1926-06-11

ADMISSION TO CANADA

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. H. C. HOCKEN (Toronto West Centre):: I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) and in doing so to read an extract from a magazine called The American Mercury, published in Boston and edited by H. L. Mencken. In an editorial of the issue for June the following reflection will be found:
The average Englishman is a dull fellow and seldom shows any enterprise, but he knows how to follow leaders who have what he lacks, and he did it to immense effect for many centuries. But to-day, it must be obvious, there are few leaders for him to follow, and most of the few are pathetically fourth rate. It would be a sheer impossibility to imagine Palmerston or Disraeli swindled and made a spectacle of as Austen Chamberlain was at Geneva. It would be equally impossible to imagine the England of the great days following such dubs as Baldwin, Asquith and Winston Churchill-half of them fanatics and the other half rogues. The one English statesman who has shown any genuine skill at his trade for a generation past is Lloyd George, a petty attorney from a Welsh country town-the sort of fellow who, a century ago, would have served his country by sitting to Dickens or Thackeray, not by bossing the state. Nor has luck run with the Motherland on the next 'higher level. The amiable George V is so plainly a blob that alluding to the fact becomes a sort of cruelty, and his heir, searching the empire for a horse that won't throw him, becomes simply a comic character, even to the English. More and more they miss the waspish but hard-headed Victoria, and on blue days they miss dear Albert too.
I would ask the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin) if that kind of magazine is to be allowed to enter the Dominion of Canada.

Welland Canal Vote


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Customs is not in his seat, but I can assure my hon. friend that the minister will be as anxious as he is to avoid a casus belli or improper reflections in any way. I am sure he will look into the magazine and consider carefully whether its articles are of such a character as should cause it to be prohibited.



STRAWBERRY IMPORTATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JAMES STEEDSMAN (Souris):: I
would ask the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Customs (Mr. Boivin), if before applying any dumping duty to strawberries entering this country an inquiry will be made into the retail price at which strawberries are selling in the prairie provinces. I am informed on reliable authority that strawberries are selling retail in Manitoba at $7.75 per crate of 24 quarts. What I want to know is will the officers of the department be instructed to make an inquiry into this matter before any action is taken with regard to the dumping duty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my hon. friend may assume that his request in that particular will be met.



WELLAND CANAL VOTE-$14,000,000

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
desire to direct to the ministry a question based on an incident that occurred in this House on June 9. As Your Honour will remember, we had just passed the Hudson Bay vote, and there was some confusion, some noise in the chamber, when the next item was called, whidh happened to be the item - of $14,000,000 for the Welland canal. I very distinctly heard the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) say: "If you will allow me to get the Hudson Bay material into this envelope, and to draw the Welland canal materia!' out of another envelope, we will proceed," or words to that effect. I assumed, and so did many of my colleagues, that the minister was about to make a statement with regard to the item, but it appears that the Welland canal item carried quickly without any statement having been made. I desire to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals and the government if they would consent to the restoration of that item for the purpose of allowing the minister to make an explanation of that $14,000,000 vote.


Mr. MALCOLM McLEAN (Metfort):: Mr. Speaker, it had been my intention to make the same request of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning), but as it has been preferred by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland), I shall simply endorse his request.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I am of course in the hands of the House in regard to the matter. I was quite ready to proceed to give any information desired by members of the committee with respect to the Welland canal item, but from all quarters of the House came cries of "Carried. ' and I thought the item was carried. In addition to that, another item dealing with the Welland canal was called, and I believe carried also. But if there is an opportunity under the rules of the House again to get into a position where I can give any information which any hon. member desires with regard to the Welland canal, I shall be happy to do so. I do not know how under the rules the matter may be revived, but I have certainly no objection to giving the information.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would ask again whether the minister would place on Hansard an explanation with regard to this vote. The House is entitled to the information. The item only carried, I am convinced, on a misunderstanding. The minister, we assumed, was going to make a statement, but that statement was not made.


Mr. DUNNING:: I am not just positive how a matter of this kind can be dealt with under the rules, but on the next occasion when the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals come up for consideration in committee of Supply, I shall be pleased, with the consent- of the House, to give the information, and in that way it can go on Hansard, as welt as any discussion relating to it. I merely want to assure my hon. friends that I have no intention of avoiding a discussion with regard to the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS- YOUNG-PRINCE ALBERT BRANCH LINE

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to read part of the fallowing telegram from Prince Albert, and ask a question concerning it:
Understand that board of trade here have sent a resolution to Otta-wa favouring the handing over of the Grand Trunk Pacific line from Young to Prince
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

Allbert to tihe Canadian Pacific Railway. Believe that this would be the biggest steal of public property ever yet pulled off.	*
The telegram goes on:
This action of the Canadian Pacific Railway will supplement the action of last year when the people's railway was debarred from the Nipawin country, thus losing an enormous amount of revenue, and if the Canadian Pacific Railway get the established line referred to, the chances of the Canadian National Railway to gain greater success will receive a severe setback in this part of the country.
H. D. Davis,
Alderman and Chairman Western Lines B.R.C. of A.
May I ask if the government has received such a request from the Board of Trade of Prince Albert, and further, whether there is any intention of turning over this branch line to the Canadian Pacific.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As the member for
Prince Albert, I might say to my hon. friend that if there were anything really serious in the message he has received, a message from the Board of Trade would have been sent to me. I have received nothing from that source, nor so far as I am aware has the government.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The part of the
telegram I omitted to read, thinking it irrevelant, contained the information that a similar message had been sent to the Prime Minister.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I am sorry,
Mr. Speaker, that whoever sent that message to my hon. friend found it necessary to make that assertion, for up to the present time I have not received such a message, but no doubt it is on its way.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Perhaps I should say a word in reply to my hon. friend's question. There has been some talk in the vicinity of Prince Albert as to the desirability-


Mr. RVCKMAN:: Who is the member for Prince Albert?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am replying, as Minister of Railways, to a'question relating to the possible disposal of a portion of the Canadian National system. If my hon. friend thinks I am out of order in doing so, I shall be pleased to sit down.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to
have an answer from the Minister of Railways.


Charles Avery Dunning: There has been some
talk among the people of Prince Albert, and possibly among responsible bodies in that
IM r. Woods worth. ]
city, regarding the desirability of having the Canadian Pacific Railway enter that city. The Canadian National Railway at the present time has two roads running north into the city of Prince Albert, one the former Canadian Northern line, and the other the former Grand Trunk Pacific line.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Cut one out.


Charles Avery Dunning: Well, there is territory
to be served by both. They are both necessary to serve the people of the areas through which they pass; no one who knows the country will doubt that. I have been led to believe, as Minister of Railways, that the citizens of Prince Albert generally would welcome some such arrangement in order to get what they believe to be the benefits of competition. The telegram which my hon. friend read is a duplicate of one which reached me this morning, and is the first evidence of any dissension in that regard in that city that I have received.
With regard to the question itself, I may say that no sale has been made. Proposals were made, I am given to understand, by the Canadian Pacific Railway to the Canadian National Railway in connection with the matter and were declined by the Canadian National some time ago.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT, 1915

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of Bill No. 115, to amend the Special War Revenue Act, 1915.
Mr. LAWRENCE A. WILSON (Vaudreuil-Soulanges) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker. I
would ask my colleagues of the French language to bear once more with me, while I express myself in the language of the majority of this House, in order to make a few remarks in connection with the bill at present before the House.
Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of making some suggestions to the Minister of Finance. I shall be very cautious this time. When I made my maiden speech the other day I had had no acquaintance with Hansard. I find that the debates reporters are not only very capable stenographers, expert stenographers, but are really photographers because I think that every move I made on the occasion referred to was noted in Hansard.
Mr. MANION:: Was your speech illustrated?


Mr. WILSON (Vaudreuil-Soulanges):: It
was rather in the nature of a cartoon. My purpose in rising on the present occasion is to help the Minister of Finance to increase the

Special War Revenue Act
revenue and thereby reduce taxation. I have the pretension to think that if my suggestions are accepted by the House they will result in increasing the revenue of this country by $20,000,000 per annum.


Sir HENRY DRAYTON:: Hear, hear.


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: distilleries at 46 and 50 degrees under proof, given a preference over the imported of $6.20 and $8 per case respectively.
Is it fair to the Canadian government and to the people? No other country in the world has such an anomaly. To my mind the government should enact a law that no liquor in bottles, imported or domestic, should be allowed to be bottled or sold less than 25 degrees under proof and, in order to protect our distillers, the government should increase the customs duty to $2 per gallon, and leave the excise as it is at present. The government would reap a much larger revenue from both the foreign and Canadian distilleries and, at the same time, protect our home industries, which is only right, but, conditionally, that the strength be as indicated.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I come to that wonderful two-year law-a standing joke for many, many years. The excise law states that Canadian spirits must be kept in bond for maturing purposes at least two years before being offered for sale, but it fails to state that the spirits must be aged in oak or wooden casks. This is the little joker and the laughing stock of the foreign distillers or those who know. The great bulk of spirits, actually over 10,000.000 gallons, held in bond by the Canadian distilleries is kept in huge copper tanks or steel barrels where no perceptible evaporation is possible.


Mr. POULIOT (Translation):: Would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: With pleasure. Mr. POULIOT (Translation): On what date was the order in council just mentioned passed?


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: That order in council dates back to Alexander Mackenzie's time. It is very, very old.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It has whiskers.


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: I must say, in justice, that I know of some distilleries that do age a portion of their output in wood, I have seen hundreds of barrels in Messrs. Walkers' warehouse, and I hope they reserve a fair portion for their friends in Canada.
Spirits cannot improve in copper tanks-


Henry Lumley Drayton: Hear, hear.


Mr. CHAPLIN (Lincoln):: How about
human tanks?


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: Well, we pour it down the sewer. Spirits cannot improve in copper tanks any more than whiskey can improve in bottles, even if kept a hundred years. In

these receptacles there is consequently no evaporation of fusel-oil and such whiskey should not be permitted for consumption.
Notwithstanding this, the law allows these distilleries 17 per cent for evaporation of spirits in copper tanks, namely, 4 per cent the first year; 3 per cent the second year; 2 per cent the third year; 2 per cent the fourth year and 1 per cent per year from the fifth to the tenth year, which equals 17 per cent allowance for supposed shrinkage, but when the spirits are kept in wood, an allowance of 33 per cent is made for the same period of time. This conclusively proves that the evaporation or shrinkage is considerably more in wood than in copper tanks.
In Great Britain, whiskey must be kept for three years in oak or wooden casks before being released for home consumption, but the foreign distilleries in Great Britain, France, Holland or any other country can export their new, raw material, made yesterday, and that is the "rotgut" we frequently receive. It is true that a recent order in council requires that foreign spirits should be at least two years old, but where is the proof? And, moreover, the order in council does not state it must be aged in wood; certainly not the gin from Holland or England that arrives here as colourless as the day it came out of the still, whereas if it had been stored in wood it would have been straw or amber colour.
I would also draw attention, Mr. Speaker, to the many false representations on the bottles, flasks and other packages of goods coming into this country, and would advise the government to adopt the English law in that respect. No bottle of brandy can enter England without an official stamp stating that it is distilled from pure grape wine, and it is not surprising that England has on her bonded docks the finest wines and liquors in the world.
I have been familiar with the Customs and Excise department, now merged into one, for nearly half a century, and I have a very high appreciation of the standing of the deputy ministers and other officials in those departments. I am not speaking of the ministers themselves because they never remain long enough. To-day we Lave excellent officials, and I am sure they would welcome an order in council, providing that excise stamps, affixed to bottles, should show clearly whether the contents have been aged in wood or in copper tanks, with the date of bottling as well as age and strength. I have no doubt these gentlemen will assist me in making my suggestions more concete, so as to offer the gov-

Special War Revenue Act
eminent a bill that will be satisfactory to all concerned.
Let us build up the same reputation for our goods as they have done in Great Britain and, at the same time, increase our revenue. This would decrease bootlegging and moonshine stuff, as the people would insist upon having the article certified by the government, and would refuse the concoctions as we would refuse a counterfeit bank note.
With reference to recent smuggling of liquor into the United States via Canada, owing to prohibition in the United States,
I believe this could be remedied to the satisfaction of the English, American and Canadian governments. In this connection, liquor has been imported consigned to a bonded warehouse in Canada, then export papers have been obtained to tranship these good'

to St. Pierre and Miquelon, Mexico, Japan or the Sandwich islands. These goods, as has been clearly proven in the customs probe, never reach their supposed destination, but are landed in transit on the American side. This can easily be prevented by the Customs department, of which the hon. Mr. Boivin is now the vigilant head, by not allowing any transhipment of foreign liquors in bond after having been warehoused at any port of entry in the Dominion. Duty would then have to be paid upon such consignments and the government would derive a larger revenue.
It is easy to understand, Mr. Speaker, that no foreign shipper would consign goods to Montreal or Toronto if they were purchased by a legitimate dealer in New York, Chicago, New Orleans or San Francisco. This would not prevent shipment through Canada from the other side to another country', on a through bill of lading, and would therefore not deprive transportation companies of freight charges upon such shipments.
I will not dwell upon the question of wine at any length. I might say, however, that wine should never be classed with spirits. Spirits are distilled and wine is made from the natural fermentation of the grape. I would suggest, however, that no wine, either foreign or native, should be allowed to be sold if manufactured from dried raisins with sugar and alcohol added. The governments of Portugal, Spain. France and Germany have very strict regulations regarding the sale of wines for consumption in their countries. There is nothing more pleasant or healthful than pure wine with a lovely bouquet, developed only by the evaporation of ethers, and the combination of the natural spirit with the succinic, tartaric, tannic, citric and malic acids contained in the wine. The colouring is formed in the grape skin during its ripening, by the action of the sun and soil. But I will leave this to another occasion.
In conclusion I wish to assure my prohibition and temperance friends, if there are any in this House, that I have no desire to interfere with their opinions concerning the liquor traffic. I respect the views of every man on that question, but I would remind them, if they allow me, that liquor is absolutely necesary in certain cases. I might tell hon. members about a certain town in Nevada where they have the most stringent prohibition law ever enacted. One provision of the law is that no person can purchase a drop of liquor unless he has been bitten by a snake, and the certificate which he has to obtain from the medical practitioner of the town must be endorsed by the mayor and three aldermen. One day a traveller arrived at the hotel in the town and said, "'I must have a drop of brandy or I will die." The hotel man said: "You cannot get any liquor in this place unless you are bitten by a snake." Where are the snakes? "They are up in the mountain yonder." The poor man wended his way up the mountain with about a hundred pilgrims ahead of him, but when he reached the summit the snake was too tired and it refused to bite. It is a terrible thing to be deprived of liquor under those conditions. Only the other day a man was knocked unconscious at the corner of 42nd street and Fifth avenue, New York. He happened to have a flask in his hip pocket. On the way to the Bellevue hospital in the ambulance the poor man came to and he felt something trickling down his leg. He exclaimed: "Great Scott, I hope it's blood."
I have the honour which very few other hon. members have had of seeing Sir John A. Macdonald in this House as well as his successors. I was quite a young man, but we all liked Sir John and I think he liked me. I have seen all his successors, Sir John Thompson, Sir Charles Tupper, Sir Robert Borden, my right hon. friend, Mr. Meighen, and now my dear friend, Mr. Mackenzie King. I do not see any reason why I should not disclose this secret if it is a secret. I am sorry Hansard is here for part of my remarks. In 1896 I came to Ottawa and sat in the council chamber where I saw Mr. Fielding, Mr. Davies, Mr. Blair, Mr. Paterson, Sir Henry Joly de Lotbiniere and Mr. Sifton. I came with the very proposition that I am bringing before the House to-day and they thought well of it.
I have been an agent for distilleries for some years and I think a good deal of our
43G8
Special War Revenue Act

distillers. There are no better citizens than our distillers; but they have made millions and as I told some of the representatives of the distillers who are here to-day, I think that owing to our great war debt these gentlemen should give us a piece of the melon. I do not think it would be any hardship for them to agree that, outside of the changes I suggested, we should get a share of the profits. I do not know how that could be worked out, but it would be a good thing. As lion, members know, during the war there was a time of great uncertainty whether they should continue operations. There are hon. members who remember quite well when there was total prohibition and prevention of the manufacture of spirits in this country and there was a time when the distillers had cold feet. If they were to give this country a share of their profits we would be copartners in their business; there would be a better feeling throughout the country, and there would be for the distillers more stability, which should exist as it does in all other countries. Otherwise, if you raise the two year law that I referred to a few minutes ago, you might have many distilleries cropping up throughout Canada as has occurred in Scotland, France and other countries.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: What limit would the hon. gentleman put upon their profits?


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: That is a
difficult question to answer. I do not know, but from what I know of the profits of the last fifty years which of course they have not on hand, but which have been handed down from father to son, I think they could give something. Hon. members know of the wealth of the large distilleries, such as the Corby's and the Seagram's. They certainly deserve it because they made better spirits than the American people did and they made a reputation in Canada for their product. They are valuable citizens; they give employment to large numbers of people and so on. This is a very delicate question because these gentlemen are good friends of mine; but I think they should do their share toward reducing our debt, and I am sure the leaders of the different parties in this House would look upon a project of that sort with some favour if there is still going to be distillation and sale.
In conclusion, let me refer to another source of revenue which I believe could be developed. I believe that our millionaire philanthropists in Canada should, while they are still living, do a little more than they ire doing for the welfare of their country

or their home cities or towns. Our Canadians are very charitable; in their wills they leave large amounts for hospitals and homes of different kinds. If they did that during their lifetime it would be more to their credit; they would see what they were doing, and it would help this country enormously. If a man who has an income of $200,000 or $300,000 a year gives $50,000 out of it, he is giving practically nothing if you take into consideration the income tax and the succession tax in Quebec. If a man is worth a million dollars he has to pay $60,000 in succession tax which the province gets. If while he is living he devotes some of his revenue to the public good he is doing something for the welfare of his country. Unfortunately, men who are wrapped up in business are not in the habit of handing out their money; they always think there is going to be a lean year or rainy day. It is only when they are dying that they see a different horizon and their outlook becomes broader. That is a question which these millionaires who are hoarding their capita! should consider.
I may not have the honour of being very long in this House and this may be my last utterance. I feel that I could be easily replaced by a man who could do more for the country. But before I resign I must take this occasion to thank all hon. members for their kindly attitude toward me and for making me feel at home and comfortable. If I leave the House I shall have great pleasure in saying how well I was received by my friends from Ontario and the eastern and western provinces who understood my particular temperament and were kind and charitable.
Before resuming my seat I wish to take the House into my confidence in connection with a little dream I had the other night. We dream here a good deal. I dreamed that I died in Ottawa. I thought I was a senator and consequently I thought I was dead. I dreamed that I had left $100,000 to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), $100,000 to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), and $100,000 to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rofob). It was stipulated in the will that they should each put into my coffin $1,000 to show that they had confidence in me and respected my word. This would prove that they believed I had the wherewithal to meet the provision of the will. Well, while lying there I saw the Prime Minister come along gaily and deposit $1,000 in fresh bills.


Mr. STEVENS:: Or a promissory note?

Supply-Public Works


Lawrence Alexander Wilson: And the leader of the opposition put in his SI.000 in gold. The Minister of Finance afterwards came up to the coffin, took out his cheque book and his fountain pen, wrote out a cheque for $3,000, laid it on my chest, took out the $2,000 in bills and gold-and went to Huntingdon.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Public Works-Maritime provinces generally-Dominion public buildings, $43,000.
Mr. ROGERS:: The minister might explain this item briefly.


Hon. J. H. KING (Kootenay, Minister of Public Works):: This is required for improvements, repairs and renewals in connection with public buildings in Nova Scotia. New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island including the cities of Halifax and St. John for which in previous years special appropriations were asked. In 1925-216, $42,997 was spent. It is an annual vote.


Robert Rogers: For ordinary repairs?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. HANSON:: I was not here when vote 133 was under discussion. If the minister would be good enough to give me the information I should like to know what will be the probable cost of the new post office at Chipman. I am anxious to get some information also with regard to the post office at Moncton.


John Warwick King: The item was
passed some days ago but I am glad to give the hon. gentleman the information. We are asking for $5,000 to complete the construction of the building at Chipman. A contract was entered into and out of the appropriation of $10,000 for 19215-26 $8,000 3 p.m. was spent, $7,500 being on the contract and $500 for the purchase of the site. An unexpended balance of $2,000 is being re-voted this year. The fixtures for the post office have been contracted for and are now being placed. For these fixtures six tenders were received, ranging from $945 to $1,576. The lowest tender of $945. from the Office Specialty Company, was accepted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not so much concerned about the fixtures. What was the total cost of the structure including the site?


John Warwick King: The contract was for $8,445.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What about the building at Moncton? For a good many years the people there have been asking for a post office. Business men, boards of trade and other public bodies have been requesting the government to put up a new post office at a point east of the subway so-called, and notwithstanding the preference as to location indicated by these people the government bought a very expensive site from one of its own friends, the McManus Company. For that site they paid $40,000. The property is still occupied by the McManus people at a rental of $10 a month. A site costing $40,000 is being rented to the original vendor or a member of the family at the handsome sum of $40 a month, and no move has yet been made by the government to build the post office. Is this delay due to the opposition that has developed from the business men of Moncton, and if so is it the intention to abandon the proposed site? What does the minister intend to do about the matter, and why has nothing been done so far towards erecting the building? I believe this is a political deal made to suit the purposes of a valiant supporter of the government. The price paid was excessive, being nearly double the amount of the assessed valuation of the site, which is wholly unsuitable from the standpoint of the business people of Moncton, and the whole transaction has a very unsavoury smell. We ought to know something about it.


