1916-04-12

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1915-16.

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Royal Highness the Governor General, transmitting Supplementary Estimates for the year ended March £l, 1916, was presented by Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the House, and referred to the Committee of Supply.

[Stage Direction]
List of those in the Canadian Expeditionary Forces who received decorations and medals and mentions in despatches, to March 17, 1916.-Mr. Kemp.

[Stage Direction]
[Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.]

*Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	Have representations been made to the Federal Government by the British Columbia Government, or any member thereof, asking for assistance for the establishment of copper refineries and a zinc smelter in British Columbia?.
2.	What was the form of assistance proposed by the British Columbia Government?
3.	In connection with this matter, has the Dominion Government given any encouragement to the British Columbia Government? If so, in what respect?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: This subject has been discussed with a member of the [DOT] British Columbia Government. Any announcement with regard to the matter will be made in due course.


SESSIONAL CLERKS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many sessional clerks have been appointed for service during the present session?
2.	How many of these clerks .are unmarried men between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years?


Sir ROBERT BORDEN:: 1.	The number of sessional and temporary clerks on duty in the House of Commons during the present session is thirty-seven.
2.	The number unmarried, and between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, is eight.


EXPORT OF NICKEL.
[Stage Direction]
Mr.'BOYER:
1.	What are the names of the American and Canadian companies that export nickel from this country?
2.	What are the names of the presidents of such companies, and of those who reside in this country?
Mr. BLONDIN:: 
BRITISH REMOUNT COMMISSION.
Mr. KAY:: 1.	Is the British Government Remount Commission buying horses in Canada at the present time ?
2.	If so, is it buying direct from the farmers or through dealers?
3.	If through dealers, what are their names, and what commission do they receive?


Robert Laird Borden: A copy of the above question was submitted to the officer commanding the British Remount Commission, whose office is in Montreal. The following reply has been received from that officer :>
1.	The British Remount Commission is buying horses in Canada under instructions from the War Office.
2.	At present the British Remount Commission is buying horses from Mr. Jacobs, a dealer in Montreal.
3.	Purchases by the British Remount Commission are not made on a commission basis. Horses are collected by the dealer, examined by the purchasing officer, passed for soundness by the veterinary surgeon, and paid for at once.


CONSTRUCTION OF ORDNANCE IN CANADA.
*Mr. MACDONALD:: Why was the proposal to construct Ordnance in Canada, in regard to which a conference was held by the Prime Minister last year on his return from Great Britain, not carried into effect?


Robert Laird Borden: The conference was not called by the Prime Minister, al. though he was present at it. The.proposal, put forward by the manufacturers was submitted to the representatives of the Ministry of Munitions who gave it their consideration. Ultimately, as the Government understands, the representatives of the Ministry of Munitions concluded that it would be impracticable to carry out the proposal with the expedition necessitated by the urgency of the requirements.


INTERCOLONIAL RAILWAY-PURCHASE OF ROLLING STOCK.
Mr. TURGEON:: Did the Government purchase any rolling stock from the Northern New Brunswick and Seaboard Railway Company for the Intercolonial railway?	.


Mr. REID:: No rolling stock has been purchased from the Northern New Brunswick and Seaboard Railwiay Company for the Intercolonial Railway.


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: 1.	How many men are employed by the Public Works Department in Charlottetown, P.E.I.?
2.	What are the names of the men so employed, what positions do they fill, and what salary does each receive?
3.	What is date of each man's appointment? Mr. ROGERS:
By the Chief Engineer's Branch:
I.	Five.

2 and 3. W. E. Hyndman, district engineer; o.c. Sept. 13, 1902; $2,400. R. H. Nicholson, Sr., assistant engineer, (absent on military service), o.c. March 3, 1914; $1,500. H. E. Miller, clerk, o.c., June 1, 1907; $1,000. J. C. Milford, draughtsman,
o.c. Dec. 11, 1913, $950. John White, general foreman, May 16, 1911, $90 per month.
By the Chief Architect's Branch;
1.	Six.
2 and 3. Ed. Flynn, caretaker, Old .Bank Building, $50 per month; Oct. 1,	1911.
Angus McKenzie, caretaker, Dominion Building, $58.33 per month; Oct. 31, 1896. John Savidant, assistant caretaker, Dominion Building, $50 per month; Dec. 9, 1912. E. Cameron, messenger, Dominion, Building, $41.66 per month; Nov. 15, 1906. M. A. Allan, messenger, Dominion Building, $50 per month; Jan. 26, 1898. J. J. MeDuff, tuperintendent Dominion Buildings, $75 per month; Jan. 1, 1913.
By the Dredging Branch:
1.	Two.
2 and 3. John N. MacDonald, inspector of dredges, Charletton; appointed Jan. 23, 1913; salary, $1,200 per annum. William O'Brien, clerk, appointed Feb. 11,	1913;
salary, $900 per .annum.


FIREWOOD FOR TRACADIE LAZARETTO.
Mr. TURGEON:: 1.	Is firewood for the Tracadie Lazaretto procured under the responsibility of the sisters in charge or by contract?
2.	If by contract, to whom was it awarded, and at what price per cord?
3.	Were tenders asked for?


Mr. ROGERS:: 1.	By contract.
2.	Contracts 'were given to: David Basque, Joseph A. McLaughlin, Tranquil Brideau, Joseph B. Losier, Joseph 0. Caughlan, Mat. Savoie, Fabien Basque, Sr., Fabien Saul-nier, Bastian Russel, John D. Young. Hardwood, $4 per cord; softwood, $3.50 per cord.
3.	Yes.


LETHBRIDGE POST OFFICE.
Mr. BUCHANAN:: 1.	What is the total amount paid at the present time to the postmaster and the acting postmaster at Lethbridge, Alberta?
2.	What is the salary in each case?
3.	Is the postmaster drawing pay as an officer of the militia?
4.	If so, at what rate per day?
5.	What was the salary of E. N. Higginbotham at the time he was removed from the position of postmaster at Lethbridge?


Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	$4,600.
2.	The postmaster, who is on active service, and who enlisted before the 1st of November, 1915, receives a salary of $2,200. He is replaced temporarily during his absence by the assistant postmaster of Calgary, whose salary is $2,400.
3.	Yes.
4.	$5 a day.
5.	$9,945, out of which Mr. Higginbotham had to pay the wages of his staff and other expenses connected with the running of his office.


GUYSBOROUGH-CANSO MAIL CONTRACT.
Mr. SINCLAIR:: 
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1. William McDougall.
2 and 3. Tenders were last invited for this service in January, 1911. The tenders received were: James Sullivan, $2,290 per annum; John C. Myers, $2,375 per annum; William McDougall, $2,400 per annum. The prices were considered too high, and the post office inspector- was instructed to obtain lower offers, with the result that the two lowest tenderers declined to reduce the amounts of their tenders, but William McDougall reduced his tender to $2,300, and later to $2,270. The contract was awarded to William McDougall at $2,270, on the 24th March, 1911, and the contract dated from the 1st April, 1911. This contract was renewed on the 1st April, 1915, for a further period of four years at the same rate.
4.	By the' post office inspector with the tenderers.
5.	No.


INDIAN DEPARTMENT CLERKS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many clerks are there In the Indian Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service?
2.	What are the names of said clerks?
3.	What salary is paid to each?
4.	How long has each been in the service of the department? [DOT]

5.	Have all or any of these clerks passed any examination? If so, what examination and on what date or dates?


Mr. ROCHE:: 1.	Three.
2.	Messrs. D. C. Chene, L. H. LaMothe and J. A. Robertson.
3.	Mr. Chene, $2,000 per annum; Mr. LaMothe, $1,500; Mr. Robertson, $1,300.
4.	Mr. Chene was employed at intervals from 1907 until 1911, and continuously since the latter date; Mr. LaMothe since 1910; Mr. Robertson, since 1909.
.	5. They have not passed any examination.
Mr. Chene is a civil engineer and architect.


AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT CLERKS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many clerks are there in the Agriculture Department who belong to and .are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service?
2.	What are the names of said clerks?
3.	What salary is paid to each?
4.	How long has each been in the service of the department?
5.	Have all or any of these clerks passed! any examination? If so, what examination and on what date or dates?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	None.
2,	3, 4 and 5. Answered by No. 1.


MARINE DEPARTMENT CLERKS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many clerks are there in the Marine and Fisheries Department who belong to and are paid from the Outside service vote and who work in the inside service?
2.	What are the names of said clerks?
3.	What salary is paid to each?
4.	How long has each been in the service of the department?
5.	Have all or any of these clerks passed any examination? If so, what examination and on what date or dates?


Mr. HAZEN:: 1.	Three.
2.	William H. Smith, Gerald T. Mc-Inerney, and Harry A. Lynch.
3.	$600 per annum, $720 per annum, $1,300 per annum, respectively.
4.	Since 13th October, 1913, 24th November, 1914, 8th October, 1914, respectively.
5.	None of them have passed any Civil Service examination.


JUSTICE DEPARTMENT CLERKS.
Mr. TURRIFF:: 1.	How many clerks are there in the Justice Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service?
2.	What are the names of said clerks?
3.	What salary is paid to each?
4.	How long has each been in the service of the department?
5.	Have all or any of these clerks passed any examination? If so, what examination and on what date or dates?


Mr. DOHERTY:: 1.	None.
2,	3, 4, 5. Answered by No. 1. UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS.
Mr. Turriff.-For a return showing how many clerks there are in the Post Office Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service; the names of said clerks; the salary paid to each; how long each has been in the service of the department; whether all or any of these clerks have passed any examination; and if so, What examination and on what date or dates.
Mr. Turriff.-For a return showing how many clerks there are in the Customs Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service; the names of said clerks; the salary paid to each; how long each has been in the service of the department; whether all or any of these clerks have passed any examination; and if so, what examination and on what date or dates.
Mr. Turriff.-For a return showing how many clerks there are in the Interior Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service' vote and who work in the inside service; the names of said clerks; the salary paid to each; how long each has been in the service of the department; whether all or any of these clerks have passed any examination; and if so, what examination and on what 'date or dates.
Mr. Turriff.-For a return showing how many clerks there are in the Labour Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the Inside service; the names of said clerks; the salary paid to each; how long each has been in the service of the department; whether all or any of these clerks have passed any examination ; and if so, what examination and on what date or dates.
Mr. Turriff.-For a return showing how many clerks there are in the Finance Department who belong to and are paid from the outside service vote and who work in the inside service; the names of said clerks; the salary paid to each; how long each has been in the service of the department; whether all or any of these clerks have passed any examination; and if so, what examination and on what date or dates.
Mr. Macdonald.-For a return showing the plan and description of the proposed permanent harbour quay line in the harbour at Pictou, and for a copy of all papers, letters, telegrams and other documents relating to the establishment of the same.
WAR PURCHASING COMMISSION. Mr. MACDONALD moved:
For a copy of all Orders in Council, letters, and of all other documents relating to the appointment, constitution and operations of the War Purchasing Commission.


Robert Laird Borden: The Order in
Council was laid on the Table on the first day of the session, and afterwards another copy was brought down. I am not aware

2S02

of any documents such as are described in the motion. I would like to know what the hon. member means by " operations. It would be a rather extensive thing to undertake to bring down all the Orders in Council and other documents on file in the office.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I would not understand that to mean the accounts. What I wanted to get at particularly was all information to which the House is entitled as to the constitution and powers of the War Purchasing Commission and as to the performance of its duties. Is there anything else outside of the Order in Council?


Robert Laird Borden: There is nothing outside the Order in Council so far as I remember or am aware of. However, I understand what the hon. gentleman intends, and there is no objection to the order passing.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On th,e Orders of the Day:
Hon. GEO. P. GRAHAM:	May I ask
the Prime Minister if it be true that Mr. Bonar Law has been asked to act for Canada at the Allied Economic Congress in Paris?
Robert Laird Borden: The correspondence with regard to the conference at Paris is of a confidential character. Ultimately, no doubt, the papers may be brought down. There is no announcement to be made on the subject a/t present.


PETITION FOR DISALLOWANCE OF ONTARIO LEGISLATION.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. LAPOINTE (Kamouraska):: On
the 16th of March last, the Minister of Justice informed the House that a petition had been received asking the disallowance of certain legislation of the province of Ontario concerning school matters. He told us at the same time that a copy of the petition had been sent to the Lieutenant Governor in Council of Ontario for a report on the matter. I wish to know if an answer has been received from the Ontario Government, and if this Government has taken any further steps. The question is of special urgency because the time for such action as is asked by the petition will have expired on the 8th of April, inst. I wish to ask the minister and the Government to bring down at once the petition, and all

the papers concerning the question. An order of the House to that effect was passed on March 29, I believe.


Mr. DOHERTY:: The answer of the
Ontario Government to the petition was received on Monday last, and the petition and the answer are receiving careful consideration. It would not be directly in my province to bring down the petition, but I will inquire from the Secretary of State about it and the papers, and see that they are attended to.


INSURANCE COMPANIES INVESTMENT BILL.
[Stage Direction]
On. motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 35, respecting the investments of Life Insurance Companies, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Sir Thomas White (Minister of Finance), Bill No. 74, to levy a Tax on Business Profits, was read the third time and passed,

[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D, Reid (Acting Minister of Railways and Canals), Bill No. 87, to amend the Railway Act, was read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
' On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 75, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, was read, the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes1 in the Chair.
On section 1-persons acting as master and engineer:
Mr. SINCLAIR:: Will the minister explain that?


Mr. HAZEN:: The necessity of this Bill arises in consequence of the fact that a great many small boats are now being propelled by combustion engines using gasoline or oil as fuel. When the present Act was passed no such boats.were in use. The Act applies to steamboats, no matter by what means the power is obtained. Under the law at present if any boat carries passengers it must, unless it is not more than five tons in size, have a certificated engineer and a certificated captain. Consequently,

boats that can very well be managed by one man who has the qualifications both of engineer and of master have to employ two men. This has caused a good deal of trouble in different parts of the country, especially in British Columbia. Section 629 of the Act as at present reads:	.
No person shall act in the double capacity of engineer and master on any steamboat, and no person shall, except when the boiler1 is fired from the engine room, act as engineer and fireman on any steamboat having an engine of over seven nominal horse-power and required by law to carry a certificated engineer.
It is proposed to add these words to that section:
Subject to such regulations as may be made by the minister this section shall not apply to any passenger ship not exceeding sixty-five feet registered length propelled by an internal combustion engine, or by a steam engine with a flash boiler, or by electricity.
Under the provisions of this amendment, one man can act as both .master and engineer on board any boat of that description.


Mr. PUGSLEY:: What is meant iby the terms "internal combustion engine" and "flash boiler?"


John Douglas Hazen: The internal combustion engines are those in which gasolene or fuel oil is used. They have no boilers, and, of course, do not employ steam. A flash boiler is the special type of boiler used, to produce steam by means of gasolene. The flash of the gasolene heats the boiler and produces the steam.


Mr. A. K. MACLEAN:: What are the qualiffications of an engineer on a gasolene boat?
jMr. HAZEN: As the law stands to-day they are exactly the same as those of the engineer of a steamboat. We propose to amend that by the second section of this Bill.


William Pugsley: Does not the minister think there has been some omission in the second section? The first section provides that section 629 shall not apply to any passenger ship not exceeding 65 feet registered length, propelled1 by an internal combustion engine, or by an engine with a flash boiler, or by electricity. The second section is limited to internal combustion engines.


John Douglas Hazen: The second section does not apply to steam engines with flash boilers.


William Pugsley: I think it requires some change. Otherwise the boats with engines 176i
propelled' by electricity would not be provided fOT.


John Dowsley Reid: Among the Thousand Islands there are many small boats not exceeding 65 feet registered length propelled by internal combustion engines or by flash boilers. Those boats carry passengers, but under the regulations, Canadian boats of this type have been forbidden to carry passengers, and the American boat men have had a monopoly of this business. I suppose the same conditions prevail in other international waters.


John Howard Sinclair: This is intended to cover everything excepting boats propelled by sails. Will the minister say whether it covers the case of private yachts? In the coastal waters and the inland waters of Canada there are a great many private yachts that carry passengers and go on excursions. Sometimes large numbers are carried on these boats. Is it intended that the Bill should cover such boats as these?


