1923-04-10

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUFF presented the second report of the select standing committee on Marine and Fisheries, as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration the new regulation regarding the time each year that trout fishing by anglers is permitted, and recommend that the regulation at present in force be repealed and that the time be as formerly, that is from the 1st of April of each year until the 1st of May each year.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Mr. GRAHAM:: It is permitted for the
same length of time as formerly, but the date is changed?


Mr. DUFF:: Yes.



IMPERIAL CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the morning press there is an announcement that this year there is to be an Imperial Conference of the nature of that in 1921 to be held simultaneously with an Imperial Economic Conference, and that to the former all prime ministers are invited and all are going save the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who presumably along with the others is to attend the latter. May I ask if this conference has been decided upon if it is to be attended by the Prime Minister or by others of the government, and if so, what is the agenda that has been agreed upon or submitted to the government as subjects for consideration at the economic conference and also at the conference of the character of that of 1921?


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I might say to my right
hon. friend that the report as it appears in the press this morning is correct. An Imperial Conference similar to the one held in 1921 is to be held in London in October simultaneously with an Imperial Economic Conference.

It is hoped that when October comes the expressed wish of the British Prime Minister that the prime ministers of the different dominions should attend the conference may be complied with so far as Canada is concerned.
As to the agenda, I think I might promise my right hon. friend that I will be in a position to place on the Table such papers as we have already received in that connection. Broadly, as to the agenda of the conference of prime ministers, it is similar to the agenda of the conference which my right hon. friend himself attended. The agenda in complete form is not available as yet. It is open to the different governments concerned to make suggestions as to matters to be taken up between now and the time of the conference.
As to the Imperial Economic Conference, The agenda I think is set forth in completer form, and I shall have pleasure in placing on the table of the House the data the government has.


Arthur Meighen: Can that data be placed on the Table to-morrow or this week?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING In this, as in alt matters between the Home government and our own, I wish to follow the customary practice of communicating with the British government before I take any action. I shall ask for permission to bring the papers down at an early date.


Arthur Meighen: There can be no possible exception taken that would be acceptable to this House, no possible reason for secrecy in regard to the agenda of either conference.



HUDSON BAY RAILWAY

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I call attention to
another despatch in the press this morning indicating that the government has altered its attitude with respect to the Hudson Bay railway. The despatch is dated April 6, and states that the Hon. W. R. Motherwell in the contest now being decided in Moose Jaw has undertaken on behalf of the government the completion and the establishment of service upon this railway before Christmas. This is one of several commitments made. May I ask if this is the policy of the government? If so, is it permanent or is it only made for Mr. Knowles to get in on?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The policy of the government remains what it was, as announced by the Acting Minister of Railways

Dismissal of John J. Hayes
and Canals (Mr. Graham) when this matter was referred to in the House.


Arthur Meighen: That policy would be consistent with completion before Christmas. Is the government purposing to do that? Does the government purpose to have it completed this year, or does the government not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot give my right hon. friend an answer as to time.


Arthur Meighen: Does the Prime Minister say that he cannot say whether it is the intention to complete the Hudson Bay railway before this Christmas or not?


George Perry Graham: I think that must have been a misprint.



GRATUITIES TO GRAND TRUNK OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. WARD:: I should like somewhat out of curiosity to draw attention to a statement made by the Acting Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Graham) yesterday in reply to a question by the hon. member for Last Mountain (Mr. Johnston) regarding a question I had put on the order paper some time ago. The minister had this to say:
If I might be permitted, I am not sure that the Farmers' party has brought much light to the subject. The light was forced upon it.
I would like to tell the hon. minister-


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order. This refers to a debate which took place yesterday and cannot form the subject of a discussion at the present time.


William John Ward: What I would like to ask the minister is what ground he had for making that statement.


Hewitt Bostock: ' Order.


George Perry Graham: Pure fact.



SUPPLY-DISMISSAL OF JOHN J. HAYES FROM POSTAL SERVICE

[Stage Direction]
On the motion of Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King that the House go into Committee of Supply:
['On the undertaking of the minister that if, after the plans are fully provided, they know what the cost is to be of the land and of the building, and if they find that that is likely to be over $500,000, then he will not proceed to make any expenditure, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. The result will be just the same.\nAmendment (Mr. Meighen) withdrawn.\nItem as amended agreed to.\nProgress reported.\nOn motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.\nWednesday, April 11, 1923']
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Calgary East):: Before the motion is put, there is a matter of great urgency which I should like to bring to the attention of the House. It deals with one Mr. John J. Hayes of Calgary. I want first briefly to state this man's position.
Mr. Hayes has been a postal employee of the Dominion of Canada for thirty-three years. Not only has Tie served in that capacity for that length of time, but he also served overseas for some years. After returning he was moved from the Toronto post office to the post office of the city of Calgary. He was moved there immediately after the postal strike in Calgary. He was considered to be of such efficiency that he was placed in the position of supervisor of the letter carriers there at that time. Now for some reason unknown to me, the postmaster at Calgary seemed to take an aversion to Mr. Hayes, and recently they set a trap to catch him. There had been some petty thieving going on in the post office, and a trap was set by a policeman and an official of the post office expressly to catch Mr. Hayes. These gentlemen were in the office watching for Mr. Hayes to put his foot into the trap. They sprang the trap when they were ready but they did not catch Mr. Hayes in it; the money they had planted was found elsewhere. Nevertheless Mr. Hayes was arrested. He was not accorded trial by a jury but was brought before Hon. Mr. Justice McCarthy, and was found guilty. His case then came before the Appeal Court and was heard by Hon. Mr. Justice Beck, Hon. Mr. Justice Hyndman, and Hon. Mr. Justice Clarke, the result being that the conviction was quashed. I would refer those who are interested in the case to the report of the proceedings to be found in Canadian Criminal Cases, volume 38, page 348. Mr. Hayes then found himself a free man. The case was thrown out by the Appeal Court because the evidence against him was insufficient. Subsequently Mr. Hayes applied for reinstatement in the post office but was told by the postmaster that he would have to wait for some time. After repeated attempts to be reinstated he was informed that an order in council had been passed by the present government discharging him from the service, the letter from the Deputy Postmaster General stating that they were taking this action in the light of the judgment as summed up by the dissenting judge of the Appeal Court. I would like to know by what authority the Deputy Postmaster General sets himself above the Appeal Court in this case or, for that matter, by what authority the cabinet even judges a man over the head of the courts.
I want next to show what these proceedings mean to Mr. Hayes himself. As already pointed out he has seen thirty-three years' service. I think his service overseas counted for something more than the regular time, which would give him about thirty-five years' service under the postal department. Now,

Dismissal of John J. Hayes
by his discharge Mr. Hayes loses the pension which rightfully belongs to him as an employee of the department. In this regard I want to point out that on the morning of his arrest the postmaster at Calgary offered Mr. Hayes the privilege of resigning. Had he resigned at that time he would have obtained his pension, but he would not resign because to do so would have been an admission, inferentially at least, that he was guilty of the charge laid against him. Mr. Hayes would not take that opportunity of getting out, but went to the court with his case. However, although he won out in the courts he was summarily dismissed by an order in council. By that dismissal the fruit of his labours of thirty-three to thirty-five years was lost and he himself, as long as the attitude of the department is what it is, is even regarded by his friends with suspicion. I saw Mr. Hayes when I was at Calgary a few days ago and he is undoubtedly in dire financial straits, and his family, at the present time, are dependent upon the precarious charity of friends. Owing to this charge against him, and to the attitude of the department, Mr. Hayes is unable, to get work and is on the very verge of starvation. Now, I submit that a grave injustice has been done to this man. I do not mean to say that the government would knowingly pass an order in council calculated to inflict injustice upon anybody. At the same time, I want to say, that in my opinion, the attitude of the Deputy Postmaster General is contemptible; I cannot find words with which to express my contempt for his attitude in the matter. I imagine that the government reached the decision which it did under the influence of communications received from the postmaster of Calgary, and has not been guided in its decision in this matter by the judgment of the courts. I therefore think this injustice should be remedied. The thirty-three years of creditable service by Mr. Hayes should not be forgotten. The government's attitude not only robs Mr. Hayes of the pension which he has earned, but it also robs him of his character, for it was on the charge of theft that he was discharged, the judgment of the courts notwithstanding.	I would
therefore urge remedial action on the part of the government immediately.	I contend
that Mr. Hayes should be paid his wages from the moment he was arrested until he is reinstated, or else, if the department does not want to reinstate him he should be granted his pension. The least the government can possibly do, in recognition of his service overseas, and of his long term in the service of the department, is to give him his pension.
fMr. Irvine.]


George Perry Graham: May I ask my hon. friend to wThat pension he refers-this man's pension as an employee of the government or his pension for service as a soldier overseas?


William Irvine: I refer to the pension which Mr. Hayes has earned under the regulations governing postal employees. The man is innocent in the opinion of the court; he has been discharged as innocent of the crime of which he was accused. Therefore, I submit, he ought to receive his pension. He is an honest man in the opinion of the courts, consequently I do not see why anyone should desire to treat him as a criminal. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Shaw):
That all the words after the word "that" to the end of the question be struck out and the following words be inserted instead thereof:
That this House desires to record its opinion that the dismissal of John J. Hayes, formerly employed as a civil servant by the Post Office department, Calgary, Alberta, is wholly unjustifiable, and that immediate steps be taken to redress the injury done to the said John J. Hayes.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Acting Postmaster General):	Mr. Speaker, this
amendment came into my hands just as I was entering the House, and you can readily understand that I have not had time to digest the details of this case. I might point out, however, that if the mail matter, either social or business, is not safe in the hands of public servants, then the business of Canada, as well as our social relations, goes to pieces. Any man who cannot be trusted to handle the mail matter in a post office, while he may have the sympathy, cannot have the confidence, of the people of this country. I do not want to say anything to hurt Mr. Hayes' feelings, and I think bringing up this resolution, while it is in order, is not doing Mr. Hayes a kindness. It would have been better, I think, for my hon. friend to have discussed it with me, to see if there was not some other way of reaching a conclusion. However, I am not responsible for that.
In reference to the charge against Mr. Hayes I may say that he was arrested on September 14th, 1922, charged, first, with stealing a post letter containing $2, a test letter prepared by the investigating officer, contrary to section 364 of the Criminal Code, and stealing a post letter addressed to Mrs. C. I. McFarlane, Calgary, contrary to section 364 of the Criminal Code. One can readily understand that the officials of the post office, particularly the postmaster who is responsible would be in a very embarrassing position, having discovered that at different times, on sundry occasions, letters mailed and contain-

Dismissal of John J. Hayes
ing money had gone astray, and he set out to find who was responsible for this loss of money, and who was guilty of malfeasance in office. He came to the conclusion, with the other officers of the department and officials who were there, that they should investigate the matter. Mr. Hayes was under suspicion at least. This case was tried before Mr. Justice McCarthy. Practically every man in this House knows Mr. Justice McCarthy, who was formerly a member of this House. He heard all the evidence, saw the demeanour of the witnesses, was in a position to take into account all the local conditions and he found Mr. Hayes guilty and sentenced him to three years' imprisonment on each of the two counts, sentences to run concurrently. An appeal was taken. That appeal was heard before three judges; two of them upheld the appeal, one dissenting, Mr. Justice Clarke.


Mr. MACDONALD (Pictou):: Did Mr. Justice Clarke dissent?


George Perry Graham: Yes. I must not comment on the judgment-but perhaps I might as well. I will be very delicate about it. Mr. Justice Clarke was at one time a member of this House, and one of the ablest lawyers in the Dominion of Canada, and one of the ablest men that ever sat in this House.


Arthur Meighen: And appointed by the
late government.


William Duff: An exception which proves the rule.


George Perry Graham: That may have been a
lapse of memory. But we are all unanimous in the opinion that Mr. Justice Clarke is a very able man. An appeal was taken. There were two questions at issue; first, the riglqt of trial by jury, which had been refused at the time of the trial by the presiding judge. My hon. friend for Calgary (Mr. Irvine) referred to that. As a matter of fact, the law provides for the trial, as it took place, without a jury. The second point was insufficient evidence. Two of the judges held that the evidence was not conclusive. Without criticizing the judgment at all, and I am not doing that, I would say that in order to come to a conclusion some other theory must be adopted, or some other explanation must be accepted as to the method by which Mr. Hayes got the letters and money into his possession. One of these was purely presumptive. The first suggestion was that the test letter had been stolen by a letter carrier who had later turned the money in to Hayes when buying stamps. Some letter carrier other than Hayes must have stolen this letter, brought it back
and turned it in to Hayes for stamps-a roundabout proceeding. The second point was that Mr. Tingle substituted this money while he was taking the requisition handed in by Hayes to the clerk from whom he obtained the stamps.
Now certainly the evidence may not have been conclusive, but to my mind the reasoning of the other judges was far from conclusive. I want to point out what Mr. Justice Clarke said in his dissenting judgment. Referring to these two contentions, or suggestions as to the method by which Hayes might have got these letters and this money, Mr. Justice Clarke first deals with the opportunity a letter carrier would have to steal this letter and shows that while it would not have been impossible for a letter carrier to have done it, it was highly improbable. He pointed out that Mr. Hayes's desk was only a few feet from the case in which the letters, including the stolen letters, were placed for his attention. Hayes personally took the letters from the pigeon hole, containing the "removed" letters, and put them on his desk to check them over as usual and turn them over to Clerk Black, the supervisor of city sortation. When examined by Black one of the test letters was there, and the other one was missing. The accused left the room for about 15 or 20 minutes-this was about 8.50 a.m.-immediately after he had turned the letter over to Black. About 9.30 a.m. he sent his assistant, Tingle, with the requisition for postage due stamped to the amount of $3.75, to the stamp vendor on the mezzanine floor. The marked money contained in the missing test letter was found among the moneys sent by Mr. Hayes for stamps. Hayes alleged he got this money from the letter carriers. I am not going to refer further to this judgment, but Mr. Justice Clarke dissented very strongly, giving, to my mind, real reasons for every point of his dissent. We begin with this again: Letters and moneys were found in the possession of Hayes illegally. Mr. Justice McCarthy, who heard all the evidence, sentenced Hayes to three years' imprisonment on each count.


William Irvine: The minister said that the money and the letters which did not belong to Mr. Hayes, were found in his possession. I think the minister is in error as to that. I do not think any money was found in Mr. Hayes' possession.


George Perry Graham: The memorandum which I have here says that Hayes was charged with:
1. Stealing a post letter containing two dollars (test letter prepared by investigating officer) contrary to section 364 (c) of the Criminal Code, and

Dismissal of John J. Hayes
2. Stealing a post letter addressed to Mrs. C. I. McFarlane, Calgary; contrary to section 364 (b) of the Criminal Code.
Hayes appeared before Judge McCarthy and was found guilty and sentenced to three years' imprisonment on each of the two counts.


William Irvine: That is the charge, but that does not prove that money that did not belong to Mr. Hayes was found in his pockets by the trap-springers.


George Perry Graham: Let me read again a synopsis of what Mr. Justice Clarke says:
The carrier would have had to pick out this particular letter from the thirty or more letters in the pigeon hole, which he would have no knowledge of, abstract the money-two dollars, and then turn in the money in two instalments to Hayes in purchasing a few cents worth of stamps, all before 8.50.
From that I take it for granted that the money was found in the possession of Mr. Hayes. But let me get back. I am not going to take the place of the court. Hayes was charged with stealing money and mail matter; Mr. Justice McCarthy, who heard all the evidence, found him guilty and sentenced him to two terms of three years' imprisonment, the terms to run concurrently. The case was taken in appeal on two points: First, refusal of trial by jury. That has been cleared up by Mr. Justice Clarke, who pointed out that the law provides for such trials without a jury. The second was that the evidence was not sufficient. The judges rather took the ground " not conclusive What I have read from the synopsis of the judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke would lead me to believe there was a wide divergence of opinion in that regard. Leaving all that aside, however, this is a man who is under suspicion sufficiently strong to make him a man not worthy to handle the mail of the people of Canada. WTould any man in this House trust a public servant who had been tried and found guilty by Mr. Justice McCarthy and who, although he won on appeal, had applied to the case the remarks of Mr. Justice Clarke which I have read? I cannot but oppose this motion. I am willing to discuss this matter in. the Post Office Department with my hon. friend; but I can assure him and assure Mr. Hayes that the object of the Post Office Department of the Dominion of Canada is not to persecute anybody; its chief object is to have the people of this country served, not only efficiently, but honestly.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I must confess that I am amazed by the attitude assumed by the Acting Postmaster General (Mr. Graham) in connection with this matter. He spent a good deal of time reviewing the judgments of the court and explaining why the view expressed by
[Mi. Graham.]
Mr. Justice Clarke must be upheld. Then, in the next breath, he tells us that he does not want to go into the matter as regards the courts. There can be no question of this fact -John J. Hayes is innocent of the charge which was laid against him.


Mr. CARROLL:: Who told the hon. member?


Mr. SHAW:: There can be no question about that. The courts have decreed that the charges which were laid against Hayes were unfounded, and he stands to-day before the people of Canada and in the eyes of the law an innocent man.
May I say at the outset, that of the questions which were considered by the Court of Appeal in this matter, one was a legal question as to the right of an accused person charged under the section dealing with post office offences, of securing a jury. On that point, the court did not come to any conclusion, because in view of the facts they deemed it unnecessary to consider that question. There were I believe, at least, three questions reserved. The second was: Was the finding against the weight of evidence? That is the question submitted by Mr. Justice McCarthy to the Appellate Court. I think we should have in mind that well-established principle that no man shall be convicted if there is any reasonable doubt as to his guilt. The second question concerned itself with the question of whether or not Mr. Justice McCarthy, in trying the case, had, so to speak, misdirected himself. The third question is:
Did I err in finding the appellant guilty of the charge of stealing from the post office at Calgary a post letter addressed to Mrs. C. I. McFarlane, in that the appellant alleges no guilty intent was established.
Next,
Did I err in failing to direct that no evidence was produced to prove the value of the letter forming the substance of the first charge?
Next,
Did I err in failing to direct that no evidence was produced to prove the value of the letter forming the substance of the second charge?
These questions were placed for consideration before the appellate division, and I want to read some extracts from the judgments of Mr. Justice Beck and Mr. Justice Hyndman, dealing with this matter.


William F. Carroll: Would the hon. member tell us briefly the decision of the Appellate Court on the second question.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am going to read some extracts taken from the judgments of these Appeal Court judges. The judgments themselves are rather long. Mr. Justice Beck

Dismissal oj John J. Hayes
states, and his statement will be found at page 349, Canadian Criminal Cases, volume 38:
As I am of opinion that the conviction must be set aside and the accused discharged upon a proper view of the evidence and the judge's reasons for his decision, I refrain from a consideration of the question whether or not the accused was entitled to be tried by a jury.	[DOT]
Further on at page 354, he continues:
There is absolutely no direct evidence of the guilt of the accused. The evidence against him, such as it is, is wholly inferential. The evidence makes it quite clear to me that, without discrediting in the slightest degree the evidence of Black, Hale, or the constable-
And these, by the way, may I mention, are the gentlemen who framed up the scheme on this particular man:
-(I emphasize this for reasons which will appear later,) there is room for more than one reasonable hypothesis to account for the two marked one-dollar bills being found in the way described in the hands of Hazleton. I set forth these hypotheses, of course, without wishing to suggest guilt on any particular individual.
In other words, Mr. Justice Beck found, under the circumstances, that any one of a number of individuals might have committed the offence. At page 357 Mr. Justice Beck again says:
Applying these principles to the evidence I am convinced not only that had I been trying the case I should not have convicted the accused, but that, in view of the several hypotheses consistent with his innocence, there is no evidence on which he could be properly convicted. Apart from this it seems quite clear to me that the judge misdirected himself. He gave reasons for convicting the accused as follows in which I insert comments indicating which I think are objectionable features.
To my mind it is impossible, in view of the law as I have indicated it, to say that this statement by the trial judge does not indicate that he very seriously misdirected himself. This being so, in my opinion, the conviction cannot stand. If this were the only ground for quashing the conviction, of course the court would have to consider whether or not a new trial should be directed,-
And I direct the attention of the Acting Postmaster General to this:
-but in view of what I have said with reference to the evidence, I would, even if it is thought that the evidence would on a strict application of legal principles justify a conviction, I would refuse to direct a new trial.
In other words, the court is satisfied that if a new trial were directed in this particular case this man must necessarily be found innocent of the charge. Mr. Justice Hyndman also deals with the matter.


Mr. HANSON:: The result of the appeal was, then, that the conviction was set aside and a new trial refused.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Yes. I may remark, for the information of hon. members, that the court might have taken three different actions in connection with this conviction. It might
have confirmed the conviction; it might have decided that there was some error in law and therefore ordered a new trial; or on the other hand it might have done, what in fact it did in this case, namely, hold that there was no evidence to justify a conviction and decide that the conviction must be quashed.
Now, that is the position in which this man finds himself, and the Postmaster General's department in regarding him as guilty of the charge is simply arrogating to itself the functions of a court of appeal from the appellate division of the Supreme Court of Alberta. The lawyer representing this accused man has been in communication with the Postmaster General's department; I do not think he has been able to get any direct word from the Postmaster General. A letter appears to have been sent under the signature of " T. P. Murphy, private secretary," and I want to direct the attention of the House to portions of it. This letter is dated the 2nd day of February and is addressed to Mr. Hayes' lawyer. It says:
I note you state that the case was appealed and the matter came before the Appeal Court. Mr. Hayes was completely exonerated by two of the judges, the third dissenting. I am given to understand that the quashing of the verdict of the lower court, on appeal being taken, was by reason of" the fact that there was considerable doubt of the guilt of Mr. Hayes in connection with the theft of the letter containing the marked money, but that the judgment did not "completely exonerate" him, as you state. In other words, the appeal was quashed because there was insufficient evidence, and not because it was clearly shown that Mr. Hayes did not commit the theft.
I would ask Mr. Murphy how a court could more fully exonerate an individual than this court did. I must confess that I have never known a case in which a court has held that a person is, to use the language of this letter, completely exonerated. Any exoneration is a complete exoneration, and that is the fact in this case. This private secretary indicates that he is placing his reliance on the judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke, which in substance is the same as the argument used by the Acting Postmaster General, and then he goes on to state:
The circumstances brought out in the evidence show that Mr. Hayes was the only person who would have opportunity, without being observed by others, to steal the test letter containing the marked money, which was subsequently sent by him to the stamp clerk.
Mr. Murphy evidently sets himself up as a judge of the facts and declares that this man is the only one who could have stolen the money, notwithstanding that the Court of Appeal has held that there were numerous individuals who might have been guilty of the offence. I quote further:
Leaving aside technicalities which necessarily enter into a legal trial, the fact remains that Mr. Hayes

Dismissal of John J. Hayes
violated a positive rule of the service in having this letter secreted on his person, and there is strong presumptive evidence that he tampered with it.
Mr. Murphy talks about "technicalities" after the court has found that there was not sufficient evidence to justify the charge against this man. In my opinion Mr. Murphy is guilty of an unwarranted assumption of appellate court functions. He concludes:
In view of the facts above stated, this department cannot, in the public interest, accede to any request that Mr. Hayes be reinstated in the service. The necessity for preserving the safety of the mails entrusted to the care of Post Office employees, makes it impossible, after a careful consideration of all the circumstances in this case, to retain Mr. Hayes in the postal service where he would have access to the mails.
It appears therefore that Mr. Murphy accuses this man of the very crime of which he has been acquitted by the court; and I think that this is a most outrageous letter for an official to send to the lawyer representing an accused person. The government should be the last body to adopt an attitude of this kind towards a humble citizen of this country; and I urge, Mr. Speaker, that ample reparation be made this man. He has been declared innocent; in the eyes of the law he is innocent. If our law is worth anything at all he must therefore be given the benefit of that finding, and in my humble judgment he should be reinstated in his position if he desires to resume it, and should have restored to him the pension privileges of which he has been deprived. I do not think he should be eternally damned in this way and made to suffer for a crime which he never committed and of which the courts in this country have freed him.


