance. The premium is proportionate, of course the premium on a $5,000 policy will be two and a half times the amount of a premium upon a $2,000 policy. The Act is administered by the Superintendent of Insurance, consequently the cost is very slight indeed.


Frank Oliver: I quite understand that
the premium would be proportionate with the amount of the policy, but the security
for the policy rests upon the number of premiums as well as their amount, and if you do not have a sufficient number of premiums you are going to lose out on the payment of the policies. So, as you increase the amount of the policy, unless there is also an increase in the number of premiums, you are bound to lose out-at least, that is the way it appears to my untutored mind.


William Thomas White: There is a sufficient number of premiums to meet the average anticipated death rate, so that no such question arises with regard to the increase of the amount from $2,000 to $5,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: If I mistake not, the Government insurance system for its employees was inaugurated some years ago, when the superannuation system was abolished. I would like to know how many Civil Service employees have taken advantage of this insurance system. I have heard it rumoured many times during the last few months that the Government is contemplating a returii to the old system of superannuation. If that should be done, would the insurance system still be maintained?


William Thomas White: The Civil Service insurance that is now under consideration is a matter separate and apart altogether from that of superannuation. I am of the view that anything that the Government might do in the matter of instituting superannuation legislation would not have the effect of displacing the insurance system. In a general way I have had the question of superannuation under consideration, but any legislation in that regard has not yet received consideration on the part of the Government, and at the present time it would be premature to discuss it.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-section 9 amended:
William Thomas White: This amendment is made necessary by an error which occurred in the consolidation of 1906. Section 9 of the Civil Service Insurance Act provides as follows:
Where an apportionment has been made as hereinbefore provided, and one or more of the persons in whose favour the apportionment has been made die in the lifetime of the insured, the insured may, by an instrumem in wilting endorsed on or attached to the insurance contract, declare that the shares formerly apportioned to the person so dying shall be for the benefit of the wife and children of the insured, or of one or more of them as he sees fit.

That means that he may apportion the insurance to his wife and children, or to his wife only, or to one or more of his children. Subsection 2 provides:
In default of such declaration, the shares of the persons so dying shall be for the benefit of the survivor, or, if more than one, of the survivors of the wife and children of the insured in equal shares.
Subsection 1 gives the insured the right to exclude the wife in favour of the children. By subsection 2, if one of the children dies, he must bring in the wife, although originally he may have intended to exclude the wife from the benefits of the apportionment. The amendment provides that in the event of one of the children dying the apportionment will go to the survivors of the class among whom the insured had originally apportioned, unless, of course, he expressly wishes to bring the wife in.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 5-section 15 amended:
William Thomas White: That permits the Governor in Council to make additional regulations with regard to the form of the insurance. Section 15 of the Act provides:
The Governor in Council may, for the purposes of this Act, from time to time make regulations for:
(a)	regulating the mode and form of making contracts;
(b)	prescribing the mode of proving the age, identity and existence or death of persons;
(c)	prescribing the mode of paying money in connection with insurance contracts;
(d)	dispensing with the production of probate of a will or letters of administration, either generally or in any particular class of cases;
(e)	prescribing the accounts to be kept and their management;
(f)	determining beforehand the cases or classes of cases in which an insurance contract issued instead thereof may be surrendered and a cash surrender value paid therefor, or a free or paid-up insurance contract issued instead thereof, and of prescribing the manner in which such cash surrender value or amount of paid-up insurance shall be determined; and
(g)	any other purpose for which it is deemed expedient to make regulations in order to carry this Act into effect.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have not read the Bill, but I would like to know if it provides that in a case where there is no endorsation as to whom the policy is to be payable, the apportionment shall go to the family of the insured.


William Thomas White: Yes. I would direct the attention of my hon. friend to subsection 3 of section 2 of the Bill.


Mr. McKENZIE:: In the event of the death of one of the beneficiaries, are these terms embodied in the contract of insurance or in the policy?


William Thomas White: The provisions as I have read the regulations are not set out expressly in the policy, but are incorporated by reference to the Act. The beneficiaries are named in the insurance policy usually. The insurer may say simply wife and children, without expressly naming them all. If he died without making an apportionment, they would share equally under the Act.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Unless it is done as a matter of contract between the party insuring and this Government, I do not think we would have any power to legislate as to what should become of the property. That would be governed by the law of personal property in the different provinces, and I think it would be unwise for us to legislate as to what shall become of a man's personal property in any province when the provinces have their own legislation governing the personal property and real estate of the individual. I submit to the minister that it is only as a matter of contract with the Government that we should interfere. That is why 1 ask if it is the policy that we may regulate what shall become of the money.


William Thomas White: While the individuals are not named, they are designated as his wife and children. In that way he apportions the insurance. I think I understand my hon. friend's point, that, failing the apportionment being expressly covered by the contract, the designation of the money would be controlled by the laws of the province, which, under the British North America Act, has jurisdiction in matters of property and civil rights. The actuary of the Insurance Department informs me that no question can arise, because, either by express naming or by designation, the apportionment of the money is made in the contract as a matter of contract.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I think it would be unwise for us in this Parliament to legislate as to what should become of a man's property except as it is mentioned in the policy. Beyond that I think that we might be creating a conflict of laws between the Dominion and the different provinces.


William Thomas White: I agree with my hon. friend.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Public Buildings, Ottawa-New departmental buildings, and sites therefor, $1,000,000.
['During the last four\nor five years we have been in the habit of passing this class of Bills, which is like the last three Bills of the Order Paper-\n\nthe Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, the Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and the British America Nickel Corporation, Limited, which were passed last year and are being amended. This is a case where a company has letters patent in Canada. It wants to go into a foreign country to build a railway and telephone line, and to use its Canadian incorporated name. When it gets to that foreign country, it is told that, on those letters patent, it cannot build its railway or telephone line. So , we pass the Act in this form, declaring that in that country and subject to the laws of that country, they can build a railway so far as our incorporation of them is concerned-but of course not in Canada or any other British country.\nBill reported, read the third time, and passed.']
Frank Oliver: There was a vote of
$2,000,000 last year, and $1,000,000 is asked for this year. I suppose that means that $1,000,000 has been expended. What area of land will be covered by the buildings, what is the locality, and what has been done up to the present time?


Mr. EOGEES:: This vote of $1,000,000 is required for the purchase of properties, etc., west of the Supreme Court building, namely, the area bounded by Wellington street and the river, as far down as the Perley Home. The block from Bank street to Kent street, down to the river, would afford sufficient space for the new departmental buildings, but in view of the future extension which will be unquestionably required, it would seem to be the part of wisdom to purchase now the whole strip above mentioned as far as the Perley Home. With the existing conservatory and Supreme Court building removed, practically a duplicate of the stately and imposing front of the Parliament Buildings could be secured. A retaining wall or ramp similar to that in front of the Parliament Buildings could be constructed, with a broad flight of steps leading from the level of the lawn to the west of the West Block to the lower level of Bank street. A location would thus be secured for the new departmental buildings which, taken in conjunction with the Parliament grounds, with its natural beauties and advantages, would afford a site of magnificence unsurpassed not only on this continent but throughout the world. The approximate value of the properties is $3,300,000. Deduct expenditure on the above during the fiscal year 1912-13, $882,149.91, also expenditure on the above from 1st April, 1913, to 31st December, 1913, $958,167.59-the two deductions totalling $1,840,917.50-and that gives as the probable amount required to complete the purchase of the properties $1,459,082.50. The appropriation for 1913-14 was $2,000,000, from which deduct the expenditure from 1st April, 1913, to 31st December, 1913, $1,024,430.43, and assumed
expenditure prior to 31st 4 p.m. March, 1914,	$375,569.57-a
total deduction of $1,400,000 -and the revote is therefore $600,000. The new vote applied for in the main Estimates, 1914-15, is $400,000.'


Mr. PARDEE:: Has the department bought all these lands extending from the Supreme Court building?


Robert Rogers: All expropriated. The
figures I have given are the estimated cost. I may add that architects are invited to submit sketch designs in a preliminary competition for the erection of departmental and court buildings. From the designs submitted six will be chosen Iby the assessors, the authors of which will be invited to submit more matured designs in a final competition, for which the five unsuccessful competitors will each receive an honorarium of $3,000. Sketch designs are to be in by April 2, 1914. We have selected Mr. Colbutt, of London, England; Mr. Russell, of Winnipeg, the President of the Dominion Association of Architects, and Mr. Mar-chand, a prominent Montreal architect, as judges of the competition.


Frank Oliver: Will the street that runs parallel to Wellington street ibe closed and occupied by buildings? Whereabouts on the property will the buildings be located?


Robert Rogers: A landscape gardener has been looking it over for us, and these matters will have to toe settled by a man of that kind. A good deal will depend on the plans submitted under this scheme, and the matter cannot be decided until that point is reached.


Frank Oliver: How is it that part of the work of expropriation has not yet been completed? I understand that it was the intention from the beginning to buy all this property; part of it has been bought and paid for, but part has not yet been secured by the Government. Is there likely to be any permanent difficulty in securing the rest?


Robert Rogers: We do not anticipate any permanent difficulty, but, as my hon. friend knows, there are a very large number of property holders in that area. We have appointed valuators and they have made considerable progress in effecting settlements without court proceedings. A few cases, I am afraid, cannot be settled without going to the Exchequer Court. But-before taking these cases to court we are securing as much of the land as we possibly

can, and shou!d any other cases turn up we will take them all to court together.


Frank Oliver: Is that likely to delay
the project for any considerable time?


Robert Rogers: No; we have to abide by the price fixed by the Exchequer Court.


Frank Oliver: Is there no appeal from
the Exchequer Court?


Robert Rogers: There is an appeal to the Supreme Court.


Frank Oliver: And to the Privy Council?


Robert Rogers: Yes, by special leave.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: Is it the intention to
gather in the various departmental offices now rented throughout the city and accommodate them in this building?


Robert Rogers: That is the purpose for
which we are undertaking the work; we want to have all our offices under one roof.


Frank Oliver: Will sufficient buildings
be erected at first to house all the offices of the Government?


Robert Rogers: The deputy tells me that the proposed plans will be sufficient to house the offices of the various departments now in all the rented buildings throughout the city.


Frank Oliver: Will such a building
occupy the whole or only a part of the area purchased?


Robert Rogers: The plan is that right
below the Supreme Court will be erected a very large office building. Then out on the part overlooking the river will be erected a new Supreme Court building. The place below will be available for additional buildings in the future.


Frank Oliver: I understand the land
will cost about three millions. Has any conclusion been reached as to what will be expended on the first office building and the Supreme Court building?


Robert Rogers: The cost of the first two buildings has been roughly extimated at about three million dollars.
Public Buildings, Ottawa-Eastern Block addition, $75,000.


Robert Rogers: This is to finish the extension of the East Block.


Frank Oliver: What did that addition
cost?


Robert Rogers: The chief architect's
estimate at first was $360,000, and we have

spent up to the 31st of March, 1913, $337,617.16. This balance, which is largely for vaults, will complete the work.
Mr. iPARDEE: What Government building is being erected east of the Chateau Laurier?


Robert Rogers: The examining warehouse.


Mr. MACDONALD:: Have they found a
solid foundation yet?


Robert Rogers: I am glad to hear for the first time from the architect that they have now got to a solid foundation. It was a tremendous expense.


William John Macdonald: How much has been expended in getting the foundation?


Robert Rogers: About half a million dollars. We found >a river down there and some other things, and when we .started we had to go to the bottom.


Mr.   MAGDONALD@: What did you find
when you got to the bottom?


Robert Rogers: Rock.	'


Mr. CARVELL:: Was the work done by
contract?


Robert Rogers: It was done by day labour at first. We found that with the sort of labour we could secure in Ottawa we were not likely to make headway, and the contract was given to the Foundation Company, Limited, of Montreal.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is that the same company that operates in New Brunswick?


Robert Rogers: I do not know. I understand they operate all over the Dominion.


Mr. PROULX:: What was the price paid per cubic yard?


Robert Rogers: It was done on force account.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: What percentage of profit did the company receive?


Robert Rogers: Cost, plus 12i per cent.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I want to warn the minister that if that company is operating in Ottawia as it is operating in New Brunswick, he will want to have not only one inspector but half a dozen inspectors over them, and then the minister will be beaten. They built a bridge over the river St. John at Fredericton, and according to the report just brought down in the Legislature, one pier of that bridge cost between $64,000 and

$65,000. The original pier cost only $8,000 or $9,000. There was something wrong with the foundation, and it went out with the ice last year. This company is a sort of a mystery in our province. The provincial Minister of Public Works does not even know who the directors or officers are; they simply dropped down from heaven, and they gobble up gold by the barrel, and I do not know where they will go with it. They are a most wonderful organization. If they are carrying on the same kind of work on the Ottawa custom house foundation that they are in New Brunswick, my hon. friend had better get back to his former condition, even if it did take two or three inspectors to do the work of one good man who had been dismissed on account of political trouble in the city of Ottawa. My hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) is looking very anxious. It would be very amusing if I were to read to the House some of the correspondence of my hon. friend to the former inspector. I will, however, forego that pleasure just at present unless the minister is very anxious to hear it. The reason why my hon. friend (Mr. Rogers) had to go to this Foundation Company was the interference of my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa.


