1927-03-11

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following message from the Senate:
Resolved that a message be sent to the House of Commons by one of the clerks at the table to acquaint that House that the Senate hath appointed the Honourable the Speaker of the Senate, the Hounourable Messieurs Barnard, Belcourt, Green, McLennan and Taylor, as members of a special committee, to meet with a similar special committee of the House of Commons, to inquire into the claims of the

Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia, as set forth in their petition submitted to parliament in June, 1926.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 143, to amend "An Act respecting
The Brandon, Saskatchewan and Hudson Bay Railway."-Mr. Thorson.
Bill No. 144, respecting The Midland Railway Company of Manitoba.-Mr. Thorson.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	The hon. member
for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) addressed a question to me yesterday with reference to the purchase of timber for the Welland canal. I find that there has been no timber purchased since 1924, so I presume my hon. friend must refer to that particular purchase. I have here a copy of an order in council relating to the matter which I will be pleased to hand to my hon. friend together with certain other information.

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-Kenogami public building, $31,000.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: What is this for? Has
the minister some explanation? We do not know anything about this.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: This amount of $31,000 is required
for the construction of a public building in the town of Kenogami for postal purposes on a site situated at the corner of King George avenue and Ste. Famile street, purchased from J. O. Lacroix for the sum of $5,800.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is the population and the amount of business done by the post office there?
. Mr. ELLIOTT:	The population in 1921
was 2,557, and is now somewhere around 3,000, I understand.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue is $7,262.45.


Hugh Guthrie: This is just another of
these cases where, with a gross revenue of $7,000 it is proposed to spend $31,000 on a new building; our net revenue from that post office for the next ten years will go into that building. Is the building under construction, or has it been started?
mi

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Mr. DUBUC:: In connection with this proposed post office I may say that the town of Kenogami is very close to Jonquiere, where Price Brothers have their large paper mill, and it is also very close to the large aluminum plant which is being built. Within the last year the population of Kenogami has doubled; there are now 5,000 people in that town with no postal accommodation whatever. The post office to-day is located in a store.


Hugh Guthrie: Cannot the government
rent premises there?


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: Not in any place that we
know of. It is a new village and even the population can hardly find the requisite lodging because of the tremendous development produced by the operations of the aluminum company and the paper mills at Kenogami.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: That is where Price
Brothers have their big plant.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is the explanation of the high cost of the lot? The sum of $5,800 seems to be a very high price for a lot in that village.


John Campbell Elliott: I assume it is the same
reason that brings about high prices wherever a town seems to be booming. The population has doubled there within the last five years, and business seems to be very active. Not only have sites increased very greatly in value but buildings also.


Robert Gardiner: When was this lot purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: The lot was purchased
on the 21st October, 1925.


Hugh Guthrie: Was it purchased by
private treaty or by public competition? Were tenders called for? I notice the purchase was made six weeks before the election. From whom was it purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: It was purchased from Mr J. O. Lacroix.


Hugh Guthrie: What officer of the government did the purchasing, or how was it done?


John Campbell Elliott: I assume the lot was
purchased in the usual way. An officer of the department is usually sent down and looks over the lot. I may say to my hon. friend very frankly that my notes do not indicate what steps were taken towards purchasing it, but I assume it was done in the manner indicated.


Hugh Guthrie: Can the minister tell
me the name of the officer in the department? There are some good officers and some
that are not good ones.


John Campbell Elliott: They are nearly all good
in the department.


Hugh Guthrie: Oh, no, they are not.


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Did you buy
the land down there by the acre or by the foot? Tell us what the assessment is and we will find out what the value should be.


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: This is a comer lot and was bought by the foot two years ago, but it could not be purchased to-day for the price the government paid.


David Spence: How many
feet are there in the lot? You have not furnished the information asked for yet.


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: The approximate dimensions are 75 by 125 feet. It is at the intersection of two important streets. It is the finest site in Kenogami being right in the very centre of the town.


Edward Joseph Garland: All I can
say about it is that the whole business looks a little funny. I am not in a position to criticize the transaction in detail. If I had all the information-and I am sure some of the hon. members who live in the district must have-it might appear to me to be all right. Let me say, however, in closing this this matter as far as I am concerned at the moment, that I hope that next session when I come forward and ask for a post office building in a town of this size, or larger, and with far greater prospects of development than this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edward Joseph Garland: Yes-


Mr. CANNON:: You had better go and see what is taking place there.


Edward Joseph Garland: -I will not be faced with the difficulties that I have mentioned.


Ernest Lapointe: There is no Kenogami in your district.


Edward Joseph Garland: Drumheller is likely to develop to as great an extent as Kenogami if not greater.


Ernest Lapointe: No doubt Drumheller is a progressive place and a fine town but my hon. friend should have more information when he talks of a subject like this. Kenogami is in the very centre of the district where the great developments are taking place on the Saguenay river. There is a town just near I^pnogami which did not exist two years ago but where there will be 30,000 people next
i

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
year. My hon. friend is really wrong when he says there are no prospects of development there.


Edward Joseph Garland: The statement of the Minister of Justice as to my ignorance of conditions there would come with better grace from him if the minister handling the subject knew more about it.


Ernest Lapointe: But my hon. friend is
stating the facts as he does not know them.


Edward Joseph Garland: He has not got all the facts.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Limoilou-public building, $70,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister give
us pretty full information as to this item? It is a very big vote for a public building.


John Campbell Elliott: Tenders have been let, and we are asking for $50,000 instead of last year's vote of $70,000.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Would the minister be
good enough to speak up?


John Campbell Elliott: I will do the best I can and try to make my hon. friend hear. I am going to ask for $50,000 instead of $70,000. If one of my colleagues will make the motion we will have that change made. This amount of $50,000 is required for the erection of a public building on a site situated on La Canadierre road in the town of Limoilou. The proposed building will be a two storey stone structure 52 feet wide by 40 feet deep with a one storey annex at the rear 39 feet wide by 14 feet 6 inches deep. The building will provide accommodation for the postal service on the ground floor and will have offices and caretaker's quarters on the second floor.


Mr. MANION:: What is the population?


Ernest Lapointe: Limoilou is part of the city of Quebec.


John Campbell Elliott: It is hard to say what the population of the particular district served by the post office is, because Limoilou really forms part of the city.


Robert James Manion: Is it a subsidiary post
office of the city of Quebec?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: It is on the other side of the St. Charles river.


Hugh Guthrie: Well make the reduction and we will let it go.


Mr. DUNNING:: I will move the reduction at the request of the minister.
[Mr. Lapointe.l


The CHAIRMAN:: What is the reduction?


John Campbell Elliott: We are asking for a revote of $50,000.


John Frederick Johnston: It is moved by Mr. Dunning that the amount for public building at Limoilou be reduced by $20,000.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Item as amended agreed to.
Maisonneuve-public building, $25,000.
Robert James Manion: What is the explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $25,000 is required for the fitting up of the old city hall building at Maisonneuve, which was purchased in 1926-27 from the municipal authorities for postal purposes. The purchase price of the building was $100,000, and the fitting up is estimated to cost $25,000.


Robert James Manion: When was the building
purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: During the past year some time.


Robert James Manion: And what is the population of Maisonneuve?


Ernest Lapointe: It is part of the city of Montreal.


Hugh Guthrie: The purchase price was
$100,000?


John Campbell Elliott: That was the purchase
price.


Hugh Guthrie: Last year there seems to have been a vote of $50,000 and this year we are asked to vote $25,000. How did we pay for the building?


John Campbell Elliott: That $50,000 I think is
wrong. I have a note here which says that the amount of $50,000 in the 1926-27 column in the printed book was inserted by the Finance department. It is wrong; the correct amount is $125,000.


Hugh Guthrie: $100,000 for last year and $25,000 for this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal general post office-reorganization, $50,000.
Edward Joseph Garland: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: This is required for the
reorganization of the interior arrangements, fittings, installations and so forth as a means of providing improved facilities for the
MARCH 11, 1927	[DOT]
Supply-Public Works-Quebec
handling of mail. This reorganization has not been finally worked out, but tentatively it will include change of locations in the various branches of service in the building, and the installation of mechanical aids.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-ordnance stores building, $21,377.
John Campbell Elliott: This amount is to provide for the seventh and final payment on the purchase of the Grant garage, No. 1 Hillside avenue, Westmount, together with possible interest charges on delayed payment from May 1, 1927. By July 1, 1927, the whole of the appropriation will be available. The total cost is $165,200.


Hugh Guthrie: That is for the Department of National Defence?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Montreal-postal station in Outremont division, $50,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This is a new vote?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, for the purchase of a site and the erection of a building thereon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec Citadel-Governor General's quarters -additions, alterations and improvements, $100,000.
Mr. HEAPS:: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is required for
the remodelling of the Governor General's quarters in the Quebec citadel. The improvements embrace works of a miscellaneous character consisting of the remodelling and renovating of the quarters and the erection of a permanent addition for servants' quarters, kitchen and so forth. The work, it is estimated, will cost approximately $100,000. This was formerly the residence during part of the year of the Governor General, but the premises have fallen into disrepair to such an extent that the improvements will require the amount specified here, if the place is to be made habitable. It is Their Excellencies' desire to visit Quebec city twice a year.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Would it be possible to secure a suite at the Chateau in Quebec for the use of Their Excellencies, and so avoid this expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt it would be possible to get a suite there, but I can assure my hon. friend that the item has not been inserted in the estimates without the most careful canvass of the whole situation
Even if satisfactory quarters could be obtained elsewhere for the accommodation of Their Excellencies, the government are of the opinion that we should not abandon this old historic building, a part of which was built over a hundred years ago. It is perhaps one of the most valuable historic monuments that exist on the American continent to-day, and is of interest not only to Canadians but generally.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree with the minister in regard to this vote. I think we ought to preserve this historic monument of past days for it is something in which every citizen of Canada should take a just pride. I have not visited the citadel since the Duke of Devonshire was here as Governor General, and even at that time the whole premises were sadly out of repair. If nothing has been done in the intervening years the place must be in a very dilapidated condition today. Possibly the amount asked for, $100,000, is large, but having regard to the fact that this is one of the outstanding historic sites in Canada I believe that the people of the country desire to have it maintained in a condition befitting our wealth and consequence in this land. While I am disposed' to criticize much of the outlay proposed in these estimates, while I do oppose political expenditures throughout the country on post offices and other buildings for which there is no need at the present time, I am inclined to commend this vote, and I hope that the money we are now granting will place the Quebec citadel in proper shape, not only for the comfort of Their Excellencies, but also as a monument in which the Dominion at large is interested.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have no desire to criticize any amount the government may spend1 to maintain historic buildings in Quebec or anywhere else in Canada. May I point out, however, that we have had no explanation so far as to how much money is going to be spent on the kitchen and how much will be devoted to the restoration of the historic portion of the premises. It is just possible that an inadequate proportion of the vote will be spent for the purpose indicated by the leader of the opposition, and in that case the grant will be altogether contrary to the views he has expressed. The minister might tell us how the $100,000 is to be apportioned.


John Campbell Elliott: I am unable to give very
definite details. The architect has been over the building but I may frankly tell my hon. friend that at this time of year it is quite difficult to estimate what it will cost to preserve a considerable portion of the existing
1114	,	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Quebec
structure. This vote is merely an estimate. The full amount will, however, be required and before the department is able to put the premises in that permanent shape which we desire, I rather think the amount will be exceeded. An attempt is being made to render the place habitable, as it is not now, both for winter and summer. Furthermore, a good deal of furnishing will be required as well as inside fittings. This is the estimate which the architect, after a careful survey of the whole place, was able to submit to us.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long is it intended
that the citadel will be occupied by Their Excellencies?


John Campbell Elliott: Of course, that depends
upon the occupant. I should like to be able to give my hon. friend more information in regard to the matter, but I really cannot say how long they intend to keep up the old traditions in regard to retaining their headquarters at the citadel for a portion of the year.


Mr. BOURASSA:: May I ask if the battlements, the walls, of the old citadel and everything connected with it are under the jurisdiction of my hon. friend's department?


John Campbell Elliott: The fortifications are
under the Department of National Defence. I can give my hon. friend an exact description of the portion under Public Works, which is the part occupied for residential purposes.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: In case I may not be
here when the National Defence estimates come before the House, I may say that I passed in front of the citadel last fall, and I observed that the walls and battlements were in a very bad state. Certainly there is urgent need of works and repairs for the preservation of that historic monument-I think much more urgent from that point of view than the object of the present item; I do not mean from the other point of view presented by the minister. The matter of the preservation of the monument has been neglected for some years past. I have observed, for example, in the moat surrounding the citadel and connected with the entrance to the internal courts, the wall is partly coming down and work is urgently required there.


Mr. POWER:: I quite agree with what has been said by my hon. friend from Labelle. For the past seven or eight years, nearly every session, I have had a resolution on the order paper asking that the ancient walls and fortifications of Quebec be transferred from

the Department of National Defence, in view of the fact that they are no longer useful for military purposes, to some historic commission, preferably to the National Battlefields Commission. When the hon. leader of the opposition was Minister of National Defence he received the resolution with grea^ cordiality and took steps to transfer i portion of the 'ancient walls o<f the city of Quebec. The portion leading from Mountain hill over to Palais hill I think has been transferred in part to the city of Quebec. At the present time negotiations have been undertaken between the Minister of Justice and the Minister of National Defence, the mayor of Quebec, I think also Mr. Turgeon, speaker of the legislative council, and Sir George Garneau, with a view to having the three authorities, federal, provincial and municipal take the walls out of the control of the Department of National Defence, where they should not be, and preserve that historic monument for the future. With regard to this particular vote, in so far as it will help to build up the walls near where the Governor General's quarters are, it has my hearty support and endorsement. In order that the House may know that there is nothing political in this, I may say that the citadel is situated in my constituency, and I never knew until the estimates came down that there was any question of having a vote to repair the Governor General's quarters. I have made no representations to the Minister of National Defence or any minister with reference to this matter, but I may say that the repairs had been asked for by His Excellency, Lord Byng, and by other Governors General. Moreover it is, I understand, the intention of the government and of Their Excellencies to receive the Prince of Wales at the Quebec citadel next summer when he comes to Canada, and it is only fitting that the quarters should be put into proper repair and made fit to receive the prince.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Savard Park hospital-repairs and alterations, $5,000.
Robert James Manion: What hospital is this?


John Campbell Elliott: Quebec Park hospital.
This is for general repairs and improvements to the park hospital as requested by the deputy minister.


Robert James Manion: A marine hospital or a
Department of Soldier's Civil Re-establishment. hospital?

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: It is one of the quarantine hospitals of the Health department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Jacques L'Achigan-public building, $21,-
000.
Mr. ERNST:: Is this for a postal building? I should like to know the revenue of the post office and the population of the place.


John Campbell Elliott: The annual revenue is
$2,689, and the population is around 1,500.


Robert James Manion: I notice this is a revote of $16,000. Is it a new building entirely, or simply an addition to the old building?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a new building now
under contract. It is a revote.


Mr. KELLNER:: Do public buildings mentioned in the estimates include post offices?


John Campbell Elliott: If it is merely a post office it is so described. If it is a building including post office, customs and armoury, it is then called a public building.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: The minister has given
the revenue from the post office, I understand, which has no bearing-


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue is supposed to have some relation to the business being done in a particular community.


Mr. SEGUIN:: Besides the post office there is an excise office, there are five manufacturers of tobacco, and the revenue in 1920 was $18,000. I have not the latest revenue figures, but the offices are used for both post office and excise purposes.


Mr. BOYS:: I should like to ask what
is the policy of the department regarding the construction of post offices. The minister has given as a reason for the construction of this building the fact that the place has a population of 1,500, I think he said, and a revenue of $2,600. I think I could find quite a few places in my riding that I would like to bring to his attention, if that is to be the guiding consideration. Surely there must be some special reason for putting up a building in this place. If not, we may as well all get in on this. I have not made a request for the last ten or twelve years for an item of public expenditure in my riding outside of the town of Collingwood, which is an important harbour and has been for years and years, because I have understood right. along that we were supposed to cut down and stop that sort of thing altogether. I have not heard a solitary reason advanced in this House for the construction of this building, or for that matter for the construction of buildings in

a number of other places for which votes have gone through. I have no reference to the last item. If there is no other reason than a population of 1,500 and a revenue of $2,600, I would ask the minister if I come along with a proposal or two for public buildings in Simcoe county, in villages with a population of 1,500 and a revenue of $2,600, will he grant my request as well as the requests of other members of this House who have a similar situation in their ridings? If not, why is this item in here? Why is a building put up here and not elsewhere?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend comes
with any request it will be very carefully considered, there is no doubt about that; and if the treasury had to depend for its protection on my generosity, it would not be as nearly as well protected as now when I have to get past the treasury board and council. But I think my hon. friend's question is a fair one in view of what is taking place. It is a matter to which I have personally given very serious thought. The policy of this government, as I stated the other evening, is not to construct public buildings for post offices or any other service except where they are very urgently needed. Various considerations enter into the question. Take the case of the public building that was being considered a short time ago at Kenogami, where the growth has been very rapid and it is impossible to get a store or other suitable building in a place of that kind. Take certain ridings, perhaps like my hon. friend's, which have received no public expenditure of any kind for a number of years, and there are a great many rural ridings in that category. Somebody asked, Why construct a public building in a place where the population is only so much and the revenue is only $1,500 or something of that kind? I would ask hon. members to consider the question in relation to a riding where there are no other public works, such as harbours, docks or anything of that nature, and where as a matter of absolute necessity, there has been no public expenditure perhaps for years, because in recent times there has been very little expenditure on buildings. The department is only constructing public buildings in places where the present facilities are inadequate, where the public are not getting the service to which they are entitled, where it is considered in the public interest to construct those buildings and where such construction does not involve a departure from a policy of rigid economy.


William Alves Boys: The minister has not given us any special reason for this at all. He has only emphasized what I have tried to urge,

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
that it has been the desire to economize, and that if there is going to be any expenditure it should be in ridings which have not had much public expenditure, and so on. But I have not heard a word to show that there is any special reason for the construction of this building. There may not be a post office there now, but surely one can be rented. I have in mind no end of places within a radius of one hundred miles of my own town where there is identically the same situation, but they are not getting anything. Let us hear from the minister why an exception is being made of this place. I know nothing about it personally, and I am not singling it out for attack; I simply want to know what is the general policy, and I want to be given some reason why this should be done in this case. If there is no special reason, I want the minister to give us all an invitation to pester him with applications in the future. He says that we may trust to his generosity. Well, I would like to feel that I could do that, and if he really means that as an invitation I shall be round to see him in the next year or two because I have two or three places already in mind. Let us see if we cannot get some reason why this building should be constructed.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that any visit from him would not be considered by anybody as pestering; I know7 my hon. friend too well for that. But so far as throwing out a wholesale invitation for everybody to solicit public buildings is concerned, I do not intend to do that, because I am endeavouring to carry out the policy that my hon. friend has indicated he i3 in favour of, of constructing public buildings only where they are urgently needed, and this particular building is only being constructed because there is no other building there that will afford adequate accommodation. The contract has been let arid the building is under way.