John Douglas Hazen: It applies to any vessel that carries passengers which does not exceed 65 feet in length.


John Dowsley Reid: It will be readily understood that in. the case of an open boat with a gasolene engine or a flash 'boiler, it is easy for one man to act as -both captain and engineer, and this amendment will permit Canadian owners to carry passengers amon* the Thousand Islands as the Americans do now.

Ilt3Xt5 a statement prepared by one of my technical officers which says:
In respect to engineers, the present Act n0 d'stmction between ships propelled by steam or internal combustion engines * consp quently the engineers must be qualified'to take charge of steam and have service afloat with steam boilers and engines, steam being more dangerous.	6 H
Applications have been received from the National Association of Gas Engineers and certain ship-owners that the law should be changed so that marine engineers' certificates, valid only m ships fitted with internal combustion engines, might be issued to men competent to handle such machinery, and who would have obtained their sea-going experience with internal combustion engines. Ship-owners complain that now they have to employ a man with a certificate as engineer who may not understand an internal combustion engine and pay another man actually to handle the machinery. Although comparatively few ships are as yet affected, yet it appears desirable to provide means for issuing the special certificate asked for.
The question of engineers for internal combustion engines introduces certain difficulties

as regards obtaining proper experience and as certain ships whilst propelled by internal combustion engines may have steam boilers to drive pumps, steering engines or other auxiliaries, it is therefore considered better to have a simple Act as now put forward leaving details to be by regulation.
The Bill was introduced some time ago, and it has been made pretty well known by the newspapers. We have had no objection to it with two exceptions, and these communications were from gentlemen who thought that we were putting some further restrictions upon the owners of gasolene boats instead of removing restrictions. There is no objection to it, as far as we are aware, and it is in the public interest that this change should be made. If my hon. friend wants further information on the subject he refers to, we might report progress; but I may say that this Bill is drawn by the technical officers of the department, who are more familiar with such matters than I personally 'am.


William Pugsley: There should be some
change in section 2, because the effect of this Bill would be to take away your regulations relating to a boat propelled by a steam engine with *a flash boiler or by electricity.


John Douglas Hazen: After the word " engines " in the fourth line we might insert the livords " or by steam engines with flash boilers, or by electricity," and strike out the word " only."


William Pugsley: I suppose' " by electricity " would mean boats having a certain power?


Mr. J. J. HUGHES:: Nearly all the fishermen in our part of the country use small boats propelled by gasolene and a few boats propelled by oil. Will this legislation compel them to fake out a certificate before they can use these boats?


John Douglas Hazen: No, it makes it perfectly
clear that they will not have to.


William Pugsley: I take it that subsection 2 of section 1 does not apply to freight vessels. Perhaps the -minister could tell me as to that.


John Douglas Hazen: This is for passenger vessels entirely.


William Pugsley: I should think there
should be less restriction for a boat carrying freight than passengers.


John Douglas Hazen: A boat carrying freight does not have to have a certificated engineer. 
On section 2-certificates for engineers for internal combustion engines:


John Douglas Hazen: I move to 'amend the section by adding after the word " engines," in the fourth line, the words " or by steam engines with flash boilers, or by electricity,' and by striking out the word " only."


John Howard Sinclair: Is this a new class of
certificate that is provided for?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes, for these boats. It
is felt unfair that a man running a gasolene boat should have to have the same qualifications as a man running a steam engine, and this is to provide a new qualification and a certificate for a man running a gasolene boat carrying passengers.


John Howard Sinclair: It does not apply
especially to passenger ships. It says:
The minister may issue certificates authorizing persons found qualified by the Chairman of the Board of Steamboat Inspection to take charge of the machinery of vessels propelled by internal combustion engines.
And so on. That applies to .all vessels propelled in that way, not only passenger vessels, but vessels of any kind. If the minister intends it to apply only to passenger vessels he should mention that.


John Douglas Hazen: As it is my intention in any event to consolidate this with another Bill now before the House, I think it would be well to report progress upon this Bill. We are practically agreed upon it with minor changes, and therefore I move, Mr. Chairman, that you report progress on the Bill.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.


PILOTAGE.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. J. D. Hazen (Minister of Marine and Fisheries), Bill No. 81, to amend the Canada Shipping Act, was read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On section 1-number of Quebec pilots:
John Douglas Hazen: This is a very simple
change, though I think a necessary one, in order that fair play may be given to those Who desire to become pilots in the Quebec pilotage district. Before a man can become a licensed pilot, or go up for examination, he has to serve an apprenticeship of seven years, and during that apprenticeship he

has to take several sea voyages to foreign countries. Section 444 of the Act contains a provision that if the apprenticeship of a candidate, for any reason at all, is interrupted for a period of four months, thiat time cannot be made up, and he cannot get his certificate. An apprentice may have served six years, and then, if he is taken ill, or for any unavoidable cause the apprenticeship is interrupted for a period of more than four months, 'he will not be able to. get his certificate, even if: he makes up the time, and even i'f the circumstances which prevented	him	from putting
in the full time have been removed.
The section as it stands at present provides that if the period of apprenticeship of any apprentice becomes interrupted for a longer period than four months, no matter from what cause, it will not be possible for the apprentice to complete his term and obtain his license. By this Bill, apprentices whose period of service may for legitimate reasons be interrupted, will be enabled to make up for such time as has been lost, provided the apprentice is in every other respect found qualified, and has completed the full period of seven years.


John Howard Sinclair: This Bill sets no limit to the time an apprentice may be absent?


John Douglas Hazen: No, but he cannot get his certificate until he has put in the full period of seven years.


John Howard Sinclair: This leaves the door
wide open; an apprentice may put in his time to suit himself.


John Douglas Hazen: Oh, no.


John Howard Sinclair: Suppose he puts in three years, and then goes to the United States for ten years. This Bill would allow him to put in the other four years at the end of that time, would it not?


John Douglas Hazen: There is an age limit for
pilots. I think a man cannot get a pilot's certificate after he is twenty-seven years of age, but I speak subject to correction.


John Howard Sinclair: The age limit is the only thing that would prevent him from resuming his apprenticeship in the case I mentioned. Is this Bill intended to apply to some special case that has arisen?


John Douglas Hazen: It is intended to apply to all cases, hut as a matter of fact a case actually has arisen where a pilot who had served six years faithfu'ly and well met with an accident that interrupted his apprenticeship for a longer period than four months, and consequently, under the law as it now stands, he was unable to continue his apprenticeship. Unless this Bill passes that man could hot get his certificate, even though he went on and put in the whole seven years. That seemed a hardship, and it is for the purpose of meeting such cases that the Bill has been introduced. Cases of this kind rarely happen, however, because when a pilot starts in he generally finishes the course, or abandons it early in his career to pursue some other calling.


Sir WILFRID LAURIER:: As the case
has been explained by my hon. friend, some injustice would apparently be done if this Bill were not passed. I would observe, however, that the Pilot's Corporation has been in existence for forty years, and probably more, and this is the first time that I have heard of any complaint against the existing law. I do not think it at all wise to amend a general law just for the purpose of meeting one particular case. If the Pilots* Corporation has found it to its advantage to have this stern law-and apparently it is a stern law-and has made no complaint, to my certain knowledge, for more than forty years, I do not see any strong reason why the law should be amended to meet just one particular case. Has the Pilots' Corporation been consulted, and does it approve of this legislation?


John Douglas Hazen: Our attention was called to this matter by the pilots in the Quebec district, who considered it a very grave injustice that this young man, who had put in six years of honest and faithful work, and whose apprenticeship was interrupted through no fault of his own, should not be able to get his certificate. It seems to me that we should not allow such injustice to be done any man.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the Pilots' Corporation have been consulted, and if this Bill is introduced at their request, I have nothing more to say.
Mr. L'ESPERANCE: It was on the request of the Quebec Pilots' Corporation that I asked the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to introduce this Bill. The particular case which made us think an amendment to the law desirable was that of Camille Couillard, who, after putting in six years of his apprenticeship, met with an accident on one of the voyages abroad which the corporation compels apprentices to take. This young man met with an accident while on

duty in England, as a result of which he was laid up in hospital for nine months, and when he returned to Canada the Quebec Pilots' Corporation could not, under the law as it is at present, allow him to resume his aprenticeship.


Wilfrid Laurier: If the corporation agrees, I have nothing more to say. I see it says the number of pilots for the district of Quebec shall not exceed 125. Is that the law?


John Douglas Hazen: The Bill before the House provides that this section 442, dealing with the number of pilots, and sections 443 and 444, shall be repealed. By the provisions of chapter 48 of the Acts of 1914, all the powers with respect to pilots and apprentices, formerly vested in the Quebec Pilots' Corporation, became vested in the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. This was done on the recommendation of the Pilotage Commission. It will therefore be seen that section 442 is no longer operative. For the same reason all the powers with respect to pilotage in the Quebec district are now vested in the minister. The only portion of section 443, as it stands at present, that it is necessary to retain is that portion defining the number of pilots for the district; and that provides that the number shall not exceed 125.	.


Wilfrid Laurier: That is the present law?


John Douglas Hazen: That is exactly as the law stands at present.


John Howard Sinclair: This applies to the Quebec district alone?


John Douglas Hazen: Yes. There are two districts in the river: one from Montreal to Quebec, called the Montreal district, and the Quebec district, extending from Quebec to the sea.


John Howard Sinclair: Cases of sickness or absence among pilots in the Montreal district are not covered by this Bill?


John Douglas Hazen: I do not think there is any such provision as regards the Montreal district.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
John Douglas Hazen: I would suggest that instead of reporting the Bill, the Chairman report progress, as this Bill has exactly the same title as the other Shipping Bill before the House, and it may be well to consolidate the two.
Progress reported.


TABER IRRIGATION DISTRICT.
[Stage Direction]
On motion of Hon. W. J. Roche (Minister of the Interior), Bill No. 84, to authorize certain school and Dominion lands to be included in the Taber Irrigation district in the province of Alberta, was read the second time, and the House went into Committee thereon, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
On section 1-short title:
Wilfrid Laurier: Where is
this irrigation district?


Mr. ROCHE:: It is in the constituency
represented by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Buchanan). It is not very far from the town of Lethbridge.


Wilfrid Laurier: Is it on the
boundary line?


William Roche: Not on the boundary'line,


Mr. ROGERS:: About thirty miles from it.


William Roche: The reason for the introduction of this Bill is that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have an irrigation district adjacent to the Taber district, and the people of the Taber district are desirous of availing themselves of the water privileges by the extension of the Canadian Pacific irrigation works into their district. Under the Alberta Act they have formed themselves into an irrigation district, that Act permitting them to bond their lands for the purpose of raising money for the extension of irrigation works. There are, within the Taber district, certain school lands which, of course, are administered by the Dominion Government in trust for the province. Some time ago the provincial secretary of the Government of Ablerta waited upon me and asked that this Bill be introduced, and the provincial Government sent forward an Order in Council making a request for this legislation. This Bill is to allow the school lands to be bonded in a similar manner to the patented lands, with this distinction that the Canadian Pacific Railway Company have agreed to accept the bonds which are a first lien upon the patented lands, but that we are retaining our lien as a first lien on the school lands. That is the only difference between the patented lands belonging to private individuals and the school lands.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

28C7
On section 2-school lands may be dealt with as other lands in irrigation districts :
Mt. BUCHANAN:: As section 2 is worded, would it not prevent the district organizing, and bonding the lands for irrigation purposes on account of the permission that has to be secured from the owners of the land? Amongst the lands that are coming under the irrigation district there are certain school lands, which have been sold, but which are still really in the possession of the Dominion Government, and, according to this section, the consent of the owners or purchasers of the lands must first be obtained. There was a vote taken of tho-se within the boundaries of this particular district, and they availed themselves of the opportunity afforded under the Alberta Irrigation Act; but, as I read this section, it may delay the establishment of
4 p.m. this system if further consent has to be secured from these parties. I was wondering if the section could be drafted in sudlf a way as to enable them to proceed without that. A number of these parties live at distant points, so that it might take some time to secure their consent to the arrangement. I may, however, be wrong in my interpretation of the section.


William Roche: It is necessary to obtain the consent of the purchasers of the school lands just as it is necessary to obtain the consent of the owners of patented lands. I do not think it would be proper to pass legislation until the consent of the owners of the school lands had been obtained. They, of course, have made certain payments on the school lands; but, as they have not completed their payments, we retain our lien as a first lien. I do not think that any appreciable delay will be occasioned by waiting to obtain their consent.


William Ashbury Buchanan: The vote taken last year did not include the holders of school lands.


William Roche: I do not know whether the vote included the owners of school lands or not.


Wilfrid Laurier: As I understand it, they are not really'the owners until they have completed the payments. Are there any school lands in the district that have not yet been disposed of?


William Roche: There are 36,910 acres of land, of which 12,110 acres of school
lands have been sold, but not patented, and 1,100 acres are unsold and vacant.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Lieut.-Colonel Ernest J. Chambers, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly the House went up to the Senate;	,
And having returned,
Mr. SPEAKER informed the House that His Honour the Deputy of His Royal Highness the Governor General had been pleased to give, in His Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following Bills:
An Act to incorporate Seaport Trusts Corporation.
An Act respecting The Joliette and Lake Manuan Colonization Railway Company.
An Act for the relief of Raymond Conliffe Savage.
An Act for the relief of Robert William Thompson.
An Act for the relief of Nora Louise Jackson.
An Act to amend an Act to incorporate The Canadian Red Cross Society.
An Act to amend The Vancouver Harbour Commissioners Act.
An Act to incorporate The Ontario-Niagara Connecting Bridge Company.
An Act to incorporate The Western Canada Telephone Company.
An Act respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company and Vancouver Victoria and Eastern Railway and Navigation Company.
An Act to amend The Canada Grain Act.
An Act respecting certain patents of Stone, Limited.
An Act respecing a certain patent of Harvey Hubbell, Incorporated.
n Act for the relief of Mary Phyllis Lasher.
An Act for the relief of Mabel Mills.
An Act for the relief of Clarice Smith.
An Act respecting The Atlin Railway Company.
An Act respecting British America Nickel Corporation, Limited.	.
An Act to incorporate Edmonton and Southwestern Railway Company.
An Act to confirm certain agreements made between The Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Company. The Canadian Northern Railway Company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.
An Act to authorize certain extensions of time to Insurance Companies.
An Act to amend The Customs Tariff, 1907.
An Act for the relief of Arthur Alexander Reinhardt.
An Act for the relief of Charles William Wilson.
An Act for the relief of Aimge Rita Elliott.
[Stage Direction]
An Act respecting The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Hailway Company.
An Act to enable the Corporation of the City of Brantford to own and operate the Grand alley Railway.
An Act for granting to His Majescty certain sums of money for the Public Services of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1917.

[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Rhodes in the Chair.
['That is -a phrase used in the department, " probable expenditure," but nothing has been spent.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.\nThursday, April 13, 1916.']
Robert Rogers: Before proceeding with the consideration of the Estimates in detail, I would like to say a word with respect to the Estimates of the Public Works Department generally. First, let me draw the attention of the committee to the fact that two years ago the Estimates of the department were the largest that had ever been presented by that department in the history of Canada, the amount being something like $48,000,000. A few months afterwards the war broke out, and it became necessary to reduce and economize as much as possible, and by the end of the year it w,as found that we had only spent about $29,000,000. At the session last year the Estimates were reduced from $48,000,000 to something like $34,000,000, a reduction of over $13,000,000. I am glad to be able to point out to the committee that we have expended only about $19,000,000, or about $15,000,000 less than was voted by Parliament last year, and about $10,000,000 less than last year's expenditure. The Estimates presented to-day amount to about $27,000,000, or $7,000,000 less than the Estimates presented last year; and it is hoped that at least $10,000,000, or perhaps a little more, will be left unexpended at the end of the year. That will mean that the Public Works Department will not expend more than $16,000,000 or $17,000,000 during the fiscal year 1916-17. I am speaking now, of course, of the main Estimates. I think these figures give evidence of the fact that the department has exercised and is exercising the greatest possible care, in view of present conditions, in dealing with the money voted by the House at the several sessions since the one before the outbreak of the war. I do not know that there is much to add. When we take up the items in detail, we shall be glad, as usual, to supply any information that we can give that will assist hon. members in their consideration of these votes.