John Warwick King: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend full information on the subject. I absolutely resent his remarks. It is true that at the last session parliament did vote moneys for the purchase of a post office site in Moncton. Several sites were suggested. Those in the down-town section were carefully appraised as were also the proposed sites above the subway. The site my hon. friend speaks of was considered by the appraisers, by departmental officials and by myself-because I made an inspection- as the proper site for a post office building in Moncton. The price is a reasonable one and is confirmed by the assessors and by departmental officials. I am not prepared to say whether it suited the business community, but we had in mind other people than those with property to sell in the business section. We had petitions from people in the downtown section and from residents of Moncton, one for and one against the downtown location. If any gentlemen familiar with Moncton will, when arriving there by train, pass
Supply-Public Works

from the station across to the property owned by the government they will confirm my judgment and that of the officials of the department. This was a proper purchase and is an ideal spot for a public building in Moncton.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If that is so, why have not the government constructed the building? Is it because Moncton voted against the government on October 29 last? Why is the building rented for the absurd sum of $40 a month? That is not an adequate rental for a building costing over $40,000. I would like to tell the committee that this was a residential property not in the business district, although it is on a continuation of the main street. I venture to say that the preponderance of opinion as evidenced by public bodies, and not by individuals having private interests to serve, has been against this site from the very beginning. But this property was purchased from one of the members of the New Brunswick legislature who supported the late government there, and so far as I can observe that is the only reason for the purchase. I ask why the building has not been proceeded with.


John Warwick King: The property was bought because it was the proper site for a public building. The price was fair, but the criticism of my hon. friend is not fair.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister tell
me why construction is not being proceeded with?


John Warwick King: Yes. A large sum is required, and the matter is under consideration as to whether it is now opportune for us to proceed with the construction.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public 'Works-Dominion public buildings-Improvements, repairs, et cetera, $102,000.
Robert Rogers: This amount is a re-vote
from last year, is it not? Where is that amount to be spent?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required for maintenance and repairs in connection with public buildings in Quebec, including those in Montreal which in previous years were carried under a special appropriation. Last year there was expended $101,990 from this vote, for the usual repairs and upkeep of 'buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Maisonneuve-public buildings, $50,000.
Robert Rogers: What is this amount for?


John Warwick King: It is the purpose
of the department to purchase a property there

from the municipality. Maisonneuve has now become part of Montreal and they have no use for this public building, which has been examined by the officials and reported upon as a very suitable building for postal purposes. It is the intention of the government to secure this property from the municipality for that purpose.


Robert Rogers: Just a few years ago we
built a splendid post office there. Is there any necessity for another?


John Warwick King: The government
bought a site at that time but a building was never constructed. I understand that site has been used by the municipality for a market place. It is proposed under this arrangement to take over from the municipality this municipal building, and exchange the site formerly bought for post office purposes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Montreal-Ordnance stores building, $24 550.
Robert Rogers: What is this amount for?


John Warwick King: This amount is
the sixth payment on the Grant garage on Hillside avenue, Westmount, under an order in council dated April 16, 1921. There is interest due and other items, making a total of $24,533, and the vote is for $24,550. This building was formerly called the Grant garage and is being used to house ordnance and garage stores. The premises were secured by the government in 1921 and are being paid for by jrnarly payments.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Montreal general post cffiee-reorganization, $50,000.
Robert Rogers: That is a very large item for improvements or reorganization. Surely they could get along with less.


Mr. MacLAREN:: What is a postal station? Is that a post office?


John Warwick King: Yes. This amount is required for a reorganization of t'he interior arrangements of the Montreal post office in order to provide improved facilities for the handling of mail. This is requested by the Postmaster General's department; it is a departmental matter and is carried as such.


Robert Rogers: It seems to be a very large amount.


John Warwick King: Yes, but of course there is a large service at Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works
Public Works-Toronto-Postal station "A"-mechni-cal equipment, $50,000.
Mr. POWER:: That is a very large item for Toronto.


Mr. HEAPS:: There are two items I would like to ask about.


Charles Gavan Power: I have already asked a question in regard to the vote for mechanical equipment at Toronto.


John Warwick King: This amount has been requested by the Post Office department to provide for the installation of mechanical equipment at postal station "A", Toronto, in order to handle the ever-increasing postal business there. This will effect a reduction in the operating expenses and will facilitate the despatch and delivery of mail. This amount is to be used in the establishment of a mechanical system for handling and forwarding parcel post; this class of mail matter at present is somewhat congested and requires relief. This is a recommendation and a request coming from the Post Office department to improve the facilities in Toronto for the handling of mail and parcel matter.


Robert Rogers: Is this all to be used in connection with tlhe head office in Toronto?


John Warwick King: This is for postal station A, the Union station.


Charles Gavan Power: With the installation of this mechanical equipment, will it be possible to do away with a large number of the employees at the post office in Toronto?


John Warwick King: I have not that knowledge; that comes within the Post Office department, 'but usually when mechanical improvements are installed it is with a view to increasing the facilities and improving the conditions.


Robert Rogers: I would point out that the post office at Toronto does a great deal more business than probably half the rest of the post offices in Canada put together.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Not more than
Montreal.


Robert Rogers: Oh yes, far more than
Montreal. There is no comparison at all.


Abraham Albert Heaps: There are two small items to which I wish to refer, the Hamilton armoury and the Niagara Falls armoury, in connection with which local improvement taxes are to be paid by the government. What is the policy of the government in this regard? Is the same practice followed in regard to similar buildings in other parts of Canada?


John Warwick King: Yes and no.
Usually in connection with local improvements adjoining public buildings, if the government is properly approached and the improvements are in conformity with the improvements being carried on by the citizens, a local improvement payment is made. Sometimes some municipalities make the improvements and then would assess the government of Canada. Municipalities who move in that way will have to take their chances as to whether they will receive favourable consideration or not. In some cases if the improvements are of such a nature that the department feels justified in compensating the municipality for those improvements, that is done. Usually I might say that in connection with sidewalk and street improvements adjoining public buildings, the government' contribute to the local improvements.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Am I to understand that
this is only a temporary charge for sidewalks and that sort of thing, or is this an annual fixed charge?


John Warwick King: This payment is
the government's share of the cost of sewerage and asphalt roadway on Robert street between James and John streets in the city of Hamilton. This is the cost complete; there are no carrying charges.


Mr. GEARY:: I am very glad to see that
the municipality of Hamilton is getting some return in the way of local improvement taxes. Is it the policy of the department to consider favourably all such requests, or is the policy of the department against giving consideration to requests of municipalities for payment of its proper share of local improvement taxes?


John Warwick King: I think that,
generaly speaking, local improvements in the vicinity of government property would be considered favourably by the department and by the government, providing that the municipality is carrying on similar improvements in the vicinity.


George Reginald Geary: I beg to call the attention
of the minister to a case in Toronto. It may be more convenient at a later date, but there is a case of hardship south of the armouries in Toronto.
Mr. McGI'BBON:	What is the total cost
of the building at Gravenhurst?


John Warwick King: The estimated
total cost is $27,496.
Mr. McGIB'BON:	Will that, complete the
building?
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: That will complete the building.


George Reginald Geary: My hon. friend from Quebec South had a keen eye and found $50,000 for postal station A, Toronto. I have been looking in vain for some appropriation for a custom house in Toronto. I do not know whether it is coming along in the supplementary estimates, but I should like very much to know if the minister would say that consideration will be given to that pressing need. It is a pressing need. It has been spoken of a great deal, and I am not going to give the figures and dates that have been placed before the House from time to time, but to the best of my recollection it must be fifteen years ago that the site for the new customs house in Toronto was purchased and the old custom house destroyed. Business, as I understand from commercial people, is suffering from a very great inconvenience; the inconvenience of doing work through the present custom house makes itself felt very widely throughout the commercial life of the city. This building has been a long time coming, and I should like to know if the minister has some project in mind.


John Warwick King: I quite agree
with my hon. friend that the necessities for an improved customs building in Toronto are great. If he will go back a few years he will remember that it was considered wise at that time to remove the building that was serving as a custom house. That building was taken down, and later the proposal to rebuild was abandoned. That was in the after the war period, and my hon. friend no doubt realizes that the difficulties that prevented his friends from moving have been, and are still, in the way of this government. The money necessary to provide the facilities that should be provided in the city of Toronto would run into a very considerable sum, and up to date the government has not felt that they were in a financial position to undertake the construction that would be required. But the matter has been and is receiving consideration, and undoubtedly better accommodation will have to be provided in the city of Toronto.


Mr. BIRD:: I wonder if the minister has
given further consideration to the desirability of rearranging the seating in this chamber. I think I am speaking for almost all of us who sit in this section of the House when I say that fully one-third, if not one-half, of the total transactions in this chamber are lost to those of us who sit in this part of the House. In view of the constant protests that have been made, and sincerely made, I think
TMr. McGibbon.]
the government ought to take into consideration the need of some rearrangement so that all members may take their part in the business of the House. In order to take one's proper share in what is going on, a considerable strain is involved on those who sat away from the treasury benches. I sincerely hope that the minister will give some thought to this matter. It may involve some considerable expense, but I think it would be money well spent if it means that it will give each and all an interest in the business of the House. I think that sometimes the sparse attendance in the House is very largely due to the fact of the strain imposed on some of us to attend to the business that is going on.


John Warwick King: In reply to my
hon. friend, I think all of us who have been in the House for some time realize that its acoustic properties are not as good as we would like. Hon. gentlemen, of course, must realize that this is a very large chamber with high ceilings. In addition to the doubtless inferior acoustic properties, conversation often occurs between members when an hon. gentleman is speaking, with the result that there is a certain amount of confusion and noise which would not be overcome even if the seats in the chamber were re-arranged. The suggestion has been advanced that the throne should be moved to a point just about opposite the clock, and that the chamber should be reconstructed in a semi-circular form with members confronting the chair. I had Professor Saunders, of Harvard, a well known authority on acoustics, make a careful examination of the chamber some two or three years ago but he did not suggest that this idea should be carried out. He recommended that to improve the acoustic properties of the chamber a carpet be laid, and that curtains and other sound-absorbing material be hung from the walls, in order to intercept noises or echoes. I think a marked improvement resulted from the work carried out as a result of his suggestion. An estimate was made as to the cost of re-arranging the chamber and if I remember rightly it ran to between forty and fifty thousand dollars. At that time, as hon. gentlemen will remember, there was some doubt in the minds of members as to whether the tower and other portions of the building should be completed. Under the circumstances I did not feel that we would be justified then in spending such a sum upon the re-arrangement of the chamber; and I think that before such a plan is seriously entertained we should get expert advice as to whether this chamber is one that would lend itself to such a re-arrange-

Supply-Public Works
ment. If the plan is reported against I am inclined to think that hon. members will have to continue to be subject to the existing conditions. This year a rather good line of procedure was followed in that the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition moved down one seat nearer the centre of the chamber. I think there would be further improvement if they moved their desks still further down. I am satisfied that both the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition would be happy to accommodate hon. members if it was their desire that this should be done. In any event I think very careful inquiry should be made before deciding upon any plan of reconstructing the chamber.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I endorse the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Nelson and I ask the minister this question: Does he not think the present government has been in power long enough to get a comprehensive report on this subject; or does he intend to let matters drift without doing anything to bring about an improvement? If anything can be done to improve the existing conditions, there ought to be no delay in carrying it out in the interest of members generally. I ask the minister if he intends getting a report on the subject from some competent authority?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
must have misunderstood me. I stated a moment ago that some two years since I had Professor Saunders report on the matter and I gave from memory the substance of his report. The document is now in the Department of Public Works and is available to hon. members if they wish to consult it.


Peter McGibbon: May I remind the minister that he closed his statement by saying that another report should be obtained?


John Warwick King: I sa"id that before adopting such a plan as had been suggested careful inquiry should be made of people who are versed in matters of the kind. Personally I would not like to undertake to pronounce an opinion that the chamber could be re-arranged in the manner suggested and still afford all the necessary advantages. If it is the wish of hon. gentlemen another inquiry could be made. At the same time I impress upon my hon. friends the fact that an inquiry has already been made and that the information in our possession is against the suggested change.


Thomas William Bird: Has the minister inquired into the utility of some kind of loud speaker such as is used in large halls for public meetings?


John Warwick King: That would necessitate every hon. gentleman taking a forum and speaking from there. Probably it would be an advantage if all hon. members would speak from some central point, in the chamber.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I have listened with a very great deal of interest to what the Minister of Public Works has said in reply to the suggestions for the improvement of this chamber. I am not in a position to say what improvement in the acoustic properties has resulted from the changes of which he has spoken, but I must state that for a very considerable number of members the existing conditions are almost intolerable. Personally I do not hear much more than one-half of what is said here. I will admit that my hearing is not as good as it was ten years ago but still it is just about as good as that of one-half of the members that sit around me. May I say that when His Honour the Speaker makes any observations it is very seldom that I am able to hear much of what he says. This building is constructed of stone and the combination is the poorest possible in regard to acoustic properties. I think a great deal might be done in certain directions to improve the chamber but I am not going to take up time in enumerating them at the present, moment. The hon. member for Nelson suggested the installation of a loud speaker. There is no doubt that something could be done along that line that would enable each member in the House to hear the speaker's remarks. To illustrate the possibility in that direction let me say that a few weeks ago I was present at the annual meeting of the American Iron and Steel Institute. It took place in one of the largest auditoriums in New York city where over 1,500 people participated. Speeches were made by gentlemen in various parts of the great hall and as a result of -the apparatus that had been installed, those speeches were heard perfectly in every corner. If that happy result could be achieved there it can be done here. I would ask the minister to invite people who are regarded as authorities to come here and give him some practical advice on the matter, because I am quite convinced that by the installation of appropriate devices the difficulty at present complained of can be thoroughly overcome. I ask the minister to take up the matter as soon as the House closes so that measures may be adopted without delay to overcome the present intolerable and unfair state of affairs which is not befitting this House of parliament.
Supply-Public Works


Murray MacLaren: I would urge the minister to consider the advisability of filling in many of the spaces around this chamber with oak. I believe that would improve to a marked degree the acoustic properties of the chamber. The hanging of curtains has been of assistance but I think that possibly the filling in of many of the spaces with similar coloured wood would not detract from the appearance of the chamber and would result in a very substantial improvement in the matter of audibility.


John Warwick King: I will be very glad to consider the suggestions which have been made. May I say, however, that I think the filling-in of the vacant spaces with wood would affect the ventilation of the chamber. Even if that filling were done the use of curtains would still have to be continued. I am veiy glad this discussion has taken place and the government will give the matter consideration, with a view to improving the acoustics of the chamber.


Robert Rogers: I entirely endorse what the hon. member for Pictou said in regard to the acoustic properties of the chamber. I remember when the parliament buildings were being erected, before the spaces were put in, we very frequently came to the chamber, Senator Watson, myself and others, to test the acoustics. We made speeches to the architects and those in charge of the work, and at that time we felt the acoustics were going to be very satisfactory, but apparently something in the building of the galleries and the opening of those spaces has interfered with the acoustics. I think if the minister would secure the services of some authority on acoustics and have a very thorough examination made, a great improvement could be obtained. It would be most desirable, and I hope he will give careful attention to this matter, because the acoustics to-day are very bad indeed,- and are a very great drawback to the business of parliament. Probably some trifling thing is causing the difficulty that we encounter from time to time.


Mr. MacNUTT:: I am very glad the hon. memfoeir for Nelson has brought this matter to the attention of the .committee, I was not aware that it came under the Department of Public Works; I thought it was a matter which the Speaker looked after entirely. I can assure the minister, now that I have learned that it comes within his purview, that he is going to hear from me quite frequently unless conditions in this chamber are improved. I am not hard of hearing, but I confess I do not

hear more than half the discussion that takes place and as a result I absent myself from the chamber very frequently when under better conditions I would be here. If hon. members will look from my seat at the other end of the chamber, and see the number of members on both sides with their hand to their ear,- very often with one hand to each ear,-they will realize that the acoustics of the chamber are not what they should be. I am sure the country will welcome any expense the minister may incur to so improve the chamber, that members can hear what is being said. I have not been in my seat at the other end of the chamber for some weeks. I steal a place here and there in the middle of the chamber, to try and hear what is being said, and I am very glad to hear the promise of the minister in reference to this matter.


Mr. ARMSTRONG (Lambtion):: When we were sitting in the Museum we had the same trouble. Authorities in acoustic arrangements were brought from the United States to make an investigation. They were able to show that by placing little openings in the wall and closing them in such a way that they could not be detected, the acoustic properties of that building could be greatly improved. There are establishments in the United States who make a business of .revolutionizing the acoustic properties of buildings such as the parliament buildings.


Robert James Manion: There is another point
about this chamber which I think the minister might well deal with. I refer to its ventilation. I do not know how other members feel, but I certainly find this chamber very close despite the fact that it is built much as a cathedral is built. The temperature is often unbearable. There is a ventilation system but whether it gets out of order or not I do not know. Frequently the temperature is uncomfortable. I think if some arrangement were made so that during the warm weather, the window's at the top could be opened at the highest point, we would have a much finer system of ventilation and a- more comfortable chamber. There is no doulbt that a stone building such as this should foe one of the coolest and most comfortable places in the universe. I do not think that any part of the building is so unicomfortable as the chamber. An investigation of the ventilating system should be made. Many times during the last couple of weeks conditions have been almost unbearable. I think great improvement could be made by some arrangement for opening the upper windows, as is done in many large halls.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: We will be glarl
to give the matter consideration. We are advised that we have one of the most up-to-date ventilating plants that can be obtained.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the plant properly
run?


John Warwick King: I think so, sometimes the fans are run too fast and have to be slowed down. The opening of the windows would not improve matters.


Mr. MARGIL:: Members of former parliaments will recall that we had a perennial discussion of the question of ventilation of the chamber in the old building. It was a house within a house, and we never got fresh air except that coming through the corridors. The Speaker's chair was put in the centre of the chamber, but the Senate, being a small chamber, the Speaker's chair was allowed to remain at the end. Here we have placed the Speaker's chair at the end of the chamber. If the Speaker's chair were placed at the centre and the seats were changed about members would get closer together and hear what was going on. I rarely hear what is going on at the other end of the chamber, except in case of a very loud speaker. The question might be studied to ascertain if it would be an advantage to remove the Speaker's chair from the end to the centre of the chamber, as it was in the old House of Commons. In that chamber the seats were reversed. In England they have a small room, comparatively, where the members sit, but the members are not all in the House at the one time; if they were they could not be seated. In Washington and Paris they have adopted the same principle. But here we have the Speaker's chair at one end of a large room. Perhaps the minister will investigate the matter and consider my suggestion with regard to placing the Speaker's chair at the side of the chamber. In the old building that arrangement was made and proved very satisfactory.


Eugène Fiset: May I also mention the question of -the light in the chamber? We have here direct light from globes in the ceiling, the result is that there is a tremendous glare, and we have to wear glasses. The glare is simply awful. This could be remedied by using proper lights.


Mr. BENNETT:: Under this item I understand it is proper to discuss the question* of departmental buildings in this city.


John Warwick King: No. We will
come to that later under item 142.


Robert Rogers: What does the item of
$130,OCO re purchase of Daly building mean?


John Warwick King: That is to provide payment of the sixth instalment of the purchase price of $1,000,000 for the Daly building. The building was leased to the government at an annual rental of $85,000. The owners of the building oSered to sell it for the sum of $1,000,000 payable in ten annual instalments of $100,000 each with interest at 6 per cent. The purchase was made in August, 1921.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Wonld
the minister explain the item of $25,000 for warehouses on lake Erie for the Department of Agriculture? What buildings are being erected?	[DOT]


John Warwick King: This is a revote
of $25,000 for the construction of warehouses for the storage of onions and other early vegetables on lake Erie. The proposed building is a two-storey frame structure, 35 feet by 70 feet deep, estimated to cost $25,000. It is being erected on the advice and suggestion of the Department of Agriculture in order to assist those who are engaged in the growing of onions and vegetables of that kind in the matter of storage so that they may get them on the market.


Robert Rogers: There was a vote of $60000 last year for this warehouse. Has $35,000 been expended?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Rogers: This is to complete the
work?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: How
much land is connnected with this building?


John Warwick King: They bought a
site at Leamington for $2,500 and there is one at Erieau?


Mr. GOTT:: Are there two distinct warehouses?


John Warwick King: One at Leamington and one at Erieau. The one at Leamington is the only one constructed!.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: One is
to be constructed at Erieau?


John Warwick King: That is the intention out of this vote.


Mr. BOYS:: Would the minister explain
the item of $219,780.35, appropriations not required for 1926-27? Would he give a list of the appropriations not required?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: That is a bookkeeping statement placed there by the Department of Finance. It really indicates that the money has been expended and the work done, or it is found not necessary to expend the money.


