1928-05-04

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
House of Commons ^Debates
[Stage Direction]
Friday, May 4, 1928

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: My hon. friend asked
yesterday whether an application had been made by the Beauharnois Power Company to the International Joint Commission or had been referred by the government to that tribunal. The answer to both questions is in the negative.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) asked yesterday with respect to an order of the house passed for a return of certain documents relating to applications for the construction of a dam between lake St. Francis and lake St. Louis.


Mr. CAHAN:: I meant to say "canal". It, I think, is misreported.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Probably it is the same order. I am advised by the Department of Railways and Canals that its portion of the return has already been made, and by the Department of Public Works that its portion of the return will be made by that department next week. I am sorry to have to inform my hon. friend that the word in Hansard is "dam." I know my hon. friend did not intend to use that word.



ALLEGED POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of .the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) asked yesterday with regard to a return relating to a commission investigating charges of political partisanship against public employees in the
5oi03-no
province of Nova Scotia. I am advised that the return is ready for signature and that it will be brought down by the minister on Monday.
TECHNICAL EDUCATION On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: There is a press despatch in the morning papers stating that a delegation waited upon the Prime Minister yesterday in regard to technical education and that the Prime Minister intimated thalt as certain of the prairie provinces and Prince Edward Island had not participated in the grant until several years after it was provided, it was the intention of the government to extend the grant to Saskatchewan, Alberta and some of the other provinces. Is that the intention of the government?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect to grants for technical education the government has under consideration a policy similar to that, adopted with respect to grants for road and highway construction at the time those grants expired under the statute by which they were provided. That is to say, where provinces up to the present have not made use of the opportunity which they have had the government will be prepared to consider extending the time for them. I think my hon. friend may rely upon the extension being considered favourably.
SCATARIE ISLAND MARINE SIGNALS On the orders the day:


Mr. J. A. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: I wish to call the attention of the house-
Some 'hon. MEMBERS: Hear, hear.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: I should like to ask my hon. friends opposite if this ovation is an expression of goodwill and if it comes from them as a result of my having defeated the chief Liberal whip in 1925.
I wish to call the attention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to an article which appears in the Halifax Chronicle under date of May 1st. It says:



Scatarie Island Marine Signals
The jagged rocks of Scatarie island, or its adjacent promontories, have claimed another victim. The Dutch steamer Callisto, 2,660 tons register, is a total loss, and its crew, estimated at from 25 to 30 men, have gone to, the bottom of the Atlantic.
Deck hatches, life boats, a life boat, badly battered, and the nude body of seamen were washed up on the shores of Main-a-Dieu and Scatarie, this afternoon. Parts of the deck and other paraphernalia found along the shores, told only too plainly the fate that had met the Dutch vessel, bound probably for Sydney or Louisburg to load bunker.
I should like to ask the minister as to the nature and condition of the signals on Scatarie island. I notice in the article a statement made by Mr. Burke, a well known Main-aDieu fisherman, that in that vicinity some five or six ocean-bound, vessels have been wrecked and that in a good many instances the whole crews have been lost. In one instance, in 1926, five men went down'. I claim, and this man, Mr. Burke, claims, that these men could have been saved.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I would ask the hon. gentlemen to come to his question.


Finlay MacDonald: Is it the intention of the government to place proper signals on the western coast on Scatarie island? I would also state that a seaman, Mr. James Burke of Main-a-Dieu-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Finlay MacDonald: -I stated that these accidents could have been avoided if proper storm signals had been placed at that point.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has stated his question. He cannot go beyond his question based on the article.


Finlay MacDonald: The seamen cannot hear the present fog whistle and there is no gun on the island. In thick, heavy weather the sound of the fog whistle cannot be heard in a westerly direction, two miles west of the island. Everyone of these ships could have been saved if proper storm signals had been provided.


Hewitt Bostock: Having called the attention of the government to what has happened and having put his question, I think the hon. gentleman might now resume his seat.


Finlay MacDonald: Is it the intention of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries to hold an investigation into this matter and if the facts as reported are correct, will his department see that the proper signals are given for the guidance of ships going in that direction?


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: The question raised by my hon. friend is certainly one that should be looked into. I will undertake to secure all the necessary information in regard to the matter and I can assure him that the department as well as the government are always anxious to take all possible precautions to protect fishermen and navigators. We are endeavouring to do the best we can but if there is something else we can do, I am quite prepared to do it.



RADIO-CANCELLATION OF LICENSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg):: May I ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) when the house may expect him to table the correspondence relating to the cancellation of the radio license held by the International Bible Students Association?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think that the copies have been completed and sent to the Department of the Secretary of State, and I expect to be in a position to table the correspondence shortly, probably on Monday.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. P. BANCROFT (Selkirk):: I would like to ask if the government intend to begin morning sittings of the house next week, and whether it is considered advisable to suspend the eleven o'clock rule for the balance of the session.


An hon. MEMBER:: And sit on Sundays.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government has not yet considered the points which my hon. friend mentions, but it may do so in the course of a short time.



ROYAL COMMISSION ON FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis):: I would like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) when we may expect the report of the royal commission on fisheries. Some two weeks ago the minister promised that it would be tabled last week. Another week has passed and we have heard nothing about it. The session is pretty well advanced;

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
we should like to have a discussion upon the report, and I think it is desirable that it should be tabled at the earliest possible moment.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the report is completed, and I shall be in a position to table it probably on Monday or Tuesday.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-Ottawa-greenhouse, $27,000.
Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is the explanation of this item?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: This is a revote. It is intended to provide a greenhouse and potting shed either in Major Hill park or on parliament hill to replace the greenhouse now located in Major Hill park.. The chief architect reports that the present greenhouse is past repair, and that the woodwork has become so badly decayed that to renew it would mean practically rebuilding the superstructure. The greenhouse is also too small to meet the gardener's requirements, which consist of propagating bulbs and plants for the parks and supplying ferns, palms, and so forth for parliamentary functions. He suggests the building of a palm house with two greenhouse units and a potting shed, but that the present requirements may be met by the building of one greenhouse and potting shed. When the full arrangements are completed the greenhouse situated near the supreme court building and which is in very bad condition, will be removed.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Would it not be possible to take care of all this work at the Central experimental farm? What is the necessity for having a greenhouse in Major Hill park? Could we not save money by concentrating all this work at the farm?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid that that suggestion would hardly be practicable in view of the distance of the farm from the parliament buildings.


James Dew Chaplin: Would the minister explain why it is impracticable?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
did not hear me. I said on account of the distance.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister must know that commercial houses have the means for carrying their stuff much longer distances than that.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh yes, but it would
necessitate the transferring of it.


James Dew Chaplin: You would save two
overheads.


John Campbell Elliott: The location of the greenhouse which is to be replaced has always been in Major Hill park.


William Garland McQuarrie: You are doing away
with the greenhouse near the supreme court building?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Garland McQuarrie: My suggestion is that they both be done away with. The distance from Major Hill park to the farm is not very great, and it is well known that most greenhouses are situated out in the country, not in the city. Vancouver gets its supply of flowers and shrubs and all that kind of thing at a considerable distance from the city. The nurserymen have found it economical to locate their greenhouses outside the city.


Mr. BARBER:: This vote is apparently
for just one unit. What is the estimated total cost of completion?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the total cost
of what is now proposed.


Harry James Barber: I thought the minister said this was for one unit.


John Campbell Elliott: There is something in the suggestion jof my hon. fiend from New Westminster as to the location. This is a revote, and perhaps the reason why the work was not undertaken a year ago was because of this question of location. We have not been able to decide definitely what is the very best location. That question is still under consideration, and I shall be glad to bear in mind the representations made by my hon. friend, but I do not want to lead him to believe that any suggestion of the kind he has made has been favoured in the past.


James Dew Chaplin: Has there been any money spent on this proposition?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


James Dew Chaplin: Then it seems to me the minister had better reconsider the matter. Having several greenhouses run independently seems to me a waste of money. You could

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
save a lot of overhead by having them all in the one place. The suggestion of the hon. member from New Westminster looks to me a very good one. I think it is the common sense thing to do.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: Is this to
replace the greenhouse immediately west of the parliament buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: It is to replece the one
in Major Hill park.


William Foster Garland: If we place
a few more hotels and greenhouses in Major Hill park there will be little of the park left.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the estimated cost of upkeep?


John Campbell Elliott: It is difficult to say. In
all probability the upkeep of this greenhouse will not be greater than that of the present structure, and certainly the cost of maintenance will not be exceeded.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the cost of
upkeep of the present greenhouse?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not kept separate
from the cost for repairs of the other government buildings in the city.


William Garland McQuarrie: How many men are
employed in connection with the greenhouse?


John Campbell Elliott: The men who look after
the greenhouses are on the staff of the superintendent of all the government buildings in this city.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the area of this
particular greenhouse?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the size.


James Dew Chaplin: Surely there are plans
for an expenditure of 827,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The plans are not yet out.


James Dew Chaplin: When the minister submits a vote of $27,000 for a greenhouse he ought to be able to tell the committee its dimensions. That appears to me to be a reasonable question.


John Campbell Elliott: We are judging the cost
by the cost of other greenhouses constructed by the department at the experimental farm and at Rideau Hall.


James Dew Chaplin: How many other greenhouses are there in separate locations like this; how long are they expected to last; what shape are they in? It seems to me that this is an opportunity for co-ordination. A small greenhouse cannot be run profitably.
[Mr. Chaplin.)
The major cost of this greenhouse will be the fuel necessary to heat it and the wages of special men to run it, because unskilled men around the building cannot run this or any other greenhouse. I have one of my own and I know what I am talking about. It seems to me foolish for the minister to ask for a vote of $27,000 for a greenhouse of which he cannot tell us the size. I think with his usual courtesy he will allow this item to stand until he had secured the necessary information.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
was not present when I read the statement as to the necessity of replacing the old greens house.


James Dew Chaplin: Yes. That was the reason for my questions.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not have thought so. My hon. friend of course realizes that the cost of heating will not be more than for the old greenhouse.


James Dew Chaplin: That is admitted.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to replace the
worn-out structure.


James Dew Chaplin: I agree with the minister that it will cost no more to run this greenhouse where he proposes to put it than it did to run the old one last year. But I want an improvement. If he is going to build a new greenhouse let him put it where it can be run with the surplus heat generated for the other greenhouse. That is the point the minister misses.


Mr. SPENCE:: When this vote was up
last session I opposed it vigorously. The minister was then asked as to the size of the proposed structure, and he said it would be about 25 by 60 feet. A greenhouse of this size should not cost $27,000. I know something about the cost of construction, for unfortunately I have a greenhouse myself. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has made a good suggestion, that these units should be co-ordinated. The old greenhouse should be remodelled and placed in a more convenient location so that delicate plants could be distributed from it without too much cost. There is no need of a greenhouse in Major Hill park. It is a bleak place and it will always be difficult to maintain the temperature of the greenhouse at the right point. As the minister has not the plans and cannot give the committee any information, I move:
That this item be reduced by $10,000, and that the old greenhouse be remodelled and used until the minister makes up his mind what he will do with it.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
This will reduce the vote to $15,000, a sum sufficient to build two greenhouses of the dimensions that he speaks of.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Was this money voted
last year and not spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Houston Spence: I do not see how any minister can expect to get this vote through, knowing as little as he does about the business. A year ago he had no plan to submit to the committee, and now he comes back as per usual without any information.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
has not yet clearly understood what is intended by this vote. True, we have not the plans and specifications. Certain changes in the local buildings at the present time are partly responsible for the location not having yet been settled, but this will be considered, and my hon. friend may rest assured that this greenhouse will be located in the most desirable spot. No doubt both my hon. friends have a great deal of experience with regard to the construction of greenhouses, but I can assure them that a larger greenhouse than has been suggested by either of them will be necessary to meet the requirements of the parliament buildings. All we are aiming at is the substitution of a new building for an old and worn out one. The new building will provide better facilities and it has been urgently demanded. We are not proceeding precipitately in this matter. For a number of years this demand has been made, the building being absolutely required. I do not know that there is any further information that I can give. My hon. friends know that for less money a suitable building to replace the present one could not be constructed.


James Dew Chaplin: If the minister could
give us some idea of the size of the greenhouse we could tell whether it could be constructed for less or not; but he does not give us any information.


John Campbell Elliott: When the plans are completed public tenders will be called for, and the lowest tender will be accepted. That is a safeguard against the payment of any undue price. My hon. friends may have no worry on that score.
Amendment (Mr. Spence) negatived: yeas, 31; nays, 52.
Ottawa-improvement of square west of post office, $30,000.


Mr. STEVENS:: Is this the first vote for the improvement of the square west of the post office?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the first vote, but
my hon. friend understands that it is for the improvement of the square after the removal of the buildings, including cleaning up and putting the square into proper shape.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I do not want to inconvenience the minister, but I will ask two questions: First, out of what vote is the cleaning up of the present work being paid? Secondly, will the minister explain what this vote is to be used for?


John Campbell Elliott: The cleaning up going
on at present is to be paid for out of the proceeds of the removal of the building. We are receiving something over 88,000 by way of salvage from the removal of the buildings, and what is now being done in the way of cleaning up is being provided for out of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has not
answered the second question; I will add a third to it. How is this going to be spent, and why is the money not spent out of the grant to the Federal District Commission?


John Campbell Elliott: This is not part of the
Federal District Commission's work; the section west of the post office is not under the jurisdiction of the commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then we are to understand that some half a million we voted last year, and this 830,000-and undoubtedly more money will be spent on this improvement scheme-are all in addition to the statutory vote of $3,000,000 voted a few days ago?


John Campbell Elliott: The statutory vote of
$3,000,000 relates to the Federal District Commission. This is not under the commission.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is in addition?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. HOCKEN:: What work will be done
with this vote? Is it proposed to use it to pay for the removal of the present post office?


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Is it merely to clean up
the spot and put some grass on it?


John Campbell Elliott: As the work progresses
the department will be able to decide better as to what will be required. At present the estimate is for a considerable amount of paving, running to about 4,000 yards at $4 a yard. That represents $16,000. The pavement will be the main part of the work

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
Then there will be grading, estimated at $4,000, and new sidewalks, $1,440, besides drainage, surface drains, manholes, catch-basins electric light poles and other items running to, say, $5,000. That is our best estimate.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: When the work is completed, is it proposed to make the spot a parking station for the people of Ottawa as the present plaza is?


John Campbell Elliott: No, that is not the intention.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the idea of paving 4,000 yards at $4 a yard? That is a considerable item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is so the street cars can turn easily.


James Dew Chaplin: Four thousand yards at
$4 a yard represents altogether too high a figure; the estimate is entirely wrong.


John Campbell Elliott: If we can get it done
for less we will do so.


James Dew Chaplin: I hope it will be done
by contract. I know some people who would like to have that job at $4 a yard.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: There is an old expression which has been often used, referring to persons spending money like drunken sailors, and I think it is applicable to this government in view of the way they are now seeking to spend the money of the people of this country. Tens of thousands of dollars have been spent tearing down a city block, and now $30,000 is required to cover that area with concrete in order to add to the general appearance of these parliament buildings and to beautify the city of Ottawa. In proposing an expenditure of this kind the government are giving another example of their absolute disregard for the needs of the people of Canada in those hundreds of places throughout the country which have inadequate accommodation both as to post offices and otherwise. The government are showing no concern in matters of public health and other questions of vital interest; there is no money for such things, but they can tear down a perfectly good city block in Ottawa and now ask for $30,000 to clean up that little bit of land consisting of only about a quarter of an acre. That sum would clean up about fifty acres of the most heavily timbered land in British Columbia. Therefore I am going to move, Mr. Chairman that this item be reduced to $25,000.


Mr. PECK:: May I ask the area of this
piece of land?


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: Is there any plan of the proposed alterations or improvements?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Anderson Black: Could we have a look at it? This sum of $16,000 for putting in a few little paths astonishes me. This is a small piece of land, and I do not see where $16,000 can be spent in that way.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the estimate of
the chief architect.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the area of the land?


John Campbell Elliott: The area which it is proposed to pave is 4,000 square yards.


James Dew Chaplin: What are the dimensions of the plot?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know that I
can give my hon. friend the exact area of the plot.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why not make it a nice green grass plot; that will cost about one-tenth or one-twentieth of this amount and will have a much more pleasing effect. The only excuse I can see for this amount is to provide for a job which should be done by the Ottawa Electric Railway. I have before me an item which reads, " Certain property described as part of lot 27 south on Wellington street" but the minister has not extended the price or the size.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not settled yet.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister not tell me the area?


John Campbell Elliott: Only the area it is proposed to pave.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister say whether there was a contract for demolishing the buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And the government received so much for the salvage?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: When the contract was
drawn, why was not some arrangement made to have these people take the other stuff that was there when they took the salvage? You let them tear down the buildings for salvage and leave all their rubbish, while we must
MAY 4, 1928 [DOT]	2679
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
spend this money to clean it up. Did not the contract for salvage contain anything which would provide for the mess to be cleaned up?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows
very well that when several buildings are being removed, after they are taken away it is desirable to make your own levels yourself, rather than leave it to the parties who removed the buildings.


James Dew Chaplin: I could understand that
answer if each individual owner of property demolished his own building, but the government made a contract with one firm to look after all the salvage, for which the government received so much, and the mess they left was nothing more or less than a crime They took away all the stuff that was any good and no provision was made to have them take away the rubbish, which should have been looked after when the arrangement was made.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: That will provide another contract.


James Dew Chaplin: It means that another contract will be given in order to spend a little more money.


Edward Armour Peck: I have not yet received an answer to my question; I want to know the area of this land, and if the minister does not know let him say so.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the area of the land, but I can obtain it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Give us the dimensions.


Mr. BRADY:: I have waited for a day or two in order to get the proper orientation with regard to these estimates, and I am thoroughly convinced that the people throughout Canada who are building up this country feel disgusted and ashamed with what the government are doing with these estimates. According to the Bureau of Statistics, during the past five years 573,854 immigrants have entered Canada, while during the same period 591,121 Canadians left for the United States.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Charles Brady: I wish to bring out my point in this way: Throughout the length and breadth of this country we are pleading for the people who are building up Canada, and who are being denied even the bare necessities which will keep them in Canada. I protest against this extravagance, and I am sure that protest will be echoed by many members. We must now decide squarely-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


James Charles Brady: 
The CHAIRMAN:: I am sure my hon.
friend will not complain if I refer him to the rule which says all discussions must be relevant to the matter before the committee.


James Charles Brady: All right, Mr. Chairman. My feelings are deeper than I have words to express.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is relevant.