William Pugsley: I think the Minister of Public Works is to be congratulated on his effort to satisfy 
the House and the country that the Minister of Finance was in some sense right when he said, in effect, . that the Estimates foT this year were padded, and that there would be about $29,000,000 which it would not be necessary to expend. I and other members on this side of the House have made inquiry of the different ministers one after the other, tout not one of them has been able to give us any hope that there would toe a saving in his department. We are, therefore, very far away from the $29,000,000 that the Minister of Finance led us to toelieve would not toe expended, yet it is some consolation to receive the assurance of the Minister of Public Works that in his Estimates there are items aggregating about $10,000,000 which it will not be necessary to expend. Where the other $19,000,000 is to be found we hope the Minister of Finance will indicate before the session is finished.
I do not wonder that the Minister of Public Works has found it necessary to curtail expenditures for which he has made estimates. The Estimates are very, very large indeed. But they have been very large during the years my hon. friend has administered the department. I look at the report of the Minister of Public Works, and I find that in 1910-11, the last full year of the late Government, when I had the honour of being Minister of Public Works, the total expenditure, both on capital and on income account, was $11,807,035.42. There were many gentlemen on the floor of this House, many prominent gentlemen throughout the country, who thought that the Department of Public Works was, to use a common expression, "going some"at that time. I remember being very strongly criticised. I recall one very economical newspaper, the Toronto News, which spoke with amazement and horrOT of the "enormous expenditure" of the Department of Public Works, as evidence of unjustifiable and unheard of extravagance on the part of the minister of that day, and indicated that these expenditures could only' toe accounted for by the fact that the minister was reckless in the use of the public funds. But just see how expenditure increased when hon. gentlemen opposite got at the helm. In the following year, 1911-12, the total reached $13,928,026.87, and in 1913-14, it was $18,844,223.90, nearly double the expenditure of the last full year when I occupied the position of 'Minister of Public Works. In 1913-14, the actual expenditure jumped

to $27,991,336.94, or about two and a half times what it was in the last year I was minister.


Mr. MICHAEL CLARK:: They had got into their stride by that time.


William Pugsley: Yes, they had got their gait. In 1914-15 the expenditure reached the enormous sum of $29,283,316.82, or pretty close to three times what it was in the year 1910-11. In 1910-11 it was $11,807,000, in round numbers; in 1914-15 it was $29,283,000. Yet for the greater part of the year 1914-15 the war was on. Gentlemen who occupy the treasury benches would have the country believe that they had been practically certain that there was danger of *a European conflict, danger of a great world war breaking out in which Canada would be called upon to participate. If these gentlemen honestly believed that, surely they must have anticipated that the financial resources of this country would be strained to the uttermost. Surely they must have anticipated that the war would be a most strenuous one, that vast expenditure would be involved and that vast obligations would necessarily be incurred. I think it will be difficult for hon. gentlemen occupying the treasury benches to satisfy their own consciences, still less the judgment of the people of this country, that they have not been exceedingly reckless in the expenditure of public mbneys. As I look over the public works which have been carried on throughout this country during the past three or four years I am not able to realize that there has been necessity for a very much greater annual expenditure than there w.as during the years that I was Minister of Public Works. The matter of expenditure on the part of the Government has been fully discussed on the Address and on the Budget, and therefore at this late stage in the session perhaps I should be uselessly faking up *time if I were to deal with the matter further. It is a deplorable fact that many hon. gentlemen sitting on the other side of the House whom I have had the pleasure of seeing here for a number of sessions of Parliament and who, when I was Minister of Public Works, were clamouring for economy, criticising expenditure, [DOT] making their eloquent voices heard in this House in stentorian tones, to^iay are silent- .silent as though they were struck dumb. Not one word of protest comes from them; it is left entirely to us upon this side of
the House to point out the extravagances and unwarranted expenditures which have been made by the ministers of the Crown.


Mr. WILCOX:: There is not time for
anybody else to say a word.


William Pugsley: I will give my hon. friend time now, if he wants it.


Mr. TURRIFF:: It is not time he wants; it is expenditures.


William Pugsley: The Minister of Public Works having informed us that he will be able to get along with the moderate expenditure of about $17,000,000 during the current year, I think it would be well if he would consent to strike out of his Estimates of $27,000,000 the items which go to make up the $10,000,000 difference. I think it is a great mistake to keep in the Estimates amount's which it is not intended to . expend; it is not fair to Parliament and it is not fair to the country. Of course, I realize that the minister is human. I know that quite a number of gentlemen around him are interested in these imaginary public works which exist only on paper, in the sense that they are in the Estimates. Hundreds of items are revotes, showing that there is no urgency for the works in question. I know that the minister has a tender feeling for his supporters. He knows that it pleases them to take up the blue-book and see among the Estimates items which affect their own constituencies. He realizes that it would give them pleasure and advantage to go to their constituents, and, referring to these blue-books, point out to them that they succeeded after great effort in getting the minister to put these items in the Estimates, and that if they will only be patient', the time will come in the future-whether in the near future or in the distant future-when their expectations in regard to some of the public works mentioned in the bluebook will be realized. I would ask the minister if that is a proper course to take? Would it not be the proper course to at once strike out these items and simply ask the committee to vote for public works which are required in the public service and which it' is intended to proceed with during the current year? I would suggest that the minister strike out of these Estimates the sum of $10,000,000, which he does not want, the putting in of the items in connection with which is merely a waste of printers' ink, and the consideration of which, if we have to take them up item by item, will involve a good many hours, and, perhaps, days of the time

of this Parliament. I think a great deal would be gained by the minister's striking out the amount of $10,000,000.


Mr. BURNHAM:: 
William Pugsley: My hon. friend did not understand me. What I said was that in respect to any public works where engage-*ments or commitments have been made, I am quite willing to have the amount remain; but if it is not intended to proceed with the public building to which the hon. gentleman refers, and which I recognize to be quite necessary, as Peterborough is a rapidly growing and important town, the mere placing of the amount in the Estimates does not help-


John Hampden Burnham: No.


William Pugsley: -because the vote will expire on the 31st March next, and will have to be placed in the Estimates again. Therefore, striking it out now would make

no^difference. A record of it would be kept in the Department of Public Works, and when the time arrived when the minister thought the particular public work under consideration should be gone on with, he could give his instructions to the deputy minister, and the deputy could place the amount in the Estimates for the consideration of Parliament. Therefore nothing would be lost in -respect of the construction of the building, but the Estimates would be honest Estimates, showing what, in the expectation of the minister, will be required during the coming year.


Mr. BLAIN:: Has it not always been the custom of every Government in Canada to insert such items in the Estimates?


William Pugsley: I think not.
Some hon. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!


William Pugsley: I think I can convince my hon. friend.


Mr. STEVENS:: No, you cannot; I can
convince my hon. friend to the opposite.


William Pugsley: My hon. friend cannot. I do not think a minister has ever before come down with Estimates and declared that it was not intended to spend any large sum of money such as the amount the minister refers to. It has occurred, that amounts have been placed in the Estimates for public works which it was intended- to carry on, but by reason of the engineers or architects being very busy, or of some other condition, it was not possible to proceed with the works, and the amounts have had to be re-voted during the next year. That is entirely different from the present case where, in consequence of the war, the minister states very frankly that there are some $10,000,000 in these Estimates for work which has not been commenced, to which' the country is in no way committed, and with which it is not intended to proceed during the coming year. I have never known a case where a minister, having made up his mind that a work should not be proceeded with during the coming year, has, nevertheless, put the amount in the Estimates. There has always been -a bona fide expectation that the work would be gone on with, that the land would be bought, or that the contract .would be let and the work proceeded with. Of course, even that would be interfered with by the circumstances to which I have referred.


Robert Rogers: I have listened with great interest to my hon. friend's comments on the Estimates for the Public Works Department, of which he has such a complete knowledge. I cannot agree with his statement that all the Estimates brought down to the House in any session are usually spent. If he will go over the record during his own period as Minister of Public Works, he will find every justification for the contradiction of his statement that came from this side of the House. I would draw his attention to the fact that in 1907-8 there was a difference of about $4,000,000


William Pugsley: If I remember rightly, that was the year when the financial depression came on after Parliament rose.


Robert Rogers: We will take that for granted, and eliminate that year from consideration. Let us take the next year 190809. The estimated expenditure, according to the items brought down by my hon. friend that year, was $19,922,000, and he spent only something over $14,000,000, a difference of $6,000,000.


Mr. DEVLIN:: He was economical.


Robert Rogers: In 1910-11 the Estimate brought down was $17,000,000, and, as stated by my hon. friend, he spent only $11,000,000, a difference of $6,000,000 again. In 1911-12, which was the last year of my hon. friend's administraton, his Estimate was $24,301,000, and he spent only $14,300,000, or a difference of $10,000,000. If that rule applied in the reign of my hon. friend, it should apply to-day as well. However, I quite agree with my hon. friend that, owing to the war, conditions _ are rather different to-day than they were at that particular time. But then we must not lose sight of the fact that before the war broke out, the year before last, when these Estimates came down, these various items were placed in the Estimates in good faith; and with equal good faith the statement was made to this Parliament by myself, as Minister of Public Works, that there were many items in the Estimates that would not he gone on with in view of existing conditions. I think my hon. friend, on examination of the Estimates, will bear me out when I say that good faith has been kept by my department in that respect; and in the same sense I say that, having in good faith placed these amounts in the Estimates, and in good faith having announced that in view of the outbreak of the war there were many public undertakings that would not be carried out until such time as normal conditions returned,
we should at least keep good faith in allowing these items to remain in the Estimates. I think the hon. gentleman will, on reflection, see the reasonableness of that position taken by the department, and that he will entirely agree with me that it would be an act of bad faith on the part of the Public Works Department to strike from the Estimates the items that were placed there under the circumstances I have described. In view of the conditions caused by the war, we gave a pledge that a certain sum included in the Estimates of last year would not be spent. We have kept faith, and we make the same pledge this. year. There are various items that are re-votes, and it is understood that, unless special notice is given when any item is under consideration, such re-votes will not be expended during the coming year, especially if they are for new work. I think this explanation will satisfy my hon. friend.


William Pugsley: I realize that in dealing with items for works which are actually under contract, and which have been considered on more than one occasion by the committee and the House, it would not be necessary to take up very much time, unless some hon. member might wish information on some special item which he might have in mind. But, in regard to the amounts to which the minister refers, a good many of them are revotes, some of which i observe are not-exactly the same as the original voted. There might be a difference in some cases of $1,000 or $2,000. Probably in some cases that might be accounted for by the fact that the site may have been purchased. I would like to have an expression of the view of the committee upon the general idea of the propriety of reducing the Estimates. I do not want to put the committee, or hon. gentlemen opposite, to the trouble of coming in specially to vote item by item, but I would like to teat the sense of the committee in respect to one item. Take the item, " Ottawa Archives building extension;" that is a revote, and it is not intended to go on with it during the coming year. " Ottawa-departmental block-addition "-


Robert Rogers: That-is a work under way.


William Pugsley: Of course you would
have to go on with that. " Ottawa-new departmental buildings and sites therefor."


Robert Rogers: That is to pay the balance of the purchase price of the sites.


William Pugsley: Of course that would
have to go on. " Ottawa-Parliament buildings-addition." That will have to be struck out; that will never be done.


Robert Rogers: I propose to move to strike that out.


William Pugsley: " Toronto-new federal
buildings;" there is nothing done there, or if anything has been done, it must be very small, and nothing effectual can be done during the coming year. I would propose to strike out from those amounts which cannot be used, and I would therefore move that the proposed vote be reduced by the sum of $360,000. These are amounts which it is absolutely clear will not be required and out of which not one dollar will be expended during this year.


Robert Rogers: I told my hon. friend a moment ago that I proposed to strike out the item " Ottawa-Parliament buildings- addition $100,000." Therefore his estimate of the amount is incorrect.


William Pugsley: Then my motion will be that the item under consideration be reduced by the sum of $260,000.
Motion negatived.


John Gillanders Turriff: I think it has always been customary, previous to the advent of my hon. friend as Minister of Public Works, for the minister, when he came down with his Estimates, to give a full explanation of the expenditures of the .past year, and also of the moneys that were proposed to be expended during the coming year. My hon. friend comes down now with a proposition to vote $27,000,000, and he acknowledges that he proposes to expend at least $17,000,000 of that amount, or about $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 more than was found necessary or advisable five years ago, and he has given us practically no explanation. The little explanation my hon. friend did give was all on the line of trying to make this House and the country believe that he was such a very economical minister that he was asking for so many million dollars less than had been expended and less than had been asked during the past two or three years. But he did not explain that during the past two o$ three years under his management the expenditure has been abnormal, double and treble what it was five years ago. All these big expenditures have taken place at a time when the revenues of the country were very much decreased, and, during the last year and a half, when

we were engaged in a tremendous war. Neither my hon. friend the minister, nor those sitting behind him, seem to realize the position the country will be in. They are going on practically with the same lavish expenditures as ever. Why was it necessary, during the year 1914-15 and 1913-14, to expend $28,000,000 and $29,000,000 respectively, when five years ago, at a time when the revenues were buoyant, when the country was prosperous, we got along very well with an expenditure of $11,000,000 or $12,000,000? Does my hon. friend not realize the position this country is going to be in during the course of another year or two if this war goes on? There is every prospect of it going on for another year, and probably a good deal longer, and should that be the case we are going to have a war debt of at least $1,000,000,000. If by any chance the Government buy up a number of railways-and it is reported they are going to buy a railway in Quebec -if they take over the Canadian Northern railway, as they may have to, and if they take over the Grand Trunk Pacific, we are going to have another item of debt that is going to run very close to $1,000,000,000. With our present debt we are going to add over $2,000,000,000, and we are going to have to raise $100,000,000 this year to pay the interest upon the debt over and above the ordinary expenditures of the country. Instead of the minister realizing the situation, instead of realizing what is almost a certainty, that in a couple of years we shall have to provide $100,000,000 to pay the interest on our national debt, he refuses ab-* solutely to curtail the extravagance that has been going on. 'If people will not realize the position we are drifting into, something serious will take place, something will have to be done.
My hon. friend refuses to cut out the items for public buildings. I tell him that the day is coming very soon when we shall not be in a position to put up public buildings, no matter how badly they may be needed. Four out of five of these public buildings are absolutely unnecessary. I say that, fully realizing my responsibility as a member. My hon. friend from Peterborough spoke a few minutes ago of a public building in that town. Peterborough is a good town, and in good times, l,ike any other prosperous town, would be entitled to a public building, and we
5 p.m. should be glad to vote an item for it. The fact remains, however, that just as good accommodation can

be got in Peterborough, and in any other city, village or town, by renting a building; and it can 'be done for half what it costs to erect a building. I know that by experience. In my own constituency in certain towns the public is given as good accommodation as can be found anywhere in the Dominion. The rents paid for these buildings are fair .and moderate and it does not cost one-half what it costs in places where buildings are *put up by the department, on which interest on the cost has to be paid as well as heating and caretaking expenses. The country is coming to that point where it cannot afford to indulge in the extravagances of past years. I am not blaming one more than another for that. But conditions are changed; and the Government does not realize it, or if they do they do not .act as if they did. Now is the time to begin to curtail expenditures. But the Minister of Public Works asks us to vote $10,000,000 which he never intends to expend. I can quite understand that in such a large department it is impossible tofigureout to a dollar just what will be expended, but to deliberately ask Parliament to vote $10,000,000 which there is no intention of expending is something that has never been done before in this Dominion. It is a bad prece-' dent to establish, and a foolish thing to do. It is simply done for the purpose of making people in certain places believe they are going to get public buildings. I venture to say there are votes in these Estimates for public buildings that will not be put up during the next fifteen years, simply because we shall not be able to raise or borrow the necessary money. After a while the people of Canada will come to see that the Government are paying out millions of dollars for public buildings, when they could get just as good accommodation for half the cost by renting offices. If my hon. friend will persist in putting up public buildings, let me draw his attention to what they are doing in the United States. For many years past, and until recently, the United States have been following the system in vogue in this country, of putting up public buildings in a haphazard way, giving one town a certain class of building, and a much smaller town with a much smaller revenue, a much better building.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not under this Government.


