1928-05-03

[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Seventh and eighth reports of the select standing commitee on banking and commerce. 

Mr. Hay.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved that the fourth and final report of the special committee on pensions and returned soldiers' problems be concurred in.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Perhaps I had better
make a statement with reference to this report. It is now in six parts, four of them containing draft bills with respect to pensions, land settlement, 'canteen funds and insurance respectively. It is the intention of the government to introduce at this session of the house legislation based upon the bills that are recommended
by the committee. The bills as recommended by the committee will be referred immediately to the law officers of the crown in order that they may be drafted in accordance with the rules which govern in these matters so that they may contain the proper safeguards.


Mr. McGIBBON:: When may we expect the bills?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should hope that the resolutions might appear on the order paper immediately and that the bills would be introduced at once.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

Mr. BENOIT:: 1.	What quantity of bran and shorts was exported to the United States of America during fiscal year ending March, 1927?
2.	From what several Canadian ports were these exported?


Mr. MALCOLM:: 1 and 2. Exports (Canadian produce) of bran, shorts and middlings to the United States, with ports of exit from Canada, during the fiscal year ended March 31, 1927:
Quantity
Customs ports of exit	cwt.
(100 pounds)
Athelstan	 1,000
Beebe Junction	 8,125
Coaticook	 62,136
Lake Megantic	 500
St. Armand	 178,105
St. Johns	 326,793
Sutton	 356,494
Bridgeburg	 437,609
Fort Frances	 1,285
Niagara Falls	 59,500
Prescott	 500
Windsor	 101
Emerson	 12,000
Gretna	 39
North Portal	 11,271
Abbotsford	 500
Grand Forks	 92
Vancouver	 68,360
Total	 1,524,410


PARLIAMENTARY MAIL
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What proportion of the mail of parliament is handled:	(a) by the commons post
office; (b) by the senate post office?
Questions

2.	Is there a postmaster and an assistant postmaster in both commons and senate post offices ?
3.	What are their salaries in each case?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	House of Commons about ninety per cent; senate about ten per cent.
2.	Yes.
3.	House of Commons postmaster, 82,130; House of Commons assistant postmaster, 81,440. (Position now vacant); Senate postmaster, $2,220; Senate assistant postmaster, $1,800.


GOVERNMENT MARINE EQUIPMENT AND SHIPPING
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Does the government own the flotilla of old barges, scows, tugs, dredge Rideau, row boats and other marine equipment in the Rideau canal by the Chateau Laurier, and undergoing repairs and fitting out and occupying government property?
2.	If not, is the government aware who the owner is ?
3.	If the government is not the owner, what rent is being paid the government for the use of these locks as a ship yard?
4. What money has been spent on that portion of the Rideau canal and the locks within the limits of the city of Ottawa within the past three years, and what is the revenue from this canal?
5.	What does Canada's navy consist of and what ships?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	Money spent on the eight locks, canal basin, and two bridges within the limits of the city of Ottawa during the last three years:
Ottawa locks (eight in number) and canal basin and Wharves
Years Operation Maintenance Totals
1925-	26.	.	$	6,806	59	$	5,267	78	$12,074	371926-	27.	.	5,871	38	7.535	23	13,406	611927-	28.	.	6,514	09	7,072	77	13586	86
$ 19,192 06 $ 19,875 78 $ 39,067 84 Pretoria avenue electric lift bridge Years Operation Maintenance Totals
1925-	26.	.	$	1.839	60	$	358	49	$	2,198	091926-	27.	.	1,745	00	145	55	1,800	551927-	28.	.	1,848	77	1,708	36	3,557	13
$ 5,433 37 $ 2,212 40 $ 7,645 77 Bronson avenue swing bridge Years Operation Maintenance Totals
1925-	26.	.	$	756	25	$	53	50	$	809	751926-	27.	.	752	50	145	55	898	051927-	28.	.	760	00	223	31	983	31$ 2.268 75 $	422 36 $ 2,691 11

Concrete retaining walls along canal basin within limits of city of Ottawa
Totals 0 00 $ 43,290 66 289,903 72

Totals $11,869 21 12,699 00 12,566 01

5.	Royal Canadian navy, authorized strength, five hundred and fifty officers and men; Royal Canadian naval reserve, authorized strength, five hundred officers and men; Royal Canadian naval volunteer reserve, authorized strength, one thousand officers and men.
The ships of the Royal Canadian navy comprise:-
In commission: H.M.C.S. Champlain and Vancouver, torpedo boat destroyers; H.M.C.S. Festubert, Ypres, Armentieres and Thiepval, minesweepers.
In reserve: H.M.C.S. Patriot and Patrician, torpedo boat destroyers.


MR. W. E. WHITE
Mr. FRASER:: 1.	Has W. E. White, fire ranger, of Chase, British Columbia, been dismissed by the government ?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What is the reason of his dismissal?
4.	How long had he been in the employ of the government?
5.	Were his services as fire ranger satisfactory to the department officials?


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: 1.	Yes.
2.	June 30, 1927.
3.	Active political partisanship.
4.	During fire seasons since 1914.
5.	No complaints about his service were received by officials of the department.


BEDFORD BASIN POWDER MAGAZINE
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	Who is the contractor erecting the powder magazine at Bedford basin, Halifax?
2.	What is the contract price?
3.	How many tenders were received?
4.	What were the figures of each tender?
Years
1925-	26. .
1926-	27. .
1927-	28. .
Canal Revenue
Year
1925-	26	
1926-	27	
1927-	28


Mr. RALSTON:: The Department of National Defence is now preparing to call for tenders for a portion of the work of constructing -this magazine.
The last contract was awarded to Messrs. A. S. MacMillan and C. A. MacNearney, Halifax, N.S., for the sum of $107,900. Two tenders were received, viz:-Messrs. MacMillan and MacNearney, $107,900; Standard Construction Co., Ltd., $109,556.
3RIGDEN, ONT. POSTMASTERSHIP


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Regarding the appointment of William MacDonald to the postmastership of Brigden, Ontario, why was the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission not favoured?
2.	Who did the Civil Service Commission recommend for this position?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Because it was considered that the appointment of the applicant first selected by the Civil Service Commission would not be in the best interest of the public service.
2.	First, John William Such; second, William Howard MacDonald.


HOME BREW LICENSES
Mr. CHARTERS:: How many home brew licenses were issued in the province of Ontario by the Dominion government for the calendar years 1925, 1926, 1927?


Mr. EULER:: Licenses are not issued in the province of Ontario giving them the right to manufacture beer or liquor to be consumed at their homes. Under the provisions of Section 195 of the Excise Act nothing further is required than notification of possession of utensils for brewing and of-intention to brew.
To prepare a statement giving the number of such notices will require considerable time and correspondence and the inquiry should be made a return.


FREIGHT RATES ON AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTS
Mr. EVANS:: 1.	What is the freight rate-per 100 pounds, carload lots on agricultural implements-(a) from Toronto to Saskatoon over the Canadian Pacific railway and Canadian National railways; (b) from Toronto to Winnipeg; (c) from Toronto to Montreal; (d) from Hamilton to Saskatoon, Winnipeg and Montreal?
2.	Are the freight rates over Canadian Pacific railway and Canadian National railways the same in all cases between any two given points?
3.	What is the freight rate-per 100 pounds -from Chicago to Winnipeg, Saskatoon and Montreal, respectively?
Questions


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	The freight rate per 100 pounds in carload lots of agricultural implements from Toronto to Saskatoon is 1394 cents, to Winnipeg 824 cents, and to Montreal 374 cents. From Hamilton to Saskatoon 1394 cents, to Winnipeg 824 cents and to Montreal 40 cents. These rates apply either via the Canadian Pacific railway or the Canadian National railways.
2.	When both the Canadian Pacific railway and the Canadian National railways operate between two points the rates' are generally the same.
3.	The rate on agricultural implements in carloads from Chicago to Winipeg is 814 cents per 100 pounds, to Saskatoon, 1354 cents per 100 pounds, and to Montreal, 564 cents.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-INTERIOR ALTERATIONS
Mr. KAY:: 1.	What officer or committee is authorized to make changes or alterations in the construction of the interior of the House of Commons building?
2.	Who authorized the conversion of the committee room on the fourth floor into offices for the Minister of Public Works?
3.	Who authorized the reduction in the area of the cafeteria on the fifth floor, in order to make an office, and: (a) at whose request was this done; (b) was the restaurant committee consulted?
4.	Are any other changes in offices or rooms contemplated at the present time, and if so, what are they?
5.	Will the members of the House of Commons be consulted before any changes are made in future?


Mr. SPEAKER:: 1.	The Privy Council in consultation with the chief whip.
2.	The Privy Council in consultation with the chief whip.
3.	Answered by No. 2 (a) no special request was made, (b) yes.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.


FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION-EXPROPRIATIONS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	What price was paid by the government for the property bounded on the north by Wellington street, east by the post office, west by Elgin street, and south by Sparks street, and from whom purchased?
2.	What legal fees were paid in connection with the acquiring of this property?
3.	What was the cost of the tearing down of buildings on the said property?
4.	What commissions, if any, were paid in connection with the acquisition of this property, and to whom paid?
i
St. Lawrence Waterway


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	(a) Price to be fixed by Exchequer court, (b) Ottawa Electric Company Limited. W. J. Irvine, Estate of C. W. Bangs, Matthewman Estate.
2.	$843.55.
3.	The buildings were torn down by contract, the contractors paying $8,311 to the government for the buildings.
4.	T. Foley, $3,250; C. W. Ross, $3,250: on account services as valuators of property.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. EDWARDS (South Waterloo):: 1.	What was the value in dollars of the textile goods imported during the years 1925, 1926, and 1927, from: (a) Czechoslovakia; (b) Esthonia; (c) Hungary; (d) Latvia; (e) Lithuania; (f) Portugal; (g) Roumania and the Serb, Croat, and Slovene kingdom?
2.	What is the itemized list of such imports, showing values?


ST. LAWRENCE WATERWAY BEAUHARNOIS POWER COMPANY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend on April
27 asked the following question:
Whether or not application has been made by the Beauharnois power interests to have determined the principles upon which the waters of the St. Lawrence are to be diverted from their present channel into a canal.
I replied on that date that I did not know of such an application but that I should not wish my reply to be regarded as final. When my hon. friend asked the question I did not know just what he meant by the word "principles," Whether he was referring to legal principles or engineering principles.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Did I use the word "principles" at all?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. The
question reads:
.... to have determined the principles upon which the waters of the St. Lawrence are to diverted.
I do not know whether my hon. friend refers to legal principles or engineering principles.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I attach no importance
',o the word "principles." If the question reads ' upon what conditions," that will be quite satisfactory. What I desired to know was

whether the question of the diversion of the water was to be referred to the International Joint Commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Possibly the
reply that was given in the house on March 22 to the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) answers the question my hon. friend has in mind. The answer was given by the Secretary of State to this effect:
Applications have been received of the Beauharnois Light, Heat and Power Company and are of date March 17, 1927, and January 17. 1928.
Preliminary plans have been submitted to the Department of Public Works and to the Department of Railways and Canals.
That I think is all that I can state to my hon. friend beyond this, that I am informed that no further communications have been received from the Beauharnois interests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I may say to the Prime Minister that my question was whether or not an application had been made to the International Joint Commission as distinguished from the government, or referred by* the government to that tribunal. That was what the question had reference to and not to the question asked by the hon. member for East Toronto.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That does not appear according to the question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does it not refer to the
International Joint Commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No reference
is made to the commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I used the words "International Joint Commission" in my reference. I did not look at Hansard afterwards.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That evidently missed the reporter. I am not aware of any reference having been made but I will make inquiries.


ASBESTOS CORPORATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The day before yesterday
my hon. friend asked the following question:
I was going to ask whether the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie King) has been directed to threatened proceedings against the Asbestos Corporation of Canada and the United States, whether there was any correspondence, and what action it was proposed to take.

International Peace
I am advised that a formal communication has been received by the Department of External Affairs from the solicitors of the Asbestos Corporation of Canada giving particulars as to a pending suit in the United States, but that this communication does not request any formal action on the part of the government. I might say, however, that there appear to be some important matters to be considered in connection with this litigation and the Departments of Justice and External Affairs are conferring on the question at the present time.


ALLEGED POLITICAL PARTISANSHIP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS CANTLEY (Pictou):: Mr. Speaker, I asked for information in regard to the commission appointing Charles Crockett, of New Glasgow, a commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship against government employees in the province of Nova Scotia; also the names, evidence and report of the commissioner in each case, and so on. May I ask the minister in charge when I may expect a reply to this question, as it is now six weeks since the question was asked?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In respect to the return asked for, I am sorry that I did not catch at the time what my hon. friend said, but whichever minister is concerned, I will direct his attention to it, and ask that the return be brought down as soon as possible.


MUSKOKA LAKES MAIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Peter McGibbon: I would like to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that summer service on the Muskoka lakes will not be started until the 15th instant. In view of the importance of the service, I would like to ask if it could not be started on the 5th.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member for Muskoka regarding the mail service to the summer resorts of that district


Peter McGibbon: There are a lot of villages as well as summer resorts.


Peter John Veniot: It is a mail service which commences at the opening and ceases at the close of navigation as carried on by the steamship company. These facts have been
brought to my attention: Last year navigation opened on the first of May. Our contract calls for the payment of fifty dollars a day to the steamer which performs the service. I considered last year that there was not a sufficient quantity of mail matter to warrant the payment of fifty dollars a day before some time later in May. I had an investigation made and a check placed upon the mail matter received during that period, especially at those summer resorts, and that check bore out that contention. This year I had another check made and I found that the only mail service required there between the first of May and the fifteenth was for attendants who are getting the summer resort houses and other equipment ready for tourists.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that there are a lot of business places there.