William Alves Boys: I should like if possible to
get a list of the contemplated works for which money was not required. Possibly the items might be placed on Hansard.


John Warwick King: The list is as
follows:
Ontario
Essex public buildings-improvements to
heating	$ 1,900 00
Hailebury-To pay to the municipal authorities the amount of fire insurance for
erection of community hall	
Hamilton armouries-'local improvement
taxes	
Hamilton-Public building,-new elevator..
Kingston, R.M.C.-completion of dormitory
building	
Napa nee public building-improvements to
heating and plumbing	
Ottawa-boiler shed and heating equipment at Booth St. experimental station..	..
Ottawa-Dept, of Mines experimental station -government's Share of cost of sewer on
Carling ave	
Ottawa-laboratory at Booth St. experimental station for Dept, of Mines.. ..
Ottawa-Parliament hill-paving roadways
and sidewalks	
Ottawa-Rideau Hall-alterations and improvements	
Peterborough armoury-local improvement
taxes	
Prescott customs building-improvements to
heating	
St. Thomas public building-alterations and
improvements	
Sandwich-public building-improvements to
heating	
Sudbury-public building-repairs	
Toronto-building for Seed branch	
Toronto-In full and final settlement of claim of R. J. Fleming, for loss of garage by fire while occupied by the government under lease	
33,500 00
3,397 56
5.000	00
20,000 00
3.000	00
9.000	00
3,320 82 10,000 00
25.000	00
14.000	00 1,261 97 1,800 00
2.000	00
1,100 00 5.500 00
45.000	00
35.000	00
erally understood that the service would be paid for and operated in a similar way to the elevators for the portion of the year in which the storage is in demand. This is usually the fall of the year immediately after the onions are harvested. It will be operated by an officer of the government, possibly by someone selected by the Onion Growers Co-operative Association. I suppose he will have to be appointed by the Civil Service Commission, a fee charged and the building operated in the usual way.


Eccles James Gott: Will it be completed in time for this year's crop?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Yes. There was sufficient money in the estimate for the work, but there was a good deal of delay in connection with the site. Some objection was raised to the first site because it was thought that an onion warehouse would be somewhat of a nuisance owing to the odours from it. A delay occurred with the result that they were not able to spend the money by the end of the fiscal year. That is the reason for this revote.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: The appropriations not required -for 1925-26 amounted to $146,758 and this year the amount is $219,780. The list is too long to read, but would the minister read the list which includes the $73,000 difference in last year's appropriations not spent?


John Warwick King: I do not understand my hon. friend's question Last year's appropriations not required under this vote amounted to $146,758.


Arthur Edward Ross: This year the
amount is $219,780 or in other words $73,000 of last year's appropriations are not required. Will the minister give us the items comprising that amount?


Eccles James Gott: How does the government propose to operate these onion warehouses?


William Richard Motherwell: We have scarcely reached that question yet as the building at Leamington is not equipped with the crates necessary to do the storing in. When the matter was first discussed with a committee representing the Leamington Onion Growers Co-operative Association, it was understood that the government wouid charge a fee for the services performed in very much the same way as they do in connection with elevators in the west. That fee has not yet been agreed upon or levied, but it was gen-


John Warwick King: The items will be in the list that I have handed to Hansard. These are expenditures that have been made, the work done, and therefore the sums are not required for the coming year.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Complaints have
been made about the acoustic properties and the ventilation and lighting of this building. I should like to add one more and I think a more serious one with regard to odours that are sometimes found around the building. In some of the rooms these odours are particularly noticeable. I have no doubt they come from the sulphite mills across the river.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A good disinfectant.

Supply-Public Works


James Shaver Woodsworth: That may be but they are very unpleasant just the same. Surely the company is large enough to devise some wav of consuming its own gas and preventing it from coming over here.


Arthur Edward Ross: The people who
have to work in the midst of it do not mind it very much and those of us who are legislating might put up with it. The industry provides employment and we ought to be glad to see it going.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba-improvements, repairs, etc., $43,000.
Mr. ROGERS; The stables at Osborne were destroyed by fire over a year ago, and were not replaced in time to be of any service last year. The delay caused a good deal of hardship and inconvenience, as the government has many horses at that point. The loss sustained was quite serious. When will the structure be completed?
John Warwick King: The contract was entered into in December, 1925, and this is a re-vote. The stables will be completed this spring.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Will the minister put on Hansard a statement regarding the appropriations not required?


John Warwick King: Yes, they are as
follows:
List of Appropriations not required for 1926-27 Public Buildings
Chargeable to income
Appropriation
Brandon armoury-local improvement
taxes	$ 1,397 34
Brandon public building-local improvement taxes	 4,248	92
Winnipeg-Fort Osborne barracks-purchase and alterations of Red Cross hut 12,000 00 Winnipeg custom house-alteration and
improvements	 7,500	00
Winnipeg-government's share of cost of high pressure fire protection service.. 19,101	61
Winnipeg immigration building-alterations and repairs	 18,500	00

Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan-Dominion public buildings, $20,000.


Henry Lumley Drayton: A statement will also be put on the record with regard to the appropriations not required?
14011-278.}


John Warwick King: Yes, I will give
it to Hansard:
Saskatchewan
Moose Jaw armoury-local improvement
taxes	$ 1,982 74
Moose Jaw-electric tractor for postal purposes	 3,000 00
Regina public building-general repairs and
improvements	 4,500 00

Item agreed to.
Alberta-Dominion public buildings-improvements,, repairs, etc., $40,000.


Robert Rogers: What is the explanation
regarding the public building at Edmonton?


John Warwick King: This is a property adjoining the post office. The matter has been under consideration for some years, and we purchased the site last year. The sum of $23,000 is required to complete the payment on the property. In 1919 a building was offered the department for $90,000, and later on for $81,000, but this year we secured it for $52,500. We required an addition to the site and this vote is for the purpose.
Mr. ROGER'S: Perhaps the minister would let the item stand until the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) comes in.


John Warwick King: There is really
nothing more to be said on the vote. The property is essential to the business there, and the price is reasonable.


Robert Rogers: I am sure the minister will not mind letting the item stand.


John Warwick King: Very well.
Item stands.
British Columbia-public buildings, $210,650.


Mr. BSLING:: I presume the $9,000 for the Revelstoke building is by way of completion.


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Kemble Esling: What is the explanation of
the $6,500 vote for the Trail public building?


John Warwick King: This is for the
site.


William Kemble Esling: Is there any prospect of an early construction of the federal building at that point?


John Warwick King: The matter is
under consideration. Since 1914 very few public buildings have been put up anywhere
Supply-Public Works

in Canada although last year we constructed a few. It is hoped that this year provision will be made for others. There are many localities in which sites were purchased years ago and the communities have been waiting patiently for the buildings. These demands are being met from time to time as our finances will permit.


William Kemble Esling: This community of Trail
has not had, to my knowledge, one dollar of expenditure from the Public Works department in the last thirty years. It is perhaps the most thriving and most pro-4 p.m. gressive community in the interior of British Columbia. Its payroll amounts to 8300,000 a month, and located in Trail is what probably is the most extensive smelting plant in the empire. It is rather strange that no attempts have been made to put up this building which is very much needed. I am glad that at least some steps have been taken towards securing a suitable site. On whose recommendation was the site purchased, and were any other sites recommended to or considered by the department?


John Warwick King: I agree with the
hon. gentleman that undoubtedly Trail is a very important point and it is in recognition of that fact that we have placed a sum in the estimates to secure the site. We hope to have the construction undertaken at an early date.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I understood the minister to say that, the site had been secured. Which is correct?


William Kemble Esling: It has been purchased, has it not?


John Warwick King: Yes, this is to
complete the payment.


William Kemble Esling: Does the minister know anything about the site?


John Warwick King: I have no personal knowledge of it apart from what I know of the locality generally. An examination was made by one of the officials, either Mr. Brown or Mr. Henderson-I am inclined to think it was Mr. Brown-who reported upon the site as being favourable. I am informed that it is satisfactory to the citizens of Trail.


William Kemble Esling: Nothing can be said against the site, but the consensus of local opinion is that the matter savours very much of political influence. During the past twenty years officials of the federal Public Works department have come from Victoria and
tilr. J. H. King.]
made inspections and secured recommendations for the purchase of sites for a local federal building. I think I am safe in saying that at no time was this particular site recommended but that on all occasions another site was suggested, and I think it will be found that in the selection of this site two or three weeks before the last federal election there was a very strong inclination to think that political influence was brought to bear, without consultation with the citizens or general public. The old site, or rather the site recommended at all times, was a business property which was for sale-as were other pieces of property which are on record with the federal Department of Public Works at Victoria-for a less sum than was paid for this property. The other site is very desirable and, pending construction of a public building, would have brought in a revenue not less than 8125 per month. When an appropriation is made for a site wTe do not expect the immediate construction of the building, but in this case the business property would have brought in a very substantial revenue. But without the knowledge of any of the citizens this residential site was purchased for 111,000 as against the business site which could have been purchased for $10,000. The site purchased will bring in no revenue until a building is constructed and the house removed. This site was purchased from the local Liberal whip, I may as well say, and will bring in no revenue whatever.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I would like to ask to whom my hon. friend is referring.


William Kemble Esling: I am referring to the local Liberal whip. The point is that the government is deprived of a very substantial monthly revenue, and our only hope is that the government will make up for that loss by speedy action in the construction of a local federal building which is so much needed there. At present rental is being paid for a customs office and for a post office, and in view of the immense revenue derived there a federal building is certainly justified. This government receives annually $1,500,000 in taxes from Trail. I cannot give the different items, but you will be able to judge them when I tell you that the Consolidated Mining <fe Smelting Company at Trail sets aside $2,500,000 every year for all taxes, and in addition there is the usual income tax collected. Surely a community which contributes so much to the public treasury is entitled to some recognition by way of a very much needed public building, which has been discussed for the past twenty years and strongly

Supply-Public Works
recommended during that time by both the local board of trade and the Associated Boards of Trade of British Columbia. I only hope the minister will give this matter serious consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I would like to ask the minister the exact date of the purchase of this property from the local Liberal whip.


John Warwick King: I have not heard that term used in connection with the gentleman from whom we bought this property. Mr. Binns is a respected citizen of Trail, and a business man there, although it is true, I believe, that at times he has supported the Liberal party. The property was bought on October 6, 1925.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I notice that the minister rather resents the vendor of this property being called a Liberal whip. I would refer him to my friend the chief Liberal whip here to wipe out that stigma at least. Would the minister be good enough to read the official report and recommendation in this matter? I think that would clear up a good deal of the dissatisfaction felt by some on this side.


John Warwick King: I find that I have not the official report from Mr. Brown, but it will be available to the committee later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps this local whip
reported to the chief whip here, and he may have the report.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, I do not have it.


Henry Lumley Drayton: This may be a case where we will have a report written nunc pro tunc. There is no time for reports just before an election comes along and it is found necessary to make a purchase. The minister makes the purchase and of course he has not the official report, which would be rather inconvenient. But I have no doubt one will be supplied in due form, with all the marks of seriousness. In the meantime the whip has sold his house, and everything is over. I do not notice anything provided here for the house; this vote deals only with the property. What is the total price of the property?


John Warwick King: The price was


Henry Lumley Drayton: Here we have
a vote of $11,500, $5,000 of which was voted last year. Was that spent?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: How was it
spent?


John Warwick King: As a partial payment.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Where did the money come from?


John Warwick King: From the appropriation passed last year.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Was an appropriation passed last year for this amount?


John Warwick King: Yes, an appropriation of $5,000. You will find it in the third column on page 34 of this year's estimates.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Yes, but I
have a way of looking back a little further. Was not this amount taken out of the general vote last year?


John Warwick King: No, it was a
special item in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: Will the minister tell us if the other property did not belong to a good Tory there?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is why the property was not bought.


John Gordon Ross: That is why the explanation is not given.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The hon. member is quite right. That was the reason why the property which brought in a good revenue, and which was a good business property, was turned down, and why we got the property that is bringing in nothing.
Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw: The hon. gentleman wants to have the buying of property-while he is in power and out of power as welL


Richard Bedford Bennett: We want business conducted in a' businesslike way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think the chief Liberal whip has given us the reason-to the victor belong the spoils. That is the maxim of this government. The chief Liberal whip is quite right, and the spoils here are to go to the local Liberal whip of the province, and they go.


Mr. TOLMIE:: In connection with the item for replacing buildings and equipment destroyed by fire at Esquimalt, I would point out that a number of workmen who were employed at the place at that particular time had their tools stored there, and they were all destroyed in the fire, entailing a very severe loss in many cases. These men are not rich;
Supply-Public Works

they are men working for wages, and I would like to know if the government does not intend to make any provision for compensating them in full or in part for the loss of the tools destroyed at that time.


William Kemble Esling: What revenue is the government going to receive pending the removal of this house in Trail? Is there any revenue coming from this site at all? The owner lives in the House, and is the government going to get any revenue at all from the site, while losing all the revenue it would have received from the business site?


John Warwick King: I am not familiar as to the revenue being received. I have no doubt there is a charge being made, and I will ascertain what it is and advise my hon. friend.


William Kemble Esling: The site which has been purchased I admit is a very desirable site. It is right in the centre of the business district, but it is not so good, or not any better than the site that was rejected. The point is this, this department had on file in its office at Victoria bids and tenders for local property at lower prices than was paid for this property, and the property offered at a lower price was a monthly revenue producing property belonging to a good Tory, while the property purchased produces absolutely nothing, was purchased at a higher price, and belongs to the local Liberal whip. My Farmer-Labour-Progressive-Independent opponent got
85.000	on the eve of the election, and he slips into town and nobody knows anything about any negotiations until we learn that this residence property has been purchased for
811.000	bringing in no revenue, while the property at the other end of the block, which was always recommended to the government, and was generally accepted by the government as a proper location, was rejected .-although it was offered at a lower price,
;$io,ooo.


John Warwick King: I have no knowledge of the matter my hon. friend speaks of, but we know that in Trail, real estate values are changing very, very rapidly, and the property which he speaks of which was offered for 810,000 in 1915 or 1919 may be much more valuable to-day. It may be that my hon. friend has an interest in that property. He is himself a large owner of real estate in the city of Trail. So far as this particular piece of property is concerned, it was bought by the agent of the government, a gentleman in whom the department have confidence, and

I am glad to hear my hon. friend say that the site is an ideal one. I think that is true. We have had no complaints from the citizens of Trail, and I think the implication of my hon friend is hardly fair.


William Kemble Esling: But it is true. I have no objection to the site. I am merely pointing out the influence which was brought to bear on the eve of an election, and the further fact that the government had on file in its office at Victoria tenders at a lower price than was paid for this property.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture could help the minister, because he did a lot of purchasing on the eve of the election. He purchased a lot of cattle for $28,000, which were afterwards sold for $7,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister an official report on the item with respect to Dominion public	buildings-improvements,
repairs and so forth?


John Warwick King: Replying first to my hon. friend from Victoria, who referred to the loss of some tools by workmen in a fire at Esquimalt, it is true that representations have been made to the Department of Militia and Defence regarding the loss by these workmen. I know that I have personally made representations, and I am hopeful that the department may find it possible to recoup the workmen for their loss.


Mr. DICKIE:: I wish to back up the request of the hon. member for Victoria. These Esquimalt workmen were practically promised that they would be reimbursed for the loss of their tools in the fire several years ago. The Minister of National Defence gave me what amounted to a promise, and I think he intended to see that these men were reimbursed as soon as his representative had been out there and had made a report. I can assure the minister that they are entitled to be paid. The tools were very valuable, and they were supposed to be stored in a safe place.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Representations
have been made to me along that line, and I would remind the House that this loss was directly occasioned by the burning of the government's own building. These men were working there, and if this House can find it necessary to return a huge sum to the automobile dealers, as it did the other day, for a loss entailed by a change in taxation, I cannot see why a few hundred dollars should not be paid to these workmen who have lost their tools.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Rogers: Would the minister explain the item of $20,000 for mortgage interest in connection with the Winch building at Vancouver?


John Warwick King: Answering first the question as to improvements and repairs to Dominion public buildings, this item is increased by $15,000 over last year. The increase in this appropriation is due to the cost of rearranging the heating for the post office, the examining warehouse and the Winch building, the cost of which is estimated at $13,800. The other items are for the usual repairs and renewals of buildings throughout the province.
In reply to my hon. friend from South Winnipeg regarding the 5 per cent mortgage interest item of $20,000, this is to pay the interest on the $400,000 required to be paid on the purchase price of the Winch building. This building was bought last year at a cost of $700,000. We exchanged the old post office property in Vancouver, at a value of $300,000, and took over the Winch building, leaving a balance of $400,000 to be paid, the payments extending over a period of years. We assumed the mortgage, and this is the first interest payment.


Robert James Manion: Unless it is a mortgage that cannot be paid off, the government could save $2,000 or $2,500 a year by paying it off, because they have money of their own which they are borrowing at less than 4i per cent. It would pay them to pay off the mortgage if they have that privilege.


John Warwick King: I rather agree
with my hon. friend that there is a considerable amount paid for this purpose.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The arrangement was entered into when money was much more expensive than it is to-day.


John Warwick King: Personally I think it would be better business to try and clear up these items. I have suggested to the Minister of Finance that possibly it would be wise to do this, and I am hoping that next year something will be done along this line.


Robert James Manion: We will clear the matter
up for you next year.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister give an explanation of the second item reading as follows:-
Douglas-Site and budding for* immigration and customs-excise purposes, $15,000.


John Warwick King: There is a new customs building to be erected on the international boundary between the state of Washington and the city of Vancouver at the town of Douglas.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister indicate just where the building is being placed?


John Warwick King: On the international boundary, on the Pacific highway, near the Peace arch. My hon. friend knows the place.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I know the place very intimately.


John Warwick King: The property the government is using, if my memory serves me right, is Indian property.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the present time.


John Warwick King: I think so.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The present shack is on an Indian reserve, but the suggestion of customs premises, both on the American side and on the Canadian side, at the Peace arch has been the subject of some considerable negotiation. I was wondering if this appropriation cared for the purchase of the lands adjoining the Peace arch on the Canadian side, or whether it is intended to put up the buildings on the old site on the Indian reserve.


John Warwick King: I have this memorandum in my notes:
The local municipal authorities and the Departments of Immigration and Colonization and of Customs and Excise have no-t reached a final agreement regarding the site, and until one is selected it is impossible for the Architects branch to prepare a plan of the building.
That is the report we have. I know that within the last month there have been negotiations regarding some of these lands.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nothing has been spent
as yet.


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But you are increasing the vote.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister give some explanation regarding the last item, repairs and improvements at William Head quarantine station?


John Warwick King: The item covers the annual repairs and improvements at William Head quarantine station. As my hon. friend probably knows, it is a very important
Supply-Public Works

station. The item of $82,200, covering appropriations not required for 1926-27 is made up as follows:-
Bentinck island lazaretto-new buildings and
improvements	$ 14,700 00
Courtenay-public building	 33,000 00
Esquimalt boat house at H.M.C. barracks. 9,000 00
Kamloops-public building	 20,000 00
Vancouver-grain inspection office	 5,500 00


Peter McGibbon: Has the minister got details of the hospital station at William Head?


John Warwick King: The cost of construction up to March 31, 1925, was $636,715.18, and the repairs over that period were $58,337, making a total of approximately $695,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Has the minister any report with respect to the public building at Revelstoke for which a vote of $9,000 is asked?


John Warwick King: That is to complete the contract for the building and furnishings.


Arthur Edward Ross: Official reports
have been furnished with respect to all these items except the vote for the Trail public building. Would it not be advisable to allow that item to stand until the report has been forthcoming?


John Warwick King: I will have the information for my hon. friend.


Charles Herbert Dickie: We know the minister is good-hearted. Would he not assure us that the artisans who lost their tools during the fire at Esquimalt will be repaid? It is an old question and it will only mean the expenditure of a few hundred dollars. These men should be compensated and that would be the right thing to do. I am sure the minister will view the matter in the same light as I do myself. May I remind him also that compensation was practically promised two years ago?


John Warwick King: I think I explained to the House that the matter was one within the Department of National Defence and that it was being considered-I hoped favourably considered-by the minister who will make an announcement to the House on the matter.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister promise us a statement on the matter before our next sitting on Monday?


John Warwick King: I think that will be hardly fair to the Minister of National Defence. He will deal with his own items as they come up and it will be for him to make any announcement in connection with the matter, not for me.


Mr. FRASER:: I understood the minister to say that the amount of appropriations not required for 1926-27 was $82,200. I did not
gather that the minister made any statement with respect to Kamloops public building.


John Warwick King: Yes, the information will appear in Hansard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.
Edmonton-public building-addition to site, $23,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to make a few observations with respect to the public building at Calgary. Some years ago the government acquired a site on the leading street of of the city, opposite the Dominion Bank and the Union Bank which cost a quarter of a million dollars. As a matter of fact the site was originally-a portion of it at least-acquired by the citizens and given to the crown. Then the additional property was acquired. In the estimates the year the war broke out provision was made for commencing the building. The old building was taken down because the floor space which is so essential for a post office was not there. At the present time we are paying in Calgary over $90,000 per annum for rental of public buildings. The minister has the figures before him. I think perhaps it is a little more than $90,000. Am I right?