William F. Carroll: Was there any finding as to the question of the denial of jury?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I might elucidate that point which is merely a legal one. Under our Northwest I erritories Act a person who is accused of the crime of theft where the value of the property is under the sum of $200 is not entitled to a jury. That is a provision of the Northwest Territories Act which has not been repealed, and consequently when Mr. Hayes found himself charged with the crime of stealing two dollars he was not entitled to a jury. In addition to that he was liable to a minimum penalty of three years in gaol. The Postmaster General mentioned the fact of his having been sentenced to three years as indicative of the enormity of the offence. Now, no one deprecates these offences more than I do, for we do require honesty in the public service; it is absolutely essential. But I want to direct the Postmaster General's attention to the fact

that the minimum sentence which the court could impose for the offence was three years in gaol; and the man was under our law denied the right of a jury. He was convicted, but that conviction was set aside, and the moment that the conviction was quashed he was innoeent in the eyes of the law. With the setting aside of the conviction the law regarded him as having been innocent at the time the charge was laid. I think it is only fair, Mr. Speaker, that the government, above all organizations, should assume a proper attitude in matters of this kind and not set itself in judgment above the courts of the country; and above all, this man having been found innocent, the government should make ample amends for the injustice, which has been done him.


William F. Carroll: Did the majority of the court find that there was not sufficient evidence to convict the accused?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: They must have so found; the majority of the court must have found that there was not sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction. As a matter of fact I am sure that was the finding. Mr. Justice Hyndman in his judgment declares, that all the facts having been apparently before the trial court, that it would be useless to have a new trial since acquittal would necessarily result; and I have already read extracts also from the decision of Mr. Justice Beck indicating his view of that matter. If there had been only a legal technicality, or if there had' been some doubt as to the value or the significance of the evidence, I doubt not that the Court of Appeal instead of ordering an acquittal would have ordered a new trial. That was not done, and that is the best proof that such evidence as there was was not sufficient to justify the conviction of this man.


Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, the first information I have received of this case is that presented by the hon. members for Calgary (Mr. Irvine and Mr. Shaw). I must say that I find some difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the very brief statement of facts that has been made by the minister as well as by the hon. members to my left. So far as I have been able to gather, one Hayes, an employee of the post office at Calgary, was accused of stealing mail, was brought to trial before Mr. Justice McCarthy, and was by him convicted without a jury, the trial being in every way legal and proper. An appeal was taken to the Appellate Court of Alberta and was heard before Mr. Justice Beck, Mr. APRIL 10, 1923
Dismissal of John J. Hayes
Justice Hyndman and Mr. Justice Clarke. The appeal was on several grounds, but summing up briefly, it resulted in the quashing of the conviction on the ground of insufficiency of evidence, two of the judges being in favour of the quashing and Mr. Justice Clarke dissenting and supporting the conviction by the trial judge. It appears as well that in the judgment of the majority, given by Mr. Justice Beck and supported by Mr. Justice Hyndman, it was found that there were several explanations consistent with the innocence of the accused for the disappearance of the money in queston. The dissenting judge appears to have taken the view that the 'possibility of the money having been stolen by any other person was so remote that it could not be taken into account as overpowering the judgment of facts found by the trial judge.
The Post Office Department, as its conduct is defended by the minister, (Mr. Graham) takes the view that whatever the final judgment, the circumstances affecting the entire case are such that suspicion attaches to the accused, so much so that in the opinion of the department the confidence of the public could not be longer retained in him. The hon. member who has spoken last (Mr. Shaw) urges that the finding of the appellate court must be taken as establishing beyond suspicion the innocence of the accused. While as far as I can gather the facts from the debate, there does seem to be room enough for doubt to justify an acquittal, I would not like to subscribe to the proposition that the government of the country must in its decision of the fitness of an employee for office who has been charged with crime be absolutely bound by the judgment of a court. I feel that a department must be left in a position corresponding with that of the private employer. The private employer would have the right, and in justice to the shareholders of the buisness-if there were such-would be bound to exercise the right, of reviewing all the facts himself and deciding as to the qualifications and fitness of the man for a continuance of trust based upon those facts as they appeared to him.
Now, I have not been convinced that the case is so overwhelmingly in favour of the innocence of Hayes that the department is not justified in exercising its prerogative and saying that "The circumstances are at least so suspicious that we do not think he should be continued in office." It may be that on further argument the case in his favour could be made stronger, but it seems to me that a vote for the amendment is merely a vote
that in all cases the judgment of a court must be final as to the retention of the
4.	p.m. employee. It certainly is final in bo far as it establishes that no proof has been made out of the guilt of the accused, and it is to that extent incumbent on the department, if it feels that his dismissal must take place, to effect it in such a way as to entail as little hardship on him as possible.
It does seem to me strange that Hayes must necessarily be deprived of his pension. I do not know that I got the facts in this special connection right. I understand that he was asked to resign, and declined. I do not think Hayes could have been expected to resign. He appears to have felt himself innocent, he was found innocent by the court, and resignation on his own part upon request by the department would imply something of an admission of guilt. Therefore his refusal to resign should not of itself deprive him of his pension. Though the department may be justified in regarding his case as so surrounded with suspicion that he must not be continued in a post of public trust, the department is bound to put him in a position consistent with his public service. Although for the reasons I have given I purpose voting against the amendment, I would hope that some way could be found of bringing to this man the pension of which I think he should not be deprived because of the final decision of the Court of Appeal.


Mr. ROBERT FORKE (Brandon):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that we are being placed in a very awkward position. I agree very largely with the statements made by the right hon. leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen):	I
think the government were justified under the circumstances in dispensing with Mr. Hayes' services in the Post Office Department. On the other hand, there is a doubt as to whether he was guilty or not, and I really hope that some way can be found to take care of him so that he may not suffer the loss of his pension. We cannot afford to have in the public service, more especially in the Post Office Department, a man upon whom there is the least shadow of doubt as to his character. It is all very well to say that he has been found innocent by the Court of Appeal. We know the facts of the case. There is some room for doubt, and under the circumstances I would not care to vote for the amendment. On the other hand, I would feel very guilty if by reason of the course we take now this man suffers for the remainder of his days and should after all prove to be an innocent person. I really hope the government will find some way of taking care of him.

Dismissal oj John J. Hayes


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think there was in the mind of any member of the government the least desire to have other than the fullest justice done by Mr. Hayes. I should like to draw the attention of the House to the manner in which this particular amendment has been introduced. Had my hon. friend who has moved the amendment seen well to go to the office of the Postmaster General and have a word with the Acting Postmaster General, I am sure he would have found no one more anxious and willing to take up this case and look carefully into it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Irvine: I would just like to point out that I did what I was advised to do by those in charge of this case .1 understood from them that they had done the very best they possibly could to secure remedy for this man's case and had failed. I apologise if I have not done what is the ordinary thing in cases of this kind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend has been badly advised. If he had followed his own judgment it would I think have been better than acting upon the advice he has apparently followed. The amendment he has introduced really asks the House to record its opinion on two matters: The first is to the effect that the Post Office Department was wholly unjustified in dismissing Mr. Hayes. I would rather submit to my hon. friend that if all the circumstances which have been narrated by himself and by the seconder of his motion had come to the attention of the Post Office Department, they would not have been justified in retaining Mr. Hayes.


William Irvine: I would point out that I did not suggest that the government had overstepped its right in discharging Mr. Hayes, but I suggested that they had gone much too far when they had deprived him of his pension upon discharge after thirty-three years' service.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that, because under those circumstances he will probably withdraw his amendment. The amendment reads:
% That the dismissal of John J. Hayes. ... is wholly unjustifiable.
Now, my contention is that the Post Office Department, being the guardian of the public interest, and above all having to establish confidence in the handling of the mail, would have really been remiss in its duty if its officers had not under these circumstances intimated to

Mr. Hayes that they could not retain him longer in the service of the department. Now as to that part of my hon. friend's resolution, I think hon. members of the House will agree practically without exception, even my hon. friend himself, that the Post Office Department were right in that particular.


William Irvine: I am sorry to have to interrupt again, but I would point out that the dismissal of this employee is inseparable from his pension rights. If he is dismissed his pension is gone. If you will fix that up, I will fix the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the second part of the amendment, "and that immediate steps be taken to redress the injury done to the said John J. Hayes," if my hon. friend heard the Acting Postmaster General when he was replying to him, he will have observed that he said that if my hon. friend would come to his office and discuss this matter with him he would be very pleased to look into this case himself with a view to seeing that no injustice was inflicted on Mr. Hayes. I think that with that assurance from the Acting Postmaster General and having regard to the manner in which the amendment is drawn, my hon. friend will perhaps see his way to withdrawing the amendment and not pressing it to a division.


William Irvine: After the explanation of the Prime Minister, with the consent of the seconder and of the House I withdraw my motion.
Amendment withdrawn.
Main motion agreed to and the House went into Committee of Supply.-Mr. Gordon in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Labour-salaries, $231,735; contingencies, $45,500.
Mr. BOYS:: Perhaps the minister could
now supply the information regarding annuities that he promised just before we rose last night.


Hon. JAMES MURDOCK (Minister of Labour):: The question was asked yesterday,
what proportion of the amount given in the statement that had been made was received for annuities on a three per cent basis, and what proportion on a four per cent basis, and what would be the disbursements for the same periods. The answer should have been that a four per cent interest rate has obtained since 1908, when the act came into force. Where an annuitant dies before the annuity becomes payable and the contract provides

Supply-Labour-Annuities
for the return of the payments made, interest thereon at the rate of four per cent is also allowed, this rate having been raised under an amendment to the act in 1920, from three to four per cent.
The question was also asked, what were the total receipts and disbursements on annuities account since the organization of the branch. These are as follows to the 31st of March, 1922. The interest on account for the year 1922-1923 and payments to annuitants for the same period are not yet completed. I have here a statement under the caption "Dominion government annuities, progress of fund from year to year."	.


William Alves Boys: Perhaps other members want
that information, but as far as my question was concerned I was not anxious for that. I wanted to know the total receipts and total disbursements. I am aware that there would still be outstanding liabilities in connection with some annuities.


James Murdock: The total receipts since
the act came into force are $5,660,000. The interest amounts to $1,529,951.14, or a total of receipts and interest of $7,189,951.14. The payments to annuitants for the entire period amount to $2,184,526.72, leaving a balance as of date of $5,005,424.42.


William Alves Boys: There are certain obligations which belong to the department, I presume, in connection with annuities which were placed, the annuitants having died but the annuities being payable to others, for a period of five, six or seven years, the balance of a ten or twenty year period as the case may be.


James Murdock: I am not sure-


William Alves Boys: Perhaps I can make myself plainer. As I understand it, there is a system by which an annuity may be purchased and if the annuitant dies within ten years the annuity is still payable to persons named for the balance of the period whatever it may be -generally ten years, I imagine. To that extent there would be outstanding obligations against this surplus of nearly $5,000,000. To ascertain whether or not the branch is paying one would have to know something of these outstanding obligations. If they are not very extensive one would be forced to the conclusion that the time, perhaps, is ripe now when these annuities should be placed on a five per cent basis-which the minister has in contemplation-rather than on a four per cent. That is, if it is not the intention of the department to try and make money out of this particular branch of the service-and I understand such is not the intention of the department.


James Murdock: I think I have here the information that is desired by the hon. gentleman: An annuitant might have in hand a few hundred dollars which he would like to apply on account of the purchase so as to reduce the annual payments thereafter to be made; or he might wish to pay a specific sum, say $100 or $200 a year, to secure at a stated age the annuity which such payments would give him; or, if he is a young married man, the class of annuity which should interest him most would be a deferred last survivor annuity on the lives of himself and wife jointly, to be purchased by monthly payments, with a return to their heirs of the purchase money and interest if both should die before the annuity became payable; or the annuity desired might be an immediate annuity purchasable for cash on the lives of two persons payable so long as both lived, with a certain amount to the survivor; or it might be the kind of annuity in regard to which the hon. member for Simcoe said he had interviewed the superintendent, namely, an immediate annuity on the lives of two persons, the annuity to be paid to the purchaser so long as he lived, with the full amount to the survivor so long as he or she lived; the rates for all of which are not printed for distribution, and have to be calculated by the actuarial staff as required. It would be the work of years to prepare the tables w'hich would be required to meet all such cases.
Annuities are not being sold for gain, and it was never intended that they should be. Whether the government might or might not lose a few thousand dollars by such a proposition would seem to me to be a matter of secondary importance to that of encouraging our people to be thrifty and saving, and of furnishing them with the facilities for investing their money with absolute security. The rate of interest on which annuity values are calculated is, as I have previously stated, 4 per cent. That was the rate fixed in the regulations of 1908, and the rate has obtained ever since. Where an annuitant dies before the annuity becomes payable, and the contract provides for the return of the payments made, interest thereon at the rate of 4 per cent is also allowed, the rate having been raised under an amendment to the act in 1920 from 3 to 4 per cent; but in order to secure this additional interest the premium rate had also to be increased. Does this give the information desired by my hon. friend?
Suppl y-Labour-A nnuities


William Alves Boys: The minister has given me most of the information but I think one point still remains to be cleared up. There appears to be to the credit of this branch a surplus, which has accrued during the fourteen-year period, of $5,005,425. Now, that would be profit with the one exception that you must deduct from it the obligations connected with the two plans that the minister has just referred to. Is it not possible to find out to what extent money should be retained to take care of those obligations-the difference between the five millions and that being really what this department has profited during the fourteen years-and if it is anything like the sum of $5,000,000, I think it would be an easy matter to come to the conclusion that the department has now reached the point when the rate of interest should be five per cent. I believe myself there is a great field for this security and the government requires money. It might as well get the money this way and if the people of Canada can be given a reasonable return for their money I should think they would take advantage of it. Four per cent is certainly not a satisfactory or productive return. But the government can make it productive. Let us have a little publicity, let all the postmasters throughout the country have this information for the benefit of those who seek it, and I believe that instead of reaching one million dollars-and I am glad to know that last year the receipts of this branch amounted to that sum-if the return to the people be raised the government will get a very considerable sum of money and this will prove an excellent and safe investment as against old age.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: I believe that the real difficulty we are all in is that we do not know what we can do. I do not know that the minister can tell us where we are and therefore what we could do in moving towards a more liberal policy having regard to annuities. Before we get to that it is, of course, necessary to know what we have been doing. As I understand it-I was not here when the figures were last discussed-we now have a credit of some $5,000,000. Of course, that credit of five millions may mean a lot of money or may mean nothing at all; it may mean a very large profit or it may mean an absolute loss. But the minister has his tables worked out on the regular actuarial expectation of life, on a four and on a five per cent basis, and those tables will tell him just what reductions have to be made in connection with that sum of money. The House ought to know whether we are making or whether we 
are losing; and if we are making money, why we might not in future make a little less in order to earn a great deal more in. ease of the Department of Finance. It is not a matter of guesswork, it is a matter of actuarial computation. The minister must have computations in the department. Perhaps he can tell us now just what actuarial reserve out of that five millions is necessary to meet the claims, based on the usual expectation of life, from the two classes.


James Murdock: I am very sorry but I do not think that the information requested by the hon. gentlemen has ever been compiled in connection with the Annuities branch of the service. My hon. friend (Sir Henry Drayton) refers to what the Department of Finance might do in regard to this matter. I may say that the matter of increasing the allowance from a four to a five per cent basis has been under discussion for some time. Those authorized to consider and deal with these matters in the Department of Finance have indicated the belief that it might not be altogether safe to adopt the 5 per cent basis because of the possible loss that might accrue. During the last year I understand that, on the 4 per cent basis, the Annuities branch broke a little better than even, with, I think, $2,800 to the good, but I do not think the matter has been gone into by anyone to determine just what the profit or loss has been. I think the statement that was made a little while ago that it should not be considered altogether on that basis is a sound one. Personally, I agree with the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) who suggested that if the rate of interest were made sufficiently attractive we would enlarge the scope of the department, would not lose any great amount of money, even on that basis, and would have the use of a great deal of money invested by the citizens of Canada.


William Alves Boys: I have not yet got what I want. Perhaps the minister cannot give it to me. Has he under advisement the question of whether the rate should be raised to 5 per cent or not, and what information is it he is considering? He finds that at this period he actually has a surplus of $5,000,000 odd. That is profit, with the one exception that he must take a sufficient sum of money to take care of the outstanding obligations to which he has referred. If we could only find out from the actuary what sum of money would be required, we would go a long way towards finding out whether or not this annuity system could be placed on the 5 per cent basis.

Supply -Labour-A nnuities
I wish to refer to another matter. We have in Ontario a savings bank carried on by the government of Ontario.


Mr. FIELDING:: Not a bank.


William Alves Boys: I forgot really what name 1 have seen on the outside of the various offices. It is a provincial savings bank.


William Stevens Fielding: The name "bank" cannot be used for the Ontario business.


William Alves Boys: I appreciate that, and I am in error in using the . word " bank," but as far as the public are concerned, they view it in that way. It is a provincial savings institution. There is one not very far from the Parliament Buildings. We have them in Toronto and elsewhere in the province. We can take our money and place it in one of these institutions. With regard to the annuity of $1,000 which has been mentioned, the cash pay- . ment asked by this branch for that annuity was $15,000, which was estimated on a 1 per cent basis. How can tire branch expect to do much business, when the same individual who might want an annuity could deposit his $15,000 in this provincial institution, get 4 per cent as long as he wanted it, and at the end of the period get his $15,000 back whereas by the system now in vogue in the Annuities branch, he would get $1,000 a year for his expectation of life, as long as he lived, and if his wife survived she would get it afterwards, for a period at the outside of 15 years. At the end of that time the $15,000 would be gone. If a man has $15,000, is he going to hesitate as to whether he should place it on deposit at 4 per cent, having the province of Ontario behind him, knowing he can get that rate of interest upon his money, and have the $15,000 at the end of the period, or purchase an annuity? I submit he would not hesitate very long. If annuities were placed on a 5 per cent basis, they would be attractive, and he would accept it; the government would get the benefit of the money, and the annuitant would be protected in his old age.
I want to ascertain how much of that $5000,000 cash on hand should be retained to take care of outstanding obligations. I under-[DOT] stand there is a plan whereby an annuity may be purchased on a ten-year basis. It will be payable to the annuitant for his or her life, but if he or she dies before the expiration of the ten-year period it will still be paid to whomever may be designated for the balance of the term. It stands to reason that a sum of money must be held to guard against these payments. There is also the other feature that annuities are purchased by laying aside certain annual payments to take care of them, and that money is on hand and must
be kept on hand to take care of that situation. So far as I know, outside of these two features, this entire $5,000,000 balance-a'large sum, in view of the business that is done, is on hand. If the minister has not the information, I wish he would get it so that we may be able to form our own opinion as to whether the time is not ripe and overdue when annuities should be placed on a 5 per cent basis.


James Murdock: In considering the $5,000,000 surplus, you must take into consideration that there are 5,643 annuitants who stand to benefit proportionately from that, and, therefore, it cannot be regarded as a $5,000,000 surplus.


William Alves Boys: I quite appreciate that. A great many of these annuitants have reached the expectation of life or very nearly so. Some of these annuities, of course, have recently been purchased, and the payments will have to go on. I want to find out how much money would have to be held to take care of them; the balance would be profit.


James Murdock: Of course, that information could be procured, but I might state that there has never been any opportunity given to the department to find out anything of this kind-	,


William Alves Boys: Why?


James Murdock: -to the general extent that I think it should have been.


William Alves Boys: The department has an actuary?


James Murdock: Yes.


William Alves Boys: What is he there for?


James Murdock: There has never been as much interest, I think, in Dominion government annuities as on this occasion, for which I am personally thankful, and I hope the hon. member from Simcoe will have his wishes realized and a 5 per cent interest payment guaranteed for Dominion government annuities. I think it will do just exactly what he believes it will do-largely increase the sale of Dominion government annuities.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Does * the Superintendent of Insurance exercise any supervision over this fund ?


James Murdock: Not directly. But this department, of course, asks his advice as to the consistency and safety of changing a 4 per cent rate to a 5 per cent rate.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: This, of course, is an insurance fund handled by the government, and having the government behind it, but I think it ought to come under the same supervision
Supply-Labour-Annuities

as any other insurance fund, and it strikes me that if this Annuity branch went about its work with the energy that ought to be applied to it, it should be possible to get all the business of that kind that is done in the country. You ought to be able to get better results at lower rates than any other insurance company. The government has no dividends to pay. The cost of management ought to be cut down to a minimum, an annuity ought to be purchasable from this fund at a lower rate than from any company, and if the people of Canada were properly approached and made familiar with the scheme in any way the department might discover to be effective, I believe there would be a very large increase in the number of those who would purchase such annuities. It is an old age pension operating, in my judgment, under the very best conditions that could be adopted, because it is a man's own thrift that secures for him the necessities of his old age. There is no element of party in it or anything of that kind. This is one feature of government policy that might be developed more thoroughly and energetically than it has been, with good results to both the annuitant and the country.