Peter John Veniot: The service to those business places is not hampered at all by the fact that the summer service will not begin until the 15th May. I may say that the decision has been taken that the usual summer service will not begin until the 15th May, and I do not intend to change the decision.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: The hon. member from Muskoka is not the only person interested in this question. There are in Parry Sound, not tourist resorts, but permanent villages that demand the service from the opening of navigation, whatever date that may be, whether it is the 15th of April or the 15th of May, and they have a perfect right to that. The minister has not taken these people into account, but is talking of the tourist and summer residents who may be there only from June to September.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Speaker, I may answer that I have taken the reports of the officials of my department after a thorough investigation, and if I cannot depend upon those reports I cannot depend upon the word of anybody else.


INTERNATIONAL PEACE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I sent a note to the right hon. the Secretary of State for External Affairs asking whether or not the Secretary of State of the United States had forwarded a copy of his note on the outlawry of war, sent to Great Britain, and whether the Prime Minister has had notice of that.
Civil Service


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend was kind enough to advise me in advance of his intention to ask a question on this subject on the orders of the day.
On April 13 the United States ambassadors in London, Berlin, Rome and Tokyo delivered notes stating that the government of the United States was prepared to conclude with the British, German, Italian and Japanese governments a single multilateral treaty, open to subsequent adherence by any or all governments, binding the parties thereto not to resort to war with one another. Copies were also transmitted of a preliminary draft of a treaty which the government of the United States would be prepared to sign.
The government of France, with which the United States had originally discussed the question of the renunciation of war, has indicated its views in an alternative draft.
We were informed by the British government that the United States note had been received and the French note was expected shortly, and that copies of these documents and the view of the British government would be communicated shortly. This further information has not yet been received.
Meanwhile the correspondence between the United States and France, and the draft treaties submitted by both countries as made public are being carefully considered from the standpoint of possible Dominion participation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the note was not
sent to our minister or to our government by the Secretary of State of the United States?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, only to
those I have mentioned. I understand that our minister at Washington did forward to us a copy of the document sent to London.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Mr. C. H. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, some
time ago 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. The return has not been brought down, and I would like to direct the attention of the government to it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend may rely upon his request receiving attention.


CIVIL SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: I
would like to read a telegram which I have just received, from the Civil Service Association at the head of the lakes:
Kindly advise if any action will be forthcoming this session in regard to promised re-classification of postal service salaries.


Peter John Veniot: I would say, in reply to
the hon. member, that it was only this morning that we received the decision of the Civil Service Commission, not to make any reclassification of those services this year. The Post Office department laid the matter before the Civil Service Commission some months ago, we ourselves having no power to classify, and the commission dealt with the matter and gave us their decision this morning.


Robert James Manion: Might I just ask the
minister if the department is bound to take the recommendation of the Civil Service Commission?


Peter John Veniot: If we do not, the Auditor
General will not pay the additional amount.


Robert James Manion: The reason I asked the
question is that I have just received a reply to a question on to-day's order paper showing that the Civil Service Commission recommended a returned soldier for a job, and my hon. friend and his department refused to accept him.


Peter John Veniot: Under the act the Postmaster General has the power to refuse to accept the certificate of the commission, but the act does not give him power to classify the employees.


ALBERTA COAL TRANSPORTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to ask the Minister of the Interior whether or not any action had been taken to expedite the operation of the order in council for the movement of coal from Alberta to Ontario. The railways appear to have taken the position that the charge of $6.75 does not include inter-line haul and switching charges. The matter was referred to the railway commission, but no judgment has been given, and the movement is to that extent being impeded. Can the government do anything in the matter?

Supply-Public Works-Maritimes


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: The order in council was
turned over to the Board of Railway Commissioners for administration. The question which my hon. friend mentions has arisen, and they have asked for a conference with the fuel board on the matter. The discussions are now going on, and I expect that a decision will be arrived at in a day or two.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In the meantime the
movement is impeded.


OLD AGE PENSIONS-YUKON
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Some
time ago an order of the house was passed for a copy of the agreement between the government of Canada and the administration of the Yukon with respect to old age pensions. When may we expect that agreement to be tabled?


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of .Labour):: I intended to say to my hon. friend, but overlooked it, that I should be glad to show him a copy of the document in my office. The agreement has not yet been completed, and it is not really an agreement until it has been completed. I shall be glad, however, to let the hon. member see it at any time.


George Black: I understood the
minister to say on a former occasion, when the motion was being considered, that the agreement was complete except for the affixing of the seal of the Yukon, and he agreed to produce it without the seal. It would not take fifteen minutes to make a copy of the agreement. It did not take the minister fifteen minutes to give notice to the press that he had signed it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A member of parliament is not compelled to run around the departments to see documents.


Peter Heenan: It would not be right for the minister to bring down the document until it is completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If he can give it to the
newspapers, he can give it to parliament.


Peter Heenan: The newspapers said that
the commissioner for the Yukon had completed his part, but the agreement has not yet been fully completed.


DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-St. John quarantine station -Partridge island-repairs and improvements, $13,600.
Mr. HANSON:: I would ask the minister if this is the only vote for any public building in the whole province of New Brunswick for
the present year.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: This is all in the main estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	1
Maritime provinces generally - Dominion public buildings [DOT]- improvements, repairs, etc., $43,000.
Mr. McQUARRIE:: What are the details?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the usual annual
vote for works of improvement, repairs and renewals throughout the province.


Mr. GRIMMER:: Will the minister explain the delay in making improvements to the post office at St. Stephen? Four or five years ago the government took the matter into consideration and at that time were fully aware that the building was altogether inadequate to carry on the public business satisfactorily. Tendersl have been called for alterations, but although this has been the annual procedure for five years past, nothing whatever has been done to improve The accommodation. A gentleman who is supposed to control the county patronage has sought to excuse the delay by stating that in the fall it is too late and in the spring it is too early to make the necessary alterations; but the people of the locality cannot see why work of this character-inside work- should not be undertaken at any season of the year. The government is well aware that since the inauguration of the parcels post the accommodation at this point is altogether inadequate. Perhaps the minister will state why these much-needed alterations have not been taken in hand.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not in mind the
case mentioned by my hon. friend, but I shall be glad to ascertain the reasons for the delay.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can confirm what the
hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer) has said. St. Stephen is the principal town in the county, and manufacturing is carried there extensively. It is a border town and an important customs port. The customs staff occupy the second floor of the public building. It is a nice substantial building, but it was built more than forty years

ago and has become inadequate for the business of the community. Four or five years ago the government did undertake to increase the capacity of the building, but nothing has been done in the meantime, and we have never been able to get a satisfactory reason for the delay. I am sure the Postmaster General1 (Mr. Veniot) is fully acquainted with the local condition and, if appealed to, will tell his colleague that there ought to be increased postal accommodation at St. Stephen. I ask the minister to let the item stand so that he may have ample opportunity to collect the necessary data.


Robert Watson Grimmer: I also should like this
item to stand until the minister has made inquiries. The increased accommodation to which I have referred is absolutely necessary to carry on the public business.


John Campbell Elliott: This building, in common with many other public buildings, I have no doubt has become inadequate for the business of to-day. As was intimated when these estimates were under discussion on a previous occasion, the policy of the department has been to undertake no new work that could be postponed. No doubt some time in the future we shall have to undertake an extensive program of public buildings at a good many places that are not now adequately provided for. I am quite prepared to accept the statements made by my hon. friends, but I do not think it is necessary that this item should stand. Later on when we are dealing with Dominion buildings generally I shall be quite willing for them to bring up the question again.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I am not quite satisfied with the minister's policy to delay the erection of needed public buildings for the conduct of the country's business when I recall that two years ago we voted a very substantial sum of money, just on the eve of an election, to provide a public building at the little village of Kensington, in the county of Prince, Prince Edward Island, where the postal revenue in twenty years would not be as much as the revenue of the St. Stephen post office in one year. Furthermore, I am reminded that quite recently we have voted a very large sum of money to level buildings in Ottawa in order to beautify the capital, and now we have the confession of the minister that there is no money available to improve the postal and customs facilities at a border point like St. Stephen where the present facilities are absolutely inadequate. He has only to refer to his colleague the Postmaster General to ascertain that this fur-

Supply-Public Works-Maritimes
ther accommodation is essential to the proper conduct of the country's business. We are not asking for a new post office. We are only asking that the present building be extended to give more floor space. That is all that is necessary and the expense involved would not be large. I am satisfied that $10,006 would probably be quite sufficient. That is only a guess on my part but I am sure that a modest expenditure would suffice to put that building into proper shape to carry on the public business, as it cannot to-day. It is idle to talk to me about not having any money to spend on these buildings, after the spectacle we have had of voting money for Ottawa. I am sure t'he government will hear from the country about that matter if they refuse localities such as St. Stephen, McAdam Junction and other places I might mention, the necessary small votes to enable them to carry on the public business adequately and to house public officials satisfactorily. I wish I had a photograph of the post office at McAdam Junction to exhibit here to-day. I have no doubt the Postmaster General would blush, as would also the Minister of Public Works if they could get an idea of the state of affairs there at the present time.
I am not quite satisfied to let this item go through unless I have a promise that the situation will be taken care of in the supplementary estimates. If the minister will go after the thing properly and get satisfactory data from the Postmaster General or from the district superintendent in St. John, he will realize how urgently this work is needed. Why there has been a delay of four or five years, and the repeated calling of tenders that have never been recognized, has always been a mystery to me. I do not suggest that there is anything political about it; so far as I know there is not. The town of St. Stephen is Conservative, always has been and always will be. There will never be any question about the government getting or losing votes by reason of anything they may do in that town. The town will vote against this government whenever the opportunity may arise.


An hon. MEMBER:: That may be the
reason.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That should not be the
reason, and I am sure the minister would never take such a stand. I want to impress upon him the necessity of increasing the postal facilities at that point. I have not beside me at the moment anything to show the revenue from the post office at St. Stephen, but it must be large for a town of that size and the magnitude of the business done.


Peter John Veniot: S17,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the customs revenue at that port must be many times $17,000 per annum because the importations must be large. I would ask the minister to let this item stand over until he has time to make the necessary inquiries. I am not blaming him; probably he has had no notice of our intention to point out these facts. It is only fair to him that he should be made aware of the situation. The minister is courteous to me and I want to be fair to him. I will therefore ask him to let the item stand over until he has the necessary information, and we can return to the subject later. I appeal to him to consider as favourably as possible the placing of a vote in the supplementary estimates in order to have the work done once for all, so as to stop the present state of affairs, of calling for tenders and then disregarding them.


Robert Watson Grimmer: This is nothing new;
the department and the government are well aware of the facts. It was the department that contemplated making the alterations in the first place. They sent engineers down there and had plans and specifications prepared, which were approved by the government. They are on file in the department to-day. The people were led to believe that the work would begin away back in 1923 or 1924 and they have been looking forward to these alterations. They cannot understand the attitude of the government in calling for tenders and, when two or three tenders are sent in, not recognizing any. The government understand the situation thoroughly; they are perfectly well aware of the facts. Why should not something be done in this matter? That is all we ask. Give us some information as to when the work will be proceeded with. If the government are not in a position to make a definite statement at the present time I would request that the item remain over until that information is available, so that we may have something specific to tell the people who are looking forward to this work being done. If the government do not intend having the work done why do they not say so, and the people will endeavour to make the best of the situation. But why continue to tell them each year, as has been done for the last five years, that the work will begin in the spring and tenders called for? As a matter of fact it makes no difference when the work is done because it is inside of building; and where there are not enough boxes
2630	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Maritimes
to supply the people who are willing to pay for them. And the government know this. I ask that the item stand over until we have further information.


Mr. PRICE:: I would also respectfully ask the minister to let the item stand. With regard to the Moncton post office, is it the intention of the government to do anything during the coming year?


John Campbell Elliott: With regard to the Moncton post office, I may tell my hon. friend it is in the same category as a number of other places under consideration. I cannot go further than that at the present time. As regards the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Hanson), I have no doubt the place he mentions enjoys all the advantages to which he has referred, although I doubt whether it suffers from the disadvantages he suggests, to the extent implied at any rate. I do not think it is as hopeless politically as he says. I want to assure him that before the supplementary estimates are brought down I will look into the matters touched upon by himself and the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer), as well as the situation at Moncton. I recall the circumstances in connection with Moncton, but offhand I cannot recollect them so far as the other two places are concerned. I hope my hon. friends will realize that I am quite serious when I say that all these matters are receiving the best consideration we can give them at the present time, and will continue to receive that consideration between now and the time the supplement-aries are brought down.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I thank the minister
for the undertaking he has given as regards McAdam Junction. But with regard to St. Stephen, the deputy minister is here and he knows all about the matter. He knows that tenders have been called for and have never been awarded. He can tell the minister and the minister can inform us why the situation in St. Stephen has not been taken care of. I am sure the Postmaster General will at once admit that the facilities at St. Stephen are wholly inadequate. True, he has no say as regards the housing facilities for the post office; that is under the Public Works department. But why have these tenders not been acted upon, particularly when it was on the initiative of the department that they were called for in the first place? I for one am willing to give the minister every reasonable opportunity to get any information which

he has not at the moment, but I certainly think this item should stand over until that information is obtained. I do not want the minister to think that I am trying to obstruct his estimates; I never do that sort of thing. But this is the only item from New Brunswick on which we can discuss this matter, and I do think we should have the information before the item goes through.
A word about the Moncton post office. I remember in 1921 when the promise was definitely made by the party now on the treasury benches. In the election of that year, in the month of September-I can almost give the day-the present Senator Copp promised a new post office at Moncton. Seven years have gone by; the site has been purchased for a very considerable sum from a friend of the government, and a house occupies that location at present. The grounds are there, the beautiful location is there, and the house was rented for $40 a month to a friend of the government. Moncton is a very important centre; it is the hub of the maritime provinces. The postal revenues from that city are very large in comparison with other cities in the maritime provinces; they are much larger per capita than any other city, due to the fact that Eaton's have a very large distributing centre there. There is no question about it; Moncton is entitled to the post office. I quite realize that this building will have to be very substantial and rather costly; that may be one reason why progress has not been made, but I do not understand why nothing has been done in view of the promise which was made to the people of Moncton by the Liberal candidate in the election of 1921, in the presence of the present Prime Minister.