John Warwick King: Somewhere in. that vicinity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The amount is a little
over $90,000. Now, a federal building in a city like Calgary is almost essential. It should not be a post office building. There should be a post office on the ground floor, and provision should be made for every federal service-the land office, the immigration office, the railway commission, and others. A building of about eight storeys would cost approximately $1,500,000, or let us say $1,600,000. If a special form of security were issued to provide public works in this country, where the rental paid would be sufficient to meet the interest on the capital expenditure plus a sinking fund, it would be a very economical procedure. Now suppose we fixed the amount at $1,600,000 in the present case and paid

Supply-Public Works
as high a rate as 5 per cent; that would be $80,000. But it would not be necessary to spend quite that much money, and the rate of interest would be less than 5 per cent. It would therefore follow that the interest could be paid, and a sufficient sum set aside for sinking fund sufficient to amortize the entire loan at the end of twenty years, and the country would own the building. There has been some discussion with respect to the site. It was acquired at a time when land was very high, but it is admirably adapted to the construction of a public building. The citizens who originally contributed the corner lots do not look kindly upon the idea of there being any change in the post office location. For instance, two large banks were established there in the first instance, because of the post office being located nearby. I desire to urge upon the administration an appropriation for the purpose of enabling the building to be commenced, basing that appropriation upon the rentals now paid, so that there will be set up in the public records of this country an account for that particular building, and the rentals that are now being paid will be, without increase, credited to that account from year to year, being sufficient to liquidate the entire interest charges, with a sinking fund that will entirely absorb the loan within fifteen or twenty years. While I am speaking on that subject, I have the same observation to make with respect to the public buildings in this city. From time to time I have looked into the situation here. This country owns a large area of property west of the Supreme court buildings facing on the river. All those buildings belong to the crown, as I understand it. Let us assume it would cost $8,000,000 to put up a suitable departmental building covering that area. Some may say it would cost much more than that, but for the purposes of the services of this country we do not require the most ornate building in the world, and I am informed that the rent paid in this city b3' the government, notwithstanding that we have the new Hunter building, and notwithstanding the purchase of other buildings, amounts to nearly $700,000 per annum.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It amounts to $1,400,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have the figures here and I think the amount is about $700,000. That $1,400,000 includes buildings outside of Ottawa. Let us see what that means. That $8,000,000 at -4| per cent would cost this country less than $400,000. The amount to be set aside for sinking fund at $200,000 which is entirely too large, would mean that we
would save $100,000 per annum. What we are doing at the present time is not business. I remember when the Canadian Pacific put a viaduct across the river at Lethbridge they had experts determine exactly what it cost to move traffic. They erected that great steel viaduct because it showed an annual saving, and it enabled them to deal with the situation just as I have outlined. Why should the country not conduct business in the same way, and pass legislation to create a special form of security which would be gladly purchased by the insurance companies, and issue 4f per cent or 5 per cent bonds for fifteen or twenty years and apply the rent we are now paying in Ottawa against that cost?	Not only would we save
money, but what is more -and this is the important factor-we would save large	sums in heating, elevators and
lighting. This morning a gentleman from my own constituency came to me asking for information, and I had to ring up three different buildings before I could get it. No one knows better than the minister the difficulties that are incident to the present situation. Some of the ministers have to keep automobiles, magnificent machines, imported at great cost, because it is so difficult to get from one branch of a department to another. I sympathize with them, because it would be detrimental to their interests if they should have to walk any great distance in a city like this, and Peerless transportion is very much to be preferred to mere pedestrian action in a city like Ottawa, where the streets are bad and the sidewalks are not what they ought to be. My hon. friend understands what I mean. I suggest that we apply ordinary business principles to this situation. My remarks apply also to Calgary. In that city we should spend not less than $1,600,000 to erect a federal building, and all the services in that city would be cared for. In this city we could spend $8,000,000, and still, after amortizing the loan, have a substantial sum of money each year to pay for improvements and repairs. I commend this to the minister. We desire economy and efficiency. The Pennsylvania railway put their terminals in the city of New York for that very reason rather than continue the transfer of passengers across the harbour. Well conducted enterprises study the saving to be effected and make the capital expenditures necessary, after ascertaining that the result of the economies effected will enable them to retire the loan at maturity, which may be fifteen or twenty years. I realize that the $80,000 or $90,000 paid by way of rental in Calgary will meet the situation there with respect to public
Supply-Public Works

buildings, and the $700,000 paid here will also meet the situation. There are other cities in Canada which stand on the same basis. I realize that unless you can show parliament and the people of the country that by the method I have indicated you may be able to effect a saving of public money, this is not the time to ask for public expenditure. Everybody knows that. I cannot ask the government to give me $1,000,000 for public buildings, unless it can be demonstrated beyond peradventure that the cost of constructing the new building will not involve the country in the expenditure of a single dollar more than is now spent. Everybody knows that is what a board of directors does. I am convinced that the loss in this city on account of the extra employees necessary on account of having these buildings scattered all over the city cannot be less than at least $100,000 per annum. I estimate it at much more than that. When I previously had a seat in this House I got a complete return of the employees in the public service and what was involved by reason of their being scattered all over the community. I would ask the minister to have prepared by his deputy a report showing: (a) the capital cost of a new building upon this property, (b) rentals now paid; (c) the saving that would be effected in lighting, heating, general efficiency and reduction of 'the staff. I believe we can put $10,000,000 in new buildings west of the Supreme court and have a profit to carry forward for repairs every year of not less than $100,000.
The people look for a business administration of their affairs. In England they are taking this course with respect to every branch of the public service. In the United States they have adopted the same course. It is the only way they can conduct their affairs; and in other communities the same system has been adopted. My observations are not limited to the city which I have the honour to represent. This is a proposition that applies east and west, north and south. If the minister lays down a principle and establishes a special form of security, and says, "I will apply that principle to every city in Canada just as soon as I find conditions warrant it, the amount saved will be sufficient to retire the expenditure." For the $90,000 rental that we now pay in Calgary we would be able to defray the cost of the neces-sairy loan and, either by the operation of a sinking fund or by amortization, which is the application of the sinking fund idea in another form, to retire the securities at their maturity. I know the minister cannot do this to-day or fMr. Bennett.]
to-morrow; but as he expects, contrary to my own expectation, to occupy his position for some length of time, I trust if he does that before he retires he may be able to give effect to some such principle as that, improved it is true by those in his department who have larger knowledge and who will be able to recommend what means should be taken to effect the economies I have suggested.


John Warwick King: I largely concur
in the remarks made by my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett):	It is true that many departments
of government are not properly housed in Ottawa from a departmental standpoint or from the public point of view, and the government has seriously considered the advisability of constructing new departmental buildings on property it owns in the city. The same thing is true in Toronto, Montreal, Calgary and other centres throughout Canada. The same is also true in some of the smaller cities. The proposals made by my hon. friend would ordinarily be accepted in business circles as good business. It is the first note that I have heard in four years that would indicate that such a suggestion coming from the government would be acceptable to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I speak only for myself.


John Warwick King: I know that, and I appreciate the speech of my hon. friend, because I believe that very shortly we shall have to face that problem. Unless there is a discussion of this character it will be difficult for the government to proceed, because if the requirements and the means to meet those requirements are not understood, there is misunderstanding, misconception and trouble. In relation to the rental of space, I had an inquiry made a year ago and I found the ratios were somewhat as follows. In Great Britain at that time they were renting about 28 per cent of the space required for their civil service.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that because of afterwar conditions?


John Warwick King: Yes, I would think so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps my hon. friend
knows that this year they are engaged in putting up a new structure at not great expense.


John Warwick King: In the United States it is about 34 per cent and in Canada

Supply-Public Works
about 39 per cent. If one looks carefully into rentals in Ottawa, it will be found that they are not as a rule excessive.	.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that
they were.
Mr. KING (Kootenay:) But the matter is one that should receive careful consideration and I shall be glad to go into it. In fact, in the Department of Public Works we have been going into it carefully. I hope the time is not far distant when we may present to the House a proposal that will be acceptable and that will mean an extension of our departmental buildings in Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister any
estimate of the probable cost of a departmental building such as I have mentioned, covering the property leased?


John Warwick King: Yes. There were three or four buildings proposed in the plan at a cost of about $3,000,000 each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be $9,000,000 if three were erected and $12,000,000 if four were erected.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am advised that the iost of construction is somewhat less than that now and that three units could be erected for $8,000,000. If so, it is perfectly clear that we would pay all those off in thirty years, paying interest and having a substantial sum to take care of repairs apart from the saving and convenience to the staff.


Robert James Manion: The minister says that
during the past four years he has not understood that the proposition has been acceptable. I doubt if a year has gone by that some proposition has not been Ia:d before the government, perhaps not so lucidly, ably and "clearly as by the hon. member for West Calgary. The only attitude we have taken and still take is this, that if such a proposition is gone on with it should be carried through in a 'businesslike manner, forgetting everything but business and forgetting political friends.
Mr. MOTHERiWELL: May I supplement the remarks of my colleague the Minister of Public Works, with whom I have had many conversations on this question? I wish to align myself with the vieiws of the hon. member for'West Calgary. It is so seldom that we can get on the same stamping ground that I do not wish to miss this opportunity.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would like to think the hon. member is right in this case.


William Richard Motherwell: When I first came to this House in the larger sphere I realized the greater responsibility of my work, but I was amazed at the various-I will not say buildings-rookeries in which my departments were housed. To-day nearly sixty years after confederation, the Department of Agriculture has not a roof under which to place its head. The thing is absolutely ridiculous, not only from that standpoint but from the standpoint of the comparatively inefficient service that has been referred to.
I do not like to dwell too selfishly on my department, because the same remarks apply to other departments. May I refer to the [DOT]court house in which the hon. member for West. Calgary is particularly interested? I was there only once, when I had occasion to look on as a spectator this winter in the Exchequer court building. The court was held in a little rookery upstairs with the skylights above. If you had put a dozen spectators into the room it would have been overcrowded. It used to be a carpenter shop of some kind and now that is the whole Exchequer court. When I saw that I felt my indignation rise at a building of that description being located with such menial surroundings, services and conveniences. I recognized that it was not because my own department alone was neglected that I had been complaining in past years.
Outside of the experimental farm buildings my department is housed in twelve different buildings in this city. If a visitor comes to my office I have to place an escort at his disposal to take him to some of the branch heads throughout the city. If I had the eight different buildings in the experimental farm my department alone is housed in twenty different buildings throughout this city and the experimental farm. The thing is ridiculous. It would not be so bad if we had a decent telephone service between the different buildings, not to say anything about the chauffeur or motor car service. If you want to ring u,p any of the officials the telephones are semi-hello and semi-automatic and between the two of them you are kept guessing. I have given up all hope of calling any one up myself. I call in a secretary and say: Get Mr. So-and-So as quickly as possible, and after several attempts we finally get him. But in the meantime I have lost a great deal of time and done incalculable damage to my soul in endeavouring to get him.
Supply-Public Il'orfcs


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will be forgiven.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps I may, because the provocation is great. What is the difficulty in starting on a business venture of this kind from the drop of the hat? One thing is that public sentiment is not ripe for it and I want to thank my hon. friend for starting ,to educate public sentiment. The former hon. member for Marquette made reference to it the first session I was here, but it did not receive any plaudits and it did not receive many pludits on this occasion. If the people, including members of this House, knew that we were gettng only about sxty-five per cent efficency out of our staff there would be much more popular clamour for proper accommodation. When neighbouring countries send representatives here, they hear about Canada being a wonderful country. They hear about our 'live stock and all about our natural resources and when these people come to visit us from little -countries like Holland and Denmark, where these services are all excellent, the members of my staff have to smuggle them into the Chateau Laurier or some other plaoe outside because they are ashamed to bring them into the offices of the department. The street on which some of these buildings are located has teome to be known as Slum avenue. Many of these buildings on Wellington street are adjacent to shabby houses and they have -been themselves occupied continuously by tenants who one after another have left them in -a deplorable condition. One tenant has left a building in worse condition than he found it, with the result that the place is not fit to -house human beings. Whenever any attempt is made to improve a condition such as this there is always a chain of propaganda drawn around you so that it is almost impossible to move. It is for the right-thinking men of the country to assert themselves and demand proper accommodation for the public services. This is so elemental a necessity that I am surprised someone has not long ago taken action. The difficulty, of course, is that in the last few years governments have been very short-lived institutions. Formerly a government would- be in power for fifteen years, and although there were disadvantages to such -a length of administration, yet things 'could be accomplished which are not possible when there is a frequent -change of government. If hon. gentlemen opposite will give us a reasonable length of time in office the Minister of Public Works, I am sure, assisted by my own humble efforts will be able to do something so that there will be no cause of complaint	.

Mr. M-cGIBBON:	May I suggest to the
minister that if he is allowed to remain in for fifteen years his soul will be eternally damned.


Mr. McCLENAGHAN:: The people of
Ottawa have long advocated the construction of proper public buildings on Wellington street. The report just published by the Civil Service Commission strongly recommends the acquisition of new buildings, pointing out, as the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) does, that the country would save money while there would be an improvement in clerical efficiency as well as a reduction in the maintenance of the buildings themselves. Everyone will endorse the businesslike suggestion of the hon. member in which he shows the government how they may finance the proposition without cost to the
5 p.m. country, using for the purpose of paying the interest on the loan the moneys now paid out in the form of rentals. The citizens of Ottawa will be delighted to read the report of this afternoon's ddbate and to find -that both the opposition and the government are agreed on the desirability of making this city what it should be, really the capital of Canada, and of concentrating its services in respectable buildings.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I agree to a considerable extent with the remarks of the hon. member for West Calgary, and if for no other reason than to save the soul of my hon. friend the Minister of Agriculture we should undertake at once to provide some of these buildings. No member of parliament can adequately serve the interests of his constituents, nor can any department of government function efficiently, under present conditions. Either the government will have to centralize their offices, or they should provide members of parliament with a guide and an automobile if the various departments are to be located with any degree of ease. When I first came into the House the party to which I have the honour to belong, which was led a few years ago by the Hon. Mr. Crerar, then the member for Marquette, strongly urged this matter upon the government. Even if we spent $10,000,000 or $15,000,000 there would be a saving in the long run as a result of increased efficiency and a reduction in expenditures in connection with messengers, telephones, and all the other paraphernalia now found indispensable. That saving would take care of the interest on the investment and the cost would be wiped out in twenty-five or thirty years. Thereafter there would be no rents to pay. I do not know whether the present -buildings are rented from whips or ex-whips or other people of that description, and while it is true, as the

Supply-Public Works
Minister of Agriculture says, that whenever any attempt is made to get away from settled conditions a chain of difficulties is always put in the way, I am sure that if the government made a determined effort to move in the direction suggested this afternoon that chain could be broken. No chain is unbreakable. Let us pull together and help the government in power, no matter what government it may be, to break that chain and to do something to provide economical and efficient public service.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: The member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) said the other day that in his opinion the seat of government in a few years would be Winnipeg. In view of that suggestion would it not be unwise to spend more money in Ottawa?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public biuldings generally, $263,000.
Robert Rogers: What is the vote of $40,000 under the head, "public buildings generally?"


John Warwick King: This is necessary to meet annual expenditures in connection with public buildings controlled by the Dominion government throughout the country, and it takes care of such special outlays as cannot be charged against any one particular item. It also includes travelling expenses of the Architectural branch, stationery, instruments, printing, telegrams and miscellaneous accounts. Of the amount voted last year $28,838 was spent.


Robert Rogers: There is an increase of
$10,000 in this particular vote this year.


John Warwick King: The increase is to provide for the Canadian building in London, England, for which in previous years a special appropriation was voted. Taxes and rates amount to $8,662, insurance, $486, and repairs, $973.


Robert Rogers: That is the new building in
London.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Henry Lumley Drayton: What does it
cost to carry that building now? Two years ago we had an estimate and it would be interesting to compare it with the actual cost at present.


John Warwick King: I shall get that
information later. In the meantime we can let the item stand.


Robert Rogers: In this item there is a vote of $93.0000 for experimental farms, including
replacements, repairs, improvements, and so forth. Perhaps the Minister of Agriculture might give us some information with regard to that vote.


John Warwick King: This item is required for replacements, improvements, alterations and repairs at the several experimental farm stations throughout the Dominion. It is asked for by the Deputy Minister of Agriculture. The central experimental farm at Ottawa will require $28,590 and the other stations throughout the Dominion $64,100. There will be expenditures at Charlottetown, Fredericton. Nappan, Kentville, Farnham, LeFerme, St. Anne de la Pocatiere, Cap Rouge, St. Joachim. Lennoxville, Kapuskas-ing, Morden, Brandon, Indian Head, Ros-thern, Scott, Swift Cuurent, Lethbridge, Laeombe, Summerland, Invermere, and Sidney, making the total of $64,100 spent outside of Ottawa.


John Anderson Fraser: Does that vote include
any new buildings?


John Warwick King: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Under what vote do the
new buildings come, or are any new buildings provided for?


John Warwick King: Not in the
estimates now under consideration.


Henry Lumley Drayton: While it does
not cover new buildings, it seems to cover improvements.


John Warwick King: And repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Improvements
are one thing and repairs another. Repairs are an annual charge, while improvements may be a new investment. Can the minister say how much is needed for repairs and how-much for enlarging our investment?


John Warwick King: At the experimental farm it is proposed to spend on general repairs $20,000; then there is a list of other items.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The others are
not repairs?


John Warwick King: Yes; animal husbandry division, $925,


Henry Lumley Drayton: For what, repairs or improvements?


John Warwick King: It will be for
repairs; $500 for painting interior of dairy and piggery; for repairing doors, et cetera $100; whitewashing steer sheds, piggeries.
Supply-Public Works

sheep barn, horse box stalls, et cetera $100; summer water supply, pipes to swine rotation pastures $125; emergency repairs $100, a total of $925. They are practically all repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Then we are
to understand this item is for repairs to farm buildings and so on.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Rogers: There is an item of $5,000 for flags, and $5,000 last year. Was that amount spent last year?


John Warwick King: That is about
the usual amount voted for flags throughout the whole Dominion.


Robert Rogers: Do we spend $5,000 a
year on flags?


John Warwick King: Yes, very close
to that.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: What military buildings are supposed to be repaired under this item?


John Warwick King: This item is required for the fitting up and effecting ol major repairs, alterations and so forth costing $1,000 or over in various buildings used by the Militia department. This request is made by the Deputy Minister of National Defence. The items vary; we have repairs to buildings occupied by militia services $36,450; repairs to buildings rented by the militia $10,580; to buildings rented by the naval service $3,105, and to those rented by the air service $205, or a total of $50,000 odd.


Robert King Anderson: Are these all in Ottawa?


John Warwick King: No, all over the
Dominion.


Robert King Anderson: Are any repairs to be made to the Christie street hospital in Toronto?


John Warwick King: There are always some repairs at Christie street and other hospitals.


Robert Rogers: I notice there is an increase of about $20,000 in this item. What is the reason for that?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
will remember that many of these buildings vere of a temporary character; each year ;here is great depreciation and the expense of maintaining them is very considerable.
'Mr. J. H. King.]


Henry Lumley Drayton: But that was
up last year or the year before, and I understood the work was to be concentrated, that there was less work to be done and some of the hospitals could be closed. I should have thought that would pretty well answer what my hon. friend is now saying.


John Warwick King: Repairs on these
buildings vary from year to year, of course. Possibly if we spend $75,000 this year to get these buildings in good shape they -would go for a period of years with only minor repairs. The expenditure at Ste. Anne de Bellevue amounts to about $20,000; Camphill hospital is only a small item-


Mr. QUINN:: What is that item for?


John Warwick King: Repairs to powel house and mechanical service, and general repairs. At Shaughnessy hospital, Vancouver, there will be repairs to power house and ' mechanical service, together with exterior painting.


Robert King Anderson: What repairs are to be made to Christie street hospital?


John Warwick King: Repairs to power house and mechanical service, general repairs and painting.


John Anderson Fraser: Would the minister tell
us what was spent in Shaughnessy hospital last year?


John Warwick King: The amount was


John Anderson Fraser: And it will be $11,000 this year?


John Warwick King: Yes, it will be
more this year.


Robert Rogers: Did I understand the minister correctly when he said $20,000 would be expended at Ste. Anne de Bellevue?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Rogers: That is a large sum for
repairs, although probably that is one of the most desirable places for a military hospital.


John Warwick King: There is a large
item for painting the exterior, amounting to $11,705; repairs to power house and mechanical service $2,000, and general repairs $6,000. Then the interior is to be painted, which will cost $1,000. They are large buildings, and I understand no exterior painting has been done for years.


Robert Rogers: Has the minister any estimate of the number of patients in the hospitals?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: No, I have not.
I think that would come from the Department of Health.


Robert King Anderson: Has the minister anything to do with the sale of old disused barracks?


John Warwick King: No.


Robert King Anderson: That is under
National Defence?


John Warwick King: I think so.


Thomas Cantley: Why do not these military hospitals come under the Department of National Defence?