William Stevens Fielding: I have not had this matter before me for some time, and I did not have the good fortune to hear what was said on the matter before. I am not clear as to the meaning of this $5,000,000 surplus, if it be a surplus. I know the whole purpose of the organization has been, not to make money, but to afford an excellent opportunity of exercising thrift with the security of the country behind it. The 4 per cent rate was established in the belief that that was a fair value for the money. Then, in addition to that, there was the cost of operation. I think it was well understood from the beginning that the government would have to bear the cost of management, and the people investing their money in annuities would get the full benefit of the 4 per cent. Some months ago, I think, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock), raised the question whether we could not afford to raise the basis to 5 per cent. I had the matter referred to one of the officials of the department, and he advised that this would not be profitable; that it would not help the financial situation and would be a burden to the country. There is, however, no finality in that. Rates of interest vary, and I am not prepared to say that we could not under any circumstances allow 5 per cent. I think the information asked for by the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) can be secured, and I am sure the

Minister of Labour will be glad to procure it, if possible, and to bring it down at a later date.
If we can give the facilities of this institution to the people without incurring any very considerable increase of expense, that should be done. I quite agree with what has been said by hon. gentlemen opposite as to the character of the business. In the early days, when this organization was established, we appointed lecturers for the purpose of making the people understand the matter. It is unfortunate, perhaps, under circumstances into which I need not enter now, that the services of these lecturers were dispensed with. We were told that the business was to be handled by the post offices. Soon after that policy was adopted, down in a distant portion of my province, I thought I would go and see what the postmaster knew about it. When I asked him about the matter, he asked me three or four questions as to what I was driving at. When I explained matters to him, he said that he did not know anything about it. I said: "I am told that literature has been forwarded to you." He said: "Has it?" He said that he did not know; that he would look for it, and at last acounts he had not found it. I am not complaining of any particular postmaster in this regard. This matter is like insurance. How many of us would have taken out insurance policies if some energetic agents had not canvassed us and pointed out' the virtues of the system? While this is an excellent system, it does not reach the people; by merely placing literature in the hands of postmasters, you cannot bring the matter before the public properly. I am glad to have this attention given to the subject, and I think we might look into it again and see, before the session is over, whether we cannot afford to adopt the 5 per cent basis. The government are not going to approach this matter in any niggardly spirit. We are not going to be on easy street as regards money; but we can always get money, and I am not disposed to resort to this merely as a means of getting money. If we can get money at fair rates and at the same time establish this as a means of encouraging thrift, by all means we ought to do so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I know the situation is much as has been stated by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding). We might, perhaps, make a little headway if we were to apply the ordinary actuarial methods and find out where we are. My impression is that we can do much better than we have been doing. In this instance, we ought to be able

Supply-Labour
to do business much more cheaply than insurance companies, although as a matter of fact, we are selling annuities generally more expensively than they are. I may be wrong, but I believe I am absolutely correct in that statement. What I mean is that you can get better rates from an insurance company paying a dividend than you can from the government which pays no dividend. We should be able to do better than they, because we are under no cost of investment for this scheme. The money all goes into the fund without paying any percentages or commissions or anything else to anybody. We have the money, and there is no expense whatever in connection with the administration of the fund as such. Therefore, again we should be able to do business a little more reasonably and profitably to the people of Canada than insurance companies could.
I appreciate what my hon. friend says as to the difficulty of raising rates. When the four per cent annuity was first started, we had the government borrowing at something like 3J per cent, sometimes 31 per cent, and the idea of the annuity rate was a rate which would yield the annuitant a higher rate than government borrowing would. Ordinarily, that would be the case. Lately, however, we have been in the anomalous position-and I am to blame for it too; I am not criticizing my hon. friend for it at all; we should have taken up this matter before-that we have been actually paying more interest on a thirty-year debenture, at the end of which time the whole capital comes back, than we calculate our annuities at for a much less period. That, of course, is all out of joint; it is all wrong. You cannot expect to do very much with annuities on that basis. I think my hon. friend is right when he says that we are going to have cheaper money. If we get out a number of annuities at a higher rate, we are bound to lose money. While the government ought not to make money in this connection, it ought not to lose money, and therefore we should be careful. While that is quite true as regards long-term annuities, this annuity business can be looked upon as a liquid business, something similar to loans, and a higher rate can be properly applied to short-term annuities. One always pays more for a short-term annuity, and it is money which is just as useful as any other kind of annuity. We know, however, we are going to be paying a high rate of interest for some time ahead, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he consider an extension of the rate, at least, as regards short-term annuities.


William Alves Boys: I understood from the Minister of Labour that the raising of the rate was under consideration, whereas I understand from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) that he had the matter looked into, but that the actuaries considered-


William Stevens Fielding: Not lately. Some time ago.


William Alves Boys: Perhaps the Minister of Labour has taken the matter up again. When he reflects that on $15,000 at 6 per cent, which rate for ordinary investment purposes cannot be considered high, because hardly any investments pay less than 6 per cent except government securities-you get $900 return, and purchasing an annuity you get only $100 more on the basis now existing, surely he must realize that that is not attractive to any investor. One would sooner put' his money out on a mortgage or some other absolutely safe security at 6 or 6J per cent. There is no difficulty in getting 6i per cent on absolutely safe investments to-day, and that would produce just about as much as the annuity does. In the one case, the money is gone and in the other, you have it. I hope the minister will take this matter up seriously and see if it cannot be placed on a 5 per cent basis. It is not surprising that the minister is not able at the moment to give these figures, because I understand this branch of the government service has recently come into his hands. It would, indeed, be somewhat remarkable if he could give these figures, although I thought he might, because we were discussing this matter some days ago and the officials knew what was wanted. These figures, however, are not available now, and I will content myself with the observation that I hope before many months we shall find this on a 5 per cent basis. I feel certain if we do that, a considerable amount of money will come into the treasury of Canada.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Coming back to the question of the number of employees in the minister's department, last evening the minister told us that it caused him a gfeat deal of pain when he was forced to discharge an employee. We know that the minister has a very kindly disposition, and last year, possibly with that fact in view, the House helped him a good deal by asking him to reduce his estimates, thus taking upon itself the burden of the responsibility for the reduction accomplished in the number of employees. I would suggest now that if the minister, in his goodness of heart, does not want to take the initiative the House might again come to his assistance by formally requesting him to reduce his estimates

Supply-Labour

another $10,000. No doubt he would come through this year, as he did last year, with flying colours and again thank the House for being instrumental in making the reduction.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would draw my hon. friend's attention to some figures in connection with the cost of living and ask lum to inform the committee what particular items are chiefly responsible for the unfortunate condition they reveal. I am referring to Michell's figures. These figures are printed in the Labour Gazette, so that the minister will know all about them. Michell shows that the cost of living in January, 1922, was 165.2 and in February last 176.3. The minister might tell us the different items that are working in the wrong direction.


James Murdock: If my hon. friend looks a little further down he will see that' Michell's figures reflect trade conditions and do not deal with the cost of living as it is dealt with in the Labour department. His figures have reference to general trade conditions rather than to the actual cost of living.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Perhaps the minister might inform us how Michell's figures are arrived at.
Mr, MURDOCK: I do not think I could begin to determine just how Michell prepares his figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: They are published in the Labour Gazette and I suppose they are understood by the Labour department. If they were not worth something they would not be in the Gazette. However, they may be used as padding.


James Murdock: They are there as indicating the Michell view of trade conditions, and not as determining the upward or downward changes in the cost of living.
Mr. BOY'S: As a matter of fact, is not the cost of living rising? The figure quoted the other evening, which was not contradicted at all by the minister, was 22 points. I am not quite familiar with the figures, but I think the quotation was some twenty odd points.


James Murdock: Twenty-two points from what period?


William Alves Boys: From last year.


James Murdock: Nothing of the kind.


William Alves Boys: Then perhaps the minister will give us the figures.


James Murdock: We have here a chart which was prepared by the Labour department at the request of the right hon. the leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Meighen) during the Lanark election, and which has now been brought up to date as at the end of March. This chart indicates that for December, 1921, when the present government took office, all the cost of living figures, that is to say, of the chief items such as foods, fuel, rent, clothing and such sundries, were 62 points above the 1913 cost of living figures. In April, 1922, the figure was 52 points, or a drop of 10 points. In July, 1922, it was also 52 points or 10 points below the December, 1921, figure.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Is my hon. friend quite right there? I think it was 55. In April it was 52, but the budget came and it went up 3 points.


James Murdock: In July, 1922, the figure shown is 52.	,


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am taking the minister's chart, by which I see that the figure is still climbing up. It is up to 60 now.


James Murdock: In September, 1922, it ' was still 52, while in December of that year it had risen one point, or 53. For January, 1923, we find that it has risen another point, being at that time 54, -while in February it remains the same. In March it was 55, or an increase of one point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So that it is going up.


James Murdock: It shows a slight advance, as hon. gentlmen know there has always been in Canada for many years in the winter. With the increased cost of fuel and other winter necessities there has always been a slight increase.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think that if the minister looks at his own chart closely he will not tell us. that there is always an increase. His own chart shows that in 1920 there was a toboggan slide until you get to 1922. From 1920 it is going down all the time, winter included. There is practically a toboggan slide until my hon. friend gets fairly into the saddle. When the government gets the new mechanism to work the figures begin to climb up, and we desire to know the reason for their going up instead of down.


James Murdock: There has been no exceptional change during the winter season. My hon. friend refers-


Henry Lumley Drayton: To your own chart.


James Murdock: -with heroic declamation to the year 1920 and to the upward trend since that time. He declares that the figures have gone away up.

Su-pply-Labour


Henry Lumley Drayton: Off the paper.


James Murdock: No one knows better than my hon. .friend that the increase prior to the great decline was due to the abnormal postwar increases of wages all over the United States and Canada. He knows al^o that immediately after July, 1920, everything started on the toboggan slide towards normal. In 1920 we had the 200 mark increase recorded on the chart, and it went above that. Subsequently it came down until we find it in 1922 at 156, or 56 points above the 1913 normal figures.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would ask my hon. friend to check me while I go over his chart, which I cannot read as well as he can. Take the year 1921. The drop in the cost of living in that year was some 38 points. Am I right?


James Murdock: Right.


Henry Lumley Drayton: And that since the time my friend was. referring to in December 1921, when he took office, the drop in the cost of living as recorded by his department on his own chart is just two points.


James Murdock: No, my hon. friend is m error. There -was a ten point drop.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am not going through all the ups and downs of his curve. Is not the difference between now and then two points?
Mr. MURDOCK; Up to the 31st day of March last there is a seven-point drop as compared with the figures for December 1921.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then will my hon. friend please tell me how he gets seven on his chart for that year, because he will see that for the end of 1921 it shows 157 and for March 31st of this year, where his chart stops, it shows 155?


James Murdock: Evidently the hon.
gentleman is looking at something entirely different to what I am dealing with.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This is the chart of the department referred to by my friend.


James Murdock: But it does not contain all the facts. Evidently the hon. gentleman has not got his chart brought up to date. The one I have before me is brought up to March 1923.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So is this. 1 regret very much, Mr. Chairman, if the department is giving us incorrect information It may be that the minister is all right, and
108i
his statisticians are all wrong. I am going to send this map over to the minister and ask him to correct it so we can get at the facts.


James Murdock: There does not appear to be any difference between these two.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think so. I again put the question to the minister: Am I not right when I say, looking at his map, that the index number at the end of 1921 was 157, and at the end of March this year was 155?


James Murdock: Yes. I am told there are some typographical errors in the printing, December and September having been transposed, and that the index figure did show 156 at the conclusion of 1921.


Henry Lumley Drayton: 156; and to-day it is 155?


James Murdock: 155 as of March 31.


Henry Lumley Drayton: So the net result for a little more than a year-fifteen months- is one degree.


James Murdock: My hon. friend realizes that it fell from 156 to 152 and has gradually risen to 155 since December last.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Quite so. I was sympathizing with the minister, Mr. Chairman. He used to make .tremendous speeches against the sales tax and that sort of thing, pointing out what a burden it was. We got the cost of living travelling down nicely until April of that year, and then in came the new budget and the figure went up again. My friend is doing his best to straddle it, but it is lifting him.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not draw an answer from the minister in respect to the number of employees in his department. He very kindly listened to what I had to say and then smiled as if he probably would take advantage of the suggestion I made; but he did not tell us anything. Last night I pointed out that he had twenty statistical clerks in 5 p.m. his office. He has a department which is spending about a million and a half dollars. Let us suppose a business house doing a business of, say, a million and a half dollars, and then let us consider the overhead such a business would be carrying if it employed 97 clerks and 27 statistical clerks. Could such a business be considered at any time as properly managed if so over-staffed? I think the minister had better take advantage of the way the matter was' handled last year. Why not adopt our suggestion of a reduction of $10,000 in these estimates and let some of
Supply-Labour

these men go to work? We are getting back to better times this summer, probably, and these men had better be engaged in some productive work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, $35,000.
James Murdock: This amount has been voted for a number of years.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Why?


James Murdock: To pay those who, in connection with boards of investigation, inquire into industrial disputes. The amount for this particular fiscal year is overdrawn $4,000, and there is before the committee in the Supplementary Estimates a request for $4,000. In other words, the expenditures for the past fiscal year have been $39,000. We believe though that we can get along with $35,000 for the present fiscal year.


Mr. MANION:: How many industrial disputes were there in Canada this year as compared with last year and the year before?


James Murdock: Disputes or strikes?


Robert James Manion: I really meant strikes.


James Murdock: Of course, there are many disputes where no strikes result. There were eighty-five strikes in existence in Canada in the calendar year 1922, which was fifteen less than in 1921. In 1922, however, the total number of employees affected, and consequently the time loss, was greater than in the previous year. When we come to analyse the figures however we see that the increase in the number of employees affected and the time loss is attributable largely to fifteen strikes which commenced in the previous year, in the month of May, I think, and which had their genesis in the movement which started in the Untied States for the forty-four hour week. I am referring particularly to a number of strikes in the printing trades which started in May, 1921, and which, as a matter of fact are nominally, and so far as the records of our department are concerned, still in effect in various printing establishments throughout Canada, but what damage as a strike they are doing, I could not say without investigation of each individual case. There were also the two large coal strikes which it might be said were wings of the main army of coal strikes which commenced in the central competitive coal fields of the United States last year.


Robert James Manion: That is in Alberta and Cape Breton?


James Murdock: Alberta and Nova Scotia. The number of employees affected and the time loss resulting from these disputes if deducted for the last year would give us a time loss of 169,185 working days lower than in any year except 1902 and 1915. In 1922 there were only seventeen strikes in the building trades, affecting 1,396 employees and involving a time loss of 28,247 days. Of these only three caused a time loss of more than 5,000 days. Six of the seventeen lasted less than seven days, and only five continued thirty days or more. In 1921 there were thirty-six strikes in the building trades, affecting 4,004 employees and involving a time loss of 153,372 days.


Robert James Manion: Could the minister tell the committee how many threatened strikes were prevented from culminating in a strike by the conciliation method under the old Le-mieux Act? 1 want just the figures for last year and the year before.


James Murdock: In 1919-1920 there were 72 applications for boards df investigation and 46 boards were granted. In three cases in which the dispute was submitted to a board of investigation a strike was not averted; in other words, three strikes resulted. In 19201921 the number of applications for boards of investigation was 63, and the number of boards granted was 37 with six strikes resulting. In 1921-1922, the number of applications for boards of investigation was 49 and the number of boards granted was 31. In one case where the dispute was submitted to a board of investigation a strike resulted. For the past year there were 39 applications for boards of investigation, and 27 boards were granted. In two cases strikes were not averted.


James Arthurs: Are those two included in the applications granted?


James Murdock: Yes. Those were two cases where a strike resulted after a board had been granted, and had sat and filed an award. It is only proper to say, however, in connection with the one big strike where the time loss was most in evidence, that is the strike in District No. 18, involving the coal mines of Alberta and British Columbia, the board was only granted and finally got to the point of functioning on the 31st day of March, and the strike had been ordered to commence on the 1st day of April, or the very next day; so there was no possibility under the circumstances of preventing that strike in what was just one little wing of the general coal miners' strike in the United States. It was finally settled on the same basis as the general coal miners' strike in the United States.

Supply-Labour


Robert James Manion: In what lines of industry
are these requests granted, and secondly, outside of these regular lines in which requests for boards are granted, does the department ever take part in bringing about a conciliation board?


James Murdock: Oh, yes. Very frequently there are cases where municipal employees, for instance, ask for a board of investigation. We have two or three such pending now. In these cases the department is not free under the law to say arbitrarily that a board shall be appointed, but we at once accept an application for a board whether it comes from the employees or the employer, and it is the employees as a rule, and in such a case we ask the municipality if they are willing to become party to a board of investigation of the dispute which has been referred to us. If they indicate their desire to participate in such an investigation, we ask them to name a representative on the board, which presumably the employees have already done, and then ask the two to choose a chairman, and so on. In other words, we help in every way possible to bring about the formation of a board, to delay a strike and bring about an investigation of the differences involved to see if a satisfactory settlement cannot be arrived at. That must be our attitude on all disputes, excepting those which affect public utilities or coal mines. We have under the act, as hon. gentlemen know, no jurisdiction over very many of the disputes that occur from time to time. For instance, in the case of disputes in the building trades or in the steel works at Sydney, Nova Scotia, we have no authority, under the law, to arbitrarily say "You shall do this or you shall do the other thing." The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act does not apply in the case of the Dominion Iron and Steel Company, but the department has always stood ready and anxious to use its friendly offices and to suggest any possible means of bringing the parties together and getting a thorough discussion of the questions in dispute.


Robert James Manion: Just to finish the subject, will the minister enumerate in a few words the different lines of industry which have the right, under the act, to get conciliation boards?


James Murdock: The railroads and coal mines.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to ask if the government cannot find it possible to extend the application of the Industrial Disputes Act so as to cover cases that are not at present covered? For example, there is the case of public utilities. As the principle of public control extends, and municipal enterprises grow a larger and larger number of workmen come under public utilities but apparently these have not the same opportunities as if they were in the employ of private concerns. Only the other day my attention was drawn to a telegram that was sent to the Minister of Labour from the Canadian Electrical Workers Union to the following effect :
T am instructed to ask if Toronto Transportation Commission comes within provision of Industrial Disputes Act. Reasons for question is possible dispute with Toronto Transportation Commission and if they come under act strike would in all probability be averted. Have not yet broken off negotiations with commission but fear that attitude of commission will not be satisfactory to electrical workers employed. Please reply by return.
James T. Gunn,
4 Alexander street,
Toronto, Ont.
I believe the reply received from the Deputy Minister of Labour was to the effect that the Industrial Disputes Act did not apply in this case. I now ask, would it not be possible to introduce legislation this session which would bring these industries, publicly owned, under this act and thus prevent strikes of this character?


James Murdock: First of all, I should give my hon. friend from Fort William and Rainy River (Mr. Manion) a little further explanation. I told him a little while ago that railroads and coal mines, under the act, have the right to be granted investigation boards. I should have included also certain public utilities, such as gas plants or waterworks supplying a city. It has been held- I do not know whether it is right or not; I do not know whether the contention would be upheld-that only those classes can insist, under the law, on a board of investigation.
In answer to my hon. friend from Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) I can say that nothing I know of would please me better than to even suggest that it might be possible to do what I understand he contemplates. The Labour department is criticized for very many acts of omission or commission. I do hope, however, that no hon. gentleman, or any other citizen of Canada, is going to criticize the department because the British North America Act, many years ago, gave the provinces exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights within provincial limits. At this particular time I am told-not being a legal man I cannot say with any certainty-that law prevents the possibility of extending the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act so as to include the undertakings to which my hon. friend referred a moment ago. It might also be of interest to my hon.
Supply-Labour

friend and to the committee if I stated that in the case of the first three or four, possibly more, proposed investigations that came to the Labour department after I took office
was questioned whether any right whatsoever existed under the act, excepting in the case of a railroad, to compel the appointment and meeting of a board of investigation, under the provisions of the act. In other words, my hon. friend will be interested in knowing that it has been seriously questioned whether the act is not ultra vires-I think that is the legal term-of the Dominion authority entirely. My answer to that position in every case was: We at least know what the spirit and intent of the act is. The spirit and intent of the act is that opportunity shall be afforded of meeting and discussing matters of difference; presenting them before presumably an unbiassed tribunal, or a tribunal of which it is hoped at least one member is unbiassed; and after a full and frank discussion of all the points of difference, seeing if we cannot arrive at some common basis of settlement. That is the underlying spirit of the act, and I am glad indeed to say that the majority of the employers throughout the length and breadth of Canada accept the act in that spirit. I may say concretely and in answer to my hon. friend's question, I do not think it is possible to extend- but this is only my own personal opinion-[DOT] the provisions of the act so as to compulsorily make it applicable to all disputes that may occur in the various municipalities throughout the Dominion.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have one other question, and that is as to whether it is not possible to do something at the present time in connection with what threatens to be a serious condition down in Cape Breton. It has been my responsibility on several occasions in this House to call attention to the difficulties there, and it would seem as if very strained relations now exist between the employers-the British Empire Steel Corporation-and their employees-the steel workers and the coal miners. I am not particularly concerned as to who has jurisdiction in this dispute. It may be quite true that the British North America Act makes it difficult for this House, or the department, to act in certain provincial matters; but it does seem to me that the Department of Labour ought to be held responsible for initiating such legislation, or for bringing before the people such measures, as will prevent possible outbreaks in that Nova Scotia district. I think that a great many people have clearly recognized that the conditions there are now rather
fMr. Murdock.]
unique-a huge corporation controlling practically the whole of the industries of that part of the country, there being apparently a small population there and no large body of what has often been termed "neutral opinion". Under these circumstances, the employees are being forced to direct action. A letter was forwarded only a few7 days ago to the Prime Minister which I should like to read, for the information of this committee :
We desire to call your attention to the following facts. Some three weeks ago, Mr. Roy Wolvin, president of the British Empire Steel Corporation, addressed a closed meeting of the Sydney board of trade. His address was of such a character in his own estimation, that although reporters of the local newspapers were present, it was suppressed as being unfit for publication at his request.
However, we have been reliably informed that he stated to the members of the board of trade, that it was up to them to drive the radicals out of Cape Breton, or he would withdraw his capital from this island and allow the grass to grow on the streets of Sydney.
As a direct result of this suppressed speech a second meeting of the board of trade was held in Sydney this present week, an account of which you may find in the Sydney Record of March 28th. The heading of the article reads: "Citizens call for drive to wipe out Bolshevism in Cape Breton". The particular brand of "Bolshevism" which the board of trade is going to stamp out is described as "Cape Breton Bolshevism". The whole resolution breathes the spirit of Mussolini without having the open courage of Mussolini behind it.
"Cape Breton Bolshevism" consists in the working class of Cape Breton employed in the steel works and the coal mines exercising the right handed down to them by their British forefathers to walk off the steel plant to the last man employed and to walk out of the coal mines and leave the directors of the British Empire Steel Corporation to care for these plants as best they may. This right is being exercised in Cape Breton because of the fierce exploitation of labour carried on by the British Empire Steel Corporation.
We are writing this to inform you and your government that ten thousand working men in Cape Breton are accepting the challenge of the Sydney board of trade and are inviting them to start in now and drive out the humblest "Bolshevic" in our ranks. We also demand that a thorough investigation by your government be made into the speech delivered by Wolvin before the Sydney board of trade, which was suppressed.
Copies of this letter are being forwarded to the Hon. E. H. Armstrong, and C. C. Curtis, president of the Sydney Board of Trade.
Yours truly,
Paul McNeil, Secretary,
Steel Workers Union.
J. B. McLachlan, Secretary,
Dis. No. 26 U.M.W. of A.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: Could my hon. friend inform the House as to whether or not the Roy Wolvin referred to is the Roy Wolvin, an employee of the Standard Shipping Company, whose operations in fixing rates on the Great Lakes have been the subject of investigation by a special commission?

Supply-Labour


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have understood so. I have nothing more to add, Mr. Chairman, except that it seems to me to be a serious situation, and that the government of Canada, whether it has the protection of the right of property in the provinces or not, has the protection of the citizens of this country in its charge, and that something ought to be done to prevent this matter developing further.