Otto Baird Price: I would ask the minister if he would be good enough to let this item stand for the present.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not want to take an arbitrary position, but item 132, which probably will not be reached for some time, covers public buildings generally, and I would be quite willing to consider the recommendations of my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen when that item is being considered; perhaps in the meantime I may be able to secure the information required. Just while I am on my feet, I would like to refer to the action of the department in calling for tenders and then not letting a contract, which was referred to by one of my hon. friends. I know of only two reasons why contracts have not been let since I have been connected

Supply-Public Works-Marilimes
with the department. If after the tenders were called for some changes were hrought about possibly in connection with the size of the building, as occurred in one case, or if the tenders received were beyond the estimate of the architect of the department, probably a contract would not be made. In a number of cases where the estimates ran from $12,000 to $15,000 and the tenders received were for amounts considerably in excess of those sums, contracts have not been awarded, but I do not know of other reasons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the situation with regard to St. Stephen? That is what we want to know, and that is why I am asking the minister to let the item stand. I think if he would give us the information we would be willing to let the item go through, on his undertaking to look into this matter in the meantime.


John Campbell Elliott: Would it meet the wishes of my hon. friend to pass this item and consider the matter again under item 132?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not think that would be the appropriate item; I think the minister should accede to my request. I do not intend that as a threat, but it is' simply a courteous request. I think the minister will be well advised to do as we ask.
Mr. GRIMlMER: I would ask the minister if he has the estimates of the engineers under his hand, together with information regarding the tenders received during the last four years? Is there any difference between the tenders received in 1924 and those received in 1927; are they smaller or larger? Could the minister give us that information?


John Campbell Elliott: Surely my hon. friend does not expect me to have that information now, when this matter does not come up under the item we are considering. Do I understand my hon. friend to ask if I now have a recollection as to the terms of the tenders in these particular cases'? If so, my answer is no, because this happened before I was connected with the department.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Then in a case of this
kind, where the minister has not the information under his hand, is not able to say what were the estimates of the engineers and has no idea of the terms of the tenders received during the last four years, I think the item should stand until we obtain some definite information. Certain improvements were to be made in connection with this office; engineers were sent there to secure
the necessary information, and the plans and specifications are on file together with the tenders received. Now we cannot get any information as to what were the amounts of the tenders or the estimates, so I think the item should stand until we can get that information.


Otto Baird Price: I very much regret that the
minister cannot see his way clear to let this item stand. This is an old story; for the last five or six years we have been endeavouring to get a post office in the city of Moncton, which turns into the exchequer of this country a net revenue of about $400,000 per annum. This is nothing more or less than a political move; it is simply a matter of politics. This city, one of the finest in Canada, is permitted to carry on with a service which is very inferior, housed in a building which really could not pass the examination of the board of health. Yet the minister is not willing to allow this item to stand until further consideration can be given to the public buildings in the county of Westmorland. It is all very well to say that you have no money to spend for a post office for the city of Moncton, which stands fifth or sixth among all post offices in Canada with regard to the revenue turned in to the government, although it has only a population of about 22,000 people; the government seem to have plenty of money to spend in connection with the Federal District Commission. We have $8,000,000 or $9,000,000 available to beautify this city of Ottawa, and a great deal more for public parks, but when it comes to the public buildings throughout the country the government absolutely fall down, especially in constituencies which happen to be represented by members opposed to the present administration. This matter has been taken up on the floor of the house time after time, and it must be very clear to the electors of the country that the government do not intend to do anything in constituencies which are represented by members who are opposed to the government. The only exceptions have been the harbours of St. John and Halifax, and then the government made comparisons between these open harbours and others which are frozen up for six months every year. I do not understand why the government will not look to the necessities of the public works of the country; the breakwaters in my constituency are very inadequate, particularly at Cape Bauld, as has been pointed out re-
2632	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Maritimes
peatedly both to the present minister and to his predecessor. I protest against the small amount allowed for public buildings in the province of New Brunswick; the government have alloted only $13,600 to that province although they can find plenty of money' for the Federal District Commission to spend in order to cut through a business section of the city and destroy buildings which cost many thousands of dollars for a boulevard to allow the erection of a monument to the Prime Minister of the country. Again I want to say that I regret very much that the minister will not allow this matter to stand until further details can be brought to his attention which I feel sure will influence him to change his decision and place a sufficient sum in the estimates to make sure that the province of New Brunswick may be better looked after.


Mr. MORRISSY:: The only thing I can
see in the remarks of my hon. friend (Mr. Price) is his regret that he does not exercise the same privileges in the Post Office department that he exercises in the Department of Railways and Canals with regard to the appointment of officials in the city of Moncton and in the county of Westmorland. Furthermore, let me say to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) who asks the Postmaster General why so many postmasters were dismissed in the constituency that I have the honour to represent, Northumberland county, in which the hon. leader of the opposition got his first insight into politics on the Miramichi river, that I assume all responsibility for the dismissal of those postmasters. I did so following the example of the Hon. J. B. M. Baxter, because he put out every road supervisor and every scaler in the county of Northumberland.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I very
respectfully ask the minister to allow this item to stand until we get the information, and then we will get it through perhaps in three minutes. He will not be losing any time if he complies with the request.


John Campbell Elliott: We will consider it under
item 132.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would ask that item 125 stand. We are entitled to have it stand, and I would make this request as courteously as I can.


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, I would say that it is very hard to resist the hon. member for York-Sunbury when he asks in this way.
I Mr. Price.]
I cannot see the difference between it and item 132, which we will consider later on, when I would have had the opportunity of looking up the files and obtaining the information. I am going to show myself a little more reasonable than the hon. member when I say I will agree to let it stand and consider it later on.
Item stands.
Quebec public works-chargeable to income, $1,304,647.


Mr. QUINN:: Mr. Chairman, I notice in
this vote an item of $150,000 for Quebec city. I am not criticizing or opposing that vote, but I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works if his attention has ever been drawn to the condition of the Halifax citadel. The masonry walls have tumbled down and the whole fort is in a disgraceful condition. The slopes of the hill have become such an eyesore, that the citizens of Halifax, in co-operation with the Service Club, have this year undertaken to plant shrubs and trees on the slope. The condition of the moat and the walls inside is disgraceful. I realize it is too late now to have that matter investigated thoroughly and to have a vote in the estimates of this year; but might I ask the Minister of Public Works if he will confer with his colleague the Minister of National Defence with a view to having the condition of the citadel of Halifax investigated, and then place an item in the estimates for the next session of parliament.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say to my hon.
friend that the citadel of Halifax is entirely under the jurisdiction of my hon. colleague the Minister of National Defence. I do not see him in his seat at the moment, but I will be very glad to call to his attention representations made by my hon. friend the member for Halifax.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Mr. Chairman, if
anything is to be done with any of these ancient fortifications, I think the government should establish a policy as to them. There are three important ones, Halifax, Quebec and Kingston; and it is very difficult for us to sit quietly in our seats and see this amount of money spent on one of them without asking the government to state its policy as to the other two. I do not believe they should be under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence; they should come under the Department of Public Works. If the department considers one of them, I think the minister should establish a policy applicable to all three.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


James Arthurs: Mr. Chairman, the item has to do with the province of Quebec. What is the postal revenue at Baie St. Paul? How much of the vote of 1927-28 has been spent, and for what purpose?


John Campbell Elliott: The expenditure to March 31, 1928, is $14,639.


James Arthurs: For what purpose-site, et cetera?


John Campbell Elliott: Paid for the site, $4,000; that was in the previous year. The expenditure for the year ending March 31, 1928, was $14,639. The balance required, $9,000, is for the completion of the contract, for the erection of the building, for the installation of fittings, lock boxes, sidewalks, and so . on, and it is apportioned as follows-
Mr. ARTHURS': I do not want that and I did not ask for it; I want the population and revenue.


John Campbell Elliott: The population is 2,291.
The postal revenue is $3,465.


James Arthurs: Is that all the revenue from that particular office?


John Campbell Elliott: That is all the postal
revenue.


James Arthurs: Is that all the revenue to the government from that town or that office?


John Campbell Elliott: I presume 60.


William Garland McQuarrie: Mr. Chairman, it has been the custom to take up votes of this kind item by item. I understand you now put the large item which includes the smaller items. I submit that is not in accordance with the usual practice and is objectionable. We should take up the individual items as they appear in the resolution.


John Campbell Elliott: I am quite agreeable. I
think the usual practice is to call the large item and then, if anybody so desires, to take it up item by item.


The CHAIRMAN:: The vote is all one
resolution. Is it the desire of the committee to take this up item by item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Chicoutimi public building-addition, $3,500.


James Arthurs: I ask the same information regarding this office, namely, the population of the town and the revenues either postal or from any other part of the public service.


John Campbell Elliott: The population of Chicoutimi is 10,158.


James Arthurs: At what period?


John Campbell Elliott: 1927.


James Arthurs: What was it in 1921?


John Campbell Elliott: It was 8,937. It had grown from 3,826 in 1901. It is a rapidly growing town. In 1926-27 the postal revenue was $28,348 and the customs revenue $108,611.


Mr. LAVIGUEUR:: Has the minister taken into consideration the question of a public building at Beauport, which comprises six parishes and quite a large population. A site was bought in 1913 for the erection of a public building at that point. I understand tenders were called for and I have asked the minister and the government to provide the necessary amount for a building. I should like to know from the minister what has been done.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with my
hon. friend that he has made frequent and urgent requests for a public building at that point, but no decision has been reached as yet. The matter is in the same category with a number of others and I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend any definite answer.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The minister informed me some time ago that he would recommend to council the insertion of the amount in the supplementary estimates. I have been told the same thing for many years. Owing to the fact that large amounts of money are being spent for public buildings, and considering the great importance of Beauport, I think the people there should be granted their request. If we take into consideration the eight or nine million dollars voted for the embellishment of Ottawa, there seems to be a'good deal of money available and a small amount such as we are asking for should not be refused. I understand the estimate for a public building at Beauport is only $9,200. Therefore I would ask the minister to consider the request seriously and to see if possible that the proper amount is inserted in the supplementary estimates so that we may go ahead with the building.


Mr. KENNEDY:: I should like to ask
the minister in connection with applications coming before him for public buildings if there is any general rule or basis on which he decides that a public building is or is not

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
required at a certain point, or if the decision to build a public building at one point and not at another is simply a question of choice by the minister?


John Campbell Elliott: When an application comes in for a public building-and many of them have come in during the time I have been in charge of the department-we endeavour to secure all information possible. If after considering all the information, we come to the conclusion that some other expenditure is more urgent and that the erection of the building in question can be postponed for a time, in all probability the application is not granted. When the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Lavigueur) mentions that I said to him that I would recommend a public building, I do not want to contradict him, but he must have misunderstood the interview because I never undertake to recommend anything in connection with public buildings. I know the people with whom I have to deal, namely, the treasury board and council, are not favourable to erecting any public buildings which are not absolutely necessary and for that reason I am careful about making any commitments. We are endeavouring to construct only such public buildings as are absolutely necessary. That is the best answer I can give my hon. friend.


James Arthurs: Does the minister mean
that he does not make any recommendations?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not promise to make any recommendations.


James Arthurs: The minister does make recommendations regarding public buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: Occasionally.


James Arthurs: In considering these recommendations, does he take the files of the past or only those immediately before him from friends on his own side of the house?


John Campbell Elliott: I look into the files of the past. I never take the files of the future. I endeavour to go over the files as closely as I can. I do not just get the purport of my hon. friend's suggestion that I take only files relating to friends of the government. Is that what my hon. friend said?


James Arthurs: Yes.	.


John Campbell Elliott: I read the other files.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister reads the
titles of the other files.


John Campbell Elliott: I read the other files
pretty carefully.


James Arthurs: Will the minister state
how many items are included in the present estimate which have been put forward in previous years by members opposed to the government?


Mr. STEVENS:: How many escape the
minister's scrutiny?


John Campbell Elliott: When my hon. friend looks over the estimates under consideration, I do not think he will find much in the remark he has made. If he will take note of the ridings for which money is being granted, I think he will see that political considerations have not governed.


Mr. BOYS:: The minister has just informed the committee that he has received many applications; that they are all considered on their merits, and then either granted or refused as the case may be. Do I understand that that has reference to applications which are made verbally, as well as to applications which are made in writing? I would like to ascertain from the minister whether it would give him or the officers of his department much trouble to give the committee some idea of the number of applications which have been made since he has been minister, together with the amount of each proposed building. I do not think that would entail very much work, and the information would be very interesting. I do not care whether it is given under this item or under the general vote, but I certainly would like to have that information if I can get it.


John Campbell Elliott: I think perhaps I can give a reasonably accurate answer. Within the last year we have considered applications which either have come in or were in the department already for public buildings running to well over one hundred, and in amount running to something over $5,000,000.	That is only
approximate.


William Alves Boys: What I would like to get would be a statement indicating the cities and towns and villages whence these applications came, and the amount of money involved in each. I learn now that there are only about one hundred, and of necessity it is not going to take a clerk in the department very long just to give that additional information as to the place and the amount involved.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I take it from the minister's answer to my last question that these are expenditures which in his judgment are absolutely necessary.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I take the responsibility for these expenditures.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I also take it that in his judgment these expenditures are more necessary than other expenditures that have been asked for.


John Campbell Elliott: More necessary than the expenditures which have been refused.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is just a question, then, of the minister's judgment. There does not appear to be any general rule, and the matter is left to the judgment of the minister after all the facts have been submitted to him. Is that the case?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I noticed that the minister listened very attentively to me, but he has not said whether or not he will let me have the information I asked for.


John Campbell Elliott: I will have no difficulty in supplying my hon. friend with a list of I think over one hundred applications for public buildings, together with a reasonable estimate of the cost, but where we have not seriously considered the granting of the application, I would not be able to give the architect's estimate of the cost. I think, however, I could give an approximate estimate.