Robert James Manion: I would just like to say
to the minister that he is, consciously or unconsciously, throwing out the very invitation which he says he does not wish to give. I will admit that up to this year there has been a policy on the part of all governments since the war not to construct public buildings. I pointed out the other evening that there were some eighty or ninety places where sites had been purchased as far back as 1910 or 1911, when Canada did not owe two and a half billion dollars, with the intention of putting up public buildings. I gave Fort Frances as an instance. A site was bought there in 1910 or 1911, and there are from
[Mr. Boys.l
seventy-five to ninety other places where sites have been bought. Up to this present year the government, and our previous government, and the government before that, have lived up to the policy of not putting up buildings that were not absolutely necessary, but certainly this year when one looks through the estimates, one cannot fail to see that that policy has been absolutely departed from. I notice a number of public buildings for Ontario and Quebec, and we had a vote the other evening for a public building in Kensington, Prince Edward Island. I certainly submit to the minister that he is giving us all an invitation, by this departure from what has been the policy, to press for public buildings in various parts of the country, and I again draw to his attention the case of Fort Frances, which is not now in my constituency, but in the constituency of the present Minister of Labour, and which I pressed for a long time until I saw that the policy of both governments, ours and the previous government, was against public buildings of that kind. I think the minister would be well advised either to cut out a number of these items, or to make up his mind that he is certainly going to be pressed by members from all over the country for public buildings which are just as much needed as this one. Fort Frances, for instance, has a population of about four thousand. It is a prosperous, progressive, go-ahead little town with not a public building. They are right on the border, and they require not only a post office, but a customs office and an immigration office. Up until very recently they were in a rented office-


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
permit me, we have recently been able to get very satisfactory and commodious quarters in the Masonic temple at Fort Frances, and perhaps that is the reason why a new building is not being asked for there. If that building had not been available we would have been forced to erect a building as in these other cases.


Robert James Manion: I know the Masonic building and I do not agree that it offers very commodious post office quarters for a town of the size of Fort Frances, but it is much better than the former accommodation. However, the point I make is that when I was the member for Fort Frances I absolutely refused pressing for a building for that town because it was the policy of the then government and of its predecessor not to erect public buildings owing to the then state of the national finances. But now apparently the government is departing from that

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
policy, and I fear the minister is laying himself open to pressure from all sections of the country for public buildings. During the last election I declared on the hustings at practically every place where I spoke that the government was making a mistake in departing from the policy of the two or three administrations of the past-the policy of renting accommodation such as we were doing in Fort Frances. This afternoon we have passed two or three items for public buildings, and while it is true that at Kenogami the aluminum plant is causing a rapid development of the town, that is all the more reason, I submit, why we should have rented a building temporarily so that we may be in a better position later on to judge of the ultimate requirements of the locality.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend must be
perfectly well aware that where a town has doubled its population in five years you cannot rent buildings.


Robert James Manion: That is a very lame explanation. Does the minister mean to tell me that in such a progressive community there are no enterprising people who would not gladly put up a temporary building to rent to the postal department?


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why should not the government put up its own temporary building?


Robert James Manion: I have no objection if it
is to be the policy of the government. This will only be a temporary building anyhow. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the government is making a mistake in departing from the policy of not putting up public buildings where suitable accommodation can be rented, and I certainly believe the minister as a result will soon find himself so importuned by requests for public buildings at one point and another throughout the Dominion that he will wish himself back in the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment.


John Campbell Elliott: Where there are no
troubles!


Robert James Manion: There are some, I admit.


Mr. FRASER:: Mr. Chairman, I would
direct the attention of the minister to another angle of this situation. I notice that the total expenditure for the province of Quebec this year is 1635,027, while last year it was only $327,050. We are spending pretty nearly double in that province this year. Naturally, we come to the conclusion that the rest of the Dominion is entitled to an increased expenditure in the same ratio. In contrast to what is being done for Quebec, I turn to my own
province of British Columbia, where I find that last year the expenditure on public works was $216,760, and this year it is $243,262-a slight increase, but not at all in proportion to the increased expenditure in Quebec. I submit in all seriousness that the demand for public buildings in British Columbia is equally as imperative as in Quebec. It is quite true that the latter province is going ahead at a very nice rate, but it is also true that important developments are taking place in my province. It seems to me if that is the excuse for the increased expenditure in Quebec, British Columbia should have been given more consideration.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman,
political developments in the province of Quebec were more satisfactory than in my hon. friend's province.


David Spence: The criticism of my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Manion) is perfectly sound. There is no need whatever for these new buildings to-day. He suggests a temporary structure, but there is no need even for that. Any store in that locality could very well provide accommodation for a branch post office, at a cost of practically nothing. In my riding we have several branch post offices, and I will guarantee that every one of them does more business than is transacted in any of these towns of 30,000 population. So it is a waste of money to buy votes in these little burgs. I should like to ask if any other buildings are required in the province of Quebec? Are you sure that you do not need a new city hall or an old one repaired?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows that that is a municipal responsibility.


David Spence: I know, but
several of these items appear to me to be municipal too. Is it the intention of the minister of erect all new buildings required in the province of Quebec as well as public buildings belonging strictly to the federal government?


Charles Gavan Power: Why not?


David Spence: That is what
you are getting.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, for
a couple of days I have been waiting to hear the minister give the reasons underlying these expenditures on public buildings. Revenue apparently has nothing to do with the expenditure.


An hon. MEMBER:: Population.


Arthur Edward Ross: No.
ms

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Charles Gavan Power: The good looks of the member.


Arthur Edward Ross: The only requirement seems to be a beautiful surrounding country. Will the minister state what factors enter into the granting of these public buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will see
that in Quebec the greater proportion of expenditure is in Conservative ridings.


David Spence: Two wrongs
don't make a right. If my party did wrong, that is no reason why yours should do wrong too.


John Campbell Elliott: It answers my hon.
friend's argument absolutely. My hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) referred to what he termed the increased expenditure for public buildings in Quebec over that voted last year, but he has overlooked the fact that the total of $635,027 includes $100,000 for the Quebec citadel, $50,000 for a postal station in Outremont and $50,000 for reorganization of the Montreal general post office. Those three items make up the difference between last year's and this year's expenditure. In answer to my hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross), reports come in from the departments, we study the information, and we select only the places where that information leads us to the conclusion that the expenditure is absolutely required.


Arthur Edward Ross: What department first recommended the expenditure that we have just passed?


John Campbell Elliott: We dbtain our information from the records ion file in our department as to the requests that are made for new buildings, and then inquiries are always made of the Post Office Department as to the necessity of any new postal buildings. With all this information before us we come to a conclusion. I may say to my hon. friend that none of this expenditure is avoidable.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister
referred a moment ago to recommendations from departments. What department recommended this last expenditure that we have passed?


John Campbell Elliott: I am going by the records in my own department. We look them over very carefully.


Mr. STEVENS:: There must be a pile
of them.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who made the
request for this item?

Mr, BOYS:	The member, of course.


John Campbell Elliott: I see that this particular matter is one of long standing; an order in council was passed as far back as October 21, 1925, authorizing the acceptance of a tender which had been received at that time for the construction of a public building there.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister tell us who tendered?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; Albert Brouillet and Joseph Burgy. These tenders were for $10,450 and $11,675 respectively.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister then tell me who called for the tenders?


John Campbell Elliott: The Department of Public Works, of course.


William Alves Boys: I am going to make one more effort to see whether I cannot get some special reason. I think the minister, whom I personally know to be very fair, will agree with me that there are from 50 to 100 towns and villages in the province of Ontario with a population of 1,500 or over from which the postal revenue is $2,600 or more, which are situated exactly as this place is situated. The post offices in these places are now in rented buildings, and if I can I want to find out why a building is to be constructed in this place while other applications are rejected. If my statement is wrong I am ready to be corrected, but I firmly believe that there are certainly over 50 places in Ontario with just as much right to a new building. I do not need to stick to Ontario because I live there; I would say that in the maritimes and in the west there are places of this kind as well. Why was this place selected? There must be some reason. I can appreciate the personality of the member and the generosity of the minister, but when we once pass over that there must be some basis on which this is done. Why did the minister finally decide to construct this building here when he must know that there are hundreds of places in Canada equally entitled to a new post office? The minister has given no reason other than the revenue and the population and the fact that there is no building in the town. Does he say he has anything on record to show that any effort has been made to rent a suitable building and to pursue the policy of economy which has obtained in this country for the last twelve or fourteen years? I think we should have some information along that line; if that is not the case we must come to the conclusion that this is the result of persistence, and perhaps one must consider whether or

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
not the riding in question has returned a supporter of the government. I looked through the items for Ontario and found only two in constituencies represented by Conservative members. That in itself would be no answer, I admit, if a real reason for the construction of this building can be given, but it is a fact that as we look over the list we find that where these buildings are going up there are supporters of the government, and in places where there are no buildings to be constructed there are supporters of the opposition. For the moment let us forget that, but I would ask the minister to read from his record, if he has no personal knowledge, some good reason which can be advanced for the construction of this building?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend heard
me correctly he .would realize that while I am taking full responsibility for this item being in the estimates, the contract was let before I took charge of the Department of Public Works, and I give that as the reason why I am perhaps unable to say just what actuated the minister who called for tenders. I do know, however, from discussion with the former minister and from what other hon., members have said, that he only pursued the policy of erecting buildings where no other accommodation was available and where they were absolutely required in the public interest. I quite agree with my hon. friend that there are a great many places not only in Ontario but throughout the whole of Canada which urgently require public buildings just as soon as funds can be provided, but we do not think from the information at hand that they are so urgently required as those that have been put in the estimates. That is all I can say.	'


William Alves Boys: Give us a reason in this particular case; that is all I am asking.


John Campbell Elliott: The reason in this particular case was that over a year ago, as I understand it, they came to the conclusion that because of inadequate facilities this was one building they were compelled to proceed with.


William Alves Boys: What can be the inadequate
facilities in a town of 1,500? If the minister could say that the post office was located in some miserable little building only ten by twelve or something like that with the floor all warped making it dangerous, and that there was no other place available that could be rented, that would be a good reason. I could refer him to the town of Bradford in South Simcoe; that is a very nice and very
live town. I have been in the building there and I would say that in some places the floor is warped so badly that it is a foot higher than in other places, and in my opinion it is absolutely unsafe. I have been pressed to ask for a building there but I have not done so, because I understood the policy of the government to be as I have indicated. The minister has given us no reason for this building except the population and the revenue, he has not given a solitary fact to show that this is an outstanding case which requires special attention or consideration at the hands of the department.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: It seems perfectly clear from what has happened with respect to these estimates that the policy of the government has been to relax the restrictions which have existed for many years in connection with the building of post offices in these smaller places. I would submit that in most of these places there is no difficulty in securing adequate quarters. In most of these small places you will find a merchant who will be very glad indeed to provide a building in connection with his store for the use of the post office, because the location of a post office in such quarters has the inevitable effect of drawing trade to that store.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend think that is fair to the other merchants?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not discussing that at the moment; they seem to be quite well satisfied. I wonder if the minister is directing his policy as to the construction of post offices on the question of what is fair as between the merchants of the particular towns? I wish to point out that in these smaller places there is really no difficulty in securing adequate accommodation, but the former policy seems to have been departed from at an enormous capital cost. I think it is an undoubted fact that when you consider the cost of construction as well as' the cost of maintenance, in many cases it will be found in these smaller places that the whole of the revenue is consumed, and that instead of a surplus we will be faced with a deficit from year to year. I ask the minister if he has considered that, and if that is not the certain effect of this new policy which appears to have been adopted?


Mr. FARFARD:: Mr. Speaker, if hon members of the opposition would overcome their prejudices against the province of Quebec and would look at the facts as they are, they would not offer so many criticisms of a vote so important to the village of St. Jacques l'Achigan. They complain that all the public works in

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
the province of Quebec are being given to those, counties which elected Liberal members. If our friends were a little better in arithmetic, they would understand that in a province which returned sixty-two Liberal members out of sixty-five, it is altogether logical that the proposed works should be given to those counties which returned Liberals.


Mr. PETTIT:: In view of the information given here to-day in connection with public buildings I would remind the minister of the case I cited the other day in the constituency of Welland, that of the town of Thorold, Thorold has a population of 5,500. The post office serves a population all told of about 10,000. ' The building is a dilapidated two storey building 15 feet wide by about 65 feet long, and the public space for all that population is only 7 feet by 15 feet. I am instructed that the net revenue of that post office is $15,000 a year, and the rental paid by the government for that dilapidated building is $700. Moreover the town of Thorold is a customs port with a revenue of $500,000 a year, and the government pays $700 for another dilapidated building for the customs office. It strikes me that these two offices, the post office and the customs office, ought to be combined in one new 'building, and the rental of these buildings saved. I would suggest that the minister take these facts into consideration and see tbait a suitable post office is erected in that town. Surely if villages having a population of only two or three thousand, and a revenue of only from $2,000 to $5,000 can get a suitable post office, the town of Thorold is entitled to a building commensurate with its size and importance.


John Campbell Elliott: Is my hon. friend referring to Port Colbome?


George Hamilton Pettit: No, to the town of Thorold.


John Campbell Elliott: Did my hon. friend not
mention Port Colborne?


George Hamilton Pettit: No, Port Colborne has a
very suitable and necessary building as it is a large customs port and has a population of some 5,500, but I am now referring to the town of Thorold.


Mr. SHORT:: I understood the minister
to say that the needs of these towns are investigated and when urgent need exists for the erection of such a building one is erected. I want to call his attention to remarks made by his predecessor, Mr. King (Kootenay) the other night. The former Minister of Public Works mentioned the town of Bridgetown in Nova Scotia particularly, and he said there was urgent need for a public

building to be erected there. Now I want to know if the Minister of Public Works will take into consideration the suggestion thrown out by his predecessor and have an amount placed in the supplementary estimates for a public building in the town of Bridgetown?


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: I understand
the reasons given by the Minister of Public Works for this expenditure were as follows: that the postal services at this point are inadequate, that the public are not able to get the service they are entitled to, that it is in the public interest that a building should be erected in this town and that no other available or suitable premises can be secured to provide adequate accommodation. I also understood the minister to state that the town had a population of about 1,500, and that the revenue from the post office was $2,600 odd. Now in the town of Oxford, in the province of Nova Scotia, there is a situation which meets exactly all the conditions that the minister has laid down for the building of this particular post office. In addition to the reasons mentioned by the minister there is the fact that the revenue at the Oxford post office is upwards of $7,000 annually, also that it is a centre from which a great many rural routes radiate-in fact it is a very important industrial and agricultural centre in the county of Cumberland. Last year this matter was brought to the attention of the Department of Public Works, and plans were supplied showing the present deplorable service; the po^t office is located in a shack 21 x 24 feet and the postal sendee afforded the people of this town is disgraceful. The board of trade and the town council of Oxford have both passed unanimous resolutions requesting that a new podt office building be erected there. Private citizens have also complained. It is not possible to secure a suitable building in any other portion of the town to be used as a post office and I hope the minister will include in the supplementary estimates this year an amount sufficient to erect a respectable post office building in Oxford which would also provide accommodation for the customs service.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: I point out to the
minister that he has authorized an expenditure upon this post office, and that the net proceeds from the postal services in this town will not be sufficient to pay the interest on the money required to erect the building. Therefore that building will be a loss to this country from the time it is put up. The minister seems to have established this as a

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
practice, and when he is asked to give a reason for it he entirely begs the question. He may desire to get off by begging the question, by telling us that the post office is necessary, and saying that the erection of this building was unavoidable. But I ask him two questions: First, why is it necessary to build this post office in 1927 when we could get along with existing accommodations in 1926? Secondly, have there been any representations showing that it is more necessary to build this post office in 1927 than it was in 1926?


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
could not have been present during the discussion because it has been already stated that this contract was let in 1925.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Why was it not
proceeded with? If this contract was let in 1925 it was probably thought necessary to erect the building. Subsequently it was found not necessary and it was not proceeded with.


Mr. JELLIFF:: There may be reason for
the increased post office facilities in this particular place, but I am somewhat concerned about the very rapid growth which has taken place in this estimate. In the estimates for 1925-26, if I understand them, there was an item of 810,000 for this building. Last year that was increased to 816,000. Now we have an estimate, which I assume to be for the same purpose, of 821,000, an increase of 86,000 last year, and a further increase of
85,000	this year. This is over double the estimate of two years ago. I think the minister should explain the reason for that growth; it is entirely too healthy.


John Campbell Elliott: The original specifications called for a one storey building but that was found inadequate and later on it was decided to erect the two storey building for which this vote is asked.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Even if a two storey building is put up, does it require a doubling of the estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not doubled.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I am not objecting; I merely want an explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the upper storey for
the accommodation of the caretaker?


John Campbell Elliott: Partly for the caretaker
and partly for other services.


Thomas Cantley: In the estimates now
passed for Nova Scotia there is not a dollar for new construction in the whole province. Two-thirds of the whole amount of 838,000 is 32649-71
represented by a payment from one department to another for rental in Halifax. Other items are simply repairs to public buildings, of no particular consequence so far as these votes are concerned. In my own county of Pictou last year, we had some difficulty in connection with post office accommodation. In that incorporated town of about 5,000 people, the accommodation was unsatisfactory, but we did not ask for a public building, and the department was able to make a new lease for a suitable office at a rental of 850 a month the proprietor providing heat, light, water, and sewerage for the amount stated. On the item of $26,000 now before the committee the interest at 5 per cent will amount to 81,300 per annum, to say nothing of heating, lighting, sewerage, and other items that must necessarily be borne by the department. What can be done in one town in one county of Canada can be done elsewhere and I see no reason why the minister should not adopt that policy in small places in view of the financial condition of the country.
As regards the town of New Glasgow, the postal accommodation in the present building is totally inadequate to the actual business being transacted. The minister and the chief of his department know that. Plans were prepared by the department four or five years ago, and may still be referred to, calling for an extension or a remodelling of the building. In the busy season there are eighteen or twenty employees in that office, in which there is hardly room to move about. The building is crowded with mail matter which is piled over every available place, on floor, windowsills, on heating apparatus, and everywhere else. The people there have repeatedly applied to the minister's predecessor to take this matter in hand and have satisfactory arrangements made, and I understand that the postal authorities have also pressed for it. They are fully aware of the necessities of the case. Will the minister be good enough to give me an undertaking now that when the supplementary estimates come down he will do something in this regard? We have foregone a new building in the other town to which I referred a moment ago, and we got over our difficulty by paying a rental of 850 a month. What is the minister going to do regarding the New Glasgow office, the conditions in which are deplorable? We do not want a new building; we simply want to have carried out the arrangement proposed by the Public Works department itself, of which the plans are in the possession of the department.



Supply-Public Works-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: I am sure that any representations my hon. friend makes will have the best consideration we are able to give them, but he will readily understand that it is impossible for me-


Thomas Cantley: Oh! "The best consideration" means nothing to me; I am more than four years old. Will the minister give me a definite answer? Let him be manly enough to say yes or no.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. frend
wiill not misunderstand me.


Thomas Cantley: I do not misunderstand you at all.


John Campbell Elliott: But if the hon. gentleman thinks for a moment, he will realize that I cannot give him an undertaking of that kind.