James Murdock: The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woodsworth) and I are surely going to agree on one thing, and that is that this is a serious situation which should be dealt with in some way, and it has been a serious situation for a number of years. But I hope the hon. member will admit the limitations of the federal Department of Labour to deal with the questions involved. The British Empire Steel Corporations is operating, as I understand, under a Nova Scotia charter; the mines, the steel works and the other properties of that company are in the province of Nova Scotia. The disputes that have occurred from time to time have occurred in Nova Scotia, and on every occasion, that the Labour department has had an opportunity to do so, it has indicated a readiness to do, within the law, everything possible to bring about, by investigation or otherwise, a settlement of the controversies. As I said a few days ago, one of the first official acts I was called upon to perform, about the 1st of January, 1922, was to appoint a chairman for a board of investigation in regard to the coal mine situation in Nova Scotia, which board had been authorized and established and was waiting the appointment of a chairman when this government took office., It is not necessary to go into a discussion of what developed out of that investigation. Some members might very truthfully say to me-and I would not dispute it if they did-that worse than nothing came out of the investigation held in the early part of 1922. But is that. to be charged to the Labour department? Is that to be charged to this government? Is therq any coercive right vested in the Labour department or in this government that gives us authority to say "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" to either employer or employee? If there is I know nothing of it. But still it is very easy, in fact it is customary, when any dispute develops in any part of the country, in any walk of life, to turn to the federal Labour department, which may not have, under the law, anything to do with it, and to criticize that department for its omissions or its commissions in the matter.
I am sure' my hon. friends will recognize the fact that we have in Canada nine provinces, most of which have Labour departments with certain duties, functions and rights, that the Labour department of the federal government has only the rights conceded to it under the law and, that it is ready and willing to do anything it can to bring about thorough investigation with a view to the settlement of the disputes.
In regard to the particular situation that my hon. friend speaks of in Nova Scotia, what do we find at the present moment? What might be termed a club is held over the heads of the people of Nova Scotia, by labour, it is said. In other words, it has been indicated that a strike is going to occur on the 1st day of April unless 30 per cent increased compensation be granted, unless an eight-hour day be conceded and unless a check-off system be recognized by the employing company. As the Labour department of the federal government we might be interested in that, but I would like any hon. member to indicate to me how, in any particular, we can interfere and say "Thou shalt" or "Thou shalt not" to either employer or employee concerned. In other words, we have absolute limitations that I hope my hon. friends will appreciate before holding, as people are sometimes too ready to do, the Labour department responsible for all the disputes that are inevitable.
In the case of the Nova Scotia situation, as soon as the Labour department heard the proposal that a strike was likely to occur on the 1st day of April, one of the most capable and experienced officers of the department was sent down to Sydney, to suggest that the friendly offices of the department, through an investigation or in any other consistent way under the law, were available for the use of the workmen concerned, and we were given to understand that the men and committees were amply sufficient by themselves to deal with the matter. That is the situation that we find ourselves in as regards certain industrial disputes that we have no jurisdiction over.


Mr. SPENCER:: Has the province of Nova Scotia a Labour department?


James Murdock: Not a separate department or minister. In fact, a number of the provinces have not a separate Labour department. I think there are only two or three provinces that have what might be called a separate Labour department.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Where a province has not a separate Labour department, the minister's
Supply-Labour

department would feel freer to act in the discussion.


James Murdock: No, rather more hesitant to act, because if there were a separate Labour department, as there are in certain provinces, we would feel freer as individuals with a common aim and ambition in mind, to get into touch with that Labour department and to say: "Is there any way in which we can help and co-operate with you as regards this particular dispute"? Where there was not a separate Labour department, we might find ourselves approaching someone not so sympathetic to the question of a Labour department, and possibly more taken up with the operation of some other particular department.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it within the power of the Dominion government, according to the Minister of Labour, to make a thorough investigation of conditions which prevail in Cape Breton, to go thoroughly into the question of the British Empire Steel Corporation, its finances, the hold it has on the country, its connections with steel companies south of the line, the control exerted over its policies by the United States companies? Is it possible that an investigation of this kind could be had? If so, would it not do a great deal to eliminate the causes of unrest?


James Murdock: Someone has said:"AU things are possible;" but in this particular case, as I said a little while ago, this concern is working under a provincial charter in a province that, according to my understanding, has exclusive jurisdiction over property and civil rights. I am not a lawyer, but I think I am stating the position correctly. That being the case, I do not know just how much latitude there is for one person or one government or one province to butt into the affairs of another. I realize that a good deal of this is indulged in; but I do not believe it would be regarded as altogether the proper thing when all of the provinces have jurisdiction and authority over such matters as those to which the hon. members refers. As to the necessity and propriety of the investigation that he speaks of, that is another matter, and one on which possibly I should not at the moment express my personal view.


William Alves Boys: I understood the minister to say that the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act had application to coal mines, railways and certain public utilities. I confess at once that I am not as familiar with the act as I would like to be. I come from a very peaceful part of Ontario, and we are not troubled very much with strikes. We have had only

one in the history of my experience in Simcoe. I was wondering where the minister gets the authority for that statement.


James Murdock: I might give a concrete example. Right at the present moment we have in course of formation a board of conciliation for a gas works in a certain city in the Dominion of Canada. The department has, I understand, for some time prior to the date I took office, regarded it as its absolute right to assume jurisdiction in a matter of this kind, as being a public utility that could reasonably be regarded as being within the law.


William Alves Boys: It may be that there is some amendment that I am not familiar with, but section 5 of the act reads:
Wherever any dispute exists between an employer and any of his employees, and the parties thereto are unable to adjust it, either of the parties to the dispute may make application to the minister for the appointment of a board of conciliation and investigation, to which board the dispute may be referred under the provisions of this act.
It is true there is in that section a proviso which specifically deals with railway companies, but I do not think that would warrant the statement of the minister. I am not saying he is wrong; I do not know. If he is right, it might be proper to consider an extension of the act. If again the reason that the act is not extended is because of property and civil rights, how then can there be any jurisdiction regarding a coal mine which is located in one province? I imagine in most cases the operations of a coal mine in a province are pursuant to a charter issued by that province. If the objection is that property and civil rights belong exclusively to the province, I do not see why a coal mine would come within the provisions of the act. At all events there are the two propositions. That is one, and the other is: What limitation is there to the wide-open provisions of section 5 of the act?


James Murdock: To deal with the point that is now before us, we should turn to section 2 of the act and read the definition of employer:
"Employer" means any person, company or- corporation employing ten. or more persons and owing or operating any mining property, agency of transportation or communication, or public service utility, including, except as hereinafter provided, railways, whether operated by steam, electricity or other motive power, steamships, telegraph and telephone lines, gas, electric light, water and power works, or any number of such persons, companies or corporations acting together, or who in the opinion of the minister have interest in common.


William Irvine: What can. the Department of Labour do in case of an industrial dispute? What is its power?

Supply-Labour


James Murdock: That is a very large order from my hon. friend. If both employer and employees adopt the same attitude in a controversy-that is certain individuals presuming to speak for employers at times and certain individuals presuming to speak for employees at times-the Labour department can do absolutely nothing; they are powerless under any legal rights that at present a Labour department would have. The Industrial Disputes Investigation Act, as I think has been very aptly suggested, is only for the purpose of bringing the parties together to reason, thresh out and determine as between each other their mutual differences with a view of arriving, if possible, at a mutually satisfactory understanding. It might be very aptly described as an intended league of industry and labour. But if either industry or labour or both bow their necks and go around with a chip on their shoulders and are ready to fight first, last and all the time, then this league of nations in a modified form would be absolutely useless. In a few cases in the past where this disposition has been shown by certain individuals this league has proved absolutely useless in preventing discord and strikes as a result of disputes.


William Irvine: Do I understand the reasoning of the minister in this regard to be that if employees are firm in their demand and if employees through their representatives are equally firm in *heirs, so that there is a deadlock, then the department can do nothing? Is not that the only case in which the department would be required to do anything? If there is a disposition on the part of the contending parties to come to an agreement they , do not need government assistance. But if the minister is correct in the statement that when there is a real fight the department is hopeless and helpless, why spend $35,000 in carrying it on?


James Murdock: If my hon. friend only
had a little experience in connection with the aims, ambitions and contentions of labour he would not make any such statement as we have just heard. Unfortunately he was not in the House a few moments ago when I gave some figures in regard to the accomplishments of this particular act which he now tries to hold up as useless except when both sides bow their necks. We find that since 1907 there have been 597 applications made for boards of investigation, not by individuals, either employers or employees, who were ready, as my hon. friend suggests, to bow their necks and not do anything, but by citizens of Canada who were presumably desirous of reaching common ground with those opposed to them in the particular disputes. As 1 say,
597 applications were made, and 428 boards have been granted under the law during the period I have mentioned. As a result of the appointment of these 428 boards during the time the law has been in force, a settlement was reached by negotiation, in accordance with the underlying intent of the act, in all but 36 cases. In 36 cases it was impossible, by negotiation, by compromise, or by discussion among the parties, to bring about a settlement of the questions in dispute, and strikes resulted. '


William Irvine: The minister apparently
takes the view that I suggested that the act was not of any value. I asked him a question as to what the department could do in cases of dispute and he told me that if there were a real dispute in which each side held to its position the department could do nothing. I accepted that as a correct statement of the situation. Now the minister moves his ground seemingly and says that the department can do something and has done so in 428 cases.


James Murdock: I said no such thing.


William Irvine: What did the minister say?


James Murdock: I said that where in 36 cases a settlement was not reached the department was powerless; and in any cases where both sides bow their necks and say they will have nothing in the form of a settlement the Department of Labour is powerless. But the intent of the act is to afford Canadian citizens, who have disputes, an opportunity to come to a mutual agreement; and in 95 per cent of the investigations held a settlement is effected where this spirit is manifested.


William Irvine: I would say that the minister was badly advised in basing the interpretation of the powers of the act on the 36 cases in which a settlement was not reached, and in omitting to mention the 400 odd cases in which it operated.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canada Gazette, $45,000.
James Murdock: This item is for the
printing of the Canada Gazette. It may be noted that there is a reduction of $6,000, based on the belief that we can get along with that much less money for the current year. The expenditure for the period from April 1, 1922, to December 31 last, was $26,318.89 and the expenditure for the fiscal year 1921-22 was $43,345. We are asking for $45,000 in this item.


Arthur Meighen: Cannot the minister give the expenditure for the fiscal year ending March 31 last?
Supply-Labour


James Murdock: I have not the figures for 1922-23.


Arthur Meighen: The amount being asked now is more than was spent in 1921-22?


James Murdock: Yes, a little less than $2,000 more.


Arthur Meighen: I understand that the contract for the printing of the Gazette calls for just the same amount as it did for the year before? I think that is what the minister said the other day?


James Murdock: Are we not getting the Labour Gazette and the Canada Gazette mixed? The Canada Gazette is the official record of orders in council and other things-


Arthur Meighen: Yes.


James Murdock: -and is printed in the Printing bureau. That is not the Labour Gazette.


Arthur Meighen: There is no need of the Canada Gazette having this union label on it apparently?


James Murdock: No, there has not been any general demand for it yet.


Arthur Meighen: Referring to the Labour Gazette again, I understand I am right in assuming that it costs just the same now to print as it did a year ago.


James Murdock: I do not think that the master printers generally throughout Canada have changed their tabulated rates for printing. There is a schedule of rates in effect which is 10 per cent higher west of the Great Lakes. If any printing is done in any office anywhere in Canada, no matter what the printer may claim for that printing, he is paid on the basis of this schedule.


Arthur Meighen: Yes. But the company that the hon. minister deals with pays the printers; he does riot pay them. He has a contract with the company. Now, does that contract call for the same amount of money as it did a year ago with the old company that did not suit him for some reason he could not explain other than that they were not Liberals?


James Murdock: We have long since passed that item. I am not altogether clear as to whether slightly more is being paid per month for printing the Labour Gazette than was paid a year or two years ago, but I thinkf not.	.


Arthur Meighen: It is no less?


James Murdock: I would not say it is no less. I will get an itemized statement for my right hon. friend indicating what the cost of printing the Labour Gazette has been per month for the last five years.


Arthur Meighen: I would suggest that with that statement he also submit particulars of the size of the Gazette. I may tell my hon. friend that though this is a good Liberal firm that has the contract now, I understand it is getting the same amount as was paid its predecessors.


James Murdock: I did not know that.


Arthur Meighen: That is all the minister did know the other day. I am sorry if he has lost that little bit of information.


James Murdock: My right hon. friend is mistaken. The other day I was asked if there were some good Liberals in the firm, and I think I intimated that possibly there might be.


Arthur Meighen: Yes, I think that is about the residuum of information he had on the question. I know there are myself, so if his information wants supplementing in any way I can help him. It is Simon pure information. There is no doubt as to the party fidelity and prejudice of the firm, not the least. My information is that the Gazette that is now' being printed is smaller than the old Gazette, but the amount of money paid for its printing is just the same-the balance is so much extra party remuneration. I should like therefore the information the minister has promised to also indicate the value that is being obtained for this printing, giving the dimensions of the Gazette, the number of pages, and so-forth.


Mr. MARLER:: I suppose this item is made by contract?


James Murdock: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know just what it is the right hon. gentleman desires, because I am quite sure that his information in regard to the printing of the Labour Gazette is entirely inaccurate, and we should, for the relief of the right hon. gentleman himself, clear up his doubts. I would ask him to tabulate just exactly whav he requires, because I want that information as badly as he does and in as detailed form.


Arthur Meighen: The last time I asked the question the minister said he could not understand me, nor could anybody else. His leader rose just afterwards and told him exactly what I wanted. As it is now six o'clock I will admit that his leader or any other hon. member could understand me.

Supply-Labour


The CHAIRMAN:: It being six o'clock I do leave the Chair.


James Murdock: We seem to have this six o'clock touch every night.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


James Murdock: Before we rose at six o'clock I was asked what the expenditure on this item was for the past fiscal year. Up until December 31st last the expenditure was $26,318.89, and for the preceding whole fiscal year $43,345.17. The committee possibly are unaware that this is a self-sustaining item so far as the Printing bureau is concerned. The committee is being asked to vote $45,000 for the printing of the Canada Gazette during the fiscal year, but the revenue derived from the printing of the Gazette is equal to, if not slightly greater than the amount which we are now asking the committee to vote.


William Alves Boys: There is no contract, as I understand it. You simply pay according to the contents, so much per line, I suppose.


James Murdock: This is to reimburse the Printing bureau for the cost of printing the Canada Gazette. The work is done at the Printing bureau, and this $45,000 is to pay the wages of the men who are employed, overhead and so forth.


William Alves Boys: Pardon me. I thought the minister was answering the question of the .leader of the Opposition regarding the Labour Gazette.


James Murdock: No, this is the Canada Gazette.


William Alves Boys: The Labour Gazette is not under contract either? It is so much per line, I suppose, and the cost depends upon the length?


James Murdock: When the leader of the Opposition comes in, if he desires further information on the Labour Gazette I have additional information here indicating just how this matter was handled when the change was made, and on what basis the change was made. We have the order in council, which may be of interest to the committee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am wondering
whether it is not possible in the interests of economy to change the form of printing the Canada Gazette, the form in which a great deal of information is given. I am speaking now on behalf of a good many of the ordinary people, who perhaps are not familiar with
legal phraseology and with the very elaborate governmental iorms which hitherto have been carried out. I have in my hand a number which I picked up almost at random, and here is a proclamation:
Byng of Vimy (L.S.)
Canada
George the Fifth, by the'Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, Emperor of India.
To Our Beloved and Faithful the Senators of the Dominion of Canada, and the members elected to serve in the House of Commons of Our said Dominion, and to each and every of you,-Greeting:-
A Proclamation
Whereas Our Parliament of Canada stands prorogued to Saturday, the twenty-fifth day of the month of February, 1922, at which time at Our City of Ottawa, you were held and constrained to appear, Nevertheless, for certain causes and considerations, We do will, by and with the advice of Our Privy Council for Canada, That you and each of you, be as to Us, in this matter, entirely exonerated: commanding, and by the tenor of these presents enjoining you, and each of you, and all others in this behalf interested that on Wednesday, the eighth day of the month of March next, at Our City of Ottawa aforesaid, personally you be and appear, for the despatch of business to treat, do, act and conclude upon these things which Our said Parliament of Canada, by the Common Council of Our said Dominion, may, by the favour of God, be ordained.
In Testimony Whereof We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent and the Great Seal of Canada to be hereunto affixed. Witness: Our Right Trusty and Well-Beloved Julian Hed-worth George, Baron Byng of Vimy, General on the Retired List and in the Reserve of Officers of Our Army. Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Knight Grand Cross of Our Most Distiguished Order of Saint Michael and Saint George, Member of Our Royal Victorian Order, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Our Dominion of Canada.
At Our Government House, in Our City of Ottawa, in Our said Dominion, this third day of February, in the year of Our Lord one thousand and nine hundred and twenty-two. and in the twelfth year of Our Reign.
By Command,
Thomas Mulvey,
Under-Secretary of State.
Which, if I can wade through and really interpret, means that the Senate is being adjourned from the 25th of February to the 8th of March. Then follow other proclamations and orders in council. I have seen a-number of them, one after the other, in which the phraseology and these titles are repeated. Now I am not discussing orders and titles, but if it is necessary to give them somewhere in the Canada Gazette why not give them at the very beginning once and for all, and then state in the most concise manner possible the business of the country and the notices to be given? Perhaps if I were an older member of this House I would hesitate to speak frankly about this matter, but it does seem to- me most absurd that in a democratic
Supply-Labour-Prin ting

country we should not adopt some little more democratic and modem means of giving information as to the transactions of the country. Here is a large and bulky volume of the Canada Gazette. We talk about curtailing expenses along a lot of lines. I think we might well begin by curtailing expenses right here in this House by simplifying these forms, as other forms have been simplified in other times and places.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing Bureau-plant, repairs and renewals, $30,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What amount was spent last year on these repairs? ,


James Murdock: This item is for general plant renewals and includes upkeep. This is the same amount that was voted for the fiscal year 1922-23.	The expenditure
for the past fiscal year was only 87,091.33. Expenditure for the fiscal year 1921-22 amounted to $17,4S8.10.	This amount is
asked for the following reasons. For the total plant valuation of 8350,000 a vote of $30,000 for general plant repairs, renewals and upkeeps is believed to be reasonable, being less than the usual commercial provision of 10 per cent for such purposes. While it is true that the plant could be carried on for an uncertain period on a smaller vote, such a procedure woud be undesirable, and the inevitable result would be depreciated and obsolete machinery giving smaller production, growing labour expense and accumulative expenditure on repairs which, although to some extent hidden in the payrolls would nevertheless exist and a continuation of the former policy of granting a $30,000 vote for general plant repairs, renewals and upkeep, together with a minimum vote for new plant, would tend to bring back the former condition without consideration of the attendant evils of overstaffing. I have here an outline of what may be needed in the general plant renewals and it is believed that the amount needed is within the mark. I can give the details of expenditures for the last
fiscal year:
Hand composing division	 $ 352 97
Monotype division	
5,868	50Linotype division	
4,505	36Stereotype	
81	78Press	
1,833	63Bindery	
2.138	17	.
And so on for various other items totalling, as I said, $17,488.10. During the last two fiscal years, as I have indicated, the full amount of appropriation voted by parliament has not been used, but it is believed that it 
may be necessary to use almost the entire amount of the present appropriation for the purpose of plant renewals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Printing Bureau-Plant, new, $45,000.
James Dew Chaplin: How much was spent of last year's appropriation which amounted to $67,000?


James Murdock: I have here a document which indicates that the entire amount was spent. The details of the expenditure I can give to the committee if it is desired.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What new plant is contemplated'for this year?


James Murdock: The following plant is provided for:
Pressrooms
No. 1 item-
Two 2/0 size Miehle printing presses, complete with all the latest improvements, bed
size 43" x 56"	$15,650
This replaces two old 1907 installation Miehle printing presses, bed size 33" x 46".
No. 2 item-
Two individual drive, direct current motors. 1,200 This is to operate Miehle printing presses in No. 1 item.
No. 3 item-
Two combination extension deliveries and
lowering tables	 1,700
This is accessory equipment for Miehle presses in No. 1 item.
No. 4 item-
Two Cameo continuous Sheet Feeders.. ..	5,450
This is accessory equipment for Miehle printing presses in No. 1 item.

Credit
No 5 item-
Sale of: Two old equipment, 1907 installation,
No. 3 Miehle printing presses, as and where they stand-bed size 33" x 46", at $2,000
each	 4,000
These are to be replaced by new and larger bed size Miehle printing press in No. 1 item.

Bindery
No. 1 item-
One Rowe Straight Line Automatic Trimmer, to trim books and pamphlets three sides, 5" x 7" to 9" x 16"
sizes	$11,000
This replaces one Seybold three-knife trimmer old equipment.
No. 2 item-
Conveyor system for automatic delivery of books and pamphlets from the combination side stitchings, gather, stitch and cover machine, and also from the saddle back stitching machine onto the Rowe Straight Line Automtic Trimmer in No. 1 item.. 3,500 This is an addition to plant.

No. 3 item-
One job folding machine, with not more than two folds, equipped to take heavy pamphlet thickness,
known as mail fold	 3,500
This is an addition to plant.
No. 4 item-;
Renewal of numbering heads or
machines	 1,500
This . replaces necessary old equipment.

Credit
No. 5 item-
Sale of: One old equipment installation, Seybold three-knife trimmer, as and where it stands, and refers
to No. 1 item	 500
This is a dangerous machine on the building because of its uncontrolled thrust and vibration.
Ruling room
No. 1 item-
One 44" 10 cam-wheel unit "Lind-bladh" Duplex "L" Ruling Machine. 6,000 This replaces one 38" two-beam striker ruling machine and one 36" two-beam striker ruling machine, old equipment.	'
No. 2 item-
One Frohn Simplex Automatic Feeder for Lindbladh Duplex "L" Ruling
Machine in No. 1 item	 2,000
This is accessory equipment for No.
1 item.

Credit
No. 3 item-
Sale of: One single 38" two-beam, and one 36" two-beam ruling machines, old equipment, with attached simplex feeders, as and where they stand, and refers to No. 1 item.
Credit allowance $750. each	 1,500



Total amount required	$45,500


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me it refers more to renewals than new machinery. A few moments ago, in connection with another item, the minister said that he was making renewals of machines. Now we are called upon to vote another amount for further renewals. The minister told us that the machinery should be renewed on the basis of ten per cent a year. I can tell him that the Finance department will not allow renewal on any such basis as that when you go to pay taxes. Yet in this case, instead of showing ten per cent, it shows nearly a twenty per cent renewal.


James Murdock: What would the hon. gentleman suggest? He is probably more familiar with depreciation than I am. Is ten per cent too much for depreciation incident to the upkeep of a $350,000 Printing bureau?
Supply-Labour-Printing


James Dew Chaplin: I suggest to the minister that he should noc have two accounts, mix up renewals with new machines and tell us that these are all renewals.