Rodolphe Lemieux: No?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The trouble was that mv hon. friend the member for Ottawa wrote to Mr. Inspector: ' Put on this man; he was a good ward worker at the last election. I would like this man appointed to carry water or on some other good easy job. He is not very strong, but he did some work at the last election, and you must find a job for him.' I have seen not one but fifty letters like that from my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa, written in his own handwriting too. They can be produced if necessary. They are the most remarkable set of documents that I have seen in my lifetime. It is no wonder that my hon. friend the minister says he has had some difldculty in regard to labourers in Ottawa. I remember that one letter was in regard to getting rid of a certain class of European labourers in order to put certain other people in their place. The letters would be very interesting reading to the minister if they were brought ten. his attention. He can have them at any time by asking for them. That is the reason why it became costly to carry on the work as it was being carried on, and that is the reason, I presume, why the minister was compelled to look after this foundation company. He had better look 119
after that company very closely, because, even apart from the friends of my hon. friend the senior member for Ottawa, the work is costing too much.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate very much
what my hon. friend has stated, and I am free to confess that I think this work has cost a much heavier sum than it should have cost. The Foundation Company have been much slower than we hoped they would be when they first started. I do not know that they have made much greater progress than we were making before we called them in. The work, however, was very difficult, and it was represented that they were experts on this class of work. We were anxious to do the best we could, and that is why the bargain was made with them. I agree, however, with my hon. friend that I would not like to have a similar experience repeated if it could be avoided.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Does it occur to my hon. friend that the practice of letting work on cost plus 12i%, must lend to extravagance, because the contractor does not care a straw how much it costs the Government to carry out the work. He says: The more cost the better; if I can make this work cost $100,000, I shall get $12,500 out of it; if it costs $50,000, I shall get only $6,250. The principle is vicious. A similar case occurred in the city of Fredericton. The contractors had two men carrying water to their workmen from a spring away down the river bank, about half a mile below the work, although the city of Fredericton has as pure water as any city in Canada. The city paid $185,000 or $200,000 to put in a filtration plant a few years ago. The Government, however, was paying the bill, and the contractors wished to find a job for a couple of old men who were not able to do hard work. These men did not go to the spring at all; they went into a house and got their pails filled from the city taps; they had a smoke, and then came back again. That was all right, of course; it gave a job to two men; the country was paying the bill, and the contractors got their 15%. That contract was on the basis of cost plus 15%. The Government was easier then. That is only a small case, but it illustrates the way in which this force account works out. I shall be very much surprised, when the bills are brought in and audited, if the minister will not find hundreds and thousands of dollars worth of work charged for, which will be paid for to this Foundation Com-



pany, just along the line of these two old water carriers in New Brunswick.


Robert Rogers: While the work has been expensive, I can assure my hon. friend that both myself and the officers of the department have been especially diligent in trying to keep down the expense in every possible way. I do not think there is anything connected with the department regarding which I have taken occasion to call in my officers more regularly and more insistently than I have in respect to this contract, because I felt that it was costing too much. So far as keeping down expense is concerned, I am satisfied that every possible care will be taken by the officers of the department.


Mr. KYTE:: How long has this work been in progress ?


Robert Rogers: A little over a year.


George William Kyte: I understand the hon.
minister to say that about half a million dollars have been spent ?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George William Kyte: No tenders were ever called for this work ?


Robert Rogers: It was started by day labour and then done on force account.


George William Kyte: That is practically day
labour. Force account does not change the system of work in any degree at all. It simply gives to the fortunate man in charge of the work 124% profit, whereas otherwise he would not get as much. I should think that hon. gentlemen sitting behind the minister must feel somewhat aggrieved that this large amount of money is being spent without tenders being called. I [DOT] fancy that we should hear some criticism from our hon. friends opposite. It is unusual for such an enormous amount of money to be spent with so little progress. Is there any information in the department as to the time when this work will be completed ?


Robert Rogers: The foundation part is
practically completed now.


George William Kyte: The Foundation Company
are still on the job, are they not?


Robert Rogers: Yes, but they are just
finishing up. They have got to the rock during the last few days.


Frank Oliver: My hon. friend says that they have just got to the rock in the last few days. In what did they start? I was

under the impression that they started in rock.


Robert Rogers: They started in clay,
quicksand, the river bed, and everything else.


William John Macdonald: This vast expenditure, made without tender or contract, in contravention of the statute which requires work of this size to be let only by tender and contract, ought to call forth the fullest examination from every member of the committee. The minister should bring down at the earliest possible date the fullest information in regard to the whole matter, showing the amount of money spent previous to the arrangement with the Foundation Company, all other expenditure incurred, whether efforts had been made to come to an arrangement with any ether people than the Foundation Company to complete the work by some other method than by force account, and the contract made with the Foundation Company. All this information should be before the committee before this item is passed. In addition to that, the House should be informed as to whether the Foundation Company have the right to construct the foundation part of the building, or whether their duties under the contract are finished when they find rock bottom. I venture to say that never in the history of this country has there been a case where a government has spent half a million dollars of the people's money in trying to find a foundation on a single building. The whole proceedings in regard to this expenditure ought to be before the House for our supervision before this item is passed.


George William Kyte: I think also we are entitled to have information as to the amount of material that has been removed and the different kinds, as this material is usually classified. To be told merely that the work has cost half a million without being told what has been done with the money is rather too meagre information to justify the passing of an item such as this.


Mr. BRADBURY:: If any hon. member has had experience in contracting, he will realize what took place. As I understand it, they started this foundation by day work and worked until they struck quicksand and an underground river. Then experts were called in. Any one who knows anything about contracting would know that a tender could not be expected under these conditions.


Mr. CARROLL:: Does the hon. gentleman know what occurred in the case of this work?	.


George Henry Bradbury: I know a good deal of what occurred. If you will permit me, I will tell.


William John Macdonald: What responsibility have you in connection with it?


George Henry Bradbury: No more than you
have.


William John Macdonald: We have here the
responsible minister, with the officers of his department, who is supposed to give us the facts.


George Henry Bradbury: Have I no right to speak in this House?


William John Macdonald: If you know more
than the minister does?


George Henry Bradbury: Mr. Chairman, I object to being interrupted in this way, especially by a man who ought to know better. He has been in the House long enough to know what courtesies are due amongst hon. members. I am speaking as one who knows something about what a contract in a case like this might have incurred. I know what work like this is, and the hon. members who have been criticising evidently know nothing about it. I am pointing out that under the circumstances of this case no contracting firm would be justified in taking a contract to find a foundation. I presume the expenditure has been large, but at the same time there is no other way; it would be unreasonable to expect these men or any others to make a contract.


William F. Carroll: Does the hon. gentleman know that the foundation was found there over a year ago?


George Henry Bradbury: I do not, neither, I think, does the hon. gentleman.


Mr. WILLIAM CHISHOLM:: How did they find that hole to sink so much money in?


Mr. FRIPP:: Perhaps I may be allowed a word. I think I know as much about this matter as anybody else in this House.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is right.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I am afraid that some hon. members on the Opposition side are not quite fully acquainted with the circumstances of the case or the extent of this work. This building will extend over a length, I should say roughly, of two 1194
hundred yards. The foundation was started
-and for this I take some responsibility -by day labour, because it was started in the fall, and, in order to give employment to a number of men who were out of work,
I suggested to the former Minister of Public Works, Mr. Monk, that it should be begun by day labour, assuming that it was an ordinary foundation.


Frank Oliver: When was that?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Nearly two years ago.


Frank Oliver: In the winter of 1911-12?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: went at it in a different way; instead of making holes of ten or twenty feet, as under the old system, they would go down forty or fifty feet, sinking piers and timbers to very great depth, until now, at last, they have found rock at the corner which baffled them. I believe they are down to 130 or 140 feet from the level of the street. So the work has been really of a very unusual character, and I think this expenditure has been fully justified.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Are the foundations in?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: The piers are being built up to the level, as I understand it. And, as I have said, the work covers quite an area and a great many holes have to be driven to the rock which is found at different levels. I understand that they have now about completed the work, and the contractor is here ready to go on with the building. With regard to what has been said by the hon. member for Carle-ton, N.B. (Mr. Carvell), of course a great many workmen came to me to get work, and this I tried to get for them. We did not distinguish politically-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oil, oh.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Now, I tried to treat you fairly-
Mr, FRIPP: There are, of course, special cases. But on the whole it was a good thing for the workingmen of Ottawa and surrounding district-they came here from Hull and many other places. The Foundation Company are doing the work with fewer men but they are high-priced men, expert timbermen, imen who are not afraid to go down a hundred and fifty feet to work with a drill or use any of the appliances they use in order to make sure that they are not in shale but in solid rock. Giving this Company due credit, I think they are expert men. The head of it is a Canadian born who gained his trainng in the United States. He tells me that they have put in foundations all over the United States, carrying on this work as a specialty.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: My hon. friend has
given a very interesting description of the difficulties of this work. My hon. friend from Selkirk (Mr. Bradbury) stated that none of the hon. members on this side are engineers nor have they had experience and so they do not know anything about it.


George Henry Bradbury: I did nut say that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: The hon. gentleman said that we had had no experience and could not realize what had occurred on this work. But we know 'quite well what occurred. When the Government started to construct the foundation of this building, they had in charge a man by the name of Robert Low. Mr. Low was a splendid man-a man who knew his business. He worked at it for some time, and was getting along very well. It is true that the hon. member for Ottawa made a good deal of trouble by asking Mr. Low to find places for thirty or forty men as bookkeepers, timekeepers, water-carriers, and other positions in which they did not have to work, and the thing wias loaded with non-productive employees whose wages the Government had to pay.


Alfred Ernest Fripp: Mr. Low was a very good
man, too.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Yes, that is where the
trouble was. Mr. Low was too good a man to do exactly what the hon. member for Ottawa wanted him to do, and after three or four months bickering, the trouble arose. Finally Mr. Low was dismissed; that is one of the things the hon. member for Selkirk did not know anything about, and I am trying to enlighten him. My hon. friend talks about digging a hole 130 feet into the ground as if it were a wonderful engineering feat; he will find hundreds of men throughout Canada who know how to do that. He said the trouble was that the government men were not digging a hole big enough; that they were digging a hole 20 feet in diameter whereas the Foundation Company is digging a hole 40 feet in diameter. It is a wonder they do not dig it 100 feet in diameter, because the bigger the hole the more it costs, and the more commission they get out of it. It takes a wonderful amount of engineering ability to know how to dig a hole twice as big as is necessary. The whole trouble arises from political considerations. If the Government had allowed Mr. Low to go on with the work, there is no question that, with his ability and energy, he would have completed it perhaps a year ago, and it would not have cost the Government half a million dollars either. But Mr. Low had to be dismissed on account of his political opinions, and three men were employed to take his place. As always happens in such cases, these men were not able to do the work, and it was because they blundered about for five or six months that a considerable amount of money was lost. After the incompetent foreman had worked at the job for five or

six months and had lost a lot of money for the Government, the Government were compelled to get somebody who did know how to do the work, and they sent for the Foundation Company. I do not say the Foundation Company did not know how to do the work; I presume they did; but I contend that Mr. Low could have done it just as well. This is but another illustration of the results that are had when the Government allows politics to interfere with proper business methods. The hon. member for Ottawa was not the only man responsible for Mr. Low's dismissal; possibly I owe him an apology for bringing his name into the matter at all. The Conservative members for Nova Scotia are responsible for that-I happen to know something about it, and the minister happens to know something about it, I will say, on behalf of the minister, that it was with very great hesitancy and reluctance that he yielded to the pressure brought to bear upon him. The minister realized that Mr. Low's services were satisfactory, and he did not want to dispense with them. For some time he fought against the demands made by the Conservative members, but finally, when the pressure became sufficiently strong, he had to yield, and Mr. Low was removed from the position. And now my hon. friend is reaping the only result which could be expected from his action in dispensing with the services of a competent man for political purposes. I am glad to know that this carnival of squandering money is about concluded, and that the workmen have found bottom. I do hope the minister will learn a lesson from this matter, and that, especially in the city of Ottawa, he will have the work done not on the per diem basis or by foundation companies on force account, but by calling for tenders. If he does this he will always find some one who has sufficient ability to do such work. It is amusing to hear the hon. member for Selkirk and the hon. member for Ottawa telling us that this was such a peculiar kind of work that no contractors would tender for it.


George Henry Bradbury: I said the conditions were peculiar.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: It was easy to get men to tender for the foundations of the Quebec bridge, but of course an ordinary contractor has not sufficient ability or knowledge to tender for digging a hole in the earth on Sussex street.


Mr. STANFIELD:: The Canadian Pacific Railway Company had the same foundation
company construct the foundations of t\ Windsor Street station of Montreal, on force account, too.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: We will discuss the Canadian Pacific railway when we come to it;
I am speaking now only of this carnival of expenditure that is going on in connection with the work on Sussex street. The hon. member for Selkirk knows better than to say that the Government could not get an engineer or a contractor to estimate on that work. The minister knows that dozens of good contractors in Canada would have been pleased to tender for this work. Perhaps they would not have undertaken to build the foundation for so many thousand dollars, but they would have tendered on schedule rates, and the Government would have paid a certain rate per cubic yard for the removal of the material. The rates would not be very high; they are not removing solid rock there-they are trying to find it, and when they find it they are supposed to stop. There is a suspicion in Ottawa that the Foundation Company do not stop when they get to what ought to be a sufficient foundation; of course, I have no evidence of the truth of that, and I only give it to my hon. friend as a current report. One thing is sure, however, and that is that the Foundation Company did not make any attempt to make the cost any less than it ought to be, and I do not think the hon. member for Ottawa made an honest effort to reduce the cost of the work to any considerable extent. I would like the minister to tell the Committee what percentage of the work was done by days work and what percentage by the Foundation Company.


Mr. GARLAND:: Did I understand the hon. member for Carleton to say that the foreman who succeeded Mr. Low was incompetent?


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I only know that it took three men to do Mr. Low's work. They worked at the job for a few months and had to throw it up; if the hon. gentleman wants any stronger evidence of incompetency, I do not know where we are going to look for it.


Robert Rogers: Whilst we are discussing Ottawa departmental buildings, I may say that we have not yet reached the item in respect of the particular wmrk which has been discussed this afternoon. The hon. member for Pictou has asked for certain returns in regard to the matter, and I will undertake to see that they are brought

down before we reach that item. We can discuss the matter then, and I will get for my hon. friend the information he asks for with regard to the percentage of the cost.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would like to have also the total costs up to date.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Did the department make plans and specifications of this work, and generally put themselves in a position to call for tenders?
If they did, what was the estimated cost *of excavation and of the foundation complete. He might also inform us if they had different classifications of expense-so much for removal of clay or rock, and so much for the completed foundation. What was the total estimate of the cost of the foundation and how does it compare with the cost when completed?


Robert Rogers: All this will be taken
note of and will come down in the form of a return before we reach that item.
Public Buildings, Ottawa-Royal Mint- Refinery-Additional story to building, $35,000.


Frank Oliver: What is the occasion of this addition to the Mint building?


Robert Rogers: It is required to give
more room for the work of the Mint. It was asked for by Dr. Bonner on January 15, 1912. In his memorandum he stated that he had been informed by the Dominion Mines Company that they proposed to send all their gold to the Mint, and this, added to the increasing amount received from the Yukon, rendered it necessary to add an upper story to the building, as was, contemplated when the building was erected, so that no structural difficulties will be encountered.
Public Buildings, Ottawa-Victoria Memorial Museum, $40,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the object of
that vote?