Thomas Cantley: I do not realize any such thing. I know the minister can make me a promise if he wishes to do so, but he wants to avoid making a definite statement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Waterloo-public building, $22,000.
John Anderson Fraser: Some of this money was spent last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Up to the 1st of March, we paid for the site S3,650 and for advertising $85.71.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the total of the
proposed expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: $22,000, of which $19,000
is a revote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario-Dominion public buildings - improvements, repairs, etc., $115,000.
Hugh Guthrie: This is the usual amount?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Durham-public building, $20,000.
William Alves Boys: The reasoning I endeavoured to apply in connection with the previous item would apply here. Without my repeating it, will the minister enlighten the committee as to the necessity for this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: 
William Alves Boys: That was the information we wanted in connection with the other vote, and if we had received it we should .have been able to pass the item in much shorter time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Glencoe public building-tower clock, $1,700.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this an alarm clock for waking the caretaker up?


John Campbell Elliott: The public building is
there and when it was constructed-


Henry Herbert Stevens: When was that?


John Campbell Elliott: I should think about
fifteen years ago. A space was left for the clock, but it was never installed.


William Alves Boys: I suppose you will get the
bells later.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is there any tower
where this clock can be placed?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, the space is there
awaiting the clock.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: How would
it be if they used the clock in the tower of this building, which hasn't been running for two or three years?


Thomas Cantley: I would like to call the
attention of the minister to the fact that the building in New Glasgow that I mentioned a few minutes ago has also a place for a clock, but we are not asking for a clock. What we do ask is that reasonable accommodation be provided in the building which exists there. The minister made reference to his having received resolutions from the town council and other bodies in regard to the situation. I could provide him with several resolutions that have been passed year after year calling attention to the condition of affairs in that building, and again I ask, will he be good enough to give me some assurance that he will have the matter attended to this year.


John Campbell Elliott: The word of my hon.
friend and any representations that he may make, if he will discuss the matter with me, will carry more weight with me than any resolutions from any organization.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Thomas Cantley: Sufficient weight to ensure it being done?


John Campbell Elliott: Sufficient to ensure it being done if it is reasonably possible to get it done.


Arthur Edward Ross: Might I ask for
the same details on this item as on the previous one?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue is $5,178 a year. It is a very flourishing town.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Haileybury-armoury, $11,000.
Mr. ADSHEAD:: This is the second item
for an armoury. I did not notice the first, and so did not have a chance to bring up this matter, but I should like to ask the minister what is the object of building these armouries? Are you increasing the militia, or is the National Defence department expecting a war or something of that kind?


John Campbell Elliott: The armoury was burnt
down in the Haileybury fire, which practically wiped out the town, and this is the amount required to complete the reconstruction of the building, over and above the amount of the insurance.


Miss MACPHAIL:: I am not sure that
my question will come in its right place here, but when armouries are used for public meetings, as they are in my constituency, quite a large fee is charged, say ten, twelve or fifteen dollars, and meetings may be held in the armoury a dozen times during the year. Is this money returned to the department, or where does it go?


John Campbell Elliott: Apart from the small
armouries which are constructed by the Department of National Defence, the armouries are built by the Public Works department. The rentals to which my hon. friepd refers all go to the National Defence department, I think.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have been interested
in finding out where the money paid in my constituency actually did go. It was not sent in to the National Defence department.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it the policy of the
department to allow armouries to be used for public meetings? In the city of Calgary we granted a park site for an armoury, and it was understood that when the armoury was built the large auditorium in it could be used for public meetings, but after the building was put up, they refused to allow it to be used for that purpose.
32640-71J


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend the Minister of National Defence can perhaps answer this question better than I can, but from certain experience I have had in connection with the renting of armouries over a more or less extended period, I know the practice has been, where there is no other public building suitable for the purpose, to allow the armoury to be used if the people of the community desire it for a public meeting, and are willing to pay the expenses of the caretaker, and the cost of heating, and so forth.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Before the armoury was
built in Calgary they came before the city council, of which I was a member, and we came to a gentleman's agreement w'hereby we were to be allowed the use of the armoury auditorium for public meetings, but after they got the site they would not allow us to use the auditorium. I wish the minister would take this up with his colleague the Minister of National Defence.


Mr. RALSTON:: I shall be glad to give
the hon. member who last spoke any information he desires as to the practice of the department. It is true that the department permit the use of armouries for public meetings, and it tries to make the arrangement as fair as possible in order not to bear unduly. If there is any particular arrangement my hon. friend has in mind, or he knows of any organization that desires to use the armoury, I should be glad if he would let me know.
With regard to the question of the hon. member for Southeast Grey, I would be very interested if she would let me know of any instance in which moneys are alleged to have come in to the department or have been paid to any officer, and I shall have inquiries made at once. I remember that inquiries were made of the department by the hon. member in regard to a particular instance, and it was found that no such funds were received. Perhaps she would let me know to whom the payment was made, and I shall be glad to follow it up.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I have no such information, but I wrote to the department, as the minister will recall. This is the policy that has gone on for years in the only armouries there are in Southeast Grey. I do not suggest that we are paying too much, but apparently that money does not leave the village in which the armoury is situated, and if that is true, I would like to know why the cost is so much as ten dollars, because it certainly does not cost that much to heat the building. We have had a most unsatisfactory condition in Southeast Grey, and I have tried on two or three occasions to have

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
the thing cleared up, without any success at all, so I want to know what the policy of the department is in regard to this matter. When people pay their five or ten dollars a night for the use of armouries, where does that money go?


James Layton Ralston: To the minister and to the department. It may be used immediately and automatically to repay the cost of caretaking expenses.


Mr. MacLAREN:: It is necessary to cover the cost of insurance of the armouries against fire. I understand that the department does not insure these buildings, but when it loans the buildings for use for other than military purposes there is a sufficient charge made to cover the fire insurance, which I think is fair enough.


William Alves Boys: I think this is a convenient time to have some statement as to the terms on which the various armouries may be secured. As far as I know, there is no rental at all. You have to pay the insurance, and employ two firemen of a local brigade to be on the job the whole time, and you have to pay the caretaker a certain sum of money. These payments may be considered as rental, but I do not believe there is any rental whatever which goes directly to the exchequer of the Dominion, and I think this would be an appropriate time to discuss this matter. I want to absolutely and thoroughly endorse the practice that has been in vogue. I think it is a splendid thing where those armouries are situated, that they should be put to some public use, and not be left idle and, of no service to the community at all. I hope there will be no curtailment of the present practice, and that if anything it will be increased. It is just as well that the community should understand that they could get the armouries more or less as a sort of right upon certain defined terms, which would apply to all the armouries throughout Canada. I think there is some variation in the practice; sometimes it takes a week or ten days to secure the use of these buildings, and there should not be this delay. There should be fixed terms and there should be an officer in charge; or better still, someone connected with the local militia in the town should be clothed with the necessary authority to speed up and make arrangements. I do not know whether I should ask for the information from the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Public Works, but I am sure we are all interested in knowing what the terms are.


James Layton Ralston: I think I can supply the information. The Minister of Public Works 
is quite right in saying that while the armouries are constructed by the Department of Public Works, they are operated by the department over which I preside, and I must admit there has apparently been some variation in policy with regard to terms. But I am endeavouring to get that down to a set basis, namely a basis such as has been suggested by my hon. friend, where there would be no such thing as rental. We -want as far as possible to make the buildings available as community buildings, but I desire to warn hon. members that those buildings are built as armouries, for the purpose of training, for the use of the local units in training, and it is extremely discouraging for the officers and men of the local units who have endeavoured to arrange their training for after hours to find the armouries let for other purposes. In my own town there happened to be a poultry show, which one officer referred to as a "hen show", and he did not like the armoury to be used for that purpose. Nevertheless, the policy of the department is to permit these armouries to be used as freely as possible, particularly in cases such as mentioned by my hon. friend from Southeast Grey, where there is no other accommodation of equal size and capacity. As to the terms there has been, I know, a condition imposed in the past that the buildings be insured, or an amount paid for the insurance. I am inclined to overcome that situation by having reasonable precautions taken by those using the armouries, to have local firemen provided as has been suggested, and to take whatever precautions may be necessary to prevent fire without putting the applicant to the expense of paying for insurance. There have been set rates made, so far as caretaking is concerned. There was a fixed amount, I think $20 in some cases-


William Alves Boys: I have paid $10.


James Layton Ralston: -depending on the size of the armoury, on the number of caretakers and the amount of cleaning. No one attempts to account for the last cent to see whether that is the actual amount paid to the caretakers.
I may say, for the information of the House, that these are the terms and that is the general policy. I am endeavouring to have this matter standardized, so that all will understand the terms on which they can get the buildings.
With regard to the time for application and the time it takes to put it through, these applications have been required by the quartermaster general to come to headquarters. I a,iri not prepared to say that that policy

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
will be changed, but everything will be done to expedite these applications, if it is necessary to have them sent in, so that as little time as possible will be taken up. Those who should know best whether the armouries are available would be the district officers commanding, who are on the ground. But there has been a certain policy in the past and I am not sure as to the reason for it.
I cannot say that the policy will be changed, but I can only assure the committee that everything will be done to expedite the applications as far as possible.


Mr. LANG:: With regard to the buildings in Haileybury destroyed by fire and which are being rebuilt, I wish to inform the House that in October, 1922, a fire swept a great part of the country up there and the town of Haileybury was wiped out. The people of Haileybury had been using the armouries at different times for public meetings of various kinds during the preceding summer, and they had put insurance upon the armouries to the amount of 833,500, to protect the Department of Public Works against fire loss if the building should be burned while in use by them. It was a great conflagration which wiped out the homes of many of the farmers for miles around and destroyed nearly the whole town of Haileybury, burning the armouries. This insurance of $33,500 was placed by the people of Haileybury on the building at that time. After that the town of Haileybury commenced to build up again, and it has been almost restored to the position it was in before the fire of 1922. At different times after 1922 the people of Haileybury conferred with the government in Ottawa for the purpose of having the armouries rebuilt and having the $33,500 expended as quickly as possible. They wanted the armouries built in preference to any other public building which the government might erect. There were many reasons for that. Thousands of our boys in the north country formed a corps for the first time in the armouries building in Haileybury and there was a sentimental reason for desiring to see the armouries rebuilt. Since war time they had been using the armouries for public meetings and other purposes for the benefit of the community. When the armouries are completed the people are willing to do their part in regard to repairs and insurance if the department so requires. We sincerely hope that there may never come another occasion when the building will be needed for the purpose for which it was utilized during the war years, but if the necessity should arise I can assure the House that the building will
be used just as extensively to help forward the nation's war efforts. As I say, the old building was insured for $33,500 by the people of Haileybury. This money was collected by the department and expended on the new armouries, so up to the present the building has not cost the government one dollar. In addition to that, the government got the benefit of the interest on the money during the three years before they expended it. I am confident that this will be a very useful building when completed not only for use as armouries but also for holding public meetings, and the people are ^lad indeed that this accommodation will soon be available to them.


Mr. SIMPSON:: Arising out of my hon.
friend's remarks, was the insurance fund used for building an armory or a community hall?


John Campbell Elliott: The $11,000 is required to complete the construction of the armouries at Haileybury. It will furnish accommodation for military purposes and for the customs, but primarily it will serve the purpose of a community hall, the title remaining in the government.


Thomas Edward Simpson: I recall distinctly that the original vote was for the purpose of restoring the $33,500 insurance to the people of Haileybury for the erection of a community hall. The old armouries were used for that purpose. At the request of the Department of Militia and Defence the people of Haileybury insured the building, and after the great fire they thought they were entitled to the use of the insurance money for the purpose mentioned.


Malcolm Lang: We hope to use the building
for community hall purposes, but it is to be turned over to the Department of Militia and
Defence at any time when required as armouries.


Mr. PRICE:: While this item is under consideration I should like to direct the attention of the hon. Minister of Militia (Mr. Ralston) and the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) to the fact that during the Laurier regime a site was purchased in the city of Moncton for an armoury, but. none has ever been constructed. As the hon. gentleman is aware, we have in that city a great number of returned men. Recently an appeal has been made by the Moncton branch of the Canadian Legion for the erection of armouries, and I presume the Minister of Militia has been sent a copy of that appeal. Moncton is the headquarters of a squadron of cavalry, a battery of artillery, a company of machine guns and a company of infantry. Will the Minister of Militia state if steps will be taken to have suitable quarters provided for these units?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
At the present time the accommodation is altogether inadequate, consisting of a poorly constructed wooden building. This does not provide sufficient room for training, nor proper protection for the supplies now stored there. The annual surplus from the Moncton post office of itself would provide the necessary funds for the erection of a new post office, which is very much needed, and new armouries, that surplus being in the neighbourhood of $377,000. Sites for these projected buildings were purchased by the government some time ago, and I would ask the Minister of Militia to see that work in connection with the armouries is proceeded with.


James Layton Ralston: I am afraid, Mr. Chairman, that this is not a case where I can even talk about favourable consideration just now, and we might as well be frank about it. The situation in regard to armouries has been very forcibly brought to my attention during the short time that I have been in the Department of National Defence, and I intend to have a survey made with a view to seeing if any better accommodation can be provided in certain cases, but I am afraid I cannot hold out very much hope of constructing new armouries just now. Propositions have come to me from various parts of the Dominion offering capital and sites of considerable value in an endeavour to induce the department to forward these capital expenditures. As far as we possibly can we are providing accommodation for training purposes. As the hon. member is aware, many of our armoury buildings were erected during the war. I am sorry that I cannot hold out any hope of further capital expenditure at the moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc., $60,000. .
Hugh Guthrie: Where is that for, may
I ask? Is it for any particular building?


John Campbell Elliott: That is for all the
buildings in Ottawa.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Ottawa-greenhouse, $27,000.
David Spence: I would like
to ask what particular use we have for a greenhouse except to provide flowers for the House of Commons and the Senate? Why should we spend $27,000 for that?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is to provide for the construction of a greenhouse and potting shed either in Major Hill park or on parliament hill, to replace the greenhouse now looated in Major Hill park.


David Spence: What is to be
the size of the proposed building?


John Campbell Elliott: The estimated cost is


David Spence: The building
we have now and which has served the purpose for years seems to have been large enough up to the present time. I will admit that the present building is dilapidated and that we require a new one, but if the new one were of the same size it would be sufficient for all our business unless it is to be used commercially.


John Campbell Elliott: The building we are
replacing is dilapidated, out of repair and practically falling down, and this estimate is for that replacement.


David Spence: I assume the
present building to be about 20 by 80; I do not think it is any larger, and from what I know about greenhouses a building of that kind can be constructed and equipped with a good water heating plant for less than $5,000. Why is $27,000 required?


John Campbell Elliott: All I can say to my hon.
friend is that this is the architect's estimate. It is proposed to construct a greenhouse for Major Hill park to replace the present greenhouse which is beyond repair, as the woodwork has become so badly decayed that to renew it would practically mean rebuilding the superstructure. This is a revote.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the structure to be
gothic or romanesque?


David Spence: I object to
putting $27,000 into a greenhouse; it is too much for the purpose intended, and there is no need for it at all. I would suggest that the amount be reduced to $10,000, which would provide twice the amount necessary, and I make that motion, Mr. Chairman.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say in that
regard that on account of the location and the fact that at is here in the capital city, $10,000 would not be very much money for the construction of such a building. The amount placed in the estimate is considered by the architect to be sufficient to no more than replace the present building, so that I hope my hon. friend will reconsider his motion.


David Spence: I am quite well satisfied that there is not need for such an

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
amount for that purpose. I know that you can build a modem steel frame greenhouse with a first-class hot water heating plant, larger than the present building, for $10,000.
Amendment negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-towards purchase of building for government workshops, $13,300.
William Foster Garland: May we
have an explanation from the minister on this item? Where are these workshops?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the fifth payment
on the purchase of the property.


William Foster Garland: Is that the
property on George street?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rockland-public building, $25,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have not been very
long in Ottawa, but I would like to refer the minister to the ramshackle old building in which the Bureau of Statistics is located. The floors in that building are like the waves of the ocean, and I would like to know if there is to be an appropriation for a new building or if something can be done to make that building more suitable for the purposes for which it is used. If a fire should come along all those valuable records would be lost. Is there to be any provision made for that in the near future?


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that the building referred to is one of many in Ottawa entirely out of repair and unsuitable for the purposes for which they are used. It is the intention of the department to start upon a program of construction of departmental buildings as rapidly as the funds can be obtained; it is intended to make a start this year.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I suggest that that
is one of the most dangerous fire traps I have ever seen, and that such valuable documents should be transferred to some stone building which would be more fire-proof.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister give us some explanation of this item for a public building in Rockland?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is to provide for the purchase of a site and for the construction iof a public building in the
town of Rockland. It is proposed to pay $2,000 for a site; $18,000 for the building; $2,500 for fittings, lock boxes, et cetera; $1,500 for grading and sidewalks and $1,000 for contingencies.


Hugh Guthrie: Who has requested this
building? Who has made the demand?


Mr. GOULET:: I have. Surely my hon.
friend is not so badly informed as not to know where Rockland is. It is one of the principal towns on the provincial highway between Ottawa and Montreal and one of the most flourishing towns we have in the county of Russell. The population is close to 5,000, and I think Rockland amply deserves a post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto-postal station A, mechanical equipment, $50,000.
Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Is this a political vote?


John Campbell Elliott: I can assure my hon. friend that none of these are political votes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $35,000.
Mr. BROWN:: Would the minister tell me if the public building at Morden is included in the list of repairs referred to here?


John Campbell Elliott: -I may say to my hon. friend that this is a general vote for the whole of the province, and I assume that if the needs at Morden are as urgent as at some other places they will receive consideration.


John Livingstone Brown: I understand then that the details of this expenditure are not decided upon?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg-grain inspection building, $13,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is it proposed to include in the estimates any vote for the testing laboratory at Winnipeg?


John Campbell Elliott: That is under the department of my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I cannot say offhand what, the intentions are in that regard.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan-Dominion public buildings- improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.
Mr. EVANS:: I wish to say a word about
the needs of the town of Biggar in Saskatchewan. Provision has been made for new public
Supply-Public

Works-Saskatchewan
buildings in a number of places where it is claimed conditions demand it. But it seems almost impossible to get decent post office accommodation in the town of Biggar. The present post office is located in a shack between a Chinese laundry and a pool room, and the fire hazard is tremendous. Biggar is a thriving place in Saskatchewan, a divisional point on the Canadian National railway, and the Canadian Pacific passes it at a distance of one mile. Railways also go north and south from Biggar, and it is a growing place. The present population is about 2,500, and the revenue from the post office last year was $10,054. Seeing that votes for public buildings in other places have already been adopted, some of which are not nearly as urgent as in the case of Biggar, and considering the needs of the town, I would ask particularly that the government place a sufficient amount in the supplementary estimates to give Biggar a suitable public building.


John Campbell Elliott: I happen to know the
town of Biggar very well, and I take it from what the hon. gentleman says that he is in favour of the erection of a public building there. In that respect he disagrees with some other hon. members who do not think public buildings should be erected anywhere. The case of Biggar is very deserving no doubt and will receive consideration when more urgent cases have been provided for. I will be very glad to give the matter the best consideration I can.