William Alves Boys: I would be quite content to have the ones which have received serious consideration, and I understand that the one hundred to which the minister refers are the ones that have received serious consideration. Am I right in that? Are those one hundred applications cases where the application has been seriously considered but refused?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say refused. They are under consideration at the present time.


James Arthurs: Is one hundred the limit? Why not all of them? Why should the minister pick out one hundred?


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend had listened to me, he would know perfectly well that I did not limit myself to one hundred, nor to the amount of $5,000,000, but I am satisfied that the applications will run to that number, and the amount involved to $5,000,000.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I would like to ask the minister if it is not a fact that all the applications he receives in his department have come through his engineers, with their recommendations?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


REVISED
Robert James Manion: I remember some years ago -I mention this as a matter of information -taking up the case of Fort Frances, which was in the constituency I then represented. The department, away back in 1911 or 1912, had purchased at Fort Frances a site for a public building and the people were naturally anxious to have the building erected. I remember taking up the matter with the Department of Public Works, and I was informed that throughout Canada at that time-this was since the war-there were about ninety or one hundred places where sites had been previously purchased by the government of the day with the intention of putting up public buildings, but then the war came and delayed construction. I think probably during the war there was a good excuse for not going on with these public buildings, and probably there is yet, but I would point out that if public buildings are to be built throughout the country, these places where sites have been already purchased and are now standing idle, should receive consideration. I remember distinctly sometime between 1917 and 1921 the Minister of Public Works, or perhaps it was the Postmaster General, telling me that one hundred sites had been purchased for public buildings but our government of that day did not see their way clear to proceed with the work, and I remember taking the attitude that so long as it was the general rule that none of these places should get a public building, there could be no complaint from Fort Frances. I took that attitude on the platform in Fort Frances during the election, but I said that if public buildings were to be erected, all should be treated in the same way.


James Arthurs: I take the same attitude as the hon. member for Fort William. There are many cases where money was voted for public buildings and sites purchased immediately preceding the war, and in many cases the appropriation would be revoted the next year. Many of these sites were in highly industrial towns, with large public revenues, and in my opinion they should take precedence over places like the two mentioned by the minister in the province of Quebec, and over many more which I shall ask for information about later on, where the postal revenue amounts on the average to only one dollar per head. I have in my riding a town whose postal revenue averages $15,000 or $16,000 per annum, and whose customs revenue during the last twelve or fourteen years has averaged close to $500,000. The town has various other government services,


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Quebec
and a site has been purchased1, but there is no evidence that the government is willing to undertake the putting up of a public building.
Mr. EVANS:: What is the public building that is to be erected at Limoilou, Quebec?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote of 84,500 to complete the payments for the building, which has already been erected. Limoilou is practically a part of the city of Quebec, and a very rapidly growing district.


James Arthurs: The whole amount is a
revote.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, we recognize two things with respect to these appropriations. First, that the government has supreme control in determining (a) the community in which public moneys are to be expended, and (b) the extent to which those moneys shall be expended. In selecting their own favourites, constituencies that return their supporters, they indicate the common humanity of all members of this house. And in determining how .much money shall be spent they usually have regard to the ability of the representative to extract money from the exchequer. If a member is sufficiently strong to get the government to build a $25,000 building in a community where a $10,000 building would do, he usually gets a $25,000 building; and if he cannot get the $25,000 expenditure he is satisfied with the $10,000.
Now, we take the position that some regard should be had to the necessities of the public service. It cannot possibly be that the only communities in which there is any necessity for the expenditure of public moneys are in constituencies which are represented by supporters of the administration. That must be clear. It is also true that in recent years representations have been made to the government by members on this side of the house that would involve the expenditure of very much larger sums than appear in the estimates. The question the minister has to decide is whether those representations have behind them any sound basis of fact, or whether they are merely made for the purpose of members appearing to be doing their duty by their constituencies: for most members are very insistent in their demands that something should be done for their localities. The question to be determined is whether or not these representations are based on a

clear appreciation of the real necessities of the public service, or are merely made to enable the member to point to a page in Hansard where his remarks are recorded. I think the Minister of Public Works, a very old and adroit and experienced politician, is well aware of the fact that both cases are always coming before him. A member who has a doubtful seat desires to be sure of his re-election, and he insists upon having money expended for purposes that cannot possibly be justified by the necessities of the case compared with what is being done in other parts of Canada.
This is a large country and there are many communities in which public money should be expended; the minister cannot provide for all of them; but if we find him providing a public building in a small community already veiy well served, while a large community supplying substantial revenues is obliged to carry on the public service with inadequate facilities, then we know that the consideration governing the minister's decision is mostly political. For instance, if thousands of dollars is spent on a wharf to serve one small industry located on a river where an occasional boat is apt to run into a mud bank before it reaches the wharf for, say, a cargo of salt -we will take that merely as an illustration- then we know the considerations that govern are not solely in the public interest. In 1925 I was driven in an automobile through some small communities in Ontario, and I recall very distinctly one place that was provided with a public building, certainly most beautiful to look upon, but I could not find there was very much local revenue to justify its erection; but the member had been a very firm and ardent supporter of the administration since 1921, and his devotion to a great cause could not be lightly overlooked.
In the west we have several communities that are contributing very large revenues to the exchequer. Everyone will admit that upon the success of the farming operations in western Canada-the creation of new wealth-to no inconsiderable extent rests the prosperity of the two great eastern provinces. Take, for instance, the community in which I live. Last year the minister saw the site for a post office that was bought prior to the war. It is in the centre of the city. Two, if not three of the lots were contributed by the citizens when the town was first laid out. A high building was erected upon it with not much floor space-a post office requires a great deal of floor space. Between 1911 and 1913 the site was acquired for something over a couple of

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
hundred thousand dollars. It is a very large site, because, as I have said, a post office requires plenty of floor space, having regard to the business transacted at that centre. The old building was removed and the cellar partly excavated. The $250,000 that was in the estimates the year the war broke out was not revoted, and of course no one expected anything would be done until after the war. Since that time there have been repeated partial promises-I do not say undertakings in any sense-that this matter would be dealt with, and the board of trade and other public bodies had occasion to bring it to the attention not only of the Minister of Public Works but of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Railways when they visited the community. The location is on the principal thoroughfare of the city. While the government could not be expected to provide for the new building in a single year, because I dare say it will involve the expenditure of a million dollars, $250,000 annually for four years would be sufficient to provide the accommodation. General plans were prepared, but nothing further was done. At present premises are occupied at a rent, mark you, that would more than pay interest and sinking fund upon the investment I have mentioned for putting up a new building that would house all the departments of the federal public service. That is a case which, I submit, should be dealt with. There are other similar cases throughout the Dominion.
I appreciate the difficulties of the minister. He has to make selections, and, being only human, he cannot resist the pressure of his political friends. But while I do not expect him to do that, I think it is not unreasonable to ask that the public service itself should be looked after. The other day the Postmaster General pointed out with respect to the situation at Le Pas that steps had been taken, very properly, to provide a public building because it was a new community transacting considerable business out of which the country was deriving substantial revenues. But surely the fact that communities which are supplying large customs and postal revenues do not for the moment return supporters of the administration, should not be a reason for their demands for public buildings being entirely overlooked. Now, if for ten long years since the war the community that I mention has been compelled to carry on under the conditions described, has not the time come when proper accommodation should be provided? What I have said of that community is true of some of the towns on the 56103-167J
Pacific slope, and in the interior. An extension to the post office at Edmonton was started last year. Tenders were called for [DOT]public buildings at other places in the west, but since the war expenditures for this purpose have been very limited, and those new buildings that have been constructed have not always been needed to meet the demands of the public service, but rather have been provided for the reasons that I have mentioned. The minister, I know, may have the best intentions in the world, and it well may be that when his recommendations reach council those who look over them may say: Why should a public building be built in the constituency of A; why should that Conservative riding have any money spent in it? There are members of council who would look at it in that way. Then again there is a second difficulty to overcome, and that is the opposition of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance says, "We cannot provide further moneys this year for this particular service ", That being so, and since you have to cut down the amount that is to be expended, it is those communities that support the administration that are remembered, while the others are blotted out from the book of remembrance. That is the situation in relation to these matters. Certainly if you left the question to business men they would never think of leaving two or three communities I know of in western Canada in their present condition so far as public buildings are concerned.
In Ottawa you pay in rentals at the present time over $700,000. That, I think, is approximately the amount. Then you pay for light, and heat. That represents interest and at. least a reasonable sinking fund, having regard to modern construction, of $15,000,000. Why have we not spent $15,000,000 and stopped paying rentals, so that at the end of twenty-five or thirty years we might own these, buildings and be no longer under the necessity of paying further rent?	Why not
establish a policy in this regard? The same thing might be done in Calgary. If we borrowed under a special form of security this could be done. You might call it a public works four and a half per cent sinking bond, continue paying rents, as you are now doing, to be used to pay interest and sinking fund on the securities for the next twenty-five years or so, and at the end of that period you would have paid off the securities and would own the property. The country would then be free from rentals for the future. This should have been done long ago; everyone

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
realizes that. But it has not been done. Is there any reason why such a policy should not be adopted?
You have laid in this city the cornerstone of a building to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of confederation-and this anniversary, by the way, seems to have afforded an opportunity for the conception of many monuments in the way of buildings and other works. The cornerstone of this particular building is there. The land on which the building will be erected we have owned since before the war-a long stretch of property. Certain buildings are still there, and in the ten years that have elapsed since the war we have squandered more money than would have sufficed to put up proper buildings. Now if the difficulty is as great as is suggested, with respect to taking the money out of current revenue-and it may be considerable -I would point out that some years ago I suggested to the Minister of Finance, as I do again to-day, a simple method of dealing with the matter. How are great business enterprises dealing with a similar situation? The day before yesterday you saw the issue of certain securities, $16,000,000 of preferred shares, by a great industrial enterprise in Canada. They contained sinking fund provisions. Certainly some issued the same day, with respect to preferred shares-I am not saying which I have in mind at the moment, for I may be confused-did contain a provision of that character. Another enterprise the other day issued bonds for $4,000,000 or $5,000,000, five and a half per cent, which also contained a sinking fund provision. Now with this $700,000 which is paid here in rentals-it is, I think, nearer $750,000; the .deputy minister can tell the minister-you [DOT]can go to any trust company in this country and they will lend you about $15,000,000, itaking the securities from you, and taking Your rental; and after a period of time, I should say approximately twenty-three years, doing it by mental arithmetic at the moment, you will be able to retire the loan and have acquired the property, having paid no higher rental in the meantime. Certainly you will not pay less. At any rate, you will not have paid a dollar more and by that time you will have owned the buildings. But instead of pursuing such a policy we are going on in the same old way. And what is true in Ottawa is true in the city in which I live. There they are paying thousands of dollars in rents-the exact figure I obtained from the deputy minister two years ago, and I will

not state it at the moment because it may not now be correct. With that money, why not arrange with some trust company in Canada or in the United States to finance the matter in the way I have suggested? The companies in the United States would tumble over one another for the opportunity to do it. They would take that money per annum for the next twenty-three years, put up the buildings, expend a million and a quarter, and consider themselves well repaid.
Take the structures which the banks are building. Does anyone realize how these buildings are being put up? Some of my hon. friends no doubt think that the banks put up these buildings out of profits. That is not so. These great buildings are the properties of realty companies, which are owned by the banks. This is not so with respect to all banks, but I am speaking in a broad way. The realty company owns the lot, and the building is erected. It issues its bonds, which are bought by the great insurance companies *-six millions, five millions, four millions, or whatever it may be. They have a trust deed, the bank rents the property on a proper rental basis, paying the money into the realty company as though it were renting the building from a stranger, and at the end of the period the bank owns the building because it owns the company, the rentals paid by the bank and other tenants of the building being sufficient to pay interest and sinking fund on the bonds.
If the banks do this-and it is the only way in which they could acquire the magnificent structures which they possess, inasmuch as they could not build them out of profits- why should not the country conduct its business on a similar basis, having a reasonable regard for the experience of others? Then you come to the railways, in the matter of equipment. The day was when the first transcontinental railway in this country used to buy its equipment every year on the theory that out of revenues a car going out of commission had to be replaced. That day has gone. What happens now? Instead of paying for their equipment all at once, they purchase, we will say from the Baldwin Locomotive Company, if it is in the United States, or the American Locomotive Company or Kingston Locomotive Works if in Canada, assuming that they do not build in their own shops. Any hon. gentleman, when passing from the car at the rear of the train to the door of the station, will observe on most locomotives a little plate upon which there is a number indicating, something by inscription, that the particular locomotive is covered by