Robert Rogers: This is a revote of $40,000 asked for the dividing of two large halls into offices, the completing of the auditorium, and electric fixtures. Electric fixtures amount to $20,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I hope my hon. friend will not yield to the clamour of certain people for the closing of the museum on Sunday. I think the hon. minister is to be congratulated for having yielded t<y the popular demand in opening that museum on Sunday. I have been there myself on two Sundays, and I can testify to the large fMr. Rogers.]
number of people who visited the various sections. Many people cannot afford the time to visit the museum during the week, and they do so on Sunday, when it is an agreeable recreation for them and very instructive. We surely need not be more pious than they are in England. London is supposed to be a very pious city on Sunday, but, as a matter of fact, all the large museums and even private collections are open on Sunday; and it seems to me that Ottawa, not being more pious than London but equally pious, can afford to open its museum on that day. I hope that my hon. friend, who is also a pious man, will follow his better nature in this case.


Robert Rogers: There is no intention
whatever of closing the museum on Sunday. I think it is a very desirable thing to have it open so that those who are not able to visit it during the week may do so on that day. I am glad to say that the number visiting the museum is increasing every Sunday and is evidence of the fact that the opening of the museum is appreciated by the public.


William John Macdonald: Any one who looks
at the Estimates and the money we vote for Ottawa every year must be struck by the existing situation. Last year we voted and expended $3,185,000. This year we are expending $2,000,000. In view of the tremendous expenditures that have been made aind must necessarily be made in the future, the time has surely arrived when Parliament should deal with the position of Ottawa in relation to the whole Confederation and put her in the same position that Washington is in the States. The manner in which municipal affairs have been handled in this city, the position in regard to the water question, visitors for the past four years having been unable to drink the water provided by the civic authorities, and various other incidents, together with this vast expenditure, create a situation in which the Government of the day should seriously consider taking up the whole question and dealing with it properly. I find that in Ottawa the public opinion is daily growing that we ought to have the commission system of government, and I believe it would be in the interest of the whole country if Canada would take pride in her national capital and create a non-partisan commission who would administer the affairs of this city. As it is, we have such discussions as that which has just taken place, showing, right under the nose of Parliament, the nauseat-

ing effect of patronage in every one of these expenditures of a public and national character. How long is this present anomalous situation to continue? It was all very well in the earlier stages of Confederation; but any one with any pride in his country must realize that it is our duty to provide for the future, and here in our capital city we should provide for a system of government that would guarantee to every citizen of Canada who came here, and to every citizen of any other country who visited our national capital, such a condition of affairs in relation to municipal government and all other things as would make us proud of our capital city. That is not the situation to-day. I would press upon the minister and the Government generally the wisdom and importance, in the interest not alone of Ottawa, but of the whole of Canada, of seriously grappling with this question at an early day.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: There are two
sides to the question raised' by my hon. friend. Municipal government is claiming more and more attention in the great country to the south of us. I wish my hon. friend had the felicity, as I had, of listening to the City Chamberlain of New York last Saturday, in an address before the Canadian Club. He would there have learned from a very clean-cut and brilliant intellect, one of many that are growing up among the young men of the United States, that municipal government is cMming more and more attention from the rising generation there. My hon. friend seems to have vast confidence in the federal Government in the abstract.


William John Macdonald: I was not suggesting that the Government should control the city, but that a commission might be created such as exists in other capitals.


Michael Clark: I was going to say my hon. friend seems to have vast confidence in the federal Government in the abstract, but very little confidence in the concrete. Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. friend. But he did say that he wanted to see reproduced in this country what exists at Washington, D.C. The gentleman to whom I referred a moment ago said on Saturday that he would be very glad if any Canadian who was enamoured of the particular form of municipal government they have at Washington, D.C., and anxious to introduce it in Ottawa, would first visit Washington to acquaint himself with the
criticisms that are being passed upon the methods of administration of the federal district of that capital. I do not know much about the question myself, but I thought it right to introduce at this time the most recent information the people of Ottawa have had the chance of hearing from one who is sufficient of an expert to have obtained the very important position of city chamberlain of New York.


Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:: The question before the House has broadened somewhat, and I would like to see it approached in a broad way, even so far as to review the suitability of the present location of the capital of Canada. In Australia they are starting de novo. They have found the best possible location for the capital, climatically and from a sanitary point of view, and have begun a splendid system of capital planning. In doing that, they hope to have a model city.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Would you call the new capital Carberra?


Mr. MACLEAN:: I do not know what 1 would call it; that is what they call the new capital of Australia. What I wish to discuss is whether the selection of more [DOT]than 50 years ago of Bytown, of the city of Ottawa, is the best possible location for our capital to-day? Are not the climatic conditions here of the most rigorous kind?


Mr. STEVENS:: You should come to Vancouver.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Some people think a better climate would be found in the West. It might be found on the coast, or on lake Erie or lake Ontario.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are thinking of Toronto.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: If you ask me, I would say on the bay of Quinte, between Montreal and Toronto, and on the line of the great Transcontinental railway going by Quebec, Montreal, Toronto, Sudbury, Port Arthur and Winnipeg. Ottawa is off that road. Perhaps some day we may have to review this question, and if it is to be reviewed it might be a good investment to acquire a large area of land to be devoted to the use of a great national capital for Canada. Let us take the case of Ottawa. It has a rigorous climate, and in summer it is not an attractive city.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Anyway, hon. gentlemen are all most anxious to get 5 p.m. away from this city in June. It is an impossible summer capital -I will put it that way-and all our legislation is coonskin-coat legislation. Everybody has to wear a coonskin coat, or should wear one, and I do not think Canadians are at their best, for the purposes of legislation, in a climate so rigourous as this happens to be. With conditions as they are in this city-and the hon. member for Pictou just now said that those who have been here for years cannot even get pure water to drink-it might be well worth while for Parliament to review the whole situation. As to the possibilities of life and improvement on this continent, and we are just beginning to find ourselves. While I would not say a word as to the wisdom of the Royal lady who made the choice of Ottawa as a capital, I do say that it does not quite meet the requirements of Canada to-day.


George William Kyte: Would the hon. member say in what division of Toronto he would like to have the capital ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not saying that at all.


The CHAIRMAN:: I am afraid the discussion is drifting from the item.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Possibly it is within the purview of discussion of this item.


Mr. BURNHAM:: Has Parliament the power to change the capital ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: It can do anything it wants to do.


John Hampden Burnham: No, it cannot.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I [DOT] am sorry to hear a member say that it cannot.


William F. Carroll: You would like to have it in Toronto ?


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Toronto is not a bad city; it has a good public opinion.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: That depends on the point of view.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Perhaps Hamilton might be a good place for the capital. But this question is coming up both in the East and the West. I say we have not the best possible capital to-day. If the whole matter is to be reviewed eventually, it may be unwise to embark on expenditures involving hundreds of millions of dollars.


Robert Rogers: Not so much as that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I do not know what they will be eventually. We have not committed ourselves to much so far, comparatively speaking. If Parliament is to sit all the year round-and that seems to be coming-we ought to have a capital that is fairly possible in summer and winter, and our present capital is not in either.


William F. Carroll: In this 20th century, to talk of removing the Capital of Canada is, in my humble judgment, an absurdity. Many of us, no doubt, like the hon. gentleman for South York, would like our own city to be the capital.
'Mr. W. F. MACLEAN:	Please do not
impute to me something I did not say.


William F. Carroll: I am not sas'ing Ottawa is the best place in Canada in which to live, but I do say that a city in which has been spent millions of dollars in the erection of public buildings, and which has within its limits thousands of civil servants who have made homes here for themselves, and in which many millions of dollars have been spent in beautifying it, will remain, notwithstanding the arguments of my hon. friend (Mr. W. F. Maclean), the capital city of Canada. The hon. gentleman said that Canadians were not at their best in coon-skin coats. I do not know about that. Canadians are a hardy race, and they rather like the long winter months. Those of us who are obliged to stay in Ottawa all the time, during the session, and to attend to our parliamentary duties all the time, coming as we do from the far East and the far West, would perhaps have more reason for wanting the capital city changed than my hon. friend from South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean). At all events, it is simply absurd, in this year of grace, to ask that the capital of Canada should be removed from Ottawa.


Mr. EDWARDS:: Of course, if there ever should be any serious thought of moving the capital from Ottawa, I would suggest that possibly the city of Kingston would be an ideal spot. However, it is my view that not in the whole Dominion of Canada, from ocean to ocean, all things considered, can there be found a place more suitable for the capital of our Dominion than right here. Any person, with an artistic eye, who walks out on the hill behind these buildings, will view a panorama of natural beauty that cannot be excelled in America; I doubt if it can be excelled anywhere on the continent of Europe. I am not in accord with the idea of moving the capital from its

present location. The remarks which have fallen from the hon. member for South York (Mr. W. F. Maclean) in regard to the climatic disabilities of Ottawa, will probably give us some tangible idea as to why we have seen so very little of that hon. gentleman at the Capital during the sessions of Parliament. I would remind him of a remark made by a former Governor General of Canada, to the effect that possibly Canada's cold climate was Canada's warmest friend. I care not whether the members of Parliament have to come here in coon-skin coats or in silk hats, they can very well stand the climate of Ottawa for the few months of the parliamentary session. I repeat that, all things considered, Ottawa is the best possible location we could get for the capital city of our Dominion. It is right on the line between the great province of Ontario and the great province of Quebec, which are the very basis of our country, and it is possibly not far from the present centre of population of the Dominion. The Government is justified in spending money in Ottawa, in the view that it shall always remain our capital. As to the formation of a federal district, that is a matter which should receive the most careful consideration from the Government, before any step is taken in that direction.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has any provision been made in the new buildings for accommodating the Royal Society of Canada, as promised by the Minister of Public Works?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that I
made any promise. When the deputation waited on me, these Estimates had already been brought down'.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the hon. gentleman make a promise for the future?


Edmond Proulx: Can the minister give any assurance' that the foundation of the Royal Victoria Museum building is now secure?


Robert Rogers: There is a difficulty in
connection with the tower of the Museum, which has separated to some extent from the main building. It is not regarded by the architect as being very serious, but it is sufficiently serious to require attention. The purpose is to attend to it in the very near future.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: Is it the opinion of the architect that the settling of the foundation has now ceased, or is the opening around the ceiling of the building likely to become greater as time goes on? It is in
a very unsightly condition and should be attended to.


Robert Rogers: The architect informs me that he is now discussing a proposition with a view to strengthening the foundation. I do not think he is very clear on whether there is going to be any greater separation of the tower from the main building, but we will have the matter very carefully looked into.
In reference to the discussion about moving the capital city of Canada to some other locality, of course, if anything like that were ever contemplated, it would be my duty to put in a word for the city of Winnipeg, which is the centre of the Dominion, and one of the growing cities of our country.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: It is colder than here.


Robert Rogers: That may be, but it has many other advantages which make one . forget the coldness of its climate. We have anticipated the idea of the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) to some extent. He will quite agree that it would be impossible to give any intelligent consideration to a suggestion regarding a federal city without first having certain necessary information.
I quite agree that there are two sides t< the question. Many people are in favour of the idea of a federal city similar to that of Washington, and many people, for various reasons, oppose such an undertaking on the part of the Government. In order that we may have an intelligent understanding of the idea, the Government has gone the length of appointing a commission to prepare a plan. This step has been taken by the Government, without in any way committing itself to the idea of a federal city, in view of the expressed wishes of a great many people who believe in this proposal. That commission consists of Mr. H. F. Holt and Sir Alexander Lacoste, of Montreal, Mr. Frank Darling and Mr. Home Smith, of Toronto, the mayor of the city of Ottawa and the mayor of the city of Hull, whoever they may be, during their respective terms of office. Perhaps by the next session of Parliament they will have reduced their ideas to a plan that will enable us to give at least intelligent consideration to the proposal, and to express our views either for or against it.


William Findlay Maclean: Will that plan include the acquiring of a large area of territory?


Robert Rogers: It includes the planning of the capital. There are several ideas

that necessitate consideration in this respect. With all due respect to the civic government of Ottawa, if there is one consideration more than another tnat would prompt me at all events to support a proposal for the removal of the capital from this city, it is the manner in which the municipal organization of the city of Ottawa, not this year alone, hut every year, have treated us in respect to the supplying of pure water for the people who come to this city from time to time. In my humble judgment this is a very dangerous condition of affairs, and it is to be regretted, because this Parliament, as has been said, has spent a great deal of money in attempting to beautify this city. In return for that, we naturally think that the residents of Ottawa, through their municipal Government, should at least undertake to supply us with pure water and make us feel that we are not taking any risks in drinking the water given to us from day to day. I have only mentioned this matter of town planning in order that my hon. friend may see that we are not overlooking the importance of his suggestion, and that we have gone that far in order that at a future date we may be ab'e to give careful attention to that suggestion.


Michael Clark: Has my hon. friend not been rather severe in his strictures upon the city of Ottawa in regard to not supplying Parliament with pure water, for the reason that it is only in very recent times that Parliament has taken to drinking water?