Eugène Fiset: Because they are under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment. The title of "military hospital" is a misnomer.


Thomas Cantley: When we try to find the
total expenditure of any one department, we find estimates and expenditures scattered throughout the book under several different departments.


Eugène Fiset: The National Defence department has nothing whatever to do with the administration of the military hospitals. They are under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


Thomas Cantley: My query is why do they come under public works?


Eugène Fiset: The Department of Public Works maintains all the public buildings.


Thomas Cantley: Surely a military hospital is not a public work.


John Warwick King: It would be a public work so far as maintenance and repairs are concerned.


Mr. BURY:: The same is true in respect of buildings in connection with the experimental farms. You do not get that expenditure in the estimates under the Department of Agriculture. I take it that comes under public works.


John Warwick King: We have charge of their construction, care and maintenance.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Even capital expenditure on construction is under public works? So that the different estimates of the Agricultural department will not include the cost of buildings?


John Warwick King: No. The different departments submit their estimates to the Public Works department in respect of buildings, and they are voted by this department.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: All I am saying is that when you look up the estimates of the Department of Agriculture you do not find there the items of expenditure on buildings.


John Warwick King: No.


Robert King Anderson: Would the minister give us the annual expenditure on buildings in connection with the experimental farm at Ottawa?


Thomas Cantley: I quite understand the explanation, but due to this system it is very difficult to find out what the cost of any particular service is. For instance, on page 26 I find item No. 102, "construction of magazine, Halifax. 850,000," and "reconditioning mine sweeper, $50,000," the latter is a marine job, and various other items for construction. Why should not all these items appear under the same head? Surely we could evolve a system of bookkeeping and administration that would show all the money expended on any particular service. The same is true with regard to the estimates of the Department of Agriculture. You will find twenty different items scattered through this book chargeable to Agriculture which do not appear under Agriculture estimates, and you have to hunt the whole book through from end to end to find how much money is being expended on any particular service. That does not seem to me like business.


John Warwick King: Answering my hon. friend from Halton, the expenditure on the experimental farm buildings at Ottawa for 1915-16 was $91,000; 1924-25, $222,000; 1925-26, $156,000.


Robert King Anderson: It averages about $100,000 a year.


John Warwick King: About that.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I would draw the minister's attention to the public building at Tignish, Prince Edward Island. That building has been giving trouble, and some repairs were made to it a couple of years ago. This year they are having trouble with the basement being flooded with water, and there is no proper drainage. Complaints, I think, have been made to the department, and I hope that the officers in charge of the Maritime buildings will be instructed to look into the condition of this building. They claim that the water is backing up and filling the well in the building. I know these reports are true, because they come from the janitor and other responsible parties. I hope the minister will see that these complaints are looked into.
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I shall be very glad to see that the representations made by my hon. friend are brought before the proper officers for consideration.
Answering my hon. friend from West York regarding the London building, the estimated annual cost of maintenance is $35,300, made up of taxes, insurance and repairs amounting to $10,122.64; heating, $1,450; lighting, $2,500; power, $140; rents, $9,733.30; salaries for caretakers engineers, firemen and so forth, $7,617; water, $3,547.79, making a total of $35,110.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I think we paid for that building in cash. There is no interest charge?


John Warwick King: The capital charge was $1,540,781. There is no interest charge. We paid that in cash.


Arthur Edward Ross: Were any additions made to military buildings last year?


John Warwick King: "Improvements
and additions" is the wording that has always been used for this item, but there were no additions last year, just repairs.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I suppose our
total overhead in connection with the London building would be about $100,000 a year.


John Warwick King: Including salaries?


Henry Lumley Drayton: Not salaries, but including interest and the other items the minister gave.


John Warwick King: About that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, Etc.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-
Dominion Observatory and Geodetic Survey Building-repairs, improvements,
maintenance of grounds, etc	 $	5,000
Water	 45,000
Elevators	attendants	
99,000Lighting,	including roads	and	bridges..	82,000Heating,	including salaries	of	engineers,firemen	and watchmen	
390,000
Departments generally-char service, including $100 to E. Snowdon for firing
the noon gun	 385,000
Repairs. improvements, additions and
maintenance	 650,000
Rideau Hall-including grounds-improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc.. ..	60,000
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light	19.000
Telephone service	 95,000
Dominion public buildings-
D. minion immigration buildings-repairs, improvements, additions, furniture, etc.	25,000
Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance	 5,000
Fittings, general	suppiies and furniture.	125,000
Heating	 430,000
I/ghting	 217,000
Power for running elevators, stamp cancelling machines,	etc	 80.000
	,
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, Etc.-Con.
Rents	 1,440.000
Salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen,
etc	 1,038.000
Supplies for caretakers,	etc	 40,000
Water	 83,000
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water service and caretaker's
salaries	 28,000
Victoria, B.C., astrophysicaH observatory (Little Saanich Mountain)-maintenance, repairs and improvements	 3,000
James Shaver Woodsworth: May I bring to the attention of the minister the representations of two or three groups of public employees? Right here in the city of Ottawa I am informed that the office cleaners, not in this building, but in the other offices, receive $1.25 daily for their morning's cleaning, or $32.50 a month. Not only is that a low item which they think Should be increased, but more than that, I am informed that if these women are absent one or two days owing to illness, pay is deducted. It seems to me that is a very small way, to say the least, of dealing with these lower paid employees, and I hope the minister will see his way to remedy that state of affairs.
There is another group that has made representations to me, and that is the elevator operators in these various public buildings in the city of Ottawa. They state that there are now five classes of salaries for elevatoi operators under the new classification, and yet all the employees are performing the same kind of wo-rk. For example, right here in the House of Commons and in the Senate there are seven elevators operating during the session, and four operators get a maximum salary of S1.260, one a maximum of $1,200, two a maximum of $1,080, and one operator, who is single, a maximum of $960. All are performing the same class of work and all are permanent employees. I am sure these representations have been made to the minister, and I would ask if there is not a possibility of having the matter satisfactorily adjusted Then there is this further fact: I am informed that those employed by the House of Commons and those employed by the Senate are receiving different wages for the same class of work. This, of course, leads to considerable heart-burning and creates a feeling that the lower paid employees are not receiving fair play.


An hon. MEMBER:: Which class is the
highest paid?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Senate employees. It would seem to me that as we are trying to consolidate our departments in one building, or a series of buildings, we might

Supply-Public Works
very well undertake to consolidate the departments themselves and the different types of work. We have heard about the duplication in connection with our railway systems. We have absolutely unwarranted duplication right under our noses every day. I cannot for the life of me see why a staff under one management cannot manage the affairs of these buildings, whether it is in the eastern part of this structure, or in the House of Commons portion. We have two sets of doormen, two sets of charwomen, two sets of cleaners, two post offices with separate staffs, and the same thing all down the line, and why this should be passes my comprehension. It seems to me that if these matters were managed in a businesslike way there would be a consolidation of these departments under one management. May I say in closing that I should like to get answers from the minister to the questions I put with regard to these various classes of lower paid employees.


John Warwick King: The char service is largely carried on by female help. The work is done early in the morning and occupies about two and a half hours, paid for at the rate of $1.25 per day. That is not a bad wage for the time occupied, which is not very great each day. The department, I think, have found that the char service is being done efficiently, and although those engaged in it would welcome a larger amount of remuneration, still it is considered that $1.2& for two and a half hours' work a day is probably as much as the government would be entitled to pay. Now in regard to the elevator and other services-[DOT]


James Shaver Woodsworth: Before the minister leaves that subject, may I suggest to him that provision should be made for fairer treatment of these employees in the matter of sick leave and questions of that kind?


John Warwick King: These employees are not regarded as part of the civil service. They are paid at what is known as " prevailing rates " and have not been considered in the light of civil servants. There is something in what my hon. friend has suggested with respect to sick leave. I may point out, however, that it is a pretty difficult service to control, and one that requires careful supervision:	Representations have been made on
this subject and they will be given consideration. The employees in the House of Commons, I believe, enjoy certain holidays and other privileges that are not enjoyed in other branches of the service.
With respect to the elevator operators there is a difference in the matter of annual increase of pay. There are also temporary employees who have not been made permanent. The latter class are not given an annual increase and probably have not been fairfy treated in that regard. I am asking that these temporary employees, some of whom have been in the service for twenty years, should be made permanent. I think they should be brought in and placed on a footing of equality with other employees.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is a matter for the government to do. It is a wonder they have not already done it.


Robert Rogers: The item of $385,000 for char service in the departments generally, including the payment of $100' for firing the noon gun, is a pretty large amount. There must be a lot of women employed if the rate of pay for the char service is only $1.25 a day.


Mr. TOBIN (Wetaskiwin):: Would any
hon. member suggest that the elevator men in the Senate enjoy a better rate of pay because they have to exercise greater care over those who use the elevators?


Robert King Anderson: What are the elevator men paid?


John Warwick King: Their pay ranges from $85 to $95 a month.


Robert King Anderson: Does that include those who are in attendance during the session of parliament?


John Warwick King: Yes, the regular employees.


Robert King Anderson: Are they employed for the whole year or just for the session?


John Warwick King: Some are permanent employees, and others are temporary employees.


Robert King Anderson: What is the total number of employees in the char service and the amount paid in salaries each year?


John Warwick King: The total staff
numbers 879, and the amount paid for salaries each year is $355,393.


Robert Rogers: There is an item of $99,000 in vote No. 142 for elevator attendants. Last year the vote only amounted to $72,000. Why the increase of $27,000?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Previous to this year these employees enjoyed a bonus which was paid from the bonus allowance. But there has been a reclassification or adjustment of salaries, and the increase is attributable to that adjustment.


Robert Rogers: The bonus is cut out
altogether.


John Warwick King: Yes by reason of an adjustment in salary.


Robert King Anderson: How many
elevator attendants are there including those in the Senate?


John Warwick King: There are 16
elevator attendants employed during the session.


Arthur Edward Ross: There is an item
here which requires explanation. It is that of $100 for firing the noon gun. I thought this government boasted of its economy. If so it should cut out all this noon gun firing. Is there any special necessity for having this gun fired at Ottawa? Perhaps it is the hour of the cabinet meeting, or it may have some other special significance. Is the man who fires the gun an artillery man, or what is the special reason for carrying on this practice when it has been cut out in all other parts of Canada?


John Warwick King: It is an old
practice, it costs $100 a year, and I observe that when the gun goes off nearly every member of the House takes out his watch to see the time. I think it would be a mistake to dispense with it.


Arthur Edward Ross: Why is this piece of antiquity continued in Ottawa when it has been abolished in all other cities?


An hon. MEMBER:: Not all.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is supposed to
be. They do not employ a man to fire the gun any other place. Have the people in Ottawa a bad set of watches?


John Warwick King: I think they
should be checked anyway, so that they could get the right time once a day.


Stewart McClenaghan: If you cut out the noon gun in Ottawa you upset the whole timing system of the city. Every house is run on the noon gun. At every gathering in the city when the gun is fired, everyone pulls out his watch and sets it. It is historical. It goes back to the days of Colonel By when Parliament Hill was then Barracks Hill. When visitors and tourists are being shown around the beautiful Parliament grounds and build-

ings and the gun suddenly goes off the guide is able to tell them a wonderful story. He can draw on his imagination and suggest that the gun is now fired from a spot where the Indians camped in the early days. We could not do without our noon gun.
Mr. RO'SS (Kingston):	This is not the
explanation. This practice has been discontinued in other cities for the sake of economy.


Stewart McClenaghan: This is the capital of the Dominion.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it maintained
because it is the capital. Is the whole city run by the noon day gun?


Robert King Anderson: I am interested in finding out about how much a session of parliament costs the country. How much are the charwomen who are employed during the session paid? How many engineers, firemen and watchmen are employed?


John Warwick King: The char service
in the building is under the Speaker of the Senate and the Speaker of the Commons, and we have not that information.


Robert King Anderson: The charwomen are mentioned in this item.


John Warwick King: Not for this
building. This item refers to other buildings.


Robert King Anderson: I understand the charwomen mentioned here are engaged in this building.


John Warwick King: No.


Robert Rogers: They are not included in
this item?


John Warwick King: No.


Robert Rogers: Is the item of $650,000 the same as last year? Was that amount used last year?


John Warwick King: Last year there
was an over-expenditure of $2,000. The total amount expended last year was $652,869.


Robert Rogers: It is a large amount.


John Anderson Fraser: I notice there is a considerable increase in the item for heating.


John Warwick King: I give the same
explanation as I gave with regard to the elevator men. Some of those connected with this work were drawing a bonus, but it was discontinued and the salaries have been adjusted.


John Anderson Fraser: The same with the lighting?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: Yes. The item would be for increased current. I do not see any change in the lighting.


John Anderson Fraser: An increase from $207,000 to $217,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are looking at the wrong page.


John Warwick King: The amount for lighting Ottawa public buildings and grounds is $82,000. The explanation of the increase of $10,000 in the estimates for lighting Dominion public buildings is:
1.	An increase of 38 in the number of buildings at a cost of	 $ 7,260
2.	An increase in consumption at various
buildings	 740
3.	The cost of lighting the Canadian building at London, England which was formerly paid out of the special appropriation . provided for that building. 2,500


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is included in the $35,000 you gave for that building?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Rogers: Was the $60,000 expended on Rideau Hall last year?


John Warwick King: We spent $62,698, so thaf the appropriation was over-expended.


Robert Rogers: Is the minister going to keep it down a little this year?


John Warwick King: We hope to.


Robert Rogers: It does not require $19,000 for lighting at Rideau Hall?


John Warwick King: It is fuel and light.


Robert Rogers: Does it take that amount?


John Warwick King: Yes. The coal would be the large item.


Robert Rogers: Telephone service, $95,000.


John Warwick King: That is for the whole Ottawa service.


Robert Rogers: Reading the item one would think it was simply for Rideau Hall.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I understood the minister to say a moment ago that the increase of $10,000 in the item of lighting for Dominion public buildings was partly due to the fact that ithe Department of Public Works was now paying for the lighting of the Canadian building in London.


John Warwick King: Yes.
14011-279i


George Halsey Perley: 
John Warwick King: Under the Public Works Act it is under the Department of Public Works just as other buildings are. We are asking for supply in order that we may heat, light and take care of the building generally through the commissioner.


George Halsey Perley: Does the Department of Public Works pay everything in connection with that building as it would with regard to a building in Ottawa, that is, the taxes, ground rent, lighting, heating, char service and everything of that kind?


John Warwick King: Yes, through the commissioner in London.	*


George Halsey Perley: Is that not a new venture?


John Warwick King: Yes.


George Halsey Perley: I do not think that was the policy when I was there. I quite admit we had not as good a building as the present one, but I think all the charges in connection with it were paid out of the High Commissioner's vote.


John Warwick King: Of course at that time the hon. member was in a rented building and the department had not any direct interest in the commissioner's office. But since the property now known as the Canadian building was taken over and reconstructed, the Department of Public Works came on the scene and we are now asking parliament to vote supply for maintenance of that building.


George Halsey Perley: Is this the first
year?


John Warwick King: The first regular
year that has been in operation.


Henry Lumley Drayton: It is then rather a good time to suggest that the hon. gentleman is not responsible for one cent being spent there. He has not the slightest supervision of expenditure. He has nothing to do with the charwomen or anything else there. He neither hires nor fires the man that looks after the furnace or anything else. They are all employees of the local office.


John Warwick King: The Civil Service Commission hire and fire.


Henry Lumley Drayton: In England?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Supply-Public Works


Henry Lumley Drayton: It seems to me that the goverijment sometimes strain at gnats and swallow camels. They are making a great deal out of a gnat in this case. I have a shrewd suspicion that the real reason they are doing that is that it is not convenient to show the annual carrying cost of that building in an item of $110,000 a year. There is so much trouble about this gnat. My hon. friend is put into this position that he is asking for a vote for something which he knows nothing about and which his officers iknow nothing about. If a man is to be hired to look after the furnace in the Canadian building in London, how is he appointed by the 'Civil Service Commission?


John Warwick King: Firemen are exempt under the Civil Service Act.


Henry Lumley Drayton: I knew they
were. That was the reason I was taking my hon. friend at his word for the moment, because when I was asking how the man was hired or fired I was told that it was done by the Civil Service Commission. I knew that was nonsense. What appointments have been made by the Civil Service Commission to positions in connection with the London office?


John Warwick King: What I have said is right. We submit the list to the Civil Service Commission. Although they do not appoint the firemen, they indicate the position and the salary. Others on the staff are appointed by the commission. Of course our connection with the building is that merely of the Department of Public Works which is maintaining buildings say in Vancouver, and there is no reason why it should not maintain a building at London under the same conditions. We have our agent there, the High Commissioner, and the department is kept informed. There is nothing cumbersome, nothing unusual about this; indeed I think it is a proper procedure that the vote should come before parliament in this way.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The minister
now says that the Civil Service Commission apparently makes out the classification of services there. I want to know what appointments it has made there.


John Warwick King: I have not a list at hand, but the salaries for caretakers, engineers and firemen which we provide for amount to $7,617.


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is exactly what I did not ask my hon. friend. He is fond of giving information that is not asked IMr. J. H. King.]
for. He gave information as to appointments being made by the Civil Service Commission. Now I ask him what appointments have been made to the London office by the Civil Service Commission.


John Warwick King: I am informed that the Civil Service Commission approved all the caretakers, engineers and firemen employed in the Canadian building, London.


Henry Lumley Drayton: The whole thing comes down to this, that the High Commissioner over there makes the appointments and they are approved by the Civil Service Commission.


John Warwick King: It comes down to that.


Henry Lumley Drayton: Who is my hon. friend's representative in England?


John Warwick King: The High Commissioner.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We are learning something all the time. We learn now that the Hon. P. C. Larkin, the High Commissioner, is the representative of the Minister of Public Works in London.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
is unfair; he knows he is not speaking according to the book. The Hon. P. C. Larkin is High Commissioner for Canada in London, and in that position in addition to his other duties he represents the government of Canada in the administration of the Canadian building in London.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend said that he had a representative over there and could run that office just as well as he could run an office in Vancouver.


John Warwick King: Why exaggerate?


Henry Lumley Drayton: That is what my hon. friend said. He wants now to deny that. He did not say that he had his representative there and could run that office just as well as he could run a building in Vancouver?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is exaggerating.


Henry Lumley Drayton: My hon. friend's memory is as weak as his logic. I asked him who his representative was and he said it was the Canadian High Commissioner. It seems that is a farce.


George Halsey Perley: It seems to me
it is a mistake for the Department of Public Works to take over this service. The High

Private Bills
Commissioner in London and his secretary are really the ones who administer the building, who pick out the men who are to do the work, and the charges for it should be through the High Commissioner's office. It is not reasonable to have the expenses over there divided into a number of departments so that it is impossible for anybody to find out the total cost of the building and the services in London. It is only camouflage to put it through the Department of Public Works when the High Commissioner and his office are responsible for the whole expenditure and are the people who really select the men. The minister has made a mistake in including this vote in his estimates. What is the total cost of the services in London?


John Warwick King: It is $35,110.73.


George Halsey Perley: Does that include ground rent?


John Warwick King: It includes taxes, insurance, repairs, heating, lighting, power, rents, salaries of caretakers, engineers, and firemen. I do not think there is any option in the matter unless we amend the Public Works Act. There is no use creating any mystery about it. Mr. Larkin is in London and is surrounded by a capable staff, and as we approach the period of estimate-making we are advised as to how much their requirements will be. And that is entered in the Public Works estimates. One or two hon. gentlemen have made the same complaint about some items which in their opinion should properly come under the estimates of other departments to which they appertain. This has been pointed out in the case of Agriculture, for example. But the fact is that under the Public Works Act this department is responsible for the expenditures so included. There is no desire on my part to control expenditures that do not rightly come under my department, but this is the system which has been adopted.


George Halsey Perley: How is it that from the time we have had a High Commissioner in London until to-day these services have not been administered by the Public Works department? It is true that we had a rented building, but we have throughout the country many such buildings which the Public Works department administers. If it is contrary to the act, how is it that until to-day the Public Works Department has not administered the services in London?


John Warwick King: The High Commissioner is free to rent any buildings, but the moment a building becomes the property of the crown it comes under the Public Works department.


George Halsey Perley: But the Public Works department has already administered rented buildings.


Henry Lumley Drayton: We have a grant for $1,400,000 for rented buildings occupied by other departments. Will the minister give us a list of those buildings, including the offices in Ottawa, for which rents are paid.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 12, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Denis (Joliette)-Mr. Duff in the chair.
Mr. MEIGHEN:: May I ask if anyone
here is familiar with this bill? I do not want to hold it up because the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Denis) is not here.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I saw the hon. member
for Joliette at six o'clock, and he had to leave for his home. This bill was passed unanimously by the Private Bills committee. It is an old bill which has been before the House for three years, and merely asks for an extension of time.


Arthur Meighen: There is no Rouyn
railway circuitousness about it, is there?


Mr. LAPOINTE:: No; no bill would be
needed.


Arthur Meighen: Has it any distant
relationship to the Canadian National Railways?


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know; I have
no information.


Arthur Meighen: Perhaps the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) can tell me.