James Murdock: If the hon. member will follow me in the particular items, he will see that item 299 was definitely specified as "Printing bureau, plant repairs and renewals", while item 300, which we are now dealing with, is specifically presented as "Printing bureau plant, new," and, therefore, these items aggregating $45,000 which I have read to the committee represent new plant, excepting that I think in three cases we are eliminating certain obsolete machinery that is out of date and should be renewed by new machines. For instance, if my hon. friend would come down to the Printing bureau, which I hope he will, and look at one of these big cutting machines there which we propose to discard, and observe how it vibrates almost the entire building every time it comes down, he would understand the position. We have moved it from the third floor to the lower floor, so as to eliminate, as far as possible, unnecessary vibration which is detrimental to the building, but even now, it would well pay this government to discard that machine on the basis proposed, considering the length of time it has been in service and the other conditions referred to. I hope my hon. friends will understand that I do not set myself up as being an expert on Printing bureau requisites. I am taking the advice and the experience of gentlemen dealing with these matters.


James Dew Chaplin: We are not saying that the minister knows his department thoroughly, and he need not excuse himself on that account particularly. In respect to this item, when a minister produces an item, part of which is marked renewal, and part of which is new, the new part means entirely new plant, and does not mean the replacement of old plant at all, and he has shown us that he is substituting new machinery and throwing out some of the old machinery. He tells us at the very commencement that he must put in renewals of this plant up to a certain percentage, and, instead of relying upon a ten per cent renewal, I claim that he is making a twenty per cent renewal. I say that if he were running a commercial business, his financial department would not allow him any such renewal at all. *


George Perry Graham: Did he not keep the old machines too long?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Now that we have all this new plant, would it be possible to
Supply

Labour-Printing

print the Labour Gazette in the Printing bureau?


James Murdock: That matter has been receiving attention since February, 1922, and considering the discussion that has occurred and the suggestions that have emanated from the so-called labour representatives on this committee, I think it will be possible to do as the hon.- member suggests.


Arthur Meighen: How many more months of consideration is likely to be given to the subject?


James Murdock: I think we ought to be able to come to a determination very shortly. If it were only a question of making up my mind individually, I am sure that it could be done, but, of course, I have to confer with and carry out suggestions and instructions of council.


Arthur Meighen: There are no instructions. The minister is in charge of the department. This is a departmental matter. Surely he does not have to persuade his colleagues on a detail like this. He has now had, according to his own calculation, fourteen months to consider the question of having the Labour Gazette printed in the .Printing bureau. How many more months he will require he does not know, and he attributes the delay to slow-thinking colleagues. Perhaps he can inform the House who are the worst of them in that respect.


James Murdock: I am sure my hon. friend understands that it is necessary to pass an order in council to deal with this matter and determine how the Labour Gazette shall be printed.


Arthur Meighen: Under what act?


James Murdock: It took an order in council to determine the location of the work incident to the printing of the Labour Gazette, and perhaps my hon. friend would be interested in hearing read the order in council and the documents which I have here in connection with that. I brought them here because such a marked interest has been displayed in that matter, and I want the committee to have all the information I have.


James Dew Chaplin: A few minutes ago the minister told us about one of his machines racking the building. I was rather apprehensive that he might be coming shortly to the committee for a new building to put the machine in. I hope he will assure us that the change he is making will obviate the necessity of erecting a new building.
 .


James Murdock: There is an item, as I am sure the committee will observe, for a new building, to be dealt with later.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Under what statute is it necessary to pass an order in council to provide that the Labour Gazette shall be printed in the Printing bureau?	.


James Murdock: There is no specific statute that determines that particular question, but for some twenty years the Labour Gazette has been printed outside the Printing bureau for certain specific reasons that were held to be sufficient to warrant an order in council being passed to authorize the printing of the Labour Gazette outside of the Printing bureau. It is quite true, as my hon. friend suggests, that such condition could be changed and the Labour Gazette could be printed in the Printing bureau, but, as I frankly stated some days ago, for the reason, that it has always been regarded as desirable to have the union label on the Labour Gazette, it has been by order in council printed for "some twenty years outside the Printing bureau.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it because you want the union label on the Gazette that it is printed outside the bureau? Is that the only reason? It does not seem to me to be a good business reason. It may be a good political reason.


James Murdock: My hon. friend should not say "you". It has been considered necessary, in order to have the union label on the Labour Gazette, to issue an order in council to have it printed outside the Printing bureau.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That js the only reason?


James Murdock: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Distribution of parliamentary documents and other government publications, $40,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: How many
people distribute these documents and from where?


James Murdock: We have an establishment in the Printing bureau to distribute these documents and then there is in addition the House of Commons Distribution office.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was just wondering whether the minister had thought of looking after the whole of the distribution and of cutting down the double staffs. The war is over now, unemployment is gone and all troubles have ceased. Has the minister had time to look after domestic economies yet?


James Murdock: If my lion. friend had been in the House during most of the time that my estimates have been on, he would have heard my being taken to task for economies by cutting down the establishment. It has been intimated to me that I have put the Labour department right out of business and various other things of that .character have been said because I have undertaken to cut out unnecessary expenditure by getting rid of employees whom we thought we could do without and at the same time properly function and carry [DOT] on all the necessary work of the department.
Sir HENRI DRAIc TON: I do not know whether the minister has any designs, good, bad or indifferent as regards the department, whether he is scrapping it, whether he is looking after it, or anything else. He may be doing any of these things. -I do not know. I do not know whether he thinks the department is a good thing or not; but has he considered the advisability of combining the distributing forces into one? How many have we on our distributing staff and what weight of periodicals is distributed?


James Murdock: Salaries under $1,000.
One at	
One at	
Two at

Under prevailing rates.
One at	
Four at	
One at	
Three at


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am sure the committee is greatly indebted to the minister for the very interesting information he has given us. Could he supplement that a little? We had twenty-nine employees last year; we have twenty-five this year. The cost is, I think, the same. I do not know, although I may be wrong, that there is any reduction in this item. I was not so much addressing myself to that point, and I think the minister
Svppl y-La hour-Pri nting
knows perfectly well I was not. I was asking him whether we could not get a combination of these distributing forces. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would be kind enough to tell us what it costs to distribute these documents by the House of Commons staff, how many are employed there and how much duplication and overlapping there is.


James Murdock: I am very sorry I have not that information before me. I have been so busy looking after my own business that I have not yet been able to go into that.


Herbert Meredith Marler: A vast quantity of material is distributed under this particular item. What happens to all this stuff? Is it thrown away? It is never read. There must be an enormous wastage in paper and that kind of thing.


James Murdock: There are considerable
quantities of waste paper and also of wasted publications.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Are they sold?


James Murdock: Yes, sold for waste paper.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How are they sold? Are
tenders asked for the sale of them?


Mr MURDOCK:: Yes, sold by tender.
Waste paper from all departments of the government service is sold by tender.


Herbert Meredith Marler: What does the country
get from all thi# waste paper now, and what has been got in the past?


James Murdock: For the year immediately prior to February 1, last, waste paper was not sold by tender, but a contract was given in November, 1921, on the basis of the former yearly rate of $11,000 in a lump sum for the collection of all waste paper from the various government departments. The 1922 contract commenced on January 1, and this year it was necessary to run it over 31 days into 1923, so that the new contract is now in effect from February 1 of this year. For the five years prior to January 1, 1922, the rate for gathering all waste paper from government departments was $11,000 a year. When it became necessary recently to renew that contract or to determine how waste paper from the various government departments would be sold, tenders were called for, and the contract now in effect is that waste paper from the various departments of the government . brings to the government $22,700 for this year.


Herbert Meredith Marler: How does the minister
explain this great divergency? Prior to January 1, 1922, this same paper brought $11,000,
Supply-Labour-Printing

not by contract. How was this new contract at $22,700 let for this waste paper? There is something very extraordinary in the divergency in these figures.


Mr. McMASTER:: Better management.


Arthur Meighen: It may be that paper,
like everything else, is more prodigally wasted by this government.


James Murdock: On the other hand, the facts are entirely to the contrary that there was very much more waste paper under previous conditions than there is at the present time, and I think the leader of the Opposition (Mr. Meighen) conveyed that impression when, in such eulogistic terms, he referred to the great saving that had been brought about by the Editorial Committee in preventing unnecessary duplication and consequent waste in the Printing bureau.


Arthur Meighen: That committee has been in force for some time.


James Murdock: During the six years
prior to the present year with that enormous waste, many publications went into the waste paper basket. As a matter of fact, I do not think it is any exaggeration to state that $150,000 or $200,000 were made out of the waste paper contracts for the six years prior to the present year.


Herbert Meredith Marler: Which contracts were not let by tender?


Arthur Meighen: The minister is a little
wrong in that. The Editorial Committee has been in charge for four or five years, and no doubt when that committee was in charge, the waste would be a minimum. The present government's policy is to abolish the Editorial Committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is still there.


Arthur Meighen: And naturally there would be a larger tender for the waste paper. I cannot say, not having had the departmental charge, just how the contract was let. It was let, however, as I understand, some six years before and then was re-let. If I recollect rightly, it was let by tender, just as it is claimed it is let this time by tender. I should be very much surprised if I am wrong. The highest tender was accepted.


James Murdock: You are mistaken.


Arthur Meighen: I do not think I am.


James Murdock: I am sure you are.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps, while we are
talking about waste, the minister will explain,

seeing that he has not had time to get the information for the committee, how he came to waste time going to the Moose Jaw election and coming back without having been allowed to speak.


James Murdock: I took my holidays out there instead of going to Atlantic City. Now,
I am very glad indeed that my right hon. friend has called my attention to something I was going to overlook, that is, certain enormous waste of government publications and printing that occurred during the course of the six years immediately 'preceding the present year. The gentlemen of the committee do not need to take my word for this at all. They can go to the report of Judge Snider, who was appointed royal commissioner to look into the enormous waste of hundreds of thousands-.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, no.
Mr. MURDOCK; -hundreds of thousands, I think, of government publications which were discarded and thrown away and which became part of the plunder of individuals who secured waste paper contracts at $11,000 a year. Judge Snider's report will indicate just exactly what happened and I hope that hon. members of this House will look into that record and not take my word for it.


Arthur Meighen: I presume that the reason my hon. friend was not allowed to speak was because the friends of his party in that district felt that the peculiar style of oratory of which we get so much in this House-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Arthur Meighen: -was not-


Andrew Ross McMaster: Order.


Arthur Meighen: -useful in that part of the country.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I rise to a point of order. I understand that discussion in committee must be closely relevant to the item under consideration, and it seems to me that the leader of the Opposition is wandering somewhat far afield in discussing either the Moose Jaw election or the type of oratory displayed so ably by the Minister of Labour.


James Murdock: I should really apologize to my right hon. friend for having answered so shortly as I did when he asked his question. As a matter of fact I was due back here yesterday afternoon to go on with my estimates and I did not want to disappoint my right hon. friend or others. I wanted to get to business.


Arthur Meighen: It was not the coming back that I was marvelling at; I thought that was natural; it was the going out. Now, the minister tries to intimate to this House that there was some dark and serious scandal unearthed by- Judge Snider's report, and hon. members have a right to some information in that regard. The minister's "hundreds of thousands" talk is oratory of a kind; that is all. There were some books, quite a number of them-I do not know whether they were blue books, but at all events they were publications-that were by error consigned to waste by an official. The facts were difficult to get at. The late government did not know why this waste had occurred, nor did it know who was responsible. No member of the government had authorized it or had had anything to do with it. The late government appointed Judge Snider to get at the facts because there were facts to be got at, and Judge Snider investigated the matter and submitted a report. He was not able to find that there had been any intentional error or wrongdoing on any one's part. Undoubtedly, there had been an error in consigning the documents to waste, but I do not think they were of such tremendous cash value. It was unfortunate, however, that they were destroyed, because they were of a character that could not be replaced, some of them being historical. But the numbers of them as stated by the minister are only representative of a very elastic imagination.


James Murdock: If my right hon. friend will look into the matter again and consult Judge Snider's report he will find that there is no particular exaggeration in what I have stated.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is there any increase or decrease in the quantity of parliamentary documents and government publications distributed under this item?


James Murdock: The number of parliamentary documents printed is not determined by the Printing bureau. As my hon. friend knows, there is a committee of this House that determines what shall and what shall not be printed. But as to 'the various government documents and publications, the number is determined by the various departments under proper authorization, and this item takes care of their distribution.


Edward Joseph Garland: Perhaps the minister could give the information even though it does not come strictly under this item.


James Murdock: I am sure my hon. friend is not serious in asking me to give such an
Supply-Labour-Printing
estimate as he desires, because no one in this House could do anything of the kind. This item is to take care of the distribution of parliamentary documents and other government publications.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister misunderstands me. I am asking whether there is any increase in the quantity distributed. I am anxious to find out if there is really any necessity for the continued voting of this 840,000 year after year for a service that may be on the decrease.


James Murdock: I cannot even suggest whether there might be in this particular fiscal year either a slight increase or a decrease. I can only assure my hon. friend that if the money were not all expended it would still belong to the government, while if it were found necessaiy to use it' it would be available.


James Shaver Woodsworth: How many copies of Hansard are printed, and how many go to subscribers?


James Murdock: I have not the exact information, but the best estimate I can give would be about 150 copies sent to paid subscribers out of a total of 1,800 printed. These 150 are subscribed for on the basis of 5 cents per copy or $3 per session.


Mr. COOTE:: What does it cost to print Hansard? I have been approached by a number of people who want to know whether the subscription rate for Hansard could not be reduced. They consider $3 an exorbitant sum to pay for it. I believe that if they knew the quality of some of the speeches recorded in the publication they would be willing to pay their $3. Speaking seriously, however, I think it would be good policy for this House to reduce the subscription rate, and perhaps the minister might give us some information on this point.


James Murdock: I can assure the hon.
member that the rate of 5 cents per copy or $3 per session is only a nominal figure; it is like sending out the Labour Gazette at 20 cents per annum. It does not begin to pay the actual cost of printing Hansard.


George Gibson Coote: I think the minister will admit that it would not cost as much proportionately if we printed twice the number that we are now printing, and I believe if the subscription rates were re.duced by one half we could easily double the subscriptions.


James Murdock: My hon. friend will realize that it would cost twice as much for



Supply-Public Works
paper, which is an important item, and for ink, which is a less important item. It is quite true that mere printing, once the type has been set up, would not amount to a great deal extra. But I really do not think it would be advisable to cheapen the present nominal rates. However, I must say frankly that I had not heard it suggested before that the subscription rates should be reduced, and it may be a subject worthy of consideration from my hon. friend's point of view.


William Alves Boys: Is this item sub-divided at all?


James Murdock: Yes. Here is the estimate for the year:
Office printing, $2,000; office stationery, $2,500; postage, $2,500; express and freight, $200; char service, $2,000; sundries, $100; salaries, $27,613.60; motor car supplies and upkeep, $500; mechanical repairs and upkeep, $2,000; or a total of $39,413.60.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous Printing, $20,000.
Mr. GOOD:: I should like to bring to the attention of the committee a little point in connection with this item. Since I have been in parliament I have been impressed with the amount of stationery which is embossed instead of printed. Most of our letterheads are printed, but a good many are embossed, particularly the departmental stationery, and practically all of the envelopes. I understand that it is very much more expensive to emboss than to print. I would suggest that we can all get along just as well with printed letterheads and envelopes and I would very much like to see a change in this direction, especially in view of the financial conditions now existing.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Industrial Disputes Investigation Act-Further amount required, $4,000.	'
James Murdock: We ran slightly over the estimate last year to the extent of about
S4,000,	and consequently we are asking for this supplementary estimate.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: Does this item include the cost of the telegrams that passed between the hon. minister and one Mr. Me-Lachlan in connection with the strike of miners in Nova Scotia?


James Murdock: Yes-to some extent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Public Works-Public Buildings-Ottawa Parliament Buildings, $700,000.
Henry Lumley Drayton: What is to be done for this?


Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, this proposed expenditure is to complete the restoration of the parliament buildings. The itemized expenditure will be as follows:
Salaries of office staff, maintenance of* plant
and upkeep of staff	$ 10,000
Carpentry and doors	 9,000
Asphalt surface and new roadways to rear of
buildings	 6,000
Grading and sodding around buildings	..	..	11,250
Post office fittings and alterations		15,000
Stone carving and modelling for interior .. ..	35,000
Pointing and stone work	 6,000
Re-wiring library	 10,000
Painting and decorating	 10,000
Special lighting fixtures	 100,000
Main tower, required for cutting	stone	..	..	111,000
If we are able to proceed with the erection of the tower there will be an expenditure
of $136,000, consisting of:
Amount for setting stone stairs	 $ 5,000
Amount for steel work	 2,060
Elevator, clock and stone work of memorial
chamber	 86,000
Balance to sub-contractors	on contracts .. ..	8,341
Contingencies, miscellaneous and unforeseen ..	93,960
I may say that the items as read will probably not conform to the expenditure this year, for it is very doubtful if it will be possible to have the plans completed and the stone cutting done in time to carry on the erection of the tower to completion.
But from this item there will be an expenditure to cover the settlement with the architects. A settlement has been reached recently whereby payment will be made to
9	p.m. them for the balance of their commission on the work that has been done to date. For the information of the committee I will give a short review of the conclusions that we have arrived at in making a settlement with the architects: The total expenditure on the buildings to November 28th was $9,910,972. Mr. Pearson's commission on that amount at 4f per cent would be $458,382.48.
We have not settled on that basis. We have followed to some extent the line suggested by the parliamentary committee, and we did make an adjustment with the architects in 1921 when they were allowed certain commissions on an expenditure over and above $5,000,000. There is no doubt that when the parliament buildings contract was entered into there was a desire and an effort made to limit the expenditure to some $5,000,000 but as the work proceeded alterations took place, the designs were changed, and in 1920 we find that the expenditure had exceeded the limitation of $5,000,000 by over $1,034,000; in January, 1921, the expenditure had amounted to $7,966,000, and on November 1, 1921, it had amounted to $9,157,229. The original plans

Supply-Public IPorfcs
as suggested by the architect, and desires probably of the committee were changed, with the result that this larger expenditure was made on the buildings that we are now occupying. Some of that increased cost, in fact, a considerable proportion of it can be accounted for by the increase in the cost of material and labour that took place during the years between 1918 and 1921, but in addition to that, the buildings as originally designed have been changed, accounting for an additional expenditure.
So far as the architects are concerned, they did originally indicate by letter that they would design and construct a building limited in cost to $5,000,000, and on receipt of their letter accepting the above offer and stating that the terms there set forth were satisfactory to them, a contract was prepared by the department with a limitation fee. . When the contract was presented to the architects they took exception to the limitation in a letter dated July 6, 1916. Although that contract was presented it was never executed, the architects stating that they could not agree to the clause limiting the fee as no such limitation had ever been discussed with the committee. They acknowledged acceptance of the terms of the joint committee in which the limitation of fee was made, but stated that their acceptance was an inadvertence so far as the limitation of fee was concerned, it being intended to apply to the other conditions only.


Mr. CALDWELL:: What date was that?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: In 1916. Although the architects did not sign this contract, the work continued, and as I have pointed out in the year 1920 the limitation of $5,000,000 was exceeded, further exceeded in 1921, and by November, 1921, the cost had amounted to $9,157,229. In the year 1920 the architects did complain and ask that they be given further consideration in regard to the overexpenditure. The department under instructions from the committee had Mr. Ewart, the Consulting Architect, make an examination of the building to try and indicate wherein the plans had been altered and new works undertaken, and to estimate the additional amount that might be paid to the architects. Mr. Ewart reported an amount of $1,396,999 as-representing extra work and stated that further consideration of various items would be necessary before a final estimate could be arrived at of the value of the extra work done up to January 31, 1921. Unfortunately Mr. Ewart became ill and died, and Mr. Sutherland was then employed to report further on
109i
these additional items, and he found an amount of $337,401 that might be attributed to extra work. The committee at that time recommended and did pay an extra commission on $1,734,401.13. This estimate as compared with an estimate presented by the architects showed that the committee did not allow the full amount. In other words, the architects claim that they should have received in addition to the commission on $1,734,401.13, an additional commission on $946,277.
In December, 1921, Mr. Pearson was still urging further consideration of his claim. The then outgoing minister advised him that it would be necessary for this matter to be dealt with by the incoming administration. The architect at that time advised the minister that it would be necessary for him to close down the works. In a letter written on December 21, 1921, he advised the then minister that he had no alternative but to close down the work and that he would issue instructions to that effect to the general contractor, and on the same date he wrote to the general contractor giving him instructions to close down the works at the end of the week. I merely mention that as a matter of information for the committee. Mr. Pearson at that time felt it was necessary for him to retire from the work, and since that date he has not been associated directly with it. In fact, as is well known, there has not been any large undertaking since that date. The matter of adjusting the differences between the architects and the department was one presenting some difficulties. I think, generally speaking, that those who have followed the construction of the building and who have knowledge of the original intentions of the committee and of what has transpired since, will realize that there was a further obligation by parliament to the architects in the matter of payment for their work in connection with these buildings. That was recognized by the parliamentary committee and payments made as I have indicated.
We have taken up the situation where we found it in 1921 and with the aid of three hon. members of this House-the hon. member for London, the hon. member for Brandon and the hon. member for St. Lawrence and St. George-who have acted with myself and members of the department in bringing about what we considered a fair and reasonable adjustment of this claim we have arrived at the conclusion that the architects would be entitled to a payment of commission on $9,910.,972.59 less a deduction on account of increased cost not allowed on $1,683,463.46. In other words the commissions payable to Mr. Pear-
Supply-Public Works

son would amount to a total sum of $458,382- less a credit of 4f on $1,683,463.46 of $77,860, or a commission of $380,522.30 plus a fee for work of a special character of 2J per cent on $932,960.74, or a commission of $31,822.62 plus a sum of $5,000 allowed for advertising and receiving tenders for special furniture and special work; making a total commision of $412,344 to Mr. Pearson, with a credit of payments received of $289,340, leaving a balance due Mr. Pearson of $123,004.20. Mr. Mar-chand's settlement is worked out on the same basis, he being allowed a commission of \ of one per cent on the total, his total commission being $71,199, and he having received payment of $52,848, leaving a balance of $19,142. That is the settlement that has been entered into with the architects and an agreement has been made as the result of which there will be no overlapping of commissions. It will be a complete and distinct settlement. For the completion of this building it is hoped that we will be able to enter into a contract that will be distinct and separate from the old contract. This settlement of $142,000 will be paid out of the vote of $700,000 that is now before the committee. I think this statement pretty well explains the item of $700,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The minister spoke of the alteration of the plans having increased the price. Who was responsible for that alteration?


John Warwick King: The architect in
conjunction with the parliamentary committee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Who were the members
of the parliamentary committee?


John Warwick King: They varied from time to time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There was a
big change in the personnel the first year.


John Warwick King: The original committee consisted of Hon. Robert Rogers, Hon. William Pugsley, Hon. Charles Murphy, Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux and Hon. Robert Watson, the Minister of Public Works in each instance acting as chairman of the committee. Later, I think, Hon. Mr. Reid, Hon. Mr. Calder, and Hon. Sir James Lougheed became members of the committee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Did these gentlemen all serve upon the committee at the same time?


John Warwick King: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: May I ask what was the method of control by the government of expenditure on the Parliament buildings? Was

it left to the architect, or did this committee really supervise the work or did they only act in an honorary capacity?