Alfred Ernest Fripp: I think I can safely say that the people of the city of Ottawa will thank the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) for bringing this matter to the attention of Parliament. A short time ago a vote was submitted to the people of Ottawa as to whether or not they would desire the Government to form Ottawa into a federal district, and it was carried by a very large majority. Personally I wish to place myself on record as being in favour of that idea. My short experience as a representative of the people of Ottawa in this House, and my connection with the municipal government, have led me to the conclusion that it is absolutely necessary in the best interest of the city that some such scheme as that shall be considered and carried into effect.
With regard to the water question, I think that the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Rogers) must take some blame to himself as a member of the present Gov-
ernment. I wish to point out that the trouble in regard to the supply of water by the municipality, for use in the buildings here and for the people of Ottawa, has arisen within a very few years from a cause which was preventable. Hon. gentlemen in this House seem to forget that. The fault did not lie so much in the supply itself as it lay with this Parliament in allowing municipalities to dump their sewage into the Ottawa river above the present limits of the city of Ottawa. That is the cause of the trouble, together with some negligence on the part of civic officials which was the immediate cause of the last typhoid epidemic. The Government of the day is so vitally interested in the city of Ottawa that I am of the opinion that, unless it acts in a paramount way and compels the municipality to take water from a proper source, we shall have a continuation of this trouble. Surely this Government, which is willing to contribute such a large sum of money for the bringing of pure water to the city of Ottawa, is as much interested in the matter as are the people of Ottawa. I suggest that the hon. Minister of Public Works should not find fault with the municipal government of the city, but rather that he and the Government behind him have the power to say to the city of Ottawa: We are as much interested financially as you are. We have invested in Ottawa as much if not more money than the people of this city; we will investigate the water supply, and we will say how much we are willing to contribute to a supply, if it is a proper one. In the city of Ottawa to-day are two factions fighting over where the supply of water shall come from. It devolves on the Government to say: We will only support that scheme which we think, after proper investigation, independent as we are, is the proper source from which to get a full and pure supply of water for the residents of Ottawa and the people who come here from time to time. I think that is the duty resting upon the Government. If the Government take such a stand as that, they will settle this question once and for all.
In conclusion, I desire to say that the form of municipal government here is neither better nor worse than that in any other city having the same system. With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Clark), I also had the pleasure of listening to the lecture by the City Chamberlain of New York, and he did not impress me so strongly as he impressed the hon. gentleman. I believe that a federal district is the system which

should be adopted for the city of Ottawa, because we are peculiarly situated here, interlocked as we are with the Government of the day in the management of the affairs of the capital city of the Dominion. I implore the Government to take a decided stand on the question of what shall be the proper source of water supply for the city of Ottawa. I believe that is the only way in which the question will be settled, and it will take some years to bring it to a final and proper conclusion.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: I would be very sorry indeed if the Government saw fit to follow the advice of my hon. friend. I am sorry also to see introduced into discussion in this House the question as to what any man may consider the proper settlement of this unfortunate dispute in Ottawa. It is not very hard to see, from the remarks of my hon. friend from Ottawa, which scheme he wishes adopted; but, I am not going to refer to that at all. I know of no hon. member who has suffered more through Ottawa water than I have, and I speak with some feeling. I am just as anxious as any other man for a pure supply of water for the city of Ottawa. I do not think, however, that the Government has the right to say: We will contribute if the municipal authorities decide the question one way, and we will not contribute if they decide it another way. There is too big a question of principle involved, because the very moment the Government take that stand, they have to go to the further extent of saying:	We are going to control the
municipal authorities of the city of Ottawa; for the very reason that, when they take that stand, they are controlling the municipal authorities.
I am sufficiently a home-ruler to believe that the people of Ottawa are the ones to settle this question. They will get through playing the game of politics after a little while-for that is all it has amounted to for the last two or three years. No one can read the Ottawa newspapers and spend isix months or more of the year in Ottawa as we do without seeing what the game is-purely a political game being worked by the municipal politicians in Ottawa, many of them, I believe, having an eye on higher realms of politics. The people will get tired of it. There is enough common sense, sound judgment and business ability in the electorate of Ottawa-the men who have an interest in the city greater than we have, the men who p.ay the taxes and must continue to pay the taxes-to reach a solution
of this difficulty. I have great faith in the people. I have found that after they get through with their political schemes the common sense of the people comes to the front and decides on the course that on the whole is the best. I believe we haye a pretty good system of municipal government all over Canada. We make our mistakes, but in the end things work out for the public benefit. I hope that the Government instead of following the advice of tne hon. member for Ottawa (Mir. Fripp) will simply say to the people:	Go ahead and
do what is best. I think they will decide for the best, and then I hope the Government will give them assistance to work out the plans with success. I believe the Government should contribute very largely to the water supply of the city of Ottawa, for, as the Minister of Public Works has said, we have to come here and we and our families are dependent to some extent on what the Ottawa authorities do for us. Therefore, we are vitally interested in having a pure wiater supply. But I do not think this Government has any right to step in and say to the people, you must do this or we will not contribute.


William Findlay Maclean: I think this has been a valuable discussion. It has brought out the fact that Parliament has within its purview the question of capital-planning, and that is a big undertaking. It has brought out the fact that this Government has in its purview the development of the city here from a municipal point of view and has also the expense of a great deal of money on public buildings. It has also brought within the discussion the question of the government of this city. These are all very important questions, involving great sums of money and the comfort of great numbers of people. And the city of Ottawa has its responsibility in this situation. And it is not a bad idea if the citizens of Ottawa are given to understand' that much depends on them and they cannot throw their burdens altogether on Parliament; and it may be necessary for the Government to consider the question even of location of the capital. It is mainly from that point of view that I approached it this afternoon. I think it is a good idea that Ottawa people should be given to understand that they have duties in this matter. They are going to vote at au early date on. the water question, about which we hear so much in Parliament and read so much in the press. The citizens of Ottawa, if well advised, will show that they

have municipal spirit, that they are prepared to assume their responsibilities. It is' well that they should understand that we are watching their conduct and policy, and that it has not been up to the present time very satisfactory to the Parliament of Canada and to the people who have to come here in connection with Parliament.


William John Macdonald: I would like to say just a word in conclusion. The idea of a federal district in which Canada's capital should be is one that has long been viewed with favour by many people in this country. The citizens of Ottawa, those immediately connected with the Government of the country by employment in the Civil Service or dependent on them in a greater or lesser degree, are not an industrial people and conditions in Ottawa are such that in a great many respects the city occupies a position exactly like that of Washington in the United States. Indeed, the eloquent gentleman who leads the Opposition (Sir Wilfrid Laurier) has repeatedly spoken of Ottawa as ' the Washington of the North,' and in a most distinctive sense that language is absolutely true. That the idea is one which has been found worthy the consideration of the Government, I think is a matter of congratulation. This is not a political question in any sense. Of course, if we take into consideration the situation in Washington, we find a district, a seat of government peopled, as is Ottawa, very largely by those connected with the Government in greater or lesser degree. But there is no representation of those people in congress. That I regard as the necessary consequence of the establishment of such a district. I have sat in close proximity to my genial friend from Ottawa (Mr. Fripp) in this House, and I am bound to say that no other hon. member need envy the representative of a city like Ottawa. Both he and his hon. colleague all through this Parliament have been deluged by a flood of people who wish to serve their country for a consideration, to a greater degree than one could imagine, to a degree which must impair the usefulness of one who represents such a constituency. My hon. friend from Red Deer (Mr. Clark), who indulged in some caustic comment on the idea that I should have suggested anything in the House that in some way was to the interest of the Government, perhaps has not familiarized himself sufficiently with the conditions that exist on this side of the
Atlantic in relation to this or other matters to warrant him in speaking as an authority.


Michael Clark: I said I was not an authority; I quoted an authority.


William John Macdonald: My hon. friend ventured to quote a gentleman who came here to speak but who, a f-iend from Ottawa tells me-I did not attend the Canadian Club meeting myself-delivered a lecture which did not appeal to him. If my hon. friend had not been carried away by the eloquence of that gentleman, he would probably have discovered that Mr. Bruere is a very tyro in municipal legislation, so much so that his selection by Mayor Mitchell was a great surprise to the people of New York because of Mr. Bruere's lack of experience in regard to civic matters. I do not think that any hon. gentleman in this House should declare ex cathedra that the people of this country or the men of this Parliament must accept Mr. Bruere's views as the last word in municipal government. As one who has visited Washington and seen the methods of government there, I think that every one will agree that the federal district in the case of Washington has been a success. With all deference to Mr. Bruere and his advocacy of ideal municipal systems, whether here or in the United States, the commonly accepted view of men who represent the whole of the United States and who are interested in Washington, as well as that of the civil servants who happen to be there, is that Washington is a creditable capital of their great republic. The public buildings, the care of the streets, the management of public utilities and services that enter into municipal life, are all on a par with the best to be found elsewhere. Every visitor who has gone there will agree with that statement, I am glad that the Government has moved in this matter. I think that the whole of Canada from one end to the other is as much interested in this capital of our nation as the man who resides here. Its permanence, it beauty, its representative character for the whole country, are matters that I say, as a Nova Scotian, I am as much interested in as the man who happens to live here, and matters to which the Government of this country should give particular attention.
I have always been of opinion that the federal district should be reproduced in Canada.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What did this commission cost? Being a farmer, I want to know what things cost.


Mr. PERLEY:: The commission is purely an honorary one, consisting of six members, of whom two are the mayors of the cities of Ottawa and Hull. Half the expenses are to be borne by those cities and half by the Government. No definite estimate ha^s yet been made as to the total cost, but it will probably amount to $20,000 or $25,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I do not pretend to be an authority on the subject which has been discussed this afternoon by the hon. member for Pictou, but it seems to me that in the very fact of extending the jurisdiction of the commission to the province of Quebec, beyond the limits of Ottawa, there is an argument in favour of the establishing of a federal district. I am not committed to one idea more than another, but I would point out that the spending of large sums of money in the capital of the Dominion will excite the jealousy of other municipal governments, unless you make Ottawa a federal district. After all, the city of Ottawa obtains the benefit, to a certain extent, of any improvements which are made, because of the consequent increase in the value of property. I think that public opinion in Ottawa, generally speaking, favours the idea of a federal district. I do not say that it is the best system, but if you extend the powers of the commission beyond the city of Ottawa, including Borden City and Britannia, for instance, you immediately bring the attention of the public to the fact that there is a certain district around the Government buildings which is under the immediate surveillance and control of the federal authorities. For my own part, I think it is worth while studying this question. Canada is a growing country, and in some respects I do not object to imitating the course taken by the United States. I have never heard any criticism, except that which was made this afternoon, against the federal district idea at Washington. Of course, there may be some difliculties connected with its administration, but any one who has occasionally been at Washington and has had a superficial view of the city, must admit that it is indeed a great capital, and that the monuments there are a credit to the United States republic. During our tenure of office, when we started to beautify the city of Ottawa by the appointment of a commission who were given a large amount to spend every year, quite a good deal of criticism was made by persons in other parts of the country. The people said: Why do you
spend so much money on improvements in Ottawa ? We said: It is for the capital of your country. But they said: that increases the value of the municipality of Ottawa, gives additional value to city property, and we do not see why Quebec, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and the other large cities should not get their share of that money. This is a popular argument, and one which has some logic in it. I do not object to any expenditure for the purpose of beautifying the capital of the Dominion. I do not share the view of the hon. member for South York that we should consider the idea of changing the capital. Of course, the city of Montreal was the one'which should have been the capital of Canada foT all time, but the Tories prevented that in 1849. I quite admit that there is no place in Canada like Ottawa for the capital of the Dominion. I would call the attention of the minister to the fact that he has not answered my 'question with regard to space in the new buildings for the Royal Society. I hope to commit him to the providing of a building of sufficient accommodation for that society.


Robert Rogers: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to wait for a definite answer until the Supplementary Estimates are brought down.
M:r. BOULAY: Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed by the committee to add a few words to the remarks that have just been made in reference to the city of Ottawa? I fully concur in the remarks of my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) as to Ottawa having been selected as the capital. The matter was fully considered when the fathers of the Confederation selected Ottawa to he the capital, and I do not feel inclined, as the iron, member for South York, to criticise their action.
Now, with regard to the question of forming Ottawa into a federal district, as was suggested by several hon. members this afternoon, I do not countenance this idea, because I have already strongly criticised that suggestion the very first time I 'heard of it. Ottawa has the benefit of a yearly subsidy amounting to $60,000, during twenty years, for the improvement of her streets and squares. This city is the seat of Government, and as such, gets the greater part of public moneys on account of the fact that it is here that we find the largest number of high-salaried public servants.

Therefore, I believe that the city of Ottawa is in a 'better position than any other city to provide for its own municipal requirements. We have a great number of other cities whicfh are not so favoured and are obliged to bear heavy taxation for the maintenance of their streets and parks, without asking for any assistance from the Government. For my part, even if I should be the only one to object to this change, I would surely never favour such a measure.
On the 18th instant, when the Estimates of the Secretary of State were before the committee, I made some remarks about the employees of the Archives and the Victoria Museum and the minister replied to me that these men were not under his control. I would like to know from the Minister of Public Works if these men are under the Department of Public Works.


Robert Rogers: The firemen, engineers
and elevator men come under the Public Works Department, but that is all.


Mr. BOULAY:: Those in whom I am interested were receiving the visitors. I am anxious to know from which department they come.


Robert Rogers: Apparently they are not
under this department, but I shall let the hon. member know after dinner.
Public Buildings, Toronto-New Dominion buildings, $500,000.


William F. Carroll: What is the reason for this building?


Robert Rogers: It is a new post office
for Toronto.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: We hear a lot of talk
about a federal square in Toronto. Is the minister carrying out that idea?


Robert Rogers: No, we are not carrying out that idea at all.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Is the new post office on the same site as the old one?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Pius Michaud: Is it an addition to the old one?


Robert Rogers: It will be a new building entirely.
Public Buildings, Nova .Scotia-Amherst_
New post office, inclusive of 6 per cent interest on balance due on site, $30,000.


William F. Carroll: When was this site
bought?


Robert Rogers: The site has not been
purchased, it was expected when the estimate was put in that we would have had

it expropriated and this is merely an estimate.
Amherst drill hall, $70,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How large a place is
Amherst?


Robert Rogers: Between 10,000 and 12,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will $70,000 finish the
drill hall? I see that $30,000 was voted last year of which there is a revote of $10,000. That would be $20,000 expended, making with this $90,000 for a place of 10,000 or 12,000. Will this $70,000 complete the work?


Robert Rogers: I do not believe it will
finish it, it will cost about $115,000 all told.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I may as well say now
as at any other time that I am perfectly in accord with the erection of public buildings in reason, but I think it is ridiculous, in a place of 10,000 or 12,000, to spend $115,000 for a drill hall.


John Stanfield: I think it includes
an armoury.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Even so. Fifty or sixty
thousand dollars for a building for 10,000 or 12,000 inhabitants is absolutely enough, and I think that is the opinion of the people of this country. There is reason in all things, but no possible reason, in a country like ours-for we are not a military country in any sense-to build an armoury and drill hall in a town of 10,000 or 12,000 to cost $120,000.