Eugène Fiset: The hon. member
for Joliette told me it was a first cousin to the Canadian National Railways.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
Private Bills



DOMINION ELECTRIC PROTECTION COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee on Bill No. 155, respecting Dominion Electric Protection Company-Mr. Marcil-Mr. Duff in the chair.
On section 1-Capital increased, par value of shares decreased.
Arthur Meighen: In the absence of the promoter, can the hon. member for Rimouski give us any information as to the pedigree of this company?


Eugène Fiset: No.


Ernest Lapointe: As neither the member in charge of the bill nor the chairman of the Private Bills committee is here to give any explanation, I think this bill should stand.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 156, for the relief of Samuel Wex-ler.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 157, for the relief of Samuel Lehman Stouffer.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 158, for the relief of Robert Douglas Ian McLeod.'-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of Mary Margaret McColgan Vinnette Graydon.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of Alexander Charles Boyd.-Mr. Ladner.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Charles Day. -Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Albert Wilson Denning.

Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Margaret Lambert.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 164, for the relief of Jessie Patterson.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Ernest Ashton. -Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 166, for the relief of Evelyn Christine Stewart.-Mr. Maclean (York).
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Ernest Love.- Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Charles Stanley Reed Riches.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 169, for the relief of Mona Aileen Davies.-Mr. Ryckman.
Bill No. 170, for the relief of Elizabeth Wright.-Mr. McClenaghan.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 173, respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Morin (St. Hyacinthe).

Bill No. 174, to incorporate The Detroit and Windsor Subway Company.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of Alice Victoria McGibbon.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of Samuel Pave-ling.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of John Jones. -Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Benjamin Rapp.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto).
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Bernard Thomas Graham.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 180, for the relief of Robert Edward Greig.-Mr. Baker.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Daisie Hawkey. -Mr. Speakman.
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Annie Sophia Gordonsmith-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Bertha Amelia Bertelet.-Mr. Mewburn.
Bill No. 184, for the relief of Olive Mary Mead.-Mr. Bell (Hamilton).
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Alice Elizabeth Blakely.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of Ethel Maud Hargraft.-Mr. McClenaghan.
Bill No. 187, for the relief of Frederic Vinet. -Mr. Geary.
[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of Supply, Mr. Duff in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the House tool
recess at six o'clock we were discussing resolution 142 on page 34 of the estimates.


Robert Rogers: The minister was about to make somei explanation in regard to the matter of rents. I notice there is an increase of rents of some $30,000. The amount originally was very high, $1,410,000; it is now $1,440,000, and I think it would be well for the minister to give some information as to the necessity of paying such an enormous amount for rent.


James Horace King: The increase is largely made up of
the inclusion in the estimates of the Canadian building in London, $9,733, the rental of the Duford building and the McDougald building. Those buildingse are occupied by the Marine Department and the Mounted Police. The Blythe building is occupied by the Mines Department at a rental of $3,600, and the premises 31 'Sparks street by the Post Office Department at an expenditure of $900. The total rental is $28,691.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Rogers: Would it be convenient
to give us a list of all the properties rented in Ottawa, with the names of the lessors?


John Warwick King: R. L. Blackburn
appears to be one of the larger lessors; C. J. Booth, and the Imperial Realty Company- Mr. HANSON: Who are they?


John Warwick King: I think they are residents of Ottawa. Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Booth are well known. I do not know
who compose the Imperial Realty Company. The list will be placed on Hansard so that it will be available to hon. members. It is as follows:



RENTALS IN OTTAWA

[Stage Direction]
Building
Bate Building	
Birks Building	
Plaza	
Union Bank	
Motor Bldg	
Frank Street	
Transportation	
Booth Building	
Trafalgar	
Jackson Building	
Duford Building	
Elgin Building Annex & Cottage
Storage	
Projection	
Occupants
Taxation	
R. & C. & Agr	
Insurance	
P. O. & Interior....
Interior	
Mines, storage	
Auditor General & C.
Indian Affairs	
Interior	
Immigration	
R.C.M.P. Stores	
Customs, Health	
Indian Affairs	
Langevin Block	
Regal Building	 *
Canadian Woods & 66 Queen St..
31 Sparks Street	
Queen Street	
Dalhousie & York	
Surv. Gen. George St	
Lamb Building	
Larocque Building	
Slater St	
Wellington St	
105 Murray St	
McDougald Building, Sussex...
Queen St	
Norlite Building	
Metcalfe & Slater	
98-100 Wellington	
Queen St-	
Central Station	
Old Free Press	
Robinson Building	
Royal Bank Building	
Sovereign Building	
Stephen Building	
Central Reg	
Plaza Building	
O.A.A.C. Building	 Lowe Martin Building-
Imperial Garage	
McAuliffe Building....
Castle Building	
York St. Garage	
Lessor
H. N. Bate & Sons-H. Birks & Sons.... R. L. Blackburn-
Labour Dept	
Militia, etc	
Post Office	
Agr. Patents	
P.P. & Stationery	
Interior	
Health	
R.	C. M. P	
Agriculture	
Agr. Ex. Storage	
P. P. & Stationery	
Marine & Fisheries	
Postal Stores	
Interior	;	
Int. Reclamation	
Justice	
Agr. Storage	
Railway Comm	
Mines	
Interior, T. & C	
Interior, etc	
Interior, Dom. Parks, Bank
St	
Interior	
Interior	
S.	C. R	
Militia Dept	
T. J. Blythe	
C. J. Booth	
Booth & Holbrook....
J. C. Brennan	
C. J. Booth	
Duford	
Elgin Realty Co....
Earlscourt Realty..
C. J. Booth	
Hope & Sons	
Dr. Hanna	
Imperial Realty....
W. J. Irvine	
F. Jarman	
P. Labelle	
P. Labelle	
J. B. & W. A. Lamb.
Larocque	_...
Laurent ian Building. .
Mrs. A. Martin....
McDougald	
McDougald	
McKenzie Co	
Norlite Realty Co... Ottawa Building Co-
Ottawa Investment-
Ottawa Terminals...
Realty Co. of Ottawa..
Robinson Estate....
Royal Bank	
Total, Ottawa...
Medical Stores.. . Ordnance Stores.
Annual
Rental
Stephen Estate	
Vimy Realty Co	
R. L. & R. Blackburn	
$ cts.
16,000 00 7,516 19
7.600	00 65,675 38 15,393 00
3.600	00 42,474 84 17,319 75 16,880 60 32,145 75
7,225 00 31,829 62
3.500	00 5 00 5 00
16.500	00 97,527 46
800 00
1.560	00
14.500	00 24,200 00
2,660 00 12,832 00 2,750 00
5.500	00 2,390 00 7,233 45
16,000 00
30.000	00 5,858 40
2.560	00
1,000 00
21,356 00 7,600 00
15.600	00 15,050 25
15.000	00
7.500	00
16.000	00 500 00
8,227 33 6,348 38 6,116 76 3,400 00 12,580 00 2,448 00
648,868 56
Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Would
the minister tell me whether it is true that officials and employees of the Interior department are distributed over twenty buildings in this city, or if not, how many?


John Warwick King: The Department of the Interior, which includes the Indian department and the various branches, are in twelve different buildings in this city.
Supply-Public Works


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: I was informed by a man who ought to know that they had offices in twenty-six buildings. Even twelve buildings seem an enormous number for one department to be spread over. Is there any way whereby a more economical adjustment of that department could be brought about?


John Warwick King: I think the way to accomplish that is by consolidation in new buildings. We were discussing that question this afternoon. The Parks branch of the department is a distinct branch and it is in its own quarters. The Indian department have their own quarters and so on through the department. The main offices of the department are in the Langevin block.


Stewart McClenaghan: I would like to
ask the minister about the Carling building on Rank street between Sparks and Queen. When was the lease with Mr. Carling cancelled?


John Warwick King: There was no
cancellation. The lease expired some months ago. I have not the exact date under my hand, but I shall be glad to supply my hon. friend with that information.


Stewart McClenaghan: I understand Mr. Carling's lease expired and the building was left on the market empty. It was a very expensive building; I believe he had it on the market at $200,000 and he could not rent it to the government. I do not know why they left it. It had been occupied by the Department of the Interior from the time it was built. I understand that nothing Mr. Carling could do would induce the government to re-lease it. It was eventually sold to the President of the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association and I believe within twenty-four hours of the sale being effected a new lease was made out to that gentleman and his friends. That is the information I get. I do not know whether it was because Mr Carling was a son of his father, a former Conservative Minister of Agriculture, or not, but I know that building was lying idle for about a year. I understand the department have rented it and paid rent since last May although it was occupied only about a month or two months ago. The tenants who went into that building were removed from the Bryson building on Queen street, a building with light on four sides, to a building that has light just on Bank street. The building on Queen street was owned by the George Bryson Realty Company and it is now lying idle, while the building that the government could not use prior to the time that the

President of the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association bought it is now occupied by the Parks branch that was formerly in the Brj'-son building on Queen street.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is not correctly informed. The lease of the Carling building expired. There were changes and removals in the department. As my hon. friend living in Ottawa knows these things take place from time to time. It is true that a department has gone into that building, but it has been renovated and improved so that it is a satisfactory building to-day.


Stewart McClenaghan: Is the Bryson
building on Queen street not satisfactory? It had been occupied by the Parks branch ever since it was built fifteen years ago. It is right behind the Hunter building with light on four sides; it is an isolated fireproof building. I know the property on Bank street. Up to the two top storeys it has light only front and back. The rest looks on to an alleyway; if they need light they get it from the alleyway. This building was occupied for a number of years. Mr. Carling lost on that transaction probably $100,000. The building was put on the market with the brokers at $200,000; then the price was reduced to $175,000, and finally when the building was lying there idle without rental he had to take the best offer he could get, which was $110,000 or $115,000. Therefore through the fact of the building not being occupied, he lost the difference between $110,000 or $115,000 and the $175,000 or $200,000 at which the building was put on the market. This looks to me like a clear case of patronage. We people in Ottawa do not like patronage at all; we are very much surprised that the Minister of Public Works would think of such a thing when ML Carling, who was a very prominent citizen, put up this building, thus helping to make Bank street the wonderful street that it is, the building lay empty for about a year on account of its not being well lighted; yet as soon as it becomes the property of the president of the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association it has plenty of light around it and becomes rented.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: When the lease of that building expired and the department felt that it required certain alterations, did the minister give the lessor an opportunity of making those alterations? Did he make any requirement or suggestion to the lessor that the building would be suitable if certain alterations were made?

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
would understand the situation better if he would go over the numerous leases we have in Ottawa and if he realized the difficulty of accommodating various departments. A department is very much like the ordinary tenant who moves into a house and occupies it. After he is there a little while he finds the light not good or the premises dirty or cold, in the case of premises rented for departments the Department of Public Works hears of these things. We act as agents for the various departments and changes are made from time to time. When a man or a firm rents a building to the Department of Public Works or the government of Canada there is no assurance and no reason to have assurance of tenure any more than in the case of any other lessee. It is true that if departments are comfortably situated and complaints do not come in we try to continue the tenure, but changes will and do take place from time to time.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I quite appreciate the fact
that the lessor of a building to the government has no right to expect from the government more than from any other lessee. But I think he has a righ't to expect that if his lessee, the government, has any fault to find with the premises, he might be informed and given an opportunity of making the necessary alterations. It strikes me as a new member of this House as rather strange, to say the least, that when the premises had been vacated by the government on the expiration of the lease the new Liberal owner is given an opportunity of putting the building into condition, meeting the requirements of the department and becoming himself a lessor. Any lessee who has occupied as a tenant premises for any considerable time usually, if he finds fault with the premises, gives his lessor an opportunity of putting them into proper condition.


John Warwick King: As the result of certain reorganization in the last two or three years a number of changes were necessitated in the Immigration department, and these changes are all justified. The reference to the president of the East Ottawa Liberal Association is without point.


Stewart McClenaghan: The minister
means the Eastern Ontario Liberal Association. Did the department make any extensive repairs to that building or was the work all done by the owners?


John Warwick King: Largely by the owners.


Stewart McClenaghan: Ordinary men on the street inform me that they have seen
Public Works men around the building during the past six months. What was wrong with the Bryson building? That building has been occupied by the Parks branch alone. It is an isolated building with light on four sides and it seems rather strange that it should be vacated and the Parks branch transferred to a building which has been condemned for want of light.


John Warwick King: The Parks branch complained that there was not sufficient accommodation and that the building was cold and dirty. They wanted to be transferred.


Stewart McClenaghan: Was the Journal building vacated for the same reason? Was it, too, cold and dirty simply because it happened to be the Journal building?


John Warwick King: I suppose the hon. gentleman would wish the government to continue renting the Journal building. Our lease expired and we moved.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Reverting to the Carling building, did the department comunicate with the owner before he made the improvements? Did they submit to him certain specifications for improvements and request him to comply with them?


John Warwick King: We insisted upon the improvements being made before the building was leased.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Might not the department
have done precisely the same thing with the previous owner?


John Warwick King: He was not given an opportunity.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Exactly; Mr. Carling was not given an opportunity. Aparently what the government could do for the one man they could not do for the other. They could not go to the old lessor, whose tenants they had been for years, and tell him that the building as it stood was not suitable and demand certain improvements and alterations. They ' could not do that in his case but they could with the next owner who happens to be a Liberal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would be ridiculous to suggest that Mr. Gordon Edwards, a member of a family that has been a milch cow to the Liberal party for a quarter of a century, would not be given an opportunity in this matter.


John Warwick King: The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) evidently did not hear me say that there was a reorganization. We moved from the Norlite building to the Jackson building for consolidation pur-
Supply-Public Works

poses in connection with the Immigration department. That was at the request of the minister. We then consolidated the Lands branch in the Norlite building, removing a part of that branch from the Carling building. That is how the Carling building was vacated in the first place. On the occasion of a further reorganization the Parks branch at their request were transferred from the Bryson building to the Carling building.


Murray MacLaren: What are the rentals respectively of the two buildings?


John Warwick King: I have not the information here; the transaction took place some months ago. But the rentals, I fancy, are about the same. I shall look into the question. In the Carling building we found increased accommodation for the Parks branch, and naturally as therq' was more space the rent would be higher. -


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The minister has not yet satisfactorily answered me. I am prepared to accept the statement that there had to be a reorganization of certain branches. After that reorganization the plans of the government evidently fit into the Carling building.
My question is this: could not 9 p.m. those plans have fitted into the Carling building while it was owned by the other gentlemen? Do they fit in now better than they did before, merely because the present owner is a Liberal and a friend and supporter of the government? Could not the same improvements and changes, the same structural alterations, have been effected under the old lessor as under the new?


John Warwick King: During and after the consolidation the Carling building was vacant for a period of nearly one and a half years. We had left it and we went back to it at the request of the Parks branch, which needed better and larger quarters.
- Mr. BURY: That does not answer my point.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I presume we may discuss under this item the famous Union Club purchase. How much has been spent on this building for furnishings and so forth since the close of the fiscal year which is covered by the last report of the Auditor General, that is to say, since March 31, 1925?


John Warwick King: I have not the capital expenditure; I gave that to the House last year. The information I gave to-day has reference to the vote, now under consideration, for maintenance. I submitted the details this afternoon. The total is $35,110.73.
[Mr. J. H. King.l


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am not interested in the maintenance. I want to know what we have spent on the structure in addition to the cost.


John Warwick King: There is a total expenditure of $1,540,781.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We have spent a considerable sum in refurbishing and refurnishing the building since buying it.


John Warwick King: In addition to the purchase price a certain amount of reconstruction was necessary. That information was given last year, together with the amount for furnishings. I have not the information here as to those expenditures; I have the explanation of the expenditure for the coming year.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is for maintenance.


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there any expenditure contemplated for further furnishings in the coming year?


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So we may take it for
granted that the building has cost the country as it now stands $1,500,000?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Right here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Do they approve of this?


An hon. MEMBER:: We do not approve of twisting it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am reading absolutely
from the record.


An hon. MEMBER:: Has the record been changed?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, the record has not
been changed. I will continue with the items. A settee $279.84f; a satinwood table $803; a walnut table $187.80; two chairs $184.93'; a pair of corner cabinets $180.07; nineteen fenders $155,73; sundries $255.75. Then there was furniture purchased in Canada to the value of $9,800, including $2,200 to the Andrew Malcolm Company. That is a total of $19,424.63 for furniture up to that time, when the building had not been completed, and since that time over a quarter of a million dollars more has been spent, if I understood the figures correctly from the minister. That makes a total of $1,540,000, less $1,302,421.88 up to March 31, 1925. I would like to ask if there is any justification for this extravagance.


John Warwick King: 
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Will the minister give the comparison between what was paid in that case for the leasehold interest and what the amount was in the case of Canada?


John Warwick King: I am speaking of the ground lease.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I am aware of that, but you
paid something for the lessee's interest in that lease.


John Warwick King: 
Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Yes, but-


John Warwick King: done 'by Messrs. Trollope & Colls, Limited, the foremost and most reliable contractors in London. They in competition with other contractors submitted prices as to what the work would be done for. Their price was accepted, and I am satisfied that if hon. gentle-mep have an opportunity of visiting London and seeing this building they will not complain very much in regard to Canada's investment.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: May I ask the hon. minister
now to answer what was the most material question in that comparison? One government has a lease for a certain number of years at a certain rental of a certain area. It had to buy the lessee's interest in that lease, and the smaller the rent, the longer the term, and the better the terms of the renewal lease, the bigger the price it will pay. That is perfectly obvious. I want to know if the minister is going to give this House a proper comparison between the bargain made by this Dominion, and that made by South Africa, or by any other country for its leasehold interest. What was paid for the leasehold interest in each case?


John Warwick King: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister can give
the committee, if he will just refer to his figures, what we paid for the lease. I know the property. I saw it when the front was all torn out of the building, and the new front was being built in. If the minister will give us the amount we paid for the lease-which for the moment I have forgotten, but it runs into a very large sum- and then tell us what it cost to remodel the face of the building-because they took out the old face of the building, leaving very little else-that will give us some idea. The minister speaks about the ground area. Unfortunately that building is a very shallow one. While its general location is excellent, I admit, as everybody must admit who is familiar with the Trafalgar Square district, although the side of the street the Union Club is on is not as much travelled, I think, as the side immediately opposite, yet the location is not so super-excellent as the minister would lead us to believe. But I am not going to quibble over that. It is a good location. but, as I say, the building is a very shallow one. It is a sort of triangular affair, on an obtuse corner, and the whole front of the building had to be torn out and rebuilt with a stone front, with the result that it looks very well.

The minister mentioned a moment ago a building that undoubtedly ought to have been secured, Cox's Bank on Waterloo Place. It is a perfectly new building, modern in every respect, a magnificent building with 114,000 square feet of space. The minister gave the ground area as 10,000 square feet, as compared with 9,000 feet in the other building, but the Cox building is a magnificent one, a modern stone building ideally located, facing directly across to Whitehall. It is ideally located for the purpose of a Dominion government in London, a much better location than the site on Trafalgar Square. I admit that for retail business perhaps, the sale of tickets, for instance, the particular section where the present building stands is very good. It is largely occupied now by offices of various steamship companies; the Canadian Pacific is almost across the Street, and there are the Grand Hotel and other buildings. As a location for business I admit it is better than Waterloo Place where Cox's Bank is, but for an office building for Dominion government purposes the Cox's Bank location, to my mind, would have been very much better. Furthermore, you would have had four or five times the floor space that this building supplies. The government could then have rented part of the building, but as we are situated at the present time in London, the building is more than fully occupied and does not house all the government services.


John Warwick King: Practically all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Almost all, but not quite.


John Warwick King: There is space
there to spare.


Henry Herbert Stevens: II think the minister will find that you cannot put the government services now in London in that building. I was fully advised of that a year or so ago when I was over there. But I am not complaining that the location is not a good one. That is not the question. The question is, are we getting for the expenditure we put into that building the best return? I submit that we are not. I think the government made a serious mistake when it did not secure Cox's building for this purpose, which in my opinion is the best location for the purpose in London. The Australian building, which is further down towards the city, is a much better place for the headquarters for the Agent General and for Dominion government purposes than is the Union Club building which we purchased. It is too late to quibble over the matter now, I suppose, but I want to recall to the attention of the minister and of the

Supply-Public Works
committee that before this deal was consummated I brought the matter to the attention of the House in 1923, indeed in 1922, before the Prime Minister went to England, and he stood in his place in the House and promised us that the matter would not be consummated until it had been further discussed by parliament. But in the interim we were committed to this purchase by a certain Colonel Hyde, if I remember rightly. Again, in 1923 we warned the government that it was not making the best possible bargain. Now I think when we have all the expenditures before us it will be found that we have bought a very costly location which gives us not by any means the best possible accommodation for our Canadian services.
I would ask the minister to give us separately the cost of the purchase of the lease, the cost of renovating and rebuilding the structure, and the cost of the furnishings to date.


John Warwick King: 
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that the complete cost
of reconstruction?


John Warwick King: Yes, if I remember rightly. The hon. member for York-Sun-bury gave the cost of the furnishings a moment ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Only up to March 31st
of last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: As a matter of fact it
would amount to about $1,500,000 for the lease and the rebuilding of the structure.