John Gillanders Turriff: There was no system in it; it was simply a matter of political pull. But in the United States, within the past three years, or at all events quite recently, a great change has been brought about by the man in charge of their Public Works Department. He has adopted a system of standardized public buildings. A town of 50,000 inhabitants gets a building up to a certain standard, and costing a certain amount; towns between 50,000 and 100,000 get a building of a higher standard, and towns between 100,000 and 250,000 a higher standard still, and so on. The result has been, according to an article I read not very * long ago, and which went very fully into the matter, that the cost of public buildings in the United States has been reduced by just one-half, and the people are getting buildings much better suited to their requirements. So if the Minister of Public Works intends to go on putting up public buildings, I would suggest that he should inaugurate a similar system in Canada, and see if we cannot accomplish, here what has, been accomplished in the United States. I would much prefer, however, that he follow the suggestion of my hon. friend from St. John, of cutting out the items he does not intend to expend. There is no use mincing matters. These items are in the Estimates for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is for a political purpose. They look well, and they may influence a few votes. In the past I believe that sort of thing has influenced a few votes, but I very much mistake the temper of the people of Canada if that sort of thing will influence votes in the future. I am not so sure that my hon. friend, who claims to know something about elections,-and we give him credit for that-would not make more votes if he cut out the items altogether that he does not intend to expend this year. I am sure that would meet with the approval of a great many people throughout this country. As I have said, we are not in a position to go on with these public buildings, and we shall not be in a position to go on witli them for many years to come. What money we shall be able to raise and borrow wi be needed for a very different purpose

for the purpose of paying the interest ( our debt, and undertaking public work that are really needed. Many of the public buildings provided for in the Estimates this year are really not needed, and only in good times when money was plentiful should

we be justified in putting them up. Under present conditions, it would be absolutely criminal to think of putting up these buildings, and therefore it is foolish to think of keeping the items in the Estimates.


Robert Rogers: I fancy my hon. friend
was not in the House when the committee started its work, or he would have heard the statement I made, and which covered most of the points he has raised.
I would like to say, in respect to a new point raised by my hon. friend that as, since the outbreak of the war, some of our architects have not been busy, we have devoted a considerable amount of attention to the question of standard buildings, and we have prepared standard plans for public buildings for towns of various sizes. When we proceed to erect new buildings in different parts of the Dominion, those plans will be used as the standard. I am sorry that my hon. friend has gone the length of making the extravagant statements he has made about the condition of the country, and which are not borne out by the facts.


John Gillanders Turriff: The statements are more true than extravagant.


Robert Rogers: It would be hard to find greater evidence of economy and of an appreciation of existing conditions than is exhibited by the Estimates which I have presented. My hon. friend has spoken about the conditions of five years ago when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The estimates presented m that year by the Public Works Department amounted to $14,500,000; this year I have assured the House that the expenditure on public works will not be more than $16,000,000 or $17,000,000. That is a very creditable showing in view of the changed conditions in Canada. Confidence having been restored by the return of the present Government to power, there was naturally a great development and a consequent great necessity for public undertakings. In view of the conditions brought about by the war, we are, of course, endeavouring to economize, and I am sure that the figures which I have 'been able to supply to the House will justify the department before the House and before the country, and will be satisfactory even to my hon. friend as evidence that everything possible than can be done by the Public Works Department in the way of economy is being done. I beg to move:

That the item for Ottawa Parliament buildings addition, $100,000, be struck out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Public "Works-chargeable to income-Nova Scotia public buildings, $329,975.
["It would be hard to find greater evidence of economy and of an appreciation of existing conditions than is exhibited by the Estimates which I have presented. My hon. friend has spoken about the conditions of five years ago when hon. gentlemen opposite were in power. The estimates presented m that year by the Public Works Department amounted to $14,500,000; this year I have assured the House that the expenditure on public works will not be more than $16,000,000 or $17,000,000. That is a very creditable showing in view of the changed conditions in Canada. Confidence having been restored by the return of the present Government to power, there was naturally a great development and a consequent great necessity for public undertakings. In view of the conditions brought about by the war, we are, of course, endeavouring to economize, and I am sure that the figures which I have 'been able to supply to the House will justify the department before the House and before the country, and will be satisfactory even to my hon. friend as evidence that everything possible than can be done by the Public Works Department in the way of economy is being done. I beg to move:\n\nThat the item for Ottawa Parliament buildings addition, $100,000, be struck out."]
Robert Rogers: I beg to move:	'
That the item, Pictou custom house-new furnaces, etc., $2,000, be struck out.
This work has been completed and paid for, and the item is not required.


William Pugsley: I call the attention of
the minister to the fact that at least $209,000 of this vote for $329,975 is for works in regard to which there is no commitment 'whatever, and for which no contracts have been entered into. These items are evidently nearly all revotes.


John Gillanders Turriff: Which of these items
does the minister intend to go on with this year.


Robert Rogers: If my hon. friend had
been in the House when I commenced to explain


John Gillanders Turriff: I was here and I heard my hon. friend.


Robert Rogers: Take for instance the
first item, Amherst new post office, $25,000; that is one of the items that will undoubtedly stand. The Amherst drill hall is already under contract and going ahead. The Halifax customs examining warehouse will stand for the present year at all events.


William Pugsley: Of the total of $329,975, there is about $300,000 that the minister does not intend to expend, because the items are all revotes with the exception of items amounting to about $29,000. Why should we be asked to vote $329,975 when only $29,000 is to be expended?


Mr. NESBITT:: How much is the drill
hall at Amherst to cost?	.


William Pugsley: The minister will not
consent to have these items struck out?


Robert Rogers: We have already voted
on that, and I hope my hon. friend will not press it.	_


William Pugsley: WTe have voted only on one item, and I hope the minister will take the same attitude with respect to the others.


Robert Rogers: I was dealing with all the Estimates.


William Pugsley: But the vote was limited to one item.


Robert Rogers: I understood it to apply
to all the items.


William Pugsley: It is hardly worth while to make the motion over and over again.


John Howard Sinclair: The minister is not disposed to make any reduction in these items at all?


Robert Rogers: No.


Richard Blain: Does my hon. friend want them all struck out-?


John Howard Sinclair: I would like to know
what the minister intends to do with regard to these works. The item for the Canning public building is a revote that has appeared every year since this Government came into power, and the record of that building is very interesting, as the minister will remember. His department insisted on purchasing a site when a good Site was offered to them absolutely free, the matter being approved at a public meeting of the citizens of that town. The minister, in the face of that offer, spent a considerable sum of money in purchasing from a political friend a site which he does not seem to have as yet made any use of. These facts came out two years ago, and I would like the minister to tell us how the matter stands now. Has he paid for the site or has he spent anything more than the money expended in purchasing the site?


Robert Rogers: As my hon. friend has
stated, the question of this site is an old one. It has been threshed out before in the House, and I do not know that it is worth while reviving it. The item of 115,000 for the public building at Canning is one of the items that will stand,-there will be no expenditure made this year, at least until the close of the war.


John Howard Sinclair: Was the land expropriated ever paid for?
. Mr. ROGERS: Yes, that is not included in this item.	.


John Howard Sinclair: How much was paid?


Robert Rogers: Two thousand dollars.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that include legal expenses?


Robert Rogers: I think not.'


John Howard Sinclair: Was that amount
awarded by the court?
Mr. -ROGERS: Proceedings were taken to expropriate a certain property belonging to
the Nova Scotia Supply Company, Limited', and also a property of Nathan W. Eaton.


John Howard Sinclair: How much was paid to the Nova -Scotia Supply Company?


Robert Rogers: A thousand dollars was tendered them, with the usual ten per cent, a total of $1,100, and $2,000 was paid to N. W. Eaton for his property.


John Howard Sinclair: Is that a total of $3,100?


Robert Rogers: No, the first-named offer has not -been accepted-; it is now before the Exchequer Court.


John Howard Sinclair: Thfe minister could settle it, I suppose, >by paying to the owner of the -land the amount that he is willing to take? The peculiarity of this case is that the ministei* was not willing to buy the land at a small price. The story is that the owner of -the land refused to accept the amount the minister tendered him, alleging that it was too much, that the land was not worth the money; and the minister has instituted a suit, I understand, against this company, t-o compel them to accept this sum of $1,100 which they do not wish to accept because it is too much. That is the curious -story, but it is true. The facts were disclosed in a return brought down to this House last year. There is a r-eason for it, which also was disclosed to the House, that reason being that the owner of the adjoining property was selling a piece of land to the Government at an exorbitant price, and if this land were expropriated at a less rate it would cast some reflection upon the -price paid privately to the friend of my hon. friend-. Consequently, the Government insisted on paying this man more than he wanted to take, and actually has been carrying on a lawsuit in the Exchequer Court to compel him to accept money which his conscience tells him he should not receive. That is one of the ways economy is practised by my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
['Thfe minister could settle it, I suppose, >by paying to the owner of the -land the amount that he is willing to take? The peculiarity of this case is that the ministei* was not willing to buy the land at a small price. The story is that the owner of -the land refused to accept the amount the minister tendered him, alleging that it was too much, that the land was not worth the money; and the minister has instituted a suit, I understand, against this company, t-o compel them to accept this sum of $1,100 which they do not wish to accept because it is too much. That is the curious -story, but it is true. The facts were disclosed in a return brought down to this House last year. There is a r-eason for it, which also was disclosed to the House, that reason being that the owner of the adjoining property was selling a piece of land to the Government at an exorbitant price, and if this land were expropriated at a less rate it would cast some reflection upon the -price paid privately to the friend of my hon. friend-. Consequently, the Government insisted on paying this man more than he wanted to take, and actually has been carrying on a lawsuit in the Exchequer Court to compel him to accept money which his conscience tells him he should not receive. That is one of the ways economy is practised by my hon. friend.']
Edward Walter Nesbitt: How much- was the total cost of the Amherst building?


Robert Rogers: For the drill hall, $107,000. This vote settles it up.
Public Works chargeable to income-New Brunswick, $177,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: Which of these items does the minister intend going on with during the present year?


Robert Rogers: We intend going on with iihe Milltown public building, Which is now under contract; the St. John Dominion buildings improvements, which is a vote for maintenance; and the St. John new post office, this vote being to finish the post office we are building there.


William Pugsley: It is practically completed?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


The CHAIRMAN:: I will call the individual items composing this vote:
Buctouehe-public building, $10,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is that building
for, and what is the probable cost?


Robert Rogers: It is for a post office and will cost $12,000.
Milltown-public building, $3,000.	.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I see that $30,000 was
voted for that last year. What is the total cost?	[DOT]


Robert Rogers: This completes it, and the total cost is $52,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How big a place is Mill-town, it is small, is it not?


Robert Rogers: It has nearly 3,000 people.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Why does the
minister propose to proceed at Milltown and not at Chatham?


Robert Rogers: This is just being finished.


William Pugsley: I understand that none of these. structures will be undertaken except those that are under way?


Robert Rogers: Those that are under contract.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I have no objection to
providing public buildings where they are necessary for the purpose of collecting revenue, but to spend $50,000 for a public building in a town having a population of 3,000 or less seems to me to be a crime- an absolute waste of money.
Sackville-public building, $15,000.	[DOT]


Mr. COPP:: Is anything to be done in
connection with this building during the current year?


Robert Rogers: While the war is on no new public buildings will be started.


William Pugsley: This is a new work?


Robert Rogers: This is a new work.
 \


Arthur Bliss Copp: The land which was purchased in connection with this proposed building is that upon which the present post office building is located, and at' the present time the minister is paying rent for'the building as well as interest on the purchase price of the land. Is the minister now paying the same rent for the present building as was paid before the land was purchased?


Robert Rogers: My deputy informs me
that we do not pay rent for the building.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The minister is absolutely
mistaken, because rent is paid for the building, which 'is owned by the Mount Allison institution.


Robert Rogers: We have bought the 'and and the building as well.


Arthur Bliss Copp: The information I had was
that the minister did not buy the building, because the building is to be moved.


William Pugsley: I think I can help the
minister a little. With respect to buildings in the smaller villages or towns, the postmaster himself pays the rent and gets an allowance from the Post Office Department. Sometimes, in the case of larger towns, the Public Works Department pays rental, but ordinarily the Postmaster General makes an allowance for the rental of the smaller buildings.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It may be done that way, but it is a fact that rent for this building is paid to the Mount Allison institution. T.he department did not buy the building, because the building is to be taken away.


Mr. MICHAUD:: How much was paid for the land?


Arthur Bliss Copp: $8,000, I think.
Mr.- ROGERS: We are not paying any rent so far as we know in our department.


Arthur Bliss Copp: It may be done in a roundabout way, as the hon. member for St. John suggested, but it is a fact that rent and interest are being paid.


William Pugsley: The amount which is allowed to postmasters in smaller places for rental is often inadequate. I know that I used to urge on the former Postmaster General (Mr. Lemieux) that if the Postmaster General would, increase the allowance to the postmaster the Public Works Department could save a vast amount of money, and would be saved from acceding to demands for new public buildings. However, I never could get my hon friend, with his

economic views, to accede to my wishes. It may be that the present Postmaster General is the same.


Arthur Bliss Copp: Part of this building is used as a custom house, and rent is paid for it by the Customs Department. If the postmaster pays the rent for the building the amount is included in his salary; it is simply paid over in that way.


John Gillanders Turriff: The fact remains that the Government, through the Post Office Department or the Customs Department, are paying the same rent now for the building that they paid before they purchased the lot. Five per cent on the purchase price of the lot, $8,000, would be $400 a year, and to this extent the Government are paying more for the building than they were paying prior to the purchase of the lot. I do not think the minister ought to ask us to pass this item until he can find out whether that is so, and, if it is, he should give assurance to the committee that it will be remedied. It is absurd that after paying $8,000 on account of the land, we should go on paying the same rent for the building that we paid before.


Robert Rogers: The Department of Customs and the Post Office Department in many cases pay their own rents. It is true that we have bought a lot upon which there is a building, but we did not buy the building. The building belongs to the Mount Allison institution, and of course they have a perfect right to rent it.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: And you have the right
to charge them rent for the land.


Robert Rogers: We would have the right to charge them rent for the land, if we saw fit. The land was bought a couple of years ago, before the outbreak of war, and no effort has been made since that time towards starting the public building. Sack-ville is a very good town; a public building there was necessary. It will be gone on with as soon as we possibly can, but not during the present year,


William Pugsley: As to the allowance
made to the postmasters for rental, I think the minister will find that it is based not upon the actual value of the building, but upon the revenue of the office. The amount which is allowed to the postmaster is not often more than $40 or $50 a year.


John Gillanders Turriff: The fact remains that
the Government still pay the same rents, after having paid $8,000 on the property.
177	,
Shediac-public building, $18,000.


Pius Michaud: What is this building?


Robert Rogers: Post office and customs.


Pius Michaud: Has the land been
bought ?


Robert Rogers: Yes, on Main street.


Pius Michaud: How much was paid
for it?


Robert Rogers: $1,100.
St. John-new post office, $94,000.


William Pugsley: Would the minister tell us the total cost of this?


Robert Rogers: The expenditure for the post office at St. John has been: For the site, which was expropriated in the early part of 1911, $67,525; expenditure-1912-13, $722; 1913-14, $101,000; 1914-15, $180,000; 1915-16, $75,000; a total of $521,000. This vote will complete the building.


William Pugsley: How much of that was contract and how much extras?


Robert Rogers: The chief architect's estimate was $475,000. The Rhode,s-Curry contract, without fixtures, was $381,850.


William Pugsley: The extras, then, would be about $140,000?