James Charles Brady: Where there are legitimate reasons for carrying on work already done in our cities, our harbours and our ports, that is all right and I have no objection; but when I find that in many parts of this country where facilities are necessary to hold the people,

the necessary encouragement is not given them to remain. I think it is time that we entered a formal protest against all unnecessary expenditures and turned attention to those that are absolutely essential.
Mr. RO-SS (Kingston): I want to say, Mr. Chairman, that for many reasons I am going to support the amendment. Members on the other side of the house, as well as the chairman, talk about what is relevant to this subject. We thought we had voted money for the beautification of Ottawa. But when we study the question we find that there are two or three different votes with practically the same object. If you want to find out what the beautification of Ottawa means and what it is costing the country, all you need to do is to walk around the canal and see what is being done. I considered that that was all a question of beautifying Ottawa, but it will be found that part of the work comes under railways and canals. That part of the work of beautifying Ottawa has been done in the following way: They have taken down an earth bank along the canal in older to put up a permanent cement wall. The earth has been thrown into the canal and for a time two or three men with Shovels were throwing it out. I believe the water is now to be let into the canal and then dredges will be used to remove the earth. This is beautifying Ottawa at the expense of the country. We are willing to spend money but we are not willing to waste money, and we want the people of Ottawa and the country to understand that.
In the same way we believed that we were voting money for a park. We are told by the minister that on one side of the road the park is not under the Federal District Commission but that on the other side it is to (be under the commission. The government should get this question straightened out and tell us what we are voting for. Perhaps it is a question of slipping through a vote here and another there but there is no question that this is a waste of money. Last night under the pretence of repairing the citadel at Quebec we voted $150,000 and there was a waste of money there. This appropriation is also, I believe, an absolute waste of money and when we are asking for things that are important we find that the money is being used to throw earth from the bank into the channel of a canal, water 'being let in and then a dredge brought along to take the earth out again.
As soon as parliament began some time ago to discuss the question of water the city got busy and hired an engineer. I think after the amendment is carried quite enough money will

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
remain in this appropriation to cover the levelling of the site. My opinion is that by this vote the government is simply splitting the city of Ottawa into two sections or making two cities of it. It is making a paved square which the people from one part of the city will never cross in the hot summer, if we have such in Ottawa, or in the cold weather. The government is absolutely destroying the city and doing it for one purpose, namely to glorify and keep in power the King government.


James Dew Chaplin: A few minutes ago I
asked the minister to give us the area of the piece of property which they have acquired and on which this vote is to be expended, but he is a little short of information. He tells us that the proposition is to pave four thousand square yards within the property or around it. From what I know of the property-and we pass it every day-four thousand square yards constitute practically the whole property and consequently the whole of it is going to be paved. Is the committee prepared to spend this vote of $30,000 and $8,000 of salvage on a proposition of that kind in Ottawa? The proposal of the minister is simply absurd, nothing more and nothing less.


John Campbell Elliott: I apparently have not made myself clear with regard to the $8,000 of salvage. We were paid the $8,000. We did not pay it.


James Dew Chaplin: I understand that quite
well.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend was adding the two together.


James Dew Chaplin: The government have
been paid $8,000 for salvage. I presume with that $8,000 they can do something; or does that money go into the treasury?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And $30,000 is the money to be spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: That explains the matter but my remark still stands regarding the foolishness and inappropriateness of this. If these improvements are to be made around Sparks street, as the plan we have shows, the Ottawa Street Railway or somebody else should paj-for them or part of them.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister may be able to get his vote through but my hon. friends had better not make such a row or it will
probably be delayed more. My hon. friends are entitled to state their points of view; I am entitled to state my objection to this vote and I propose to do so. My hon. friends cannot get anything simply by calling " carried ". This is an absurd vote. This appropriation of $30,000 is wasted money. It is in addition to what we have already voted for Ottawa. After what we have heard this square should be paid for out of the $3,000 000 appropriation and the government should not come back and ask us to vote more money in drips and drops as they are doing.


Mr. MALONEY:: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if the immediate destruction of the post office building comes within the scope of his scheme of beautification, and if the destruction is not immediate, when he proposes starting to tear down that building.
MY ELLIOTT: It is not, the intention to tear down the post office for some years at any rate.


William Anderson Black: Do I understand that a contract was entered into for the removal of those buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Anderson Black: Has the minister a copy of it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Anderson Black: Is it not customary in connection with the removal of buildings, to have the debris removed, that is, to have the property left in a reasonably clean condition? Any business man of acumen would have a contract drawn up to that effect and therefore a large portion of the expenditure which is now being made for the removal of the debris would not be necessary. Every business man making a contract for the removal of a building requires that the site shall be left in a reasonably clean and proper condition so that all he has to do is to erect his building without having to remove rubbish and other stuff left by the contractor. If a contract was made, why was a clause of that kind not inserted?


John Campbell Elliott: It was in January, I think, and the ground was all covered with snow and ice at the time of the removal of the buildings. There was in the contract a clause such as my hon. friend suggests. Tenders were called for and a contract was entered into, the highest tenderer being given the contract.
Mr. AD3HEAD: The highest or the lowest?
Supply-Public Works-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: The highest. Wie asked how much they would give for the buildings which they were to remove. At the time they finished removing the buildings it was impossible, on account of the frost, ice and snow, to level the site. Part of the debris was removed by the contractor and then an arrangement was made by him allowing us $700, the department to do the levelling themselves as soon as the frost was out of the ground.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Were these public tenders?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; they were advertised.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who got the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: The Betchemman Company.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: When the grant for the Federal District Commission was before the house a few days ago, the Prime Minister presented a plan which I think we all understood covered and included the work that was to be done by the commission, and on that plan I see included this particular area, and no paving is shown on the plan. It is simply a matter of shrubbery, grass and a few paths. Has this plan been departed from, and if so, why has the change been made?
I want to say that from time to time in the past few years I have endeavoured to get an extension of the rural mail delivery or some other comparatively inexpensive service for the people of the constituency I represent, and I have been unable to get these essential services which would foe so valuable to the people of my constituency. Yet here we are asked to vote $3,000,000 one day, and now $30,000, and further sums in connection with this Square. It does seem to me that we are losing our sense of proportion, and that we are not giving our attention to the matters that should really have our serious consideration, and that we are spending these moneys unnecessarily. For these reasons I am strongly in favour of the amendment. If this area were converted into a grass plot, it seems to me that would be very much better than paving. One can scarcely see how so much paving on this small area could possibly be required, unless it is to be converted into a parking area.


Mr. BOYS:: Yesterday afternoon the minister informed the committee that he had received about one hundred applications for public buildings throughout various parts of Canada, and he informed me that he would be able to give me a list of the places from which the requests had come, together with the estimated cost. I was wondering if he had that list ready yet.
[Mr. Adshead.l


John Campbell Elliott: I certainly have not. Did my hon. friend expect that I would have it this afternoon?


William Alves Boys: Frankly, I would have thought that a clerk could have got it ready without the slightest difficulty, but perhaps that is because I have not a proper comprehension of the work entailed. I hope the minister will agree to let me have the list before his estimates are concluded.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Has there been any departure from the plan of the federal commission as to this particular area? The minister's statement does not seem to correspond with the plan submitted to the house.


John Campbell Elliott: It does not correspond entirely with the plan. The plan my hon. friend refers to has been suggested since the estimates were published, and it is possible that there may be a variation which will render less paving necessary than was contemplated by the architect as absolutely necessary. But the estimate we have before us is the best estimate we can give as to the expenditure, in order to make the area in keeping with the general scheme.


William Alves Boys: Is it not part of the Federal District Commission's scheme as a whole?


John Campbell Elliott: This part is under the
Dominion government entirely. The other part of the federal scheme is under the commission.


William Alves Boys: I was given to understand
when this matter was under discussion before, that one of the reasons for this plan was to get a driveway leading from the canal up to the parliament buildings, perhaps not in the exact location shown in the plan, but at all events as part of the scheme. If that is so, I do not see why this work has not been done by the federal commission, and out of the appropriation they are getting, which surely was large enough for the purpose. Are we to understand that the country is not only to provide the sum already voted, but that in addition this square is being taken over by the Public Works department, and that more money will be spent on it too? I can understand that this plan, as the minister says, is not absolutely accurate, but I feel confident that I am right when I say we were told that the intention was that there should be a driveway continued from the canal and approaching this building from the southeast. Am I not right in that?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


William Alves Boys: Then that driveway must
come beside or through the square in question, and surely it forms part of the general scheme of the commission. If that be so, why is the work not left to the federal commission?
While I am on my feet, I would like to say that' if it is the intention to pave that area, that does seem to me to be a serious mistake. What is the sense of doing that? I thought it was to be a park, and that is what we all understood. The idea of putting a cement square right in the heart of Ottawa, which is hot enough in the summer time as it is. is absurd. If we want to improve that area, surely it would be much better to have it laid with grass, with perhaps a fountain or something of that kind. I can hardly believe that the federal commission should contemplate paving it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And perhaps use boiled
tar.


William Alves Boys: We have had some experience
with creosote and boiled tar in connection with the square in front of the Chateau. I think the minister ought to give us some more definite idea of what is intended, unless he expects us to vote this sum blindly. We do not know what the size is, we do not know what the intention is, we do not know whether it is part of the general scheme, or whether it is something being undertaken by the Public Works department apart altogether from the general scheme for which we have already voted a very large sum of money. The minister ought to give us some information. This plan was passed around the house, and I certainly did think at the time that it was to apprise us as to the intention of the Federal District Commission, but now when we want to use the plan in connection with this vote, although this area is shown on the plan as part of the federal commission's scheme, we are told that the commission has nothing to do with it, and that it comes under the Public Works department. Why should they be separated unless it is to get more money?


John Campbell Elliott: I thought I had made
it clear to my hon. friend that this expropriation of buildings west of the post office has been carried on by the Department of Public Works, and not by the federal commission.


William Alves Boys: The expropriation, certainly.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and the ownershinp
of the property will be in the Public Works department as soon as the values are ascertained. The ownership is really vested in the department now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What was offered by the government for this property?


John Campbell Elliott: Speaking from memory,
something in the neighbourhood of $600,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is that all?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but I want to say
that these plans are more or less tentative. The plans of the federal commission will be followed as far as they can be followed by the government in connection with making this part of the general scheme, but I am bound to state to my hon. friend that the expenditure here is being borne by the De* partment of Public Works, and the work is being done by the department, and not by the commission.


William Alves Boys: Are we to understand that
the tearing down of the Russell block comes under the Public Works department too?


John Campbell Elliott: No, that is federal commission work. The part which the Public Works department is doing is the part in the block in which the post office is situated.


Henry Herbert Stevens: And we pay that $600,000 out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, here is an
amazing situation. There is a good deal of laughing on the other side; apparently this is a joke. The other day the Prime Minister made a very long and apparently a very carefully prepared speech in which he presented to the house what he described as an elaborate scheme for the beautification of this capital and to add to the dignity of parliament hill. In presenting that scheme he rather appealed to the house for support on the ground that wisdom dictated that a large sum should be appropriated, even though it * was to be spent over a period of years. Therefore he introduced a separate bill for a grant of some three million dollars.
But what are the facts? We have this bill for three million dollars to be handed over to the Federal District Commission. In addition to that we have a prospective vote of $600,000 for a property which is part of the scheme; we have this paving vote for $30,000; we have a vote of $500,000 or more for the New Edinburgh mills which I understand were

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
offered for gale a couple of years ago for $250,000; we have an extra sum of $100,000 for Rideau Hall above the $60,000 that has been voted in the last itwo years for improvements and maintenance and furnishings, and we have an extra sum of $150,000 above what we were asked to vote last year for the citadel in Quebec for gubernatorial purposes-a total of $4,800,000. Unquestionably this huge total will be added to Iby other votes similar to what we are now considering for the purpose-* well, some say, of beautifying Ottawa, but I think, Mr. Chairman, it is simply to cater bo the extravagant social spirit of this city.
I hold in my hand the plan. It shows a green plot swith trees on it in the very area for which the minister is asking a vote of $30,000 for paving. Why in the name of common sense should we pave this area and later break it up and plant trees there if we conform to this plan? The whole proposal seems to me preposterous. I wholly agree with what my friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) said a moment ago, that by our vote in relation to the Ottawa improvement scheme we are driving a wedge through the very heart of this city and dividing it into two sections, and in this way actually destroying its symmetry. Wre find that for years the drift of business has been towards Bank street, and now the Prime Minister comes along with this scheme. It is not the town planning scheme which was prepared by experts a few years ago at an expense of sixty or seventy thousand dollars. It is a scheme that the Prime Minister has taken into his particular care and presented to parliament. I repeat, the scheme is not in harmony with the natural growth of this city. It is going to divide the city into two sections. It was bad enough before when business was carried through by the Russell block and the buildings on the other side of the street; but now business will go down the Bank street section, and the Rideau street section will be neglected and depreciated in value. I am confident that the taxpayers of Ottawa as yet do not quite understand just what the effect will be when the Russell block is cleared away.
I am opposed to this vote of $30,000 as an attempt to extract from the exchequer under- I will not say false pretenses; perhaps that would be too strong a term-under a misapprehension by parliament and the people, because we fully understood that the three million dollars vote the other day, which we thought excessive, was to cover all the necessary expenses of this scheme. Let me recapitulate. In adition to that parliament is voting at least six hundred thousand dollars for this property which, mark you, is the offer

by the government, but experience justifies us in asserting that the cost will be in excess of this figure by at least ten or twenty per cent; five hundred thousand dollars or more for the New Edinburgh mills, and the minister is coming to parliament in his supple-mentaries for an additional sum to remodel the saw mill for the purpose of turning .it into an office for the statistical branch. In addition to that we have these extra sums for Rideau Hall. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is time that parliament seriously faced its duty here and insisted that the government should curtail these extravagances. If the Prime Minister had come to parliament this session and asked for half a million dollars to proceed with the general scheme of development of this capital city, I do not think there would have been any very great objection; but he actually asks for four or five million dollars, with no assurance whatever that this will be the end of the expenditure. This, I submit, is carrying the matter altogether too far.
It may seem almost ridiculous to drop from four or five million dollars down to eight thousand dollars, but after all eight thousand dollars is a considerable sum. The minister gets eight thousand dollars for the buildings which are included in the purchase price of the property, and I have no doubt that they were valued at a hundred thousand dollars. Will the minister tell us? I venture to say that that is about the figure. He sells the buildings for eight thousand dollars. If I am wrong the minister will correct me, for undoubtedly he has the particulars. Not only is there this great sacrifice, but the contractor who clears away the buildings leaves hundreds of tons of debris on the site, and we are now paying seven hundred dollars to clear off that debris. Then he is going to spend thirty thousands dollars or thereabouts to improve the property.
Another complaint I have is that the vote as it appears in the estimates is entirely misleading. It reads:
Ottawa post office-addition.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is wrong.
He is referring to the item above:
Ottawa-improvement of square west of post office.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is right. But there is another item "Ottawa post office-addition -$30,000" right below that. I forgot to include this vote. This too must go into the beuatification scheme ?


John Campbell Elliott: When we reach the item I will give the particulars.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister answer
me now; is it going into the beautification scheme?


John Campbell Elliott: No. This addition is for
the purpose of providing a covered entrance to the post office for the vehicles that are taking the mails in and out, and for increased postal facilities.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is on the property immediately to the west of the present post office, and actually connected with the property we are now discussing. The only reason for putting that cover there is to cover up what was previously the back door of the post office, which will now be fronting on this park area. So that we can add another $30,000, made necessary unquestionably by the cleaning up of the property. I submit to the committee that this is the grossest form of extravagance; there is- no justification whatever for it. One half of the members sitting on the other side know in their hearts at this moment that it is an unjustifiable extravagance on the part of the government, and the only reason on earth why they are voting for it is simply to maintain in power the government they happen to be supporting at the present time.


William Alves Boys: I have been trying to find out where the square is to be paved. I understand that the property we are discussing is bounded on the east by the post office, on the north by Wellington street, on the west by Elgin street and on the south by Rideau street, or the continuation of Sparks street. Am I to understand that the whole of that is to be paved? If that is so you are going to have cement within 66 feet of the buildings which we pass on the west side of Elgin street immediately we leave the parliament grounds. In that case you will have no driveway whatever up to the parliament buildings, which certainly we were led to believe by the Prime Minister when he made his address during the discussion of this subject. And the plan handed to us plainly shows that this is the intention. It may be that this has to be altered slightly; but is it possible that this pavement is going to continue within 66 feet-that is the ordinary width of a street-of the eastern boundary of Elgin street? In other words, when you have the improvements made along the canal and someone, driving along the driveway, wants to reach this building, he must go into Rideau street until he comes to the 66-foot strip of roadway, along which people drive to-day if they want to get to the parliament buildings. One can understand that if the driveway were to conform to the plan which has been exhibited, it would go right to the centre of the property, and at all events there would be continuity of approach to the parliament buildings from -the Rideau canal driveway, up through the southeast comer. I want to find out whether it is the intention of the minister to pave the whole square. Unless you are to have motors driving over the whole of the pavement you will have no entrance at all to the parliament buildings in line with the driveway which is supposed to lead up to them. The committee should be informed on this point.
The minister says this is a tentative plan. Is it possible that the government have come to parliament for this vast sum of money without having before them a solitary plan which can be described as in any degree a definite scheme of improvement, and that the whole proposition is merely tentative? I can only say in all sincerity to the minister, if that is so-and that is the impression he leaves with the committee-it is not business, it is not common sense, it is not fair to those of us who want to take the slightest interest in the matter, to ask us to vote in this blind manner. I cannot conceive that there is any member -prepared to vote this money to pave that square and not leave a driveway leading up to- the buildings. The only possible excuse for the work would be a driveway up to the southeast entrance to the grounds. II* would be extravagant then, although there would be some justification for it. We have asked the minister to tell us what the area is that is to be paved; and I gather, when he tells me that the boundaries of the property are as I have indicated, that it must be as I have suggested: it is going to be paved to within 66 feet of the existing buildings on Elgin street on the western side. If that is so you will not have any entrance whatever to the grounds. I do not suppose that vehicles will be able to cross it very well; there will be railings or something to stop -them. For that reason they will have to drive to the 66-foot driveway.
I want to be right on this matter; I do not wish to offer any objections that have no basis in commonsense. But as the minister has presented the matter to us, I think we have taken the proper interpretation from his statement. If there is some definite scheme, does not the minister think the committee should have it? Should not the committee be given some idea of the situation, by means, for example, of some plan such as has appeared in the newspapers? This all came out in the newspapers, and I presume the gov-
Supply-Public Works-Ontario

eminent must have known' the newspapers were getting it. It appeared in connection with the published address of the Prime Minister. Now we are told that the whole thing is only tentative.