John Evans: Does the minister not think that this is one of the most urgent cases? The business done there exceeds that of -other places some of them only one-fifth the size and earning less than one-third the revenue of Biggar, and yet those places have been voted public buildings. I think the needs of Biggar should receive immediate consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Moose Jaw-public buildings-improvements and repairs, $3,500.
Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I know one cannot ask the minister to increase this item but I should like to say that while this post office may not show as big a revenue as other post offices I think it does a lot more work than any other post office in the province of Saskatchewan seeing that the mails for a great many branch lines are sorted there, and it is the transfer office for practically all the United States mails that come into that country. I do not believe the present vote will cover the improvements and repairs that 
should be made in that office, and I want tc ask the minister if he will not introduce intc the next estimates brought down a sufficien* amount of money to take care of all those repairs and improvements?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Regina public building-addition to site, $150,000.
Mr. YOUNG (Weybum):: I should like to ask what the dimensions of this site are and the other details concerning it.


Robert James Manion: The first question from
that side of the House to-day.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $150,000 is required for the purchase of property having a frontage of 50 feet on Scarth street, south of and adjoining the post office property, as a means of extending the post office building for the purpose of centralizing all the government offices in the city of Regina in one building.	.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand the minister to say that they are paying $3,000 a foot for property in Regina?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my hon. friend will permit me-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Could the Minister of
Railways give us some more accurate information?


Charles Avery Dunning: The question of post
office accommodation in Regina is not one of local patronage in any sense.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, we quite understand that.


Charles Avery Dunning: Regina is the fifth largest revenue office in the Dominion. It will I know astonish some hon. members when I say that in the middle west we have an office which is the fifth largest revenue producer, yielding as it did $802,000 of revenue last year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I thought Moose Jaw was larger.


John Gordon Ross: It does more
work.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not going to discuss the amount of work done. Usually the amount of money received has some relationship to the amount of work done, but I do not propose to quarrel with my hon. friends from Moose Jaw and Saskatoon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is the most costly; that is the point.

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. Past governments
have on various occasions attempted to remedy the undesirable situation that has existed there for a number of years, and the government of which my hon. friends opposite were members bought a site, not adjacent to the post office at all, intending to use it for customs purposes. This site was acquired a number of years ago. The great problem in that city with regard to the post office is lack of ground floor space, and consequently the erection of a building elsewhere would not solve the post office difficulty. Naturally, as representing, the city, I should prefer to ask for another public building to house the various Dominion offices there, but I recognize that such a building would not meet the situation in regard to ground floor space and the mechanical appliances necessary to handle the great volume of business now being done. Several years ago a small building across the alley was purchased to give additional space. It is connected by an overhead passageway with the main post office, but it does not in any sense contribute to the solution of the main problem, which is one of ground floor space. There was some discussion a year ago with regard to the purchase of fifty feet immediately south of the post office, and some negotiations were entered into between the Department of Public Works and the owners of the property. The price asked Was, however, deemed too high and the provision being made here is to permit expropriation proceedings to be taken. That is the method the department proposes to pursue in connection with the acquisition of this property.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the expropriation
proceedings be taken in the Exchequer court?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes. I may say frankly that the post office in Regina is located in a situation where, to add to it, would involve the purchasing of some of the most highly priced property in the city, nad it is a question to determine whether we can better deal with this very awkward problem by erecting somewhere else an entirely new public building or by adding to the present post office. Officers of the department, more particularly the officers of the Post Office Department, can see no solution to the post office problem in Regina unless the present floor space is extended; and the property which it is proposed to expropriate consists of a fifty-foot frontage, one hundred and twenty-five feet in depth, I believe.


Henry Herbert Stevens: With buildings?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is a large restaurant on the property now, a single storey building. Frankly, my own opinion is that the expropriation should have been made many years ago, when of course the property could have been acquired at a lower price. Had that been done we should not be in our present situation. I think I am right in saying-the Minister of Public Works can correct me if I am wrong-that it is proposed to dispose of the small building to which I referred a little while ago, and this will in a measure offset the expenditure here asked for. Once the site is acquired, however, it will be necessary to come back to parliament for enough money to erect the addition to the post office, which is very urgently required.


Robert James Manion: What is the population of Regina?


Charles Avery Dunning: About 40,000. The postal revenue of the city is $802,000, and Regina is unique among places in its revenue class in that this is the only post office building in the city which is government owned. All the sub-stations are merely rented premises.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Do you expect to get
any return from the building which is to be scrapped?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say what its
salvage value would be, but there will be a revenue from the sale of the small building now owned by the government. It is a valuable property, but, as I say, it is across an alley from the present post office. Facing as it does, however, on one of the main streets in the city I think probably it will fetch a good price, although it is only twenty-five feet in width.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I am not
objecting to this vote because I happen to know the situation, and these western cities have grown to such an extent that it is necessary to augment their post office facilities. I would point out, however, that in the city I represent, situate in the centre of the constituency, we have, unlike Regina, a very inferior building. The building in Regina, while not large enough, is a good structure. I would urge upon the government the importance of providing proper post office accommodation in the city of Saskatoon. We have there a site which is a water hole, about 140 feet by 140, and there is a good deal of complaint in the city about its condition. The authorities paid $135,000 for the site, which is one of the legacies bequeathed us by the Tories. It was purchased several blocks away from the centre of the city and
1130	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
is not at all suitable for a post office. We feel that the time has come when we should have a new public building in Saskatoon, and I am in hopes that in the supplementary estimates a sufficient sum will be brought down this year to provide us with a suitable building for both post office and customs purposes.


John Evans: I support the hon. member
for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) in what he has said. Would not the government consider it a fair suggestion to give the city of Saskatoon better accommodation than it has at present? Regina has a very fine public building, while the city of Saskatoon, nearly of the same size, is without even a public building that can be called such. What we have there is nothing more than a makeshift, and the government is paying between $23,000 and $24,000 in rentals for space. As the hon. member says, the present site, which was purchased for a new post office, is not suitable. The building should be erected where the post office business is now carried on. Some years ago a contract was let for a building, but somehow or other it was suddenly cancelled. I do not know what the reason was. At any rate, one would think it only fair at least to spend impartially the available money. Regina is very well supplied while Saskatoon, as I say, has not even a public building worthy the name.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not object to
Saskatoon's claims, which I know are strong. What my hon. friend from that city has said is true. But the proposal now before the House comes, and has come for years, from the post office authorities to meet the demands of mechanical operation. It is true that the present post office is a fine looking building, but from the point of view of the immediate necessity for an extension it is not adequate. The revenue last year at Regina was $802,000, while that of Saskatoon was $285,000, not half as .much. I can well appreciate the argument that if Saskatoon had a post office large enough and sufficiently well equipped mechanically to handle the many functions of the postal service which now must be distributed because of lack of facilities, the revenue in thait city might be high. I merely make this statement to meet the view expressed by my hon. friend (Mr. Evans), that we should put first things first.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I repeat, I am not objecting to this vote; I support it. I say, however, that Saskatoon occupies a unique position. A great deal of its work is due to the transfer of mail, and better [Mr. A. M. Youns.l
accommodation is undoubtedly required. I am not asking for a public building immediately, but I hope that something will be done in the supplementary estimates. The building has been there a great many years. It was built for a city of ten thousand people, and it is now serving approximately thirty-five thousand. I would urge on the government again the advisability of getting all the facts and bringing down an estimate as early as possible.


Mr. WARD:: Does the Minister of Railways say that property in Regina is valued at $3,000 a foot, or will a portion of this vote be used for the expropriation proceedings?


Charles Avery Dunning: When the offer was made a year or more ago to purchase this property, the owners asked a price, including of course the building on the property, in pxcess I believe of $3,000 a front foot. The department did not believe the value was in it, and decided therefore to proceed by way of expropriation in order that the Exchequer court should decide what was the proper value of a piece of property of this kind taken under the circumstances that prevailed. The sum in the estimates is not by any means to decide the matter, but in order to give authority to the minister to proceed to expropriate and pay whatever sum the Exchequer court may decide to be the value of the property.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think it is rather unfortunate that the minister has put in the estimates $150,000 for this additional site and then says he is going to expropriate, because those who own the property will undoubtedly produce the government's own estimate of its requirements as evidence in support of their claim as to the price. The procedure is simple. The Exchequer court sits on the case, and the owners of the property produce witnesses to bolster up their case. They will claim a certain price, probably beyond this, and among the evidence they produce will undoubtedly be this official estimate of the government of $150,000. This is not final, as the minister says, by any means. It does not decide the case, but it is supporting evidence and it strikes me that $3,000 a front foot is an abnormally high price for property in the city of Regina. I am not disputing what the minister said a minute ago about the importance of the city of Regina and the business they do there. It is an important centre and a very handsome revenue is collected there. All of that is admitted, but it is the method of approaching this question that I am speaking of, and I would say that

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
you lose- your case before you go to the Exchequer court. Might I ask the minister whether in considering these expropriation proceedings the government have arrived at a figure which, they will first offer to the property holders, and on the other hand, have the government received from the owners of this property an offer of a price at which they will sell, between which two prices the decision has to be made.


John Campbell Elliott: The department have been notified by the owners of this cafe that they would not sell their property at S3,000 a foot frontage, as they claimed the property had enhanced in value, owing to the Canadian Pacific having decided to locate their hotel just two blocks south, on Scarth street. I say frankly that our reason for expropriating is that we could not get the property at what we considered a proper price. I do not admit that it is worth even $3,000 a foot, but they would not take that price.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister made
an offer?


John Campbell Elliott: I am informed there was
an offer of $3,000 a foot front, and that they refused it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee is faced
now with the exact facts. An offer has been made of $3,000 a foot front, which the owners have refused, and the case is going to- the Exchequer court. We can therefore very properly say that the price will be something in excess of $3,000 a front foot, or $150,000. I do not wish to draw any invidious comparisons, but take for instance the case referred to a moment ago at Saskatoon. I am quite certain that it would not cost anything like that amount, comparatively speaking, to purchase a site in Saskatoon; it probably would not cost $1,000 a front foot, but here in the city of Regina-the capital city, it is true- you are paying $3,000 a front foot. To my mind it is an excessively high price.


Charles Avery Dunning: One of the banks paid
more than that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: One of the curses of fixing the value of city property is the price the banks pay for selected corners. It is something scandalous. A bank will come into a town or city and pay an exorbitant price for some choice corner, but I do not consider that as an argument to support the government's action. I am not sufficiently acquainted with Regina to say whether it might not be better for Regina to consider another site altogether.


Charles Avery Dunning: From the point of view
of the member for the city, I would much
prefer an entirely new public building, but unfortunately I am faced with the post office difficulty, and I must admit that the post office officials are right in their contention that they must have an addition more especially to the ground floor space of this building.
I should say that the owners of the building are not political friends of mine-


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not suggesting that. That would not make a bit of difference to me.


Charles Avery Dunning: They are good Tories.


Robert James Manion: The minister admits that
there are good Tories.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sure, my hon. friend is
a good Tory. I should also say that one of the reasons for the price being high is, of course, that the owners of the building will claim damage with respect to the business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understand that.


Charles Avery Dunning: There will be business
damages. I was informed that this vote was necessary in order to enable expropriation proceedings to commence, that before getting the authority of parliament it was very doubtful if any expropriation proceedings could be gone on with. I was not aware that an offer of any specific figure had been made by the Public Works department for the property, but I do know that the parties concerned refused to sell to anybody at S3,000 per front foot.


Peter McGibbon: What is the value of
the present post office?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not those figures. It was built in 1912.


Peter McGibbon: Could it be sold for anything like its present value?


Charles Avery Dunning: Oh, no. It is a big building, but it is useful for no other purpose than that to which it is devoted. While the building is large, unfortunately it is not large on the ground floor, and the great problem of congestion is in connection with the postal facilities which must be handled on the ground floor.


John Gordon Ross: Although it is
not usual for Moose Jaw to find a friend in Regina, I must say that the post office in Regina is on perhaps the most valuable piece of property in the whole city. During the last few years Regina in proportion to its population has grown perhaps more than any other city in Canada; it is going ahead very rapidly. The post office property is very valuable, and I do not doubt that the

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
restaurant is also very valuable from a business standpoint. I agree with the Minister of Railways that added floor space is needed in the city of Regina. I have known the city and its business for some time, and there is great congestion in the post office. There is not room in that building for a post office for a city the size of Regina, and1 I do not think there is anything out of the way in this vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tisdale-public building, $12,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Could we have an explanation of that?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required to purchase a site and to pay for the erection of a public building for postal service at Tisdale. The proposed building will be a one-storey brick structure, 32 feet 6 inches by 29 feet 6 inches. The estimated cost will be $8,500 for the building, $1,800 for fittings, $800 for grading and sidewalk and $900 for contingencies, total $12,000.


Robert Gardiner: Have you a site there?


John Campbell Elliott: No, we are asking for money to purchase the site.


John Evans: The revenue at Tisdale is
nearly $3,000 less than at Biggar.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta-Dominion	public	buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.
John Campbell Elliott: This is generally for the
repair of all the public buildings owned by the department in Alberta.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am not going to ask
the minister to build a post office in Calgary, although we need one; but I want to place certain facts before him in that regard. The post office was situated in the centre of the city on a site 100 feet by 120. My good friends to my right pulled it down and instead of building a post office they put up a fine armoury. They were going to build a post office. I am not censuring my friends to my right for not doing so, because the war broke out and the post office could not be built. At the same time all that is left there is an unsightly hole in the ground surrounded by a board fence about eight feet high. We have never had a post office since. It has migrated to three different places. First it went to Second street east, opposite the city hall; then it went to the Lancaster building on Eighth avenue west, and now it is in the Southam building on First street west. We do expect 
that before the lease expires the government will take into consideration the advisability of replacing the post office and I suggest that the government should do something at least to -beautify that spot, and take into consideration the advisability of replacing the building which was torn down. The fence is a hideous one and should be removed.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Is there any provision in
this estimate for neeeded repairs to the public building at'Lethbridge?


John Campbell Elliott: It will cover that. Public
buildings generally are covered by this vote.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: At the'request of some of my friends I visited the building and I will tell the minister that the building is settling and it needs decorating and repairing very badly. The minister perhaps knows that this building houses the post office, the Dominion land office and the income tax office. I wish the minister would look into this matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I am much obliged for the information. I was not aware of the settling of the building to which the hon. member refers. If it is something which is within reasonable limits it will be covered by this amount, and if not we will have to provide other means.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: The matter has been reported; it is within the knowledge of the government inspector at Calgary.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Will the minister tell me if there is any truth in the story that the government is considering purchasing the Southam building at the expiration of the lease instead of getting a new post office? I shall be glad to confer with the minister further in regard to this matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I have heard nothing of it. The lease does not expire for a couple of 3'ears.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wainwright-public building, $15,000.
Mr. LUCAS:: Could the minister give us a better explanation to-day than he gave us a few days ago why the vote for the public building at Camrose, placed in the supplementary estimates last year, has been left out?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid I cannot give any better explanation to-day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: A cabinet secret.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


William Thomas Lucas: The policy as to the construction of public buildings was determined,
I understand, on the question of urgency.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
I do not deny the necessity of the building at Wainwright, but will the minister tell us that there is a greater urgency for the building at Wainwright than for the building at Cam-rose?


John Campbell Elliott: From the information I have, there is urgency for the building at Wainwright, and there is a site available there. The matter has been under consideration for a number of years-since 1913, I think. It may be assumed that at that time a public building was considered necessary, and since then it has been pressed upon the government very frequently. The postal revenue of W'ainwright is $6,313, and the building that is proposed to be erected would cost only $10,500.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: About a thousand.


William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister compare
those facts with the facts in relation to the Camrose building?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to do so.


William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister give the committee the facts in regard to Camrose as to revenue and population, just as he has given them in the other case?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will readily understand that I have details only in regard to the items which appear in the estimates.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) can help my hon. friend out.


William Thomas Lucas: The town of Camrose has a population of over two thousand. The gross annual revenue from the post office is $16,561, and from the sub-customs office over $50,000. The government still hold a lot which I believe was purchased in 1912 or 1913. The request for a post office was placed before the government last year, when they considered it of sufficient urgency to include a vote for it in the supplementary estimates, but I regret to say that the item does not appear in these main estimates for some reason or other. I dhould be glad to have the minister explain why the item has been cut out. Otherwise the idea will prevail that urgency is not one of the factors considered by the government in providing for new public buildings.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to ask the
minister a question along the same lines as
that which I asked him a few minutes ago. I notice that in 1926 there was spent in Saskatchewan $20,919, while in the present estimates the total expenditure is $205,450- ten times more.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


John Anderson Fraser: Oh yes, that is fine, that
is the way the west is going all over. But contrast this with what the government is doing for Alberta. In 1926 the expenditure there amounted to $45,422, but in these estimates the total provided for is only $32,000-a decrease of 25 per cent.


Charles Avery Dunning: What about British
Columbia?


John Anderson Fraser: I will deal with British
Columbia when we come to the votes for my province.


John Gordon Ross: Surely the
member for the constituency in which Wainwright is situated will stand up for his own post office?	.
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 resumed from Tuesday, March 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
Mr. E. A. McPHERSON (Portage la Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, when the debate closed the other evening the Clerk Assistant was helping me by reading a document, and I suppose the proper thing would be for him to continue. If for any reason he has mislaid that clipping or forgotten that he was my assistant on that occasion, with the permission of the House I will go on.


Charles Avery Dunning: He has lost the clipping.