Robert Rogers: But that includes the site,


Mr. GRAHAM:: Was the site purchased by the late Minister of Public Works?


William Pugsley: Part of it was bought when I was minister and part by the late Hon. Mr. Monk. I bought what I thought was actually necessary for the site, but there was some land which certainly it was desirable to buy, and the late Mr. Monk bought that, and it rounded out the site. It is very centrally situated. I do not think anything more was paid for that land than was reasonable. I am disappointed that the building has cost so much.
I thought it would not exceed about $400,000. The contractors are the Rhodes-Curry Company, Limited. Is any legislation contemplated which will relieve Senator Curry, who is president of the company, from the provisions of the Independence of Parliament Act? The question came up during the last session of Parliament, and I know the attention of the Government was called to the fact that no member of the Senate or House of Commons has the right, as a shareholder or director of an



incorporated company, to engage upon any public work under contract with the Government. That applies to senators and to members of the House of 'Commons. Senator Curry is a very estimable citizen in every way,' but it certainly seems very extraordinary that this Government should be giving contracts to a company of which he ie one of the principal officers and shareholders, in violation of the express terms of the Dominion Statute. It was thought that last session some legislation would be introduced. I think the general concensus of opinion was that the law was too stringent and would prevent many good business men from becoming members of Parliament. Has the minister himself given any attention to this question? The Prime Minister intimated that attention would be given to it.


Robert Rogers: I must confess that I have not much recollection of the matter being discussed in the House. I have not heard of any such legislation 'being introduced or contemplated.


William Pugsley: It would be pretty bard bn Senator Curry if somebody chose to .proceed against him. He would be liable to a penalty of $200 a day for all the time he has been sitting in the Senate since this contract was entered into.


Mr. EDWARDS:: In what part of the year 1911 was the site purchased and from [DOT]whom?


Robert Rogers: Authority was given to the Minister of Public Works, by Order in Council dated September, 1911, to expropriate properties required for a proposed new post office in St. John. The land was expropriated in September, 1911.


William Cameron Edwards: What land?


Robert Rogers: Parcel number 1 was owned by T. J. Reed, part of lots 60 and 61 on Prince William street, with a frontage of 65 feet and a depth of 190 feet back to Canterbury street. Another description is 125 feet at a cost of $25,000; another description 55 feet with a depth of 90 feet at a cost of $8,525. Then in 1912 there was acquired another 55 feet on Canterbury street, at a cost of $22,000, a total of $67,525.
Public buildings, Quebec-Berthier new public building, $10,000.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: May I put a suppositious case to the Minister of Public Works? Suppose a Dominion election were held in 1917, what would be the condition

of mind of the Minister of Public Works if he were asked say, in the constituency of St. John, concerning the public buildings proposed there? What would he say if the war were still on or if peace had been concluded within the year?


John Gillanders Turriff: The election might be in the summer.	*


Robert Rogers: Oh, we do not do things like that.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: The minister
spoke in Halifax one night, and in the course of about thirty minutes, much to the satisfaction of those who were present, he constructed an expensive railway bridge from Halifax to Dartmouth, built a dry dock and several other things that there was not even a vote for. Suppose these sums are revoted next year, what will the minister be likely to.say publicly, if interrogated by his political supporters, as to the probability of spending the money? That is a fair question.	-


Robert Rogers: I went to Halifax, had a very pleasant time, and enjoyed the day very much. During the day I visited the proposed site for the bridge, as. well as the proposed site for the dry dock, tooth of which works, in my humble judgment, are absolutely necessary. I am sure that, tad the war not broken out, these works would be going on to-day. As soon a,s the war is
. er and as soon as we can get a vote from Parliament, my hon. friend can depend upon it-and he can carry the news 'back to Halifax-that we will immediately proceed with these works.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: I have no hesitation in saying that the hon. gentleman has never thought about the bridge since he made the utterance, and that is three years ago.


Robert Rogers: Are you a mind reader?
Mr. MIAlQLEAN:	A very good one in
some instances.
East Angus-public building, $5,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will the minister tell us how much that building is going to cost? I see that in 1915-16 there was a vote of $30,000.


Robert Rogers: The site cost $5,000, plans $1,520, contract, $17,000; services, $650; travelling expenses, $556; total, $25,345.1,3.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What are these travelling expenses?


Robert Rogers: Some of the inspectors
and officers had to go down there.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How much?


Robert Rogers: $556.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister know
the size of the town of Angus?


Robert Rogers: The population is 2,100.


John Howard Sinclair: What county is it in?


Robert Rogers: Compton.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does that inspector take a private car when he travels up and down?


Robert Rogers: I do not think so.


John Gillanders Turriff: It is pretty hard to account for $500 travelling expenses in connection with the erection of that building when the distances are probably not more than 150 miles.


Robert Rogers: 
Robert Rogers: Nothing.


Mr. LEMIEUX:: I understand that the
site has been purchased?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we have purchased the site.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much was paid for the site?


Robert Rogers: $800.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree that no
new work should be started this year. I thought that perhaps something had been done on that post office in which case 1 would have urged the hon. gentleman to proceed with the work because since the completion of the railway there Gaspe has' become an important terminus. The present location of the post office seems to me very poor. As business has considerably increased in that town perhaps the minister may see his way clear to proceed as quickly as possible with the post office. I thought that the foundation work had been proceeded with. The present location of the post office is absolutely unsuited to the business of the town.
177J


Robert Rogers: In view of the fact that no work has been started, and we do not want to make an exception to the rule, we cannot promise to go on this year.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is the population of Gaspe?


Robert Rogers: It is a very growing place just now.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It is a township.
Grand'imOre-public building, $19,500.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is that building to be
gone on with this year?


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Apparently $500 has been spent, or is that for travelling expenses?


Robert Rogers: I am informed there has been nothing spent.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-new buildings, $125,000.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is that work going on
this year?


Robert Rogers: There is a pressing necessity for it; something may have to be done to afford an hospital for immigrants.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is this in connection with immigration?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Gillanders Turriff: When immigration has fallen off practically altogether, why should there be any necessity for going on with this work?


Robert Rogers: I do not' say definitely
that we will proceed, but supposing we get over the war and there was a large immigration we would want to be able to take care of it.


John Gillanders Turriff: The old building that
accommodated the hundreds and thousands that were coming in three or four years ago will be able to accommodate, without any further expenditure, the few who are coming in now.


Robert Rogers: We expect far more next year.
Hull -post office - levelling and sodding ground, etc., $1,000.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Has this work been begun?


Robert Rogers: No.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Why?


Robert Rogers: Economizing as you know we are all over, the same rule applies to Hull as to every other place.


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: Could not the minister
afford to complete buildings already under construction in small towns of say 2,000 population? Does he not think it would be wise to spend $1,000-perhaps less than that-repairing the fence around the Hull post office, and doing the necessary sodding? I am not advocating any unnecessary expenditure in war time; this is only a small item, and the repairs are needed.


Robert Rogers: Repairs are different from *construction; if the fence requires repairing, we shall be very glad to look after *that.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The longer it goes unrepaired the worse it gets.
Public Buildings-Jeune Lorette, $10,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this for a post office?


Robert Rogers: This is a re-vote for a
post office. '


Rodolphe Lemieux: You do not intend to
proceed with it this year.


Robert Rogers: No.
At six o'clock the Committee took recess.
The Committee resumed at 8 o'clock.
Joliette-public building, addition to, $11,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How far has this work been proceeded with?


Robert Rogers: This amount will finish it.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: 

Maisonneuve postal station " M," Montreal, $72,000.	.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has this work been
started yet?


Robert Rogers: No.
Mont Laurier-public building, $5,000.


Pius Michaud: Has a site been purchased?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.
Montreal General Post Office-remodelling old building, including arbitrators' award, with interest, etc., $28,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Will the minister kindly explain this award?


Robert Rogers: This vote is required to complete the payment of the contractor's claim in connection with the remodelling of the Montreal General Post Office and for alterations in the heating apparatus, etc.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the name of the contractor?


Robert Rogers: Mr. Joseph Bourque.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the difficulty as to the amount? Does he claim a higher amount than his contract?


Robert Rogers: There is no difficulty; the matter is all settled.


Pius Michaud: There was some difficulty.


Robert Rogers: The amount of the award was $24,744.03.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the arbitrators?


Robert Rogers: Alexander Hutchison,
Charles Brodeur and A. L. Amos.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The minister does not contemplate getting a new site for the Montreal post office. Of course, every one says that the post office on St. James street is already too congested. There are some rumours that a proposition has been made to the department to acquire a property on Craig street right behind the post office. Has any report been made to the- department and has any arrangement been arrived at?


Robert Rogers: The property on Oraig street adjoining the post office?


Rodolphe Lemieux: I mean on the other side of the street.


Robert Rogers: Yes. We have rented the old Herald building.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is the rent?


Robert Rogers: The deputy has not the information.
'Mr. LEMIEUX: What branch of the post office will go there?


Robert Rogers: We are putting the letter carriers into that building so as to relieve the congestion in the main post office.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I suppose the rental is reasonable.


Robert Rogers: We are perfectly satisfied with it.


George Perry Graham: And I suppose the other fellow is?


Robert Rogers: I hope so.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Who are the owners of the building?


Robert Rogers: Le Comptoir Mobilier.

Montreal-postal station "A" $125,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that a postal station on St. Catharine street west?


Robert Rogers: This vote is required to pay the balance due on the property of the Carslake Hotel Company, Limited, which was expropriated by the authority of an Order in Council dated February, 1914, and which is situated on St. James street with a frontage on Windsor street. The property is of an irregular shape and contains approximately 20,394 square feet.


John Gillanders Turriff: What is the total cost of the lot?


Robert Rogers: That was left to the Exchequer Court-$288,000.


George Perry Graham: That matter has all been settled up?


Robert Rogers: Yes, we are taking this to pay the balance.


George Perry Graham: The decision of the Exchequer Court is final?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


John Gillanders Turriff: Is $288,000 the total cost of the property?


Robert Rogers: It is the award of the Exchequer Court.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The price has been reduced by t'he Exchequer Court.


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Montreal

postal station "G"-St Lawrence division, Prince Arthur and Elgin streets, $50,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is this a new station?


Robert Rogers: Yes.. This vote is required for the erection of a public building on the southwest corner of Elgin and Prince Arthur streets. The proposed building will be a two-story structure, 73 x 97, with a stone front, and is required for postal station "G" on the northern part of the St. Lawrence division, Montreal.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has my hon. friend been approached by t'he people on St. Catharine street in regard to a new postal station? There was a rumour in Montreal that the department intended to build a new postal 'station on St. Catharine street east, somewhere between St. Denis and St. Lawrence streets on the north side of the street. I know that petitions have been signed asking for the opening of a new postal station there. Has t'he Government reached any conclusion in the matter?


Robert Rogers: We have had requests and petitions from that district recommending and urging the necessity for the erection of a postal station somewhere in that locality, but we have declined up to date to do anything by reason of the fact that we are not commencing any new work. We are trying to persuade the people that they can get along in the meantime without a new postal station.
Montreal-new barracks, $100,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Where are those barracks?


Robert Rogers: This vote is required for the erection of a barracks for one unit of the permanent corps, Montreal, Military District No. 5, on a property purchased by the Department of Militia and Defence known as Bel Air race track, Lachine, containing 134 acres. Nothing has been do so far.


George Perry Graham: I suppose nothing will
be done during the war. There is another reason why we should go slow with military buildings. This war has changed in a measure the ideas of handling militia matters. It is possible that new plans and new methods altogether wi*ll be adopted after the war. I think it will be wise not to enter upon any large expenditures for militia buildings until we see just what the conditions will be after the war, and perhaps these buildings in the form suggested may not be needed.


Robert Rogers: I quite agree with my
hon. friend, and we are going slow. In our Estimates this year the only necessary and pressing work in this connection is the erection of a drill hall or a barracks at Calgary. The military authorities have been doing magnificent work there in the way of recruiting and they have no accommodation of any kind. We had intended, before the war broke out, to erect a building there but the matter was delayed owing to some difficulty about securing the site which the city of Calgary was providing. That difficulty has been adjusted satisfactorily and there is certainly a pressing necessity for a barracks there. Before the Estimates are put through, I will ask the House to pass the vote for that with a view of carrying on the work which is undoubtedly necessary in that city.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is it a barracks or an
arsenal?


Robert Rogers: It is the headquarters for recruiting in Calgary. We have no proper accommodation there.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I was gbing to say that the Armoury on Avenue des Pins in Montreal has been found exceedingly useful for recruiting purposes. What French-Cana-dian soldiers we have obtained in Montreal, have been recruited largely because we had that Armoury. Our young men were pleased to meet there, making it a headquarters, and we gathered there as many young men as possible.


Robert Rogers: That bears out what I
was saying with respect to Calgary. As the hon. gentleman probably knows, Alberta stands at the head of the provinces for recruiting and yet that province is further behind in the way of accommodation for recruits than any province in Canada. Therefore, it is thought desirable to go on with this work.
Montreal - new Inland Revenue building, $120,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has that work been
begun?


Robert Rogers: No.


Rodolphe Lemieux: What is to be done with the old building? I should be sorry if it were destroyed. It is one of the oldest landmarks in Montreal, and it stands on an historic spot.


Robert Rogers: I appreciate what my hon. friend has said. We all know that the old building in Montreal is on historic ground, and I am sure that care will be taken to preserve the building. In some form we shall find it useful for some branch of the Government service. While we were considering the proposal for the new building, the question of the use to be made of the present building was not forgotten. I had many requests from Montreal that the old building should not be disturbed but should be allowed to remain.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has the site been
acquired for the new Inland Revenue building?


Robert Rogers: Not yet.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I would respectfully suggest to the minister that there is a large vacant space next to the new custom house on McGill street. I do not know whether it is proposed that that space should be

used as the site for a bonded warehouse or not.	,


Robert Rogers: That has been suggested, but nothing has been decided.


Rodolphe Lemieux: The site of which I speak is in the very centre of Montreal. The site on which the old building stands, I think, would not be large enough for the new building.


Robert Rogers: It has been suggested,
though I am mot sure that it would be satisfactory to the people of Montreal, that we should use a lot that we now own, situated on St. James, street, a little west of the Grand Trunk station. That also has been under consideration, but nothing has been settled.
Murray Bay-public building, $13,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Has this been started?


Robert Rogers: Yes, this vote will complete the building.


John Gillanders Turriff: How much did the building cost, all told?


Robert Rogers: The total cost will be $14,664.10.


John Gillanders Turriff: The hon. minister stated that he had adopted, or was adopting to a certain extent, the system in vogue in the United States of standardizing the different public buildings. Is he going to adopt the other plan followed in the United States of making a hard and fast rule that a certain class of building shall not be built in a place of less than a certain population? I did not gather that he said anything as to whether they were going to adopt that principle or not. I should like his answer as to that.


Robert Rogers: That is a very difficult
question to answer. I am not familiar with the policy in the United States in the matter of standardizing their public buildings along this line. I may say, however, that we make it a rule not to put up a public building in any town unless it has a population of at least 1,000. Our plan is that for a town of that size a $5,000 building should be sufficient and for a town having a population of 2,000 a building costing probably $10,000-keeping the cost as low as we possibly can. Those are the instructions that I have given to the architects ih preparing plans for public build-[DOT] trigs for the future when we shall be ready to carry them on.


John Gillanders Turriff: Will my hon. friend
make that rule applicable to all places having the population stated?


Robert Rogers: We treat all places alike. Of course, conditions vary to some extent. Some towns in Eastern Canada. may remain stationary for a very long time so far as population is concerned, whereas with towns in the Western country there may be a very good prospect of conditions in the future being such as to require increased accommodation. A public building costs a little more in the West than it does in the East. Having due regard, however, to the general conditions, we are endeavouring to follow the rule as closely as possible.