John Campbell Elliott: As regards the width of the pavement, my hon. friend and I are absolutely in agreement. It is not to be limited to the 64 feet he speaks of.


William Alves Boys: Is the driveway to go through the centre of this very property we are discussing?


John Campbell Elliott: That was not the intention at the time the estimate was prepared.


William Alves Boys: It is the intention according to the plan.


John Campbell Elliott: The plan which my hon friend has in his hand is that of the Federal District Commission. The department intends to meet their views as far as it possibly can, so as to make what eventually will be a uniform scheme of beautification for the whole area that is being improved. So far as the pavement is concerned, what was contemplated was a certain amount of paving, flagstones to be laid down on a portion of it, with trees in between so as to produce the most attractive kind of park.
Mr. BOY'S: I do not want to interrupt the minister, but this is such an appropriate time to ask the question that I can hardly resist. Am I to understand that there is some more definite scheme-something which is not tentative-showing exactly how this is to be paved?
M'r. ELLIOTT: It is not settled as to exactly how it is to be done.


William Alves Boys: Then it simply means that the minister has come to parliament for money, not knowing where in the world the paving is to be done, where the flagstones will be laid, or anything else in connection with the matter. When he came and asked for the money, one would have thought that an engineer or an architect would have been employed to lay the thing out in accordance with plans of the department, and that upon that basis an estimate would have been miade. I can hardly imagine that the minister has come without that information. If so, he has come altogether too soon.


John Campbell Elliott: What we have in the estimates is the recommendation of the architect.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read it.


John Campbell Elliott: It was made on the fifth of January, before the estimates were prepared.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Read it.


John Campbell Elliott: I have given my hon.
friend the details. The chief architect reported on the matter on January 5, 1928. He made the statement that until it was actually decided what was to be done in connection with this property, it was impossible to prepare an accurate estimate, but he considered the following items to represent the minimum cost: Pavement, 4,000 yards at $4, 816,000; grading, 84,000; new sidewalks, 81,440; drainage, surface drains, manholes, catch-basins, electric light poles and so forth, say, 85,000. This represents a total of 826,440. He provides for contingencies, 82,000, making a total of $28,440; and he suggests that a sum of 830,000 be placed in the estimates.


William Alves Boys: Then supposing we are in a
motor car at the Russell hotel corner near the post office, and we want to drive to the parliament buildings. After this contemplated work is done, what course will that car follow to reach the southeast entrance to these grounds? Must we drive in front of the Russell house along Sparks or Rideau street, and then having reached Elgin street must we turn up just as the cars do now?


John Campbell Elliott: No; the plan which my
hon. friend has before him will show what is contemplated.


William Alves Boys: Then I can only say that
the proposition before the committee is absolutely ridiculous, because the plan shows a driveway running diagonally through this property from the corner of the driveway up to the southeast entrance to these grounds. If that were the scheme there would be some continuity to it, but the minister has told the committee that this amount is required to pave the whole of this area; he has left the impression that when the work is finished there will be nothing but pavement in that area and the driveways will remain as they are at present. If an architect has been dealing with this matter surely he must know where the driveway is to be and surely the committee should be given that information. I will ask the minister to furnish that information before the item passes.


John Campbell Elliott: I think I have already
said that if the scheme of the Federal District Commission as shown by that plan is followed, it alters the recommendation made by the architect on January 5, before that plan was drawn and before these estimates were printed. However, probably it does not much alter the actual expenditure which will be required.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


William Alves Boys: The minister makes it very
plain; it simply means that his department and the Federal District Commission have not got together. In the meantime they are going to spend $30,000 to pave that whole square, and when the driveway comes through the centre of the pavement for which we are now paying that money, it will be ripped up again.


John Campbell Elliott: I will admit very frankly that the details of the plan have been varied since this estimate was prepared and printed, but I understand that if we act in accordance with the plan of the Federal District Commission, as my hon. friend has it before him, the cost will be approximately the sum for which we are now asking.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the discussion which is taking place before the committee I think the house has lost sight of the decision it reached two or three years ago, at the time of the Ottawa centenary. Hon. members will recall that at that time it was suggested that a small park be constructed in the centre of the city between the post office and Elgin street and between Wellington and Sparks streets. That park was to be a contribution from the Dominion ' government to the city of Ottawa in connection with the centenary which was being celebrated in that year. The project was so presented to the house, and we voted ti^e money for the purpose of constructing the square in that place. That is the square about which we are speaking this afternoon.
In connection with the properties which were to be demolished, there were some which had been purchased by a previous administration and already belonged to the government of Canada, but a few remained which were of a rather dilapidated appearance and obviously of no great value. It was felt by the present administration, having regard to the location of these buildings, that it would be much in the interest of the improvement of the surroundings of the parliament buildings to have an open square in that location. The estimate was presented to the house, which supported a vote for that purpose.


William Alves Boys: May I not fairly say that
the house thought, from the plan which was submitted, that the driveway was going through the centre of this square to the southeast entrance to the parliament grounds?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, at that
time there was no talk of a driveway at all.


William Alves Boys: The plans were handed out.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; my hon.
Iriend has not heard what I said or he would have understood differently. I am recalling to his mind a vote which I think he supported in this house two or three years ago to create a square-and I use the word "square'' in a general sense to describe the area-between Sparks street and Wellington street, between the post office and Elgin street, which was to be known as By park, or to be associated in some way with the name of Colonel By, it being the year of the Ottawa centenary. The appropriation for that square was voted by this parliament. That involved taking down the buildings which were there and arranging for a park area in that space.


William Alves Boys: I have no recollection of supporting any such vote.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will consult Hansard he will find that I am correct in my statement, and I will be surprised if he did not support the appropriation which was made at that time. At all events, my recollection is that the appropriation was made with comparatively little opposition in parliament, although I remember that the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) did take exception to the expenditure and asked whether it was the intention of the government to tear down the post office. I recall that I answered that it was not the intention to tear down the post office, but that it was proposed to convert into a square the area I have already mentioned. Parliament voted the money for that purpose and some buildings were torn down, and part of the undertaking of the government was to have that area put into a parklike condition. At that time it was contemplated that trees would be planted and perhaps a fountain placed in the centre, with walks arranged diagonally throughout the square. Some such plan was in contemplation by the government with regard to this area and it is to complete that part of the work, which is to be carried on independently by the government as apart from the Federal District Commission, that this amount is now being requested. If hon. members, in passing by, have observed that area they will have noticed that at present there are the remains of old basements and foundations which have not been removed. Apparently the persons who salvaged the buildings made an arrangement which only involved taking away the buildings, and the amount they received was fixed accordingly. No doubt if they had been
Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the Prime Minister
permit me to say I did not quote a single item in connection with public buildings in Ottawa. I purposely excluded them, using only items applicable to the beautifying of Ottawa scheme.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend
spoke of the Edwards mills property, and that is property purchased for the purpose amongst other reasons of giving accommodation, for office buildings.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the Prime Minister does not mean that they are purchasing at $500,000, the Edwards mill property at the Rideau for the purpose of office accommodation?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The buildings are already there. The Minister of Public Works first made a complete survey of available buildings in the city, and found out that those buildings are not only more accessible but better suited to the needs of the government at the moment than any other property we can obtain in the city.
Air. STEVEN'S: For which he is paying $500,000 or more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We can discuss that item when we come to it. What I wish to make clear to the committee is that we have been criticized over and over again by hon. gentlemen opposite for continuing to pay rents to different companies in this city for space for office accommodation, No one has been stronger in his criticism of the administration in that particular than has the leader of the opposition; and he has repeatedly said that he would not only favour but would support the administration in a plan which would have regard to the government owning its buildings for accommodation of the public services, provided that was carried out in accordance with a general scheme or plan. That is precisely what the administration is seeking to do. As hon. members know, the government of Sir Robert Borden purchased property along -the bank of the Ottawa river, near the supreme court, and called for plans of departmental buildings to be erected there. I think the property I speak of was acquired as long ago as 1914. The plans have been in existence ever since Sir Robert Borden's government went out of office. The present administration are taking those plans and are asking parliament to vote what is necessary to enable a section of those departmental buildings to be erected -there. In order to have the buildings erected there, it is necessary to remove the temporary quarters in S6X03-171
which some of the government offices have been placed, the offices which are located in that part of the city; among the number are included the statistical branch of the government with many valuable records. It so happens that the Edwards mills property which has been mentioned is' a fireproof property, and the documents and records can be kept there under the existing arrangement, and the whole property can -be put into a form which will be satisfactory at very little cost to the government and render it available for office use and for other purposes for years to come. It is for that reason, to avoid seeking some other quarters where rents will have to be paid that the government has thought it wise to ask parliament to appropriate an amount for the purchase of that property.
M.r. BENNETT: A planing mill will not be fireproof.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will find -that a large sum of money was spent when those buildings were constructed years ago. They are fireproof buildings and very much better fitted for accommodation than any other buildings we know of.
All I wish to make clear to hon. members is that if -these votes are analyzed one by one the house will see that each one is justified in the ciroumstances which have brought it into existence. It does happen that many of them come together at the same time. As was explained in reference to the citadel at Quebec, and as will be explained later in reference to Government House at Ottawa, during the period of the war and for -the succeeding years little or no expenditures were made on these premises, and they have as a consequence been allowed to run down. At some stage some government has to assume the necessary obligation, difficult as it may be, and liable to misinterpretation, as is certainly the case- at the present time. We have, however, felt it a duty we owe to the country to undertake to me-eit this obvious obligation without further delay.


William Alves Boys: Would the Prime Minister
mind telling the committee how we shall reach the southeast entrance of these grounds supposing we have a motor car at the east end of the Russell building? I am asking him to bear in mind what has been mentioned, namely, that the whole area is to be paved.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's question is one that I hardly expected to receive from him because after all it is a matter

2690	[DOT]	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
of a very minor detail as to just where a particular road is to run, but if I can assist him at all to visualize the plan proposed I shall be happy to do so. As I understand it, the plan which the Federal District Commission has in mind is to have a roadway that, immediately as one leaves the eastern gate of these grounds, will run directly across what is a portion or comer of the property now being cleared. It will approach a central area which will be situated in what is at the moment a part of Sparks street, here the driveway will encroach upon this park area, a part of what is now the Russell house property, a part of it will be a one-way driveway for vehicles. Having passed around one-half of the circle the driveway will continue on towards Laurier avenue bridge. Expressed in terms of coming up the other way, from Laurier avenue bridge, what the commission has planned is a driveway that will run diagonally from the canal at the point at which it passes under Laurier avenue bridge, to the eastern gate of Parliament Hill grounds, which driveway will command all the way a more or less immediate view of the main tower of the parliament buildings.


William Alves Boys: That shows that the pavement will have to be ripped up later on when the improvement is to be gone on with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have every reason to believe that the Federal District Commission is co-operating with the Department. of Public Works in regard to the plans that will be worked out. There will be no duplication. Nothing will be done in the way of expenditure which will involve further changes later on.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Why should the
development not be turned over to the Federal District Commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is exactly what will be done in large part. As I explained a moment ago, the government itself is committed to the development of that particular portion. That is an obligation which we have assumed and we are simply carrying out our part of it, but it will be carried out in connection with the improvement commission and the work they are doing. They will ' doubtless make the general plan, and the government will perform its part in relation thereto.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I desire to direct attention to the argument of the Prime Minister that he is making a great saving by securing the New Edinburgh mills for housing the Bureau of Statistics.
IMr. Mackenzie King.]


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will come
to that vote later.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That point has been
raised. The Prime Minister says, to use his own words, that this is to avoid getting other expensive property, so that it is to be a saving. We are paying more than $500,000 for the New Edinburgh mill property; it will cost a substantial sum to remodel the sawmill and the mill, and the only building suitable for office purposes is the office building, which is comparatively small. That means that at 4| per cent per annum we shall pay interest to the extent of at least $22,500 on this property, taking it on a basis of $500,000. Surely the Prime Minister does not for a moment suggest that it is good business to acquire property at an interest charge of $22,500 per annum to house the Bureau of Statistics. The Prime Minister must know that is not the object at all. The object in securing the New Edinburgh mill property at $500,000 and more, is simply to acquire it, if there is an excuse at all, for the purpose of a park.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If it is not for park
purposes, the expenditure is absolutely inexcusable. And by the way, I am informed that the same property was offered a year or two ago for $250,000.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I can
disabuse my hon. friend's mind on that point because on behalf of the government I have tried for four or five years to secure the property and the lowest price I could get was $400,000 or $500,000.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Where is the item in
the estimates?
Mi-. STEVENS:	I do not think it is in
the estimates. Surely the hon. gentleman who has raised the objection is prepared to consider the total we are paying out in Ottawa for what I consider luxuries and extravagance.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Where is the $500,000 in the estimates?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not in the estimates.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then how can we discuss it?


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am telling my hon.
friend that the government has acquired a property to which they are going to move the Bureau of Statistics although they have not paid for the property and have not inserted an appropriation for it in the est.i-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
mates. If there were no other reason, the one my hon. friend advances would justify our holding the committee up until the government tell us why they have bought this property without having any appropriation for it in the estimates. We should have an estimate brought before parliament showing the necessity for the expenditure. We have the same thing in connection with the property between Wellington and Sparks streets. With the exception of the notice of appropriation, it has not passed into the possession of the government. I have in my hand the minister's statement that he has acquired the property on Wellington and Sparks streets, and he does not know yet what it is going to cost. He says that he has offered $600,000 for it, but he does not know whether he will have to pay $600,000 or more, and indeed the cost may be a million. Hon. gentlemen are blindly passing these estimates and yet we are chided for holding the government up. It is suggested, because the government have not, forsooth, done their duty in telling parliament what they propose to do, that we should not discuss the matter. I want to say that I will discuss it even in the face of a decision of any authority in the house.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Go ahead and discuss
it.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The hon. member must
observe the rules.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will observe the rules
to a certain point, but if there is any effort to gag the house by an improper application of the rules I will not be a party to that.


Ernest Lapointe: Who wants to gag my
hon. friend?


Henry Herbert Stevens: The point is this. The
government have acquired a property and have committed themselves to an expenditure of a minimum of $500,000 for the New Edinburgh property. That calls for an interest charge of $22,500 per annum at 4J per cent. The minister informed us a moment ago- and I am not trespassing the rules any more than he is-that he proposes to bring in a supplementary estimate for a further expenditure for the New Edinburgh property for the purpose of providing accommodation for the Bureau of Statistics. Then we are told by the Prime Minister as a justification for that: Is it not better to pay $500,000 to house the Bureau of Statistics than to rent or secure property elsewhere? The Prime Minister last year brought forward the suggestion that we 56103-1711
should go ahead with the proposed departmental buildings in Ottawa and on that occasion we gave him a vote of $500,000 to commence the erection of a building to house various branches of the public service. What have they done? All they have done so far is to lay a comer stone. Certainly we require public buildings to house the public service of Ottawa. At the present time we are paying $780,000 a year in rent-correct me if I am wrong-and this very year we are entering into new leases which will tie the hands of parliament and the government for years to come. Moreover, we are spending $4,380,000 in addition in what I claim is luxurious and unnecessary expenditure, and it commits us for fifteen years longer. Then we are chided because we bring these matters to the attention of the house.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask my hon.
friend a question? Was the proposal for the purchase of the property in Vancouver for the hotel that was then projected submitted to this parliament when the hon. gentleman was in power?


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was not done when
I was in power. If the committee desire to hear about that, I can tell them the whole story, as the Minister of Railways can verify. The property he refers to was bought as the result of an agreement entered into between the city of Vancouver and the Canadian Northern in 1913. The Canadian Northern was taken over by the Canadian National, and Sir Henry Thornton, on pressure from the city of Vancouver, made a revision of the agreement which was to be carried out last year. The revision was made by the city solicitor, Mr. McCrossan, with the authority of the Canadian National railways, as I think the Minister of Railways will say, with his knowledge and authority.


Mr. DUNNING:: No. If we are going to get out of order this far, Mr. Chairman, I shall want to debate this subject.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was only answering a
question. If the minister objects-


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend must
know that his last remarks are not at all correct and are not a full presentation of the facts.


John Frederick Johnston: The matter is certainly not relevant to the vote under consideration. It might properly be discussed under vote 132, which deals with public buildings generally.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Henry Herbert Stevens: I was only answering a
question. I quite agree that it was out of order, Mr. Chairman.


Mr. EVANS:: 
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend, if he heard what I said, will understand that what is contemplated is making such changes in relation to the other improvements that are to be made,, as are necessary to put that square into proper condition; and when the improvements are made I think he will be . able to judge whether or not the expenditure has, been extravagant. He can feel assured that with a view to economy the government will watch over the details as to how much paving there is to be, and the like.


Mr. MALCOLM:: I should like to make
an observation in connection with this vote, because my hon. friend the member for Vancouver Centre has left an entirely false impression with regard to what he terms extravagance on the part of the government in the purchase of certain properties. The bureau of statistics comes under the department which I have the 'honour to administer, and one of the reasons why the building has not been erected on Wellington street, as provided for some years ago, was the problem of finding suitable quarters for the bureau, which is the first building that is to be demolished. I was consulted by the Minister of Public Works. I say frankly to the house that I was not particularly in favour of purchasing the New Edinburgh mills. The Bureau of Statistics requires 41,000 feet of space to house it properly. There was no such amount of space available except in the new building which was being erected on Wellington street, which space we could not secure for less than SI .25 per foot per annum. So we were facing an annual expenditure of over $47,000 to house the bureau in rented property. I was of the impression that the New Edinburgh mill property was an old property-


Mr. BENNETT:: Over twenty years old.