John Warwick King: The total capital expenditure to date is $1,540,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We would like to get from the minister his defence of the purchase. I am not going to question the location for I am not able to speak as to that, and there is a difference of opinion. But we will concede that the location is a good one. We should know the purchase price of the lease before we can understand exactly the comparisons made by the minister with the locations of the buildings of other dominions.


John Warwick King: I think I gave
that information very concisely this afternoon, but I will read it again: London, Canadian building: Paid for equipment of the Union
Club, interest in site and building, including adjustment of taxes and costs of transfer and registration, $1,009,436.74. I think that is the information my hon. friend wants. Then the amount for the reconstruction and improvement of the building is $531,344.81. I deem it best to give the figures in dollars and cents rather than in pounds. The total capital expenditure is $1,541,781.


Peter McGibbon: If I understood the
minister, this building cost approximately $1,000,000; $500,000 was expended upon reconstruction and improvement, and we have to give it up in thirty years?


John Warwick King: No, we do not.
We have the option of continuing.


Peter McGibbon: What is the increase in the rental?


John Warwick King: 
Peter McGibbon: Who authorized the
extravagant furnishings for this building?


John Warwick King: I do not think
the furnishings are extravagant; I think they are in keeping with the building and the location. The money for this purpose was voted at the last session of parliament.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister
justify it?


John Warwick King: Yes, entirely.


Peter McGibbon: On what ground?


John Warwick King: As being necessary for a building so situated.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: What did South Africa pay
for its lease?


John Warwick King: I have not that
information.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Then it is impossible to make a comparison. It is utterly futile to compare a lease with a rental of two thousand a year with another lease with a rental of two thousand a year unless one knows what was paid for the leasehold interest in each case.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the cost
of furnishing the building up to the present time?


John Warwick King: I do not happen
to have that information at hand at present. The hon. member for York-Sunbury gave from the Auditor General's report a few moments ago the expenditure for furnishings for the building. I have already given the total capital expenditure, and we are dealing
Supply-Public Works

now with the item for maintenance for the coming year. I shall be glad to give to my hon. friend the information he asks for, but I regret that I do not happen to have it here just now.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The amount as shown by the Auditor General's report was a little less than 125,000. Since the date of that expenditure the building has been completely furnished and the total amount must be greatly in excess of the sum mentioned. I should like to have that information if I could get it in some detail.


John Warwick King: I shall be very
glad to bring down a return containing the information.


Arthur Edward Ross: In addition to the offices mentioned by the minister, what other offices are accommodated in this building?


John Warwick King: I am advised
that the government agencies and offices in London are now housed within the Canadian building. There may be one or two offices maintained down town for the convenience of the public, but the headquarters of the offices in London are now within the Canadian building.	That was true when I was in
London this year and it certainly was the intention of the High Commissioner to have that done.


Arthur Edward Ross: What offices are
maintained downtown?


John Warwick King: I do not know of any, with this exception:	The Immigration
department have offices scattered throughout England. They may find it necessary to maintain a sub-agency down town away from the main office in the Canadian building. The same is true of the Department of Trade and Commerce, the Soldiers Pension branch, and other departments.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And the National Railways.
*


John Warwick King: The National
Railways are a separate corporation. They have their own office across the street from the Canadian building.


Peter McGibbon: Would the minister tell us something about these two book cases which cost $1,900?


John Warwick King: They are very beautiful bookcases and are good value for the money. If hon. members saw the furniture they would be well satisfied in regard to the outlay.


Peter McGibbon: Tell us something about it.


John Warwick King: I would rather my hon. friend would get a magazine and read about it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go over there and see it for yourself.


Peter McGibbon: I was over there.


John Anderson Fraser: The item for rents has increased from $1,410,000 to $1,440,000. What is the explanation of that increase?


John Warwick King: I gave that information to the committee a little while ago.
, Included in the increase are the following items: London, England, Canadian building, $9,733; Duford building and McDougald building, Ottawa, occupied by the Department of Marine and the Department of Mounted Police, $14,458; Blythe building, occupied by the Mines department, $3,600; premises at 31 Sparks street, occupied by the Post Office Department, $900, making a total of $28,691.


Arthur Edward Ross: When the minister brings down a return of the expenditure incurred in furnishing this building, will he include a list of the offices in the building and a list of the offices maintained outside?


John Warwick King: In London? Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: I notice a very substantial increase in the item for the salaries of caretakers, engineers, and so forth. How does the minister account for that increase?


John Warwick King: The explanation is the same as the one I gave this afternoon in regard to other items. Previous to last year these men received a bonus which was not voted in connection with the departmental estimates but was paid separately. Last year there was an adjustment of salaries, and as a result the bonus has been done away with. The increase here is largely accounted for by the adjustment in salaries.


John Anderson Fraser: It is a pretty large amount.


John Warwick King: It really is not an addition. They received an augmentation before in the shape of a bonus, but it did not appear in this item. Now, by reason of the adjusted salaries, it does appear there.


Mr. MULLINS:: I notice an item of $60,000 for the maintenance of Rideau Hall and grounds, improvements, furniture, and so

Supply-Public Works
forth. Will the minister give an explanation of this item so that we may all understand it? What has been the total cost of Rideau Hall up to date?


John Warwick King: For the last ten
years the cost of upkeep has varied from $60,000 to $65,000 annually. In 1914 and 1915 the vote was $65,000, and the amount spent was $65,176. The item varies from year to year, but it as always close to that figure. As to the total cost of Rideau Hall, the purchase of the property and additions and alterations amounted to $774,232, maintenance $1,535,792, making a total of $2,310,000.


Henry Alfred Mullins: 
John Warwick King: I think that is
not putting it quite fairly. You do not charge interest on maintenance as a rule.


Henry Alfred Mullins: My figures show that
Rideau Hall has cost the country $5,000,000. At 5 per cent interest it would mean a rental of $250,000 a year, and there is an item of $19,000 for fuel and light.


John Warwick King: The cost of the
property and the additions and alterations to date amount to $774,232.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is the capital cost?


John Warwick King: Yes. I have
given the figure for maintenance. You would hardly charge interest on maintenance.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Can the minister give us the
valuation put on that London Building by Knight, Frank and Rutley, to whom the government paid $511 for making the valuation?


John Warwick King: The hon. member will find that that information was placed on Hansard last year. I have not got it here, but I shall be glad to bring it down.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: The rent and the interest, with the amortization on the million and a half paid for the building, would mean that we are virtually paying between $82,000 and $85,000 a year for the building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers, Nova Scotia, $402,650.
Robert Rogers: There is an item in connection with Dingwall (Aspy Bay), Breakwater, $48,700, for which $25,000 was voted last year. Is there any explanation of that?


John Warwick King: This amount is
required for the construction of a breakwater at Dingwall, Nova Scotia, now under contract. It is a cribwork breakwater, a thousand feet in length, ten feet wide, three hundred and fifty feet by fifteen feet. The work will be completed during the year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the amount of
the contract?


John Warwick King: To complete the
contract $43,208; and inspection, contingencies and so forth, $5,492. The contract was for $54,708 to W. E. Landry, of Antigonish, who was the lowest tenderer. With regard to the district served by this construction, there are some 3,000 farmers and fishermen residing in the district. It is an important community being isolated mil ilBpnulent la.rij.tly cm itnltn transportation It is to be stone ci .bn jik.


William Alves Boys: Would the minister give us
the details of the item of $65,000, harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements?


John Warwick King: This is required
to make provision for repairs and improvements to harbours and rivers in control of the Public Works Department in Nova Scotia which are estimated by the district engineer to involve an expenditure of less than $1,000. There is a long list of these works, the expenditures varying from $15 up to $1,000 or $2,000. As my hon. friend knows, this item is to take care of unexpected and unforeseen conditions which may develop in the harbour work, piers or public works in that vicinity.


Robert Rogers: Was the vote last year all expended?


John Warwick King: We spent $63,000 last year.


William Alves Boys: I quite appreciate what the minister says about taking care of the unforeseen expenditures, but in the main, a I understand it, the vote is the result o. items that are before the minister, and' in coming to the House he asks for the total amount. Possibly in addition to that he may put in a miscellaneous item.


John Warwick King: Is it my hon. friend's desire to have a list of what it is now intended to expend from that vote?


William Alves Boys: If it is not very long the minister might read it.


John Warwick King: It is for works varying in cost from $75 to $500.


William Alves Boys: I would be satisfied with a list of the expenditures over $500.
440G
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: There are 37
proposed expenditures, repairs to wharfs, repairs to landing steps, repairs to approach, construction of sheds, construction of skidway and other items.


William Alves Boys: That gives us no information at all. Is the particular wharf that is to be repaired not designated?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: That is the information we want.


John Warwick King: This is only a tentative list. Take Sable Island, repairs to wharf, $200-


William Alves Boys: Am I not right when I say it is the result of reports made by officers of the department?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: Would you put it on Hansard?


John Warwick King: Yes The statement is as follows:



LIST OF WORKS AUTHORIZED 1926-27

[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia-
Centreville (Cape Sable Is.), repairs to wharf $ 200.00
Chester, landing steps	 100.00
East Jordan, repairs, etc., to approach..	..	100.00Fisherman's Harbour, construction of	shed..	300.00Livingstone's Cove, repairs to wharf	
100.00Meat Cove, construction of skidway	
500.00Pleasant Bay, slipway and hoist	
450.00
Petite Riviere, repairs to breakwater.. 350.00
Shelburne, repairs to wharf	 274.00
Wallace Bridge, repairs to wharf	 330.00
Meteghan, repairs to wharf	 450.00
Meteghan River, repairs to eastern breakwater 752.00
Lower West Pubnico, repairs to wharf	 400.00
Sandy Cove, repairs to breakwater	 600.00
Hampton, repairs to the retaining wall of
shoreward end of breakwater	 500.00
Bear Cove, repairs to breakwater	 350.00
Church Point, repairs to wharf	 500.00
West Head, repairs to public wharf	 200.00
Sanford, repairs to breakwater-wharf	 200.00
Black Rock, repairs to wharf	 225.00
Middle West Pubnico, repairs to boat-landing 400.00
Western Shore, repairs to breakwater	 600.00
Port Medway, repairs to wharf	 500.00
East Berlin, repairs to breakwater	 500.00
Young's Landing, repairs to wharf	 500.00
Mill Cove, repairs to wharf	 400.00
Brooklyn, repairs to breakwater	 600.00
Riverport, repairs to revetment wall	 600.00
Port Mouton, repairs to wharf	 600.00
Neguac, repairs to wharf	 500.00
Bay St. Lawrence, extension to breakwater 394.76 Great Village, improvements to road approach for the right-of-way to the public
wharf	 300.00
Long Point, repairs to the road to the public
wharf	 625.00
Malignant Bay, repairs made to northern
Pi€r

	 100.00
Amherst Point, repairs to wharf	 75.00
Middle East Pubnico, repairs to wharf	 500.00
Ostrea Lake, repairs to wharf	 100.00
Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: May
I ask for information regarding the wharf at Sydney?	*


John Warwick King: This amount is for the purchase of the old pier or wharf site of the Sydney Foundry Company and the construction of a cribwork wharf at that point. In 192M922 the sum of $100,000 was voted towards the construction of a wharf 540 feet by 70 feet to be located at Battery point at an estimated cost of $444,545. There is no doubt that there is a necessity for a wharf or pier in Sydney harbour for commercial purposes, but we do not feel that we would be justified in spending half a million dollars for the construction of a new pier there. An opportunity has arisen whereby we can secure a property which we are advised will give the accommodation we require and which can be constructed at a total cost of about $150,000. That proposal is under consideration. The matter has been gone into by the Department of Public Works and also by the engineers of the Canadian National railway who have conferred and have recommended this site and this purchase to the government.


Finlay MacDonald: What was the purchase price of the site?


John Warwick King: The purchase has not yet been made. We have had two or three estimates of the value. The price it is proposed to pay if the property is bought is $68,000. The valuations have been checked not only by the departmental engineers but by individuals outside of the department.


Finlay MacDonald: Some time ago I directed the attention of the government to the fact that the terminal wharf of the old Intercolonial is situated less than 300 yards from this property. It has been partly destroyed by fire, but it can be put into a state of repair for a very much less amount than this, so I am informed. Is the minister prepared to say that the Railway department intend to extend their railway from the present terminus to the new site?


John Warwick King: I might just read to my hon. friend what the district engineer had to say in regard to the Battery point wharf. He said:
We examined the site at Battery point where there is at present a portion of a wharf in existence, but this was not suitable because it is located in an exposed position, which would only enable us to utilize the inner side of the said wharf, and in order to get sufficient accommodation for the trade which was outlined to us, it would have to be extended to such a length that its cost would preclude its consideration.
The cost, as I said a few moments ago, being $444,545.
It likewise possessed the disadvantage of being located too great a distance from the business section of the community, so that transference of goods to it from

Supply-Public Works
mercantile establishments or from it to the said establishments would render the difference between rail haulage and water transit practically a negligible quantity.
In regard to the further question whether the railway company will utilize the proposed pier, the railway engineer and the Public Works engineer have drawn plans and it is their intention to use this pier once it is reconstructed. Instead of 300 yards it is some 3,600 feet from the present terminus of the Canadian National railway, and I understand the cost to the company will be not more than $16,000.


Finlay MacDonald: I may say, having personal knowledge of the location, that as regards the Intercolonial the two sites are identical.


John Warwick King: I have been in
Sydney only once, but that is not my impression.


Finlay MacDonald: I have been there for many years. If the minister is satisfied and will assure us that the railway intend to extend their road to that wharf, there is no further objection; but so far as I can learn from the Railway department and from questions put to the railway officials yesterday in the committee, there is no such intention at the present time.


John Warwick King: The whole matter has been discussed with the Canadian National Railway officials. If >the railway company will intimate to the Department of Public Works that it is not their intention to use this pier, it will not be built.


Finlay MacDonald: In the
event of the wharf being built, according to the present estimate there will be only $7,000 left for the wharf. Is it the intention of the department to bring in a supplementary estimate to build the wharf this summer?


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
has raised some doubt in my mind regarding this property, and I have suggested to the engineering branch that further inquiries be made and further information secured. As to whether the government will vote more money for the construction, my hon. friend will have to wait and see. The supplementary estimates will be down in a day or two. They are not yet complete; they are under consideration. It is not my privilege or right to *indicate what will 'be in them, other than to say that if the government secures this property it is with the desire and intention of giving to the people of Sydney a terminal 14011-280
wharf at that point, and that will require some more money.


Finlay MacDonald: At'the earliest possible moment?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Will the minister give some information with regard to the item of $2,000 for Portuguese cove breakwater? I notice that in the previous year $11,700 was spent. Is this $2,000 to complete the work?


John Warwick King: To complete the
contract.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The minister no doubt is
aware that when the breakwater was nearing completion last year, the cribwork was carried away owing to a very severe storm. I was wondering if this item of $2,000 would complete the work.


John Warwick King: That is all that
the engineering branch have asked for. Our information is that this $2,000 is required to complete payments on the breakwater. Portuguese cove, under contract by W. S. Landry. We have a report from engineer Locke in which he says:
The old work with the exception of the approach which was badly damaged by storm in December, 1919, was completely destroyed by the storm during the winter of 1923.
That was before we started this work. I am not advised of a recent storm.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am referring to a storm
last fall, in the latter part of September or the beginning of October, when a great deal of the new work was carried away. I was there early in October and I am quite sure that $2,000 will not complete that breakwater.


John Warwick King: The work was
reported as satisfactorily completed on December 17. Did the storm occur after that?


Felix Patrick Quinn: The first week in October or the 'latter part of September.


John Warwick King: This report is
subsequent to that.


Thomas Cantley: Under the head, "Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements" there is an appropriation of $65,000, which is apparently an annual vote. How much of that has been spent in Pictou and on what sort of work?


John Warwick King: That vote is to
meet contingencies that may arise from time to time. I am not sure that any of it is for Pictou county; I would say not. The money

Supply-Public Works

is at the disposal of the Engineering department. The estimated requirements are so far comparatively slight. Last year we spent $63,000.


Thomas Cantley: As practically no expenditures in Pictou county are contemplated in any of these estimates, I hope the minister will bring down in the supplementary estimates a sum sufficient to provide wharf accommodation for Pictou Island.


Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton) :: What is the actual cost of the breakwater?


John Warwick King: 


Felix Patrick Quinn: Has any of the work at
Hall's Harbour been begun yet?


John Warwick King: The vote is required to complete the work now under contract, which consists of 100 feet of breakwater, 26 feet by 29.
Mr. QUINN* That is Hall's Harbour?


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-harbours and rivers, $69,000.
Robert Rogers: What does the item of
$10,000 mean for harbours and rivers generally? Is that to be spent throughout the province?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Robert Rogers: There is a large vote for New London.


John Warwick King: That vote is required to complete the construction of the eastern breakwater at New London now under contract. Of the $30,000 asked for $17,000 is a re-vote.


Robert Rogers: That $17,000 will complete the work.


John Warwick King: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Warwick King: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again this day.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before that motion is carried, will the minister agree to the discussion, when the item for New Brunswick is taken up, of any points that may suggest themselves in relation to the Prince Edward Island vote?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Progress reported.



MONTREAL HARBOUR COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Loan of $12,000,000 for terminal facilities.
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 189, to provide for a loan to the harbour commissioners of Montreal.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Duff in the chair.
Robert Rogers: The minister might give
us some information not only regarding the purpose of this proposed loan
10 p.m. but as to what has been done with the loan, made a year or two ago, of $11,000,000 or $15,000,000, I forget which. What is the necessity for this loan?


Mr. CARDIN:: 
Robert Rogers: Do you include under
bridges the large bridge which was built?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The south shore bridge
is not included in this statement, which only accounts for the $15,000,000 already advanced. In connection with that bridge we have not advanced any money; we have merely guaranteed the debentures which are to be issued by the harbour commission.


Robert Rogers: You bought a lot of right
of way and that sort of thing in connection with the bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Rogers: Where did you get the
money?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About $1,000,000 has already been applied to the construction of the bridge, and has been taken from this $15,000,000 already voted. This amount will be returned, however, when the harbour commission issues the debentures for the bridge, one-third of said debentures being taken care of by the federal government, one-third by the provincial government and one-third by the city of Montreal.


Robert Rogers: What was the estimate of
the cost of the bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About $15,000,000.


Robert Rogers: I think $11,000,000 was agreed upon between the three parties.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is about $15,000,000.


Robert Rogers: I think the minister is mistaken.


Arthur Meighen: 
Robert Rogers: My information is that
the city of Montreal and the province of Quebec appear to have an understanding that the cost shall not be more than $11,000,000, and that they have refused to exceed that amount. They will not pay anything more than one-third of $11,000,000, according to my information, which comes on very good authority.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think there is no restriction.


Robert Rogers: The province and the city claim to be restricted to one-third of $11,000,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a definite contract with the city to pay a proportion or any stated sum towards the cost of a new bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. The city of Montreal was authorized to take one-third of the responsibility, through a law passed at the last session of the Quebec legislature.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And have they agreed to
pay one-third of the total cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is there a contract to
that effect?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There has been a by-law
passed by the city of Montreal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that equivalent in law
to a contract?
Supply-Public Works


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been so considered
by the legal advisers of the harbour commission.


Murray MacLaren: Two or three, weeks
ago a question was put on the order paper asking for the amount of the salaries paid to officials of the harbour boards of Montreal and Quebec. I am referring now to other officials than the harbour commissioners. This information was refused. The minister is now asking for a further loan of $12,000,000 to the harbour commission of Montreal, and I wonder if he still refuses to give us that information. I can hardly believe that this information is to be withheld from the House, because we have the information in regard to the salaries of the commissioners. I wish to press this matter very strongly on the minister, because I submit that we are entitled to have this information. Perhaps in view of the criticism levied since, because of the refusal to supply information on at least one other occasion, the minister may have thought proper to change his opinion in this matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I explained the other day that, this information being of an administrative character, the harbour commissioners should not be requested to supply it. We have no desire to conceal anything, and in view of the representations made the other day by hon. members opposite I am quite willing to give the information now concerning the Montreal Harbour Commission.


Murray MacLaren: That will be satisfactory. When will the information be given regarding the city of Quebec?
Mr. CARD'IN: At the next sitting of the House, on Monday.


Robert Rogers: Is the minister prepared to give us the information in regard to the purchase of the right of way for the bridge, and to explain as well the necessity for changing the bridge from the original plan?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not exactly see my
hon. friend's point. The site of the bridge has been changed; is that what my hon. friend has in mind?


Robert Rogers: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has been thought by the advisory committee, composed of engineers, and by representatives of the city of Montreal and of the provincial government that the best site, and the one which has in fact been chosen, is that which lands the bridge at the foot of Delorimier avenue. The other proposal was that it should land just in the middle of the harbour, in that part of the
(Mr. Hanson.]
city where there is the greatest congestion, and it was thought that to bring all the traffic over this bridge into what is already the most congested part of the city would be a source of trouble. So it has been decided, after due consideration by all interested parties, that the proper place to land would be the foot of Delorimier avenue. This, indeed, is the site which was indicated as long ago as fifteen years, when the first proposal for the building of the bridge was made. It is thought to be the more advantageous site because it is going to land in the eastern part of Montreal, in the manufacturing centre of the city where there is no such congestion as there is a,t the other site. The present site has been agreed upon by the representatives of the provincial government, of the city of Montreal, and by the board of engineers which has been constituted to advise the commissioners in regard to the bridge.