John Gillanders Turriff: I would point out that even in the West the towns have a habit of growing either way; some grow more populous and some less populous. In my judgment no place having a population of less than 5,000 should have a public building. $5,000 or $10,000 is cheap for a Government public building, but the cost of repairs, caretaking and heating is considerable, and in a case where such a building is erected in a small town the cost is three or four times as great as the cost of accommodation which would be sufficient for all the needs of the community. In view of the tremendous fixed charges that we shall be called upon to bear, I think it would be well for both sides of the House to agree on a definite policy in this matter. We should have a fixed rule-because it occurred when our people were in power just as it has with the present Government -and avoid having public buildings costing from $10,000 to $25,000 in places where there are less than 1,000 inhabitants. To do this is to expend Government funds in an absolutely wasteful manner.


Robert Rogers: During the past two years we have adopted the principle of renting as much as possible. I am sure that that will continue for some time, to come, in order to avoid as far as possible the construction of public buildings.
Quebec post office-enlargement and alterations, $175,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: WTill that complete the post office?


Robert Rogers: That completes the whole thing.


Rodolphe Lemieux: When, will the building be complete and open to the public?


Robert Rogers: Early next year. We are moving into the new addition now, but we have to remodel the old part of the building.
Quebec (Savard Park)-isolated cottages for contagious diseases and disinfecting buildings, $18,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is that in connection with the Militia Department?


Robert Rogers: There was an idea some years ago that we should have cottages separated altogether from the Immigration offices for patients who are subject to contagious diseases.


Rodolphe Lemieux: How much do you expect to spend there?


Robert Rogers: I do not know that our plan was very well defined. We put this amount in for the purpose of starting the work, but in view of the war breaking out it was not carried on. Three cottages for that purpose would cost about $5,000 each.
Shawville-public building, $16,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost of this work?


Robert Rogers: 


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Does the minister know
how big a place Shawville is?


Robert Rogers: It is something over a
thousand.
Sherbrooke public building-addition, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: That has not been
started?


Robert Rogers: No, nothing has been done.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I understand that the
hon. member for Sherbrooke would like to say a word with regard to this item, and I would suggest that it stand unless my hon. friend will agree to allow the member for Sherbrooke to discuss it under some other item.


Robert Rogers: Absolutely, yes, under any item.
Ste. Agathe des Monts-public building, $5,000.


George Perry Graham: When will that be finished?


Robert Rogers: This year.


George Perry Graham: I thipk this is one of the public buildings that can be easily defended, for the reason that Ste. Agathe is a resort not only for the people of the city of Montreal, but for the people of all over Canada. I suppose it has been as successful as any

place on the continent of America in assisting in the restoration of health, and a great many families go there for that purpose. I have visited Ste. Agathe several times myself, and I know that it was difficult to find the post office; the accommodation was very inconvenient. The present post office is a building that I can hardly approve so far as the public business is concerned.


Rodolphe Lemieux: I quite agree with
what my, hon. friend has just said.
I visited Ste. Agathe last summer and I found there quite a large population of Canadians and of foreigners. Ste. Agathe is bound to become as famous as Saranac in the Adirondacks. In view of the return of many of our soldiers either disabled or suffering from tuberculosis or kindred diseases, I suggest that Ste. Agathe should be selected by the Government as the site for a hospital or convalescent home.
I was very much struck last summer to see so many foreigners coming into the mountains around those lakes to recuperate. It is a beautiful spot, and I am quite sure the expenditure the Government is making there is quite useful. I think there is no spot in Canada where returned soldiers could recuperate so well as at Ste. Agathe.


Robert Rogers: I am glad to hear what my 'hon. friend has said in regard to Ste. Agathe. I quite appreciate the value of the locality from a health standpoint, and in view of the favourable conditions it was thought necessary that a post office should be erected to meet the requirements of the place.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Besides that it is, of course, an important centre.


Robert Rogers: Yes. Consideration has been given to the establishment of some [DOT] home for returned soldiers at Ste. Agathe, and Mr. Lome McGibbon, who, I understand, has a very large house there, has offered it to the Government for that par-. ticular purpose. I do not know what other steps may be taken, but the place is considered particularly suitable for the purpose suggested by my hon. friend.


George Perry Graham: Mr. MicGibbon has a beautiful home there; it is a beautiful spot.
Three Rivers-new public building, $45,000.


Rodolphe Lemieux: Is the minister carrying out the plans that were made for the public building at Three Rivers in 1911? I think that quite an elaborate plan for a public building there was prepared.
fMr. Graham.]
Three Rivers has increased enormously in the last few years. With its back country, Shawinigan, Grand'mere, etc., it has become quite an industrial centre. In fact, I think the receipts" of customs exceed those of Quebec. It is bound to become one of the large ports of Canada, owing to the many industries in the vicinity.
Mr., ROGERS: The plans for the public building at Three Rivers are practically the same as proposed in 191], except that some rather expensive cornices, etc., have been eliminated, while the building has been added to in other respects.. It is a very necessary public building. Three Rivers is growing rapidly. It is now the third largest city in the province of Quebec, and has probably a greater future than any rival for that position.
Verdun-public building, $35,000.


George Perry Graham: For the Verdun public building $26,000 was voted in 1915-16, and there is. a re-vote of that amount, and an additional $9,000. It looks as if construction were going on. It would not be inappropriate, in erecting a public building at Verdun at this time, that some little memorial, if only an inscription, should be attached to this building to. commemorate the bravery of our Canadian soldiers in the great struggle that has taken place in the city in France after which Verdun is named.


Robert Rogers: This public building at Verdun is a very necessary work. Verdun is a suburb of Montreal and is growing very rapidly; it has a population of from twenty to thirty thousand people. I shall bear in mind the suggestion of my hon. friend. It will be very suitable, indeed, to have a tablet of some form attached to this building to commemorate the name at least of that great struggle.
Public buildings, Ontario-Barrie drill hall, $15,000.


Robert Rogers: That completes the contract.	[DOT]


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: The contract is $54,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: That is very much more reasonable than some of the other places.


Robert Rogers: They are very reasonable people at Barrie; they show a lot of common sense in many ways.


John Howard Sinclair: In starting the Ontario items, I think the minister ought to give a us a general statement as to the reason why he considers it necessary to spend such an enormous amount on public buildings in that province. It is out of all proportion with the expenditure in the other provinces. There may be justification for it-


Mr. MORPHY:: We do not waste so much time in the House and the country saves on that.


John Howard Sinclair: The amount is more than ten times the amount spent in Nova Scotia although the population of Ontario is not more than five or six times the population of Nova Scotia. The same comparison exists as between Ontario and the other provinces. If there is any special reason why this enormous sum should be spent in Ontario, twice as much as is spent in Quebec and three or four time as much as in the other provinces in proportion to population, I think it would be well for the minister to state it. If it can be justified I suppose the minister can do it.


Robert Rogers: It is very easy indeed for me to give my hon. friend an answer to the question which he asks. In the first place, Ontario is the largest province in the Confederation, and, in the second place, we have large buildings at Ottawa, such as the new customs building that is being erected on Sussex street, and which is costing a great deal of money, but which is a necessary undertaking, and the very large proposal for public buildings in Toronto. The needs in Toronto have been neglected for some time. We are trying to correct that condition of affairs in regard to the requirements of the public service in Toronto and as we go along we will find that' the large items for necessary undertakings in Toronto and the customs building at Ottawa account for the difference that may appear in the sum total as against the other provinces. In Toronto Postal Station A will take $465,000,, and the Toronto customs building $500,000. That makes practically $1,000,000 for necessary work in Toronto. For the customs building at Ottawa there is an item of $500,000. If you subtract these huge items from the total you will find that Ontario is not more favourably treated than other provinces.


John Howard Sinclair: It is securing three
times the amount that is being spent in Quebec.


George Perry Graham: I will give you two other reasons that strike me why Ontario has a greater amount expended for public buildings. It sends a great many more supporters of the Government than Nova Scotia does in proportion to the total. But there is another reason and it controls a good many more things than public buildings. Ontario is dotted with small towns. Quebec has some large centres and some smaller places, but Ontario has a greater number of towns and villages than any other province in the Dominion. Consequently there is more demand from Ontario, even considering its population, than there would be from any other province.
Berlin-public building, $50,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Nothing has been done
here yet.


Robert Rogers: No.


Mr. PROULX:: Is this a post office or
an armoury?


Robert Rogers: A general public building.
Brantford-new drill hall, $75,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You are not building that new drill hall this year, I suppose?


Robert Rogers: It is not the intention.
Burford-public building, $10,000.


George Perry Graham: How much will this cost when it is completed?


Robert Rogers: The architect's estimate
is $30,000 including fittings, land and everything.


George Perry Graham: It is quite a big building for the place,


Robert Rogers: It is a very growing community.


George Perry Graham: The community is all
right, but it is a pretty big building for the place.


Edmond Proulx: What is the population?


Robert Rogers: My deputy says he has
not the returns of population here.


Edmond Proulx: Has the site been purchased?


Robert Rogers: The building is completed.


Mr. COCKSHUTT:: I am familiar with
Burford although it is in North Brant. I think that my hon. friend from North Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) will know the village

very well. The population will run up to 1,200 or 1,500 quite easily; it is a very prosperous village and it is surrounded by one of the best farming districts in Ontario. It is a growing place and I think the revenue that will be derived from the business done there will fully justify the amount of the expenditure. My hon. friend from North Brant (Mr. Fisher) is not here, but I believe the money will be well expended in Burford.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The main thing is that
the constituency is represented by Jack Fisher.


John Dowsley Reid: It could not be represented by a better man.
Burk's Palls-public building, $20,000.


George Perry Graham: That is not to be gone
on with, I suppose?


Robert Rogers: No.
Cannington-public building, $8,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total estimated cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: The appropriation is
$8,000; Cannington is a small place.
Cobourg-new public building, $25,000.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the significance of the word "new"? Is there another building in the town?


Robert Rogers: Yes. There is an old one there which has outlived its usefulness.


George Perry Graham: What does the Cobourg building include.


Robert Rogers: Post office, customs, etc. The chief post. office inspector, Superintendent Ross, reported in June last that the public building at Cobourg was congested to a degree that made it
9 p.m. almost impossible to carry on the work; there was not a lockbox unrented, and no space to put more boxes; the money order office was too small, at least twice the present space being required. The present public building has been .utilized for postal purposes for about thirty years, and was originally built for >a bank. It would take a very large amount of money to remodel and add to the present building, and the Government then would have only a patched-up structure; so the post office inspector thinks it would be in the public interest to tear down the old building, and erect on t'he same lot a suitable and more

commodious building for post office, customs, etc.
Copper Cliff-public building, $15,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: They need a public building there; Copper Cliff is a town, not a village.
Cornwall public building - improvements, $3,000.


George Perry Graham: What is to be done there?


Robert Rogers: Repairs to the roof, cleaning and painting.
Dunville-public building, $20,000.


George Perry Graham: That has not been begun?


Robert Rogers: No.
Durham-public building, $24,000.


George Perry Graham: It does seem a waste of time for a lot of able-bodied men to be sitting here shouting "carried" to items that the minister tells us he is not going to expend. It must look curious to the public who are furnishing the money.


John Dowsley Reid: The war may be over in May, and then we may start with the buildings.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Pass the whole bunch at once, then.


George Perry Graham: That would be being foolish in a lump instead of by sections. I am not sure that the public we represent will think this a very businesslike proceeding. Suppose that some of us who pretend to know something about business were estimating our requirements for the coming year, and if we put down the same amount that we expended two years ago, and took the estimate to the bank and asked for credit, the bank would say: "This is too high for war time," and then if we said: "Oh, I am not going to spend all this, but I want credit for the whole amount," the bank would say, "Go back and revise your estimate; and put in just what you really intend to spend, like any business man would, and then we will give you a line of credit." But we are not doing that; we are voting millions that we are assured will not be expended, and to my mind that seems very unbusinesslike.


Robert Rogers: These items were put in
the Estimates in good faith, believing there was a necessity for the buildings in the different cities and towns mentioned. We now say, in all good faith: We are not going on with these public buildings while the war continues, but we will retain the votes in

the Estimates in the hope that we shall be able to go on with the work as soon as the war is over. Believing, as we do, that it is in the public interest that these buildings should be erected, it would be ill-advised on the part of this Parliament to drop the items from the Estimates, and it would be misunderstood by those who are not so well acquainted with the actual conditions as we in this Parliament are, or at all events, should be. We say to the people interested in the construction of these buildings in the different cities and towns: the work will not be undertaken during the continuance of the war, but as soon as possible thereafter.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: In view of the financial commitments this country has bad to make on account of the war, and the taxation that has been imposed upon business for the first time, does the minister think that if the war finished in June or July next, we should be able to spend any money on these buildings?
Mr. ROGER'S: If the war were to end in June or July-and let us hope it will- there might be some hope of going on with the buildings more urgently needed; but then will be time enough for us to consider whether or not we should go on with them. Present conditions are serious in many respects, but not so serious that we shall not be able to cope with them. We have great confidence in the future of this country. This Parliament is expected, in the matter of public works necessary for the public service, to keep pace with private enterprise throughout the Dominion. That is the line we take, and those are the prospects we have, and that is why, in my humble judgment, the items should remain in the Estimates, where they can certainly do no harm. I think it would be an evidence of weakness to give up hope of going on with the construction of these buildings.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: If the war should stop now, does the minister seriously think that our financial condition is such that we could afford to spend money on luxuries? Is the minister not aware that if the war did stop immediately, and if the immense expenditure for munitions and war supplies ceased it would be found necessary for Canada to economize very much more than she is doing at present? That is the exact situation, and my hon. friend must know that if these items are left in the Estimates the people in the districts
affected are going to be misled if they are told that amounts are voted for the construction of public buildings or public works which cannot be gone on with. The Government cannot find in all the history of the British Parliament any precedent for sums of money being placed in the Estimates and voted prima facie to be expended1 when the Chancellor of the Exchequer knew that it was absolutely impossible to spend them.


Robert Rogers: We are not proposing the construction of any work that is regarded as a luxury, as my hon. friend has stated, and, since the outbreak of the war, we have been economizing as closely, I am sure, as it would be possible for any department to do. At the same time I have a greater confidence and a greater hope in the future of Canada than apparently my hon. friend has. I am confident that, should the war come to an end during the summer months, then the condition of Canada and of the Canadian people will be much better than he anticipates. We 'are in as-strong a position as any country in any part of the civilized world, and we will be able to carry on our public works in the public interest in every case as the necessity arises. Therefore, I do not think there is any gloomy outlook for the Canadian people. We look with hope to the future and with the feeling that if the war should come to an end during the present year the money which has been spent in carrying on the war will be felt very lightly by reason of the great advantage which will accrue to Canada at the close of the war from the fact that we have such immense opportunities for the attraction of immigration, and for the building up of a greater and stronger country. While the war conditions of to-day might bear heavily upon seven or eight million people, with the prospects that we have of having a population of ten, twelve or fifteen million people within a few years, the cost and burden of the war will bear but lightly upon them, and I look forward to expansion rather than to that istagnation which my hon. friend fears. I look forward to a very different prospect at the close of the war, and we have all very good reason to hope for better conditions in the future than we have had in the past.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend is
certainly an optimist, but I do not think some of his colleagues will take his remarks very seriously. The Minister of Trade and

Commerce (Sir George Foster) was by no means optimistic about the future of Canada; he did not take the view that his colleague the Minister of Public Works does. I would like to hear from my hon. friend, who has dilated with such beautiful optimism about the certainty of so many people coming to Canada during the next few years, where they are going to come from. My hon. friend must face these problems seriously and not indulge in mental gymnastics.


Robert Rogers: I hope my hon. friend
has taken note of what so eminent a man as Lord Derby has had to say with respect to the prospects after the war. He has told the English people that there will undoubtedly be a large immigration to the overseas dominions; that the people who have been working in offices in England and who [DOT]have gone to the war, will never be satisfied to remain in European countries; that they will come to the overseas dominions in the hope, if nothing else, of finding a more peaceful country in which to rear their families in comfort. No portion of the overseas dominions presents so many attractions to intending immigrants as does this Dominion. We have in the western provinces in the neighbourhood of 3,000,000 acres of land, the finest in the world, that have not yet been touched; we have in the Prairie Provinces land sufficient to take care of the whole population of Great Britain. Therefore I think we have good reason to look forward with hope to brighter and better conditions in this country at the close of the war.