John Warwick King: No, the committee exercised an active supervision and control. Meetings were held from time to time and the architects reported from week to week, or month to month, as to the expenditures. The committee, I think, were in control and information as to the work as it proceeded was laid before them from time to time.


Andrew Ross McMaster: My recollection is-the minister will correct me if I am wrong-that the Hon. Mr. Murphy was a member of the committee for a very short time. I think the House would be interested to know when Mr. Murphy was appointed and when he retired.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If I am not mistaken Hon. Mr. Murphy told us in this House, since I have been a member, that he only attended one meeting of that committee. However, that is not the material point under discussion. The government started out to spend $5,000,000 on the erection of a parliament building. To-day the expenditure has been in the neighbourhood of $10,000,000 and we are not nearly through yet. I would like to ask another question: How was the contract let for the construction of this building in the case of both the architect and the contractor, or was there any contract?


John Warwick King: Going back to my hon. friend's first question I now have the information in regard to the composition of the committee. The original committee consisted of Hon. Robert Rogers, chairman, Hon. William Pugsley, Hon. J. D. Reid, Hon, J. D. Hazen, Hon. R. Lemieux, Hon. C. Murphy, Sir James Lougheed, Hon. P. E. Blondin and Hon. R. Watson. This committee was appointed in May, 1916. Mr. Murphy resigned on the 24th June, 1916. Hon. Mr. Lemieux resigned on September 1, 1916. Hon. Mr. Hazen having retired as Minister of Marine was replaced by Hon. C. C. Ballantyne, on October 24, 1917. Hon. Mr. Pugsley resigned on 23rd February, 1918. Hon. P. E. Blondin left for overseas military service on October 7, 1917. Hon. J. A. Calder and Hon. G. A. Robertson were nominated by Sir Robert Borden on March 25, 1919 to replace Hon. Messrs. Pugsley and Blondin respectively. Hon. J. A. Stewart and Hon. R. Monty were nominated by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen on September 22, 1921 to replace Hon. Dr. Reid and Hon. Mr. Calder elevated to the Senate. On September 25, 1921, the joint committee consisted of Hon. F. B. McCurdy, chairman;

Supply-Public Works
Hon. Mr. Ballantyne, Hon. Mr. Stewart, Hon. Mr. Monty, Sir James Lougheed, Hon. Mr. Robertson, and Hon. Mr. Watson.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Who compose the committee at the present time?


John Warwick King: There is no committee at the present time.


William Alves Boys: The minister referred to the original estimated cost as $5,000,000. It seems to me that the thought at first was that the walls of the building which stood after the fire were to remain, but that it was necessary to put on an extra storey and the foundations would not carry it. For that reason the walls were pulled down. Could the minister inform the House as to what the contract which called for $5,000,000 included?


John Warwick King: In the original investigation after the fire the architects who were called in reported that they thought there would be a salvage of $1,000,000 or more on certain walls-


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was it not $2,000,000?


John Warwick King: No, $1,000,000 odd.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: It was stated at the time that it would be $2,000,000.


John Warwick King: Nearer $2,000,000 than $1,000,000, I am advised.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Approximately


John Warwick King: On later examination it was decided that the walls should come down and they were taken down.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Who decided that?


John Warwick King: I think that was done on the advice of the architects.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: If my memory serves me correctly, Mr. Murphy told me that these walls were torn down while he was a member of the committee, without the knowledge of the committee. The committee had never been consulted and that was one of the reasons why he resigned.


John Warwick King: I am not sure of that history. I know the report was as I have given it. First, they thought they had a salvage in the walls of some $2,000,000, and later on the walls were taken down, and the contract entered into for $5,000,000, was for a new building, not taking into account the old walls.


William Alves Boys: Was there an extra storey decided on after that $5,000,000 estimate was made?


John Warwick King: No, I think the original plan for $5,000,000 provided for the walls such as we have to-day. The memo I have in regard to it reads:
The plans for the lay out of the building were submitted to the members of the Senate and House of Commons on two or three occasions, and it was explained to them that in order to carry out the scheme it was necessary to tear down the recently erected west wing and all the walls standing north and in the rear of the external south walls and the east and west pavilions. This was in order that the two chambers, the Senate and House of Commons, might be placed at the extreme east and west ends respectively of the new buildings so that they would have outside light. It was also decided, in order to reduce the danger from fire, to make the building as fire proof as possible and remove the boilers and heating plant to a central heating station outside of the building.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He speaks of a contract. What kind of a contract was it that was let to the P. Lyall Company for the construction?


John Warwick King: The contract with the architect was for a 5J per cent commission.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cost plus.


John Warwick King: That was for the full architectural service for the construction, the architect acting as agent for the committee. A contract was entered into with Messrs. P. Lyall & Company, general contractors, for the Erection of the building, they being paid 8 per cent on the first $4,000,000 and 7 per cent on the balance, not to exceed $5,000,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do you not think, Mr. Chairman, that method of contract shows the reason we spent $10,000,000 to get a $5,000,000 building?


John Warwick King: That is for the Chairman to answer.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not think
the minister can do much better than he has done. Personally, I think the architects earned every single cent they got. The minister has cut off the commission on $1,600,000, and I suppose, the way things are now, they can stand that all right. As I recollect it, the architects, besides doing the architectural work, had to look after drafting work, preparation of all estimates, tenders and the like, and had to maintain a large staff at the building. Could the minister tell me what is going to be done to the building now? Very little requires to be done. I do not suppose the minister is serious in wanting to spend a lot of money in carving stones, or a lot of decorations, that might just as well stand for a period. I should like to get some information in regard to the completion of the tower. Who is to do it? The minister spoke of the architect's strike last year and of
Supply*-Public Works

his going off the work. Is he coming back again? Is the same architect to complete the tower, or is somebody else going to complete it? What is the present situation?


John Warwick King: It is not the
desire of the government to continue large expenditures. We feel, however, that it is desirable that we should proceed with the completion of the tower and possibly we may do it. I had hoped that arrangements could be made whereby it might be carried through to completion this present year. I am advised that unless detailed plans are submitted within the next few days it will probably not be possible to carry it to final completion this year. In that case we will carry on with the details of the stone cutting, with a view to the erection of the tower early this coming year.
As regards inside stone carving, I think that work may well be deferred and carried out at some future date, as the parliament and the government of the day see fit. It is not essential work. A certain portion of it, especially in the main corridors and around the throne of the Senate chamber, in fairness, having regard to the expenditures already made and the desirability of having the effect of that carving, I think should be proceeded with in a reasonable time. Even in this chamber there are opportunities for the expenditure of money in carving. I think that can very well stand for the present. There are some expenditures on the outside of the building, on the driveway, the sodding, grading, and in the post office, which should be made this year. The lighting fixtures in the main corridors are temporary, and possibly the proper designs should be developed and carried out there, in order that the entrances might have a finished appearance.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would suggest to my hon. friend that there is only one possible excuse for spending any further money in the building at the present, and that is that you should get a building that is properly completed and finished, having regard to the spirit of its conception as a whole. I do not know whether it is true, but I was told when I was on the other side of the House that it was absolutely necessary, if we were going to get a properly completed building, to have the same architect who had erected the building complete the tower, in order to give the final effect to the whole of his work, and that nobody else except that gentleman could do it. It was only bearing in mind what I have been told by people who, I suppose, know something about it that I thought perhaps the tower
fSir Henry Drayton.]
ought to be completed, but if the tower is not to be completed by Mr. Pearson, it might just as well wait another ten or twenty years, if another architect is to be employed to do the work, and we might as well be ahead that much money. I wanted to know whether Mr. Pearson was going to build the tower or not. If not, I think it could well stand.


John Warwick King: I do not agree with my hon.- friend. I think it is desirable that those who designed and worked on the original construction, if proper arrangements could be made, should have an opportunity of completing the tower. I am hoping it will be possible to enter into proper arrangements for them to continue and carry on this construction.


William Alves Boys: What is the estimated cost of completing the tower?


John Warwick King: Between $400,000
and $500,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Does the minister not think that he can do with less than $700,000? We have pretty heavy appropriations this year, and apparently the only thing that we know definitely is that we have to pay some back claims. Why not put in the amount for the back claims and let the other work stand altogether?


John Warwick King: I have given a recital of some of the expenditures proposed, and I think they are important. The grading and sodding around the building are certainlv ' important, and we do not want to leave a matter of that kind unfinished. The matter of post office fittings and alterations is important and should be attended to. The rewiring of the Library, which is outside of this building, is also essential and should be done this year. As regards the lighting fixtures, some of those should be designed and placed. Then, as I have already stated, there will be commissions to pay, and I think the estimate of $700,000 is not excessive. It is not the desire of the department to expend lavishly; the desire is rather to curb expenditures. A similar amount was voted last year, and the expenditure was kept within reason and bounds.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How much was the expenditure last year?


John Warwick King: The expenditure amounted to $459,241.17 made up as folows:
Paylists and services	
$102,008	80Materials	
159,803	77Furniture and fittings	
144,763	60Workmen's Compensation	Board	
1,917	81Water for Sussex street shop	
181	15Coal	
2,509	26Contractors' commission	
45.344	16Sundries	
2,712	62
_____

Supply-Public Works


William Alves Boys: Do I understand the $700,000 item we are now considering will provide for the completion of the tower, electric light fixtures, which I think the minister said would cost about $100,000, payment of fees due to the architect, grading, sodding and so on, and cement work around the outside of the building?	*


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: I fully endorse what the minister has said. It would be a great pity if completion of the tower to this building was deferred much longer, because the building will never look as it should until the tower is completed. I also endorse what the minister has said regarding grading, sodding and cement work around the building. One cannot properly enjoy many of the rooms of the building with the outlook we have, particularly at the back. The item for electric light fixtures at first blush seems heavy; but at the same time I realize that the fixtures must be in keeping with this building, which is one of the finest in the world, and possibly they *cannot be procured for less than $100,000. As to the cutting of the stone, as we look about here now, there are flat stones in this room which are supposed to be cut, and there are others throughout the building. That matter can stand; but I would like to see the tower and the other things to which I have referred proceeded with.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Last year representations were made that some change should be made in the arrangement of this chamber in order to improve the acoustics. Some changes have been made that have effected a considerable improvement. Last lyear the minister said that he would look into the matter and see if the Speaker's Chair could be moved down on one side and the seating rearranged so that members could hear better than they can at the present time. While improvements have been made, the acoustics of this chamber are very poor. I would personally feel like fining the architect if he was responsible for designing this chamber because the designing was very poorly done for an assembly of this size. This assembly will increase in numbers as time goes on. In fact, after the next general election we shall have an increase, and it is quite possible that it will be in this section of the House. A number of the members of this party cannot hear very well, although after the next election, we may be on the other side. Is this ceiling the permanent ceiling that will be left, or is it to be built over?


John Warwick King: We had certain
investigations made after last session as regards the acoustics, and we were advised to carry on the scheme as hon. members see it before them, that is, of placing felt and carpet on the floor, and the hanging of draperies and curtains. I think it is evident to all members that a great and satisfactory improvement has been made by this simple expenditure. We also had models made, and I think I shall have them brought to the House and placed where members can see them, showing a rearrangement of seating and the placing of the Speaker in the centre of the chamber. Since the changes have been made during the interval and in view of the success of those changes, my view

and I think this is the view of many members with whom I have discussed the matter-is that we should not disturb the present arrangement, but possibly carry a little further next year the scheme as carried on last summer. It has been suggested that in and around the upper balconies further draperies or coverings might be placed which will tend to absorb the vibrations or voice sounds and probably add to the acoustic properties of the chamber. Personally, I am fairly well satisfied. I think in a chamber of this character, of this height and extent, the members are probably not suffering a great deal to-day, and that those who are accustomed to speaking and who speak clearly and distinctly do not have great difficulty in being heard. It would be a mistake to rearrange the seating; moretyer, it has been estimated that to carry out a scheme of that kind would cost about $45,000, and at the present time, I would not feel disposed to ask that a change of that kind be made.


Mr. MACLEAN (York):: I would like to make one suggestion as regards improving this House as a chamber for discussion and speaking. That would be to take the four front seats on the middle of each side and let those be made a bench where members could go to make set speeches whenever they wished to be heard in all parts of the House. A minister making a statement on behalf of the government involving the policy of the government or of his department could thus speak from the centre of the chamber, and if somebody on this side wished to criticise him, he could speak from the centre also, if he had an argument he wished, not only the House, but the country to hear. We have been spending a good deal of money to improve the acoustics of this chamber and such a change would cost very little. I have several times felt that I could, perhaps, put my case a little more clearly if I could sit nearer the
Supply-Public Works

centre. There are plenty of other seats left; the whole of the chamber is not occupied, and such a change as I have suggested would not inconvenience anyone but would be a great improvement and might lead also to improvement in the character of the debates. If we had such a speaking bench on either side of the chamber, this would not involve an expenditure of $1,000. It would not change the character of the chamber; but it would improve it as a chamber of discussion and speaking, so that everybody could hear, especially those who had something important to say and who were willing to go to the centre of the House to say it in order that they might be heard by the members and that their speeches might be in a better shape to go to the country.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like to hear from some of the members who sit at the far end of the chamber, how much they have heard of the minister's explanation of this item and of the discussion that has been going on at this end. I remember the time when I sat at the far end of the chamber. There were ten of us in that little group and there were days when we never heard one thing in regard to the estimates that were being considered. All we knew about them was what we read the next day in Hansard. I realize the very great disadvantage under which hon. members are placed in that end of the chamber. At the time I refer to we used to ask the minister to move further down as a concession when he was putting through his estimates, and I think it would be wise if the same thing were done now, because I am sure that hon. members at the lower end cannot hear well enough' to, be able to enter properly into the discussion of questions before the committee.
I should like to know the views of those hon. members.
Mr. GOULD. Reverting to the tower, who possesses the original plans of that part of the building?


John Warwick King: In the original drawings submitted of this building there is given an outline of the structure together with certain plans. But I am advised that the working plans have been developed from month to month as the work proceeded, and the working plans of the tower are not in the hands of the department. I am not sure whether they have been fully developed yet, but they will be as Mr. Pearson proceeds, if he does proceed.


Mr. GOULD:: It is some years now since picture postcards were sold around this city purporting to illustrate this building as it will

be when completed. I have looked at these post cards closely and they correspond with the building so far as it has been constructed. I presume that the photographs were taken from some plan, and I thought that possibly there might be two plans, one of the mam building and another of the tower. There has been some discussion around the city during the past two months in regard to some rumoured change in the plan of the tower, and I should like to know whether it is contemplated to have chimes placed in the tower on its completion.


John Warwick King: Of course, we have the original draft of plan showing the elevation, and in addition to that models have been prepared which I have no doubt were photographed, as my hon, friend says. But these would not constitute the complete or detailed plan. The working plans that are required are not in the department.


Henry Lumley Drayton: There is one thing the minister can do for hon. members and it will not cost anyone a cent, while it will make for much more livable conditions in this chamber. I wonder whether the minister has ever gone down to see the kind of ventilation we have in this building and the tremendous amount of pipes, fans, and othei apparatus which, if kept in operation, would give us an atmosphere not quite so humid and stuffy as we usually have here. Instead of spending money I think the minister should see to it that, by the simple process of exercising some common sense in ventilation, conditions were improved in the building. Hon. members have been told that the ventilation was being looked after, and that there were fans all round the walls, in addition to an exhaust draft, and so forth. In fact, we were given to understand that the whole atmospheric contents of this chamber could be emptied in either two or five minutes. If that is the fact, why is not this humid atmosphere emptied sometimes?


Mr. CAHILL:: It is cold air?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Cold air, I hope.


John Warwick King: I am advised that the artificial ventilation of the building is up-to-date in every particular and that the air can be changed and renewed immediately. But I am also informed that the ordinary method of ventilation by the opening of windows and the artificial systew of ventilation cannot be carried out simultaneously. You have to depend on one or the other.


Henry Lumley Drayton: At present we are depending on nothing.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: If that is the case, the matter is one that should be inquired into. The apparatus that has been provided for the purpose of ventilating the chamber should be utilized, and if it is not we will make inquiries.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I have no doubt the minister has a pretty good idea when a room is stuffy. Does he think that the air in this chamber is as it should be?


John Warwick King: Sometimes I hardly think so.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I see there is
835,000	for cut stone ornamentation. Is there any other item for this kind of ornamentation?


John Warwick King: That is the only item.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would seriously ask the minister if he thinks the country ought, even with this government, extravagant as it is, to spend 835,000 this year in ornamental stone carving.


John Warwick King: Personally I am not disposed to spend a great deal of money.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then why ask for it?


John Warwick King: There was very little carving done last year, and I do not think we shall do a great deal this year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If the minister does not want this money I would move that the item be reduced by 835,000.


John Warwick King: I explained to the committee that there was some carving that ought to be done this year in connection with the entrance to the main corridor and in the vicinity of the throne in the Senate. In view of the expenditure that has already been made on the building this work should be carried on at an early date, and I do not see the necessity for reducing the vote. If the money is not necessary we will not spend it, but in justice to the building as it stands to-day there is certain work that should be done, and the amount suggested here by the estimate clerk is not large. I am not of the opinion, however, that it will all be expended.


William Alves Boys: It seems to me that the original estimated cost of the building and the actual cost to date are so much at variance that we ought to have a fuller explanation from the minister as to how the difference came about. We are all aware that the committee of seven gentlemen in charge of the work was composed of some of the ablest men in the House on both sides of politics, as well as of gentlemen
from the Senate; and as the matter stands today it seems to reflect more or less on the work of that committee. I have not the details, but I remember distinctly that when the restoration of the building was first under contemplation it was said that the old walls would be utilized, and later it was decided to put on an extra storey. I asked the minister definitely whether the $5,000,000 estimated cost included the tearing down of walls and the putting up of new walls, in addition to the extra storey, and he said he thought it did.


Frank S. Cahill: Who was the minister at that time?


William Alves Boys: I am not criticizing any minister.


Frank S. Cahill: No, but I am asking for information.


William Alves Boys: At this moment I cannot recall, but I suppose it was the Hon. Robert Rogers, although I am not positive. But it makes no difference who it was, he was one of the seven. There can be no doubt that any changes that were decided upon were first investigated by the architect and submitted to the committee, and in the end, I believe, received its endorsation. I am aware that the Postmaster General (Mr. Murphy) withdrew for some reason, but so far as I know the other members of the committee were unanimous in regard to the changes made from time to time. I think it is due the House that a full explanation should be given by the minister as to exactly what was under contemplation when the estimate of $5,000,000 was given, and how it was that the figure rose from that sum to 810,000,000. The minister has been quite fair. He has pointed out that a considerable proportion of the increase was due to increased cost of material and labour, but I hardly think that this would account for the whole increase, and I am sure the House will be interested to get a fuller explanation of the matter.


John Warwick King: A few moments ago I gave briefly some of the information my hon. friend is now requesting. But so that the committee may have fuller information I would read from this report:
Mr. John A. Pearson, architect, Toronto, Ontario, and Mr. J. O. Marchand, architect, Montreal, Que., were instructed by Hon. Mr. Rogers, then Minister of Public Works, to report on the condition of the ruins of the parliament buildings as they stood after the fire, and the report of these architects was presented to the Minister of Public Works on the 17th February, 1916.
The architects stated that the ruins of the building as it stood represented in labour and materials an
Supply-Public Works

asset of $2,000,000. This estimate with the architect's
detail is as follows:
The new west wing	 $ 425,000
The library building valued at	 650,000
The boiler room, heating plant in basement and chimney stack, all of which would represent a value of about	 1,000,000
I find my impression was right when I said at first that I thought the value was between one and two million dollars.
Messrs. Pearson and Marchand were instructed to prepare sketch plans for the reconstruction of the parliament buildings. These were submitted to the committee, and after discussion it was considered advisable in rebuilding the structure to provide greater accommodation than existed in the old building. The architects were requested to prepare sketch plans showing an additional storey.
There was an additional storey.
Mr. Pearson submitted these plans at a subsequent meeting of the reconstruction committee and pointed out in discussing them that the addition of another storey would necessitate the taking down of the upper storey of the building, also the main tower. The committee carefully considered the matter and it was finally decided to add the extra storey to the building.
The plans for the layout of the building were submitted to the members of the Senate and House of Commons on two or three occasions, and it was explained to them that in order to carry out the scheme it was necessary to tear down the recently erected west wing and all the walls standing north and in the rear of the external south walls and the east and west pavilions; this was in order that the two chambers, the Senate and House of Commons, might be placed at the extreme east and west ends respectively of the new building so that they would have outside light. It was also decided, in order to reduce the danger from fire, to make the building as fireproof as possible and remove the boilers and heating plant to a central heating station outside of the building.
A report from the architects, dated July 29, 1916, was subsequently submitted to the committee dealing with the reasons for demolishing the walls of the old Parliament Buildings which were left standing after the fire; the architect explaining that several sketch plans were prepared in an endeavour to have the Commons chamber within the area of the block so as to retain the west wing, but it was impossible to get a properly balanced plan and the idea had ultimately to be discarded as the architects were convinced that no satisfactory scheme could be arrived at by endeavouring to tack the building on the west wing. They further stated that no portion of the walls above the foundation of the west wing could be used. The foundations of the remaining portion of the south or front wall were built of inferior masonry and the architects considered it better to tear out this masonry, and the wisdom of this decision was proved when they discovered stretches of the wall in the centre had been built of dry rubble.
I think that gives a fairly clear explanation of what led up to the destruction of the old walls.


William Alves Boys: Is the minister reading from the minutes of the committee?


John Warwick King: No.


William Alves Boys: Were minutes kept?
fMr. J. H. King.]


John Warwick King: It is a summary from the minutes of the committee as prepared by the estimate clerk for the information of the committee. I think it covers everything pretty fully. This report was made in July, 1916, after the old walls had beer taken down, and the estimate of the new building was fixed at $5,000,000.


William Alves Boys: Do the minutes show what members of the committee were present when that was agreed upon, and whether or not there were any dissenting voices?


John Warwick King: I have not the minutes of the committee. Of course, they are very extensive, many meetings having been held. I am not sure whether the minutes would show that information, but I have no doubt they would confirm what I have stated to the committee.


William Alves Boys: It would seem to me in view certainly of the implied, if not actual, criticism that it is important to know whether the committee was unanimous, or whether this work was forced on, so to speak, by a majority of the committee against the views of the other members. If so I have never heard of it, and I have been a member of the House for all these years.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Did the members of the reconstruction committee receive any remuneration besides their indemnities?


John Warwick King: No.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Were they supposed to stay on the job all the year round and look after this work at their own expense?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Then it looks to me as if the reconstruction committee were not expected to exercise very much supervision over the building of this structure the year round, and this impression is strengthened by the discussion we have had. In fact the architects and contractors were left largely to themselves. Due to the fact that the contract was on a cost plus basis and that no very close supervision was exercised by the reconstruction committee, the government or anyone else in authority except the architects, it is my candid opinion that herein lies the reason for the very high cost of construction. I am not blaming the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). I think he has had a very undesirable legacy bequeathed to him. I do not know just where to place the blame, but I think this committee should know where the fault lies, because already the country has spent more money than should have been spent for the value received.

supply-manc vv ui res
Therefore I think we should have some record of how often the committee met and what took place at the various meetings.