James Malcolm: I quite admit that, but a building of good brick and concrete construction, and when I saw the buildings, as
[The Chairman.]
a manufacturer knowing something about mill property and buildings I was utterly surprised at the value of this property. I will say to my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre that he cannot replace those buildings to-day, giving the same amount of floor space, at modern construction prices, including the head office, which is a very fine building, for less than $350,000 or $400,000. The property at half a million dollars is extremely cheap when you take into consideration the fact that it comprises the whole bank of the river right down to the residence of the late Sir John A. Macdonald, "Earnscliffe." There is one building on the property which contains over 50,000 feet of floor space; I think it is 600 feet long and 60 or 70 feet wide. This building, with a reasonable amount of alteration, would provide at least temporary housing for the Bureau of Statistics for a few years, until probably at some future date a more central location can be provided for the bureau. I say to the committee quite frankfy that in the first instance I was opposed to putting the Bureau of Statistics in this property because of its location, but if we were to go ahead with the buildings which were to be erected on Wellington street, I had to withdraw my objections, and I may say that they were very easily withdrawn when this property was offered to the government at the price it was. I may take the committee into my confidence further and say that the price asked for that property was not $500,000, but $750,000, and there was a very considerable amount of negotiating done before it was secured for $500,000.
There is another point. We have to find a property in which to locate what this house I believe almost unanimously supports, and that is a research laboratory in Ottawa. In order to get the national research board functioning, we had to find some quarters for them, and the offices of the New Edinburgh mills provide ideal quarters, in the opinion of the board, for them to make a start in. Another part of this building can be used as temporary quarters for the research laboratory, without any very great expense, and that will enable us to make headway in co-ordinating the research work of this Dominion without extra expenditure.
I put it to the committee frankly as a business man, not as a member of the government, that the space available in the New Edinburgh mills property will save this government, not $50,000, not $100,000, but $150,000 per annum in rentals which we would otherwise have to pay if we went out to

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
lease property at the prices landlords are asking to-day,
My hon. friend suggests 4J per cent. Let us take it at 5 per cent. The cost of the New Edinburgh mill property to be used by the bureau of statistics at 5 per cent would take 130,000, if we charged it all to the bureau. Suppose it takes $10,000 to paint and plaster and put the building into shape, so that the Bureau of Statistics can move in. The floors are solid, and will support heavy machinery. If you add another $5,000 for interest, this one building alone will absorb the whole amount of money chargeable to interest and really save us money on what we would have to pay if we rented any other property at the rentals asked to-day. So I feel that the committee is noit ill-advised in accepting the purchase of this property, even as temporary quarters, for those who have to be turned out in order to allow the new buildings to be erected on Wellington street.


James Dew Chaplin: Let me ask the minister one question: Does he think the New Edinburgh mills property is a fit place in which to put the statistical branch?


James Malcolm: I think it is the best available place while our new buildings are being erected.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, the minister told us it was a fit place for temporary quarters.


James Malcolm: For several years.


James Dew Chaplin: The Minister of Public
Works told us last night that he expected the statistical branch would be there for the next fifteen or twenty years.


John Campbell Elliott: I said for a number of
years.


James Dew Chaplin: He said the branch would be there for quite a long time. That does not mean one or two years. The minister was asked if they were temporary quarters, and he said they were not to be considered as temporary.


James Malcolm: I know my hon. friend is interested in the statistical branch, having been minister of the department at one time.


James Dew Chaplin: I abject to moving the statistical branch out to the mills, a mile and a half away, because I use the branch a good deal and I want it to be where I can get at it without having to travel a considerable distance. I think a good many members feel the same way.


James Malcolm: My hon. friend is quite right in his objection, and no one will feel the inconvenience of the new location of the branch more than the minister in charge of the department. But I ask him this question: Is it fair to criticize the government for extravagance when they take property that is going to result in economies, and at the same time criticize them for not getting a convenient location which would cost a lot of money? He cannot have both.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You could have.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Power):: May I
call the attention of the committee to the fact that we are discussing an item of $30,000 for improvement of the square west of the post office, Ottawa. I permitted discussion on some other building because it appeared to me to be by unanimous consent. I have no objection to its being so continued but I think hon. members should confine themselves to the item before the committee and the amendment.


James Dew Chaplin: Why did not the chairman call our attention to it a long time ago before other members got into the discussion?


Charles Gavan Power: I allowed the discussion to continue because it appeared to me to be by unanimous consent of the committee. If all hon. gentlemen have spoken on the other building, I do not think they will take it amiss if I call them to order should they stray from the point in future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have followed the minister's explanation with some interest. I should like to know whether it is not a fact that considerable horsepower is available on the property which could be used to supply the government buildings. You have your wheels and other machinery there. I thought probably that was the basis of the purchase.


James Malcolm: If the chairman will
allow this discussion to continue a little further by unanimous consent, I desire to say that the leader of the opposition has brought to the attention of the committee one very valuable asset in connection with this property, which may be of considerable importance in deciding its value when the time comes to discuss it. There is a small waterpower on the property. I thank the hon. gentleman for bringing it to our notice.


William Foster Garland: I was in
favour of the three million dollar vote for the beautification of the city; but I agree with the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) that five thousand dollars is ample to level this property. Before the buildings
2694	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
were demolished the property was assessed for $56,000. The contractors paid to the government $8,311 for the buildings, and I think they made enough money out of material they salvaged to have left the site in proper condition. The work is being done now in such a way that it should not cost a fifth of the amount proposed by my hon. friend from Frontenac; in fact the site is virtually not being levelled at all. I am going to vote for the amendment, because I believe that if the work were left to the Federal District Commission they would get it done for very much less than $30,000, without interfering at all with the beautification scheme.
Amendment (Mr. Edwards, Frontenac) negatived: yeas, 33; nays, 62.


Charles Gavan Power: I declare the amendment lost. Shall the item carry?


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, this property was assessed for $312,000, of which $256,000 covered the land. The item of $30,000 for levelling the site is about one-eighth the assessed value of the whole property. Already, $843.55 has been paid in legal fees in connection with expropriation proceedings, and $6,500 for commissions, to Mr. Foley and Mr. Ross on the acquisition of the property. The minister has told us that the contract entered into with the parties who were to demolish and remove the buildings covered the clearing of the site, but that the work having been done during the winter frost interferred with the operations, and the contractor's made an allowance of $700 to the government in lieu of completing their work. In other words, in the estimation of the government $700 was all that Should be paid for the work of levelling the site, for which we are now asked to vote $30,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


John Wesley Edwards: I am taking the minister's own words.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend permit me? I thought I made it perfectly clear that the $700 was the allowance for the work which the contractors had not done at the time it was taken over by the government, and which, on an estimate by the officials of the department, we thought we could do for $700. It has no relation whatever to anything provided for in the vote of $30,000.


John Wesley Edwards: The contract required the parties who tore down these buildings to leave the site in proper condition; they did not carry out their contract,

and $700 was considered by the government to be the cost of completing the work, and they accepted this sum from the contractors. Now the government are asking for $30,000 for covering this spot with concrete. It may be the intention of the government to force through every item they have on their list, regardless of any reasons advanced on this side of the house as to whether they should do so or not. However, I propose to test the matter a little further and I move therefore that this vote of $30,000 for the improvement of the square west of t'he post office be reduced by $15,000. This will leave $15,000 to improve the property-at least to level the place off, to plant a few trees and to put down some concrete, if the government are disposed to resort to that for beautifying purposes.


Charles Gavan Power: the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) moves that the item, "Ottawa- improvement of square west of post office, $30,000", be reduced by $15,000. Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
Amendment negatived: yeas, 33; nays, 52.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa 

 Laboratory for Department of Mines, Booth street, $50,000.
Mr. FRASER:: How much was spent of
last year's vote?


John Campbell Elliott: Up to the thirty-first of
March last, $42,473.41.


John Anderson Fraser: For what purpose?


John Campbell Elliott: Tenders were called.


John Anderson Fraser: Were they advertised?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; they were advertised and the lowest tender accepted. There were four tenders: Alexander I. Garvock, $48,659; E. Monette, $50,400; Ross Meagher, Limited, $55,567; T. C. James, $66,909.


John Anderson Fraser: Is the contract completed?


John Campbell Elliott: No. What was done last
year was work on the skeleton of the building. The $50,000 was required to complete the erection of a fuel testing laboratory for the Department of Mines at the Booth street experimental station. The skeleton of this building was erected during the year 1927-28 by Mr. A. I. Garvock of Ottawa at a contract price of $48,659. It is necessary to com-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
plete the building during 1928-29 by performing all the interior finish to the structure, and for that purpose the $50,000 asked for is required.


John Anderson Fraser: Will this building be in
connection with the other laboratory we have here?


John Campbell Elliott: What laboratory?


John Anderson Fraser: Will it be in connection
with the research laboratory? Will it be in the same location?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Anderson Fraser: They will not be together?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Why should they not be
together?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend mean the research buildings? It is proposed to erect them on the property which is to be purchased on Sussex street, the property referred to this afternoon.


John Anderson Fraser: The two are a good distance apart?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: Why should they not be
together?


Charles A. Stewart: Perhaps I
may answer the question. The Booth street laboratory has been in existence for a number of years and we have been adding to it from time to time. This is to take care of fuel testing. A structure was put up last year at a cost of $48,000, and this is to complete the building. There is a battery of fuel and metallurgical testing laboratories on Booth street, and it was deemed advisable to provide this building. There would not be room in that location for the construction of general laboratories such as are proposed in the scientific research council's program. The two branches will, however, be affiliated and this one will work in with the general scheme.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is it proposed, in
connection with ithe research council's laboratory, to have a section devoted to mining research? I should think that work of this character would constitute research.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
follow my hon. friend.


Arthur Edward Ross: In the work of the research laboratory I should think that mining would form a big factor.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Fuel testing is as
much research as anything can be. It would appear that this was going to be another greenhouse-an absolute waste of money.


Charles A. Stewart: We have
been doing all our fuel research work there.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Not on Booth street.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton: The analysis of ores and Certain research work we have been doing on Sussex street, but the operations have been disjointed, and our fuel testing laboratories have really not been laboratories at all. We have no facilities for doing the work. But there is a sufficient property on Booth street to offer accommodation and that will be necessary for mining research work. It is not, however adequate for the purposes of a general laboratory.


Arthur Edward Ross: Then the mining
research laboratory will be distinct from the main research laboratory?


Charles A. Stewart: Only in so
far as mining is concerned.


Arthur Edward Ross: What will be done in the other research laboratory?


Charles A. Stewart: General research of every character will be carried on. I am not familiar with the program, but it has been fairly well outlined in the report of the chairman. The department has been carrying on the work for a number of years, doing its testing on Booth street, with the single exception of ceramics, in connection with which the work has been done on Sussex street.


Arthur Edward Ross: Does not the minister think it would be a good policy to have everything together and save us building two greenhouses and two or three laboratories?


Charles A. Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that all our oil and mineral research work will be done down on Booth street. We have rented premises in which we are carrying out pulp and paper work.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to ask the minister whether the location of these proposed works has been reviewed by the national research council, and whether it has received their approval. I understand that we have a research council which is to take charge of all this work from a national point of view.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
Here we are going on to build research buildings apparently not in the same location as the laboratories which will be used by the national research council. Have they been apprised of the location of these structures?


Charles A. Stewart: They know all about it; they have been consulted.


John Anderson Fraser: And have they approved of the location?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Later we have to consider a vote for research laboratories, and I should like to know whether this will be considered a research laboratory under that general scheme?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes; unless there is a change in the plans it is the intention that all the mining research work in Ottawa will be carried on in these premises.


Mr. CANTLEY:: May I ask the minister who is the head of the department which is carrying on this work?


Charles A. Stewart: It is under the Department of Mines, over which I have control.


Thomas Cantley: Who is the practical man in charge of the work?


Charles A. Stewart: The man in charge of this work is Mr. Haanel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am just going to make one Observation with which I think the Prime Minister must agree. This idea of setting up three or four buildings, to be presided over by different ministers with respect to research work, is starting the wrong way. I mentioned that some time ago and I refer to it again to-day. Mining research work is perhaps as important as any research work in Canada, and when the buildings 'are put up on Sussex street, on that vast piece of land extending from the river down to Earnscliffe, there is ample room to take care of all the research operations, which should be together. I think the Prime Minister, who perhaps has had occasion when at Harvard to see the work they were doing and have since done in connection with the Boston School of Technology, will realize that it is desirable to have every class of research work brought together so that from a single nerve centre, if I may so express it, you can touch them all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I agree entirely with my bon. friend, and anticipated the very point which he has raised. Before this item came up I discussed the matter with both the Minister of Mines and the Minister of

Public Works and I was informed, as the house has been informed, that these premises have been used for this work for some time. Last session some provision was made for an enlargement, which is to be completed with this present vote. If we were to begin again I think we should follow what my hon. friend has said, but I do not believe it would be wise, when it can be used for this particular branch, to throw away the plant which is nearing completion and which will be completed when this amount is voted. Otherwise I certainly feel it would be advisable to have everything together.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the Prime Minister will not think I am unduly insistent, but the Minister of Public Works stated that this was but a skeleton, and now we are going into the interior. I think that skeleton could be used for other purposes; we could still stop this vote and use it for the buildings on Sussex street. The further point I desired to -make is this: Is this department to be brought under the control of Doctor Tory, or it is to be controlled by the minister and his deputy? That is rather important, as I think the Prime Minister will see.


Charles A. Stewart: May I
satisfy my hon. friend onoe and for all by saying that Doctor Tory has no more ardent supporter than myself. I would also say that we have delayed this work for nearly four years; we have put up with inadequate quarters and have been unable to give the information which the public and particularly the mining people are demanding. We have been awaiting some concrete scheme of this character, but we have put up this building and I would protest most vigorously if we are not to be given the opportunity of completing it and installing everything necessary to carry on the work immediately. I' would remind my friend that the plant which is to be erected this year will not come into operation until next year, and we are anxious to get this plant going. We wish to install the machinery which we cannot now use in the winter months because of the inadequacy of the premises.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will it be under the
control of Doctor Tory?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, because the Deputy Minister of Mines is on his board, and every experiment carried on there will be co-ordinated with the work of the National Research Council.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
Ottawa post office-addition, $30,000.
John Campbell Elliott: With regard to this item
I would like to say that it is now thought that sufficient protection for the loading of the mails can be provided by a structure which will cost in the vicinity of $10,000, and I suggest that this vote be reduced


Ernest Lapointe: I move that this item
be reduced by $20,000.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Garland McQuarrie: What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a covered way
for the loading and unloading of wagons and various vehicles bringing mail to the post office.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is this to be of a
permanent or a temporaray character?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be reasonably permanent, in keeping with the structure.


William Garland McQuarrie: I believe it is the
intention of the government to remove the post office building altogether.


John Campbell Elliott: Some time in the future.


William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister
care to express any opinion as to when that will be done?


John Campbell Elliott: That is very difficult to
say.


James Dew Chaplin: Has the Postmaster General prepared any plans for this work, or has it met with the approval of his department? I am afraid that this post office will look like a wart on this new scheme of the Prime Minister's, and I do not believe it is a good plan to spend even $10,000 on this work. There has not been a covered way previously, so I believe it is not necessary now.


John Campbell Elliott: No doubt my hon. friend
believes himself correct when he states that there has not been a covered way there previously, but that is not so. We have had a covered way.


James Dew Chaplin: Perhaps we could not see there and it was torn down. The minister should tell us what is the nature of the construction which is to go there. Is it to be a tin lean-to or something of that kind, or what is it to be?


John Campbell Elliott: When the $30,000 covering was under consideration it was intended to be of stone. That would be of a more permanent character than departmental officials thought necessary, in view of the fact that probably the building will be torn down some time in the not far distant future; and it is now considered that by an expenditure of $10,000 we can do very well for the present.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Galvanized iron.


John Campbell Elliott: There may be some galvanized iron.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-Rideau hall-alterations, improvements and furnishings, $50,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Will you call it
six o'clock?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Go ahead.


Ernest Lapointe: We are anxious to know what you are going to propose.
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



EDMONTON, DTJNVEGAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 17, consideration in committee of Bill No. 57, respecting the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company-Mr. Kennedy-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-New branch lines authorized.
Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: This company which has a federal charter is a private company the bonds of which were guaranteed quite a number of years ago by the Alberta government. The shares are owned by the Alberta government. The deputy minister of railways in the Alberta government should therefore be entitled to have something to say in connection with this bill and I am informed, rightly or wrongly-and if I am wrong I want to be corrected-that he urged upon the mover of the bill to bring it before parliament. First of all, if the Alberta government are behind this bill, they should say so and be represented by their own government. There are many ways in which that can be done by them. If we take it for granted that the Alberta government are indirectly sponsoring the bill, my information is that they have pledged themselves to construct only twenty-five miles of the total mileage covered by the bill. If that

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
be so, it would tend to prove that the Alberta government do not approve the bill as it now stands.
But I am not here to plead the ease of the Alberta government; I am here to plead the case of the Dominion government and the interest of Canada in this bill. The hon. member for Peace River will correct me in a moment if I am wrong. It has been said that the road is about to be sold to the Canadian National or the Canadian Pacific. That the road should be sold to the Canadian Pacific does not interest me so much, but that it should be sold to the Canadian National does interest me because the Canadian National is the property of the Dominion of Canada. In the past we have had bitter experiences in connection with railways which have been constructed by private companies or even by provincial governments, if there be any such cases, and which have later turned out to be a liability on the hands of those who constructed them. In those cases they have felt that the best thing they could do was to turn the railways over to the federal government. A few years ago a gentleman from Manitoba who sat in this house used to speak quite frequently in regard to railway matters and to say that the government of the day had loaded themselves up with a lot of lame ducks. That is true. Our railway policies in the past have been anything but what they should have been.
If this road is (to belong to the Canadian National Railways or to the federal government, they should have something to do with the bill, and if extensions to the present line are to be made in one direction or another those extensions should not be made unless the Canadian National approve them.	I
know I shall be told immediately that the Canadian National are not the owners of the road and therefore have nothing to do with it. That is the old argument. The Canadian National did not own a number of railways that were built outside of their control and with the consent and approval of parliament over a period of twenty-five years, but the Canadian National and the people of Canada became owners of those roads. When a venture proved to be a bad one, it was put upon the shoulders of the Canadian people. I shall have something more to say later on, but for the time being I should like to hear the hon. member for Peace River answer the point which I have raised.


Mr. HEPBURN:: I should like to recapitulate the events leading up to this bill standing on the order paper under date of April 17. It appears that there was some misunder-
standing in regard to a certain figure used in one of the clauses, and the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Peace River, was unable to give the necessary information to the house at that time. The Minister of Railways thereupon said, as reported in Hansard at page 2112:
Mr. Dunning:	In any event the mistake
must he corrected by some formal action on the part of this committee. I suggest to my hon. friend that he leave the bill in committee in order to enable him to confirm his impression, or he may move the necessary substitution now.
Mr. Kennedy:	Let it stand.
So it was at the instance of the sponsor that this bill was allowed to stand. I maintain that if any member who is sponsoring a bill in this house cannot give to the house at any time it is required the necessary information in regard to the bill, he should not ask of this house the special privilege of having his bill given preference over other bills. I am surprised indeed that such a request emanated from his part of the house, because hon. members sitting in the southeast comer of this chamber announced with great gusto on the hustings the policy of equal rights for all and special privileges for none.


Mr. KELLNER:: I rise to a point of order, Mir. Chairman. The hon. gentleman is discussing a question which was settled by the house the other night, and I submit that his remarks are therefore out of order.