Ewen Alexander McPherson: I can assure hon.
gentlemen that it was a very fine clipping, well worth inserting in the records of this House. At that time I was discussing the question of how the province of Ontario was handling its own power, and a certain amount of objection was taken to my statement that this power was being disposed of to private

Georgian Bay Canal Company
interests. The clipping then being read was for the purpose of giving some idea of the conditions which were said to exist in northern Ontario. If I am wrong in my contention it is all the more reason why the matter should be investigated by a committee, as I suggested, in order that the facts may be properly ascertained regardless of our personal opinions. I have here another clipping which is so printed that I can read it, and it is rather interesting in view of the argument which is going on. This clipping is taken from the Ottawa Journal of March 11, and is headed:
Ask For Information Upper Ottawa Power Power Concession at Des Joachims May Be Sought
That the running streams commission of the province of Quebec is anticipating a request for a report from the Quebec legislature on the power resources of the Ottawa river, with a view to dealing with a request for development, is the information given from an authoritative source close to the Quebec government.
The announcement is in keeping with the trend of events along the river, particularly at Des Joachims, where gangs of men believed to be in the employ of the International Pulp and Paper, or allied interests, were busy all last summer, and where preparations are being made for another season's work.
The informer volunteered the information that the running streams commission is hastening its task of securing all possible data as to power development at Des Joachims. He states that the Ontario government too, in addition to that of Quebec, is to be approached with the view to securing a power concession at this point and that just as soon as the question of the renewal of the Georgian bay canal charter is settled, action will be speedy.	'
That is just another indication of the fact that while public ownership and the protection of the public are largely discussed there are other people who are interested in this power development scheme on the Ottawa river.
The original act in connection with this project, I submit, is of very great importance in this discussion, and I note with considerable satisfaction that in one particular I agree with some of the previous speakers. The hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) in speaking the other night stated that the original charter in connection with this work was primarily for the purpose of building a canal, and later in the debate that opinion was supported by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). I agree with the hon. gentleman in that statement; the original charter as drafted would indicate that the main purpose of the charter was the construction of a canal. The hon. member for Grenville-Dun-das (Mr. Casselman) remarked in the course

of his address that the original charter did not authorize the production of electric power, but I would like to take a few moments to read the clause of the original charter of 1894 which has to do with that matter. The first clauses have to do with the construction of a canal, but there was a further clause inserted as follows:
Lay out and lease or otherwise dispose of water lots and use, sell, lease or otherwise dispose of water brought by or for the said canals or works but not requisite for-the same, and produce, lease and supply, or otherwise dispose of hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power in connection with the works hereby authorized.
That was the original clause (g), which received a rather substantial amendment in chapter 123 of the statutes of 1912, when the whole clause was repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
Produce, lease and supply, or otherwise dispose of surplus hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power developed in connection with and for the purposes of the works hereby authorized, the rates or prices at or for which such hydraulic and electric power may be disposed of by the company to be fixed or determined by the Board of Baihvay Commissioners for Canada in accordance with the provisions of section 360a of the Railway Act.
My first comment on that clause, both as it was originally and as amended, is that I think there is no doubt that power is given the company to produce and sell electric energy. But I want to draw the attention of hon. gentlemen to this very important section which appears both in the original clause and in the amendment. That is, the company is allowed to produce these various kinds of power which are developed in connection with and for the purposes of the works authorized by this charter. I submit to the House that the only interpretation which can fairly be put upon that clause is that any power produced must be in connection with the canal. This matter is so serious that I would not ask this House to take my opinion as to the exact legal interpretation of this clause, but I suggest that if the charter is primarily for the purpose of building a canal, it is a fair interpretation for a reasonable man to say that in building power plants they must do so in connection with the works authorized by the charter. I submit that that would indicate that if they did not proceed with the work authorized their power under the charter would be exceeded. That may be open to debate, may be open to legal argument, and if so the courts are there to settle the interpretation. The company would have to go to the courts

Georgian Bay Canal Company
if there was any dispute on that interpretation and see w7hat the exact conditions were-they would take that chance.
Now as to the canal itself: While a great deal of interest is taken by others in the power project, personally I have no interest in it. I am, however, interested in this canal, and the consensus of opinion of this House seems to be that a canal from Montreal to the Georgian bay would be a very valuable thing to the Dominion. It also seems to be undisputed that it is a feasible undertaking. I submit that the west is interested in having this canal. It should assist in settling the transportation problem. The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) in his remarks the other night pointed out that the charter was first granted a long time ago and that conditions have since changed. I think he mentioned the construction of the Transcontinental railway, the Welland canal and the Panama canal as reasons why this project was not so necessary. I agree that the construction of that railway and the canals referred to does affect this canal project and might not make it so desirable; but it is a good maxim in any line of business administration to scrap old machinery if you can get cheaper and better results by introducing improvements. I do not think that will be necessary in this case, but the idea that you are precluded from getting better results because of existing conditions is not debatable. I was rather surprised that although the hon. member for Leeds went on and showed that this enterprise was not necessary and should not be allowed, at the conclusion of his remarks he expressed the opinion that the proper thing to do was for the government to build it. Now if the canal should not be built by private individuals because it is not necessary, I submit it is not advisable for the government to construct it at a loss to the country. Furthermore, I think that the government is not in a position at the present time to expend the large sums of money that would be necessary to build this canal, regardless altogether of the power development scheme. It would be an enormous undertaking, and this Dominion has heavy enough liabilities at the present time. I do not know how long it would take this country to get into a position to carry out the project and be able to afford the money. The estimated cost, as I understand it, of the canal and power project would be somewhere between two hundred and fifty and three hundred and fifty millions. A large proportion of this would be expended for dams,
without taking into consideration the expenditure involved in the construction of the power plants. Therefore I quite agree that the Dominion government could not undertake this project at the present time. It might be fifty years, it might be a hundred years- I am not certain what the exact period would be-but it would be a good many years before we could undertake such a huge expenditure.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the hon. gentleman aware that the government could borrow money cheaper than private interests at the present time?


Ewen Alexander McPherson: They may be able
to borrow money at a cheaper rate, but why borrow money if you can get the canal built without paying anything? I am as much in favour of public ownership as any hon. member in this House, but I am not prepared to sacrifice that benefit which is offered to the whole of Canada, from the maritime provinces to the west, in order to-


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can the hon. member show
anything definite in the bill which would compel the canal to be built?
Mj\ McPHERSON: I have already argued, although my hon. friend does not seem to understand the argument, that under this charter they have to build this canal before they can use the power, and that is the reason why I want this bill to go to committee. I am not prepared to say that they are falsifying their statements and that they do not intend to carry out their undertaking to build the canal. I want to put them in the position where we can get the facts from them. If they are prepared to build this canal now I do not wish to. wait fifty, seventy-five or a hundred years in order to have the satisfaction of owning the canal ourselves, if we can get the benefit a great deal sooner without any cost to this Dominion.
The value of this canal I think is not in dispute. Reflect for a moment upon what it means by the opening up of northern Ontario, the opening up of the waterways from Port Arthur to the ocean, and the value it -would be to Canada as a whole, and it is evident we shall have to be very careful before we say we will not even consider this matter in committee.
In closing, because it is not my intention to delay this matter by a long speech-I have tried to keep to the essential facts as closely as I could-let me say that I am in favour of this bill going to the committee in the first place because I do not think the reason
113(5
Georgian Bay Canal Company

most strongly urged, that there has been delay on the part of the company, is justified. I doubt whether there has been delay for which the company are themselves to blame; but even if there had been delay, and even if that delay was solely the fault of the applicants, I submit that it is our duty as representatives of the people to go into this matter, at least in committee, and ascertain what can be done to preserve the advantages likely to result from this project for the Dominion. But I should like to put this question to hon. gentlemen who may have been in this House in 1912: at whose request and under whose direction was the amendment of 1912 inserted in the act? I am informed that it was at the request of the late Sir Adam Beck on behalf of the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario. I do not know for certain but I am told that he was present and drafted that clause to protect the interests of that hydro-electric commission. Whether or not that is so can be ascertained. There are doubtless members still here who were oh that committee in 1912.
I understand that only in two cases in the last twenty-five years has there been a refusal to send bills to the committee. One was for a patent for some electrical appliance, and the other I think was the Red lake railway bill. The present bill is of vital importance to every hon. member here, and deserves our consideration in the fullest detail. If my explanation of why the provision in subclause (g) was introduced in 1912 is not correct, then I say this: that before this charter is renewed there should1 be provisions inserted in the bill which will prohibit the applicants or the charter holders from making any profit out of power developments until the canal is complete. If that amendment is made I am prepared to support the bill and to renew the charter.


Hugh Guthrie: Unlike my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) I am opposed to this bill going to the select standing committee of this House for consideration. It may be true as my hon. friend has stated that only in a few instances have private bills in this House been defeated upon the motion for second reading. But it is equally true that seldom have private bills been introduced involving questions of so great magnitude and of such great consequence to the people of Canada in general as the bill which is under discussion now and which stands upon the motion for second reading. I realize that upon the second reading of a bill we discuss the principles of the bill rather than its details. I am unalterably opposed to the prin-

ciple of this bill and I desire to record my opposition to it when the time for so doing shall arrive. In opposing this bill upon its second reading, I feel sure that I am on firm ground and that I am following established parliamentary practice both in this country and in Great Britain when a private bill of this nature is proposed in parliament. My authority for my position is pretty well summed up in the thirteenth edition of May's parliaments^' procedure at page 709, where it is said:
The second reading of a private bill, corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the House affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons: but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where,. irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the House will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee. This is the first occasion on which a bill is brought before the House otherwise than pro forma,-
That is to say, the second reading.
-or in connection with the standing orders; and if the bill be opposed, upon its principle, it is the proper time for attempting its defeat.
I oppose this bill on principle. I consider it thoroughly bad in principle and if passed it will prove worse in practice; and I intend to record my vote, when the time comes, as opposed to it. Before concluding my remarks, I shall place in your hands, Mr. Speaker, an amendment in the fol'lownig words:
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The character and object of this bill involve matters of grave national and provincial importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill.
This amendment h.as been framed in accordance with recognized precedent in this House in such cases. The bill before us, Mr. Speaker, involves, I submit, very grave questions of public policy. I doubt whether that statement will be denied in any section of the House. I cannot conjure up before my mind any graver matter of public policy ait this moment in Canada than the great ques-

Georgian Bay Canal Company
tion of transportation. We have in this bill a proposal thait a private corporation shall construct a great transportation work, in this country over a course of waterway estimated at about 200 miles, and when that work is constructed it will be a means of carrying tlhe great products of the Canadian west to the Canadian east or to Europe and the products of the east back to the Canadian we^t-a project which one only needs to state to convince oneself of its importance and of its thoroughly national aspect.
But there is another view of the matter which the House will readily appreciate. This transportation work, if ever constructed, will be at once a competitor with other transportation lines which 'this country owns and operates and which we all regard as great national undertakings. During recent years we have spent well on to $100,000,000 on the Welland canal for the purpose of improving a waterway from the west to the east and on to Europe. We are proceeding with that expenditure to-day but the Welland canal is not our final goal: once we are through the Welland canal we must go on to the St. Lawrence and have a completed waterway. The object of the present bill is to construct another great canal by private interests to compete directly with the millions which we have already invested in our present waterway a few miles south of the one proposed. We have in this country, moreover, another transportation system, upon which we have expended hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian money, known as the Canadian National Railways, a great national undertaking in the success of which every comer of the Dominion is interested. This bill proposes to incorporate a private undertaking to construct a work to be carried on in opposition to and in competition with the two established transportation systems in Canada owned by the Canadian people. When one considers these facts, can one hestitate for a moment to decide that this bill deals directly with a matter of public policy and not of private interest in any sense of the word?
There are many other considerations of a distinctly public nature involved in this proposal. The rights of the Dominion and the rights of two great provinces are directly concerned, and these must be taken into account. I agree that until recent years provincial rights as 'opposed to Dominion rights have not perhaps been very well settled. But through a long succession of decisions in our courts of justice and in the privy council these rights have now been so 32649-72
well determined and adjusted 'that we all know and recognize them when they are stated. Involved in this proposed work is an interprovincial river dividing the great province of Quebec from the province of Ontario, and we know that on either side of that river, all the land is under the jurisdiction of the legislatures of one or other of these provinces. We know that the provinces own the land; we know that the provinces own the beds of the river right to the middle; we know that the provinces own and control the water in the river; we know that the provinces own and control even the fish in these waters. All, therefore, that this parliament is concerned with is its paramount right in respect of the single question of navigation; that is the only authority which the parliament of Canada can exercise over an interprovincial river. This bill seeks to interfere with provincial rights; it proposes to' grant, as an incidental power, the right to utilize for electrical development the water of the Ottawa river and to a certain extent -the land on either side of the river, irrespective of the authority of the provinces of Quebec and of Ontario. Surely that is a matter of public policy; surely it is a matter which involves a great principle. And it is a matter of too great magnitude and too great consequence to be entrusted to any private individuals or to any private corporation. Why, one has only to state the case to realize its gravity and importance. On the Ottawa river it is said that over 1,000,000 horse-power of electrical energy can be developed. This potential power is the property of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec; it is so to-day. On the French river, which is entirely, I think, within the province of Ontario, it is said that there is another large amount of electrical power available. Ontario to-day is suffering from a lack of electrical power, and Ontario is looking to the Ottawa river to supply a very necessary demand. The province of Quebec to-day is suffering from a shortage of electrical power, and is stretching out in every direction in its own province to supply the demand. Should we permit a private company, should we permit any body of individuals to come to this parliament and say:	We ask you
to confer upon us rights which will supersede all provincial claims; we ask you to recognize and restore a charter granted to us 'by this parliament thirty-three years ago, and to give us further time to construct a work to compete directly with two great national undertakings of this country; we ask you to give us a renewal of authority to construct a work which may deprive both Ontario and

Georgian Bay Canal Company

Quebec of a wealth of electrical power which the provinces to-day rightly own.
Is this not a matter of grave public concern? Is this not a matter of grave public policy? Is this not a matter which involves a great principfe? We in this House must decide upon this question of principles. The highest parliamentary authority in Great Britain or in this country from whom I have quoted supports my contention. May's Parliamentary Procedure is the standard, and May distinctly asserts that the appropriate stage at which to object to the principle of a private bill is upon the motion for second reading. The amendment which I have proposed will afford every member of this House an opportunity of deciding upon that principle. Such was the object which I had in moving the amendment, my main object, of course, being to destroy this measure, to blot it out.
I do not attach very much weight to the argument of hon. members who say: Oh, let it go to the committee. If we do, we will have approved the principle of the bill, and as I said before, I am unalterably opposed to the principle of this bill.
I am not going to prolong my remarks upon this occasion, at all events, Mr. Speaker. I am going to place in your hands now the amendment which I have just read, and which I shall read again. It is moved by myself, and seconded by the hon. member for Argen-teuil (Sir George Perley):
That all the words after the word "that" in the said motion be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
The character and object of this bill involve matters of grave national and provincial importance, and are such as to constitute it a measure of public policy which ought not to be dealt with by any private bill.
Mr. T L.. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) : Mr. Speaker, I am opposed both to the motion and the amendment before the House. It is on the second reading of a bill that its principle must be considered. The province of Ontario will soon find out where the two political parties in this honourable House stand so far as the development of water-power is concerned.
I want to say to my hon. friend from Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) that there is no province suffering to-day from corporation rule worse than the province of Manitoba. From the Nipigon river westward, all the water-powers of this country have been given over to American millionaires.
This particular bill, Mr. Speaker, first came before this House in 1894. It has survived thirty-three years. It first came up before the diamond jubilee of our late beloved Queen

Victoria. It ran through the reign of King Edward VII, and survived through to the reign of King George V. I say, Mr. Speaker, that it makes this parliament look ridiculous in the eyes of the free citizens of this country to-day that after thirty-three years we should again have this bill before us. Sir Clifford Sifton, -who is our arch enemy in the matter of water-powers, wants to grab the whole water-powers of. the Ottawa valley. Sir Clifford Sifton has been dominating the west for many years. It is he who is responsible for all the railway ills of this country through tying up the Canadian Pacific to the Crows-nest pass agreement, which is the basis of the rate structure of this country, past, present and future, and if the west is suffering to-day from lack of development of its water-powers and from corporation rule, it is due to the fact that Sir Clifford Sifton in the past has been able to dominate in the Liberal party.
The Liberal party is on trial to-night in this House before the citizens of this country. What is the policy of the government to-day on this particular bill, this bill which has survived under nine prime ministers, under two kings and three queens of this great empire, under eight or nine parliaments, and is again today before this House after thirty-three years during which not a spadeful of earth has been dug on this canal? We have seen the Liberals of Saskatchewan and Manitoba rising in this House to-night and shedding buckets of tears over this multi-millionaire Sir Clifford Sifton, who wants now to grab all the water-powers of the Ottawa valley.
This is not the first time that I have opposed this bill. I was down opposing it with our late beloved leader of the hydro project in Ontario. Sir Adam Beck may be dead today, but his principles will live forever throughout Ontario. I well remember coming down with him and appearing before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, and hydro had very few friends then in either the Conservative or the Liberal party. I well remember the time when Sir Adam Beck and I were howled down in the railway committee by a large number of gentlemen in the session of 1912. We were here again in 1913, again in 1915, and again in 1918, and I think the last time we were down here to oppose this particular bill was when I was chief magistrate for the city of Toronto in 1921.
The hon. member for Portage la Prairie argued again to-night, as he did last Tuesday, that the company will have to build the canal features first. The canal features of this bill, Mr. Speaker, are a huge joke, and the joker is in the bill. It is ten times

Georgian Bay Canal Company
worse than the Newmarket canal. Did anybody ever hear of the Liberal party doing anything with regard to that canal except making a political football of it? The people of North York got tired of them, and they defeated the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal party, in 1925. Where does the Liberal party stand to-night on this particular bill? It would make a political football of the Ottawa river to-day, just as it tried to do of the Niagara river. In the railway committee last session, I asked what was the policy of the government regarding the Red lake bill? I had the opportunity of talking that bill out, on five or six different nights, and I am prepared to talk this bill out, if necessary, on ten or fifteen nights, because my constituents expect me to do it. I want to know where the Prime 'Minister stands in regard to this bill. Let me quote from the Toronto Globe, a good Liberal paper, the paper of George Brown.
I look to you, Mr. Speaker, as one of the shining lights of Liberalism in this country to-day. You have never deserted your principles. You stood like a bulwark when others of the Liberal party were willing to surrender the west. You and your predecessor, two of the most brilliant postmasters general, fought that bill to the death. But the Liberal party were captured by the Globe and the Globe pressed for concession after concession with the result that Sir Clifford Sifton is to blame for all the present railway ills of this country. Millions and millions of dollars have been wasted because of mistakes made by Sir Clifford Sifton. You, Mr. Speaker, and Sir William Mulock fought hard to save the Liberal party from being corporationized at that particular time. Sir Clifford Sifton has never built anything in this country. He has made a football out of this particular bill. The Sifton interests are the same as the Holt interests; they are trying to fight each other behind a smoke screen. They are part and parcel of a group of American multimillionaires trying to get this country by the throat. I am surprised at those of the Progressive party who come from Ontario not rising to the defence of the principles for which Sir Adam Beck fought and died. Sir Adam had to fight corporations all his life, but he lived to see his principles respected by Ontario and by Canada.
To-day I ask the government where they stand in this country. Are they prepared to announce their policy regarding the fourteenth renewal of this charter, one of the most iniquitous charters which ever came before this House? The Conservative party stands 32649-72J
on trial; so does the Liberal party, and the party system stands or falls by what we do with this particular bill. The people of this country will not any longer stand for the handing over of our water-powers and the wealth of this Dominion to a number of Americans who have come over to Canada and who have found it a happy hunting ground for many years past. Let me say to those who come from Ontario that Sir Adam Beck's work will live for generations. He was the greatest protectionist leader this country ever produced. As Mr. Bruce, the Prime Minister of Australia, said a month or two ago, the work of Sir Adam Beck stands as one of the most marvelous achievements of the age, something of which Canada and the British Empire might well be proud. Ontario should revere that great statesman's memory long enough to defeat this bill.
My respected leader, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) has always been a good hydro man. In fact he is a city solicitor and one of the counsel for the hydro in his municipality. I believe the motion before the chair, while it does not go as far as I would like, will have the same effect- that of killing the bill. The Liberal party stands on trial in regard to this particular issue. There are only a few Liberals left in Ontario, and after the Liberal party line up, as I expect them to do in a few days, there will be very few of them left in Ontario. I doubt if there will be many of them left in Manitoba, 'Saskatchewan and Allberta, because the people are wakening up to the magnificent resources which they have in those particular provinces.
In to-day's Globe there is an editorial sounding the call to arms of the Liberals of this country. The Globe has not deserted the Liberal party; it is the Liberal party that has deserted the Globe and the principles of George Brown. The Globe to-day stands before the people of Ontario in a position in which it has never stood before. It is taking a front place to-day in supporting the platform and policy of Sir Adam Beck in that province. The Globe comes out to-day with an editorial asking where the Liberal party stands. The Liberal party must either stand or fall by their policy in this House. I do not see the much honoured and respected young Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in the chamber to-night. I see the beloved Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)- because he is beloved by his own party and