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
an equipment trust mortgage. Every year they pay a certain sum of money and at the end of a fixed period the locomotive is paid for in full. Equipment securities have a high value on the markets in New York. Part of the money for equipment trust obligations of the Canadian National lines, the Canadian people paid last year, which is usually paid out of revenues, was paid out of a loan which the national railways obtained, in respect of which the government of the country gave its guarantee.
Now if as a matter of business, in other walks of life, this procedure which I have briefly outlined is followed, why should we not do it in respect of these great public buildings? There is the site to which I have already alluded: no building is on it, no taxes are paid, and we own the land. Nothing is done about it. If the Minister of Railways were dealing with the matter as his friends in the grain business in Saskatchewan are dealing with their problems, he would issue securities as they do. They issue securities in connection with elevators. How are the terminals built in Vancouver? They sell their securities in the way I have indicated. A short statute passed at this session, providing for this special form of loan, would give this country these public buildings, which would be far more advantageous than this piecemeal nibbling at it. Every busines man in the country would be grateful to the administration for adopting business principles in connection with these public matters, and such a policy would leave more money available for the pressing necessities of the smaller communities. And that is an important phase of the subject. I urge the minister and the administration to give this matter their serious consideration. It is true that some of us would probably suffer and our communities might be overlooked, but we could afford t.o have them overlooked temporarily if we knew that ultimately they would be reached by some process such as I have suggested, which would put the business of the country on a proper basis.
The time has gone by when we should continue to play with the matter. We on this side can do but one thing: we can ask for explanations as to these expenditures, and inquire what population is to be served and what the revenues are to be and whether or not it is in the public interest that the money should be expended. We can put on Hansard our views on the various items, but we cannot effect any change, although we may move to reduce any item. We might move to reduce the item, but we know perfectly well that the majority of the government is tufficient
in Strength and availi'bility to vote down any suggestion we might make in that regard. We might make suggestions that other communities be looked after, and all that will be done is that the evidence will be gathered together so that in the next election hon. gentlemen opposite will say, "Look at them; they are extravagant. They say we should spend more money instead of less." That is the way we are dealing with these things, and is it not time we should cease?
Just one thing more while I am on my feet, because I do not propose personally to discuss these estimates in detail. We have in Ottawa a supreme court building with a library the value of which has been estimated by a gentleman who seemed reasonably proficient in matters of that kind, at not less than $450,000. Part of that library is contained in steel stacks, surrounded by highly shellacked white pine, which is most inflammable. Some of these books are absolutely irreplaceable, because the editions are exhausted and we could not buy further copies regardless of the amount of money we might care to spend. In the meantime we have plenty of money for other things, but the supreme court building remains as it is. I apprehend that the supreme court probably will be inoluded in that long row of buildings which is to be built eventually, but in the meantime there it is. What a reflection it is upon us as business people! In what I am saying I am not trying to attach all the blame to this administration, but what a reflection that is upon us as a people and upon parliament! We have offered these suggestions to my hon. friend in the most kindly manner, and with no hope of making political capital out of them. As far as we are concerned we will receive no benefit from so doing; instead we may alienate some of our friends in Ottawa, yet we must face this condition and unless we do so it seems to me we are recreant to the duty imposed upon us. I am talking now just as I would talk if I were attending a meeting of a board of directors and discussing a business matter; if my friend the Minister of Public Works were there together with my friend the Minister of Railways, advised by the Attorney General, and if we were a business corporation, we would do just as I suggest. We would make the best possible terms with the financial houses to take our securities; we would put up our buildings, pay our interest, set aside every year the amount of money we would otherwise pay for rent; we would amortize the securities and own the buildings. Is it unreasonable if I ask the Minister of Public Works to deal with these matters during his

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
brief tenure of office in such a way that his successor may find what he himself did not find, that is, the business of the department placed upon a sound, economic and common-sense basis? My hon. friend from South Huron (Mr. McMillan) would deal with it in that way if he were dealing with a cheese factory; why cannot we follow that method in carrying on the business of the country? My hon. friend from LaprairienNapierville (Mr. Lanctot) would deal with it in that way, and every day business men are following the same practice. We are not doing so, but I think we should ascertain if it cannot be done.


Mr. LANCTOT:: In answer to my hon. friend I will tell him that I do not need to do that, because I have no public building in my riding.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no desire to delay the passing of these estimates, but I do think I should express my appreciation and I think the appreciation of every other hon. member for the very helpful suggestions' which have been made by hon. gentlemen opposite and for the manner in which they have been made. I cannot entirely agree with the first part of the remarks of the leader of the opposition, but I very sincerely appreciate the tone of his criticism, if it can be so called, as well as that of the other hon. gentlemen who have expressed themselves on this subject this afternoon.
The suggestion has been made that these estimates are prepared with some political end in view, and at the risk of having to meet my hon. friends on this side of the house from Quebec at six o'clock, I am going to refer hon. members of the house to the vote which we are considering now. We are dealing with an amount of $1,304,647, and in this vote are included a number of separate items. I hope all my hon. friends have copies of the estimates before them; if they will look at the vote they will see that it covers buildings in the province of Quebec. I think it is a fine thing for the country, if I may say so, that in votes for the province of Quebec no man even on the other side of the house will expect to find a great many items covering ridings represented by gentlemen across the way. However, I believe there are three Quebec ridings represented by hon. gentlemen opposite, and hon. gentlemen will notice that included in this vote is a Montreal postal terminal building.


Mr. KAISER:: The minister should not
reduce our numbers; we have four members from Quebec.


John Campbell Elliott: I apologize to my hon.
friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And 260,000 people voted for us.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
look at the amounts being spent in Quebec, he will find that a postal terminal building costing $650,000 is to be constructed in the riding of St. Antoine.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course that is where
the building must be.


John Campbell Elliott: That is where the government intend to construct it.


Robert James Manion: We hope the rest of the
people of Quebec will profit by this lesson.


John Campbell Elliott: I think all the people
throughout Canada profit by the actions of this government. Then, in the constituency of St. Lawrenoe-St. George $14,005 is being spent, and an armoury costing $13,000 is to be constructed in the constituency of Mount Royal.


James Arthurs: How did the hon. gentleman square himself with the hon. member for Southeast Grey?


John Campbell Elliott: I will just have to do
the best I can, that is all. However, of a total amount of $1,304,647 which is being spent in the sixty-five ridings of Quebec, about $677,000 or more than half is being spent in three ridings represented by hon. gentlemen opposite. Of course I do not mean to say that these items were included because these constituencies were represented by these three gentlemen.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: Everything except the
building.


John Campbell Elliott: Except the building. And I think my hon. friend was well within the mark when he said it cost $200,000; my recollection is that that site cost in 1914 about $340,000.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: 


John Campbell Elliott: Well, I am very close to
it. The city of Calgary is one of the places doing a large business- *


Richard Bedford Bennett: My memory is that a
plan of expropriation was filed on the property.


John Campbell Elliott: In 1913, I think it was; it was not adjusted until the latter part of the year or the beginning of the next year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, that is right, just
before the war.


John Campbell Elliott: I took occasion to inquire as to the revenue from the post office, the customs and government services generally and there is no doubt that it is one of the towns whose revenues are growing rapidly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Cities.


John Campbell Elliott: I beg the pardon of my
hon. friend from the city. The revenues are growing very rapidly; but I took occasion to go to the post office, where the clerks and the postmaster and all the rest of the people performing the government services there are housed, and I inquired from the postmaster himself, and it was quite apparent that they were comfortably and commodiously located. There is no doubt about that. We could not perhaps nearly so well omit Calgary from our consideration at the present time, if they were located as some of the other services have been. If my hon. friend goes around through the offices and asks the postmaster or the assistants, I believe they will all tell him that they are well housed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Except that they are not all under the one roof. They are scattered all over the community as they are in Ottawa.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not very convenient, but they are well accommodated at the present time; and there are so many places where the services are not so well accommodated that I do not think my hon. friend will find anything unfair in deferring the building of the post office at Calgary until some of these other places have been dealt with.
Now with regard to the policy of erecting public buildings. Allusion has been made to the confederation block, and while it does not arise directly under this item, I perhaps might refer to it. That is a building which when completed we hope will be a credit to the city and to the Dominion. It is a building that will cost in the vicinity of $3,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that all?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the first of a series, the one we have started. Considering the size and character of this building my hon. friends, if they inquire from any architect, will, I think admit that there has been no delay in the preparation of plans and details and the laying out of the building. I may tell my hon. friend that we expect to advertise immediately; if the advertisement is not already in the papers it will be within the next week; the plans and specifications and everything have been prepared.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the first unit?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the first unit.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who is the architect?


John Campbell Elliott: The Department of Public Works architect.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: For what building, may I ask?


John Campbell Elliott: The first of the units for the confederation block. I am very glad to have had the views of my hon. friends in regard to the policy to be adopted in the future. With many of the things that they have said I think it is difficult to disagree. The government has certain advantages, that is, it escapes taxes which the people who rent these buildings have to pay. I was not altogether correct in answering my hon. friend in regard to our being free from taxes dowrn here where we propose to erect this building. We have a number of the buildings now on the site leased. Once we lease a building to someone who is not in the government service and get a rental for it, we become liable for taxes; and it is only that portion of that property that has been liable for taxes in the past. I think the government ought to consider very seriously, in view of the great increase in business since most of the buildings now housing public services were constructed, whether or not at some time in the not

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
distant future they should attempt to embark upon a fairly extensive policy of building. I think it is helpful to have suggestions from the other side of the house. I want to say that I appreciate the manner in which they have been given, and I want to assure the house that this matter is receiving very serious consideration not only from my officials in the department, but from myself.
I might just call attention to the fact that wisely, I think, our predecessors in office decided to defer until the war was over and for a period after the war the construction of buildings which they undertook in 1914. I have no doubt that all the members' of this house are fairly familiar with the fact that in the year 1914 for public works in Canada the sum of $27,991,000 was actually expended. That was the last normal year before the war. Public works are facilities for carrying on the trade of the country and must always bear a certain relation to that trade. The total trade of the country at that time was $1,074,000,000. It was $2,353,000,000 for the year ending 31st March last. Wisely or unwisely the government only saw its way clear to spend on public works $17,000,000. They considered that a reduction of taxation and of debt was so imperative that they could not well go on with public buildings, except those that were absolutely necessary. Then there is the other theory, and perhaps both governments were wrong in regard to that. The expenses of construction it was thought were atmormaly high after the war. I think the government which was in power at the end of the war thought that those expenses would be reduced very materially before now. I know that the present government were of that opinion, and thought it was wise to defer the construction of public buildings until the cost of building had reached a lower level. It has not decreased as was expected, and accordingly rents have not decreased, but they have increased. I think they have increased more than they should have increased but it is a fact that they have increased. But it is very helpful to the department to have the expressions of opinion given in the way these expressions have been given indicating what our hon. friends in all sections of the house think is a wise policy to adopt in the public interest at the present time.
I do not think there is anything further I can say, except again to assure my hon. friends that we have not reached the period in connection with the finances of the country when we can afford to play politics to the extent that some hon. gentlemen have suggested.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say a few words in regard to the building at Baie St. Paul which was spoken of a few minutes ago? If I remember well, the hon. member for Parry Sound (Mr. Arthurs) asked some questions as to the population and revenue of that place. I hold in my hand the report of the Postmaster General for the year ended 31st March, 1927, and I find that the revenue is $3,465.53. Moreover this place serves a district which comprises a much larger population. The people of at least seven parishes come to Baie St. Paul for their mail and many rural services emanate from that point.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The service is not very great if the revenue is only about $3,400.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: It is a divisional point and it serves for the delivery of mail for other parishes. It has been pointed out that there was so much congestion in years past that this item had been long contemplated. For the last twenty-five years at least the federal government has been more or less sponging on the city council or the town council in having a small place where the work of the post office was carried on and it is considered a disgrace that the post office should be given such poor facilities. All the people who know the district, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General and others who have visited it, are well aware that what I say is correct.


James Arthurs: I was not objecting at all to the appropriation for Baie St. Paul and I have no intention of objecting to a vote of that kind. I was simply asking for information as to population and the revenue from the post office. What I intend to say later on has no relation to my hon. friend's remarks. He is quite right in protecting the community of Baie St. Paul, and I have the same right regarding any district or town about which I may speak in future. Baie St. Paul is only one of many places which are similarly situated with larger populations round about. I should like similar information as to population and so forth in connection with Kenogami.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I did not expect at this time that the question of the Calgary post office was coming up. I thought it would be discussed under the particular item; but since the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) and the Minister of Public Works have discussed the question at considerable length, I think I should be allowed the privilege of continuing the discussion so that I need not take the matter up again.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Eugène Fiset: Is it the desire of the committee that we should consider the estimate item by item?


James Dew Chaplin: We have already decided that.


Eugène Fiset: Then this discussion is out of order.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Then the other discussion was also out of order.


John Campbell Elliott: As regards Kenogami the postal revenue for 1926-27 was $8,106, and the population is 2,557, according to the 1921 census, the last that we have.


Mr. GARDINER:: What item are we dealing with now?


Eugène Fiset: Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $102,000'.


Robert Gardiner: May we have the details of that?


James Arthurs: And the details regarding Limoilou.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I had better give them one at a time. My hon. friend asked for the general details in regard to the amount of $102,000. That is the amount that has been spent annually for a number of years for improvements and repairs in connection with Dominion public buildings in the province of Quebec, including those in the city of Montreal. Perhaps while I am on my feet I had better answer with regard to Limoilou. Limoilou is practically part of the city of Quebec at the present time. This building is in a rapidly growing part of the city.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: It is practically part of the city. There are fifty-six industrial establishments, six religious institutions, 152 stores and 3.200 residential buildings served by this building. I have not the population of this part separately, but it is a rapidly growing suburb of Quebec.