Robert Rogers: Could the minister give us some idea in regard to the amount of right of way that was purchased for the first location that is no longer of any use?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No property has been purchased.


Robert Rogers: Oh yes, you purchased considerable property.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No property has been purchased for the present site according to my information.


Robert Rogers: You mean to tell me that you have not purchased any of the right of way for the bridge yet? Of course you have.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There are proceedings under way for acquiring the property which has been chosen.


Robert Rogers: And the right of way was purchased for the bridge as originally planned.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No property was bought
for what my hon. friend calls the old site.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On the south side of the river? I was down there the other day, and I saw a mile or more of grading and huge cement abutments.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This is government property. It belongs to the Department of National Defence.


Arthur Meighen: Through how many general elections does the government expect the building of this bridge to last?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think the bridge will be built before the next election.
M'r. MEIGHEN: The minister's powers of prophecy will fail, as his other powers have

Supply-Public Works
done. There is just as much chance of the heavens falling, and a lot less chance than of the government falling. The minister said that about $1,000,000 had already been spent.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Does he think there is very much to show for that in the way of a bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly. A very large
pier has already been completed on the south shore, and there are two piers completed on the south side of St. Helen's island. The foundation of the most important pier on the north shore, in Montreal, is already completed.


Robert James Manion: Would the minister give to the committee the amounts of money that have been advanced to the different harbour commissions, and state which of them are paying interest and which are not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately I have not the exact figures here. So far as Montreal is concerned, $44,000,000 is the amount of the debentures which the government has in its hands at present. I think the advances to Vancouver amount to about $15,000,000.
Mr. MANION. Is Vancouver paying interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And sinking fund too.
Don't forget that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Montreal is also paying interest.	We have advanced about $15,-
000,000 or $18,000,000 to Quebec, but no interest has been paid.


Arthur Meighen: Is Toronto paying its interest?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Toronto is on a different footing.	Practically all the expenditures
made in Toronto have been made'by the Toronto harbour board and guaranteed by the city, except an amount of $8,000,000, which has been expended there by the Department of Public Works. That is a capital charge, upon which we are not getting any return. We have also made certain disbursements in the Maritime provinces. In Halifax about $15,000,000 or $18,000,000 has been expended by the Department of Railways and Canals. Of course, we are not getting any interest on that; that was a capital expenditure. I think about the same amount, $15,000,000 or $18,000,000, was expended at St. John by the Public Works department. These expenditures by the Public Works department are not in the same category as the advances that we have
been making to Montreal, Quebec and Vancouver. The expenditures at the other ports have been public works disbursements.


Arthur Meighen: Where there is an obligation to pay interest, it is only being paid at Vancouver and Montreal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Arthur Meighen: Is there any other place where the obligation exists?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, Quebec.


Arthur Meighen: On that point, I do not think the fact that a harbour pays interest is any reason for the government and parliament shutting their eyes to the expenditure and allowing the commissioners carte blanche to go ahead with the investment of more millions at their own sweet will. I think there has been a good deal of money wasted and perfiaps worse than wasted by harbour commissioners. Of every million dollars and every dollar that we put into the harbour of Montreal it is certainly the duty of the government and of parliament to see that every cent is spent to advantage, that it is necessary expenditure and is not merely made for the purpose of serving some object of local pride, but that it is essential for the service of the traffic of the Canadian people. At Montreal the more millions we put into harbour expenditure, assuming that some of it is not wisely spent, the greater the cost of the grain on the original producer, who necessarily has to pay it. The fact that Montreal pays its interest is merely evidence of the fact that it is so located that our grain and other commodities go through there. It has that geographical advantage, but in the end it is merely a form of taxation, the support of the harbour for services rendered.
The point I want to make is this:	We
really should have as direct and as full supervision over the expenditure at the harbour of Montreal as we have over the expenditure at Belle river wharf or at Fort William or St. John or Halifax or any other place. We have not got it. We are allowed to go so far, and there we have got to stop. We are asked to believe that everything beyond that is sacrosanct, and we cannot set our unholy feet there at all. That should not be. Why should members of parliament be told, for example, in answer to questions on the order paper, that the people's representatives are not entitled to know what salaries the harbour commission in their benevolence may see fit to pay to employees, not only in Montreal but all over the world? I do not know where they have not got employees now. We Should have as much
Supply-Public Works

direct supervision over that as over anything else, because as I stated in opening, out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayer, through one channel or the other, comes the money that supports the whole institution. The minister cannot get out of the responsibility merely by saying that this is a corporation and it is paying its interest to us; that we get the interest annually and are making an investment of this. In the present case, though we may be making an investment, the interest attached is really a charge against the grain of the west and a charge against the traffic of Canada in general, I think it would be time well spent to have a pretty thorough inquiry into some of the expenditures by our harbour commissions.


Thomas Cantley: May I point out that it Is not only a charge against the grain of the *west-


Arthur Meighen: I said the traffic of Canada generally.


Thomas Cantley: -but also a heavy charge against the coal of the east. In the case of every ton of Nova Scotia coal sent up to Montreal we have to pay a wharfage rate of 71 cents a ton. In addition to that we pay a very high annual rent for every foot of space that is occupied by that coal, which necessarily has to be stored there during the spring and summer months in order to carry on during the winter. The expenditure for that purpose runs into forty, fifty, sixty and even seventy thousand dollars, for cash storage space and constitutes a heavy tax on every ton of coal we send up from the lower provinces to Montreal. Therefore we are very particularly interested in all the expenditures made by the harbour authorities; and yet, as has been pointed out, we have no opportunity whatever of criticizing that outlay in any way. That is why we are so very much concerned.


Murray MacLaren: May I ask for a little further explanation in regard to the port of Montreal? Have there been repayments of any portion of loans made to the harbour commission, or have any previous loans matured? I notice that in this case the period mentioned is 25 years. I observe also there is a sinking fund amounting to something over a million dollars. Perhaps we can get some information as to what percentage is set aside to form a sinking fund. There is one further question, if the minister would be good enough to give the information: Is this a so-called free port or is there a tariff of charges? If so, what are the charges?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the first place may I say that none of the debentures have yet matured. A sinking fund is provided for and it amounts to about $1,000,000 at the present time. I must confess that I am not in a position at the moment to state what dues are charged in the port of Montreal. Generally, however, I can say that the charges are about the same as those in Vancouver, and that they compare with advantage to similar charges in the port of New York. I quite realize the point made by the hon. member for Pictou that the people of the Maritimes are very much interested in the port of Montreal, as they are in fact in any other port. My hon. friend would like to see the charges made as low as possible and be afforded an opportunity to look into the administration of the harbour. That is a legitimate wish, and nobody objects to it. At the same time it must be realized that the wharves and other facilities at Montreal demand the expenditure of money. We cannot enjoy shipping facilities such as exist there without paying something for them. This money could be paid directly, through a vote of the Public Works department, without any return to the government. Nevertheless it would be an expenditure of public money and the Canadian taxpayers would still be bearing their share of the burden. On the whole I think I can state that the charges in the port of Montreal are quite reasonable in comparison with the charges paid in all the other ports of America.


Mr. CLARK:: Has the minister given full details of the purposes for which this money will be expended?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I enumerated the main items last night. If my hon. friend desires I can state all the details, but there is nothing very interesting in a description of piers, dredging basins, and the like. The money is to be expended on dredging, wharves, piers, basins, plant, shops and buildings, permanent sheds, railways and electrification, and increasing the storage capacity of elevator No. 3.


Robert Rogers: What will be the increase in elevator capacity?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It will be 3,000,000 bushels.


John Arthur Clark: Has the minister put on Hansard the amounts that will be spent on each of these items?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, I placed them on Hansard last night.

Supply-Public Works


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before the expenditures are actually made will they be approved by the government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. Before any expenditure is made a request is presented by the harbour commissioners, accompanied by detailed plans and specifications of the work, which has to be approved by the Governor in Council.


Richard Burpee Hanson: After the money has been expended is any independent audit made, and if so by whom?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The firm of Riddell, Stead, Graham and Hutchison have been auditing the books of the harbour commission for the past fifteen years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the government take any steps to ascertain if the money actually goes into the work or do they simply rely upon the representations made to the harbour commissioners, and this audit, this post audit as I understand it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The department has an
employee who visits all these ports and reports upon the progress of the work.


Robert Rogers: I asked the minister a
while ago what price had been paid for right of way. If I understood him correctly he said no right of way had been purchased yet.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There is no right of way
to be purchased on the south shore of the St. Lawrence, because there the bridge is going to land on government property.


Robert Rogers: But as to the part of the
bridge that is not on government property?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not on the south shore.


Robert Rogers: It does not matter whether it is on the south shore or not.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In the city of Montreal
the biggest pier is built on the property of the harbour commission. It is only the landing of the bridge which is going to go over certain private property. The harbour commission is negotiating at present in order to get these private properties.


Robert Rogers: I have a statement in
regard to this matter; that is why I am putting these questions to the minister. Of course he knows more about the subject than 1 do. But the statement in question, which is signed by Charles Bernier, reads as follows:
In re: Expropriation for the Montreal Bridge Erected by the Harbour Commissioners
I,	tihe undersigned, Charles Bernier, architect, of Montreal do solemnly declare:
1.	I have taken cognizance of the sales made to the Montreal Harbour Commissioners and the government of Canada of certain properties situate in the city of Montreal and hereinafter described;
2.	I have personally taken cognizance of the civic valuation of these properties and I have personally examined and I know the properties in question and their real and marketable value:
3.	I give hereinafter, under my oath, my own personal valuation of these properties, and also the prices at which, I am informed, these properties were sold to the Harbour Commissioners of Montreal, for the purpose of the erection of the bridge.
Cad. No.	Civic	My own	PriceSt. Mary Ward	Valuation Valuation	PaidP. 31-P. 32-P. 33..	.. $22,500	$35,000	$48,000P 491	38,000	78,000P 492	25,000	50,000P 493	75,000	125.000P 494	35,000	44,500Excess paid	$126,500 over value..	$208,000 $137,500	$345,500 $345,500
And I make this solemn declaration conscientiously believing it to be true and knowing that it is of the same force and effect as if made under oath and by virtue of the Canada Evidence Act.
Now they sent me as well another document. I am willing to give these to my hon. friend, because he will know more about them than I do. But I think it is only fair to him and to the House and to everybody to ascertain whether these facts are correct, because if they are they appear to be very much against the desirability of this parliament lending much more money to the harbour board of Montreal or to entrust them with much more expenditure of public money in any respect. I will only read one of these statements in respect of how this transfer is made. Here apparently is a certificate of title from the deputy registrar, Mr. LaRue. They are practically all the same.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read them all. Put
them on Hansard.


Robert Rogers: They are as follows:
At the instance of A. Julien against lots numbers 31, 32, 33, 491 and 494-1 and 502A, on the official plan and book of refence of Ste. Marie ward, including only the entries done at Bureau de Montreal under numbers 096787, 096935, 098002, 0101014, to wit:
Sale the 20th November 1925, E Gravel, N.P. by Antoine Chevert residing at number 536 of Outremont Avenuet to Elizabeth Carmichael Monk of lot number 491 of Ste. Marie ward less the part sold to the terms of the sale in date of the 13th June 1902, D. Cushing N.P. for the sum of one dollar ($1) and other good and valuable considerations received. Registered 29th November 1925, No. 096787.
Supply-Public Works

Sale the 20th November 1925, T. Bissonnette N.P. by Joseph Charlier contractor of the city of Montreal to Elizabeth Carmichael Monk of lot No. 494-1 of Ste. Marie ward with right in common in the lane therein described for the sum of one dollar ($1) paid cash and other good and valuable considerations received. Registered 21st November 1925, No. 096935.
Sale the 1st December 1925, T. Bissonnette N.P. by Eugenie Blanchard wife separate as to property of Merile Guertin of the city of Montreal, and Gustave Gilbert, gentleman, residing at Waterloo in Belgique, to Elizabeth Carmichael Monk of Lots Nos. 31 to 33 of Ste. Marie ward for the sum of one dollar ($1) and other good and valuable considerations received. The said Gustave Gilbert acknowledges to have received from the said Dame Guertin the sum of one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five dollars and sixty cents, ($1,785.60) and interest due according to deeds registered at Bureau de Montreal Est under Nos. 94960 and 95791 also the sum of nine hundred dollars ($900) due according to deed registered at Bureau de M. E. under No. 110076 whereof quit. Registered 3rd December 1925, No. 098002.
Sale the 12th January 1926, G. C. Marler, N.P. by Charles iStrangiman of the city of Victoria in the province of la Colomibie Anglaise to Elizabeth Carmichcael Monk amongst others of a part of lot No. 502A of Ste. Marie ward, the whole for the sum of twenty-four thousand dollars ($24,000) paid cash. Registered 13th January 1926, No. 101014.
All which I hereby certify to all whom it may concern.
Witness my hand at Montreal this fourteenth day of May nineteen hundred and twenty-six at three o'clock in the afternoon.
All the titles seem to have passed from Elizabeth Carmichael Monk, therein described, for the sum of one dollar paid in cash, and "other good and valuable considerations received." I want to give these documents to my hon. friend the minister, so that he will have a chance to examine them and see how correct they are. If they are correct I think the minister should be very careful about spending further sums on the harbour at Montreal until he has made a more careful examination to ascertain the facts.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I shall be pleased to look into the documents read by my hon. friend.


Murray MacLaren: Can the minister inform us if any of the revenue derived by the commission is expended in construction work? Or is it done through the loans received from the Dominion government?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Two million dollars of
revenue has been spent by the commissioners in construction and important work in the harbour of Montreal.


Murray MacLaren: Out of their own revenue?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
[Mr. Rogers.!	;


Robert James Manion: Has the government spent in the harbour of Montreal money outside of that loan to the harbour commissioners, and if so how much?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, no other money.


Robert James Manion: Never?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Except a sum of $3,000,-
000 which was spent in the harbour before the incorporation of the present harbour commission.


Robert James Manion: What year was it incorporated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think it was twenty years ago.


Robert James Manion: And only $3,000,000 was
spent before that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, only $3,000,000.


Thomas Cantley: Has the Montreal Harbour Commission been in existence for only twenty years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, in its present form.


Thomas Cantley: Certainly the Montreal Harbour Commission has been in existence much longer than that, the commission undertook and carried through the entire scheme of deepening the St. Lawrence-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a very old institution, but in its present form it has only been in existence twenty years.


Thomas Cantley: As a commission it has been in existence for over forty years. Did the minister state that the same firm of auditors had audited the books of the harbour commission for fifteen or twenty years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is my information.


Thomas Cantley: I do not know who they
are and I am not making any reflection on them, but if one firm of auditors has been auditing the books for fifteen or twenty years, I would advise the minister to make a change and employ some other firm of auditors.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Personally I have no objection to that.


Thomas Cantley: I think it would be desirable to do so. A new broom sweeps clean.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has there
been any congestion in handling the grain down there? Has the minister given the in-

Supply-Public Works
formation asked for by the ex-Minister of Finance last night in regard to the storage of grain at that point? And what are the facilities?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I might as well give the
information that I promised to give my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre and the exMinister of Finance, and make a short statement of the condition of affairs. In doing that I will reach the point referred to by my hon. friend in regard to the cold storage facilities at Montreal. The revenues of the harbour of Montreal for the last five years are as follows:
Operating
Y ear	receipts
1921		$2,891,274
1922		 3,460,810
1923		 3,721,159
1924		 4,382,115
1925		 4,749,100
The elevator capacity of Montreal at the present time is 12,162,000 bushels. The total shipments of grain in 1921 amounted to 100,282,536 bushels and in 1925 they had reached a total of 165,870,814 bushels.
It is true that the cold storage was estimated in 1919, when the contract was decided upon at $900,000, but later on the size of the proposed building was increased and a new estimate of $1,400,000 was made. Subsequently it was decided that it would be advantageous to put in additional equipment and appliances and this, in conjunction with the fact that construction was carried on at a time when costs of labour and materials were considerably in advance of those prevailing at the time the first estimates were prepared, made the final completed cost of the structure $2,952,154. That is the explanation which is given to me of the discrepancy between the first estimate and the real cost of the cold storage. The gross revenue from the operation of the cold storage was $270,933 in 1924, and it increased to $276,261 in 1925. The following figures are very interesting in regard to the business of the cold storage plant at Montreal:
	1922	1925
Commodity	Pounds	PoundsButter	.. 1,672,000	15,928,224Cheese	.. 13,000,000	15,000,000Fish	.. 850,000	2,652,177Meat	.. 1,500,000	12,607,512Poultry	.. 500,000	2,841,741
This gives a pretty good indication of the development and progress at the port of Montreal. If I might give another figure which is not without interest, the total tonnage of imports and exports at the port of Montreal in 1921 was in round figures 6,000,-
000 tons, and in 1925 it was more than 9,000,000 tons. In 1922 there were exported through the port of Montreal 21,854 head of cattle, and in 1925 54,867 head, or much more than double.


Edward Joseph Garland: We should be sending 100,000 head. May I suggest that while all this is very gratifying, it has not answered my question? Was there any congestion in the port of Montreal in the grain handling facilities last year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The information we have
in the department from the harbour commissioners is that there really was congestion, and not very long ago we received a delegation from the Dominion Marine Association. In their representations they asked the government to grant a request that was going to be made by the Harbour Commission of Montreal to increase the elevator facilities there and particularly to increase the storage capacity of elevator No. 3. In fact it is well known in Montreal that there was congestion there last year.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister has given us the gross quantity of goods that went through the cold storage plant. Can he give us the gross operating cost of the plant?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Unfortunately, no.


John Anderson Fraser: Can the minister get it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Rogers: encouraging to that extent the development of the port of Portland to the detriment of Montreal harbour. That is a matter that should engage the serious consideration of the government. The discrimination is severe, and as these are official rates they cannot be denied. I might quote other rates but I will not do so. The fact is, however, that the discrimination exists all the way from Vancouver to Montreal, Quebec, St. John and Halifax in respect of these statutory rates fixed a short time ago by the present government. The discrimination bears more heavily against Montreal than any other harbour, and if the minister has at heart the development of Montreal harbour and wishes to increase its capacity to handle grain his first duty is to correct that rate which militates so seriously against it.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: Will the minister not give some explanation in answer to the statements made by the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) in regard to the purchase of land by the harbour commissioners of Montreal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am not in a position to discuss that statement. The hon. member has given certain figures which have come to him from soipeone in the city of Montreal, and I shall look into the matter.


Ernest Frederick Armstrong: When
may the House expect an answer from the minister?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that
most of the expropriation remains to be made. I know personally, for example, that certain property which is required has not been bought, and there is still some disagreement with the proprietors.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will you expropriate it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We shall have to.


Robert Rogers: We have no desire to delay the bill, but in all fairness the minister should allow the matter to stand until Monday and in the meantime look into the point raised. I can assure him that when he comes back with a statement we shall be glad to facilitate the passing of the bill.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I suggest that we get
through with the bill and discuss the point on the third reading.


Robert Rogers: We shall not be able to debate the subject then.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We will raise no objection.


Robert Rogers: We will not delay the minister at all, and if he will bring down the information on Monday we will help him to get the bill through.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We might pass the clauses of the bill.


Arthur Meighen: Can the minister tell me -I know the facts and circumstances will be in his mind-whether the government has paid the judgment of the Exchequer court in connection with certain property in the harbour of Quebec? Judgment was recovered and the case was carried through all the courts of Quebec and finally to the Supreme court. The judgment was not paid by the late government. I cannot at present recall the name of the owners of the property, but some $40,000 was involved.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I should not care to make any definite statement, but I think the money has been paid.


Arthur Meighen: So do I, but I should like to have a definite statement as to what was paid, to whom, and when. Will the minister have that information ready when the bill comes up again?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly.


John Arthur Clark: Does the $44,000,000 outstanding include the sum voted for the bridge?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Nothing was voted for the bridge. We merely guaranteed such debentures as might 'be issued by the commission, but we made no advances in respect to the bridge.


John Arthur Clark: Is the whole $44,000,000 in
the same position?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, the $44,000,000 represents money actually advanced. The debentures for the bridge have not yet been issued.


John Arthur Clark: This $12,000,000, then, would make the total advance $56,000,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Arthur Clark: The minister has said that the rates compare favourably with those in New York. Does he mean that the two are more or less equal?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The rates in Montreal and Vancouver are on the whole more favourable than those in New York.

Allied. Indian Tribes


John Arthur Clark: In ports that are so much
smaller the rates might well compare favourably with those charged in New
11 p.m. York; in fact, they should be considerably less. The value of real estate on the water front in either Montreal or Vancouver would be very much less than in New York, and consequently the rates should be a great deal lower in both Canadian harbours.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As a matter of fact they
are.
Mr. CLARK. You have no figures?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Robert Rogers: It is understood, I take it, that we may discuss on Monday the point I raised.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.03 p.m.
Monday, June 14, 1926.