Michael Clark: I endorse the
opinion expressed by my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). I speak not so much my own individual opinion, because I am afraid I might be suspected, as I am well known to have views a little different from the ordinary inhabitants of even Canada on the general question of armaments; but I would like to endorse my hon. friend's view that there is a strong feeling in the country on this subject. I hear it expressed, irrespective of politics, by different men. I have received representations in writing on the subject, that we have been spending too much money on this particular line of outlay. I am not speaking from a party standpoint. If I were speaking as a party man, I would take my seat and let this expenditure go on. I speak as a patriotic citizen of the country, and I express the opinion coming to me from many men, irrespective of party.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: I also wish to say a few words along the same line. I asked for a

return as to the number of drill halls built since 1911 and the number promised or under construction since that time. I figured out that the total number that had been built went up in cost somewhere in the neighbourhood of $492,000, and there had been promised drill halls to about the same expense to be built in the future. I quite agree in this matter, if it is done in reason, there is no harm; but an expenditure since 1911 of $1,000,000 on drill halls in this country is going too far altogether. There is no question that to a certain extent military matters must be carried on in this country, but we should not go to such extremes as this in the erection of drill halls and armouries. In many small towns particularly, where there are small regiments, they have become practically nothing more or less than clubs, at which men associate, with very little reference to military matters.
And I wish to enter my protest, not in a partisan or any narrow way, but most emphatically, against expenditures of this kind running into the amount of money that drill halls have run into. I never did approve of drill halls to any large extent. In the large centres they are very good things if an appropriate amount of money is spent according to the size of the town; but to build drill halls promiscuously, and to go on increasing our military expenditure, as we have done from year to year does not seem to me to be in keeping with the spirit of Canada; and I do not believe that either on this side of the House or on the other will such expenditures be fully endorsed. Perhaps the Government has been carried away in this matter. At any Tate, I think a very careful consideration of expenditures of that kind is certainly in order at the present time.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When a drill hall is
built in a city like Amherst, is the site given by the municipality, or does the department purchase it?


Robert Rogers: In many cases the sites have been given.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What did this particular one cost?


Robert Rogers: It was transferred by the Militia Department to the Public Works Department after the building was partly under way. We have not the information as to whether the site was given, or was paid for by the department.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Would the minister get that- information?


Robert Rogers: Certainly.
At six o'clock the House resumed, and then took recess.
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 88, respecting the London and Lake Erie Railway and Transportation Company.-Mr. Marshall. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is this connected with
the London and Port Burwell road?


Mr. LANCASTER:: I have no information as to that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does it go to the same
places?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: It is practically in
the same location; it is in the county of Elgin, and up towards London, and around St. Thomas, and towards Windsor.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


MANITOBA AND NORTH WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 25, respecting the Manitoba and North Western Railway Company of Canada.-Mr. Douglas. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: There was a long discussion in the Railway Committee over this Bill, with the object of trying to get the company to hurry up and build, but no one could find a solution except to renew the charter to enable them to do so. Certain assurances were given, such as you can get from railways, for what they are worth. The committee voted to leave in the Bill the ordinary periods of two years to commence, and five years to complete.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I suppose the modem
standard clauses are in the Bill?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


ALBERTA CENTRAL RAILWAY COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 56, respecting the Alberta Central Railway Company-Mr. Michael Clark. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Edward Arthur Lancaster: While we sanctioned
the special agreement which deals with traffic between these two companies, we

took care to amend the Bill so as to provide that the powers of the Railway Commission would apply in full force to both companies; otherwise we did not change the Bill.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CENTRAL ONTARIO RAILWAY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 74, respecting the Central Ontario Railway.- Mr G. V. White. Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Rodolphe Lemieux: Who is the father of
this Bill?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: The Bill is in the
name of Mr. White, of Renfrew. It provides for an extension of time, and the committee passed the Bill exactly as applied for. The draftsmen of this Bill did something that I feel like commending them for: They described the location so that the renewal told exactly where the line is to run, thus rendering it unnecessary to refer to the former statute. We checked that [DOT]over to see that the printing was the same, and it was. We granted an extension of time, because some of the work had been [DOT]done and some money expended. We have recast section 3 of the Bill as printed, because it is not the language which we generally use, and we have made it what we may call our model clause-that the company may commence to construct their unconstructed portion, because they have constructed some portions of the railway, and they have not yet commenced certain other portions of it as originally described.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What part of the road has been constructed?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: I have not a note
in my minute book as to the exact portion ; simply the note that this section must be amended because part of the railway has been constructed.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this the railway company which claims certain land subsidies from the province of Ontario?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No. The company to which my hon. friend refers is one that we have dealt with earlier in the session, namely, the Central Railway Company ef Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is about the same
name.


Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is the Central
Ontario Railway and the other is the Central Railway Company of Canada.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is my hon. friend satisfied from what he has heard in the committee that this charter ought to be given?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: Yes, we thought that it was a bona fide matter.
On section 3-limitation:


Rodolphe Lemieux: Do I understand that
the limitation is less than in the original Bill?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: No, we gave them the usual time-two years to commence, five years to complete.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 82, respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Green, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 1-line of railway authorized:
Edward Arthur Lancaster: This is what you might call a double-barrelled Bill. We sanctioned an agreement, as we did in the case of the Alberta Central Railway Company, of which I spoke just now, and we gave the company an additional franchise to build into the Aspen Grove mineral district. The Bill passed the Railway Committee as printed, except that we added a section at the end of section 1, modifying the agreement- in the schedule by a provision exactly the same as in the case of the Alberta Central Railway Company. The object of that new section is to preserve intact all the powers of the Railway Commissioners. Otherwise the Bill is exactly as printed.
Bjll reported, read the third time and
passed.


RIO DE JANEIRO AND SAN PAULO TELEPHONE COMPANY.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee on Bill No. 94, respecting InteTurban Company, Limited, and changing its name to Rio de Janeiro and San Paulo Telephone Company.-Air. Northrup. Air. Blondin in the Chair.
On section 2-powers of company in Brazil:
Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is this a company to
carry on a telephone business in Brazil?


Edward Arthur Lancaster: During the last four
or five years we have been in the habit of passing this class of Bills, which is like the last three Bills of the Order Paper-

the Barcelona Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, the Brazilian Traction, Light and Power Company, Limited, and the British America Nickel Corporation, Limited, which were passed last year and are being amended. This is a case where a company has letters patent in Canada. It wants to go into a foreign country to build a railway and telephone line, and to use its Canadian incorporated name. When it gets to that foreign country, it is told that, on those letters patent, it cannot build its railway or telephone line. So , we pass the Act in this form, declaring that in that country and subject to the laws of that country, they can build a railway so far as our incorporation of them is concerned-but of course not in Canada or any other British country.
Bill reported, read the third time, and passed.


CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE- THIRD READINGS.
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 95, respecting The High River, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr. R. B. Bennett.
Bill No. 86, to incorporate The Canadian Alberta Railway Company, and changing its name to The Algonquin Railway Company.-Mr. Warnock.
Bill No. 81, to incorporate the Canadian Press Association.-Mr. Hugh Clark.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Blondin in the Chair.
Bear River public building, $4,000.
['This is a vote of $3,000, for a tower clock; $2,000 and $1,000 for sidewalks in connection with municipal undertakings around the building.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.\nMonday, March 23, 1914.']
George William Kyte: Is that Bear River, in Digby county?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Mr. LAW:: What is the population of Bear River?


Robert Rogers: It is estimated at 1,500.


George William Kyte: It is not necessary to estimate it when reference can be made to the census returns. Does it appear in the census returns at all?


Robert Rogers: This is simply a revote; the matter has not been taken up at all.


George William Kyte: This amount is in the Estimates, and I presume it is intended to spend the money. If the minister has not the information, surely the officials of his department can tell him what the population of Bear River is.



Robert Rogers: The post office inspector reported on February 26, 1912, that the population of the town is 1,500, and is
steadily growing. Bear River is situated on a navigable river which enters the Annapolis basin and connects with the bay of Fundy. In former days shipbuilding was carried on extensively at Bear River. It is an important port of entry; sea-borne freights come freely to 'its waters. It is situated some five miles up the river from Bear River railway station, where it makes connection with the Dominion Atlantic railway. The 'townsite is a most picturesque one; Bear River is widely known as one of the greatest beauty spots in Nova Scotia.


George William Kyte: I venture to say that the population of Bear River is not one-quarter of 1,500; I suppose that amount includes 'the population of the whole polling subdivision of Bear River. Bear River is a Ismail village in the county of Digby, and T fancy that the population of the village itself is not more than 400. In the past protests have been made against the expenditure of money for erecting public buildings in towns very much larger than Bear River. Our friends on the other side sit behind the minister quite complacently when he asks the committee to vote $4,000 for the erection of a public building in a village the size of Bear River.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the money likely to be spent this year?


Robert Rogers: I am not in a position to give my hon. friend a definite answer; I do not really know why the money was not spent last year.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has a site been purchased?


Robert Rogers: No.


George William Kyte: For what purpose is the building to be erected?


Robert Rogers: It is to be used as a post office.


George William Kyte: What is the revenue of the post office at the present time?


Robert Rogers: $ 1,972.7b.


George William Kyte: What is the salary of the
postmaster?


Robert Rogers: 


Mr. A. W. CHISHOLM:: Is it the policy of the minister to erect public buildings


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
in every place in the country where there is a post office having a similar revenue?
Robert Rogers: It certainly is not.


George William Kyte: Why has the minister
selected Bear River as a place in which to spend $4,000 on a public building, excluding all the other villages of at least the same size?


Robert Rogers: I can give my hon.
friend no special reason. I found the vote here when I took charge of the department, and it appears to be still here, unexpended.


Bowman Brown Law: It seems strange that the hon. minister should keep this amount in the Estimates year after year merely to deceive the people of that village and to give them the impression that they are going to have a public building. Personally, I have no objection to the erection of a public building at Bear River; it is one of the prettiest little villages in the Annapolis valley. But the minister does not even know whether or not the land has been purchased or a site arranged for.


Robert Rogers: No land has been purchased.


Bowman Brown Law: That is worse still.


John Hampden Burnham: The policy of erecting buildings of this kind instead of paying rentals is surely a good one. The rental of a post office having a revenue of $1,976 would necessarily be $250 a year. The point that some hon. gentlemen are trying to make is that the Government should not erect this building. I say they should, and that they should erect similar buildings wherever they can.


George William Kyte: What rental is the Government now paying for the post office?


Robert Rogers: I do not think we are
paying any rent.


George William Kyte: In Nova Scotia no rentals
are paid for post offices in villages the size of Bear River, so the erection of a public building there would effect no saving whatever. I find that Bear River does not appear at all in the census returns for 1911. I thjnk this item ought to be allowed to stand until we get further information with regard to it.


Bowman Brown Law: In reference to the remarks of the hon. member for West Peterborough, I may say that I plainly stated that I had no objection whatever to the erection of a public building at Bear River. I do not

wish the hon. gentleman to misconstrue my remarks and to charge me with something of which I am not guilty. What I object to is the Government putting this amount in the Estimates year after year and not spending the money.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is the
estimated cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: We have not made an estimate yet.


George William Kyte: What is the information on
which the $4,000 vote was passed last year?


Robert Rogers: The information in the report of the post office inspector is that the town does a large business and has a large tourist trade, and it is necessary at certain times of the year to give special accommodation to that trade. The population -was estimated, in a report of September 8 last, at 1,500. There is a grist mill, granite works, a threshing mill, a carriage factory, two hotels and 250 houses. The number of boxes in the local post office is 216 of which 168 are rented, so it cannot be a very small place if that is the condition. The population of the town is likely to increase according to the report. A pulp mill and paper mill are likely to be established, which will still further increase the population. The inspector recommends that if a post office building is erected in this town it should be 30 feet by 40 feet.


George William Kyte: Has the minister any information as to the amount of customs duties collected there?


Robert Rogers: The customs duties
amounted to $1,739.81. The money orders issued were $19,394 and the money orders paid $18,901.


George William Kyte: It does appear as though
the minister has not the information one would expect if he seriously intended to erect this building. He has no estimate as to the cost Of the building and it seems to me that if it is intended to erect it it ought to be erected. If he is not going to erect it it ought to be struck out of the Estimates. There is not much to be gained by voting the money unless it is to be expended except as an inducement to every other village in Canada to ask for a building.


William Cameron Edwards: I do not think the
hon. gentleman can be serious in stating that he estimates the population of this village at about one-quarter of fifteen hundred. I was there last summer and I would estimate the population at at least

one thousand. That estimate is home out by the information given by the minister in regard to the number of houses and the number of boxes in the post office. It is not unfair to estimate five people to a house, and that would place the population at twelve hundred and fifty. It is not unfair to make an estimate in the same way as to the number of boxes. There are 168 boxes, and many who have not boxes, so I think that an estimate of three hundred or four hundred is decidedly under the mark.


William F. Carroll: I do not object to Bear River having a public building. I believe it is entitled to one and personally I would like to see every village in Nova Scotia with a population of fifteen hundred have a public building. My friends, I think, are rather kicking that the building is not going to be built as quickly as they would like. I wish to bring to the attention of the minster several places in South Cape Breton which I think are entitled to public buildings. We have some of the largest towns in Nova Scotia in that riding. Sydney and Glace Bay are both equipped with fairly good public buildings. But there i3 the town of New Waterford, an incorporated town of probably six thousand or seven thousand which has sprung up in the last five years. The population has increased to between six thousand and seven thousand in the last two years. Our post office there is a disgrace to modern civilization, especially in a, town of that size. My friend the Minister of Customs last year announced his attention to establish ia customs outport there, from Glace Bay or Sydney. Would the minister have his inspector of public buildings this summer look over that situation? I think that he will give the minister sufficient data to encourage him to provide for the erection of a public building there. Then we have the village of Reserve, a mining town of some size. At the present time I am more particularly' interested in the town of New Waterford. I intended writing to the department about the matter last summer, and now urge the minister to have his engineer in North Sydney look over the situation and make a report to his department as to the necessity of a public building, especially in view of the fact that the Minister of Customs has announced that he will establish a customs outport there.


Robert Rogers: If it is recommended by the Minister of Customs that there should 120i
be a customs house there, I shall be glad to have the inspector of public buildings visit the place and see if it is desirable to erect a building.


Bowman Brown Law: I would also wish to call attention to several towns in the constituency of Yarmouth. Wedgeport is an incorporated town of twenty-five hundred population. There is a customs office there and a large business is done in the fishing industry. Another village of quite large size is Tusket. Then there is Pubnico. There is still another in the north part of the county, Port Maitland. There are customs officers in all these places, goods are entered and duty paid. If it is the policy of the Government to spend money for public buildings in these smaller places- that is if they do not put the amounts in the Estimates and not expend them-but if they are put in there for the real purpose of erecting public buildings, I think it would be a good thing for these vill.age3 all over Nova Scotia, and I would commend the places I have named to the consideration of the Minister of Public Works.