Georgian Bay Canal Company
by many on this side of the House. The Globe editorial reads:
Let the Government Speak
For four days now the Dominion parliament has discussed the Georgian Bay Canal Bill in the hours devoted to private members' bills. On each occasion the bill has been talked out. Has the time not come when the government should declare itself on the measure? The Globe believes it has, and is convinced that the great importance of the issue demands an expression of governmental opinion. In saying this the Globe does not forget that the government is not responsible for bills of private members, and may be quite within its rights in refusing to commit itself for or against a private measure. But the importance of the issue in the present instance more than warrants a departure from precedent.
Whether this 33-year old charter is renewed or not is a matter of first importance to two great provinces of the Dominion. With a unanimous voice the legislature of Ontario has spoken strongly against the renewal of the charter and protested to the Dominion government against what it considers to be an unwarranted usurpation of the water-power rights of the province. Surely in response to such a protest the government ought to declare itself. Mr. A. Clair Casselman, Conservative member for Grenville, on Tuesday urged the ministry, in fairness to itself, to state to the people where it stood with reference to what it termed the "power grab".
It is not a "power grab" at all. Newspapers on both sides in this province have been calling the Chicago diversion of water a "water steal," but the Chicago diversion of water is only a miniature steal. This grab of power in the Ottawa valley is a steal on the part of the Siftons.
"The government is laying itself open to rather serious charges," he said, and further added: "I would suggest that, since we are now on our fourth day on this matter in the House, the government should suggest to us what it is its intention to do; whether it is going to support the charter or whether it is not.
It has happened in the past, and may happen in the present instance, that government members have voted against one another on a private bill. But neither this nor any other consideration of precedent or custom should prevent an expression of governmental opinion on this important matter. The government should declare where it stands on the measure, and do it now.
Where is the Minister of Customs and Excise (Mr. Euler) to-night? In the days when Sir Adam Beck was alive he boasted that he was a hydro man. The hon. member for North Bruce, the present Minister of Trade and Commerce, (Mr. Malcolm) did the same thing. They were ready to stand up on political platforms in Bruce and Waterloo counties and say: we are hydro supporters; we will defend the principles for which Sir

Adam Beck fought and died. If we look at the Ottawa valley, we see that the whole of eastern Ontario has been stagnant for the past twenty-five years. Why? Because the Liberal party in eastern Ontario did not believe in Sir Adam Beck; they believed in private ownership, with the result to-day that the Ottawa valley right up to Nipissing and the Mattawa river is under the control of whom? Of American multi-millionaires, and more territory west of the Quebec boundary right up to the Nipigon river has been ceded to Americans than was ceded in the days of George III.
The hon. member for Portage lla Prairie (Mr. McPherson) the other evening in this House read an article from a Cochrane paper about the Abitibi Electric Development Company, and he blamed the hydro for it. Let me tell the hon. gentleman that he did not know what he was talking about. The Abitibi Electric Development Company was a privately-owned concern. In 1905, 1906, 1907 and 1908 I was one of a deputation of hydro men who went to aSk the Ontario government to electrify the Temiskaming and Northern Ontario in order to aid in the development of the Ottawa valley right up to Cochrane and to carry the boon of cheap light and power from the water-powers of the great province of Ontario to the mining camps in the northern part of the Ottawa valley. The failure to act in this matter was one of the very few mistakes made by Sir James Whitney. The Conservative party of Ontario deserve all) the credit for the hydro-electric movement. Talk of that movement being in polities! It must stay in politics until we get all the water-powers not only of the Ottawa valley but of new Ontario. Let me tell the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. McPherson) that the corporations were so influential that they kept Sir Adam Beck out of new Ontario, with the result that to-day the Abitibi Company, according to the article read the other night in this House, are going to charge the town of Cochrane and the mining companies in the neighbourhood at the rate of S75 per horsepower. Who is to blame for that? The people of new Ontario, because they allowed themselves to be deluded by the subsidized press of that section of the country which shouted from the housetops in favour of the corporation.
This bill is one of the most monstrous outrages that was ever perpetrated on this country. It is not a canal proposition at all. A lot of Liberal members from Manitoba are only too willing to take it for granted that the proposed canal will be constructed, but

Supply

Public Works-Alberta
I can tell those hon. gentlemen that instead of a spade being used to turn the first sod for a canal it will be put in the ground to bury them, not only politically but otherwise. This canal has the Newmarket canal beaten forty ways. I wish Gilbert and Sullivan were alive to write a comic opera on this wonderful canal about which the hon. member for Portage la Prairie seems to be somewhat concerned. Again I assure him that he need feel no uneasiness whatever-the canal will never be built. The proposition has been referred to in many elections in the Ottawa valley and has no doubt proved very useful in providing campaign funds for many candidates in that territory, just as the Newmarket canal served a similar purpose in North York.
Last session, Mr. Speaker, I urged that we should go through the statute books and find out how many of these paper companies are still holding charters that may affect power developments for the benefit of the people. This charter stands in the way of Ontario utilizing the water-powers of the Ottawa river. But as for the canal, it is all paper; there is no water in it at all. The first charter was secured away back in the days of good old Queen Victoria, in 1894, two years before Sir Wilfrid Laurier made Canada a nation. The promoters came to the House again in 1898 and secured a renewal, the incorporators numbering ninety-seven and being composed of all the politicians, great and small, in the city of Ottawa. It -will be noted that the incorporators were only three less than the celebrated committee of a hundred. It was proposed by chapter 108 of the statutes of 1898 that the company should have sixteen provisional directors. The promoters came back to parliament in 1900 for a further extension of time, and found it hard work to get six gentlemen to act as provisional directors. During the general election of 1900 we heard a great deal about this canal in the Ottawa valley and about the Newmarket canal in the Toronto district. My young friend from Parkdale, as a member of the Parkdale Canoe Club, was supposed to take his canoe up the shining waters of the Newmarket canal and then through the Trent system to Georgian bay and thence by this long-promised canal down the Ottawa river.
Another application for a further extension of time was made in 1904, and the promoters then undertook to go full steam ahead with the canal. They had been to England and interested a good old Britisher by the name of Sir Robert Perks, who came out here and went over the proposed route of the canal.
On the strength of this it was said that contracts had been let for the work, but strange to say, not a sod was turned. The only canal we have in the Ottawa valley so far is the canal in front of the Chateau Laurier, and along the banks of that canal we see a few rowboats, which I suppose represent Canada's navy.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills being exhausted, the House will now revert to supply.



DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC 'WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee
rose at six o'clock we were considering item 140-$16,000 for a public building at Wain-wright, Alberta.


William Thomas Lucas: The minister has told U3
that urgency is the factor which determines whether or not public buildings shall be erected. In looking over the list I find that to Kensington with a revenue of about $3,000 we voted $12,000; to Baie St. Paul, with a revenue of about $3,600 we voted $20,000; to Kenogami, with a revenue of about $7,000 we voted $27,000 and to Limoilou, with a revenue of about $5,000 we voted $50,000. Then in Ontario to Durham, with a revenue of about $6,300 we voted $20,000; to Rockland, with a revenue of about $2,800, we voted $25,000, and to Tisdale, Saskatchewan, with a revenue of about $7,000 we voted $12,000. In the item now before us, however, we find' Wainwright, with a revenue of $6,313, being voted $15,000. If these amounts have been voted to these various places on account of urgency, I would point out that Camrose has a revenue of $16,500 and is therefore entitled to the very best consideration by the government. In addition to that, the customs office there produces a revenue of over $50,000 annually. Camrose is one of the most flourishing towns in Alberta, and the postal authorities have agreed that if any public buildings for postal purposes were to be constructed in Alberta Camrose should receive first consideration. It is a very important railway centre, with lines radiating from it in eight different directions; it has a very fine normal school which accommodates several hundred students every year, and I know the present post office is taxed beyond its capacity. I feel sure that this has been an oversight on th,e part of the government; I would not want to think this item was dropped for any other reason, and I am going to ask the minister if he will not

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
give this very favourable consideration, and place in the supplementary estimates an amount sufficient to take care of the construction of a public building in that town.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give my hon.
friend any further reply than I have already given. I might repeat what I have already said to him, but I do not know that that would assist matters. This matter will be considered with the various other applications for public buildings, of which there are many, and they will all receive the best consideration we can possibly give.


William Thomas Lucas: Would not the minister go so far as to say that he would give this particular matter his favourable consideration?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say that.


Milton Neil Campbell: Perhaps the minister
will tell us why it was given favourable consideration in the estimates last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I was not in charge of
the department at that time.


Milton Neil Campbell: Do I understand that
the change of ministers has brought about a change in the policy of the department? It would appear that that has been so, when places like Tisdale and Kensington can get new post offices.


Mr. MacLEAN (Prince):: I do not like to hear a good Prince Edward Islander continually taking up the question of the Kensington post office; I must take exception to that.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not know just
what my hon. friend means by a "good" Prince Edward Islander. I know the village of Kensington very well; it is a delightful and splendid little place, but there are hundreds of places in western Canada just as nice and larger which have never dreamed of getting a post office. I made a reference to one such town near my own home, and there are many even larger places, more deserving of post offices, which cannot get them. There are many incorporated towns of considerable size in which I would like to see public buildings, but I realize that we cannot get them all. I do think, however, that when the money is being spent it should be distributed as nearly as possible according to the needs, and the needs should be based as much as possible on the revenue of the post pffices. I am criticizing this item because of the amount of money being spent in comparison to the revenue derived.


Mr. SPENCER:: I would like to support
the contention of the hon. member for Cam-rose (Mr. Lucas) that there should be a post office built in that town, because after all is said and done Camrose is bringing in a large revenue to the government. I cannot understand why this item was dropped from the estimates. So far as the item under discussion goes, I know the locality very well indeed, and recognize that the reason a new building was requested, is that the present premises are very inadequate. The town of Wainwright is of some importance as a tourist centre, and as we all know, the largest buffalo park in the world is located near it. It is also the centre of a coming oil field, and there is every reason why a new building worthy of the town should be constructed.


Robert Gardiner: There is just one point to which I would like to draw the attention of the minister, more particularly when he is making up the supplementary estimates. If you go through the items you will find that practically every province has had an increase in the expenditures to be made, with the one exception of Alberta, for which province the expenditure has been reduced. When the supplementary estimates are being made up I would suggest that this fact be taken into account.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: For the life of me I cannot understand why, when an amount was included for the Camrose post office in the supplementary estimates for last year, it should be dropped from the estimates this year. It does seem to me that in consideration of the revenue from the post office and customs office, and with the population and business done in that place, the minister would be well advised to maintain this item in the estimates for this year. Only $32,000 is being spent in the whole province of Alberta this year; $17,000 is for general repairs to public buildings, something required every year, and the remainder is made up of this single item of $15,000 for the post office at Wain wright. I have a feeling that this matter is not being dealt with in absolute fairness, and I am going to urge the minister, as the hon. member for Camrose has done, to reconsider this matter and include this item in the supplementary estimates.


Robert James Manion: May I, as a member from Ontario, support the hon. member for Cam-rose in the attitude he has taken, and I would like to point out to the minister that we might be a little more frank in these discussions. We have heard a number of members get up and say they do not understand why this item

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
was cut out. We all frankly admit why it was cut out-it was because the member for Camrose dlid not vote with the government last year. There is no use beating about the bush. The same thing happened in the constituency of Queen's-Lunenburg: the item in that case was cut out of the supplementary estimates after the election of the present member. If the minister can confound my reasoning by reinserting these items in the supplementaries I shall be glad to see him do it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-public works, $243,262.
Bentinck island lazaretto-new buildings, $5,000.
Mr. ESLING:: In connection with the
British Columbia vote I should like just to draw attention to the policy advanced by the Minister of Public Works in which he indicated that public buildings would be provided where there was not adequate provision already and where urgent necessity for better accommodation existed. Now this meagre vote for public buildings in British Columbia suggests that the Minister of Health, who is the direct representative of the province in the cabinet, must be exercising his political prejudices against British Columbia because it gave the Conservatives a popular majority of nearly
100,000.	There is no other construction to be placed on the fact that we are not getting very much in the way of public buildings in British Columbia. We know that under the generalship of the Minister of Health, who had charge of the British Columbia campaign, the only Liberal returned from that province was the minister himself; and curiously enough in the whole eastern half of the province the only vote for a public building is in the district represented by the minister himself.
Now I want to follow entirely the line of policy indicated by the minister. In the district of East Kootenay, represented by the Minister of Health, there is one vote for $5,500 for a public building in the town of Kimberley. Kimberley will be very glad to hear that news; yet at the same time I submit it will be disappointed, because it is one of the thriving communities of British Columbia, and should have a vote of $25,000. It has a population of three or four thousand, and certainly a $5,000 vote is inadequate for a place which has practically the richest silver-lead mine on the whole American continent. There are many local improvements going on there, and among the communities in the province that should be able to lay claim to a
public building Kimberley certainly is one. The fact of the matter is that the Minister of Health owes a great deal to the community of Kimberley. I do not blame the Minister of Public Works for all the contentious discussion that has been going on in this House this afternoon. Really I feel sorry for him because he has inherited a lot of his troubles from his predecessor.
Now, I think we have to admit this-that the minister from each province is responsible for the estimates which are allocated to that province. In other words the Minister of Health is the direct representative in the cabinet from British Columbia, and when he takes part in the cabinet councils, or when he makes his recommendations to the Minister of Finance or to the Minister of Public Works, the only conclusion is that those recommendations will be accepted. Therefore we are forced to assume that in this case the minister was either exercising his political prejudices or the government does not pay very much attention to him.
There is' a very marked difference between the estimates brought down right on the eve of an election, and estimates brought down after an election is over and the government feel safe. We have a fair illustration of that in connection with the estimates from the prairie provinces. I want to emphasize that statement from the circumstances connected with one of the cities in my own district. You all remember the general election which took place on the 29th October, 1925. With the object of giving a little prestige to my opponent -the Minister of Health purchased a site in the town of Trail for a public building. For that site, consisting of two bare lots, he paid $11,000. Of course they bought these lots from the local Liberal whip. He was the man who put the deal through. Eleven thousand dollars for two bare lots!


David Spence: How much were they worth?


William Kemble Esling: They were assessed at $2,300. At the other end of the same identical block there were two lots on which there was a building. The government had an option on these two lots and that building for $9,000, but they were owned by a Conservative and so their purchase was not considered. The government had a chance to purchase for $9,000 a piece of property which had a rental value of $125 per month. Yet they passed that up and purchased two vacant lots with no rental value at all for $11,000. The simple explanation of that is the influence exercised by the Minister of Health. Having purchased
1144	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
this site for a public building one would have supposed there would have been some intimation on the part of the Minister of Health that the construction of the building would be proceeded with. He got the lots in September, 1925. Remember, the election took place on the 29th of October, 1925. On the 4th of September, 1925, the option was exercised, and on the 27th of September, 1925, just exactly one month prior to the election, there went to the surveyor a rush wire from the resident architect in Victoria. Just to show you the political influence behind it, I may say that this rush wire said:
Will be glad if you will proceed to Trail and have a survey made with the utmost despatch as the matter is very urgent.
The utmost despatch on the eve of this election! They wanted to have this survey made.


Hugh Guthrie: Who sent the telegram?


William Kemble Esling: It is signed by the architect of the Public Works department resident in Victoria, who of course gets his instructions from Ottawa. The Minister of Public Works at that time was the hon. gentleman who now occupies the portfolio of Health. Not satisfied, they got the lots surveyed, and for this purpose they thought it necessary to bring a naan from the outside. There are three local surveyors in the city of Trail fully qualified for any work of this nature, but instead of securing one of these men the department, simply because they were Conservatives, went to the city of Nelson fifty miles away and brought in a Liberal surveyor, whom they had to pay more than would have been charged by any of the others. They had to pay two or three days' hotel expenses for this man with the result that it cost them $50 to survey two little lots 25 by 100. I do not at all blame the present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) because he must either accept or reject the recommendations of his colleague from British Columbia, and in this case I take it for granted that the latter hon. gentleman recommended what was done.
What I want to impress upon the government is this, that in five years the city of Trail has contributed to the public treasury by way of post office receipts and customs the sum of $300,000.


John Frederick Johnston: May I point out to
the hon. member that, according to section 5 of rule 13, speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. Considerable

latitude is always given in the discussion of estimates, but surely what happened in Trail has nothing to do with the item under consideration, which concerns the Bentinck island lazaretto.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before you rule on the
point Mr. Chairman-


John Frederick Johnston: I am not ruling; I am simply pointing out to the hon. member that his remarks at present are not strictly relevant to the item before the committee.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I submit, Mr. Chairman,
that they are. We are discussing vote No. 141 which embraces items in connection with public buildings in British Columbia generally. Bentinck island is not the only item in the vote; there are estimates for Dominion public buildings at Esquimalt, Kimberley, William Head quarantine station, and so on. The vote covers the whole province, the amount asked for being $243,000 odd. Surely the remarks of the hon. member are in order. As a matter of fact, this is the only opportunity he will have of discussing the question which he is now considering, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that if you give a ruling of the character suggested it will be most unfair to the hon. member. More than that, it will be a complete abandonment of what has been the practice of this House, certainly for the last sixteen years, and I presume since confederation.


John Frederick Johnston: I would remind the hon. member that the committee decided this afternoon to discuss these votes item by item. There is another vote, No. 142, under the head "Generally", which will allow the hon. member to take up the subject he is now discussing. But certainly his remarks are not in order under this item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: During the last two or
three days we have been discussing votes for every other province and the widest latitude has been allowed, as is in keeping with the practice in this parliament; and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it would be exceedingly unfair were you to rule the hon. member out of order. It is all very well to say that he can take up the matter under some other item, but this is the proper place for him to discuss any question appertaining to public buildings in British Columbia.


John Frederick Johnston: As I have already intimated, the committee decided to take the vote item by item, and the hon. member (Mr. Esling) has been discussing a matter relating to a subsequent vote

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


Hugh Guthrie: There is only one resolution before the chair, relating to public buildings generally in British Columbia. The hon. member, I submit, is in order.


Ernest Lapointe: As you have observed, Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) asked that these votes be taken item by item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I never mentioned it.


Ernest Lapointe: Somebody did. I think
the chairman is technically right, but I would ask him not to insist on the point. Without establishing any precedent we are all willing to listen to the hon. member for West Kootenay.


John Frederick Johnston: I may say that I had no intention in the first place of calling the hon. member to order, but in view of the criticism which has been made, that time has been wasted, I thought it proper to cal! his attention to the rule.
Mr. STEVENiS: I protest against any suggestion that time has been wasted.


Ernest Lapointe: We are agreeing with
you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will not sit here and
allow the chairman to say that we have been wasting time.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The government will find that things will not roll along so smoothly if they seek to override members on this side of the House.


Ernest Lapointe: LIow can my hon. friend address that remark to the government in view of the statement I have just made, that we are willing to let the hon. gentleman proceed?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am addressing the chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: You spoke of the government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You may as well have an understanding now as any other time.