James Arthurs: I should like a few details regarding the way in which the item of $102,000 was spent last year for improvements and repairs to Dominion public buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount spent last year is $101,985, made up as follows:
Actonvale. post office. $1,323.44; Arthabaska, post office, $656.90; Aylmer, post office, $74.82; Berthierville, post office. $335.84: Buckingham, post office, $193.19; Cap de la Madeleine, Fortin building (post office), $16.50; Chicoutimi, post office, etc., $117.55; Coaticook, post office, etc., $2,172.82; Cookshire, post
office. $342.70: Drummondville, post office, etc., $94.51; Dundee, custom house, $144.45; East Angus, post office, $267.10; Farnham, post office, $746.79; Gaspe, Carter building (post office, etc.), $38.20; Granby, post office. $540.16; Grand Mere. Banque Nationale building (post office). $2; Hull, post office, $1,937.74; Iberville, post office, $40.05; Joliette, post office, etc., $714.S8; Jonquieres, post office, $139.52; Knowlton, post office, etc., $223.07; Lachine, post office. $110.54; Lachute, post office, $146.75; Lac Megantic, post office, $339.38; La Malbaie. post office, $108.22; La Prairie, post office, $90.06; L'Assomption, post office, $735.08; Levis, post office, etc., $352.33; Longueuil, post office, $96.83; Loretteville, post office, $127.78; Louiseville, post office, $208.95; Magog, post office, $201.42; Maniwaki, post office, $72.65; Marieville. post office, $62; Matane. post office, $82.12; Mont Joli, Levesque building (post office), $4.30; Montmagny, post office. $605.93; Montreal, Ames building (D.S.C.R. etc.), $152.50; Montreal, custom house (old). $1,979.94; Montreal, custom house (canal office), $16.65; Montreal, examining warehouse (new), $7,544.14: Montreal, examining warehouse (old), $537.08: Montreal, forest products laboratory, $99.60; Montreal, Gazette building temporary E.W. (old). $1,502.54; Montreal, generally. $5,546.78; Montreal, old inland revenue building (P.W.O.), $1,108.48; Montreal, post office, etc.. $14,526.61: Montreal, postal station A. $459.60; Montreal, postal station B, $179.52; Montreal, postal station C, $1,113.74; Montreal, postal station D, $486.73; Montreal, postal station E. $246.09; Montreal, postal station F, $247.35: Montreal, postal station L (Westmount), $3,121.13:	Montreal. postal
station G. etc., $175.35; Montreal, postal station H, etc., $650.75; Montreal, postal station N. La Patrie building, $110; Montreal, Labelle building postal station N. etc., $6,184; Montreal, postal station O (St. Laurent), $2,002.73; Montreal, postal station R. $103.93; Montreal, postal station S, $2,577.76; Montreal, postal station Delorimier, 1023-25 Mount Royal ave.. $9.71; Montreal, postal station Hochelaga, $75.02; Montreal, postal station Notre Dame de Grace, 5633 Sherbrooke street, $136.89; Montreal, postal station St. Henri. $1,374.45; Montreal, postal station Verdun. $26; Nicolet, post office, etc.. $109.43; Pierreville, post office, $45.39; Plessisville, post office, $627.12: Quebec, Carrel building (Seeds branch). 55 cents; Quebec, Citadel, Governor General's quarters, $26.32; Quebec, city, generally, $199.69; Quebec, custom house, etc., $1,641.73: Quebec, examining warehouse, $454.99; Quebec, marine agency, King's wharf, $1,904.15; Quebec, Molson's Bank building (old), $73.57; Quebec, Oliver building (R.C.N.V.R.), $54.50; Quebec, post office, etc. (main), $4,099.18; Quebec, postal station B, $22.70; Quebec, postal station St. Roch, $242.66; Quebec, postal station St. Sauveur. $805.97; Richmond, post office, $669.28; Rigaud, post office, $1,196.80; Rimouski, post office, etc., $270.33: Riviere du Loup, post office. $406.50; Roberval. post office, $101.72; Rock Island, post office, $343.48; Ste. Agathe des Monts, post office, $103.15; Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Pilon building (post office), $11.80; St. Gabriel de Brandon, post office, $212.70; St. Hyacinthe, custom and excise building. $593.59; St. Hyacinthe, post office, etc.. $1,109.78; St. Jean, custom house. $177.70; St. Jean, post office, $954.44; St. Jerome, post office, etc.. $172.19; St. Joseph de Beauce, Cliche building (post

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
office), $3; St. Lambert, post office, $301.20; Ste. Therese, post office, $70.55; St. Tite, L'Heureux building (post office), $12.65; Shawinigan Falls, post office, $103.09; Shaw-ville. post office, $64.80; Sherbrooke, Gregoire building W. & M. O. 130 Wellington street, $374.50; Sherbrooke, post office, etc., $5,381.60; Sorel, post office, $1,067.41; Terrebonne, post office, etc., $210.05; Thetford Mines, post office, $143.70; Trois Rivieres, drill hall, $5,034.77; Valleyfield, post office, $3,900.22; Yictoriaville, post office, $365.80; Minor offices throughout Quebec province, $213.80; Generally, $2,344.98- Total, $101,985.17.
That has been practically the annual expenditure for the last three years.


James Arthurs: Was any of this work
done by contract, and if so, for what amounts? Naturally we would suppose that contracts would be let for anything over $5,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that most
of this work was done by day labour.


James Arthurs: Regardless of the
amount?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This doing of work by
day labour is an old, I was going to say, controversy. As a matter of fact, parliament for many years agreed that all work over $5,000 should be done by contract; indeed, I believe there is a statutory provision to that effect, and it says that works under $5,000 "may"-not "shall"

be done by day labour if in the opinion of the minister it is in the interest of the country to do so. Would the minister please give us the contracts in regard to five of the places he mentioned, and which I noted down, although I may not have the exact amounts:	Sherbrooke, $5,381 ;Three Rivers, $5,034; Montreal examining warehouse, $7,500; Montreal post office, $14,000; Labelle, $6,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to obtain
for my hon. friend the details he has asked for.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is a very large item, and we ought to have that explanation. I think the Minister -of Justice and other members of the government will appreciate what I am saying. The item amounts to $102,000. We are not complaining about that, but as we are voting this in a lump sum, and it has all been spent, I understand, except $15, we ought to have an explanation. Perhaps the best thing would be to let this item stand and take up the others, and the minister can give us an explanation as to these other large items where, under the statute, the work should be done by contract.


John Campbell Elliott: If it is considered, by
reason of any special circumstances, that the work can be more advantageously performed by day labour, we are not limited to the amount of $5,000. I think the Sherbrooke post office and the work at Three Rivers were both done by day labour.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is there anything in the
Ontario vote for a building for the Dominion Bureau of Statistics? It is now in a wooden ramshackle building, and the floors, as I said last year, are more like the waves of the ocean than anything else. Thousands of priceless documents are housed -there which should really be in a fireproof building. Is it the intention of the government to put up such a building?
Item stands.
Drummondville public building - addition, $5,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is this for the completion of the building?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
for fittings and lock boxes, S3,750; repairs to concrete retaining wall, $190; iron fence, $290; granite steps, $390; contingencies, $318.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maisonneuve-public building, $125,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: What is this for?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote.


William Garland McQuarrie: I see it is a revote, but the amount, has been revoted for several years.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for the purchase price of the old city hall in Montreal. Apparently they were unable to get the transfer completed before, and the money had to be revoted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mont Laurier-public building, $3,000.
James Arthurs: What is the population
and revenue of this place?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1921 the population
was 1,813, and the postal revenue $15,145.


William Garland McQuarrie: How is the item made
up?


John Campbell Elliott: To complete the contract, $1,000; grading and sidewalks, $1,000; contingencies and inspection, $1,000.


[Stage Direction]
Ttem agreed to.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
Montreal-postal terminal building, $650,000. Mr. ELLIOTT:	Yes, it is towards site
and building.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	This is a large item
and requires some explanation.
John Campbell Elliott: This is required towards
the construction of a postal terminal building for the handling of the mails in connection with the railway terminals at Montreal. At the present time the mails are taken from the railway terminals to the general post office for sortation, and are then returned to the railway terminals for transmission to their destination. The city collections are taken to the post office for sortation, and the outgoing mail is then transferred to the railway station. Foreign mail is taken to postal station "A" for sortation. The general post office is well located and equipped for handing the mail of the financial and business district of Montreal, but is not suited for the sorting, and to overcome the present inadequacy and difficulty it is proposed to erect a building in the vicinity of the railway terminals.


James Arthurs: Where will it be located?
I thought the site for the terminals had not yet been decided upon.


John Campbell Elliott: In the vicinity of the
Bonaventure and Windsor stations.


Mr. FRASER:: I have before me the
Auditor General's report of last year, and I find in part V, section 14, the following:
Montreal postal station site, corner Prince Arthur and Clark streets, to cancel agreement of sale, etc.:-H. Auerbach, in trust for the Montreal Joint Board of Amalgamated Clothing Workers, $5,000.
What is the explanation of this?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no knowledge of it personally, but I am advised that it was proposed to construct a building on the site; then it was decided not to do so and the land was sold for that price.


John Anderson Fraser: This is a payment of money.


John Campbell Elliott: The purchasers did not
proceed and were paid back their deposit. We still have the site.


Robert Gardiner: Has the site for the
postal terminal building been purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: Has the site for this building been purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Wesley Edwards: This item of $650,000 is just for the building; no part of the money is to be used in purchasing the site?


John Wesley Edwards: This is supposed to include the site and the building?


John Campbell Elliott: Not all. The intention
is to construct a building that eventually will cost a million and a half. This is the start.


John Wesley Edwards: That is exactly what I wanted to get at. The item may be all right, but such a large sum should not go through in too short a space of time, for it gives the appearance of undignified haste and would leave us open to the criticism of being indifferent to the voting of large sums.


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


John Wesley Edwards: Taken in connection with the expenditure for tearing down city blocks in Ottawa and for other pm-poses, it creates a bad impression throughout the country. I understand from the minister that this is only the start of an expenditure which roughly will total a million and a half. Does not the minister think we are pretty safe in following past experience and doubling the estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: Not in this department.


John Anderson Fraser: I understood the minister to say that he had not yet purchased the site. What does this item mean in the Auditor General's report?
Montreal, towards purchase of Lavut building for postal station "G":-(Purchase price, $02,500, and $25,000 mortgage assumed, interest at 7 per cent: balance still due, $10,300 and $25,000 mortgage) Royal Trust Co., trustee for London .and Scottish Assurance Corp., fourth annual payment out of five, $10,300.


John Campbell Elliott: No, that is a small postal
station.	.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It is the fourth item
later in that reference.


John Wesley Edwards: What does
the minister estimate the site will cost?


John Campbell Elliott: It is pretty difficult to
say at the present time.
Mr. MeQUARRIE:	Is the site selected?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Have there been any
negotiations for the purchase of a site?


John Campbell Elliott: No.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: The minister stated that this is a third of the ultimate expenditure. Does the same remark apply to some of the other items we have passed? If so, it is very misleading.


John Campbell Elliott: No, most of the items
referred to are final.


Robert Gardiner: Where it is proposed
to make expenditures to this extent, and further expenditures will be necessary to complete the building, the minister should inform us of the total cost.


John Campbell Elliott: I will.


Mr. GEARY:: Does the minister intend
to have this building erected in conjunction with one of the terminal stations of the railways?


John Campbell Elliott: That is not the intention.


George Reginald Geary: That is the usual practice,
is it not?


John Campbell Elliott: No. It is intended to get the buildings as near the station as possible for sorting purposes.


George Reginald Geary: You have not selected the site?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Thomas Cantley: In view of the fact that the terminal station has not been determined on, it seems to me the minister does not know where he will spend this S650,000. We have great difficulty in getting very small amounts when the need is admitted and the plans for the buildings have been completed for years. The minister asks us to vote him $650,000, although he does not know where the building will be located and he has not bought the land; in fact there is no definite basis for the vote. I think he had better leave it over for another year.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend knew
the condition he would not suggest letting this vote stand over for another year. I might read him part of the memorandum submitted by the postal department for these facilities, which are greatly needed:
To place the large mail-handling area of the city of Montreal in a position to cope with the increase in mailing, it was necessary to consider the form of relief that would provide the most efficient service at this time. It was therefore decided to build a main transfer building located contiguous to the railway station.
I do not imagine my hon. friends will think it advisable to be told exactly what property the department has in mind.


Thomas Cantley: Where is the railway
terminal to be?


John Campbell Elliott: In the vicinity of Windsor and Bonaventure stations.


Thomas Cantley: I know it is in the city
of Montreal somewhere; but I do not think the site is determined on yet.


John Campbell Elliott: It is. It will be in that
particular vicinity. I cannot give any more definite information at the present time.


John Wesley Edwards: Has the
minister any options on any property there?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Wesley Edwards: Then the voting of this $650,000 now is by way of in-foi-ming all the real estate agents and property owners to get busy.


John Campbell Elliott: We will keep it general
enough so that no particular lot will be designated, and I do not think any harm will be done. We cannot buy the site until we have the money.


John Wesley Edwards: But you are getting money for the building before you have bought the land.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I
can throw a little light on this vote because I have assisted in choosing the site. The site is on the street opposite Bonaventure station down towards the lower part of it.


Ernest Lapointe: St. James street.


Peter John Veniot: It is situated in such a way that when the projected terminal of the Canadian National Railways is built and the change is made in the Canadian Pacific Railway terminal, we anticipate this will be central to them and will give the necessary accommodation that we require in Montreal for the handling of the large quantity of mail going through there, which is increasing daily. Construction will be on the same lines as the terminals of Toronto, the only difference being that the new building will be put up and we shall not be compelled to buy a building and make the numerous changes which we had to carry out in Toronto in order to give us proper accommodation and a suitable location.


John Wesley Edwards: Did I understand the minister to say that he had assisted in the selection of the site?


Peter John Veniot: I assisted in the selection of the site extension and I wish to say that we now own the property there. It is not sufficient for the whole of the building, but sufficient to begin the work and give us the

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
accommodation at the commencement of the season. We own quite a large property on this site now, and the additional sum required to purchase the rest of the property sufficient for the construction of this building should be voted. I do not think it would be right to ask us to make this information public because we shall have to arbitrate on the remainder of the property contiguous to the site we require. .


William Garland McQuarrie: I understood the Minister of Public Works to say the site had not been selected.


Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Public
Works does not select sites for post offices.


William Garland McQuarrie: He said-


Peter John Veniot: If it has been the practice
in the past under former governments to have sites for post offices selected independently of the Post Office Department, that practice will not continue. The Canadian National used to do that in the past, looking after mail terminals in their stations, but that is not so now. Their engineers are practical men so far as railway matters are concerned, but they are not practical in the handling of mails and in the preparing of plans for mail terminals. That work to-day falls to the engineers of the Post Office department.


John Wesley Edwards: I am sure
there is one gentleman in the house who will appreciate what I said a little while ago on the inadvisability of rushing through these large items with undue haste. The Minister of Public Works is indebted to us on this side of the house for supplying him with a bit of information which he said himself he did not have when he rose to ask for this amount of money. We have at least obtained the information that the site has been selected; we had that from the Postmaster General. That is news to the Minister of Public Works. All he has to do now is to put up the building. I was wondering why they would ask for money to put up a building without a place on which to put it. The Minister of Public Works could not inform us on that very important particular; he did not know. But we have it from the Postmaster General that he has taken part in selecting the site and apparently the Minister of Public Works did not know about it.