Alexander William Chisholm: Perhaps my case is more striking than any of those which have been mentioned. In the Estimates of 1912 there was an item of $3,000 for a public building at Port Hawkesbury, which has a population of between 1,500 and 2,000. This public building would have served not only the town of Hawkesbury but also Port Hastings, about a mile and a half distant, and Point Tupper, about three-quarters of a mile from Port Hawkesbury. The revenue of Hawkesbury post office is $1,690, which is a very substantial amount. This will form an index to the other data necessary to convince the minister. What surprises me in view of the fact that the hon. minister looks with favour upon the idea of putting a public building in Bear River-and I am not saying a word against Bear River, I hope they will get the public building-is that this item of $3,000 for a building at Hawkesbury should have been dropped. Anybody who has travelled on the Intercolonial railway cannot fail to have observed that the town of Hawkesbury is surrounded 'by a very progressive country district, and there are also several small towns in its neighbourhood. The late Government went further and showed its honesty of purpose by taking an option on a site for the building at Hawkesbury, and was getting the necessary documents made out when it was defeated in the election of 1911.

This goes to show that the late Government intended putting that building there, and in face of all these facts I think I am reasonable when I say I cannot understand why the matter has been dropped. However, I am in hopes that the hon. minister will look favourably upon the idea of having this item placed, with perhaps a couple of thousand more, in the Supplementary Estimates. I must express my surprise at finding that no effort has been made by friends of the present Government in Port Hawkesbury or Inverness to have this undertaking carried to a finish. The minister will have no trouble in getting a site, for the Government got an option on a very beautiful site, which might accommodate all the Government offices at Hawkesbury, and there are several.


Robert Rogers: I am surprised to hear that the item has been dropped. I will look into it and see what can be done.


William Chisholm: 
Robert Rogers: I do not think the Government would ever place an item in the Estimates without having some idea of carrying out the work. As my hon. friend will remember, there was very considerable objection last year to spending much money in the county of Antigonish.


William Chisholm: There was no objection on my part. I distinctly stated my hope that not only would the minister place the items in the Estimates, as he promised in that letter he wrote to Senator Girroir for political purposes, but that the money would be expended. I considered
the proposed expenditures to be proper and necessary. I regret to say that not one-quarter of the money promised on that occasion was voted, and not one-tenth of it has been expended.


Robert Rogers: There is also the additional reason, that the department cannot in one year, erect all the public buildings that are asked for in every part of the country. We have to get time to carry out the programme we have inaugurated and we are endeavouring to do so as well as we possibly can. If anything has been overlooked, so far as my hon. friend is concerned, we will try to remedy it. I would remind the hon. gentleman that the Department of Public Works is, in a sense, the pack horse for carrying on public buildings for all other departments of Government. As to the armoury, the hon. gentleman may be right about the site, because he lives hi the locality and understands the local conditions, and I shall be glad to draw to the attention of the Minister of Militia his statement, with the view of ascertaining if it is borne out by the information in the department.


William Chisholm: It is the
statement of an officer of the department; it is not my statement.
Bridgetown public building, $4,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is this vote for?


Robert Rogers: It is a re-vote for the
purchase of a site for the erection of a public building in Bridgetown, for a post office, etc. It was prayed for by the ratepayers and the Board of Trade, and was recommended by G. W. Pickup on May 10, 1911. There was gn appropriation of $4,000 for 1913, but nothing was expended. Bridgetown has a population of 1,000; it is a well-built, prosperous town, with a splendid surrounding country, and the people think they should have a public building to correspond with the buildings they have erected themselves.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is there no public building there now?


Robert Rogers: No.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Bridgetown is certainly entitled to a building.


Pius Michaud: The population is about
1,000?


Robert Rogers: The official census of 1910 gave the population as 996.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That is wrong, it is more than that.


Frank Broadstreet Carvell: That is for the village itself.


Pius Michaud: The Minister of Public Works is taking a great interest in erecting public buildings in comparatively small towns, and I wish to draw his attention to an important shire town in the province of New Brunswick, which is without any public building. I refer to the town of Edmundston which has a (population of 2,000. It is an incorporated growing town. The post office revenue last year was $2,989, and the revenue from customs $32,000. There is paid in that town about $3,000 per week in wages to working people. The post office there now is rented for a few7 dollars a year, and the office of the collector of customs is in another building altogether. In view of these facts I ask the minister if it is not fair, that a town like Edmundston, through which the Grand Trunk Pacific and the Temiscouata railway and Canadian Pacific railway run, should have a public building. I know that the Minister of Public Works is very busy all the year around, but when he takes another flying trip to St. John, for the perfectly laudable purpose of helping his friend, the Minister of Marine, I hope he will find time to visit Edmundston, and we will give him a cordial welcome. We have any amount of work waiting for him in and around Edmundston, and if he visits us he will see the great necessity there is for these works. I hope that next summer we shall have the pleasure of seeing him up in that part, of the country. If he visits the town of Edmundston, I am sure we shall have a post office there within a year after his visit.	'


Robert Rogers: I appreciate the compliment of my hon. friend's invitation to visit the town of Edmundston. If it is possible for me to go there next summer, I shall be delighted to do so. If I go and find the conditions as thriving and as prosperous as my hon. friend suggests, I shall be equally delighted to lend what assistance I can to secure for that town a public building.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Do not strike
election time.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry that my hon. friend (Mr. Michaud) has not applied to me before.


Pius Michaud: The elections are not all over, I understand. Some are coming, and there is still time.


Mr. LAFORTUNE:: I would invite the
hon. gentleman to visit St. Jacques and see my post office.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Was not an amount of $15,000 voted for that post office?


David Arthur Lafortune: $20,000, but it has
been dropped since. Perhaps the department will think proper to put it in again.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the estimated
cost of the building at Bridgetown, and has any site been bought?


Robert Rogers: A site has not yet been
bought. The plans have not yet been prepared. The rent paid is $200 and the postal revenue is $3,860.40. The customs duty collected is over $3,000; money orders, $28,000; money orders paid, $23,000; salary of the postmaster, $1,292; commission on money orders, $140; allowance for transfer of mails, $100. No estimate has as yet been made of the cost of the building.


William Chisholm: What is
the reason for having that item in the Estimates of last year and again in the Estimates of this year, seeing that no estimate has been obtained of the cost of the work?


Robert Rogers: The simple answer to my hon. friend is that we had probably more work to do than we were able to attend to.


Alexander William Chisholm: Would it not be better not to include these items in the Estimates? If there are no plans or specification or any arrangement for the construction of this building, would it not be better to drop this item?


Robert Rogers: I cannot agree with my hon. friend.


Alexander William Chisholm: I think it is farcical to put in all these Estimates year after year and not have any work done. Some of this work should have been done. I notice that most of these items are revotes. We have no assurance that these items will not meet with the same fate this year as they met with last year. If they are to meet with the same fate this year, it is better to drop them altogether, as it is only holding out false hopes to the people.


Robert Rogers: There would be some reason for my hon. friend's statement if

we were proposing (to hold out any false hopes to the people at Bridgetown; but 1 assure my hon. friend that we are not doing so. From the .population and the postal business done in that (town, it is certainly a place entitled to a post office, and it will receive the early consideration of the department.
Canning public building, $5,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will that complete the building?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the revenue there?


Robert Rogers: The postal revenue is '$1,195.52. The year before it was $2,017.99; money orders, $3,347; money orders paid, $11,403; salary of the postmaster, $805; commission on money orders, $124; allowance for transfer of mail, $74.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the population?


Robert Rogers: The population at the census of 1911 was 729.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I cannot find it in the
census.


Robert Rogers: It is given here in my report.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What is the cost of the site for this building?


Robert Rogers: There is a difficulty about it. We are proposing to expropriate a site.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What sum was offered by the department?


Robert Rogers: $2,000 I think.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Which was declined?


Robert Rogers: I believe so. We are
expropriating now.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: From whom are you
buying the land?


Robert Rogers: Mr. N. W. Eaton and the Nova Scotia Produce and Supply Company, if that site is selected.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I asked for some papers in regard to the question of a site for this post office, and I am sorry that they have not been brought down prior to asking for this vote. I was advised some time ago, that when it was proposed by the department to erect a post office at Canning, a free site was offered to the department by Sir Frederick Borden, who is a resident of that town. Is that correct, and, if so, upon what ground has the offer been declined?


Robert Rogers: A free site was offered
iby Sir Frederick Borden to the town of Canning on condition that it should be made a post office site, but the offer was not directed to the Government, and the majority of the people of Canning did not approve of the site. That is the information I have received from my deputy.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What information , has the minister to the effect that the majority of the people of Canning do not wish to accept the site offered as the location for the post office? How did that intelligence come to the department?


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend asked for this information and I happened to 'be looking at it to-day, but I had not time to go into it. I shall be glad to allow the item to stand1 until I bring down the papers, because I am desirous of giving all the information possible.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am not desirous that the item should stand over, because I presume I shall have another opportunity of discussing the matter if I think it necessary.


Robert Rogers: Certainly, and I will
bring down the papers as soon as I can.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I am told that Sir
Frederick Borden offered this Government a free site for this proposed public building at Canning, and I am sure that he would not offer a free site unless it was one eminently suited for such a purpose, because there is hardly another man living in Canning who has given evidence of such public interest in his home town as has Sir Frederick Borden. I have not the slightest doubt that the site is in every respect suitable. The minister intimates that the site offered by Sir Frederick Borden was not deemed suitable by the citizens of the town. He has intimated that the majority of the citizens of Canning in some way expressed their disapproval of it. I think we should know just the nature of this protest-


Robert Rogers: That is what 1 say: I shall be glad to bring down the information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: -and how it came here. I should be very suspicious that there is but little foundation that the site offered was not a suitable one. I have some little knowledge of the site which Sir Frederick Borden offered, and I should think it would be a much better site than the one now proposed to be taken, Now, in connection with the site proposed to be taken, I under-

stand that the department had made an offer to one of the owners-Mr. Eaton, is it not?-and to the Nova Scotia Produce and Supply Company. Is it correct that the Nova Scotia Produce and Supply Company declined the offer the department made for their interest in this site on the ground that the offer was too large?


Robert Rogers: The deputy informs me
that there is nothing in our records to show that, and I have never heard of it before.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is not the land proposed to be taken for this site owned by Sir Frederick Borden?


Robert Rogers: The deputy informs me
that he understands that is Sir Frederick Borden's company.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: And has the department no information from that company that they declined to accept the offer of the department on the ground that it was too much for the land?


Robert Rogers: The deputy informs me
he has none, and certainly I have none. But as my hon. friend has asked for the papers, I would rather allow this item to stand and bring them all down.
Chester public building, $25,000.


George William Kyte: What is the population of
Chester according to the information of the hon. minister.


Robert Rogers: In 1911 it was 1,096.


George William Kyte: I have here the census for 1911, and I find that the population of Chester Corner is 418; Chester Basin, 357; Chester East, 425; and Chester West, 528. These are four polling subdivisions, and, of course, a public building erected in any one of them would not accommodate the others. The district is fifteen miles long. I suppose the polling subdivision in which thje building is being put is Chester Basin, is it not ? It seems to me the minister is * going some ' when he undertakes to erect public buildings in villages such as this. And this also, is a re-vote. I confess I have some doubt as to the bona fides of some person with respect to the expenditure of this money, that doubt being based on the reception given to proposals made by the late Government to erect public buildings in very much larger communities by hon. gentlemen who now support the ministry, but who were then in Opposition. I assume that their opposition in those days was sincere and well intended. That being so, 
they certainly cannot have executed such an extraordinary change of front as to give support to the expenditure of money in very much smaller communities. I would ask also if the minister would tell the committee the postal and customs revenue from the village in which this public building is to be erected.


Robert Rogers: The postal revenue is #1,862.36; money orders, #48,605.35; money orders paid, $15,558.09; postmaster's income: salary, $755; commission on money orders, $131; savings bank, $40; postal notes, #10; allowance for transference of mail, $4. I do not appear to have anything with respect to the Customs.


George William Kyte: What rental is being paid now by the Post Office Department ?


Robert Rogers: One hundred dollars.


Alexander William Chisholm: How much was
paid for the site ?


Robert Rogers: An Order in Council was passed securing the site for $2,250.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: From whom ?


Robert Rogers: Airs. Florence Manning.


George William Kyte: Are we to understand that the total expenditure will be $25,000?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George William Kyte: I submit that that is a
pretty large sum to expend for a public building in the village of Chester, which, according to the census return has a population of about 400.


Robert Rogers: The census returns show 1,096.


George William Kyte: I know the minister has
figures that indicate that population. But as I pointed out, that includes three polling subdivisions covering territory of a total length of about fifteen miles. Tne minister would not pretend to this committee that this post office building is going to accommodate this whole territory. There are probably eight or ten post offices in that area. Therefore, when I venture the statement that this building, which is to cost $25,000, will only accommodate a population of about 400, I am stating what is absolutely within the mark.


Mr. J. E. ARMSTRONG:: I know that
the hon. gentleman does not wish to make a mistatement. But I have before me the census returns and they show that Chester West has a population of 1,096, Chester East 850, Chester Basin 624. I do not believe the hon. gentleman can have the

proper returns before him or he would not make the statement he does.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: That does not
afford the information; I know the district well.


Bowman Brown Law: But this post office will not
serve all these places.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: But the one
in which this building is to be erected has a population of 1,096, as given by the minister.


George William Kyte: There cannot be any question as to the sort of community that this twenty-five thousand dollar public building is intended to serve. Those of us who represent constituencies in Nova Scotia know full well that the public buildings contemplated by this vote will only serve a very small portion of the population set down as belonging to the district of Chester, in the county of Lunenburg.
It must be borne in mind that Chester >s not an incorporated town or village; it is simply a polling subdivision. During the summer months a large number of people from the United States visit that district, which is a popular summer resort for tourists. Outside of that, the population is extremely sparse. I did not raise any very great objection to the vote of $4,000 for the erection of a public building at Bear River; the amount of the vote is not very large, but in asking this committee to vote $25,000 to erect a public building in the village of Chester, I think the hon. minister is asking more than he can reasonably expect the committee to accede to.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is nothing here to show that this is a revote.


Robert Rogers: It was understood to be a revote. I would suggest that the item pass at $25,000.
Dartmouth-New public building, $40,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has a site been purchased for this building?


Robert Rogers: Yes. This amount is to be used towards the erection of a new building at Dartmouth, on the site authorized to be expropriated by Order in Council dated August 30, 1913, situated on the corner of Burrell and Wentworth streets, to replace the present building, which is entirely inadequate to the large and growing post office needs of the town.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: How much was paid for the site?


Robert Rogers: To Turner estate, $2,500;
J. F. Leahy, $2,900; Jacob Tynes, $2,900.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A new post office is very much needed in the town of Dartmouth because the capacity of the present building is altogether inadequate. This sum of money has been voted, I think, for a considerable number of years, and I would like to urge upon the minister the desirability of asking for tenders for the building so that it may be erected as soon as possible.