William Kemble Esling: Mr. Chairman, I would confine myself to the item, but the trouble is that it is not there; I cannot speak to it.
I was pointing out that in this particular place, the city of Trail, which I represent, nothing has been spent in the construction of public buildings, although we contribute to the federal exchequer every year four times the total vote for public buildings in British Columbia. Here is a little community of 8,000 which contributes to the treasury $1,000,000 per annum in taxation, yet the accommodation in public
buildings which it so badly needs is not given. Notwithstanding that large contribution we make to the Dominion exchequer not one dollar has been spent in public works in that city in the whole period of thirty years I have lived there. Surely, therefore, we are not extravagant in asking now for a vote for a public building.
I would point out also wherein the Dominion is indebted to Trail. Let me take you back to January, 1915. At that time the allies needed zinc, and they were being held up by a syndicate of New York brokers who were charging them forty-four cents per pound for that commodity. The city of Trail then set its research department to work with the result that it evolved a process for treating complex ores which relieved not only this government, but all the allies, for Trail was able to supply zinc at the rate of fifteen cents per pound. Should not such an accomplishment receive some consideration? To-day we are producing in this little community, which the Minister of Health would overlook, 6 per cent of the world's zinc supply and 8 per cent of its lead supply. We have there the largest industrial institution probably in the whole Dominion, except perhaps the British Empire Steel Corporation. Figured in dollars and cents our production is $35,000,000 per year, and that is one little community of 8,000 people, and yet the Minister of Health does not think it is of sufficient importance to recommend a public building to the Public Works department. We produce pure gold, pure silver, pure lead, pure copper, pure zinc, sulphuric acid, antimony and innumerable byproducts.


Milton Neil Campbell: But you do not produce any Liberals there.


William Kemble Esling: That is quite right. The
Minister of Public Works this afternoon, in attempting to justify a certain vote, said that there had been an increase in the population of the place. The community I speak for, has in five years time increased its population from 3,000 to 8,000, or an increase of
5,000	people. In that community we have a memorial hall built by the citizens themselves with the assistance of the company, and its equipment is not surpassed in the whole Dominion. It has a gymnasium, recreation rooms, bowling alleys and so forth. We have also a hospital which is the last word in construction and equipment.
I want to say a word now as to the human touch that exists as between the company and its employees. First, this company gives its men group insurance. It has also put aside
1146	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
several hundred thousand dollars for a pension fund, so that a man as soon as he has put in so many years with the company will be able to retire on pension. It also helps its employees in the building of homes. It has loaned to the people of this community half a million dollars for that purpose, and any man who can pay twenty per cent of the cost of his home is advanced the other eighty per cent by the company, at a very low rate of interest. With half a million dollars advanced to this community to help in the construction of homes, the Minister of Health still does not think it is of sufficient importance to give them a small public building, notwithstanding the fact that we have not had one dollar of public expenditure in thirty years. The company also gives the men in its employ fifty dollars in cash at Christmas time, and every married man who has been in the service of the company for three years gets a share of stock in the company, worth $250. The company comes just about as near looking after the welfare of its employees as it is humanly possible for any company to do It has a payroll of about $500,000 a month.
This afternoon the Minister of Public Works in justifying some of his estimates, said, "I am endeavouring to carry out a policy of constructing public buildings where there is not adequate accommodation, and where the necessity is urgent." I propose to put my case up to the hon. Minister of Public Works, and to show that the necessity for a public building in this community is urgent. I want first to read a letter from the hon. Minister of Health, who is British Columbia's direct representative in the cabinet. I had asked him to give consideration to this matter of the construction of a public building, and he replied under date of February 3, which is not very long ago:	'	1
I am thoroughly conversant with the necessities of that district-
Meaning my district:
-and it was with a view to giving better accommodation that I recommended the purchase of a property in Trail some time ago-
That "some time ago" was just a month before the 1925 election:
-it being my intention to advocate the erection of a suitable building on this site.
Now I would ask the present Minister of Public Works if the former Minister of Public Works, who is now the Minister of Health, advocated a vote for this building. He says further:
I am sure it is the desire of the government to meet the requirements of the fast-growing
[Mr. Esling.l
communities in Canada, but it is well realized that owing to the Great war there was a general desire to curtail public expenditure. It is only within the last two or three years that the government has been able to see its way clear to undertake the construction of new buildings, some of which have been completed.
The Minister of Health apparently has not seen his way clear to recommend the construction of this urgently needed building.
Now I want to quote from a letter from the present Postmaster General. I put this matter up to him, and he was very sympathetic. He did not merely say: I will give it consideration. No, under date of January 4, he wrote:
I may say that the construction of public buildings is a matter of policy resting with the Minister of Public Works, but I have already made representations to his department that the accommodation at present provided at Trail is totally inadequate, and have urged the erection of a suitable public building.
That comes direct from the Postmaster General himself

"the accommodation is totally inadequate, and have urged the erection of a suitable public building." I have given you the letter from the Minister of Health, showing that he realizes the necessity for this public building in Trail; I have given you the letter from the Postmaster General, saying that he 'has urged the Department of Public Works to construct a building in Trail. Now I want to quote from the Post Office department itself. The conditions in the city of Trail became so acute, and are so acute to-day, that the Post Office department sent a special inspector to Trail to investigate the conditions, and this inspector reported:
The present quarters cover 1,218 feet of floor space.
The building Which the government rejected contains something like 1,500 feet of floor space. The inspector also reported that there were 1,037 boxes, and that the postmaster there stated that there were 500 people waiting to get boxes. That is, there were 1,037 boxes in use, and 500 people were lined up there waiting to get boxes. There is only room in that post office for 100 boxes, and the postmaster hesitates to put them in, because he has to put them in at his own expense, and he fears that if he did so, the government might construct a public building, and he would be out the cost of the hundred boxes. The inspector further goes on to say that the congestion in Trail has been so great that it has been necessary, in order to accommodate the general public, to establish four places throughout the city where the public can purchase stamps. Trail to-day, he

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
says, has a population of 8,000, and he believes that it will increase in three years to probably
12,000.	That is what the post office inspector says, the man who went into this community to make a full investigation of the conditions, and he naturally went to the fountainhead for information; in other words, to the company.


Mr. VENIOT:: Will the hon. gentleman
give the date of that report?


William Kemble Esling: I cannot give you the date, but I can give you the month. The report was made in December, 1926, only a short time ago. He say's that within three years that community will have a population of 12,000. If you were to go to the manager of the Consolidated Mining & Smelting Company, I am sure he would hazard the guess that Trail will have a population of 15,000 souls within the next four or five years. This report from the inspector is in the possession of the Postmaster General and I have no doubt that upon it he based his recommendation to the Minister of Public Works. The government's own inspector recommends the erection of a public building to be proceeded with as soon as possible. He further recommends that this building, instead of containing 1,037 letter boxes should contain 2,100 letter boxes. Surely any hon. member who wants to be fair about this matter will realize that it is a case of urgency, or inadequate accommodation and of necessity. The inspector recommends that instead of 1,200 square feet of floor space as at present, the building should have 3,500 feet of floor space, and in order to avoid congestion, he also urges that there should be two entrances.
There is not another industrial centre in the whole of Canada to equal the city of Trail. In that city, an, amount of $1,000,000 is paid each year in taxes and we have not had one dollar spent for public works in thirty years except the $11,000 vote which the minister passed on to his Liberal whip for that site. From my short acquaintance with the present Minister of Public Works I believe he is disposed to be fair. I do not blame him a particle; I put all the responsibility on the minister from British Columbia who apparently has not made the recommendation. I am simply going to leave the matter there and ask for the good offices and fair consideration of the present minister. I will ask him if he will not realize the lack of accommodation in the city of Trail, and endeavour to bring down in the supplementary estimates a vote for the erection of a public building there. At the present time the government are spending $135 a month in rent, $100 for a post office
and $35 for a customs house. They might just as well save that money and house the two departments in one building. If the former Minister of Public Works saw the necessity, urgency and rush for getting this post office site purchased from his local Liberal friend before the 29th day of October, the date of the 1925 election, surely the sitting member is justified in asking for a vote for the erection of a public building in Trail.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I am rather surprised and grieved to find my hon. friend in such an irritable mood to-night. He complains very bitterly of my action as the minister from British Columbia. I think the fact that as the minister knowing conditions in Trail and knowing them as well as my hon. friend does, I purchased the property which he says I purchased from Liberal friends-


William Kemble Esling: From the Liberal whip, I said.


John Warwick King: I am advised that my hon. friend and some of his real estate associates in Trail were anxious to sell a site.


William Kemble Esling: I rise to a point of order.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend has been talking for about an hour about a post office in Trail-


William Kemble Esling: Will the minister confine
himself to the truth.


John Warwick King: I am going to
speak for five minutes. The purchase of the property was done through the ordinary channels.


William Kemble Esling: On the minister's order.


John Warwick King: Is it possible for my hon. friend to contain himself? I know he has not got over the fact that the people of Trail did not give him a majority in the last election.


William Kemble Esling: They did. They gave me a majority of fifteen against your friend you brought from five hundred miles away.


John Warwick King: I wish to say this because my hon. friend has gone far out of his way to intimate that I personally purchased property in Trail.


William Kemble Esling: So the minister did.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend
will retract that statement, because it is not true. I will wait for him to retract.


William Kemble Esling: I will not say that the minister went there and handed over the money. I will say that he sent his resident architect and told him to s >e a certain man.
I14s	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


John Warwick King: It is easy for anyone to make insinuations, but this property was bought by the Public Works department in the usual way and any hon. member can easily inform himself upon the procedure that was followed. An officer of the department goes to the town or place where the purchase is to be made; he makes inquiries; he examines different properties.


William Kemble Esling: He did not. He was told to see a certain man and he saw him. He was told to see the Liberal whip and he saw him.


John Warwick King: He inquired as to values of many properties.


William Kemble Esling: He saw just the one man.


John Warwick King: I do not quite appreciate my hon. friend's attitude. I think I am entitled to speak for a few moments.


William Kemble Esling: Well, speak the truth.


John Warwick King: When my hon. friend had the floor I did not interrupt him, and I would ask him to contain himself and suggest that he have papers brought down as they were last year giving the details of that purchase.


William Kemble Esling: I have them under my hand; every one of them.


John Warwick King: If the hon. member will read the report of the engineers, I am sure he will realize that he has been labouring for an hour in vain and has not been representing the true facts or conditions in regard to the matter. I was pleased to have my hon. friend endorse a vote of $5,000 for Kimberley. I can well understand that, because the great Sullivan mine is there. The town of Trail would not be the town it is to-day if the mine at Kimberley was not in operation. There is no doubt that Trail is a fine industrial community, and it is my hope and desire that money will be provided whereby proper government offices will be erected for the advantage of the people of Trail.


William Kemble Esling: It needs them as much as Kensington, Prince Edward Island, does.


John Warwick King: I will ask him if it needs them as much as the people of Prince Rupert do, and I will then ask him to dilate on the purchase of a site in Prince Rupert, giving the date and the price paid for it.


Robert James Manion: The minister might add
the Prince Rupert elevator.


John Warwick King: It is serving a useful purpose.


Robert James Manion: Returning $100 a year
to this government on an investment of $1,500,000.


John Warwick King: I do not wish to continue, because it is not necessary, but I take exception to the desire of my hon. friend to make a speech in this House for the purpose of making a little political capital for himself by attacking me.


William Kemble Esling: I have the very report
about which the minister speaks from the resident architect at Victoria. I will leave it to any three members on the other side of the House who know anything about building construction, and I know they will pronounce it the most absurd, ridiculous and unjust report that was ever made on a public building site.


Mr. NEILL:: I am not interested in the
Trail post office; I am not interested even in a public building at Kimberley, but I am interested in the lack of public buildings in the district of Comox-Alberni. I would like to call the attention of this committee, and more particularly of my Conservative friends, to the fact that this vote comprises the sum of $243,262, and with the exception of the small sum of $5,000 for Kimberley the whole of that sum is for buildings in districts represented by Conservatives. Except, I say, for that little vote of $5,000 for Kimberley, every one of the twelve votes is going to districts of hon. gentlemen opposite, one of whom has made so much complaint of how he and his Conservative friends in British Columbia have been treated. I hope the lesson will be taken to heart by them, and that when I ask the Minister of Public Works for some few niggardly votes for odd wharves later on, hon. gentlemen opposite will remember this vote.


Mr. CLARK:: It is pretty hard to find anything but a Conservative out there.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Conditions might be improved, though.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many patients are there at this lazaretto?


John Campbell Elliott: Last year there were seven.


Arthur Edward Ross: An increase or a decrease over the previous year?


John Campbell Elliott: The same number both
years.

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


Arthur Edward Ross: From what parts do they come?


John Campbell Elliott: As far as I recall, one is from Saskatchewan, and four are Chinamen. Fortunately the number of lepers is decreasing at all our stations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Dominion public buildings -improvements, repairs, etc., $40,000.
Mr. BRADY:: So much has been said regarding certain places where post offices are to be built that their names have become historic during the last few days. Let me mention another place that has not a post office building-the large, thriving city of Prince Rupert. The postal and other government business is carried on in a rented building costing annually about $4,000. The postal revenue for 1926 was $35,439; the customs and excise, $301,480. Besides these services the Marine and Fisheries department and the government telegraph department have accommodation in the same building. But it is not by any means adequate for the purpose. One of the government's representatives from Victoria visited Prince Rupert while I wias there and after going through the building expressed the opinion that it was neither hygienic nor suitable for the amount of business handled. I do not expect that I shall be able to induce the government to promise me a post office to-night, but undoubtedly they should consider the desirability even from the standpoint of economy alone, of erecting a building at Prince Rupert adequate to handle the large volume of government business that has to be transacted there, rather than pay out every year $4,000 in rent for undesirable accommodation. In Smithers, a very promising town, the postal revenue for 1926 was $4,854, and at Ocean Falls, $6,596. I think since other places have had so many successful advocates, Prince Rupert and those I have just mentioned are entitled to favourable consideration from the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Esquimalt-general repairs and improvements at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyards, $20,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Could the Minister of Public Works tell us how many troops are stationed in Esquimalt?


John Campbell Elliott: I regret that I have not the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
William Head quarantine station-repairs and improvements, $8,250.
John Anderson Fraser: I would like to ask the
Postmaster General if he has had any report in regard to the necessity of a post office building in the town of Prince George?


Peter John Veniot: From memory I would say not, but there may be an application on file. I will look it up and let my hon. friend know.


John Anderson Fraser: I would point out the
necessity of recommending to the Minister of Public Works an amount for a public building in the town of Prince George. That town is a very important community in the central part of British Columbia, with a population of about 3,500 people, and last year the postal revenue amounted to $12,412. I notice that in the estimates many places are receiving substantial consideration from this government which have neither the revenue nor the population of Prince George. I asked that this be included in the estimates last year and it was not done; I ask again that in view of the development likely to take place in the course of the next year, consideration be given to this request by the Minister of Public Works and the postal authorities. There is also an inspector of customs at that point, and! a very considerable revenue is derived in that way. There is also in my district the town of Salmon Arm, with a population of between 1,200 and 1,500, which produces a postal revenue of about $8,800. In addition to the postal and customs revenue at this point I would point out that there are officials of the Forestry branch of the Interior department stationed in that town, and the rentals paid for office quarters must be very considerable. I suggest that it would be in the interests of the government and would reduce expenditure by a very considerable amount to erect a public building of their own in that town and thereby give the necessary accommodation to the various officials stationed there. There is not an item in the estimates for either of these places, but I am hoping the minister will be good enough to include them when the supplementary estimates are prepared. The Minister of Health (Mr. King) laughs; perhaps he remembers that last year he promised to do this for me, and to give it his very serious consideration. He is still considering, but I hope he will pass along a favourable decision this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Pu blic Works-Gene rally
Public Works - Generally - experimental farms-replacements, repairs, improvements, etc., $100,000.
James Charles Brady: I would like to ask the Minister of Agriculture if it is the intention of the government to give northern British Columbia an experimental farm?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: If it is the intention of the government to give my hon. friend a farm?


James Charles Brady: No, not to me, to northern
British Columbia.


William Richard Motherwell: The estimates of
the Department of Agriculture will be up after a while, and I will be able then to give my hon. friend all the information he desires.


James Charles Brady: This is a very important
question for the mixed farming districts of the Buckley valley, Bums lake, Smithers, Telkwa, Francois lake and Ootsa lake. Some years ago this question was before the House and was favourably considered by the present Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell). I think that it would be a very intelligent method of expenditure, because the result of the establishment of an experimental farm in this particular district would be far reaching. This district is one of the most suitable and best adapted to mixed farming in Canada, and the people of that great district which includes thousands of square miles are engaged in ail forms of agricultural industry. They have splendid root crops; they carry on dairying; they have wheat, oats, rye, and timothy, and every other crop which should encourage the government to give these people an experimental farm. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Toimie) some years ago very strongly advocated an experimental farm for this particular part of British Columbia, and I believe the time has now come in this country when the question of mixed farming should receive more careful consideration. We have the great wheat fields of the prairie provinces, but we must consider the other great, districts of Canada which are perfectly adapted to mixed farming, and the district to which I refer should have an experimental farm, and the government should assist what is recognized to be a substantitl forward movement in the development of a great industry. When I heard the number of advocates for public buildings I was not enthusiastic, but I do feel that when the question is one of national importance, concerning the well-being of 
Canada, the voice of these people should be heard and the government Should be sympathetic. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Agriculture is of the same mind to-day as he was in 1924.


Mr. ROWE:: Would the minister explain
on what farms and what buildings this money is to be spent?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for replacements,
improvements, alterations, repairs and so forth on the various experimental farms and stations throughout the Dominion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Flags for Dominion public buildings, $5,000.
John Anderson Fraser: How much was spent for
this purpose last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it is all
spent every year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Military hospitals-repairs and improvements, $70,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Does this vote include the hospitals under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


John Campbell Elliott: That is my recollection.
This amount is required for the following repairs and improvements to various military hospital buildings throughout the Dominion, consisting of Halifax Gamp Hill (B unit); Ste. Anne de Bellevue (A unit); Toronto, Christie street hospital (D unit); London Westminster hospital (D unit); Calgary, Colonel Belcher hospital (I unit); Vancouver, Shaugh-nessy hospital (J unit).
Mr. RO'SS (Kingston): They are all under the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-generally, $4,500.
Mr. BARBER:: What buildings are these?


John Campbell Elliott: This is an amount for the general care of the buildings throughout the Dominion that cannot be charged to special votes. It is the usual estimate.
Mr. FRAiSER:	Has the minister got
covered up in that amount a vote for a public building for Prince George?


John Campbell Elliott: No. There is no amount for construction; it is all for repairs.

Supply-Public Works-Generally


John Anderson Fraser: I thought perhaps the minister wanted to give me a sort of Santa Claus present, so to speak.


Arthur Edward Ross: What is the difference between public buildings under this item and public buildings appearing in the votes for each province?


John Campbell Elliott: These are general expenses. This vote is required for the following items of expenditure which have to be met every year in connection with public buildings controlled by the Dominion government together with such special outlays for works, and so forth, that cannot well be charged1 against any other one in particular of the general appropriations made by parliament for prospective improvements in the several provinces taken separately, namely, travelling expenses, stationery and' drawing instruments, printing, telegraphy and miscellaneous.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-departments generally-char service including $100 to E. Snowden for firing the noon gun, $385,000.
Mr. QUINN:: Is there any provision in
this vote for the increase which has been asked for by the char service?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance, $15,000.
Felix Patrick Quinn: What is the reason for the
increase over the previous year?