Peter John Veniot: I may add for the information of my hon. friend that besides assisting in the selection of the site we submitted these items afterwards to the Minister of Public Works. The site, in the selection of
which I assisted, was the extension. The first site which was chosen and purchased, and is now owned by the Department of Public Works, was chosen and purchased by my hon. friends opposite-the old Carslake hotel.


John Wesley Edwards: The Minister of Public Works will be glad to know about it. Apparently he did not know. Here we have a minister getting up and asking the committee to vote $650,000 to put up a building and he does not know where it will be, while the Postmaster General has been informed all the time that a part of this was purchased years ago. All this is news to me and apparently it is news to the Postmaster General's colleague, the Minister of Public Works.


Robert James Manion: May I ask the Postmaster General a question? He said that he helped to choose the site. How did he come to be called in by the previous government?


Peter John Veniot: I can easily answer that. If my hon. friend had been paying attention to what I said-


Robert James Manion: I always do.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have to.


Peter John Veniot: I said I assisted in the
selection as regards the extension. I used the word "extension"; Hansard will show it.


Robert James Manion: You can extend only
what you already have.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman asked
a question and I was trying to answer it. That extension is now a part of the site chosen by our friends when in power.


Robert James Manion: I was at one time Postmaster General and I was wondering how I had been overlooked.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend was there so diort a time that he knew nothing about it.


Robert James Manion: I was there a short time, it is true, but I do not see why my hon, friend should be called in over my head.


Peter John Veniot: I certainly would not attempt to go over the head of the hon. gentleman; the task would be too difficult.


John Wesley Edwards: The Minister of Public Works, from his want of knowledge, has also been there a very short time.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to say for the information of my hon. friend from Frontenac that the selection of the site for the building
2648	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Quebec
we put up is made by the Department of Public Works. The Postmaster General or someone else may have in mind, perhaps the very best site in the world, a site which he thinks is the proper one, and we are glad to have his recommendations and any other information we may have on the subject. But the site is not acquired, so far as this department is concerned, until we select it. I might add for the benefit of my genial friend from Frontenac that I have here a map showing the property which is owned at the present time as well as the property suggested by the Post Office department, and which is probably the proper site. So far as this department is concerned, if that addition cannot be purchased at a price that is reasonable, either it will be expropriated or the building will go up somewhere else.


George Reginald Geary: Who selected the site immediately adjacent to the site already selected?


John Wesley Edwards: I say again that the Minister of Public Works is under a debt of gratitude to me-


Mr. ELLIOT:: I always am.


John Wesley Edwards: -and to
others as well, and I hope he will not forget that debt.


John Campbell Elliott: Never.


John Wesley Edwards: I could not for the life of me accept the statement of the Postmaster General that he selected this site. I remember fourteen years ago going with a representative of the Department of Public Works to select a site for a post office in the village of Sydenham. I was there in a sort of advisory capacity, but it was the Public Works department that selected the site. My impression always' has been, the Postmaster General to the contrary notwithstanding, that these sites were selected and purchased by the Public Works department. In this regard the Postmaster General is in about the same position as anyone else: he may offer suggestions or advice, but he cannot issue any commands. He has represented himself in this house as the big Poo-Bah in connection with these buildings; but after all he is only in the position of anyone else who may offer a little advice or some suggestions. But the Minister of Public Works is the allpowerful man who really does the purchasing, the Postmaster General sitting by, thinking he is running the whole show.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Montreal-Craig street drill hall-government's share of cost of local improvements, $1,742.
John Wesley Edwards: This item should carry, especially because it is in Montreal and it is for drill purposes. I respectfully suggest that the Minister of Public Works take the Postmaster General down there and put him through a series of drills before he brings on his estimates.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is it the policy of the Dominion government to pay for local improvements in front of properties owned by the government, not only in Montreal but in other places as well?


John Campbell Elliott: That has been the practice.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-postal station in Outremont division, $53,000.
James Dew Chaplin: What is the history of this property? Evidently this is a revote. What was the amount of contract?


John Campbell Elliott: The revote is $30,000. The
site has been purchased.


James Dew Chaplin: How much was spent last year out of the $50,000 then voted.


John Campbell Elliott: Up to March 31, $20,507 had been spent.


James Dew Chaplin: Was that for the site?


John Campbell Elliott: The site cost $19,200, which
is included in that amount.


James Dew Chaplin: And $53,000 will complete it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it will complete everything.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-towards purchase of Lavut building for postal station "G", $14,005.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the item to which reference was made a moment ago, covering one payment on the purchase of a building for postal station "G".


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec citadel-Governor General's quarters *-additions, alterations and improvements, $150,000.
James Dew Chaplin: What is the explanation with regard to this amount? We voted $100,000 last year.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $150,000
is required to complete the remodelling and

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
refurnishing of the quarters of the Governor General in the Quebec citadel. The work is of a miscellaneous character and consists of the entire renovation of the existing building, which was erected about a century ago and was in a very bad state of repair, part of it practically gone to decay. The work to be undertaken during the year is of two kinds: Renovation and alterations such as renewal of floors, window panes, sashes, doors, alterations to stairs, new plumbing, new roofing, alterations to the heating plant, painting and replastering. This is estimated to cost $8O,00G.


George Reginald Geary: Outside of that the building is all right? '


John Campbell Elliott: Outside of that the building is as good as any building a hundred years old. The balance of the amount, $70,000, is for furnishing such as carpets, draperies, furniture and so on. It means almost a complete refurnishing of .the quarters.


James Dew Chaplin: Where did former governors general go?


John Campbell Elliott: To the same place.
. Mr. CANNON: But not since 1915 or 1916-
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Quebec citadel-Governor General's quarters -additions, alterations and improvements, $150,000.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at six o'clock I was asking the minister for some information in respect to this vote. Was the money spent that was voted last year, and what commitments, if any, have we in respect of this vote of $150,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The money voted last year is practically all spent. Certain further work has been proceeded with, on account of its being urgent, and the desire to have the alterations and improvements completed by next June.


James Dew Chaplin: Then part of the money which we propose to vote now has been already spent?


John Campbell Elliott: We are practically committed to it, subject to its being voted by the house.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not know just what sort of bug gets into the minds of ministers when they set out to spend money on a proposition of this kind. We have one official
residence for the governor general; now we are to have another house at Quebec, and I hear rumours around the house that there is one proposed on the west coast, at Vancouver or somewhere in British Columbia. Where is this thing going to end? For my part I have not spoken to the ministers regarding any appropriation in my county, neither last year nor the year before, although I could point out to many places both in my county and in the adjoining county where it is necessary to spend money. Although there are hundreds of constituencies where the expenditure of money is necessary in the interests of the public service, we are met here with an unnecessary and unwarranted expenditure, and I for one object to it.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I should like to add my protest against the expenditure for this purpose. I quite concede that something should be done to maintain the citadel at Quebec. I remember a few years ago visiting it and noting with some regret that the old walls were in a very bad condition. I was shown the governor general's room there, and undoubtedly it was not a fit place in which to place the governor general. But why is it necessary to erect new residence for him at the citadel? There is a chateau there in which he can be very well provided for. He has his own private cars-about which perhaps we may have an opportunity of hearing something a little bit later-and in these very frequently he can remain with a good deal of comfort. It seems to me we are simply copj'ing some of the least desirable practices of Great Britain, where the king has castles and houses here and there across the country. The governor general will more and more, become, as I understand it from the constitutional standpoint, purely the representative of the king in Canada, and I do not see why we should attempt to provide for a style of living, in respect to the governor general's quarters that is not in conformity with the ideals of the vast majority of the Canadian people. We do not need to set up a kind of semi-feudalism in this country. As has been said, there are a very large number of perfectly legitimate expenditures of which we stand in great need. I fancy we shall be told before very long that we cannot possibly put into operation such a scheme as unemployment insurance because we have not the funds at our disposal. We are told again and again that certain items are being cut downi-items which are very necessary, involving expenditures which would really help the people-because we must preserve the

Sup-ply-Public Works-Quebec
treasury against the raids being made upon it. In the face of all this it seems to me it is absolutely unjustifiable for us to vote such a large sum for what is after all quite an unnecesary purpose and a purpose which is not in harmony with the best thinking of our Canadian people. I want to add my protest against such a vote.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give the committee the information as to what the expenditure is for?


John Campbell Elliott: I will give it again; perhaps my hon. friend was not in the chamber when I gave it. The amount asked is for work on the building, renewals and alterations, such as window frames, sashes, doors, alterations to the stairs, new roofing, alterations to heating, painting and replastering. To complete the alterations, covering practically everything connected with the building, it is estimated that $,80,000 will be required. The remaining $70,000 is for furnishings, such as carpets, draperies, furniture and fittings, for the existing building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does that complete the furnishings?


John Campbell Elliott: It is hoped so.


Arthur Edward Ross: Just before six
o'clock the minister assured us that his department made no mistakes in estimating. I am sure we were under the impression last year that $100,000 would complete this work, so that there is a slight error, to the extent of 150 per cent, in the estimate of cost. Now there is a little doubt as to whether or not even this further appropriation will complete the work. I have no objection to this vote if it is absolutely necessary, but I think the money is being spent on a pretence, because I am sure the governor general will not spend a week at the citadel. It is simply to make it a sightseeing place in Quebec and a means of renewing part of the old fortifications. As I said this afternoon, there are two other places nearly as old as Quebec and unless the minister comes forward with a scheme which will prevent the destruction going on in those places, we shall have to make a stronger opposition to this next year.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is wrong in his assumption, because I know it is the intention of His Excellency the Governor General to spend in Quebec a part of the year both in summer and in winter.


Arthur Edward Ross: There are other
capitals.


Ernest Lapointe: But I did not rise for
the purpose of saying that; I wish merely to read to the committee the comment last year of the then leader of the opposition when this appropriation came before the house. These are as his words as reported on page 1113 in Hansard of last year:
Mr. Guthrie: I agree with the minister in regard to this vote. I think we ought to preserve this historic monument of past days for it is something in which every citizen of Canada should take a just pride. I have not visited the citadel since the Duke of Devonshire was here as Governor General, and even at that time the whole premises were sadly out of repair. If nothing has been done in the intervening years the place must be in a very dilapidated condition to-day. Possibly the amount asked for, $100,000, is large, but having regard to the fact that this is one of the outstanding historic sites in Canada I believe that the people of the country desire to have it maintained in a condition befitting our wealth and consequence in this land. While I am disposed to criticize much of the outlay proposed in these estimates, while I do oppose political expenditures throughout the country on post offices and other buildings for which there is no need at the present time, I am inclined to commend this vote, and I hope that the money we are now granting will place the Quebec citadel in proper shape, not only for the comfort of Their Excellencies, but also as a monument in which the Dominion at large is interested.
After such nice words I am not surprised that the Minister of Public Works was keen to go on with the work.


James Dew Chaplin: It seems to me that the
remarks just read by the minister constitute one of the severest criticisms that could be made of this government.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend has a
queer way of appreciating things.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member spoke
last year as leader of the opposition and even then he thought $100,000 was an extravagant expenditure. The government are now asking for an additional $150,000 to do practically the same work over again. It seems to me that the citadel must be deteriorating very fast when the government have to come to parliament each year asking for a certain amount. How much is it going to cost for the upkeep of the citadel year after year? How much will the furniture and all the furbelows cost and what will be the cost in the way of people to look after the place? I object to our having two or three places for our very much respected Governor General. We have one place of residence now and a great deal of money has been spent on it. While money is needed elsewhere throughout the country I object strongly to this expenditure.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do any of the other
British dominions provide two homes for their governors general?


John Campbell Elliott: I may say very frankly
I have not visited the homes of governors general in any of the other countries, but my information is that in India, at any rate, where Their Excellencies were at one time, there is more than one place of residence.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why should we follow
India's example?


John Campbell Elliott: We are following Canada in this respect. This is not something new. We have had the two residences for Their Excellencies for many years. We are simply putting back into repair one of the residences.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is there anything of the old citadel left?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, the walls. But there is no question that the building that was erected more than a century ago at great expense is in a very worn and decayed condition. We are not starting out on something new. When the war was on, repairs were required and it was not considered that was the proper time to make them. The condition became so bad during the period of the war that the place could not be occupied. Things were just allowed to drift along and the time came when the government had to decide whether or not that the great old historic landmark, a beautiful building constructed at great expense years ago, having been kept up for a number of years as a residence for a part of the year at any rats of the governor general, should be permitted to fall into decay and lost to the people of Canada as an historic landmark. The government believed it was not advisable to allow it to deteriorate. I do not want to refer to the wishes of any of the parties concerned; but the government, considering all the circumstances, believe this was an expenditure not only that they were justified in making, but that under the circumstances they could not avoid making. They felt it was their duty to see that the old citadel was not allowed to be lost to the people of this country.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I have no objection to
keeping the old citadel of Quebec as an historic landmark; but will all deference to Their Excellencies, who are very popular and whom I would not wish to see suffer any discomfort, I must say that they have one good home provided for them in Ottawa, and I think it is going beyond -our province to supply two homes for them when we cannot afford it and when no other dominion is doing likewise.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems a most
extraordinary thing that, as the minister has really admitted, because Their Excellencies lived in India and had more than one home there, we should afford them more than one home in Canada. If anyone will consider the conditions of the ordinary peasants and workers of India and compare them with what we have here, I should say it is a great deal better that we should maintain decent standards for all the people of Canada than that we should take India as our example. It is a most extraordinary thing that, as the minister has really admitted just now, this is being done because of the personal ideas of Their Excellencies who at present occupy the position at Rideau Hall. If we are going to have a governor general's residence in Quebec there is every reason why we should have a governor general's residence in each of the other provinces. The minister is endeavouring to confuse the committee between the question of maintaining an historic landmark and that of providing a sort of vice-regal residence that will be occupied for a few weeks in the year. Do we need curtains, carpets and elaborate furniture in order to maintain an historic landmark? Do we need the very heavy expenditure, that will be necessary for the upkeep of this place? We have almost reached the limit along this line, and speaking for my constituents and for a large number of people with whom I am in close contact across the country and whom I am trying to represent, I want again to protest against this expenditure and to suggest that instead of expending the money in this way, we should vote it for some purposes that are really necessary for the welfare of the people at large.