John Frederick Johnston: I take it that the hon. gentleman may make a reference to the bill having been allowed to stand, but he would be out of order in going into details.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: If hon. members in that part of the house do not like to have their inconsistencies called to their attention, all right.
With reference to the bill before us, I have given notice that on the third reading of the bill I shall move in amendment:
That the said bill be not now read the third time, but be referred to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it as follows-


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment of the hon. gentleman should be moved on the third reading of the bill, not in committee.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: This amendment, Mr. Chairman, has a strong bearing on the bill before us, and I should like to explain why I am bringing it forward. I am moving an amendment of that nature because the hon. member for Wetaskiwin moved an amendment to a bill standing in the name of my hon. friend from West Lambton in regard

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
to the Sarnia bridge charter. I do not think it is out of place for me to delve into some of the doings of the hon. member from the province of Alberta, especially in view of the fact that they have displayed such a particular interest in our affairs in southern Ontario. We came down here after the election of 1926 willing and anxious to co-operate with members from other parts of the dominion, and willing to be guided largely by the advice of hon. members from distant parts of this country in matters of their concern, and it therefore seems strange to me that such particular attention should be paid by our friends from the west to bills which are of vital importance only to southern Ontario.
In asking that this bill be given precedence, the hon. member for Peace River laid great stress on its vital importance. We from southern Ontario in turn could lay just as much stress on the importance of the several bridge bills relating t.o southern Ontario, which are of particular and vital importance to that part of the country. So I do not think I am out of order in reciprocating that community of interest which they display, in adopting obstructive tactics which have delayed the proceedings in this house, and if we are going to expedite matters, the only way, as I see it, is to put this bill where it belongs, at the bottom of the list.


Mr. IRVINE:: Is not the hon. gentleman
himself the only member of this house who has talked out a bill this session? He is the only one I know of who has done that.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am going to show
something of the obstructive tactics of hon. gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. member who has just taken his seat. He moved an amendment to the Sarnia bridge bill, to safeguard, he said, the public interest, But I would direct attention to the unanimous opinion of the people of Sarnia, who are the ones directly affected by that bill and who are quite willing to pay the tolls, These are provided for in section 14 of that bill, which reads:
The company may charge tolls for the use of the said bridge, approaches and facilities-


James Shaver Woodsworth: Some of us are not interested' in either of these bills. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the Sarnia bridge bill is not before the house at the present time, and that the hon. member is out of order in discussing it.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I do not mind these
interruptions; they take up time. I simply wish to justify my position in opposing this bill.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I would ask your
ruling, Mr. Chairman, on the point of order. I claim that the hon. member is out of order in discussing the Sarnia bridge bill.


John Frederick Johnston: I have to agree that
the discussion now being carried on by the hon. member is not in order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I was just anticipating,
Mr. Chairman, the argument which would be used by my hon. friends opposite. However, it is a very easy matter to direct my remarks to the bill before us, if that is is what they w'ant discussed; it is immaterial to me.
Bill No. 57 provides for the granting of a railway charter to the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway Company, which asks for-
(a)	An extension of its main line of railway, from mile 357 at or near Spirit river in the province of Alberta, by the most feasible route and in a generally westerly direction a distance of one hundred and two miles more or less to a point in township seventy-seven to seventy-eight, range eighteen, west of the sixth meridian in the province of British Columbia, and
(b)	An extension of the Grande Prairie branch of its existing line of railway in the province of Alberta by the most feasible route and in a generally northerly and westerly direction a distance of eighty-six miles more or less to a point in township seventy-eight, ranges fourteen or fifteen, west of the sixth meridian in the province of British Columbia.
I have been ruled out of order because I wanted to point out some of the financial strings which hon. members opposite in the southeast corner wanted to put on bills relating to southern Ontario. But I would warn them that in connection with this particular bill they may be providing privileges for some unknown party because, as I understand it, this road is being offered for sale in the market to-day, and we do not know who the ultimate owners will be. I have a clipping here from the Edmonton Bulletin, reading as follows:
Submission by the Canadian National railways of a new offer for purchase of the Alberta and Great Waterways railway was a strong probability, declared Premier J. E. Brownlee on his return Friday morning from a three weeks' trip to Ottawa, Montreal and other points. .
"I feel there will be an improved offer," he said, "but I don't know whether it will be sufficiently suitable for us to accept."
The disposal of the provincially owned railways, he said, depended entirely upon the Alberta and great waterways. This was the key to the whole situation and the government had impressed upon both railway presidents the desirability of parting with this line along with the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia line, so that it would be unnecessary to continue a department of railways just for the one line. i

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
Just what the prospects of an early decision on the matter were, the premier would not say. It is known that the Dominion is anxious to conclude the session at Ottawa by May 15, and that unless some agreement were reached by the end of next week it would be too late to have parliament ratify it before prorogation and it would have to stand over until next session.
In the event of an agreement being reached immediately and the offer presented to parliament-
That is one of the press reports indicating the possibility of selling this railway. In the Montreal Gazette of April 21, 1928, there is a Canadian Press despatch as follows:
Premier Brownlee, who has just returned from his trip to Ottawa and Montreal, reports that some progress has been made as a result of the ministerial mission in regard to the northern railway situation. He is hopeful of the Canadian National offer for the Alberta and Great Western line being somewhat improved, and until it is definitely known what action will be taken in that direction there will be no final decision on the sale-
On the sale, remember.

of the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia Railway. It was made clear to both the transcontinental heads, says, Mr. Brownlee, that the Alberta government does not care to part with the Peace River lines unless it can satisfactorily dispose of the waterways road also, and the latter is, therefore, the key to the entire situation. If a better offer for the Alberta and Great Western comes through early enough, a summer session of the Alberta legislature will probably be called.
Agreement was reported upon a number of points affecting the sale of the Edmonton. Dunvegan and British Columbia, which will considerably better the province's interests, providing that the waterways deal materializes. Whatever further action is taken in the matter will depend upon a conference between Presidents Beatty and Thornton, to be held shortly.
I think that fairly definitely establishes the fact that the road is for sale. In insisting on similar stringent provisions to those which some hon. members desire to make in our bridge charters in southern Ontario, I am quite in order in moving the amendment which appears in the votes and proceedings of May 2, as I do not want my hon. friends opposite to be led astray. It is even possible that the Sarnia bridge people might buy this railway, and I want to guard my hon. friend from Peace River against such a contingency. In a press report from Edmonton of April 17, 1928, I find the following statement by another prominent man in the Alberta government, the Hon. Veraor Smith:
No sale of the Alberta government-owned railroads has been effected to date according to Hon. Yernor W. Smith, minister of railways and telephones, who returned to the city on
[Mr. Hepburn.1
Tuesday morning after a two weeks and a half trip to Ottawa and Montreal with Premier J. E. Brownlee.
Conferences were held with both Sir Henry Thornton and E. W. Beatty, K.C., presidents,, respectively, of the Canadian National and Canadian Pacific railways, said the minister, but they were continuing their study of the problem along the lines submitted in the amended joint offer placed before the last session of the legislature.
Sir Henry was interviewed first and Mr. Beatty second. Mr. Beatty was seen on the last day of the minister's stay in Montreal and his final word was that a further interview would be held with Sir Henry Thornton.
Hon. Mr. Smith could not say whether a new offer would be made. This would be determined no doubt by the conference between the two railway heads. Asked whether any intimation had been given by either president regarding a new offer for the Alberta and Great Waterways railways, the minister said he presumed it was being considered in connection with the Edmonton, Dunvegan and British Columbia line.
The minister and the premier parted company at Montreal, the former coming home by way of Toronto and the premier going by way of Chicago. En route the minister visited the Welland canal now in course of construction, at a cost of $125,000,000. It is 24 miles long, he said. The largest steam shovel in the world, capable of loading cars raised 60 feet above it, was in use. Some sections of it will be completed within the next year.
In that part of the west it appears they are making a serious effort to sell this railway. Usually when a railway charter is granted settlers flock in. I do not think it is fair that such people should be misled. I have their welfare at heart just as much as my hon. friends have at heart the welfare of those residing in southern Ontario. Certainly it is mot fair to settlers in that part of the west to bolster up their hopes in this regard. Before this charter is granted the promoters of the bill should be subjected to the same stringent requirements as were put forward in the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines with respect to the bill for the Port Burwell and London Railway; that is, they should give some guarantee of good faith.
That there is no unanimity of opinion behind this railway is apparent from press dispatches. Mr. Hugh Allen, M.L.A., of that district, made a speech at a banquet at Wembley on May 27 last, and I think it will be of interest to the committee if I read an extract from it because it voices his views:
The joint offer for the provincially-owned railways was then taken up:
"The series of questions as to the joint offer for the provincially-owned railways, which had been directed at Premier Brownlee were a matter of interest to all.

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
I also think it is a matter of interest to all.
Just why the questions should be directed at the premier was not so clear. The companies specifically stated in their offer that it was made in that form to avoid further competitive bidding, and remembering the reluctance on their part in the past to submit offers and the conditions of secrecy which were imposed on the government when these offers were submitted, their statement need not be doubted. Further than that, when the present traffic agreement was made with the Canadian National Railway a year or more ago, it was violently attacked by opposition members in the legislature on the ground that it was discriminatory against all Canadian Pacific Railway points and the government was urged to make every effort to secure a joint freight rate. That suggestion undoubtedly was the origin of the idea of a joint offer, for in no other way could a joint through freight rate to both Canadian Pacific and Canadian National points be secured.
"In case of a sale of the road now, joint operation would probably mean little or no change if the present arrangement so far as handling all traffic would be concerned.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of order. What my hon. friend is reading may have something to do with the lines now in existence in that part of Alberta, but it certainly has nothing to do with the section under discussion-, which relates to an extension.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: If the hon. Minister of Railways will be patient he will see that I am leading up to the point. I want to show that there is no unanimity of opinion in regard to the feasibility of this railway, and before I have proceeded very far I think he will understand.
The route of the proposed extension from Wembley to Hythe has been criticized by many in this district. Representations have been made to the Minister of Railways-
And so on. Now, if there is a difference of opinion out there with regard to this railway, I do not see why parliament should be asked to grant this charter. Why do not the promoters apply to the provincial legislature. If this charter is granted and the line is surveyed, it is likely -that settlers will go into the district anticipating that they will get railway facilities, and when these are not forthcoming pressure will be brought to bear on the Dominion government to build the road. It appears to me that the Alberta government is passing the buck, so to speak. They have it in their own power to secure a charter from the local legislature.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Can the Alberta legislature grant a charter for a road in the province of British Columbia?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Let the Alberta government negotiate with the British Columbia government. The Dominion government have plenty on their chest at present without taking on anything more. A survey was made in 1911, and the then Alberta government, presided over by our present Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), refused to guarantee the bonds for a railway over this same route. I have a map showing this particular part of the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am not the least disturbed by all the noise hon. members care to make.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I welcome interruptions; I am not the least bit disturbed. Let me point out that clause (a) deals with the country to be served. I will read clause (a):
An extension of its main line of railway, from mile 357 at or near Spirit river in the province of Alberta, by the most feasible route and in a generally westerly direction a distance of 102 miles more or less to a point in township 77 to 78, range 18, west of the sixth meridian in the province of British Columbia.
We have the reports of the Dominion land surveyors as published officially by the Department of the Interior in regard to the territory proposed to be traversed by this railway. This report was submitted in 1911. I quote the following, with reference to township 79, range 13:
_ The Spirit River pack-trail from township 79, range 14, is the best route to this township. The soil is from three to six inches of black loam with clay subsoil and would make good farming land. The surface is nearly all covered wth poplar and willow scrub, but there are scattered prairie openings. It is badly broken up by Pouce Coupe river and by the valley of a creek which runs westerly across the township near its centre.
It is also interesting to read the description of township 78, range 13 also in the proposed line of railway:
Our pack-trail from township 77 was the only way to reach this township. The soil is from two to three inches of black loam with clay subsoil and some gravel and clay. It would make only fair farming land. The surface is nearly all covered with poplar and willow scrub. There is a high range of hills along the south and east of the township, while here and there ledges of rock crop out near the top of the hill.
He adds:
Hay is very scarce.
The description of another township in this route, township 78, range 7, is given by J. B.

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
Saint Cyr, Dominion land surveyor in 1900, as follows:
This township can be reached by a narrow belt of prairie south of the correction line, connecting with Spirit River prairie to the east, and then by Dunvegan wagon road. The township is thickly covered with poplar, spruce and large willow. Spirit River prairie ends at the east boundary. The country is rolling in the northern half of the township and undulating in the remainder. There is no prairie.
If there is no prairie it seems foolish to be extending the railway into that country, and that may account for the statement of the member for the provincial riding, that the proposed route has been criticized by many in the district. There are many more interesting things in these official township reports, which I shall' read in a few minutes. But I want to compare the descriptions I have given with the description of the country adjacent to this proposed route where the people are asking for railway extension. I quote the following by way of contrast. As regards township 78, in range 6, now at the terminus of the existing railway and immediately adjoining the township just described, the following statement appears:
Spirit River, which is a very small stream, crosses the settlement from west to east. The soil is of good quality, being composed of a black loam resting on a sandy clay subsoil.
My hon. friend will agree that that describes good farming land worthy of being served, as it is served, by the present railway. The report goes on to say:
The surface is prairie and bluffs. The country is level with the exception of that portion of the settlement situated south of Spirit river. Wheat, oats and vegetables have been successfully raised there for a few years. The prairie furnishes good pasture. Every traveller who came there last summer appeared to like the country and to have great faith in the future of that district.
I,- consider that a very good argument because the extension now proposed and which I have discussed was the very one from which I understand the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton), when he was Prime Minister of Alberta, withdrew government support. As a matter of fact, townships 70, 77, 78, 79, 80 and 81 in ranges 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, all adjacent to the line proposed in clause
(a), have not yet been surveyed and it would appear that if this were good country a survey would already have been made. So that those who are dissatisfied with this proposed line are probably justified in their attitude.
As regards clause (b) of this proposed charter, I think that great injustice is being done to the farmers in that part of Alberta

by this provision. There is a railway running from Grande Prairie to Wembley, on a line differing materially from a route which was surveyed in 1911, I believe. On the strength of that survey hundreds of settlers went into that part of the country. If this proposed extension is persisted in, while I will not say that it will represent a breach of faith on the part of the government, I will point out that the railway will be circling what was once designated as the route, with the result that the farms in the vicinity of the original location will diminish in value. That is not a very fair proposition to the people of that part of Alberta, and in this connection I would refer the committee once more to the statement of the member of the legislature for that district, to the effect (that the route of extension proposed in clause (b) of this bill has been criticized by many in the district.
I want to quote some further descriptions of the property. I am doing so for the information of hon. gentlemen opposite. I am not criticizing all of them, because some hon. gentlemen opposite are willing to co-operate in our effort to expedite progress in southern Ontario. But I feel that we from Ontario ought to take some interest in Alberta and for that reason I shall give to the committee some further descriptions.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Will the hon. member
quote one sentence I have uttered in connection with any of the bills in which he is interested with a view to blocking them?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: The hon. member's colleague behind him, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) has placed on the order paper six amendments which I am ready to read.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Will the hon. member
quote one sentence that I have uttered for the purpose of blocking any of these bills?


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am referring to the hon. gentleman's colleague; they are close together. There is considerable collusion although they try to eay they are politically independent of each other. There is just as much partisanship there as there is anywhere else.


Mr. JELLIFF:: I am sitting almost directly behind the hon. member for Bow River, and I do not think my hon. friend can charge me and a number of my other colleagues with blocking any legislation in this house. In the interest of the people of Alberta, I consider it unreasonable for the hon. gentleman to pursue the course he is taking. It will not result in any advantage to him.

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I apologize to the hon.
member for Lethbridge if he thinks I have referred to him. I did not have him in mind *when T referred to the hon. member for Bow River.


An hon. MEMBER:: He doesn't sit behind him.


James Dew Chaplin: He doesn't know that.


Mr. COOTE:: Does my hon. friend realize
that by his action he is apparently endeavouring to prevent the building of a railway to serve some settlers about whom a few minutes age he seemed to be expressing some concern -people who this fall, if (the railway is not built, will have to haul their grain as far as eighty miles.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Does the hon. member
realize that we from southern Ontario have interests that are just as vital as those which he is promoting.


George Gibson Coote: Mr. Chairman, I rise to a
question of privilege. I deny that I have blocked anything in this house this session.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: I am glad to hear this
confession of faith.


George Gibson Coote: I ask that the hon. gentleman withdraw that remark.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, I rise
to a point of order. I think the whole discussion is out of order because when this committee last sat we passed the entire bill, including this section. Then, because of some doubt as to the accuracy of a figure, the bill was allowed to stand. I fully appreciate that members of the house interested in certain private legislation feel very strongly with respect to other members of the house, particularly those in the far corner, who from time to time talked legislation out, as my hon. friend is apparently attempting to do tonight. On behalf of the government, however, I would say that we have no concern at all for the hon. member for Peace River or what he may or may not have done with respect to talking out other legislation, but we have some ooncem for the settlers who are affected by the proposed railway extensions, and as far as I can I would like to facilitate the passage of this measure in order that the extensions may be proceeded with. I fully appreciate the feelings of hon. members, and of course this is a private bill, but I would say that possibly on both sides of the house there might be a little more consideration
given to the desirability of not pursuing these blocking tactics during this one hour. I am afraid these tactics have been altogether too common this session, and in that connection hon. members in the far corner have done their share if nothing more.