William Findlay Maclean: This House must take responsibility for what has been done. At various times information was presented to the House and the necessary money voted. Therefore the government of the day was more or less responsible, and as far as I can gather from the statement we have just listened to it is a substantially accurate summary of what took place. But we have the building on our hands and we must do something towards its completion. If the tower must be completed we will have to resume work on it If the several votes now before the committee would complete the tower and the Senate [DOT]Chamber, I think that is nearly all we ought to do at this stage. I would suggest that we should not neglect the improve-
10	p.m ment of the acoustic properties of this chamber,which improvement can be effected for a very small sum of money. If the building can be completed for the sum stated, and the House so decides, well- and good, but I certainly would not be in favour of increasing the vote beyond $500,000 at this stage. I think this House ought to take the responsibility of placing a limitation on any further sum to be spent to have the building, say, three-quarters completed at least, but without including any unnecessary items in such expenditure.


Oliver Robert Gould: This discussion as to the
difference between the initial estimates and the total amount which the building has cost up to the present time might well remind us of the old proverb of locking the stable door after the horse is stolen. It also seems to me that the committee that was appointed and acted under the supervision of the various ministers of Public Works should have remembered the old maxim that you may estimate the cost of a building in the most careful manner-and I think this applies not only to the large buildings in Ottawa, but to buildings in all other cities whether private or public buildings, large or small-but you will fin'd that the contractor usually adds one-fourth to the initial estimate which has been arrived at after careful consideration. I think that the committee which acted from time to time should have remembered that maxim, and then there would not have been the need for this expenditure, because the added cost of materials, the added cost of labour and so forth, would quickly account for the extra moneys this building has cost. I think it is unnecessary to discuss any further the difference between the initial estimate and the cost of the building up to the present time.


Arthur Meighen: I think it is important
that the House get no wrong impression on the question of responsibility. It is true the joint committee which had charge did not exercise day to day supervision over the conduct of the work. It never was constituted for that purpose. It was constituted to determine the general plan of the work, the scheme of construction, the method of construction, whether by contract, cost-plus or by any other method, and in general to see that men suitable to the House as a whole, Senate and Commons, were in charge of the execution of the work. There never was any estimate of $5,000,000 in the world for the House as it has been built. [DOT] That never was made. There was an estimate of $5,000,000 for what might be described as a portion of what we have to-day, but that would be based on the contemplation that it would be built on a contract basis. The committee decided against that, and my memory fails me very much if the committee did not decide unanimously that it would not be built by contract. There was some dispute, so far as my recollection goes, only on one point, as to whether or not the old walls and foundations should be used. There was not a party division even on that, but there was I think one member, possibly two, felt that we should not put on the extra storey and consequently might be able to use these walls. The better architectural opinion was .that we could not, and the committee decided not.
As to building by contract or not by contract, I am quite satisfied from memory that there was no division whatever. It is true it costs more not to build by contract, but a building such as this, not upon any particular model, a building in respect of which new problems arise in the course of its construction over the years and must be dealt with at the time, new decisions be made as to what is to be done here and there, it was decided that the construction of a building such as that could be better done and be a greater credit to the country if it were done on the cost-plus basis, though it was known it would undoubtedly cost far more.
The government adopted the policy of having a committee, of Senate and Commons, composed, I think, equally, with one majority only for the party in power at the time- otherwise equal of members of both sides. The decisions were made by that committee and the responsibility taken by them, and I do not know that there is anybody in the House to-day who is disposed to criticize those decis-

Supply-Public Works

ions. I know the building has cost a considerable sum, but when we compare it with the cost of other buildings of similar purpose and like character in the country, I am not sure it has gone beyond any of them when we have regard to the results that we have obtained. We have real results here for the expenditure made, results we never could have got had the committee come to another decision as to the method of construction and let the work by contract. So that we need not sit here with an air of superiority and feel that simple maxims were forgotten by the members of that committee. I venture to think that very full and ample consideration was given to all these things not only by members of the committee but by members of the House in that parliament, and taken all in all, when one considers the contingencies and exigencies that have to be met in the matter of a construction such as this, we have got through with it certainly without scandal of any kind great or small, and I think without any very great modicum of error.


William Alves Boys: I just want to make one other point sure, I think it was the member for Carle-ton, New Brunswick, who suggested that the extra cost was due to the cost-plus system being adopted. I think I understood the minister correctly when he said the contractors were paid eight per cent on the first four million and seven per cent on the balance, but not exceeding $5,000,000. If that be so they got nothing whatever for work done over $5,000,000, so in that case there is nothing left of the suggestion of the hon. member referred to. I just wanted to make sure I caught the minister correctly on that point.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Do I understand the minister to say that the contractor gets nothing for the work he did over a cost of $5,000,000, that he receives no remuneration for his work over that amount?


John Warwick King: There have been no payments made to the general contractor beyond the commission as set forth, eight per cent on the first four million and seven per cent on the balance up to five million. It is true the contractor does maintain that he is entitled to further consideration but to date there has been no payment made.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But he is claiming payment, and the government will eventually have to pay him on the whole cost at seven per cent will it not?


John Warwick King: In all probability there will have to be some payment. There has not been a settlement arrived at with the 
contractor, but he is claiming commissions and I would be inclined to think that a settlement probably will be arrived at. It has not been arrived at as yet.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The hon. member (Mr. Boys) would have us believe that the contractor will not be paid on the extra cost above $5,000,000. Will the minister say that the government is not going to pay the contractor anything for his work above $5,000,000?


William Alves Boys: I would like to interject one remark. What I said was that if I understood the minister correctly the contract did not entitle the contractor to anything beyond a $5,000,000 construction. I do not suppose the minister at this stage is going to judge the matter himself. That is for him and not for me, but I want to put myself right. All I said was that the remuneration of the contractor did not go beyond a cost of $5,000,000, if I understood the minister correctly.


John Warwick King: The contractor contracted to build a building which the architects estimated would cost $5,000,000. We do not have to go very far in this discussion because it has already been stated by a number of members of the committee who were in the old parliament that this is a different building. It is true it is a different building. There have been many changes which have added to the cost, I have no doubt. I know that the contractor is claiming an additional amount on the full work done.


Arthur Meighen: But does not the contract provide that these additional works shall be done by him and all be subject to the general limitation, that he gets so much up to I think it is two or three or four million, and then so much up to five million, but nothing beyond? In other words, is he not bound by the general limitation notwithstanding the fact that there were alterations in the building itself? The alterations were provided for in the contract.


John Warwick King: I am not going to argue the contractor's case here. I have a settlement probably to make with the contractor. The argument presented by the right hon. leader of the Opposition is one that would be maintained to a certain extent, but we are dealing with a fact, and we must deal with the facts as they appear. It was only a moment ago that my right hon. friend said that this building was not the building as originally designed. The contractor will make the same representations, I have no doubt, to the department. It is a claim that will be under consideration shortly.

Supply-Public Works


William Findlay Maclean: How much is it?


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The architect, I presume, was bound by a similar contract. He was to receive a certain percentage up to $5,000,000 and nothing above that.


John Warwick King: Supposedly.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: But he has been paid, or there is an agreement to pay him on the whole present cost of construction.


John Warwick King: I thought I made that plain. He is paid on the cost less $1,600,000 odd not allowed.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: He is being paid a commission on about $8,000,000 instead of $5,000,000, and it is more than probable that you will have to settle with the contractor in much the same way. So that while I have great respect for my hon. friend's opinion on most matters I object to his trying to convey the impression that the contractor is not going to get paid anything on extra work in excess of the $5,000,000. That is not a reasonable thing and I do not think there is any thought in the minds of anyone that he shall not receive something for that extra work.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not this matter subject to a written contract? Was there not a written contract entered into with the contractor at the start? If there was, unless that contract has been varied in some way, it seems to me it is a matter of the construction of the contract and the document should speak for itself?


John Warwick King: I have no doubt it will be claimed that the contract has been varied and varied very materially; that is shown by the expenditure. The committee realized that when they had Mr. Ewart and Mr. Sutherland assess the new features of the original plan and allowed the amount of $1,733,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was no written contract with the architect but if the contractor agreed to the changes and did not stipulate anything for commission I do not see any legal liability whatever. A moral liability there may be, but that is another question.


John Warwick King: The architects also were limited as to fees. It is true they did not sign a contract but in acknowledgement of a letter sent to them they wrote to the department accepting the conditions and the limitation of the fee.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: The architects?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I do not expect the minister to agree with what we say in this connection at all, but if he goes to his lawyer he will find that he ought to agree with it. There is a great deal of difference between the position of a man who writes a letter overlooking something which is contained in a formal communication and then repudiates it afterwards, and the position of a man who signs a sealed contract and whose action is bound within the four comers of that contract. The one would doubtless always maintain afterwards that he was not bound, while the other man continued to work under the contract. I think, however, we are, perhaps, getting a little bit away from this item. I wonder if my hon. friend does not want now to withdraw that $35,000. No? Then I am going to move in amendment that the item be reduced by $35,000, to the extent of that cut stone.


Edward Mortimer Macdonald: I do not know whether in the course of the discussion of this item the attention of the committee has been called to a very serious lack of proper accommodation for the housing and comfort of members of parliament which is evident in the construction of this building. Hon. gentlemen who have visited public buildings elsewhere, or who have been in other houses of parliament, have always found that a room was provided where members representing the different parties might meet together in conference and enjoy some of the good comradeship which every member realizes is one of the most interesting phases of parliamentary life no matter on what side he may sit. In the old parliament buildings the supporters of the government of the day had what was known as "Room .16," whilst the opposition had "Room 6." Opportunities were thus afforded of meeting the ministers, of meeting one another, of meeting gentlemen who came to Ottawa on public business, in addition to other advantages that accrue from gathering in such a common meeting place. I want to say that the gentlemen who composed the committee that had to do with the construction of this building apparently paid not the slightest attention to the provision of these rooms which I regard as absolutely essential to the carrying on of public business, as well as the ordinary business affairs of the members themselves. It would seem to me that the architect-and a very able and clever man he was, and he has given us an ornate building-ignored these
1728'
Supply-Public Works

considerations which gentlemen who have had an experience in parliamentary life regard as so essential. Not only that, but the members of the parliamentary committee in failing to make provision for such accommodation either * neglected their duty absolutely or, if they gave any thought to the matter at all, failed to insist upon the architect providing for these wants. I do not know whether it is yet possible, by some rearrangement, to have provision made for accommodation corresponding to the old time "Room 16" and "Room 6," but to me it seems the greatest possible anomaly that whenever anyone comes to visit an hon. member on business he can only be taken to the member's private room-which involves quite a journey and absence from the House-or be allowed to stand in the corridor. The consequence of the existing lack of suitable accommodation is that members are greatly inconvenienced; there is no common meeting place where hon. gentlemen composing the respective parties in the House can meet together or to which they can take their business or political friends. We have spent a tremendous amount of money on this building, and we have a very ornate structure, but the building is entirely lacking in those facilities which are so essential to the proper discharge of the functions of the members of parliament. Everyone who has visited Westminster knows of the facilities of the character of which I have spoken to be found there, and I would like to draw the attention of the minister to those facts and to state that while it is a serious proposition to suggest the tearing down or renovating of such a fine building as this is, some attention ought to be paid to the provision of accommodation of the character I have described.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Start by cutting out this $35,000 in the matter of the cut stone.
Amendment (Sir Henry Drayton) negatived.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: I would ask the minister if it is not possible to have some more satisfactory system of lighting the offices on the sixth storey in the front part of the building. Hon. gentlemen who have offices there find it is necessary to have recourse to electric lights even in the day time. I do not know whether the committee or the architects are responsible for this defective system of lighting, but it is to be deplored that we should have to turn on the electric lights in order to carry on our work in the day time. Such a system is far from satisfactory; the conditions are very hard to work under. We have the worst lights in the

rooms which need light most. These lights should be replaced, in order to make the rooms liveable at all, by the inverted lights which are used in the other rooms and which do not need them at all in the day time. I cannot understand why it was necessary to put the small windows along the front of the building, if the rooms were intended to be used for offices, because it is certainly a disgraceful thing to have such poor lighting, or rather the lack of lighting, in rooms of that kind. I recognize that it would be very difficult at this stage to enlarge these windows, but surely we can have electric light fixtures there which would give us lights which would not ruin our eyes.


John Warwick King: This is the first occasion on which I have heard complaint of the lighting. I will be very glad to have an examination made of the rooms my hon. friend speaks of, and if artificial lighting can be secured we will have it.


William Garland McQuarrie: These are not the only rooms; other rooms are in the same position. The matter has been under investigation for some time, because I have been complaining about it; the requisition was put in for proper light and was headed off. This investigation does not do us much good. If the minister will see that the matter is looked into, I think he will provide proper lights for these rooms.


Mr. BANCROFT:: While the minister is looking after the matter of better lighting on the sixth floor, I hope he will not overlook the lighting of the chamber. It is impossible to read in the day time on the back benches, and better lights should be provided.
Mr.'KING (Kootenay): That matter has been brought to our attention and will receive consideration. Apparently the achitect thought he was making sufficient provision.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The curtains
cause the trouble.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: In speaking of the
members' rooms on the upper floors, I wish to remind the minister that there is no ventilation, except when the windows are thrown open, and that creates a draft through the room which is very injurious to health. If windows were made which could be let down from the ,top, we could have some ventilation and the drafts would not strike us so badly. The conditions spoken of by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) applies to the fifth as well as the sixth floor, especially the roonoT next to the Library. I have a good-sized room with a

Supply-Public Works
deep recess in it, and there is just a little light in the centre of the room. The room is poorly lighted and the ventilation is worse than no good, because the whole window swings on a hinge, and you have to open it to let the air in.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I am afraid there is a whole lot of trouble ahead of the minister. First he is told the building is too ornate, then he is told the building is not ornate enough, and then my hon. friend for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell) says the light in his room is not good enough, and the government should provide a better system of ventilation. I think the trouble is not so much with" the building as with the use to which the building is put. I think that is the real trouble. I do not know what has become of all the rooms. When we were in power- and we had a good many more members on that side of the House than they have now- we were able to accommodate the members of the opposition. We were able to see that ex-ministers and others who had business to look after were given rooms they could work in, so that they would not have to work with borrowed lights. That is all over now, and we are fitted up with artificial lights. But it is the same building, and there are far fewer gentlemen on the other side of the chamber than there were under the old administration, and they are not becoming any more numerous either. They will not have to provide a brand new first-class room for the member who is coming from Moose Jaw. We had good rooms before, and what the hon member for Pictou (Mr. Macdonald) said is perfectly true. We had rooms for the members on the government side, and we gave the members of the opposition first-class rooms in the fourth storey. The opposition of to-day does not get that accommodation. Oh no, we are put in the cellar now-the cellar on the one hand and the garret on the other-and we are not grumbling an awful lot.
Mr. FIELDING*: You are on the ground floor.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, we are getting nearer.


William Garland McQuarrie: It seems to me that the members who have to spend the greater part of their time in their rooms, the ones who come from a distance, are given the worst rooms in the building. I think those who require to remain in Ottawa over the week end, and who have to be in their rooms so much, should have the best rooms in the building, whereas, as a matter of fact, we get
the worst rooms, and the members from Ontario and Quebec, some of whom are not in their rooms very much, have the good ones. I think there might reasonably be some different arrangement made.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Before the item carries, I should like to call the attention of the minister to the inadequate provision for the friends of private members on the government side in the gallery. Wfe have very little provision made for the friends and relatives of the private members in the galleries, and a great deal more space than I think is necessary is devoted to those members of the other House who occasionally look in upon our labours. More space is also devoted to the Speaker's gallery than necessary. I think the private members' gallery should be extended 20 or 30 feet to the north, and the Speaker's gallery and the Senate gallery cut down somewhat. There is really not enough room for the private members' families in the members' gallery. I did not complain of our position when we were on the opposition side. At that time we bore with equanimity, courage and fortitude all these things and made no complaints. We had a large gallery, where those who admired us might sit and watch us in the successful effort we made to obtain power and assume the reins of government. But now that we have obtained the sunny side of power, we find that those who like to look at us and listen to our debates are cramped, confined and cabined in very small space. This is a matter of real importance to private members on this side of the House. I have dealt with it in a light way in order that I may receive the attention of the House, but it is a serious question and the present arrangement is unfair to the private members on this side of the House.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa, new departmental building, $500,000.
Mr. BEL  AND@: I beg to move that the item No. 141, "Ottawa, new departmental building, $500,000" be struck out.


Arthur Meighen: The minister might explain how the government Came to make that blunder.


John Warwick King: No blunder was
made. The matter of the new departmental building was carefully and seriously considered by the government. Anyone who is familiar with the manner in which the various departments of the government are scattered about the city of Ottawa, and anyone who has business with the various departments will realise
Supply-Public Works

that it is desirable that some of these departments, at least, should be housed in a better condition than they are to-day. It was, however, finally decided that it was not opportune this year to undertake a construction of that character, although, through inadvertence, the item appeared in the estimates. No mistake was made.


Arthur Meighen: I do not quite get the reasoning. The government decided to build the building because it was far better to have the various departments housed in a government building, and the government decided that they would not do that this year. And no mistake was made. In which decision was no mistake made? In the decision to build, or in the decision not to build?


John Warwick King: I think my explanation was quite satisfactory.


William Stevens Fielding: I think I shall have to take the responsibility of striking this out. The construction of this building was proposed at one stage by the Department of Public Works, and after further discussion it was decided that the item should be stricken out. My right hon. friend (Mr. Meighen) knows the difficulties that arise in the clerical work of preparing the estimates, and in this work the clerks neglected to pay attention to this item. I am responsible for this. If there is a blunder, I am the guilty man.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Ottawa, addition to Dominion Archives building, $150,000.
Arthur Meighen: This is an entirely new item, and we should have an explanation of it.


John Warwick King: I am very glad to give an explanation. The matter of further building for housing the archives is important and urgent, and if members will make themselves familiar with conditions that exist today, they will realise the necessity. In fact, in 1912, the government of that day considered that it was necessary to construct an addition to the Archives building in order that public records might be stored with safety. A commission was appointed which reported on the plan and the form of addition that should be made, and an estimate of $50,000 was then placed in the Estimates. I think this was repeated in 1915. Since the years 1914 and 1915, many valuable records have been and are in the possession of the government and of the people of Canada, and there should be no tendency on the part of the government to neglect the proper storage or housing of these valuable records. It is the intention of the

government to make an addition to the present Archives building.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I think there was a plan or a scheme for the extension of the Archives building, on a system of additional units to be constructed every few years. Is this appropriation to construct one of these units, or is it for a new building?


John Warwick King: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa Printing bureau-new building, $500,000.
Mr. BELAND:: I beg to move that this item of $500,000 for Ottawa Printing bureau, new building, be reduced by the sum of $350,-
000.


John Warwick King: When the matter was originally considered by the government, an amount of $500,000 was placed in the estimates as the sum that would be required and that could be expended during the coming year. At that time, it was thought that investigations and information necessary to be secured in order that proper plans and a proper building might be developed could be secured in time for plans and arrangements to be made for construction. There have, however, been unavoidable delays; we have not been able to proceed as rapidly as we would like, and I, in consultation with the architect, have been advised that a sum of $150,000 will be sufficient for this year's expenditure in the matter of constructing a new Printing bureau.
As regards the necessity for a new Printing bureau, the present building was constructed some thirty-six years ago. It does not lend itself to the proper installation and equipment of what would be considered as an up-to-date Printing bureau, such as the government would require. Apparently, there has been a necessity for enlargement for printing purposes, because we find that during the last four or five years a very large sum of money has been expended on that building constructed some thirty-six years ago. I believe some $111,000 have been expended since 1919 in additions and changes to the building, in an endeavour to make it adaptable for Printing bureau purposes. In addition to that, the department found it necessary to rent, outside of the present premises, very considerable space, and they find a very considerable expenditure is required in the matter of trucking back and forth

Supply-Public Works
from storehouses and rented space in other portions of the city. We are advised by the Printing bureau officials that a properly constructed bureau with proper equipment would make a very large saving to the people of the country, and after this matter was gone into thoroughly, it was considered good economy by the government to undertake the construction of a new Printing bureau, it also being intended to utilize the present building for departmental purposes. It will be possible, probably, to utilize this building, after it is vacated by the printing establishment, for the Statistical branch, a very large branch of the service that, I am informed, is to-day housed in some temporary buildings on Vittoria street. The matter has been carefully considered, and it is the intention of the government to proceed with the construction of a proper printing establishment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Can the minister give us some details? He gives us some general information. It is quite true that some money was spent on the building and many rearrangements were made as h result of the report of the Civil Service Commission, which rearrangement resulted in very large savings being made at that plant. At that time, as a result of the reorganization, the staff was largely reduced; it is to-day largely reduced, and large economies have already been effected. Will the government promise further similar resulting economies if this building is put up? What is the real reason for building it? The staff is now considerably smaller than it was before, for hon. gentlemen's predecessors cut down the cost of administration by over half a million.


James Murdock: My hon. friend referred to the money that had been expended in making additions to that building during the past few jmars. I think the exact figure is about $195,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister gave $110,000.


James Murdock: The additions, I am told, amount to $150,000. There have, as my hon. friend suggests, been great reductions in the staff in the past few ymars affecting some 400 or more employees. For example, there have been, I believe, about 61 retirements, most of which have been in the nature of a reduction of staff, the positions not having been filled. I believe it will be possible to continue to reduce the staff by future retirements and have a Printing bureau reasonably modern and up-to-date, obviating the duplication of effort back and forth, as is now necessary. It is
believed that if this were done substantial reductions could be made. Then the floor space of the present Printing bureau is worth, on a rental basis, about $95,000 a year, possibly for some other branch of the public service, as has been suggested. In the matter of storage and the truckage of supplies back and forth between the two or three storage houses which the bureau now has to rent, this storage should all be within the Printing bureau itself, so as to avoid this unnecessary expense.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where are these storage houses that are referred to?


James Murdock: They are scattered within three or four blocks of the Printing bureau. One of the storage houses is the old Hawkes-bury building near the Archives. The building, of course, belongs to the government and it requires certain expenditures for fuel, light and janitor. It is an out-of-date building and the supplies cannot be kept in proper shape in it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is kept
there?


James Murdock: Many publications that may or may not be required immediately or in the near future. We have, I think, two other storage buildings about three blocks from the Printing bureau, entailing an upkeep for watchmen and truckage.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What is stored in those other two?


James Murdock: Paper supplies, and binding and other materials of various kinds used in the bureau, for which there is not room down there, and which are carried on hand for the use of the various departments.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What area have we now for storage purposes in the existing bureau, and how many weeks' supplies can we carry there? It seems to me that this was all gone into two or three years ago, and my recollection is that there is enough room in the existing bureau to look after necessary supplies for a reasonable length of time. 1 think there is room for such supplies as any commercial man would have on hand.