John Campbell Elliott: Since 1921 this appropriation has been $5,000, and the annual expenditure has varied from one thousand to three thousand. Small maintenance appropriations were also provided for the quarantine stations. This year it was decided to incorporate in this vote all the maintenance items, thereby doing away with a special appropriation. For that purpose this appropriation has been increased from $5,000 to $15,000. The details are as follows:
North Sydney, N.S	$ 500
Chatham, N.B	 750
St. John, N.B., Partridge island repairs	 3,000
St. John, N.B., Partridge island water
supply	 1,000
Tracadie lazaretto	 1,500
Father Point	 1,000
Grosse Isle	 4,000
Maintenance generally	 3,250
Total	$15,000


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $1,440,000.
Thomas Edward Simpson: Is that all for buildings
in Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: I think tlhe amount for
Ottawa is $650,000.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is it the intention of the
government to proceed with the erection of new departmental buildings, and thus reduce the expenditure for rents?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in contemplation.
It is expected that the first will be commenced this year and that it will take a couple of years to complete. We shall not be relieved of any rental until the new building is habitable.


Mr. MILLAR:: Has it been decided what
departments will be housed in the new building?


John Campbell Elliott: Not yet.


John Anderson Fraser: Has the department any
complete plan in regard to the buildings contemplated? *


John Campbell Elliott: We had a plan prepared some time ago, providing for a complete set of departmental buildings sufficient to house the various departments. The scheme is rather extensive.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the total cost?


John Campbell Elliott: Close to $15,000,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does that include
public buildings for all departments?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Have you a detailed statement of the cost by departments?


John Campbell Elliott: No, only by provinces. We have 402 buildings rented at a total of $1,-
440,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Perhaps we might have that statement.


John Campbell Elliott: In London, England, we have an expenditure of $9,733.30; Nova Scotia, $11,010; Prince Edward Island, $811; New Brunswick, $11,922; Quebec, $97,658; Ontario, $168,980; Ottawa, $650,377; Manitoba, $67,059; Saskatchewan, $76,156; Alberta, $143,868; British Columbia, $65,725; Yukon, $660; militia probable requirements, $34,660; militia rents, pending, $10,931; militia colleges and universities, $20,000,


John Anderson Fraser: Does that include the rentals of post offices?


John Campbell Elliott: Everything.
1152	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.


Thomas Edward Simpson: What buildings are rented in London, England? I thought we had acquired a large building there for the use of the
high commissioner and other officials.


John Campbell Elliott: This is for the ground
rental of the Canadian building in London.


Henry Herbert Stevens: On a ninety-nine year
lease?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are there any buildings rented in England apart from this, or are all the departments in one 'building?


John Campbell Elliott: The departments are all in one building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water services and caretakers' salaries, $28,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: We have already been given an item of $660 for Yukon. What does this item include?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required for repairs, fuel, lighting, water service, and salary of caretakers in. connection with public buildings occupied by government officials in the Yukon Territory during the fiscal year 1927-28.


Arthur Edward Ross: What does the
$660 in the other item include?


John Campbell Elliott: That $660 comprises $300 for Mayo Landing post office and $360 for Mayo Landing interior. These two items have always been carried under a separate head.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $296,210. Mr. SMITH (Cumberland): Will the minister explain the first item of $1,850 for repairs to the dyke at Amherst Point?
John Campbell Elliott: This is a dyke in the county of Cumberland. It is proposed to rebuild it on a length of 190 feet. To carry out the proposed repairs, it will be necessary to drive a line of piles along the outer face of the work and lay planking on the inner side of these piles to hold the back filling of the dyke. It is also suggested that anchor piles be driven about ten feet in from the outer face of the dyke and suitable braces placed from these piles to the top of the piles along the outer face, to give stability to the works.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Do I understand that these repairs are to protect the government wharf at Amherst Point?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. The dyke west of
the public road at the government wharf is badly in need of repairs and the. farmers' body who own the land in this vicinity have asked the department to undertake these repairs.


Robert Knowlton Smith: The wharf
itself is in a dilapidated condition. Last year a small sum was spent on it, but I believe it was used largely to dig berths to enable vessels to discharge their cargoes there.


John Campbell Elliott: That would be dredging.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Yes; a small
amount was spent for that purpose. The wharf itself has been in disuse for a considerable time, but the people are now beginning to make use of it and, temporary repairs having been effected, cargoes have been landed. Representations have been made to me that the flooring on the wharf is not only out of repair but unsafe, and I understand that the board of trade of the town, which is about two miles from the wharf, have asked the department to have the necessary work done so that cargoes may be properly and safely discharged at this point. Has the minister taken these representations into consideration?


John Campbell Elliott: The position in regard to wharves is much the same as in regard to public buildings. We have in the Dominion of Canada to-day 2,147 wharves of various kinds. The number was a great surprise to me when I was going over the list with a view to seeing on which ones repairs were most urgently needed. My hon. friend will recall that in the last thirteen years, since the outbreak of the war, there has not been anything like the expenditure on wharves that the people in the various localities thought was necessary, and the result has been that many of them have fallen exactly into the condition that I have no doubt my hon. friend finds this one in. We are trying to make repairs where they are most urgently required, and not to go beyond the amount of money that the government can afford to spend, and we are aiming to make these repairs as far as passible in places where they will encourage production and the distribution of the wealth created in that particular part of the Dominion. I quite agree with my hon. friend that that wharf and many others must be repaired just as soon as funds can be found to do it.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That is all very nice, but these are public services, and from that standpoint alone they should be maintained in order to provide the public with the

Sup-ply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
accommodation that is required. But leaving that out of consideration for the moment, there is still another viewpoint, and that is the question of what is economy in the long run. If these services are allowed to go into decay, in the end the cost of putting them into proper condition will far exceed any outlay that would have to be made in the interim and the repairs will serve two purposes, namely, save money and provide adequate service. I wish to speak also of other services of a similar character in the county of Cumberland, the same county in which this Amherst Point dyke expenditure is to be made. I would refer the minister to the breakwater and beach protection at a point called Port Greville. A breakwater was constructed there about a couple of years ago, but it was built a considerable distance short of the old one. It was built to protect the harbour and to stop the filling in of the channel of the river on account of tides moving back and forth. Representations have been made to the government to extend this breakwater out to the point where the old one was, in an endeavour to stop the filling in of the channel. It has also been pointed out to me and to the government that the breakwater itself has not been completely constructed, and in order to afford proper harbour protection the breakwater will have to be thoroughly spiled, which is not the case to-day. This is a very important port on the bay of Fundy. Last year there was shipped through it 5,000,000 feet of lumber. There were 31 three and four masted schooners repaired there; 14 large vessels cleared with lumber, there were 8 cargoes of piling, and 16 cargoes of lumber in smaller vessels, also
1,000,000 feet of lumber shipped in scows. In all over 30,000 tons deadweight was shipped out of this hatbour last year.


John Campbell Elliott: What was the value?


Robert Knowlton Smith: I have not
the value in dollars, just the quantities, but it is recognized that this is a most important port.


John Campbell Elliott: Is not this a wharf on
which considerable expenditure has been made by the government in the last two years?


Robert Knowlton Smith: Yes, considerable expenditures have been made on the breakwater, but nothing on the beach protection.


John Campbell Elliott: About $50,000 in the last .two years.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I do not think that much; but the work has not been finished. The breakwater to-day is not completed; the beach protection is practically useless, and on account of that fact it is not rendering the service to this port that it should. Last year, or the year before, private interests had to dig the channel out in order to allow their large vessels to enter and clear. I understand also that the citizens of that port have made representations to the government for consideration. Certainly I did myself last year and also this year.
I pass now just as quickly as possible to another point on the bay of Fundy. At Spencer's island there is a wharf which is in a dilapidated condition, and for which no provision is made in the estimates. I have before me a communication from the Public Works department in Halifax, which I presume is a branch of the Public Works department here, stating that they were going to ask that the sum of $2,000 be placed in this year's estimates in order to put this wharf in repair. This is also an important point, but I find nothing in the estimates to provide for this work. The matter is one that should certainly be given some consideration by the minister when the supplementary estimates are brought down.
Then at West Advocate there is a breakwater, and the people there are asking for an extension. This is also a very important port through which a great deal of lumber and other commodities are shipped. I am taking these matters up only very briefly, and am not going into details at all, although I have here very valuable information; but I do not wish to delay the committee. I would ask the minister if there will not be some reconsideration in the supplementary estimates of the amounts allotted for harbours and rivers in Nova Scotia,, particularly in Cumberland county at the ports to which I have made reference to-night. I believe that in the end economy will be effected by the immediate repairing of these public works, instead of allowing them to go on for a number of years more without attention, when the cost of repairs will be excessive.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the committee to take up this vote item by item? The amounts are comparatively small, and perhaps we could have a general discussion on the resolution.


An hon. MEMBER:: Item by item.


William Gordon Ernst: I want to point out to the Minister of Public Works that in the supplementary estimates for 1926-27 there were five



Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
items affecting my constituency, as follows: Brooklyn wharf repairs, $1,500; La Have river, dredging, $35,000; Pentz wharf, $4,400; Port Mouton dredging, $55,500; and West Port Joli, breakwater repairs, $3,800. Since the supplementary estimates were brought down not one dollar of that money, so far as I can ascertain, has -been expended; in other words the vote will lapse and nothing will have been done by the 31st of March. In the main estimates tabled this year not one of these items has been reinstated-, although I note that fifteen other items in the supplementaries for 1926-27 have been carried into the main estimates for the present year. I would like to ask the minister why the five items I have mentioned have been dropped. The whole five of them are in my constituency. None of them has been included and I want to point out further that I -have drawn the attention of his department to the fact that the wharf at Tancook is in a bad state of repair; that the breakwater at Blandford is in a bad state of repair; that the wharf at Vogler's cove is in the same condition, and additional dredging is required at Port Mouton. I am going to ask the minister again if he will be kind enough to give these matters his attention and provide for them in the supplementary estimates this year. Every one of them is a service which is urgent and important to the locality.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Just to continue the argument of the hon. member for Queens-Lunen-burg (Mr. Ernst), I might also refer to the supplementary estimates of a year ago. As regards the constituency which I have the honour to represent, a year ago we had an item of $1,000 for repairs to a wharf and road at Chezzetcook (Murphy's or Myatt's). Then there was another item of $4,800 for a wharf at Ketch harbour and an item of $3,500 for wharf at Necum Teuch. I notice in the estimates for this year an item for wharf repairs at Musquodoboit, $1,600. I have no criticism of that item whatever; I wish it were a little larger, because Musquodoboit wias particularly good to me in 1926. There is an item for dredging at Sheet harbour. That is also absolutely necessary and I do not see how * the government can get away from doing the work. There is an item for $1,100 for breakwater repairs and improvements at Devil's island. This is absolutely necessary and I thought the vote would be larger. Devil's island is an island at the mouth of the western entrance of Halifax harbour and on it are situated two very important lighthouses. There is also a life-
saving station and there is no telephone connection. A cable can be run across the eastern passage a very short distance and I would ask, not only in the interests of the residents of that island but as a necessary work in connection with the life-saving station, that there should be a telephone connection between that island and the city of Halifax or the town of Dartmouth.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the distance?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Not more than a quarter of a mile.


Harry Bernard Short: I wish to bring to the attention of the minister some much needed improvements in my constituency. There is the port of Westport in Digby county, one of the most important fishing ports in that county. A breakwater was built some years ago at a-cost of $75,000 or $100,000, and to-day it requires an extension of about 50 to 75 feet owing to the fact that it was not properly dredged out by the department and the port cannot be use-d at low tide. There is a recommendation to the Department of Public Works from the Department of Trade and Commerce stating that this work is urgently required, but there is nothing in the estimates for it. A great deal of dredging is needed at a number of the piers and breakwaters in my -constituency. Part of my constituency is a fishing district and perhaps there are more breakwaters in it than in any other constituency in Nova Scotia. I would urge upon the minister the necessity of making improvements to a number of these, including Westport; Battery point; dredging at the Rac-quette at Digby harbour; Anderson's cove and Litchfield. All of these are very urgently needed in order to give proper facilities for oa,Trying on the fishing industry in those places. I would urge -the minister to have his engineers report on these places and to have a sufficient amount placed in the supplementary estimates to carry out this urgently required work.


John Campbell Elliott: I know that in regard to
some of the places mentioned by my hon. friend, and at least one of the places mentioned by the hon. member for Cumberland, the engineer has been asked to make a report. That does not necessarily mean that an amount will be placed in -the estimates -this year, but I can assure my hon. friend that the matter of supplementary estimates, which must of -course depend upon the amount of money that we h-ave at our disposal, is receiving the greatest possible attention. I am quite satisfied, and I -think I should not

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
withhold the statement from my hon. friends, now that only a small number of the requests made in regard to places throughout the whole country can be acceded to with the money at hand. On account very largely of the fact that there seems to be a revival of optimism and of business prosperity at every harbour in the country, the demands have been much greater in the last year or so than ever before. I recall a number of the places that have been mentioned to-night. There is no question that some of the breakwaters are in quite serious condition. There are several other places w'here, on account of new developments such as pulp and paper and other industries, it is necessary, if you are to encourage those industries, that something be done. It is wholly a question of making such improvements as our finances will permit and such as are necessary in order to assist the general production and prosperity of the community concerned.


Harry Bernard Short: That is a very fair statement if the minister would only carry it out. The fact is that money is not expended where it is most urgently needed. If the minister would carry out the principle that he has laid down, that would be satisfactory to all of us on this side of the House. As regards all the places I have mentioned, the improvements are urgently needed. The government have expended hundreds of thousands of dollars on breakwaters throughout the different counties in Nova Scotia. Why do they not keep them in repair just the same as a private individual keeps his wharves in repair? The trouble is that in certain localities the government allow these wharves to go down, for some reason that is unexplained. That is not good policy, because if you do not make repairs when necessary, if you allow these works to go without repair for another year, you have eventually to spend double the money. The engineers know what is required. It would be satisfactory if the government would carry out their recommendations, but they are not carried out. The money is spent often where it is not needed and places where it is needed have to go without.
There is an item of $2,500 for breakwater repairs at Black Point. Where is that situated in Nova Scotia?


John Campbell Elliott: In the constituency of
Richmond-West Cape Breton.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: I notice for Black Point the vote is $2,500 and last year it was $1,400. How much of that $1,400 was spent?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Finlay MacDonald: What
was that expended for?


John Campbell Elliott: For sealing up the outer
end of the work done in 1925-26, and placing ballast in two bays on the seaward side and repairing the sheathing at those bays.


Finlay MacDonald: If the
breakwater was repaired in 1925 why this vote for $2,500 now?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend
object to the expenditure?


Finlay MacDonald: No, but I want to see where the money is going.


John Campbell Elliott: The vote is for the reconstruction of the outer sixty feet of the breakwater, sixty feet by eighteen by eighteen, with native timber cribwork. This reconstruction started in 1925-26, when seventy-five feet of the 110 feet proposed was built. The work was stopped on account of stormy weather. Twenty-five feet of the outer end was destroyed in the fall of 1925-26 by storms. The estimated cost of the work proposed for 192728 is $2,500.


Finlay MacDonald: How
much was expended previous to the general election in 1925? I understand the work was stopped in October.


John Campbell Elliott: My statement shows the
expenditure last year.


Finlay MacDonald: You
have no statement of the money expended up to October 1925?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Finlay MacDonald: Apparently it has become necessary to vote $2,500 to repair the part that was left unfinished just a few days after the election. That breakwater was built around 1911 or 1912. The money for it had been voted previous to the 1911 election, for under the patronage system of our friends they always voted money for such projects the year before a general election. A certain amount of money was spent in the district previous to 1911. Before that time some work had been done at the entrance to the Grand1 river against the best advice of the fishermen in the district. Due to this work and the construction of the breakwater the entrance to the river was closed by shifting sand and fishermen cannot fish in that district. Now we are proposing to spend another $2,500 after having already spent five or six thousand dollars in 1925, on work that has been destroyed, for you cannot hold the breakwater in that position. As I say, the portion of the breakwater still re-
1156	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
maining is helping to block the entrance to the Grand river, so that to-day we are left practically without a fishing port in that district. I would urge that the department send a competent engineer to survey the locality and ascertain if it is not feasible to keep open the Grand river by a little dredging and the construction of abutments. I understood that the people in the district were to forward a petition to the government asking that this be done. By clearing the channels at the entrance to the Grand river the government would open up one of the finest pulpwood areas left in Cape Breton, an area which is along the river, and which communicates with four large lakes. I would strongly urge that this be done not only for the development of the Grand river as a fishing port but also for the development of the pulp industry in that district.


John Campbell Elliott: I have before me the report of the district engineer, Mr. Locke, whom I take to be a competent official. I assume my hon. friend does not suggest that the local engineer is not competent?


Finlay MacDonald: The local engineer in that district is, I understand, a very competent man. In 1925 the people of that district asked the government to inspect this region and report on the feasibility of reopening the Grand river. I think Mr. Locke, if so instructed, would be able to present to the government a very favourable report, and for a little expenditure we would have that district developed to its fullest extent. The government should guard1 against this $2,500 on the Black Point breakwater being wasted. Black Point is just across the entrance of the Grand river.
I also notice that the item for dredging at Petite de Grat harbour is omitted. What has become of the $30,000 that was voted for this previous to the election in 1925?


John Campbell Elliott: My reports cover only
the details of the items in the estimates.


Finlay MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, is not the minister aware that $30,000 was voted for the dredging of Petite de Gra-t harbour in 1925? The work was let to a, certain contractor, but after a few weeks the dredging was stopped. It is a very important public work but it has been neglected by this government ever since.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think my hon.
friend would expect me to carry information in my head in regard to all these items. I have the file in the office relating to this [Mr. F. MacDonald.!
particular matter and I shall be glad to obtain whatever information there is and give it to my hon. friend.


Finlay MacDonald: I do
not expect the minister to carry all the information in his cranium, but I would expect that with his deputy at his beck and call and with all the files of the department available he would have some knowledge at least of such an important contract. I would suggest to the minister that in the supplementary estimates the remaining portion of that $30,000 be included, which will open up that important port and permit the fishing industry to continue. This is probably the only industry the people in that district have; it is a fresh fish industry and these people are about the nearest to the best winter fishing in Nova Scotia. There are some twenty-five or thirty boats fishing out of that port and the haddock winter fishing is very important there. This money was voted in 1925 but work was stopped in October of that year and there has not been a stroke of work done since. I would suggest that the remaining portion of that money be revoted in order to permit work to commence at once. Have contractors who should be able to carry out any contracts they enter into, and if they do not do so it is the business of the government to see that the work is carried on or the contract forfeited.
I would also like to bring to the attention of the minister another matter in connection with the Fourchu district; I notice there is an amount included in the estimates for repairs to beach for the protection of that harbour. These repairs were made in 1925; the work was done under foremen appointed by this government; it was used for patronage purposes, and within two weeks of its completion every dollar's worth of work was washed away. If we are now going to spend more money on this project we should at least see that it is spent properly and that proper materials are used so that it will withstand the weather.
I would also bring to the attention of the minister the question of a life saving station at Scatterie island. I understand that a life saving station was established there some years ago, but during the last few years this government allowed it to be closed; it was stated they would not pay their men a reasonable salary. I do not know what the reason was; it was not that they did not vote right, because up until 1925 Scatterie island always gave a good strong Liberal majority, but in 1926 it did not do so because they felt that they were neglected. They are

Civil Service
some eight or nine miles from the mainland and occupy the most eastern portion of Nova Scotia.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend will
pardon me, but this matter will come up with the estimates of the Department of Marine and Fisheries.


Finlay MacDonald: The
minister allowed a discussion on life saving stations under this very item some time ago and I think it might well be brought up now.


Ernest Lapointe: The matter does not
come under the Department of Public Works.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Monday, March 14, 1927