George Perry Graham: I am very much pleased at the optimism of my hon. friend and I hope he is correct in his belief, but it is well to be on the safe side. My hon. friend hopes that this is to be a country where the conquest of peace will be the ideal, and that is one reason he gives why immigration will come to us from European countries. If we are to present that ideal in a practical form to intending immigrants, we shall have to be careful when the war is over to keep on our shoulders very level heads and to see that we are not stampeded and diverted from what ought to be our natural aspirations as a country with peace as our chief aim. Undoubtedly we shall be confronted with a school of thought that will regard it as necessary that Canada should be an armed nation as if war were imminent at any time. If that thought were allowed to

prevail, Canada would have no attractions to offer to- the intending immigrant over those of European countries. It will be a strong incentive for people in devastated European countries to come to our shores if they know that they are to be in a better position here as regards liability to war than they are in their own countries. So, one of the problems we shall have to deal with when this war is over is to counteract, so far as necessary, the inclination to make Canada a military country, with all that that means. We shall always have to have a certain preparedness, as becomes the dignity of a nation; tout it will be our duty also to guard against being stampeded into making Canada an armed camp,. That is one extreme; of course, there is the extreme on the other side. My hon. friend has given- me an opportunity to express this view, as I have expressed it elsewhere. I am not so optimistic about immigration- to- Canada immediately after the war as some people seem' to toe. It will take a little time for things to settle down, so-that Canada can present her proper attractions before the world. European countries that have been devastated will have to toe rebuilt, and the scarcity of men in those lands will leave all the fewer to come to Canada. It is all the more important, then, that we should have something much better to offer them than that which was offered in their o-wn land. Another idea I have is this. If we are to attract immigration, Canada must continue to assume her full Responsibility of self-government. I am afraid that we are becoming more of a child in some respects, wishing to lean on the Motherland for advice as well as for action, when we ought to depend upon ourselves. But that is a large question, and I will not go into it now.


Robert Rogers: I am glad to hear my hon. friend speak in the strain in which he has addressed the committee. It is true that we in Canada have always; been a peace-loving people. We are like the great Empire to which we belong, a great, contented, industrial, and peace-loving country. As that has been our position in the past, I am sure it will also be in the future. As for present conditions and the circumstances of to-day, I am sure there is no man in this House, and few in the Dominion of Canada, who dont realize that there was no place for the loyal citizens of Canada other than in this conflict. We have

taken part in this war in the full and confident belief that such was the will of a united Canadian people. But, while we have taken this course in order to meet conditions as they were, yet, at the close of this war, after we have succeeded, as I am sure we shall succeed, and as I am sure every hon, member of this House believes we shall succeed, in achieving a glorious victory for the cause for which we stand, we shall return to our own place, that of a peace-loving country not looking for war and not guided by war conditions, but desirous of building up a happy, prosperous, and progressive nation, and using as fully as we may the possibilities of our country, possibilities such as no other portion of the civilized world presents. The opportunities Canada will offer for peaceful labour will be such as must attract immigrants to our shores, and it will be our duty to lend every assistance within our power to make these immigrants prosperous and contented in the homes which they build here for themselves and their children .


George Perry Graham: I hope the hon. minister does not imagine that I was talking of present conditions when I spoke of peace, though that is what I would gather from his remark. I was discussing the future, when we shall be looking to Europe for the best class of immigrants. There are no two voices in Canada-or, if there be, the second .is so small that it is not heard-as to not only our duty, but our privilege to be in this war. My own view is that Canada's place would be in this war even if she were not a part of the British Empire at all. If we are to assume the dignity and responsibility of a nation; if we are to aspire to be leaders in establishing what we believe to be right for the welfare of the world, it is our duty to participate ih this war. I agree with everything the hon. minister has said as to the hopes and aspiration of Canada for the future, and I believe with him that victory must crown the efforts which the Allies are putting forth, and that the results of that victory will be a wider outlook for the nations of the world. The real result of this conflict will be no exclusive good for the British Empire or for the Allies," but general good for the entire world, in which Germany will participate as one of the greatest beneficiaries.


William Cameron Edwards: May I ask if this building at Dunnville is to be an immigrant building or a drill hall?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Now that the discussion on the war is over, I would like to say a word or two about the Estimates before the House, and to make a remark about the peculiar situation in which gentlemen opposite have placed themselves in connection with the Estimates. The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) comes into the discussion .after the Nova Scotia estimates are all through, and after they have had careful consideration by the members of this side of the House. No objection was raised to any of those votes by the hon. member for Pictou. A little later, we pass to New Brunswick,-all smooth sailing; the votes are necessary; no objection from New Brunswick. Then we pass into Quebec. The hon. member for Rouville (Mr. Le-mieux) nods approvingly to the hon. minister commending as a splendid thing and very necessary, that such and such a building should be put up at such and such a place; and so, all along the line until we come to Ontario. But the moment we cross the threshold of that province, 1 am surprised to see, the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham) rise and lead the attack. Why should Ontario be pilloried and signalled out for attack? And this is followed up by the hon. member for Pictou.


George Perry Graham: Oh, he should not do
that.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: It is too bad. It does not grieve Ontario, but it shows to 'how low a standard the game can be brought by some of those whom assume to play it.
I want to bring the matter clearly before the committee, because if hon. gentlemen are going to play the game, they ought to play it fairly and in a reasonably decent manner. Two or three million dollars were put through for Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick; these works were all necessary there, and similar works are equally necessary in the province of Ontario. If they are not necessary in this province, I would like hon. gentlemen to show why. In preserving his Estimates intact, the minister has evidenced the foresight that a minister of the Crown ought to have. The hon. member for South Renfrew to-night portrayed conditions that might very seriously affect this country in the reconstruction period after the war. Is it not well to have these public works provided for, so that tlie labouring men, the builders, the mechanics of this country, and every person whose work tends to upbuild the industrial and national life, will, by the aid

of the Government, have something in dull times to keep the wolf from the door? It seems to me that this is a policy of foresight and prudence which is well worthy of the minister, and I am surprised indeed that the hon. member for South Renfrew should take the stand that he has against his native province of Ontario in this matter.


George Perry Graham: I suppose the only reply is that the minister has said that he is not going to use this money, and Ontario is not to get anything out of it.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The hon. member for North Perth is a joker. He wanted to indulge in a little byplay for the amusement of the committee.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Do not take it seriously if you think it is a joke.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: The member for
North Perth did not do the Minister of Public Works the honour of listening to What he was saying with regard to this matter. He was attempting to reply to the suggestion that it was absurd to be passing items for the construction of buildings in any province on the theory that the moneys were going to be used this year if the war came to an end.	The idea is absurd
because if the war did	come to
an end, it would not be possible, in the financial condition of the country, to spend this money in any province, Nova Scotia as well as Ontario. Anything that I said I desire to repeat in regard to the items affecting my province, as well-as in regard to those affecting Ontario. ' To the suggestion that there was no sense in putting these items in the Estimates when the amounts are not to be spent, the member for North Perth says that it is a splendid thing to have them there; that it is pleasant for the labourers and contractors to think that some day they are going to have a chance to spend this money. I think that is making them hope for a condition which the hon. member knows will not come to pass for a good while.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: I do not know anything of the kind.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Having regard to the financial condition of the country, does my hon. friend think that direct taxation, which is being imposed on the people for the first time, should he continued for the purpose of raising money to erect public buildings?


Hugh Boulton Morphy: The man who gets work through the aid of this Government in building up the country can pay his taxes more easily than if he is out of work.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: My hon. friend's theory is this: the proper way to run a country is to impose taxes upon the people in order to get money to erect public buildings, in order that the contractors and labourers may get money to pay the taxes.


Hugh Boulton Morphy: Oh, no.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Certainly that is government in a circle. It is like a dog chasing his tail; he never gets anywhere.
Elmira-public building, $5,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: 


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will this $5,000 finish the
building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.
Fort William-custom house and examining warehouse, $15,000.


George Perry Graham: How far has that work gone?


Robert Rogers: That finishes it; they are moving in next week.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost?
Mr, ROGERS:	$140,000, including the
site.
Galt-drill hall, $6,000.


George Perry Graham: Does that complete the building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: About $60,000.
Hamilton public buildings-enlargements and improvements, $47,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Something has been spent there.


Robert Rogers: Nothing for the building; that was $2,000 in connection with a small portion of the site.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You are not going on
with that this year?


Robert Rogers: No.
Kemptville public building-additional land required, $1,500.


George Perry Graham: Are you buying some
more land there?


Robert Rogers: A fire took place there,
and this amount is to buy a piece of land alongside. The building had been burned down, and we did not want to put another building on the .same site.
Kipgston Royal Military College-covered drill hall, $15,000.
k


William Cameron Edwards: What has been done
there?


Robert Rogers: Nothing has been done,
but we are being pressed by the Militia Department to do some work there, in view of the training that is going on at Kingston, particularly the cavalry drill. There is a pressing necessity for doing something, and it may be possible that we should have to go on with this work.


William Cameron Edwards: I suppose that, in a
sense, every member of this House, no matter what his constituency, may properly say that all of Canada has an interest in any public building, no matter what its nature or situation may be. But I think that, in a special sense, we may say that of the Royal Military College. While the college is situated ;n the county of Frontenac, it is in a special sense an institution for all Canada, inasmuch as students come to it from every province. If the minister would be justified in making a departure from the principle he has laid down of not proceeding with new buildings while the war is in progress, it would be in connection with this building-and I do not say that because it happens to be situated in the county of Frontenac. On a former occasion this session I called attention to the splendid record which had been made by students of that college, a record which reflected credit on every province of Canada. I do not want to press unduly what I consider would be a proper thing, namely, the immediate construction of this building; but I think its construction would be justified because of the pressing necessity for the enlargement of the buildings for drilling purposes. I hope that the Minister of Public Works and all members of this House will visit that institution during the coming summer, and that in the very near future the Government will be in a position to thoroughly renovate the old Royal Military College building, in which the class rooms are situated, as the rooms are not now large enough for the number of students in attendance.


John Howard Sinclair: What is the attendance?


William Cameron Edwards: It varies, especially
since the outbreak of the war as it is almost impossible to keep the students there. There should be more accommodation. A splendid course is given and given at a reasonable cost. The college has been well called the West Point of Canada, and I trust that every member will be able to visit it and judge for himself what should be done to make the buildings all that they should be.


Robert Rogers: The statements made by my hon. friend are not new to me. I have heard them not only from himself but also from the Militia Department who have urged the necessity for this particular work. That is why, when the item was reached, I at once informed the committee that there was a very pressing necessity for the carrying out of this work, and I hear the same thing from young men from all parts of Canada who go there to take training. There is a general complaint of lack of accommodation.


George Perry Graham: If it will be any encouragement to the minister, I may say that I endorse everything that has been said by the hon. member for Frontenac, although he and I are not noted for agreeing. This building does not come within the category of ordinary public buildings which should not be proceeded with during war time. This is a war time building. If the Royal Military College is to continue to be the success it has been-and it is only within the last three or four years that we have learned how great that success has been-it Will be necessary to spend not only this small sum but perhaps more to keep it up to the standard that the Militia Department think it ought to be kept up. I should not consider that building at all in the category of ordinary public buildings, and I think that no objection could be taken to the minister departing from his rule in this case.
Lindsay public building 

 improvements, $7,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What are the improvements?


Robert Rogers: The building has been
built for some little time but it was not properly finished. This is to finish it.
Millbrook-public building, $20,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How much is that building estimated to cost?


Robert Rogers: $20,000, including everything.

Milverton-public building, $5,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What will be the total
cost of this building?


Robert Rogers: $30,000 odd.
Napanee-drill hall, $10,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Will that finish it?


Robert Rogers: This finishes it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What will it cost?


Robert Rogers: 

Oakville-public building, $5,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the estimated cost of the Oakville public building?


Robert Rogers: We have no Estimate at hand for that, but the deputy informs me about $15,000. It is not going on.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc., $50,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Is that for the old departmental buildings?


Robert Rogers: It is for filing cases for the departmental buildings and stuff of that kind.
Ottawa customs building, $530,000.


John Howard Sinclair: Does that complete the building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What will be the total cost of that building?


Robert Rogers: Over $2,000,000. It is a very fine building. It will be finished in about a month, and I would like you all to go down and see it; it is a really wonderful building.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Do you mean to say you are going to keep us here for another month?


Robert Rogers: That all depends on you. We are ready to close next Wednesday night.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: You have not brought your Supplementary Estimates down yet.


Robert Rogers: We are not bringing down anything worth while except what will be needed for the new Parliament buildings.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is that building only for the local customs house, or is it in connection with the department?


Robert Rogers: It will accommodate both.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: Is the Customs Department to be in the building?


Robert Rogers: Yes; they are looking to moving in in a few days.


John Howard Sinclair: Will it all be required for the department?


Robert Rogers: We hope they will be able to get on with less than the whole of the building.
Ottawa-new drill hall, $50,000.


John Howard Sinclair: This is one of the old hardy annuals. I do not know when we started in with this new drill hall but I see that it appears in the Estimates for 1912-13, 1913-14, 1914-15, 1915-16, and 1916-17. This is the fifth time that we have been asked to vote this item for the same amount of $50,000 and it was voted three times before the war. The minister has explained the reason why these buildings are not being proceeded with, why so many are put in the Estimates so often, by saying that the war has prevented the construction of them, and it will be interesting to know why we are asked to vote this among others from year to year with no progress being made towards the construction of it.


Robert Rogers: There is a good deal in what my 'hon. friend says but the explanation is that when the item was originally placed in the Estimates there was a difficulty in connection with the selection of the site. The Department of Public Works only undertakes the construction of such buildings as these when the site has been selected by the Department of Militia and Defence. It has not been settled yet. We are simply 'carrying out the recommendation that has been made to us but nothing has been done and nothing will be done this year.	[DOT]


Emmanuel Berchmans Devlin: I regret to hear the minister say that nothing will be done because, while I fully appreciate the fact 'that the strictest economy should be practised during war time, I was glad to approve of the minister when he said that improvements would be made at Kingston. I would place in a similar class the drill hall at Ottawa. Ottawa is the capital of Canada and perhaps more soldiers congregate here for temporary drilling than elsewhere. Every hon. gentleman in the House knows perfectly well that the present drill hall is not adequate. It is a disgrace to the city. This is a case in which the minister should see that the site question is settled at once and that a new building is given to Ottawa.


Robert Rogers: We have the old drill hall, which is not very satisfactory. The site is entirely a matter for the Department of Militia and Defence arid we have not yet been informed that they have selected a site. I have no doubt the delay has been due primarily to that difficulty. Then, in addition, a great deal of expenditure has been necessary and has taken place in connection with militia in Ottawa and we have endeavoured to economize as much as we could and to get along, if possible, with the old drill hall. That is really the position in which the matter stands.
Ottawa Parliament buildings-improvements. $30,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is that for? You
will have to put through a special vote for that.


Robert Rogers: That was placed in the
Estimates for the purpose of providing additional plumbing and drainage for the Parliament building that has been burned. I move that the item be stricken out.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
George Perry Graham: Could the Minister of
Public Works give us any. information as to the progress that is being made toward the reconstruction of the Parliament buildings? I understood, although I have no inside information, that a suggestion has been made for the formation of a committee of members of the House, possibly of the Upper Chamber as well, to assist, and advise in connection with the reconstruction. Has that committee been appointed, have any steps been taken to let the contract, is a contract to be let, is it to be done by force account, have the plans been finally approved-any information of that kind would be interesting.


Robert Rogers: I proposed a couple of
weeks ago that a committee consisting of three members from each side of the House should be named.
I asked the Prime Minister to name three, and the right hon. leader of the Opposition three. The Prime Minister has chosen Hon. Dr. Reid, Hon. Mr. Blondin, and Hon. Senator Lougheed, and I expect to get three names from the leader of the Opposition to-morrow morning. As soon as I receive these we will proceed to the consideration and final acceptance of the plans. We had an exhibition of the plans here and I am glad to be able to say that I have not yet heard a single complaint from any hon. gentleman as to the general layout as shown on the sketch. The work of this Committee 178	'
will be to give thorough consideration to all details, and to take into consideration, in conjunction with the members of the House, the division of the space. In the meantime, the architects are working out the details of the plan, and getting 10 p.m. everything ready as rapidly as possible. I hope that in a few days we shall be able to proceed with whatever plans the committed thinks best. Like my hon. friend, I think the building should be built on some kind of force account.