Robert Rogers: Only a short time ago we closed the negotiations for the site; plans are now being prepared and we will go ahead with it immediately.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: On two or three' occasions this evening the minister was asked for the population of certain districts to be served by proposed post offices, and in reply the minister gave the population furnished by some of his officials. I would point out that the information thus given is altogether misleading. It is of no assistance whatever to take up the census returns and produce therefrom the population of certain districts, as the information thus obtained may be of no use. In the case of two votes passed this evening for public buildings in Nova Scotia the populations given by the minister referred to areas within which there were probably a dozen or more post offices, and only a very small part of those sections would be served by the proposed post offices. I refer to this not for the purpose of criticising, but merely to urge upon the minister that hereafter the officers of the department should furnish him with information which is correct and which will supply the information desired by the committee. This could easily be obtained by the post office inspector or the local postmasters in the province of Nova Scotia. Any statement of population should include only the number of residents within the district or territory to be served by the proposed post office.
Fort Cumberland (Fort Beausejour)-res-toration, $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: This is an institution which has (been almost entirely forgotten in the province of Nova Scotia. It is a thing of ancient history, and so far as the passer-by is concerned, there is nothing to be seen. I would like to know what reports the engineer of the department has made with regard to this matter, and what public interests are to be served by this

expenditure. There are a great many things in Nova Scotia that need the expenditure of money much more than this, any expenditure in connection with which would serve a much better purpose than the restoration of this old forgotten fort.


Robert Rogers: This vote was given to us by the Militia Department, and does not carry with it very much explanation. I shall be glad to allow the item to stand until the Minister of Militia is here and can give us the reason why the vote has been recommended.
Item stands.
Glace Bay public building-repairs, etc., $1,500.


William F. Carroll: Is not that a revote?


Robert Rogers: No, that is a new vote.


William F. Carroll: What are the proposed improvements?


Robert Rogers: To point the brickwork, including staging, $645; to paint outside woodwork, window frames and sashes, 375; kalsomining all the interior walls and ceilings, $150; two pairs of double outside doors, $80; to provide gates on each side of the building, $50; heating, $100; contingencies, $400; total, $1,500.
Halifax citadel-New quarters for single men and recreation establishment, $15,000.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: There is no objection to this item, (but it is along the same line as the matter of which I spoke prior to the House rising at six o'clock. This is along the same line of military expenditure. I know that the Minister of Public Works is an extremely peaceful man.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: He was not last night.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: He always is, even my
hon. friend from Cape Breton to the contrary notwithstanding. The military expenditure in the Dominion I believe is vastly greater than is really approved of by the people of Canada. It appears to me that the war lord we have at present at the head of military affairs is entirely exceeding what really ought to be done in this country. I wish to read to the committee, from the Montreal Daily Star of Friday, March 20, 1914, a cablegram signed Windermere, in which the correspondent says:
The Yorkshire Post says the Hon. Colonel Sam. Hughes has informed the Orange organizations that the Canadian Government propose to take no action to prevent the departure of [Hr. McKenzie.]
the first contingent of one thousand picked Canadian Orangemen who are coming to Belfast in May next.
Windermere.
Undoubtedly, I take it, that is in connection with the Home Rule agitation. It appears that the activities of the war lord at present at the head of our militia department are so large, so strong, and so exuberant, that he cannot confine them even to the Dominion of 'Canada. I would suggest to the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General-who is pacific at times, but not at all times as the Minister of Public Works is-that he ought to take a hand in this proposition and curtail the powers of speech and of action of the Minister of Militia and Defence; take him aside in a fatherly way and say to him that in the management of the Canadian militia there is quite enough for a man even of his ability to attend to in this country without meddling in outside propositions. I think it would be well for the Government, and I am bound to say I think it would be remarkably well for the people of Canada, if the Government would take the hon. the Minister of Militia aside and just say to him that we have a good deal of business to attend to in this country ourselves, and that perhaps Great Britain is quite able to take care of her own affairs; that it would be well for the minister to look after what he has to look after, if he only would, and leave outside matters alone.	.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend is probably assuming more than he usually assumes by accepting a statement in a newspaper clipping as being absolutely correct and as representing the words of the Minister of Militia. I do not think my hon. friend would desire to do the minister an injustice by quoting a statement appearing in a newspaper as being an authoritative statement emanating from the Minister of Militia without having the word of the minister himself.


Frederick Forsyth Pardee: The remarks of the
Minister of Public Works may be very well taken, but the Minister of Militia, when these items are going through, ought to be here to answer for himself and tell us whether or not any such intimation has gone from him. In the meantime, all we have is the word of the Minister of Public Works, which of course I am prepared at all times to accept, that he does not know whether this has been said or not. But the Montreal Star is strongly in the confidence

'of the Government, and this comes very authentically.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What would you do with him if he did say so?


George William Kyte: I would suggest that we postpone any items having reference to the minister's department until the Minister of Militia and Defence has sufficiently recovered from the recent engagement to be able to come to the House and make a statement himself. Notwithstanding the fact that our friend the Minister of Public Works is inclined to treat with some lightness the serious information contained in the Montreal Star, I am bound to say that in view of frequent rumours that have been sent abroad from the centre of military operations here on Parliament Hill with regard to the attitude of certain high officials on this important question which is agitating Great Britain at the present time,
I am inclined to think there is perhaps too much ground for the cable despatch which the hon. member for Lambton has read. It is a fact that a serious crisis has been reached in the old country and I am quite sure that the action of the Minister of Militia and Defence in giving expression to utterances such as he has given in the past, is not calculated to allay that feeling and as one member of the Canadian Parliament I certainly think that it is our duty to refuse to vote any sum for military purposes in Canada until we have had an opportunity of hearing from the Minister of Militia himself whether or not these assertions and rumours have any ground. Yesterday we had information in this House that another important member of this Government assisted, or at all events was a party to a delegation which had anything but a peaceful purpose in making a certain presentation to Sir Edward Carson on the eve of his departure for Ulster. It may be that the hon. gentlemen who form this ministry are not averse to having it known that they strongly sympathize with the gentlemen in the north of Ireland in resisting civil authority in the old country, but I venture to say that a very large proportion of the people of this country and a strong public opinion will not support them in the nostile stand they are taking against law and order. I would like the Minister of Public Works and every other member of this Government to take these matters a little more seriously when they are referred to in the House and to realize
for a moment that the sympathy which they are supposed to give and no doubt honestly intend to give shall not be given so generously until, at all events, we know what this crisis in the old country is going to result in.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What makes me nervous is that red hand offered to Sir Edward Carson when the Hon. Mr. Cochrane was present. It is not the sword-I do not think Sir Edward Carson will ever use it, in spite of all the threats he has made-but that red hand, really makes me nervous. Now, this notice given by Colonel Sam. Hughes, Minister of Militia, that a thousand picked men will soon leave for Belfast is a very serious matter, especially after the declaration made by several grand masters of Orange lodges. To show that there is a connection between all these facts, the hon. member for Westmorland read the other day a notice sent to the Yeomanry of Westmorland county: 'A call to Arms.' Certainly there is something going wrong.


Mr. DEVLIN:: There is corroboration.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Certainly there is corroboration-the presence of the hon. Mr. Cochrane at the presentation to Sir Edward Carson, the possibility of the departure of a thousand men from Canada for Ulster, and the call to arms in Westmorland. Certainly all this means war, very imminent war at that.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I did not intend to take part in the discussion of the Nova Scotia Estimates, but in view of the fact that this question has come up-and I do not mean to treat it seriously at all, for I do not think it is worthy of any serious treatment-I would ask the Minister of Public Work9 if Colonel Sam. Hughes did make the statement that he is supposed to have made, as published in the Yorkshire Post. Was he authorized by the Government to make that statement?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. gentleman is wandering from the item under discussion.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I am not going any farther. What is bothering me is the fact that the Minister of Militia went a little further towards Ulster. I do not propose to follow him at all. I am simply asking the Minister of Public Works, was the Minister of Militia authorized by the Government to make that statement, and would the Government authorize the Minister of Militia

to send these men abroad, presumably to Ulster? I would like an answer.


Robert Rogers: In the first place let me say to my hon. friend from Rouville (Mr. Lemieux) that I am a little disappointed in him for so frankly acknowledging that he was a little nervous by reason of the rumours of wars. I did not think he was a man to become nervous under any circumstances.


Rodolphe Lemieux: It is a case of Ulsteria.


Robert Rogers: I am rather surprised that our friends opposite should take up a simple report appearing in a newspaper without first hearing from the minister who is credited with the statements made, which I am sure every hon. gentleman well knows he would not make. So far as the item under discussion is concerned, there is no objection to allowing any item to stand in order that hon. gentlemen shall have all the information that can be given, but this is an item in respect to a citadel in Halifax of which the hon. member for Halifax approves. There are several other items, any of which could stand, if hon. gentlemen desire it, in order to get an answer from the Minister of Militia.


William Chisholm: Would the minister give us an assurance that none of this money proposed to be voted will be used against the Crown, honour and dignity of His Majesty the King.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would prefer the minister to be here. I would like him to explain the quarrel with the officers at that dinner.


Robert Rogers: We will let the drill hall item stand.
Halifax Customs examining warehouse $100,000. '


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Where is that to be built; has a site been purchased?


Robert Rogers: It is to be built, I understand, on the Euel Yard property.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The Government owns that site?


Robert Rogers: The Imperial Government owns it, but we are making arrangements to get it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will you get the title?


Robert Rogers: Yes, so the deputy minister informs me.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Is the looation approved of by the business men of Halifax? It strikes me that perhaps it is not too convenient a situation. However, 10 p.m. I am not in a position to say that it is not a good site.


Robert Rogers: There has been no
objection to it.
Halifax-Postal station at north end, $55,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: This is for a post office in the north end of the city of Halifax?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has a site been purchased? If so, from whom? Where is it located, and what does it cost?


Robert Rogers: The site has a united frontage of 60 feet on Gottingen street, and a depth of 100 feet along Prince William street. An Order in Council was passed on the 16th February, 1914, to purchase from Mr. F. W. Hanright for the sum of $7,000-which amount includes the building on the properties-parcels A and B on plan accompanying Order in Council having respectively the following dimensions: A, 68 feet by 30 feet; B, 60 feet by 31 feet 6 inches; and to expropriate parcel C (68 feet by 30 feet) on plan accompanying Order in Council, and to tender for the .same the sum of $8,294, which amount is to include the buildings on the property. This parcel is owned by Matilda Mason, wife of John J. Mason.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Were any other sites offered to the department ?


Robert Rogers: A number of sites were examined. The Postmaster General informs me that this site was selected by the post office inspector who went down there for that purpose.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: By the post office inspector of Nova Scotia ?


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: No, the chief inspector. He informs me it is necessary to have a postal station at that point.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Will the building be proceeded with this year ? Are tenders to be invited ?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What will be the cost V Mr. ROGERS: About $70,000 or $80,000


George William Kyte: The site was purchased from Mr. Hanright for $7,000.


Robert Rogers: Yes.


George William Kyte: I wonder if it is a mere coincidence that Mr. Hanright is an oft-defeated candidate in Nova Scotia ? Or is it because this particular property has special merits as a post office site P


Robert Rogers: It had the recommendation of the chief inspector of the Post Office Department, who is a very old and trustworthy servant.


George William Kyte: Has the minister any information as to what Mr. Hanright paid for the site ?


Robert Rogers: No.


George William Kyte: Or as to how long he held the property before transferring it to the Government ?


Robert Rogers: No information.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Has the site been actually transferred to the department ?


Robert Rogers: The deputy minister informs me that the Justice Department is working on it.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The transfer has not been actually made ?


Robert Rogers: Apparently not.
Halifax-Quarantine station on Lawior's island, $25,000.


Alexander William Chisholm: What is this for ?


Robert Rogers: This is a re-vote of $25,000 for the erection of new buildings and improvement of existing buildings on Lawior's island. The estimated cost of a laboratory is $7,000; residence for medical bacteriologist, $10,000, and for medical superintendent, $10,000; residence for captain, $4,000; well, painting, &c.,	$5,500;
building at rear of bath to be used as dressing room, sheeted and painted, $575; plank passage-way from above building to rear of disinfection building, $80; coachhouse, $425; contingencies and superintendence, $9,535, and residence for engineer, $2,500.


Alexander William Chisholm: The medical
superintendent is supposed to reside at the quarantine station?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: When we are
voting money for buildings which are to be used by the Department of Agriculture, or by the Department of Militia, the ministers of these departments should be here to give explanations. They should take charge, at least up to the voting of the money.


Robert Rogers: The practice has been
for the Department of Public Works to take charge of such votes.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: A great many people
think that Lawior's island is the wrong place for the quarantine station; but I suppose it is hardly worth discussing that, when the Minister of Agriculture, who has charge of quarantine matters, is absent.


Bowman Brown Law: How long has it been the
custom to place the votes for armouries and drill halls under the Public Works Department?


Robert Rogers: The chief architect tells me it has been the custom for a great many years.


Bowman Brown Law: I was informed recently, in
reply to a question, that two and a half million dollars' worth of armouries and drill halls, to be constructed by the Public Works Department, would be transferred to the Militia Department. I never could understand why these votes should not be placed in the Militia Estimates, so that the minister would be here to give us explanations. An application was made for an armoury in Yarmouth, and the Minister of Militia promised the representative of the boosters' club of that town that the armoury would be built during the coming season, but there is no vote for it in the Estimates.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Another strong
reason why the Minister of Militia should be here is that he informed Parliament a session or two ago that the Militia Department could build these drill halls much better and much cheaper than could the Public Works Department. In view of that the suggestion is worth considering.


Alexander William Chisholm: When items
concerning buildings for quarantine or militia are under consideration, the ministers of these departments should be here. I want to get information about a drill hall in Inverness, which was provided for by the late Government, but it is not reasonable to expect the Minister of Public WorkB to give me that information; the Minister of Militia should be here.


Robert Rogers: The Minister of Militia
will be here when we take up these Estimates on the next occasion, and the

hon. gentleman will have opportunity to get the information.


Frank Oliver: It will be understood that although we pass these items for militia buildings, hon. gentlemen who desire information with regard to them will be entitled to get it later.


Robert Rogers: Absolutely.


Frank Oliver: We are not anxious to
delay the Estimates in any way, but I think this request is reasonable.


Robert Rogers: There will be no objection to that taken at any time.
Hantsport public building, $4,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What will this
building cost?