James Murdock: My information is that that is not the case and that there is not sufficient room for many of the supplies that are carried. As a matter of fact, not very long ago there was considerable pressure brought to bear for the renting of additional storage space and for some rearrangement at the Printing bureau. We are carrying on with just the

Supply-Public Works

rented outside space and the Printing bureau somewhat rearranged.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If new buildings are to be built simply because pressure is brought to bear on the minister, then there would be no vacant land left for buildings if the minister remained in the department long enough. I want to know what the real facts are. I do not want to be told that this or that interest, or this or that person wants the minister to rent a building or to have a new building put up. I want to know what area of storage is available and how much material can be carried in that storage space for maximum operations during any given period. I want the business end of the matter.


James Murdock: There is rented an area of 40,000 square feet outside. The space in the Printing bureau is entirely insufficient, as my hon. friend would readily admit if he took a look at it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I was not asking what space was rented outside. I want to know what space there is in the building and what supplies can be carried in that space.


James Murdock: I do not think that information could be accurately given. When you come to determine what supplies are necessary in order to carry on, you have to assume that supplies when ordered will come forward promptly, and my hon. friend knows well enough, with his railway experience, that you cannot figure on any such thing, but that you have to store sufficiently in advance so as to be sure to have on hand the stocks of paper and binding material and everything else that may be necessary. As my hon. friend knows, the various departments of the government, when they have printing to do, place their orders with the bureau and the stocks have to be secured to fill those orders. Those stocks have to be kept in a proper place until they can be used, and my hon. friend can readily convince himself that there is no spare storage space in the existing bureau if he will take the trouble to-morrow morning to go there and look the place over. If he cares to go I shall be glad to accompany him.


Frank S. Cahill: What time?


James Murdock: Any time.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What quantities of material, such as paper, are ordered? What quantities do you take delivery of? What is your contract?


James Murdock: That would depend entirely on what the order might be. Quite fre-

quently you have to call for tenders for 10, 15 or 20 tons or more at a time, according to the orders that come from the various departments. The Printing bureau does not send out these orders for material until the various departments indicate their desire to have certain printing done. When they require such printing done they present their order to the bureau and the necessary material has to be purchased.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that the committee might as well make up its mind to vote the whole half million with the information it has before it. We are simply invited to instruct the government to go ahead and spend the $150,000 on the building. Why, the minister himself will tell us that $150,000 is a mere flea bite. I do not think he will guarantee for one moment to get us a site and build a new Printing bureau for half a million dollars. This is one of the most vicious features we have in connection with government matters-the commencement of works without any proper information, without any reliable estimate of cost, without anyone being responsible if the estimate is exceeded. We are merely invited to give a blank cheque for a new Printing bureau. The committee sees how much information we have. The amendment helps just a little bit, but so far as the Treasury is concerned it does not save one single dollar, for just as much money will be spent as may be required, and every member of the government knows it. Surely we can get something definite before we are asked to vote this money? Surely the minister will tell us exactly how much he is going to spend before he asks us to pass this vote? And surely we are entitled to a little more definite information as to the real necessity of this work at the present time.


John Warwick King: I thought I had made myself clear in my first statement, that we have an old building erected some thirty-six years ago and no longer suitable for present day equipment used in the printing trade, and that for some four or five years extensive additions have been made to this old building at an expenditure which I would be inclined to consider was wasted. We had the alternative this year of making another addition to this old building, which we did not think would be a wise expenditure, or consider the advisability of utilizing it for departmental purposes and providing a new building for the Printing bureau. The bureau is an important branch of the government service and requires a very large expenditure each year, and it is essential if its work

Supply-Public TForfcs
is to be carried on economically and efficiently that proper equipment and adequate buildings should be provided. We are advised by the bureau people that they are to-day operating under serious difficulties. In fact, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Murdock) stated this afternoon, it was found last year unsafe to run one of the heavy machines on the third floor and it was brought down to the ground floor. Then again we find high pressure boilers for the operation of the machinery placed in the centre of one of these wings. The great heat from these boilers makes it uncomfortable for those working in this section of the building, and the fire hazard must also be taken into account. Under all the circumstances I think we are quite right in advising parliament at this time not to expend further money on the old building, but to construct a new building for the Printing bureau and utilize the present building for some other departmental purposes. That is the explanation I tried to make in the first place. I think it is sound.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Let us see how far we have got. I am going to ask my friend the first thing that one would naturally want to know when requested to undertake a new work-how much will the completed work cost? We have not had the slightest suggestion yet as to that.


John Warwick King: I explained to my hon. friend that it was hoped when the original item of $500,000 was put in the estimates that we would have complete details and plans and be ready to go ahead. We have not been able to develop those details, and therefore I have asked the committee to reduce the estimate to $150,000. I am advised that the building will cost in the vicinity of $500,000 at least, but the whole matter is to be worked out in detail before any expenditure is made.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The explanation is simply that the minister cannot tell us. He does not know, and he gives his excuse for not knowing.


John Warwick King: A very sound excuse, too.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what the minister thinks. It seems to me that he might have had his work in hand and been ready with full particulars before asking parliament to vute this sum. What is the floor area of the present building, and of the projected building?


John Warwick King: It is proposed to make a careful survey of buildings of the character of an up-to-date Printing bureau. That survey is to be made jointly by a representative from the bureau and the architect of the department. We have not been able to make this survey to date, and that is why I am asking that the estimate be reduced. Nothing will be undertaken until full details are supplied.


Henry Lumley Drayton: If that is the case there is no reason why this item should not be struck out.


William Findlay Maclean: Is the department now able to do all the government printing work, or is some of it being done outside?


John Warwick King: I am not sure.


William Findlay Maclean: We ought to have that information.


James Murdock: Practically all of the government printing is done in the Printing bureau. There have been-


Arthur Meighen: Exceptions.


James Murdock: -some slight exceptions- not so many as a short time ago.


Mr. BAXTER:: I heard the minister say the old building would be used for other purposes. We ought to know definitely what department he intends to accommodate there so that we may judge as to the suitability of the building for the purpose. '


John Warwick King: In my original statement 1 said it was considered that the building would be very suitable for the Statistical branch. This branch has a large staff, ordinarily about three hundred, and during the census operations the number runs up to some six or seven hundred. I am advised by the Architect's branch that suitable accommodation could be provided for them in the old building.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Where are they housed now?


John Warwick King: On Bank and Vit-toria in some temporary buildings.


William Alves Boys: I suppose there is no question that once we pass this item we are irretrievably committed to an ultimate expenditure of $500,000 or more?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Two million dollars practically.


Arthur Meighen: It might be anything.


William Alves Boys: That being so, I am prompted to put another inquiry. When the item stood at $500,000 was that for the complete building or only for partial construction?

Supply-Public, Works


John Warwick King: 
William Alves Boys: 
John Warwick King: I think so.


William Alves Boys: As it is not really essential at the present time to undertake this work, could not the item stand until next year?


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I presume the minister has informed himself, but I think this committee ought to have information as to the cost of rented buildings in the city of Ottawa upon a floor space basis as a comparison with similar figures for buildings constructed by the Dominion government, taking into account the interest on the cost, and the upkeep, including repairs and everything else, so that we may see whether it is more or less expensive to own buildings or to rent them. While personally I would rather favour the idea of the government owning and controlling the necessary buildings for the public service, still I have understood that the same thing obtains in Ottawa that obtains in other cities throughout Canada, and it is that the investments made by owners are not very profitable in the larger buildings, and that it will cost the government more annually to meet the interest charge and the upkeep of a building constructed for a specific purpose than to rent equal space in privately-owned buildings. I do not know which is correct, but I do think before we are asked to pass upon any such project we ought to have some information of that character. So far it seems to me to be just a little bit nebulous. The minister has told us that an architect is to consult with some one who will know the requirements of the Printing bureau. We do not seem to know the area to be covered nor the floor space that is requisite. It is very difficult to see how upon such a slender footing you can

make an estimate of $500,000 or any other sum, and feel that it is even tolerably within the limits of accuracy. It may be, but I must say it is rather a nebulous proposition.
To avoid the necessity of speaking again, I would like to suggest this on the broader view of the question. If economy is worth anything it ought to begin here, and this government, this parliament, ought to try to set the example of getting along under existing, conditions rather than incurring expenditure at . a time when it seems to be simply impossible to make the annual revenue commensurate with the annual expenditure. Now if we start with that proposition I should think we would have very little of new building for some years. We have just heard a criticism in the House to-night as to the result with regard to this building in which we are. It may be that the criticism is not well directed, but there seems to be in the committee a feeling of dissatisfaction that the cost had so largely exceeded the amount that was predicted. Surely that must have come to some extent from the very practice that the minister, and I give him all credit for good intentions, is introducing tonight of embarking upon construction without first having a rigid analysis of the cost.
Might I suggest this, that the Dominion government at all times is doing too much printing, and that to contract the Printing bureau instead of expanding it would be decidedly in the interests of the country. There are tons of printed matter distributed to this House and distributed throughout the country that no one ever reads, and if we went so far in my judgment, which may not concur with that of other members of the House, as to bring about the suppression of Hansard itself, I think the country would not be much worse off. I must say I do not see any great benefit in recording what people have said when it seems to be one of the criteria of latter day politics that no one is bound to stick to anything he has said in the past. Against this expenditure which produces nothing for the country is the absolute need in every great harbour of Canada for the expenditure not merely of one hundred thousand or five hundred thousand dollars but millions of dollars, in order to promote the trade that is vital and necessary to this country if we are to keep the people within it and give them something to live for. I do not mind enlarging the capital debt for something that will promote the trade of the country even if it does seem to be running into extravagance. Why cannot we stop these things that are not vitally necessary, these tilings that do not produce any results until we have caught up with the things that are

Supply-Public Works
necessary from a business standpoint? I would ask the minister, because I believe he is a man of sound intentions and fair judgment and wants to do the best he can, under the circumstances to fairly consider the wisdom of dropping this item and all items of this class until we have met these other expenditures that the country needs to a vastly greater extent.


John Warwick King: It is true that our rentals of ordinary office space show a cheaper cost than in buildings owned and operated by the government but a building suitable for a printing bureau could not, I think, be rented in the city of Ottawa. I do not think you could find that type of building here. It is a building which is required for a specific purpose and my information, my advice, my inquiries lead me to believe we would be well advised in constructing a building for this purpose rather than trying to make additions to the old building which we are now occupying. We think it better business to provide this building, that it will be real economy in the end, and that is the reason why we are asking for this appropriation.


Arthur Meighen: My suggestion to the minister is that we abandon the item; abandon any plans for additions to the present Printing bureau and the estimates for a new building. For the life of me I do not know why the government is starting to build another printing bureau now. I thought that pressure for everything that was needed, or for everything that was not needed, came on the late government, but I cannot recall any pressure for a printing bureau. I cannot recall any demand for that at all, and it seems a strange thing to me that it has been discussed now; that the one new thing we want in this country is a new printing bureau. Why are the additions required? Of course we could use them. There is some storage required at times for stationery, and if that stationery was at the bureau it would be a little handier. That is all correct, but it is no ground for embarking on an expenditure that is going to run to a million dollars.


John Warwick King: Oh no.


Arthur Meighen: Oh, pshaw. The minister has got to get ground, unless he is going to come down here on Wellington street, and I venture to say he is not. He is going to erect a building of the dimensions of the present bureau or larger. Will he tell me that the present building did not cost a million dollars, and erected at a time when building was far cheaper than it is now? I have
never had the figures, but I venture to say that building has cost close to a million dollars. Once we pass this item the minister can enter into a contract for the erection of a building of the present dimensions or larger. When that is done he will have paid a million out. Then he has to take his old building and reconstruct it virtually from top to bottom, because as it stands to-day it is valueless as a departmental building; the walls are there, it is true, but the whole of the interior would have to be reconstructed. He is launching on a new building at the present time because he has been informed that the present structure is not suitable for a modern printing bureau. Does the minister mean to suggest that the need or call for a new bureau compares at all with the need of scores of farmers of this country who are drawing grain for sixty miles to get it to a railway station? The grading of the railway which is to provide them with means of transportation has been done but the government cannot provide the money to put down the rails. Let the minister get along with the building he has. We do not need a building to-day as much as we needed it years ago; we have fewer employees. I have a statement in front of me which shows that the annual pay of those employees, notwithstanding the increased wages we are paying out to-day, is something like $526,000 less than in previous years. We have some 460 less employees, if I understood the Minister of Labour aright, than we had before. Now if we have fewer employees and less expenditure to provide for, owing to the reorganization effected by the late government, why is it, with all that done, we have got to-cast the whole thing away and erect a new building? The minister, I think, should abandon the item and abandon the project. Let us go on with the Printing bureau that we have, let us hold to the saving we have made, and let us possibly present some case to those in other parts of the Dominion who have to be denied improvements that are necessary for productive purposes on the score of economy.


James Murdock: There is one very important reason for the proposal to build a new Printing bureau that has not yet been referred to. I was in hopes that it would not be necessary to allude to it but it seems that it is. I would like very much if my hon. friends opposite who have so eloquently talked against the building of a reasonably modern, safe and up-to-date Printing bureau would go down to that bureau and verify whether what I am going to state is warranted by the facts
Supply-Public Works

or not. I do not possess special knowledge with respect to printing bureaux but I regard the present building as being absolutely unsuitable for the employees under present conditions having regard to the location of the heating plant. When I was first placed in charge of the Printing bureau and went down to look at the situation and examined the location of the heating plant, what did I find? It is located in the centre of the bureau, the structure has been built around it, so that in the rooms above the heat in the summertime is unbearable while the risk from fire, and possible misadventure, at all times, seems to me to be beyond question. I frankly state that I have been anticipating, month, after month, some unfortunate occurrence to happen down there, with possibly great loss of life.
If there should be any such occurrence, under the conditions which now exist, would we save money in view of the fact that 675 or 725 employees would be thrown on our hands to be supported by the government while they were out of work. Then the fact of the heavy machinery in the bureau has been touched upon. I do not know that the building conforms to the requirements of the Ontario Factory Law; I am afraid that instead of being held to conform to the provincial statute it would be regarded as entirely unsafe. As to the aspect of this proposition from a financial standpoint, the committee have not yet been told that we pay out in rent of buildings in the city of Ottawa every year the sum of $626,000; that we pay for the upkeep of these buildings-for char service, heating and lighting and so on-$275,000, or a total of $901,000 a year for these purposes. Yet the proposition to build a $500,000 modern, up-to-date, printing plant, constructed so that the heaviest machinery could be utilized and operated without undue vibration, is subjected to criticism. This is a business proposition, if I know anything about it. I certainly would like hon. members who are opposed to the vote for this purpose to go down and inspect the situation for themselves and then come back and say whether this proposition is not a practical and businesslike one. I do not regard the conditions under which em- [DOT] ployees in the Printing bureau are working as being safe, and I think we are fortunate indeed that untoward occurrences have not happened before this.


Arthur Meighen: I do not, know why there should have been any hesitation in stating that the building is dangerous from a fire standpoint if that is the real reason for the government's action. I really do not know

what the government were afraid of in concealing that fact and only bringing it out at the last minute. But let us consider the argument presented from that standpoint. It has not been shown that any great change is needed now from what has existed for thirty-six years at all events for several years. I have not heard this fire peril advanced before.


James Murdock: Will my right hon. friend pardon me? He probably is aware that in very recent years an additional wing has been built right over the boiler. That is a material change which affects the situation.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: Where should the boiler be put? Not on top of the building.


James Murdock: You usually have the boiler in a spot where you will not encounter improper hazards.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: The boiler is in the cellar generally.


Arthur Meighen: Sometimes you do, but
certainly it is not the rule by any means. Suppose the building is turned into a departmental building, what about the employees that are going to be put into it? The minister's intention is to take the government employees from some other sphere and hive them in this building, and the boiler-will still be under the building. The boiler will not be moved out.


John Warwick King: There is a difference. These boilers are used for power purposes; they are under high pressure. The old heating boiler would be a low pressure boiler, which is quite different.


Arthur Meighen: Does the minister mean there is danger of the boiler bursting because of the high pressure?


John Warwick King: The boilers are
under high pressure and high fires all the time.


Arthur Meighen: I presume thfey are built for that. I understood the danger to be that there was something above, and in case of fire starting below it would quickly spread. That danger will exist just the same if the building is of the other kind. It may be there will be less fire on. It seems to me it is drawing the line pretty fine. If there is danger of the boilers bursting, then they were not built for the purpose for which they are being used. If there is danger from fire, there is just as much danger if it is heated as a departmental building as there would be in the other case. The minister says it is going to pay, because now we are paying out some $600,000 rentals and $200,000 odd for lighting and charring in the

Supply-Public Works
rented buildings. Well why not pay it out? After we have built this building, will we not have to light it the same as in the other case? Do we not get along more cheaply when we rent these buildings? Is not the reason he is erecting this building the fact that there is not a building he can rent which is suitable for the purpose? I have not the least doubt at all-and I have gone very carefully into some of the comparisons-that we cannot erect buildings and maintain them as cheaply as we can rent, save under very exceptional conditions of renting, and at the present time in this city there are liable to be more buildings in the market to rent, and there are to-day more buildings to rent, than there have been for some years. The government is in position to get cheaper rentals, if only it will exercise the opportunities at hand. The government can get cheaper rentals than we have had for some time, and while we are in tha't position, when we should be contracting rather than expanding departments, needing less year by year, we are launching upon a building programme, and we are asked to give a cheque for a building which is going to run to $1,000,-
000.	It ought to be possible to obviate any special fire peril in this building. If there is any special fire peril I do not want the bureau employees or any other employees to be subject to it. It should be possible to obviate this peril, without abandoning the thing after 36 years, merely because we are told that by reason of the boiler being underneath there is some special danger to the occupants.


Mr. WHITE:: In view of the statement made by the Mininster of Labour (Mr. Murdock) I would like to know if this bureau was not subject to the inspection of the factory inspector, and if'the boilers are not regularly inspected by the inspectors of the insurance companies, and whether any complaint or any condemnation has been made in either case.


James Murdock: I do not know whether any inspection has been made. I think not, and I do not want to convey the impression that the boilers are not safe. I do not know as to that. It is the location and the general way in which the wing has been built over, and the number of years that have elapsed since some of the work has been done and added to, that makes the structure, particularly in the centre, appear to me to be entirely unsafe and as though we might expect something serious to happen.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: What is the matter with taking a recess, getting the architects and the chief of the Printing bureau and all the other necessary persons together, and coming back
next session with a definite knowledge of what is the matter with the old building? The doubts of the Minister of Labour will be relieved by that time, and he can find out whether there is really a peril or not. We can have a plan made for a building, and know exactly what its floor space, height and cost will be, as accurately as any of these estimates can be made, and then parliament will be furnished with the information it should be asked to pass upon. I do not see there will be very much economy in time by putting the estimate through now, as all these things will have to be done, or I presume they will be done, before the government enters upon the construction of the building. It is only a question whether we will pass the estimate after the government has the information or before. I think perhaps the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) might enlighten me a little more as to what they are going to do with the old building? Are they going to put the old Bureau in the Senate?
Amendment (Mr. Beland) agreed to.


Arthur Meighen: I move that the item be further reduced by $150,000.


William Stevens Fielding: One suggestion on the part of hon. members opposite impressed me, and that is that this building will cost $1,000,-
000.	The leader of the Opposition suggested the old building cost $2,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: No.


William Stevens Fielding: I thought he said it probably cost $2,000,000.


Arthur Meighen: No, $1,000,000.


William Stevens Fielding: I think if this building is going to cost $1,000,000,	before
we go on with it the minister should come back to parliament and inform us. I think the request that we should know what a building is going to cost before we enter upon its construction is a reasonable one. I have been impressed with the representations as to the urgent need of the building, and if we are going to do anything this appropriation of S150,000 is not too much to make a beginning. If the minister finds on investigation that the building is going to cost about $1,000,000, I think he should not go on with it, but that he should stop operations, and come back and lay his plans before the House. Subject to that, I think the appropriation might properly pass.


George Newcombe Gordon: This is a direct vote against the item, because it will reduce it tr. nothing.
Supply-Public Works


Arthur Meighen: That, is what I intended.


George Newcombe Gordon: I do not know that the hon. member can move to reduce the whole item to nothing. He can move to reduce it by a certain sum.


Oliver Robert Gould: Listening to the remark of the Minister of Labour, I was impressed with the thought that, seeing that he had gone down and, in his judgment, proved the building to be unworthy and unsafe, he might have followed up that idea by getting an engineer to investigate and make a report, and submit that report to the House. It seems to me that it would be more authentic, and we would have more to go on, if an engineer would submit a report and state that the building was unsafe or that portions of it were unsafe, and it would not in any way depreciate the ideas or the sentiments of the Minister of Labour. It seems to me the committee here has a right, if buildings are alleged to be unsafe, to have reports from some competent authority in regard to them.


John Warwick King: I do not think there should be any idea in the minds of members of the committee that these boilers which are high pressure boilers under steam are not being properly inspected and taken care of. I have no doubt examinations are being made from time to time to see that they are in proper condition. But as regards even boilers that are looked after, things happen at times, and nobody will undertake for a moment to say that a high-pressure boiler should be under a building in which six or seven hundred people are employed. There is not only the danger that might happen of explosions which are more or less remote, but which, through neglect or some other cause, occur at times, but a very considerable danger from fire. Boilers carrying steam are usually fired to produce the heat required for the generation of steam in quantities, a much greater heat than one finds required in low-pressure boilers for heating purposes, and there is a real risk there, a risk that I do not believe the employees in the Printing bureau should be subject to. They were not originally subject to this, but they have been more recently on account of additions that have been built around this boiler, which at one time was outside of the building. That is a phase of the question that has been brought to the attention of the committee, and I think in fairness to the employees of the Printing bureau, proper inspection should be made from time to time. There is an increased fire risk and some danger that explosions from that boiler might occur, although the latter danger is remote.

The suggestion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) is quite in accord with my view. I have assured the committee that it is the intention of the department that the Architect's branch and representatives from the bureau will devote considerable time to informing themselves as to what will constitute a proper building for printing purposes, one that will be of service to the government. They will then proceed to design plans and to submit plans to the government. If after careful inquiry, we find that this is going to commit us to a larger expenditure than the original expenditure suggested I have no objection, in fact, I will advise that the matter be stayed over until the House is consulted next session. But I think it is necessary for us to make some progress in the matter. Let us make the investigation; let us have the plans. If necessary, let us secure the site, although I do not. think that will be necessary because the government owns a considerable amount of property, and I believe we can find a location for the plant. Let us go ahead, however, with the reduced appropriation of $150,000, and if it is found by the officials, after careful consideration, that this expenditure is to exceed the estimate as originally placed in the estimates, I will advise that the government hold the matter up and that parliament be consulted next year. In the meantime, I would like that this vote should receive the sanction of parliament.


Arthur Meighen: On the undertaking of the minister that if, after the plans are fully provided, they know what the cost is to be of the land and of the building, and if they find that that is likely to be over $500,000, then he will not proceed to make any expenditure, I am prepared to withdraw the amendment. The result will be just the same.
Amendment (Mr. Meighen) withdrawn.
Item as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Fielding, the House adjourned at 11.35 p.m.
Wednesday, April 11, 1923