John Howard Sinclair: Will the.committee have control of the business end of the work, with power to let contracts/ appoint inspectors, and generally supervise the erection of the building? Or will they simply be an advisory committee to consult with the minister in regard to the plans? I should like to know just what powers they will have.


Robert Rogers: When I made the proposal for the appointment of the committee, I made a very full statement as to their powers. It is on Hansard, and I will send it over to my hon. friend.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I see they are building
a wooden tower on the old building.


Robert Rogers: That had to be done anyway, in order to clean things up.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Might I suggest that a great deal of room was taken up in the old building with what-I will not call it the bar-


George Perry Graham: Say restaurant.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I should not call it a
drinking room.	*


Robert Rogers: I object to that expression.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: As we passed a prohibition measure the other day, I hope Parliament will set an example to the country by doing away with any room of that kind; we could use the space for rooms.


Robert Rogers: In the new building there will be a restaurant where meals will be served for the convenience of hon. members. That is my view, at all events, and I shall be glad to suggest it to the committee. Beyond that, I have no recommendations to make. If my hon. friend has anything to suggest, we shall be glad to hear him at the committee.


George Perry Graham: There has been no bar there for very many years.


Robert Rogers: Quite so. I am surprised that my hon. friend from Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) should have got the idea that such a thing existed in the old building.


George Perry Graham: I was talking to a leading contractor the other day, and he suggested that there were two portions of the new building that might be let by contract.
I am not aware to which portions he referred. Owing to conditions existing between parts of the old building, and on account of more tearing down to be done, perhaps it would be impracticable to let the contract for these two portions. This man is a successful contractor; I discussed it with him for quite a while, and told him that I would mention his suggestion to the minister.


Robert Rogers: Many suggestions and recommendations have been made to me, and it was primarily for the reason of dealing with these that I suggested the appointment of a committee. When the committee meets all these various suggestions and recommendations that I have received from many sources will be laid before them and considered.


John Howard Sinclair: There is one point in connection with the building that I hope the minister will not forget, and that is the acoustics. It is a curious thing, but architects in this country do not seem to understand that question. Most of the buildings that have been erected in my experience have been defective in that respect; this building we are sitting in now, for example. When we first came here, before the curtains were put up, we could hardly hear at all, even although the building was designed by* the best architects, probably, as it was intended for a national museum.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: The animals were not supposed to talk.


John Howard Sinclair: If that was the best the architects could do, I think the minister should look somewhere else for a man who understands this important question. Acoustics and ventilation are two of the most important things to be considered in a chamber. I know that it is a difficult question, and that mistakes have been made in some of the greatest buildings in the world. In Sir Henry Lucy's description of the Houses of Westminster, he tells how both the Commons and House of Lords Chambers were very defective in their acoustic properties. The House of Commons had to be almost made over again before the members could hear one another.
The House of Lords was left as it was, and Sir Henry Lucy, who has spent most of his life in these Chambers, says that, with very few exceptions, the voices of the members of the House of Lords do not carry across the Chamber, that there have been perhaps only half a dozen members whose voices would carry across the Chamber. If great buildings in Europe are defective in this respect, great care will have to be taken if we are to have perfect acoustics in the new building on the Hill. I regard this as very important, and I know the minister does himself. Many of the men who come here are middle-aged, and some of them a little older, and it is therefore necessary that the acoustics should be good.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I would suggest that the acoustics be made like those of the House of Lords.


Robert Rogers: Judging from the remarks of my hon. friend from Guysborough, he takes a very keen and lasting interest in the Upper Chamber.


George Perry Graham: That seems to be a disease.


Robert Rogers: I agree with my hon. friend that in a general way the acoustic properties of a building are really the most important part of the whole work. I am glad to be able to tell him that the architects who have been selected are gentlemen who have travelled throughout the United States, England, France and other countries, and have already made thorough inspections of the public buildings in those countries, giving special consideration to the question of acoustics, and I understand they are satisfied that they will be able to make the chambers for the House of Commons and the Senate satisfactory in that respect. I am sure, from what I know of the two gentlemen so selected, that they are worthy of out confidence as to carrying out the work in the best manner possible and to the satisfaction of the House of Commons and of the Senate.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I hope the minister will impress upon the architects not to forget the ventilation, which I think is even more important than the acoustic properties. The latteT may 'be more important in some instances, but the ventilation is most important for our health. As I do not expect to be around very long, I hope the ventilation will be good.


Robert Rogers: I am sorry that my hon. friend should feel at this early stage in

the history of the country that it was time for him to pronounce his valedictory. Of course I can appreciate the fact that we had very poor ventilation in the old chambers, because they were on the inside. According to the present plan of the new building, the House of Commons and Senate chambers will be on the outside with windows, and every precaution possible will be taken for the proper ventilation of the building.


Mr. OOPP:: Has any report been filed by the commission appointed to investigate the cause of the fire in the old building?


Robert Rogers: No. I understand the commission is to report about the middle of this month.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I understand that the commission has arrived at the conclusion that a fire occurred.


Robert Rogers: I would not like to say
that, but I hope to have the report in a few days.


George Perry Graham: The report will show
that there were indications of a fire.
Ottawa Parliament and departmental buildings-re-wiring, etc., $45,000.


Robert Rogers: The building had been
re-wired just before it was burned.
Palmerston-public building, $19,000.


George Perry Graham: When will this be completed?


Robert Rogers: This year.


George Perry Graham: Will this amount complete it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: 

Pembroke drill hall, $4,000.


George Perry Graham: Will this amount complete it?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: 

Peterborough-new public building, $47,000.


George Perry Graham: What is this building to be used for?


Robert Rogers: I am sorry my hon. friend was not here this afternoon when the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Burnham) dealt with this building. It is a general public building.
178*


George Perry Graham: Will it include the customs?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the estimated cost?


Robert Rogers: We have just put this item in as a starter. We paid $18,000 for the site.


George Perry Graham: The building will probably cost $150,000.


Robert Rogers: Probably. Peterborough
is a growing city.
Sydenham-public building, $5,000.


Robert Rogers: The department has agreed to purchase the site, and a small portion of this vote will be used to pay for it.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: It would not be necessary to pay much for a site there?


Robert Rogers: No; it is very cheap; I have forgotten the exact amount.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is nothing here for Inverary.


William Cameron Edwards: Not yet. In asking for this public building I was guided by considerations, which, I think, should guide every member of this House. Sydenham is a village of about one thousand population. It is the largest village in the county of Frontenac, and I think that a building which, with its site, will cost about this amount, will be in keeping with the other buildings of the place, while furnishing all the accommodation required. I do think that an exception should be made in this case, for the reason that this will be the first building ever constructed in the county of Frontenac with Federal money. After all these years of faithful service we are certainly entitled to one. Last year, when this item came up, I was glad to see the hon. member for South Renfrew (Mr. Graham), then leading the Opposition, give his smiling approval. There are not many counties in the Dominion of Canada but can point to at least one Dominion building.


George Perry Graham: You have the Military College.


William Cameron Edwards: That is different; that belongs to all Canada. The amount of this vote is small, and this village is an important centre.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: Of course, this vote is only a starter?


William Cameron Edwards: No, that is what I want to make clear. I asked for what would, supply not only the building, but also the land. I do not approve of putting a ten-thousand-dollar building .in a place where it will be entirely out of keeping with the other buildings of the place. This amount will provide what will be right for that situation, while furnishing the accommodation required. And in the time to come I shall have good reason to come back and say: You spent only $5,000 in Sydenham, and now Inverary should have a vote also.
Toronto-postal station ** A," $445,000.


George Perry Graham: What is doing there?.


Robert Rogers: This is the new railway
station.


George Perry Graham: We have been threatened with that new railway station so long that the people are curious about it. I believe that steps have been taken to start the new building. Or, perhaps I should say that symptoms of starting are shown.


Robert Rogers: This is a revote of $455,000 required for the erection of a new terminal postal station, as part of the easterly wing of the new union station, which is being built in accord with an Order in Council dated September 1, 1915. The hon. member understands that part of it probably better than I do. This is a part of the work on the terminal station in Toronto, and the work is going on. The railway people have let the contract, and we are beeping pace with the development, and have assumed our share.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: But there is no work
going on.


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I don't know where.


Robert Rogers: It is just starting.


George Perry Graham: The hon. minister will
not need to go very fast to keep pace with the work on the Toronto union station. The contract has been let, or a portion of it, and the public are hoping that the work will go on in a practical way from now forward. The present Toronto station is about the poorest excuse for a modern station that is to be found in any big city on the continent of America. A stranger needs a guide there, or he is liable to be run over by a train. If I were to put in a bill on a per capita basis for the people I have guided to safety out of that station, I am afraid I should be looked upon as a grafter.

If the railway companies proceed with no greater rapidity this year than in the past few months, the Government will not need to expend much money, for, of course, they will only spend it as the construction of the railway terminals proceeds, for they cannot do away with the old facilities until opportunity is afforded to provide the new. The minister said to-night that Toronto had never received much aid for any new buildings. I have been in public life for a good many years, and never objected to an item for Toronto, in fact, I have favoured it.
I do not think it would be fair-putting it on the lowest ground, I do not think it would be good polities-for any party to refuse to recognize a city of the importance of Toronto. While there has been no vote for this building until recently, the reason was that the Board of Railway Commissioners had ordered a new station to be built, but, unfortunately, it was some time after the order was passed before there was any semblance of it being enforced. Owing to conditions between the railway companies they only arrived at the point of starting recently. But there is this to be said, at present it is difficult for railway companies to secure money for improvements which are not direct revenue-producers, and a new railway station, while it provides extra accommodation for the public, does not produce directly any more revenue than the old station. I hope the railway companies will act as rapidly as they can in the construction of the union station and other terminal facilities that are being provided. These improvements are certainly needed in the city of Toronto. We in the province of Ontario, no matter how badly Toronto may treat,, us at election times, are proud of the city and of the progress it is making. The minister will not find any objection on this side to treating Toronto fairly and giving her what she requires in the public interest.


Robert Rogers: I entirely agree with what the hon. member for South Renfrew has said. A work of thie kind is usually delayed by reason of the fact that there are so many conflicting interests. The railway people have knowledge of the fact that the Government are ready to do their part so far as the portion of the (building to be used by the Government is concerned. It was about a year ago, perhaps less, that they gave evidence of being ready to start with the work, and we at once made it clear that we were ready to carry ox. our

part of the work. I understand that the foundation is now being proceeded with and that work is going ahead in earnest. We hope that it will be completed as rapidly as possible. I entirely concur with what my hon. friend has said, that the station in the city of Toronto is undoubtedly a disgrace to the railways that have to use it. It is in the public interest that we have this postal station there, and I am glad to know that our providing the necessary sum for carrying out that work meets with my hon. friend's approval.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: There is a difference of $45,000 between the vote of last year and that of this year. What was that spent for?


Robert Rogers: We spent that on a portion of the site.
Toronto military buildings-barracks for permanent corps to replace property sold to thei city, $138,000.


George Perry Graham: Does that rgfer to the old fort property?


Robert Rogers: Yee.


George Perry Graham: I do not know whether the protest was made 'by an historical society, but there was a feeling against the old'fort being destroyed, 'and I understand that some arrangement was arrived at by which it would be at least partially preserved. What has 'been done about that?


Robert Rogers: The Militia Department would have that in hand.


George Perry Graham: Would my hon. friend call the attention of /the Militia Department to the matter? I should like to get that information.


Robert Rogers: All right, we will get it.
Walkerville-public bi-ilding, $5,000.
Mr. GRAHAM. Will this complete the building?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: What is the total cost?


Robert Rogers: 


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I was pleased to hear
the member for Frontenac say that he had asked for a public building in proportion to the size of the place in which it was proposed to be erected, and, I assume, in proportion to the revenue. My idea is that these buildings should be erected only in proportion to the amount of the revenue. As the minister himself said a little while ago, a great many of these towns have
arrived at their full extent'. I could name dozens of them in Ontario that have not improved during the last 25 years; as a matter of fact, some of them have gone back. Some of the buildings in connection with which items were passed to-night- although they are not to be built this year, it is proposed that they shall be built sometime-and which cost from $25,000 to $30,000 are to be erected in villages having a population of about a thousand people. In such places the revenue could not be more than $1,200 or $1,300, and the present expenses not more than $300 or $350, including the postmaster's salary. I have gone through the post office reports very frequently, and I find that the expenses of these smaller offices generally run from $350 to $600 or $700. If we put up a building costing $25,000 it costs almost as much to light it and to heat it during the winter as it did to maintain the old office, postmaster and all. If the Government, no matter which party be in power, would establish the principle of erecting only a certain kind of building in small towns and villages, I do not think any fault could be found with erecting in a small village, the very best house in which would hardly cost more than from $2,500 to $4,000, a public building costing $3,000 to $5,000. It is quite probable that in such case the service given before-probably in a store or part of a store-was just as good as it would be in the new building. Expenditure of this kind is abnormal and in my judgment absolutely unnecessary.


Robert Rogers: The member for Frontenac has set a very good example; we have tried to follow it as closely as we can.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I hope the minister is in earnest.
Manitoba-Altamount, drill hall, $10,000.


John Howard Sinclair: How many postal
stations are there in Winnipeg now?


Robert Rogers: I think there are only
two.


George Perry Graham: Some buildings in Alani-toba have apparently been started and some money has been spent on them. Would the minister explain these? Then we might pass the Manitoba vote and perhaps take up the Saskatchewan and Alberta votes tomorrow.


Robert Rogers: In the case of the Winnipeg drill hall, north, the building is under contract and about completed. This is just to finish up the work.


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: What will 'be the total cost of the new drill hall in Winnipeg?


Robert Rogers: 


Alexander Kenneth Maclean: Are the postal stations in Winnipeg situated on corner lots or expensive property? I think that sub-post offices in cities might be modest buildings, not comparable to the general post office. In large European cities and American cities the sub-stations are small, modest buildings, and frequently are rented. I doubt if it is good policy, in a large city, for the Government to be buying properties for postal stations.


Robert Rogers: As to the postal stations in Winnipeg, Mr. GeoTge Ross, general inspector of the Post Office Department, came to me some time ago and I told him to pick out whatever site was best in the public interest and his choice would be satisfactory to- me. I really do not know what lot he has purchased, but my deputy tells me that for postal station B he purchased a property costing $18,000.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: I see there is $150,000 for Winnipeg barracks, and then there is the new drill ball, costing $500,000. ' Is it necessary to have that barracks as well as that big drill hall ?


Robert Rogers: We sold the old -barracks to the Provincial Government, and it was a part of the contract that we should build a new barracks; but we have not started it yet.


Edward Walter Nesbitt: How many soldiers are
there in Winnipeg and what is the cost of the new north drill hall?


Robert Rogers: We have over 25,000 men there. The north drill hall has cost $103,000.
Public building, Saskatchewan, $725,500.


Mr. McCRANEY:: I notice, in running through the Saskatchewan items, only two changes and those are with regard to the Saskatoon items. The amount in the Estimates for last year was $30,000. This year it is $24,ij>00. Would the minister explain the reduction?


Robert Rogers: That difference is accounted for by the fact that we had to pay the taxes that had accumulated from the time we bought the property.


George Ewan McCraney: Have you taken that out of the cost of the building?


Robert Rogers: That has been the practice, just as when buying a site we take the cost out of the building vote.


George Ewan McCraney: The next item is the
new public building. Last year the vote was $75,000 and this year it is $74,000. Is the explanation the same?


Robert Rogers: That is -a phrase used in the department, " probable expenditure," but nothing has been spent.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rogers, the House adjourned at 10.45 p.m.
Thursday, April 13, 1916.