Robert Rogers: We have no plans yet.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: In the remarks 1 am' going to make, I have not in my mind any public building which it is proposed to build in Nova Scotia, but still I feel that a protest should be made against the construction of unnecessarily expensive buildings for post office purposes, in my own province or in any other province. If it is necessary to erect a public building in a village or small town, well and good, but if $10,000 will give the requisite accommodation, it is highly improper to expend $25,000 or $40,000. I think the minister will agree with me in that. There are many public buildings throughout Nova Scotia, which did not cost more than $25,000 or $30,000 in towns of 4,000 or 5,000 population, and I notice a tendency to erect buildings of equal cost in towns of two or three hundred inhabitants, and where the revenue is very limited. It is very easy for the political advisers of the minister to, impose upon him, but in the erection of those buildings throughout Canada, he should exercise the most careful personal supervision. It is very difficult for a minister to resist such an application, and it is impossible for him to meet all the demands, but nevertheless, when he does accede to a request, he should exercise care with respect to the cost. There are many cases, in my own province for instance, where buildings are proposed which will cost $25,000 or $30,000, and where, in my judgment, it is absolutely unnecessary and a waste of public money to expend so much.
I think in most cases the localities interested would be satisfied with more modest and less expensive buildings.


Robert Rogers: I am very glad that my hon. friend (Mr. A. K. Maclean) has brought up this question, because I am disposed to agree with him in a very great measure. I may say, for the information of the committee, that I have had a very serious discussion with the chief architect and those associated with him, pointing out exactly what my hon. friend has suggested, namely, that we must get to a reasonable cost if we are going to erect buildings in towns such as that now under discussion. My own idea is, that the department should not undertake the erection of public buildings in a town that has not at least a population of 1,000. I am trying to lay it down as a hard and fast rule, if I can possibly carry it out, that for a town of that size we should not expend in a public building a larger amount than $12,000 or $15,000. The chief architect has had definite instructions in preparing plans from now on in respect to such buildings. We are endeavouring to have a standard plan to meet conditions of that kind in order that there will be a similarity in the different towns of those sizes, and that the town that will get a better building will have to have a larger population than the town that is at a lower grade. We are adopting this plan and intend to enforce it as strictly as possible.


Edmond Proulx: In many cases it would be much cheaper for the department to pay rental than to build public buildings. A few years ago in my town I advised the department to rent a building which was constructed for a bank and a post office. The department told me that it was not its practice to do so. I convinced the minister that it was cheaper for the department to do that than to build a building. The vminister acceded to my request and the department is paying only $125 a year, but the postmaster gets also the rent allowance allowed by the Post Office Department of about $75 a year, making altogether an expenditure of $200 a year. The department has not the maintenance of any building nor any salary of a caretaker to pay. In many small towns the department -would find good buildings erected.


Robert Rogers: In many cases we rent buildings.


Bowman Brown Law: Has the land not been purchased yet for this building?


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: In thickly
settled districts, especially in the province of Ontario-and it must be much the same

in Nova Scotia

since the rural mail routes have been established, out of many of the towns are running six or eight or possibly ten rural mail routes, and possibly eight or ten offices in the surrounding country have been closed during the last few years. Consequently the mail that is being distributed from even a small centre has increased so much that it is important in many of the small districts that reasonable room should be given for the post office.


Bowman Brown Law: I am very glad to hear the hon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Armstrong) speaking on rural mail routes. They must be far more plentiful in Ontario than in Nova Scotia. There are very few mail routes in, the county of Yarmouth and the postmaster has not seen fit to grant them yet.


Joseph Elijah Armstrong: There are plenty in Ontario.	I


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: Rural mail routes are established for anybody who wants to have them.
Middleton public building, $15,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: From whom was the site for this building bought?


Robert Rogers: The site was purchased on the I8th of December, 1912, from Fred. E. Bently, James A. Gates, John H. Hall and T. A. Croker, for the sum of $2,500.
North Sydney public building-Improvements, $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: For some time I have been endeavouring to get information from the department regarding some work done on the public building at North Sydney. How much money has been expended on this building during the last two years?


Robert Rogers: The deputy says that we have not got that information here, but I shall be glad to supply it when our Estimates come up again.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Is this item for payment of work already done or for work in prospect?


Robert Rogers: The vote of $5,000 is to provide for an addition to be built in the rear of the North Sydney public building for an examining warehouse, so that the room now used may be given to the postoffice, and the front porch is to give more room in lobby. The addition for examining warehouse, 20 x 25 feet, $2,500; front porch, 25 x 8 feet, altering windows,
$1,500; town clock and installation, $1,000, make a total estimated cost of $5,000.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I wish to know whether the expenditures on that building for the last year were by tender and contract. If so, who were the tenderers and which was the lowest tender? I understand that there was some loss by fire on that building during the construction of the work and that new tenders were asked or that the work was commenced over again. The work was nearly finished before the fire broke out and very slight damage was done. The work was done over again or a similar amount given for the work the second time as was given for it the first time. Were tenders called for on the second occasion, as well as on the first occasion? If the work was inspected I would like to have a report of the inspector who supervised the work. As far as this vote is concerned, I am pleased to hear that the minister is going to restore the vote, for 'the installation of the clock. That is an old vote; it was dropped last year. I spoke to the minister about it and I am very glad that he has restored it. There were two other votes for a similar purpose in my riding. There are three public buildings in my riding, one in the shire town, one in the town of Sydney Mines, and the other in the town of North Sydney. Before the present Government came into power, there were votes to install a clock on each of these buildings. This was no special favour for these buildings, because I understood from officials of the department that it was rather the policy, particularly in the province of Nova Scotia, to have a clock on each of the public buildings belonging to the department. Those items were all dropped at the change of gover.-ment. Can the minister tell me if he is going to install a clock at Baddeck, and a clock in the town of Sydney Mines?


Robert Rogers: I have not the information before me at the moment; but we will come to it later on, and I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the information.
Sydney Mines public buildings-Improvements, repairs, etc., $2,500.


Robert Rogers: This vote is to make provision for purchasing and installing a clock in the tower of the Sydney Mines public building at an estimated cost of $1,000, and repairs and improvements to the building, $1,500.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I am pleased to find
this vote in the Estimates. But I notice

there is nothing for Baddeck. That is the shire town of Victoria and there is a public building there. There was a vote made at the same time as the other for Baddeck. but that has been dropped. Seeing the minister has been good enough to restore the other two votes, I hope he will remember Baddeck in the Supplementary Estimates. A clock would be quite an ornament to the building and a very good thing for the town.


Robert Rogers: I think my hon. friend
has been very lucky in getting two out of three; he must not hurry too much; we are doing the best we can.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: Why make two bites of a cherry?
Truro-New public building, $40,000.


Bowman Brown Law: What is to be the cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: We have entirely outgrown the old building there. The chief architect thinks that the cost will be $50,000.


Bowman Brown Law: Is this a new building, or
improvements and extensions?


Robert Rogers: It is to purchase a site and erect a new building.


Bowman Brown Law: How much will the land cast?


Robert Rogers: We have not got it yet. The population of Truro is over 6,000. The town is growing, and a larger public building is urgently needed.


Bowman Brown Law: I cut a piece out of the
Yarmouth Herald, of one of the issues of February last, and perhaps by reading this I can shorten the remarks I have to make on this subject:	-
Building Post Offices that are not Wanted.
As an evidence or the shameful wastefulness of the present Tory Government at Ottawa and its unfairness in dealing with the necessities of the public, we may cite the case of the appropriation of $140,000 for a new post office building for Truro, $40,000 of which is in the Estimates for the present year.
As the chief architect says that the cost will be $50,000, that is probably an error.
Truro has a more up-to-date post office than has Yarmouth, and although not quite as large is adequate for the necessities of the town. Truro, not being a seaport town, of course, does not require so large accommodation for such offices as harbour-master, shipping-master and others.
To show how the people of Truro view the appropriation the News of Monday last has a letter from Mr. C. P. Blanchard, a former official, who writes:
To those who are not acquainted with exist-

ing conditions this may seem to be a necessary expenditure, but to those who are best informed in the matter it is a needless extravagance and waste of public money. Some two years ago the Government architect visited the Truro post office, and together we made a careful survey of the building and the additional requirements to make it up to date in every particular, and the decision arrived at was that an addition to the rear of the present building for a forwarding department and other improvements, to cost in all not more than $10,000, would give a post office and custom house ample for the requirements of a town such as Truro for a period of at least twenty-five years. There is no question that within a very few years we will have mail delivery by carriers, which will greatly lessen the space required in the post office for private boxes, and consequently give more space for other work if needed. There are a dozen other ways in which this appropriation can be expended which will be of greater value to the town than a new post office, the erection of which in the opinion of the writer would be entirely wrong.'
This is from a former employee of the Post Office Department.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: What became of him?


Bowman Brown Law: I suppose he was dismissed by the Postmaster General (Mr. Pelletier); he is probably among the 1,200 officials whom that hon. gentleman has beheaded. The Herald goes on:
There is an absolute necessity for a new building in Yarmouth, and the delay attendant upon the matter is not only an outrage upon our people, but is a political scandal. There is no excuse for it. The authorities, from the minister down, are aware of our necessities, and there is no reason, except downright neglect or partisanship, that delays the work. How long is it to continue?
I agree entirely with the remarks of this newspaper. Last year I brought" the needs of Yarmouth to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, and he told me that he would take the matter into consideration. I waited until the Estimates came down this year, but there was not a dollar for the enlargement of the public building there, nor in the Supplementary Estimates. Yarmouth is a larger place than Truro. Our customs revenue is reaching nearly to the hundred-thousand-dollar mark. Yarmouth is destined to grow very much more in the future than in the past. The accommodation in our public building at Yarmouth is altogetiier inadequate for the po3t office requirements. There are times, especially during the holidays, when the people have to stand on the sidewalk, whatever the weather may be, and wait for their turn to get into the post office. I presented this matter to the former Admin-

istration, and I am happy to say that after examining into it they purchased a building directly south of the present building for which they paid $10,000, and when the old Government went out there was an item in the Estimates to remodel that building and enlarge the accommodation. But since the present Government came into power that building has been standing there as a monumental disgrace to the Government and an insult to the people of Yar-moutn. It is the great centre for the display of the circus and moving-picture show bills, but that is all. If the Government do not intend to enlarge the post office premises why do not they rent the building? It would rent for $1,000 or $1,200 a year, for there is a fine large store on the ground floor and there are offices on the floor above. Yet it is left vacant. I submit that a town of the importance of Yarmouth is entitled to better consideration than this by the present Government. Though for some years they have not sent a man to Parliament in accord with the party now in power, yet I hold that the people of Yarmouth are entitled to fair and decent treatment in regard to the finances of Canada. They contribute very largely and I consider that under the circumstances the Minister of Public Works should have a vote in the Supplementary Estimates to enlarge that building. I am sure that if he submitted the matter to his friends there, to the patronage committee of Yarmouth, they would recommend that that building be immediately enlarged so that the post office would have room for its work and the public would be furnished with a decent place to stand in while transacting post office business. That kind of treatment would be all right fifty years ago, or if accorded to a backwoods settlement, but Yarmouth is tsufficiently important to deserve better treatment from the present Government than it has received in connection with this matter.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I- do not rise to speak particularly about the post office at Yarmouth, as I have never had the pleasure of being in that town, but in justice to Truro I think my hon. friend might try to get what he wants without running down Truro. I have been in Truro, and I made a point to speak to the hon. Minister of Public Works with a view to securing better post office accommodation for that town. Truro is an important railway centre and divisional point, and its post office 121
accommodation is absolutely inadequate. There is no doubt that the $40,000 will be spent there, so the paper to which my hon. friend has referred is misleading the public in the matter. The former official of the department whose name my hon. friend has given, does not know what he is talking about when he says that there is to be distribution of mail by carriers in Truro, and that consequently the needs of the post office will be lessened. When you have letter carriers in a town or city you have to enlarge the post office and provide additional accommodation for them. My hon. friend can rest assured that what is being done for Truro is absolutely justifiable, and that this vote is a perfectly legitimate expenditure.


Bowman Brown Law: I was not running down Truro at all; I was simply placing before the Committee the views of Mr. Blanchard, a former employee of the Post Office Department there, and advocating the same treatment for Yarmouth as that which is being accorded to Truro. If the hon. Postmaster General will look at the papers in his department in connection with this matter, he will find that the chief inspector has several times reported on the inadequacy of the Yarmouth post office. I hope what I have said about the needs of Yarmouth in this regard may bring forth fruit; perhaps the Minister of Public Works may have a contingent fund out of which he can provide for the necessary expenditure. For the sum of $15,000 the present building could be enlarged. The amount needed is not very great', and I think Yarmouth is entitled to that expenditure.


Louis-Philippe Pelletier: I will look the matter up to-morrow.


Daniel Duncan McKenzie: I submit that the
necessity for providing extra accommodation in the post office at North Sydney is brought about toy the transmission of mails through that post office which should not go there at all. I refer to the mails which are sent from Halifax to St. Pierre and Miquelon. This mail is first hauled to the train at Halifax; then it goes to North Sydney, where it is taken off the train and put in the post office, remaining there, perhaps, for days at a time; then it is trucked from the post office and put upon a boat which carries it to St. Pierre. I could never understand why that mail is not put on board the boat at Halifax and carried direct to St. Pierre and Miquelon.

It does not get there any quicker by being left at North Sydney; there is no advantage to the people of St. Pierre and Miquelon; why should this mail not be sent direct to its destination, thus avoiding its being piled in the post office at North Sydney, where there is no room for it. If that were done, the extra accommodation that is to be provided for the post office at North Sydney would not be required, because the room that is now taken up by this mail would be available to the staff of the post office for other purposes. I wish to bring this matter particularly to the attention of the Postmaster General, and I hope that he may take whatever steps are necessary to do away with the trouble experienced in this regard by the officials of the post office at North Sydney.


Robert Rogers: My hon. friend, being a resident of the place, probably understands the local conditions much better than any one else here. All I can say is that the representations which he has made will be submitted through ' Hansard ' to the officer of the department who is in charge of the management and despatch of the mails. If his representations carry any weight with them, I am sure that they will receive the careful and considerate attention of those in charge.
Tignish public building, $11,000.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: What are the details of this expenditure?


Robert Rogers: This is a vote of $3,000, for a tower clock; $2,000 and $1,000 for sidewalks in connection with municipal undertakings around the building.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.50 p.m.
Monday, March 23, 1914.