Charles Gavan Power: The point of order has
turned out to be just a little lecture by the Minister of Railways on how members of this house should behave during the hour which is devoted to private bills. I understood the minister to say that although the bill is before us we must not discuss it, for what reason I do not know. The minister says the bill is before us, but discussion on any of the sections is not to be allowed. I would ask the minister to explain further the point of order. If he could convince us that we are not allowed to discuss sections 1 or 2 of the bill I am sure we would let it go through.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will try again. All the sections of the bill were agreed to subject to the verification of a figure in section 1, and subject to that point only. That was the arrangement when the committee last considered this bill, so I submit that to all intents and purposes the committee completed their work and only desired to make sure that the figure descriptive of a certain township was the correct one.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister will show
me anything in the rules which says that a bill may be allowed to stand over subject to verification I should be glad to see it, but as I understand it now the minister is introducing a new procedure. He has had a longer parliamentary experience than is possessed by most of us, but I fail to see anything of that kind in the rules. I submit that if a bill stands over the whole bill is open to discussion unless at the time there was an agreement by unanimous consent that certain sections should be passed. Personally I do not know of any such unanimous consent in this case, and apparently other hon. members do not know of it either. Therefore I take it that every section, every clause and every word in the bill is open to discussion.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the minister
is labouring under a misapprehension; no section of the bill was passed when it was last before the committee. It was allowed to stand over while we were discussing section 1, there being some question as to whether a certain figure in section 1 was right or wrong, so the whole bill stood until that figure could

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
be verified. Therefore I rule that the point of order is not well taken. I should read an amendment which has been moved, that the words "township seventy-eight" in line twenty-four be struck out and the words "townships seventy-seven or seventy-eight" substituted therefor.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have another point of order with reference to the kind of discussion which has taken place on this bill. I refer to subsection (i), paragraph 293 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which is as follows:
Besides the prohibitions contained in this standing order, it has been sanctioned by usage both in England and in Canada, that a member, while speaking, must not:
(i) use his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the house.
The very tenor of the remarks of the hon. gentleman who has been addressing the committee has been to the effect that he is giving tit for tat, so to speak; he has suffered from obstruction and is therefore obstructing this measure. I am not blaming him for so doing; on a previous occasion the hon. member for Toronto Northwest calmly announced his intention to talk out a bill. I am protesting against the whole business of obstructing the work of the house in this way, and I think I am supported by this section.
Mr, SMITH (Stormont): Would the minister permit a. question? Does he not think the hon. gentleman who has spoken to-night has brought- up some points which do not indicate obstruction? He has shown the possibility of this road selling out, and he has shown that valuable franchises may be given for speculative purposes. Does not the minister think these matters should be drawn to the attention of the committee?


Mr. MANION:: I think when a group get together to talk over things they should put up iheir best performer; I do not think we should be forced to listen for an hour to an uninteresting speech of this kind.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


John Frederick Johnston: Is the hon. gentleman speaking to the point of order?
M'r. MANION:	Yes. I think my hon.
friends would do better with a good speaker rather than such a dull performer.


Mr. CANNON:: Before giving your decision, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that you look up the debate on the Georgian bay canal bill.


John Frederick Johnston: Early in the discussion I thought the remarks of the hon. member
[The Chairman.^
were irrelevant and asked him to bring them more closely to bear on the subject before the committee. Later on I thought his remarks were relevant and allowed him to proceed.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: Now that this discussion has concluded we will go on.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Your time is up.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: No, it is not. I have tried to bring to the attention of hon. members who have been deliberately blocking bills of importance to southern Ontario the fact that if necessary we can hit back. A few settlers in Alberta may suffer, but it is a serious thing to Ontario that these bridge companies are not permitted to spend the millions of dollars which they propose to spend. We have the same responsibility to our electors, and we have just as much right to voice our opinions in this chamber. For instance, what right has the hon. member for Bow River to place an amendment on the order paper asking that a certain portion of the tolls collected on these bridges should be paid to the Dominion government? I submit that that is a matter for the Minister of Finance, and I did not know that he had delegated any of his powers to the hon. member for Bow River. I do not think the hon. member was in order in placing such an amendment on the order paper, which he did for no other reason than to obstruct the passage of these particular bills.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: You cannot get me excited; holler all you like. I like to hear the Tories holler, because it shows they are being hit in the light gpot. However, I have attained my objective; I have shown hon. gentlemen opposite the foolishness of the tactics which they have pursued, so I think my time has l ot been entirely wasted. We are willing to co-operate. We are just as interested in Alberta and in the welfare of Alberta as we are in southern Ontario. I feel where there is unanimity in such matters, there should not be placed on the order paper by hon. members motions obviously for no purpose other than obstruction of these bills. For instance, the member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) knew so little about the matter of the Detroit river bridge-which is being constructed to-day at a cost of some $20,000,000 of American capital, with nine-tenths of the tolls upon it to be paid by Americans coming over to Canada, where they will spend hundreds of millions of dollars-that he voted against it. He says that

Edmonton, Dunvegan Railway
the bill should be a government measure. Now if we asked an appropriation of $20,000,000 to build such a bridge, he would be one of the first-
Mr. KELLNER,: Mr. Chairman, the parliament of Canada should not listen to a debate on a little matter down in southern Ontario when a bill for something out in southern Alberta is under consideration. There can be no relevance in the argument, if it is an argument, which the hon. member has been making for the last half hour. I want to remind you, Mr. Chairman, that he has persistently read documents, newspapers and speeches, speeches made by members of the Alberta legislature. I am quite satisfied that during the larger part of the time he has not been in order, and I submit that it is due to parliament that the hon. member be kept a little closer to the subject.


John Frederick Johnston: In reference to this
point of order, if hon. members would assist the chair in keeping order, it would be easier. At this distance it has been very hard to hear what is being said.
Mr. KELLNEiR: I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that there were things he said which were entirely out of order, and it might be well, to rule upon them.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Chairman, I do not know what there is to rule upon. I have done my very utmost to listen to the remarks of the hon. member, but I could not understand what he was saying. I am in no position to say whether he was out of order or not. If the hon. gentleman who has just spoken will tell us what was said, we will know. I would recommend, however, that he tell us in a tone of voice sufficiently loud to be audible, whereupon we in this section of the house may know whether or not the hon. gentleman is out of order. I would like the point of order to be stated as clearly as possible.


Mitchell Frederick Hepburn: To satisfy my own
curiosity, sir, I would like the hon. member to answer the query as to where I was out of order.


John Frederick Johnston: I do not want to be discourteous to the hon. member who raised the point of order. If order is kept in the committee so that I shall be able to hear the hon. gentleman who was speaking, I will see that he keeps in order.
in English have so greatly interested the house. Notwithstanding what the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) may think, we are not trying to obstruct or oppose the bill of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy). May we assure him that our intentions are of the very best towards him and that he has no more devoted or sincere friends than those who sit, Sir, to your right.
There are two, things to be noted in this bill: the first, is that the company requests an extension of about 102 miles of its line from mile 357; the second, is a request for a further extension of about 86 miles. I must say, Sir, that I do not look favourably cn private companies, especially those of railway companies which seek to obtain a charter like the one, at present, under consideration. We have the experience of the past in regard to private companies that have asked for grants to construct railways and which had but one aim in view, that of selling their interests or concede their rights for money consideration. We cannot conceive for a moment that a company, which is really in earnest and really has the intention to develop its line, will spend enormous sums to purchase locomotives, cars and construct a railway, simply to operate a few miles as in the present case. The experience of the past has been too dearly bought with schemes of this nature to induce us to adopt without matured thought the present project submitted to our consideration. We have seem, for instance, the National Railways forced to purchase branch lines from one end of Canada to the other at very high prices in order to save from bankruptcy companies whose shareholders would otherwise have been ruined.


Finlay MacDonald: Time is up.


Mr. SYLVESTRE (Text):: I may say that my hon. friend does not disturb me.
(Translation) : That is why I rose to take part in the discussion of the present bill, and notwithstanding the remarks of our national desk-pounder, it will not hinder me from discussing what interests me. The National Railways are already a burden on the country. . . .
Progress reported.


Armand Sylvestre: Mr. Chair- Mr. SPEAKER: The hour for private bills man, I may be allowed to make a few com- having been exhausted, the house will now ments in French seeing that the remarks made revert to committee of supply.



Supply-Public Works-Ontario



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Power in the chair.
Ottawa

Rideau hall-alterations, improvements and furnishings, $50,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman,
when six o'clock was called I was on my feet and about to move an amendment to this item. I beg leave to move, seconded by Mr. Evans:
That the item, "Rideau hall-alterations, improvements and furnishings, $50,000," be reduced by $40,000.
As we were leaving the chamber, one of my Liberal friends jokingly suggested that I was following the lead of the Conservatives. In regard to the very elaborate furnishings of Rideau Hall I am inclined to think the Conservatives are following the lead of the Labour party, because for several yearn we have protested against the extravagant expenditure in connection with the office of the governor general. For some years past that expenditure has been steadily climbing. The other evening we were discussing a very heavy expenditure, of an extra $150,000, to provide for completing a residence at the citadel at Quebec.
It is only a few years ago, in 1924, that we had an item of nearly $43,000 for governor general's cans. Altogether during the last ten years in connection with the Department of Railways and Canals on account of governor general's cars we have spent more than $100,000 and I understand that a very heavy expenditure is contemplated this year, has in fact been made and will later be presented to the house. The figures in connection with the upkeep of Rideau hall for the past ten years are as follows:
Fiscal year	Amount
1917-18		.. .. $75,579 49
1918-19		.. .. 59,994 72
1919-20		.. .. 61,985 46
1920-21		.. .. 69,981 38
1921-22		.. .. 81,906 12
1922-23		.... 94,425 12
1923-24		.... 94,426 64
1924-25		.. .. 96,067 42
1925-26		.. .. 99,344 34
1926-27		.. .. 128,560 72
That makes a total for the ten years ending 1927 of $862,271.41. With the comparatively small item of $26,374.32 for governor general's quarters at Quebec citadel, there has been a total expenditure in the ten years for the residence alone of the governor general of $888,645.73. We thought last year we were almost at an end of repairs, additions and refurnishings, but this year we have before 
us an item of $50,000 and there appears on the next page-I do not know why the items are separated-the following item:
Rideau Hall, including grounds, improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc., $60,000.
That is, for these two items alone-and there are many others-we are asked to vote $110,000 this year. That will not provide for the ordinary expenses of maintenance. There seems to be no limit to this kind of thing. We may give some little latitude to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Public Works, both of whom are bachelors in their enthusiasm for house furnishing, but those of us who have had something to do with furnishing our homes might think it almost time to call a halt in the kind of furnishings and the elaborate scale on which they have been offered. I want to give only two or three items to afford the committee and the country some idea of how this grarit has been spent in the past and how doubtless similar grants will be spent in the future. From the Auditor General's report for the year ended March 31, 1927, part V, page 16, I take the following items in connection with materials, supplies and repairs for Rideau hall:
Hobbs Hardware Co., London, Ont., coffee pots, $330; coffee sets, $235.50; cream and milk jugs, $550.80; flat dishes, $518; forks, $795.83; hot water jugs, $142.50; knives, $591.75; salvers, $193.50; spoons, $879.83; sugar basins, $205.20; tea pots. $261; tea sets, $219; toast racks, $189; sundries. $109.38 on account sundry supplies, $7,684.24.-Total, $12,965.53.
The next item is:
Smallman & Ingram, London, Ont., 82 pr. blankets, $1,038.95; carpet, 654 yds., $5,929.81, sundry, $948,25; 24 comforters, $504; 187 pr. curtains, $777.15; 146 yds. damask, $657; 16 doz. doylies, $288; 42lj yds. linen, $1,992.25; 442J yds. lining, $442.25; 24 luncheon cloths, $672;	40 yds. repp, $170;	2 rugs, $1,260,
$601.25; 36 pr. sheets, $781.50; table linen, $1,285.50; 48 doz. towels, $459.60; sundries, $1,457.80.-Total, $19,265.31.
And the third item is:
Accounts under $1,000: billiard table, $851.28; clocks, $292; electrical work, $170.16; erection of birch stairs, $400; hardware and plumbing supplies, $803.97; house furnishings, $1,051.09; lumber, doors, etc., $1,600.08; marble and tile work, $519.60; radiola, $362.50; pianos, Nord-heimer, $540, Knabe Grand, $1,650, less $750 allowed for old one; sundries, $1,433.42.-Total, $8,924.10.
I have ventured to read these items' simply because I think the people who pay for these things ought to know the extent to which we are furnishing Rideau Hall. I had rather thought that having done all that last year -and things were in pretty good condition before we began doing it-we might have had some cessation of this expenditure. We have

Supply

Public Works-Ontario
purchased one radio, several pianos and things of that kind. Some of us in our own homes are sitill using the china which we had when we were married and some of us have not even been able to afford a radio. Even some hon. members who presumably are living on a scale a good deal higher than that of many of the ordinary working people and farmers cannot afford many of these things. Yet this is the scale we are maintaining for the upkeep of two individuals who happen to be our guests here for the time. I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether this is s'etting the best example to our young Canadian people. We have been told that work and thrift are the great things which we ought to have in Canada. We were told in the early days that we ought to develop Spartan-like qualities. Is it a good thing for us to set uip on this scale? I have wondered!-amd I have wondered where it is going to end. Everything should be more or less in proportion. I had a letter to-day from a civil servant, an employee of this government, from which I shall read a paragraph. I cannot help thinking of these things when I come to vote on expenditures of this character. It reads:
Seeing that we shall not get any general advance in salaries this year, I hope some means will be found, before the house prorogues, to get the government to consider the payment of a minimum salary of $100 per month to all adult fully employed civil servants. This is the most important part to us, as I do not know, speaking frankly, how these married men manage to hang out on their $75 and $85 per month pittances. I am a house owner myself, and have an exceptional lass for my wife, and am on the top grade as a letter carrier, so do not feel the pinch; but how the others manage, and how local merchants can expect to carry on successfully with these wages prevailing is beyond me entirely.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Whom did my hon. friend say the letter was from?


James Shaver Woodsworth: It is from a letter carrier.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is his
name and the date of the letter?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think
it is necessary to give the name of a private correspondent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that it is quite contrary to the rules of the house for anyone to read a letter unless he is prepared to give the name of the writer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister will have to show me that rule before I can accept it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think I can show it to my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have quoted from a private letter that has come to me only today, and which states what I believe to be the facts. I have done so simply because I feel that in this house we are too apt to be caught in the atmosphere of the capital city and to judge things by the standards of thh wealthy people whom we may meet with here, and we need sometimes either to go-back home or to receive letters from home in order to be brought face to face with the actual conditions which confront large numbers of our people in Canada to-day. Only the other day I happened to be talking to a young working woman right here in the city of Ottawa. She was rather downcast, and I learned the reason. She said to me, "My wedding will have to be postponed. I had hoped to be married on the first of May, but my young man cannot get work, and so we cannot get married this year." That kind of thing is quite common to-day, and as I think of these young lives in which the happiness of setting up a home is indefinitely postponed because there is very little chance of getting work, even in the springtime of the year; when I think of the many homes in which medical treatment or a surgical operation is postponed year after year, much as it may be needed, because of the great expense; when I think of the many homes where the coming of a baby into the home is a domestic tragedy, when I think of the long years of part payments which so many people have to make in order to get the ordinary necessities of their home life, I wonder if we in Canada are justified in authorizing such elaborate expenditures as we pass so lightly in this house.
I have said that these are matters of comparison. I turn over to another page in these very estimates, to page 60, where under the heading of "Miscellaneous" I find:
Grant for the Canadian National Institute for the blind, $10,000.
Grant to the Canadian Council on child welfare, $5,000.
Grant to the Canadian Dental Hygiene Council, $5,000.
Grant to the Canadian Social Hygiene Council, $10,000.
Grant to the Canadian Tuberculosis Association, $25,000.
Grant to the Canadian National Committee for mental hygiene, $10,000.
You could put all these items together, Mr. Chairman, and they amount to practically the same as this one item which we are now being asked to vote for improving and furnishing Rideau Hall. Or I turn to the page of these estimates opposite to that

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
on which is the item under discussion, and I find an item greater than the total of these I have read. With the money that we are asked to vote for that one item we could double our grants to all the institutions that I have just mentioned. Surely when the government takes the ground that because of the state of the treasury, it cannot grant more than five or ten thousand dollars to these national institutions that are attempting to carry on a national work for the welfare of the public, we cannot but pause and ask whether we are justified in spending so much on carpets and curtains and all sorts of luxuries of that kind. Only in the papers to-day I read that the Prime Minister and the government have refused to continue the grant to the provinces for technical education-a matter that is vitally connected with the industrial welfare of this country and with the future of our girls and boys. When the Dominion government cannot see its way to continue its grants to the provinces for thi3 important work, I wonder if we are justified in continuing such large expenditures of this kind.
When the beautification of the city of Ottawa was being considered I did not once rise, not that I did not feel strongly on the matter, but I was willing to let that one large expenditure go by, and other people were protesting. I yield to no one in my desire to have the capital city beautiful and dignified, but I would submit that we are in danger of centralizing the beauty and the dignity of the country here in the capital city, and letting other parts of the country go with very little consideration. I say, therefore, that it behooves us, when items of this character come up, to check them very closely. In this particular case it is not as if those things represented by this expenditure were available to all. The reason I feel most strongly with regard to matters of this kind is that in reality only a very small class, a very exclusive class, gets whatever benefit there is in an expenditure of this kind. It is only a few people who can go to Rideau Hall. It is only a few people who can enjoy these things. It is only a small class in Ottawa, most of them having opportunities in other ways of enjoying good food and pleasant surroundings. As long as there are so many under-privileged in this country, I question whether we are justified in adding still further to the advantages of the over-privileged classes.

There is another consideration I should like to advance, and it is this. I take it that from now on the governor general will be chosen on the advice of His Majesty's ministers in Canada. He will be the representative of His Majesty, but be chosen on the advice of His Majesty's Canadian ministers. Undoubtedly it will be only a short time before the one so chosen will be a Canadian. I have no objection to having a representative from the motherland here. I think we should have one, and we are going to have one here soon in a new capacity. But supposing as the representative of His Majesty in this country there is appointed, on the advice of his Canadian ministers, a Canadian. Do we wish to continue to maintain a standard of this kind? Again I come back to my ideals of Canadian citizenship. I believe we are acting in harmony with the ideals of the great majority of Canadians if we endeavour to approximate as nearly as pos-. sible to a condition under which everyone will have more or less an equal chance. By these votes we are setting up privileges that are available to a comparatively small group, but which must be paid for out of the taxation of the masses of this country. On behalf of the labour people whom I am trying to represent-and I know I have the backing of a great many outside that group- I protest again, as I did the other evening, against these very lavish expenditures.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Chairman, for many years I have supported in this house votes for the necessary improvements and to meet the necessary expenses in connection with the residence of the governor general. I believe Canada should be reasonably generous towards such votes; but we have before us certain proposals of the government which are extravagant and unreasonable. For years there has appeared in the estimates an item of $60,000, described as: "Rideau Hall, including grounds-improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc." In other words, that item is to maintain and preserve the dignity and high standing of the residence. In adition to that, immediately below is an item of $19,000, being an allowance for fuel and light-really part of the expenses of the establishment. There is nothing paid out of that item for the salaries of clerks or other members of the staff. Last session this house voted an extra Sum of $50,000 for special work at Rideau Hall. I had no great objection to it. It was granted as a special vote. But we find this year the

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
government comes forward again with a similar vote of $50,000 for further expenditure in this regard. The minister ought to indicate precisely what this is requred for. Has this $50,000 which he is now asking for, or any portion of it, been already spent?


John Campbell Elliott: The purposes for which this $50,000 is asked are set out with more or less detail in the report presented to the department by the architect as the result of representations made to him by the comptroller of the household. It is required for general alterations and improvements, and for the purchase of certain furnishings for Rideau Hall. Certain details are given.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Would the minister read those details?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to. The alterations and improvements are of a general nature, owing to the fact that for many years the hall and the furnishings were allowed to depreciate. Perhaps it would throw some light on this question to say that from 1914 to 1920 an appropriation was made each year of $65,000, the amount which was being expended at. the outbreak of war.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that correspond to the vote of $60,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; if is because the $60,000 referred to in the other vote will not be sufficient to meet some extra requirements owing to the dilapidations that have occurred on account of the $65,000 practically not having been expended since 1914. Prior to that year we were spending generally about $65,000. In 1914-15 the vote was a little overexpended-$65,176. As a matter of fact I think that has usually been the case.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does that $65,000 include fuel?


John Campbell Elliott: No, that is for repairs to all these various buildings. They form a long list and cover an extensive area. Most of them are pretty old and require some repairs every year. After the outbreak of war the expenditures were cut down to the limit, running around $40,000, and necessary repairs were not attended to on account of the gr< at demands made upon the treasury by the w ir.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister give us those expenditures?
Mr. ELLIOTT- Yes.
	Voted	Expended
1914-15. .	.. .. $65,000	$65,1761915-16. .	.. .. 65.000	57,0001916-17. .	.. .. 65,000	63,0001917-18..	.. .. 65.000	58.0001918-19..	.. .. 65,000	41,0001919-20..	. . .. 65,000	44,0001920-21..	.. .. 50,000	49,0001921-22..	. . .. 60.000	60,0001922-23..	. . .. 60,000	58,000
From that time on $60,000 has been voted each year and always spent-sometimes a little over-spent.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give us the over-expenditures?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. In 1925-26 the overexpenditure ran to $2,698. In 1926-27 the vote was not exceeded, and the same applies to the vote for the following year. It will be seen that during those years the aggregate amount not spent was less than the total over-expenditure. I am giving the figures so that my hon. friends will see the dilapidation that has taken place in all these buildings. At this juncture perhaps I might refer to the list of buildings that are included in this property and which have been a part of it for some time. The following buildings are included: The governor general's residence; cloakroom; greenhouse; conservatories; potting shed; military secretary's residence; two semi-detached residences on Lisgar road; duplex apartments, Lisgar road; lodge at front entrance gate; superintendent's residence, Thomas street; garage; stables; laundry; dairy; guardroom and shed; curling rink; refreshment room; yard of rink; workshop; stores buildings. There is a long list of buildings covering a great area and requiring considerable repairs annually. The repairs have not been made since 1914 to anything like the extent which the government has considered proper, and that depreciation accounts in a large measure for the expenditures which have had to be made in recent years.


Mr. SPENCER:: Are these buildings all
built of brick or stone, and if so is the depreciation very considerable?


John Campbell Elliott: All the buildings, except
the superintendent's house, which is of frame, are of brick or stone.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister come
back to the $50,000 item both for last year and for this year, and tell us what was spent last year and how he proposes to spend the amount this year?


John Campbell Elliott: I have referred to the
depreciation in the buildings and structures generally; I have said nothing about furnish-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
ings. I am informed that the expenditures from 1914 to 1924 have been largely in repairs to the buildings and on work done on the grounds. As to the furnishings, practically nothing was spent during those years. So that a year or two ago the government were faced with the question of practically recarpeting and refurnishing the whole of the house. That is to a large extent the nature of the expenditures, the details of which I will give. Certain amounts accrued in 1926-27 and were paid in 1927-28, amounting to 82,334.53. I have not the details, but they were for certain demands made before the end of the year and paid after the beginning of the following year. For carpets, rugs, draperies, table linen and things of that kind, there was an expenditure of $5,045.75; for glassware and dishes for the various households, $8,832.50; for silverware, $399; for pavement of property, $4,508.40; for new verandah and steps, $3,859.40; for tennis courts and enclosures, $1,754.30; for materials used in connection with repairs

I can give my hon. friend the list of materials if he wishes it-$10,858.28; and pay list for labour, $12,407.84. That is how the $50,000 is made up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much is that?


John Campbell Elliott: That is $50,000. Now, for the present we are requested to make certain other repairs including a new fence around the grounds, estimated at $6,000. It is proposed to replace the old fence, which is practically falling down, with an iron fence.


Robert Gardiner: Any stock around there?
Mr, ELLIOTT: Yes, a good deal at times.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the present fence iron?


John Campbell Elliott: No; it is a wooden fence. Then there is the decoration of the ballroom, $2,000. There is a request for a tennis pavilion, $2,000, and, for the installation of additional bathrooms on account of further requirements in that direction, $1,500.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does that
mean?


John Campbell Elliott: What it says. Also carpets, $2,000, and dishes and glassware, $3,000. These are all that we have details of. The balance of the $50,000 will be made up of materials for general repairs to the buildings and for work done by the men.
Mr. IRVI'NE: What became of the furnishings which must have been there prior to the purchase of the new outfit? Certain silverware must no doubt have been there before. What has become of it?
fMr. Elliott'.]


John Campbell Elliott: It is all there still. The silverware that was there is preserved and is still in use. This is additional silverware required.


William Irvine: If this keeps up you will have to build a house to store the silverware.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give us the details for the balance of the item?


John Campbell Elliott: The rest is undetermined; it will consist of general furnishings and repairs.


Robert Gardiner: You will spend all the money ?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend need have no doubt about that.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: On page 33 there is an item of $60,000 for improvements, furniture, maintenance and so forth. I presume the minister will give us the details of that item.


John Campbell Elliott: The question is a pertinent one, and I propose to give the details showing what are covered in that item. I may point out that there is a regular staff of gardeners and labourers-


Robert Gardiner: Let us have some of the items.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a regular staff of some thirty-five men. The salaries for the thirty-five men ordinarily engaged as servants are estimated at $45,346; then there is $3,200 for additional assistance and for the repairs, purchase of materials, supplies and so forth used in connection with the grounds and premises, $11,453.


Henry Elvins Spencer: That is out of the $60,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister tell
us what furniture is being bought?


John Campbell Elliott: There will be nothing for furnishings if you pay the salaries of the thirty-five men out of the $60,000, but I think those are the terms under which this item has been usually passed. For years, however, no furnishings have been supplied under it, because it has gone to pay the salaries of the servants and for material used around the building.


Robert Gardiner: Are these thirty-five
labourers employed under the patronage system ?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think that system prevails there; most of them have been there for many years as gardeners, butlers and so on, and I do not think the patronage system prevails to any extent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The minister has
an item of $50,000 here, and he has only given us items totalling $16,000. What about the remainder?


John Campbell Elliott: We have not the details.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is there an
estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; for the general repairs and improvements which will be required, it is estimated that the additional amount will be necessary. Our experience in the past leads us to believe that this is quite within the mark.


Mr. ROBB:: Before the item passes-.


James Dew Chaplin: It is not going to pass
just yet.


James Alexander Robb: Then before my hon. friend
speaks on it I should like briefly review the situation as it appears to the Department of Finance and to the treasury board. My colleague the Minister of Public Works has reminded the committee that during the war period this property was very much neglected, and that is only one side of the question. During the war period, when there was a great patriotic move throughout the country, there was no place in the (Capital where people gathered more frequently to consider ways and means of helping out in the war than at government house. Government house was visited from time to time not only by Canadians interested in war work but by visitors from other countries, and during that period the household furnishings were pretty well worn. I confess that when my colleague first brought to the attention of the treasury board this amount necessary to restore this property to a condition of which Canadians would not be ashamed, we did think it was a considerable sum, but we were asked to go down to government house ourselves and look it over. When we did so, as Canadians we were humiliated to find that when guests were expected from other countries, or when representative Canadians from all the provinces gathered there, the people at government house were compelled to go frequently to the Chateau Laurier or to the Rideau Club to borrow chinaware, glassware and even the forks and spoons used on the table. That was the condition which existed, and we found that the rugs throughout the house and the furniture generally was in a very shabby
condition. I would not feel proud to invite visitors from other countries even to my own humble home if it were in the condition in which we found government house. Their Excellencies were reasonable; they said, "We can get along with it if Canada can, but they submitted to us that it was not a good advertisement for this country. Every person knows that at government house they entertain from time to time not only Canadians who come there, not only members of parliament, but persons from other countries. Just at the moment I remember that this year they entertained representatives of the crown, the Prime Minister of the motherland, the Prime Minister of the Irish Free State, representatives from Australia, from New Zealand, from South Africa and from the United States who came to Canada. Would any member of this parliament desire to have these visitors leave Ottawa with the impression that Canada was down at the heels? We determined that the finances were in such a condition that we might, very properly put this property in such a state of repair that Canadians would not be ashamed of it.
When I look over the amounts being spent by the Dominion in restoring this property and compare them with the amounts which the present occupant of that office must pay out of his own pocket, I do not think we stand in a very good position in criticizing these votes. I heard an hon. gentleman say a moment ago that he hoped the day would come soon when a Canadian might occup3r that position. I do not take any great exception to that statement, but if a Canadian is to carry on in this position at the pace which has been maintained recently, it will cost him a lot of money; it costs the present occupant of that office a good deal of money to keep up his end in addition to what the government does. While hon. members of this house imagine they are preaching economy it does not appeal to the Minister of Finance in that way, because I have observed that almost every hon. member who has spoken has found fault because we are not spending some money in his own constituency. I have only to look across the floor or at some of my friends on this side of the house to see hon. members who have urged me to give consideration to a particular public work in the constituencies which they represent. I do not find any fault with that; probably as time goes along, and perhaps sooner than they imagine, we may be able to meet their requests, but I submit to the house that if Canadians are to maintain a government house it should be done right.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
Not very long ago in this very province of Ontario the newspapers, irrespective of party, carried on a campaign against government house in Toronto. They were going to get rid of it, and they almost did so when a Progressive government came in. When the Progressive government came in and looked the situation over and bad a conference with the 'lieutenant governor, they represented to the lieutenant-governor, so I am told, that they did not object to maintaining the government house in a way that the province would be proud of, but what they objected to was some cf the conditions that had been reported to prevail there. And the lieutenant governors coming into that house, because they happened to be wealthy men, able to spend their own money, have made government house in the province of Ontario popular. If then the government house in the province of Ontario is popular, how much greater reason is there to make the government house of the Dominion of Canada popular? At Rideau Hall Their Excellencies entertain not only members of parliament and visitors from sister nations, but representatives, for instance, of all the different churches of Canada who come here from time to. time. I recall that not very long ago they entertained representatives of a teachers' association. They are always entertaining visitors who come to the capital city. They are ready to do their part, and are spending their money; and surely the least we can do is to keep that place in a respectable condition.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I want to ask the
Minister of Finance if he thinks it is a good thing that we should set up such style that only rich men could occupy that position?


James Alexander Robb: I submit to my hon. friend that if we are to keep an official residence for the governor general, we Should at least maintain it in such a condition that when a representative Australian comes here, or a representative of New Zealand, of the Irish Free State or of the mother country, we shall not be ashamed of it, and the visitors will have occasion to go back and say: Well, after all, Canada is a pretty good country-as good as our own.


John Evans: 
James Alexander Robb: I will venture to say that the average civil servant in Canada is paid more than my hon. friend pays his employees. -


John Evans: My employees have always
been paid a living wage. I venture to say that $917 is not a living wage in Canada today. More than that, the minister has spoken of the different viewpoints between the Progressives and the bureaucrats of Toronto and Ottawa. I want to tell him that the Progressives when in power in any of the provinces have been the best governments. The Progressive government that was in Toronto could account for every .dollar that was spent.


Mr. GOTT:: Quite so, and they ended up with a deficit of $15,000,000.


John Evans: Perhaps they did not beautify the grounds of the lieutenant-governor. The grounds and the governor's residence would have had attention if required. The line of cleavage that has been drawn, particularly the last two years, by this parliament between those who have to work for their living and those who are at the head of affairs in this nation is daily becoming more and more objectionable. Much as I dislike to oppose these votes as they come along, I should not be doing my duty to-day did I not protest against this lavish extravagance.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance, speaking for the treasury board, accuses some op. this side of the house of being quite willing to spend a lot more money, and further accuses them of asking for money to be spent in their own constituencies. I can answer the minister,

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
at any rate as far as my constituency is concerned, by saying that that remark does not apply to me. I think the Minister of Finance will search a long time before he will find any instance where I have asked to have money spent in my constituency.
The spokesman for the treasury is not acting in his usual maimer. Everybody has been referring to him as a sort of watchdog, but evidently the dog has gone to sleep just lately.
I do not think the Minister of Finance will take umbrage at those remarks. I have too high a regard for him to think that he would. As far as "watchdog" is concerned, I think I have heard him refer to himself in almost exactly those terms; and consequently he is not likely to bake offence. I do not use the expression in any derogatory sense; I simply say that he has lost his vocation for the moment. An hon. member reminds me that he has not had much bite, but apparently the dog has lost his grip in Tespect of these things.
The Minister of Finance refers to the province of Ontario as having spent a lot of money on its government house, and he says; "Oh well, only a wealthy man can take the job, and somebody down there has made it popular." The person who held the position, the last occupant of the office, made it popular by spending his own money. That is one of the prerogatives of people who get these high positions. While they may set a good example to us and spend a lot of money, that is no earthly reason why in times like these we should go crazy, as if we were bitten by a dog and contracted rabies or something of that kind. I want to call the attention of the house to the difference between the minister's statement to-night regarding the expenditure at Rideau Hall, and what a return brought down the other day discloses. The Minister of Finance says we have not kept up these buildings, and yet the other minister here tells us that even during the years of the war we were spending on an average over 350,000 a year on the upkeep of Rideau Hall.


James Malcolm: Oh no.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh yes, he does; and besides, I have under imy hand a return which shows something entirely different. The Minister of Trade and Commerce may say no, but I want to-


James Malcolm: The Minister of Public Works said that about two-thirds of that vote was for salaries for the staff.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think the minister will say that. I will sit down while the minister does say it.


Charles A. Stewart: Go on. We like to heat my hon. friend.


James Dew Chaplin: My hon. friend had better keep out of this. I have in imy hand a return brought down only a short time ago, and according to it the upkeep and improvements at Rideau Hall during the past ten years were as follows:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1917-18		.... $ 75,579 49
1918-19		.. .. 59,994 72
1919-20		. . . . 61.985 46
1920-21		. . .. 69.981 38
1921-22		.. .. 81,906 12
1922-23		.. .. 94,425 12
1923-24		. . .. 94,426 64
1924-25		. . .. 96,067 42
1925-26		.. .. 99.344 34
1926-27		.. .. 128,560 72
My opinion is that	sums of that size
very generous to keep in repair and to take care of depreciation of stone and ordinary brick buildings. That is a very large sum of money to lay out each year in the repair and upkeep of buildings. When the Minister of Finance tells us that we are asking for the expenditure of money, let me say to him that constituencies throughout the whole of Canada are in need of public services in the public interest and yet these moneys are being spent-in folderols. That is all there is to it.


Robert James Manion: I have not taken very much part in the discussion to-day and I should like to say a word in regard to the statement made by the Minister of Finance as to those who ask for the expenditure of money in their constituencies. We should be living in a strange country if all the money that we collected and spent on public buildings and so forth should be spent in Ottawa. This year we have had immense sums spent in this city and at Rideau Hall and other places and that is what the party on this side of the house is protesting against. Certainly I as a member of parliament have no intention of sitting silent in the house and not asking for necessary expenditures, for example in my constituency. Most of the expenditures asked for in different constituencies by members in various parts of the house are asked for as expenditures which will bring in a return or which are necessary to provide postal customs or other facilities. I wish to put myself on record as taking the stand that simply because some member requests that necessary money be spent ini his constituency for some particular work, that does mot preclude him from standing up and protesting against what he considers to be unnecessary expenditures in Ottawa or elsewhere.
Amendment (Mr. Woodsworth) negatived.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Henry Elvins Spencer: Before this item carries I should like some further information from the minister. The two items of $50,000 and $60,000 that we are discussing to-night amount to $110,000 and the minister hag given us details in regard to amounts of $45,000 and $16,000, or a total of $61,000. It seems only reasonable that we should ask and expect to receive answers as to how the balance is going to be applied. Surely where repairs and changes are being made in such an important building as Rideau Hall, plans should be made well in advance, and I cannot understand why the minister is unable <to give us 'particulars how the money is going to be spent. Going back into past history we find that from time to time royalty has been extravagant and that parliament has had to step in and criticize the expenditure of kings. In this case we have in Canada a representative of His Majesty who, in the opinion of many members, is getting a little too extravagant for the welfare of this country. It is a very unpleasant duty, I admit, but it is our duty to draw the attention of the government, who ask us to vote for these items, to the fact that we consider these things are too expensive.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend think his question is fair? If he had paid attention to what I told 'him a moment ago, I stated that the $60,000 item was taken up with wages of the thirty-five servants amounting to more than $45,000, and materials used by them in connection with the various services there, amounting to about $15,000. That covers the $60,000. That leaves $50,000, of which I have given my hon. friend the details.


Henry Elvins Spencer: For $16,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and I have told him that the balance was made up in furnishings required from time to time, improvements and repairs.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Is it the intention to build any addition to any of the buildings and, if so, has the minister the architect's plan so that he can tell us what is going to be done?
M:r. ELLIOTT: The only addition that is proposed is a tennis pavilion amounting to $10,000. May I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that if t'he $65,000 item that was thought necessary and that was expended in 1914 had been followed right through, instead of what has been expended annually since that time in this particular connection, it would have made up $120,000 of the $150,000 that we spent the year before last,
[Mr. Manion.l
this last year and that we are asking for now. This is practically to make up the deficiency for those years. I would suggest, if I might, that the item of $60,000 appearing on page 33, and having a direct relation to the matter we have just been considering, be now discussed while we have the whole matter in mind.


Henry Elvins Spencer: This item has not been carried yet and the minister has already given us the particulars that make up the $60,000 item. The particulars we want are in connection with the $50,000 item. He has not given them to us; he has given us details covering only $16,000 and I am going to give him a wide margin. I beg to move:
That item 127: Ottawa, Rideau Hall alterations, improvements and furnishings, be reduced by $20,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not see any advantage in repetition. I have already given my hon. friend all the information I have on the subject, all the information that is available at the present moment, I have given him details as to the fencing, t(he decorations, bathrooms, carpets, glassware, and so forth, and it is the opinion of the architect who has looked over the grounds and buildings that it will be necessary to provide certain new furnishings and repairs, of which he cannot give definite details at the present time, but they will be required in the present year.


Robert Gardiner: If the minister is so satisfied that they will be required, why cannot he give the details?


John Campbell Elliott: They are general repairs.


Robert Gardiner: That is not a reasonable answer. If the archiect thinks that they will be required, he should give some information as to what is required, and what will be the cost. I would remind the minister again that he has only given an explanation with regard to items totalling $16,000. The amendment proposed by my hon. friend from Battle River is to reduce the item by $20,000, so there will still be a margin left of $14,000. Does not the minister think that would be sufficient for the additional requirements, especially in view of the fact that the architect is not in a position to give any details as to what the balance is required for?
Amendment (Mr. Spencer) negatived.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rideau Hall, including grounds-improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc., $60,000.
Miss MACPHAIL:: I do not think it is the desire of any member of this house to seem

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
to be mean in relation to the present occupants or any other occupants of government house, but one wonders where this thing is going to end. We do not mind reasonable expenditures. But last night we passed an item to renovate a residence in Quebec at a cost of 1150,000, and if certain rumours that come to one's ears to-day and other days are well founded, even these two residences will not be all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to relieve niy hon. friend's mind at once about any rumours there may be as to other residences for the purposes of the governor general. If there are any such rumours, they are entirely without foundation, and such a suggestion would not be countenanced by the government.


Agnes Campbell Macphail: I am very glad to hear it. Two are enough, I think. We do not want the people in government house to have to scurry out and borrow dishes and silverware. That is disgraceful. We ought to be able to provide them with enough cups and saucers and spoons so that they can eat and drink. Everybody wants to see our government houses places of beauty and culture and dignity, but all that can be had for a good deal less expenditure. I sometimes think that one almost trips over the attendants, there are so many. I am not so sure that all that is necessary in order that there shall be culture and beauty and dignity, and though it is unpleasant for me to have to say it, I think it is time that the parliament of Canada said that this is enough, and we are just saying that to the Minister of Public Works tonight, as we did last night. We feel sure that the government will take into their consideration, as the term is, the wishes of parliament in this matter. It has been very clearly shown last night and to-day that parliament does feel that the expenditure is sufficient and should not be added to, and that if there is to be a change of any kind, the amount should be reduced.


William Irvine: I think there are amounts
[DOT][DOT]otalling 8129,000 in the estimates immediately before us for Rideau Hall, and last *right we passed a vote of $150,000 for a similar purpose. To-morrow night perhaps we shall vote $200,000 more for the same purpose. I cannot say that I am really opposed to these votes because I think the people of Canada desire to maintain this kind of thing. As far as I am aware, no protest has come from any section of the country against these expenditures. It may be that they do
not know what is going on, and for that reason we ought to congratulate the hon. members of the house who have drawn the attention of parliament and of the country to the amounts we are expending for this purpose. Perhaps the more we spend in this way the better, because I do not know that there is any more emphatic way of attracting the attention of the public to the situation than by spending huge amounts of money. If they want to have royal conditions and all that kind1 of thing, they will have to pay for it. I do not think it would be wise for us to try to maintain the office in a secondhand way. If it is going to be maintained after the order, I was going to say, of Melchisedee, but that might be regarded as sacrilegious, so I will say after the order of the middle ages, we shall have to pay for it, and if we pay a little more, it might draw the attention of the public to the situation a little more speedily. On that ground I am not in favour of reducing these votes; in fact,
I would like to increase them. If we are going to have royalty in Canada, I want it to be real royalty; I do not want any of this second-hand business. Moreover, I want to see Rideau Hall provided with so many knives and forks that when parliamentarians are entertained there, there will be a few left.
So far as I am concerned I want to say frankly that I do not think we need government houses in the provinces. I think they ought to be done away with. I do not think we need a government house in Ottawa. But the people do. They have made no protest: certainly I have never received one. The people of Ottawa, so far as I have been able to observe, are very glad to welcome this kind of thing-perhaps they get some forks there too-and they know what is being paid. The more people are ruled the better they seem to like it; they seem to desire to bow and scrape before people. Well, if they enjoy that, let them pay for it. Why should we object? As long as they like that kind of thing, by all means let them have it, and let them pay for the bowing and the place to bow in. If they want to double the expenditure, that is the business of the people of Canada, and if to-night we have protests against this kind of expenditure, as the people evidently want them, I am not going to make any. I am going to wait and see whether the expose of these figures will be noticed by my constituents, and if they take up the protest of course I shall be glad to respond to their wishes. But until that time

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
I shall have to believe that Canada wants royalty, and if she does she will have to foot the bill.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: Will you call the next
item, telephone service, Mr. Chairman?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why do you want to jump to telephone service?


John Campbell Elliott: We are not jumping; we
are there now.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We willingly agreed to
go to that item and pass it, but now we should get back to the resolution that we were dealing with and finish it.


John Campbell Elliott: At the suggestion of my
hon. friend I will jump back.
Ottawa-towards purchase of building for government workshops, $12,750.


Robert Gardiner: What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the sixth annual payment on the purchase of the property.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-towards purchase of Daly building, $118,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: How much is still to be
paid on this building?


John Campbell Elliott: Four payments.


Robert Gardiner: What was the original
price?


John Campbell Elliott: Qne million dollars.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rockland-public building, $5,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: This 15,000, of which
$2,500 is a revote, is for the fittings, lock boxes, grading, sidewalks, and so on, required for the completion of the post office erected at Rockland during the year 1927-28.


Mr. LUCAS:: What is the postal revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: $2,412.


William Thomas Lucas: And the population?


John Campbell Elliott: 3,256.


William Thomas Lucas: Was this recommended by
the postal department?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not see any recommendation here.


Robert Gardiner: How would the item
get into the estimates without a recommendation?


John Campbell Elliott: A delegation of the residents and the local authorities interviewed the minister on February 26, 1924, resolutions were passed by the town council, and other representations were made locally.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Has the local member
recommended this?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Toronto-customs house, $500,000.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: This is another case where a building was required years ago, but on account of shortage of funds, due largely to the war, we have had to defer it until the present time. We have been renting buildings for the customs and other services in Toronto, paying fairly good rentals, but not getting the desired accommodation. The construction of the customs building will be started this year.


William Garland McQuarrie: Have you got the site?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, we own the land already. One of the reasons why it is advantageous to put up the building on our property close to the railway station is that to-day we are paying $15,000 a year for the transfer back and forth of the mail and customs packages that have to be dealt with in the examining warehouse. We expect to save a considerable part of this expense. I may tell my hon. friend very frankly that we are not putting up this building until we think it is required.


Robert James Manion: So the Toronto people have said.


Robert Gardiner: What is the estimated total cost?


John Campbell Elliott: What we propose to construct will cost, as near as possible, two million dollars. We are making a beginning this year.
M'r. DUNNING: It will be more than that ultimately.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but all that is to be constructed at the present time will cost two million dollars.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where are the Toronto members?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think they object.


Robert Gardiner: Let us have the final blow now.

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will get the final blow just as soon as I get it, and I do not intend to get it until I absolutely have to. It is thought that two million dollars will meet the requirements for some time to come. This expenditure will build two of the three units that are proposed. There will be an additional unit later on. It may not be required for perhaps ten or twelve years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings, improvements, repairs, etc., $35,000; Winnipeg-Fort Osborne barracks-new boilers, $45,000; Winnipeg post office-installation of pickup tables, $7,000; Winnipeg - Minto street armoury - fittings, $16,000; Winnipeg immigration building No. 2 -repairs and improvements, $2,700.-Total, $105,700.
Thomas Cantley: What is the $45,000 for
in connection with Fort Osborne barracks?


John Campbell Elliott: These are new boilers
required for the barracks. This sum is needed to provide for the installation of the third unit of three modern boilers there.
Mr. CANTLEY': Did we not have a similar item last year in connection with these boilers?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. The replacement of the existing boilers was commenced in 1926-27, the work to be spread over three years. In 1926-27 the first unit was installed, under contract with W. G. Edge, Limited, of Ottawa for $29,500. In 1927-28 the second unit was installed by the James Ballantyne Company of Winnipeg, the contract being for $35,397. In order to complete the work it is necessary to install the third and last unit this year, the appropriation being what is now asked.


Robert Gardiner: Are the units of different
sizes?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the specifications, but no doubt they are different.


Robert Gardiner: The first unit cost
$29,000, the second $35,000 and the third unit will now cost $45,000. Unless there is some difference in size and in other respects, an explanation should be given.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt there is
a difference in the performance of the different boilers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan-Dominion public buildings-[DOT] improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What are the particulars
in regard to the $17,000 for Dominion public buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the general vote.
It covers buildings all over the province. The amount expended for this purpose last year was $16,998; the previous year $16,139; the year before that $16,477. It is the usual vote.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The depreciation in
public buildings in Saskatchewan is not as great as the depreciation per annum in connection with Rideau Hall.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Albert-immigration building, $45,000. Mr. GARDINER: What is the need for this building?
Henry Herbert Stevens: It is the Prime Minister's riding; why should there not be a building there?


Ernest Lapointe: They deserve something. Mr. STEVENS: Surely.


John Campbell Elliott: It is one of the many
fortunate ridings in the country at the present time. The amount is required towards the purchase of a site and the erection of an immigration building at Prince Albert. The proposed building will be a two storey brick structure 90 feet by 35 feet, the estimated cost being $45,000. The erection of the building was requested by Mr. W. J. Egan, Deputy Minister of Immigration and Colonization, in communications extending over a number of years. In his letter of November 15, 1926, he states:
The department has for some years past had an immigration hall at Prince Albert, which, while possibly meeting our needs at the time of construction and for some period afterwards, is now found to be altogether inadequate. The building is frame, one-storey, 26' x 70' x 10', divided into two sections, practically one-third of it being used for the janitor's quarters, leaving available only eight rooms with a double bed in each for the use of immigrants and giving a maximum accommodation for sixteen persons only.
The movement of immigrants to this section has been gradually increasing yearly and in the spring of 1926 we had occasion to accommodate approximately 350 new arrivals in three months. What we have in mind is a two storey frame building capable of accommodating one hundred persons including families, the upper floor to be devoted to dormitories for men and women with separate rooms on the lower floor for families, together with quarters for the caretaker.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many places in Saskatchewan besides Prince Albert have immigration buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid my hon. friend will have to ask the Department of Immigration ; I could not give the information offhand. I might point out that the population of
2718	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
Prince Albert in a period of a little over twenty years has increased from 1,785 to 7,500 at the end of 1927. It has increased abput fivefold in tlhe last twenty years.


Robert Gardiner: How many persons will the building accommodate at one time?


John Campbell Elliott: It is intended to accommodate 100 persons including families, at one time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Albert public building-addition, $50,-
000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is an addition to the public building.


Harry Bernard Short: Prince Albert is well looked after.


John Campbell Elliott: We are trying to do the best we can.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the member for Prince Albert request this?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think he did; I have no recollection of his having done so.


Ernest Lapointe: He didn't oppose it.


John Campbell Elliott: I have heard no opposition. The amount is required towards the construction of an addition to the public building at Prince Albert to provide adequate accommodation for the postal, customs, Dominion lands, national parks and forestry services. The requirements in these various branches in Prince Albert have increased, as the population has increased, out of all proportion to the existing accommodation.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: Any recommendations?
Mr.	ELLIOTT:	From	nearly everybody.Some years ago the post office gave up to the taxation branch a portion of the space they occupied, on the understanding that if required this space would be returned. Now the post office has made application for the return of this space or its equivalent. A new sketch	has been	prepared showing	theadditional accommodation	required by	the
Department of the Interior, which necessitates a rearrangement of the whole scheme. It is considered that to enclose a portion of the court at the rear of the post office will give better accommodation than taking the space now used by the taxation branch. This will provide for the Department of the Interior, the parks branch and the forestry branch.
Mr.	STEVENS:	Will	it include	the
Soldier Settlement Board?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think so.


Mr. FORKE:: It is intended to have the
Soldier Settlement Board in the new immigration building when it is completed.


John Anderson Fraser: Will this amount complete the building?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the estimate.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Regina-tractor for postal purposes, $1,350.
William Thomas Lucas: Is this a standard tractor?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a standard tractor requested by the department, costing $1,350. W'e are getting this kind of tractor in almost every case.


John Anderson Fraser: Where are they made?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not that information, but they are the tractors used by the railways for similar work.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Why does a tractor come under this department? Why is this not provided by the Post Office department?


John Campbell Elliott: The Post Office department makes the request and we have to pay the money, just as we have to build the post offices.


Henry Elvins Spencer: This is the supply department?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. The Postmaster
General makes a request, and we have such faith in his requests that we try to grant them as far as possible.


John Anderson Fraser: That is how the Post
Office department shows a surplus from year to year; they do not pay for their equipment?


Mr. VENIOT:: I am sorry, but there is no surplus.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Regina-armoury, $33,500.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the first payment
on the purchase of a building for armoury purposes in the city of Regina. As a means of providing adequate armoury accommodation it is proposed to erect a building by private enterprise by an organization to be incorporated under the name of the Regina Armoury Association. The city of Regina is prepared to donate a site worth $40,000,

Supply-Public Mzorks-Saskatchewan
situated in the northeast comer of the exhibition grounds for the proposed structure, and the association proposes raising the necessary funds for the erection of an armoury building costing approximately $400,000. It is proposed to lease the building to the Dominion government on a rental-purchase basis at an annual rental of $33,500 for a period of twenty years, at the end of which time the building becomes the property of the government.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps I might say
that while the term "private enterprise" was used by the minister, the association which is being formed is a non-profit organization consisting of the officers of the various units in the city. In connection with the arrangement there is no private profit of any kind at all. The city itself is contributing the site, as I say the organization will be a holding company merely to enable the cost to be amortized over a period of years.


William Thomas Lucas: What is to be the total
cost?


John Campbell Elliott: $400,000.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister tell
us how many units will make use of this building?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think we have
the number of units; I am afraid my hon. friend will have to get that from the Department of National Defence. The technical officers advise us that it is not possible for the units concerned to function efficiently in their present quarters, and the erection of an armoury is the only means of providing a suitable building. They also advise that the present rentals may be given up as an offset against the expenditure which acceptance of these proposals would entail. In this opinion the deputy ministers of National Defence and Public Works concur, and are of the opinion that acceptance of the above proposals would tend towards greater efficiency and the acquisition by the crown of a suitable building at a minimum of expenditure.


Robert Gardiner: What is the present
rental?


Charles Avery Dunning: Approximately $13,000
a year is now being paid in the form of rent, speaking from memory.


John Campbell Elliott: And the accommodation
is entirely inadequate.


William Russell Fansher: Is this
building at Regina larger than the armoury at Moose Jaw, or how does it compare?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to say,
because I have not the figures with regard to Moose Jaw. I understand that it is about the size of the Edmonton armoury, if my hon. friend knows that building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rosthern-public building, $28,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain
this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required for the
purchase of a site and towards the erection of a public building for postal purposes in the town of Rosthern. For a number of years representations have been made that the present accommodation is entirely inadequate, and a report to council was prepared for the purchase of a certain lot from the Union Supply Company Limited. This was done in 1915, but it was not proceeded with at that time, and has stood over since. Various resolutions have been passed and requests made, one by the district superintendent of postal services on December 23, 1927. Among other things he points out that the postmaster has 174 small lock boxes, all rented, and 97 larger size boxes rented; he contemplates an additional 40 small size boxes, and has a demand for a number more. The revenue is $6,248 per year. The members of the board of trade and representatives of the postal department have urged upon the government the necessity of the building.
Mr. LUC'AlS: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is now a bit over 1,500.


Robert Gardiner: And the revenue is over
$6,000?


John Campbell Elliott: From postal revenue, $6,248, and from the customs $6,534.


Robert Gardiner: Are the post office and the customs house in one building?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give the house some information as to the rental of the building?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a rented building, sup-iplied by the postmaster.


Robert Gardiner: What is the rent paid?


John Campbell Elliott: The postmaster receives so *much and supplies the accommodation.
2720	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Henry Herbert Stevens: Can the minister give the amount the postmaster receives, together with the rental?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I cannot.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any information as to the size of the present building?


John Campbell Elliott: No, except that it is reported to be entirely unsuitable.


Robert Gardiner: Are the customs and excise at present in the same building?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I understand they are not.
Mr. 'GARDINER: What constituency is this in?


John Campbell Elliott: Prince Albert.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A very large
constituency.


Robert Gardiner: Is this $28,000 for the
purpose of buying the lot?


John Campbell Elliott: The $28,000 is for the purchase of the site and towards the erection of a public building. The building is estimated to cost $23,000; post office and customs fittings, $3,500; grading and sidewalks, $1,500; superintendence and contingencies, perhaps from $500 to $1,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How much are you going to pay for the lot?


John Campbell Elliott: We have not got it yet; we have to have the vote before we can buy a lot.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister an
estimate as to the cost of the lot apart from the building?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Is this $28,000 both for the lot and the building?-


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is exclusive of the site. The cost of the site has not yet been determined.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister explain how he is going to put up a building without having a lot to build it on?


John Campbell Elliott: We will not put it up without a lot to. build it on.


Harry Bernard Short: Why do you not build on some of the lots which you have down in the maritime provinces? You want an appropriation to go through without a lot to build on.


John Campbell Elliott: Those lots are too far away to be of service for this building.


Charles Gavan Power: The member representing
this constituency is a representative statesman.


William Thomas Lucas: There was a lot in my constituency for seventeen years without a building put upon it.


John Vallance: I might tell my hon. friend that we have a lot, bought by the Tories in 1911, on which there has been no building erected.


Arthur Edward Ross: Might I ask what is the size of the village?


John Vallance: Eleven hundred.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatoon-public building, $150,000.
John Campbell Elliott: In this connection three projects were under consideration, one the construction of a new public building, second, the enlargement of the existing building, and third, the purchase of another building. The present post office building is entirely inadequate to provide for the business that is carried on there, and the advice from our architect is that from a structural standpoint it cannot be economically enlarged to accommodate all the government offices. It was therefore found advisable to obtain another suitable site. The site of the present building is a valuable one, and the land around there, necessary to provide the further accommodation required, is being held at a very high price. What is proposed is to purchase a lot 40 feet on Twenty-second avenue for $53,000, the property adjacent to the railway station and situated on block 148 with a frontage of 150 feet on First avenue, 120 feet on Twenty-second avenue, and distant from the podt office 250 feet on First avenue, and to build on that lot.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
An hon. MEMBER:: It is eleven o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is there any objection to finishing the item? The remaining vote, for Tisdale, is a small one.


Robert Gardiner: It is rather a large item, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest that it stand over.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You have had a pretty good day.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Banking and Commerce Committee
Monday, May 7, 1928