Thomas Cantley: When this matter was before the house a year ago the 'hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) made a very moving appeal in regard to the restoration of the walls tf the citadel of Quebec. Partly as a result of that appeal we agreed to an amount of $100,000 being appropriated on that occasion. Now, if the minister would be good enough to speak a little louder, because as a rule the recording angel could not hear what he says, much less we on this side-


Mr. ERNST:: He does not want the
recording angel to hear him.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Use Gabriel's trumpet.


Thomas Cantley: I ask the minister what
proportion of the amount voted last year was spent on the walls of the citadel at Quebec.



Supply-Public Works-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: I explained before my hon. friend came in that all the amount had been spent, or commitments made for its expenditure.


Thomas Cantley: For what purpose?


John Campbell Elliott: For the building in connection with the citadel, and for quarters for the servants of the Governor General.


Thomas Cantley: The understanding last
year was that the major portion of this amount should be expended on the walls of the citadel.


Ernest Lapointe: No. I have last year's
debates in my hand; I will send the volume over to my hon. friend, and he will see that he is wrong.


Thomas Cantley: The understanding was
that it was to be spent on the restoration of the walls of the citadel, rather than on the governor general's quarters. If we are going to restore fortifications, we have fortifications at Halifax, to which reference was made today by the junior member for Halifax, and I submit that the fortifications there are just as important and have just as great an historic interest as the fortification at Quebec. If we are going to have the governor general residing a portion of each year in different provinces, I think it is just as important that he should visit the "bluenoses" as the people of Quebec. We have at Halifax the Admiralty House, which has not been kept up for some considerable time. If you spent a quarter of a million dollars on the citadel building, that sum is a great deal more than the whole fortification works at Quebec cost when first built. As a resident of Nova Scotia I claim that, justice be done us in this as in other matters which we have brought to the attention of the house.


Mr. BOURASSA:: 
Ernest Lapointe: Mansion.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If it is suggested that it is a proper thing to supply some lodgment for Their Excellencies when they come to the province of Quebec, I entirely agree with the members from the other provinces who have spoken, that the governor general should be supplied with a residence in each province. That might become a little costly. It seems to me that the governor general might well reside in the various houses or mansions that are at the disposal of the lieutenant governors of the provinces. I do not think the governor general should feel humbled or that his dignity or office would be lowered in any way by the fact that he lodged under the same roof as the lieutenant governor.
While I am on my feet I wish to make good a promise that I made to my good friends of Cape Breton when travelling through that very fine part of the province of Nova Scotia last summer. I revisited Louisburg after an interval of some thirty years, and I found there a notice to the public, asking them to do their share in maintaining that historic spot, but, of course, the people who pass there are not very many. It seems to me that the government and parliament of Canada, representing the whole people, should do something for what remains of Louisburg, and I would say the same for Amherst and Beausejour. They are all
MAY 3, 1928	H
Supply-Public TVorks-Quebec
histone spots, though perhaps not to the same extent as Quebec, but much of historic value attaches to them all. I was amazed to compare what remains of Louisburg to-day with what I saw there thirty years ago. I drove there from Sydney thirty years ago- there was then no railway on the island of Cape Breton,-and it was a delight to enjoy the spectacle of rhe rocks stretching out into the sea on that bright summer morning. With proper guidance you could follow the traces of the old town and see what remained of the foundations of the governor general's residence, the old church, and so forth, but all that is fast disappearing. The earth and refuse- and manure from the animals passing by has covered up practically all that remains, except the powder magazine. The burying places of both the English, the French and the Bostonese are in a terrible state of abandonment, and I suggest that the members representing that part of Canada do their little bit in attracting the attention of parliament and the government to the necessity of preserving this historic spot.


Charles A. Stewart: That is
being done.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I am glad to hear it.
I hope some intelligent work will be done with regard to Louisburg. It would be futile, I think, to attempt to rebuild any of the old buildings on a large scale, but at least the ground could be cleared, and what remains of the old foundations could be preserved so that one passing through the streets of the old town could recall its history. To a certain extent, all things being relative, it would be like passing through the ruins of Pompeii. It has the advantage of being outside the new town so that it can be preserved in a decent state, and its historic features will be of interest to tourists and stimulate in the youth of the district a desire to acquaint themselves with the history of their country. There is now a considerable foreign population in that part of the country working in the mines and other local industries, and by preserving these ruins we may also do useful work in arousing in them a desire to study the past of their adopted country.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, for the first time-and perhaps for the last-I find myself in agreement with the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa). I do not think there is any difference of opinion in this house as to the advisability and S6103-16SJ
propriety of maintaining these old historic landmarks in Quebec, Louisburg, Halifax and Kingston. I think we all agree that they should be maintained because of their historic associations. But I am absolutely opposed to spending public money to provide half a dozen residences for the governor general, no matter who he may be. I do not think it is necessary; such expenditure is a waste of money. I believe there is in the city of Winnipeg a group of rooms in the Royal Alexandra hotel, called the royal suite, which apparently was good enough for His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales when he was in that city.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.


John Wesley Edwards: What is
the matter? Already we have a lieutenant governor's residence in each provincial capital, where I dare say His Excellency would be very welcome indeed for a few days' stay, and in addition he has his own palatial private car. Therefore I submit that to spend a quarter of million dollars on furniture, carpets and that sort of thing-with another residence for His Excellency contemplated on the Pacific coast-is a criminal waste of money in view of the many necessary public works throughout the country which are being left in abeyance. If the minister will tell us how much of this $150,000 is required for real repair work to maintain the Quebec citadel as an historic landmark, I shall be prepared to vote for that portion of the item; but since he has told us that at least $70,000 or $80,000 is to provide for carpets and furniture, I must vote against that expenditure. I think he ought to inform us how much more money is required, in addition to the $100,000 voted last year, which was voted, not with the primary object of establishing another residence for His Excellency but to maintain an historic landmark. Let him divide this amount between what is really required for putting the citadel in proper condition to maintain it as a national monument and what is required to furnish the governor general's quarters. I am prepared to make a motion just as soon as the minister gives us that information.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, to see the member for Labelle and the member for Frontenac agreeing for once, and I rise to support them both, for this reason. Like the member for Labelle, I promised some friends of mine that at this session I would

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
draw the attention of parliament and of the country to the condition of the Louisburg ruins. I had the pleasure of visiting that old landmark about two days ahead of the hon. member for Labelle last summer. Three things there very much surprised me: first, the many historic points of absorbing interest that were neglected; second, the very beautiful shaft erected on the site, which I expected would be inscribed with a brief account of the once magnificent fortress. Instead I found the shaft had been placed there by the American Historical Society to perpetuate the colonial historic associations of Louisburg. Third, I saw an endeavour to restore some parts of the old fort, but I found that this work had been undertaken by an American resident who, unfortunately, died before he was able to complete his plans. I am in thorough accord with the view that we should maintain our historic landmarks, and if any of this money is to be spent on such restoration I am sure it will meet with the approval of the country as a whole; but I do not think we are in a position to spend a quarter of a million dollars just to make a summer residence for the governor general.


James Dew Chaplin: Mr. Chairman, I beg to
move, seconded by Mr. Stevens:
That the vote for Quebec citadel, governor general's quarters, be reduced by $70,000, stated to be the cost of the furnishings.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Just a word, Mr. Chairman, in support of m(y action in seconding the motion. I take second place to no one in providing suitable accommodation for His Excellency the Governor General. But last year we were asked for 3100,000, and in harmony with the views expressed by the then leader of the opposition the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), I supported the vote, on the understanding that it was for the purpose primarily of preserving or restoring that historic spot, including provision for certain accommodation. But we had no idea that it would cost any more than $100,000. Now we are asked to Vote another $150,000 for this work, which we were informed last year would be completed with the expenditure of the amount then voted. The statement has been made, in support of this vote, that it is required for the preservation of the Walls of this historic site. And then we are told that $70,000 is to ibe spent in curtains, carpets and furnishings. We certainly are not going to preserve the walls of that place by spending $70,000 on lace curtains and fancy carpets. To me the thing is preposterous in
fMr Kaiser.]
the present circumstances, and I take pleasure in seconding the motion of the hon. member for Lincoln that the vote be reduced by $70,000.


Mr. HEAPS:: When this vote was before the house last year, the Minister of Public Works made the following statement:
This vote is required for the remodelling of the (governor General's quarters in the Quebec citadel. The improvements embrace works of a miscellaneous character consisting of the remodelling and renovating of the quarters and the erection of a permanent addition for servants' quarters, kitchen and so forth. The work, it is estimated, will cost approximately, $100,000.
This was the estimate which the minister gave to the house last year. On a subsequent occasion in the same debate he was asked by myself how this money was to be apportioned, how much was to go towards repairs of the historic part of the work and how much towards the governor general's residence. He replied:
I am unable to gi.ve very definite details. The architect has been over the building but I may frankly tell my hon. friend that at this time of year it is quite difficult to estimate what it will cost to preserve a considerable portion of the existing structure.


John Campbell Elliott: Will the hon. member read the rest of the paragraph?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I quote further:
This vote is merely an estimate. The full amount will, however, be required and before the department is able to put the premises in that permanent shape which we desire, I rather think the amount will be exceeded. An attempt is being made to render the place habitable, as it is not now, both for winter and summer. Furthermore, a good deal of furnishing will be required as well as inside fittings. This is the estimate which the architect, after a careful survey of the whole place, was able to submit to us.
I had no idea a year ago that the minister would come back at this session and ask for an extra $150,000. Had the estimate been exceeded by 25 per cent, one could understand it. However, I desire to know from the minister how the $100,000 has been spent. How much has gone to the governor general's residence and how much has been spent in repairs to the historic part of the citadel? Also, how much of the present amount is to be spent exclusively on furnishings for His Ex-celency's residence? The minister might tell us at the same time what it costs to maintain the residence annually.


James Arthurs: I have no brief for or
against His Excellency, nor have I any desire to restrict the number of residences he may or may not have. Last year we were asked

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
to vote a sum of approximately $100,000 for the betterment of the battlefield memorial at Quebec. That was under the guise of a vote similar to this, and the defence put forward by the government was that the money was largely for the purpose of preserving historic memorials in the city of Quebec. We have this year, on page 60 of the estimates, a vote of $180,000 for battlefield memorials; the amount last year was $200,000. A bill has been introduced this session granting to the government permission to spend $75,000 per annum for ten years, or $750,000, in addition to the grants I have previously mentioned, in relation to the battlefield memorials. There is no question in my mind as regards the right or the wrong of this vote. We have no desire on this side of the house-certainly I have none personally -to do anything that would detract from the memorials which we should preserve in this country. But I have a decided opposition to spending $100,000, voted last year, and $150,000 this year, in addition to various sums in the future under the guise-and I say this purposely, under the guise-of providing a residence for His Excellency in the province of Quebec. If this money were for the purpose of a residence in that province, then each province should be given exactly the same treatment. But the fact is that this is simply for the purpose of having the vote passed more easily through the house. I for one am prepared to vote against any estimate of this kind, especially in view of the fact that we have provided, as I have said, $75,000 per annum for ten years, and that there is a vote of $180,000 in the estimates this year, in addition to the $200,000 last year for battlefield memorials. While there are so many places where the expenditure of public money is necessary, I am prepared to vote against this or any other item of a similar character.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I am really surprised to hear the hon. gentleman state that he will vote against this estimate for repairs to the citadel of Quebec.


James Arthurs: That is not correct; I
am not prepared to vote against that and I never said I was. I am prepared to vote against any vote of money to establish a residence for His Excellency in Quebec or anywhere else.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: My hon. friend knows
that this amount is to repair the governor general's quarters at Quebec.


James Arthurs: No, it is not; the $70,000 is for carpets.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The vote is $150,000.


William Gordon Ernst: There is $70,000 for furniture.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: That is to rehabilitate the residence of the Governor General in the citadel of Quebec.


James Arthurs: What about last year's
vote?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: This is to complete
the work. May I point out to my hon. friends opposite that the residence which we are discussing is the place where the Prince of Wales lodges when he is in Quebec; it is the place where King George himself put up when in Quebec in 1908. If there is any property that should be maintained by this country it is the citadel and the fortifications of Quebec. But it is always the same: every time money is asked for Quebec an objection is raised. What about the $9,000,000 for Ottawa? What about the $100,000,000 for Toronto?


James Arthurs: One hundred millions?


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: Yes, if you take the whole amount voted for Toronto. This session we are to vote $10,500,000 for Toronto, but hon. gentlemen opposite do not say so much about votes for Toronto or for Ottawa. I am not prepared to say that the amount voted for Ottawa was not justified, but there was no great opposition to it.


James Arthurs: I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is entirely out of order.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: I want to say that every time an amount is requested for the city of Quebec hon. gentlemen opposite raise objections.


John Wesley Edwards: That is not correct.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Henri-Edgar Lavigueur: The hon. gentleman cannot mention a single instance where objection has not been taken to votes provided for the city of Quebec.


Mr. CANNON:: The discussion which has taken place so far has disclosed the fact that members of the committee are at least unanimous on one point, that is, that our historical monuments throughout the country should be maintained'. There has been no dissenting voice to that suggestion, so the question which I would like to bring before the committee is whether this vote is really for the maintenance of a historical monument or whether, as some hon'. members have contended, it is giving way in a too generous spirit to extravagant and altogether unnecessary expenditures. What is the Quebec citadel?

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
It is a work which was erected by the imperial authorities over one hundred years ago at a total cost of over 840,000,000. It is a very considerable piece of work, judging from the cost and considering the value of money over a hundred years ago. The citadel comprises not only that part of the structure which overlooks the harbour of Quebec but also the series of walls which surround the inner or older part of our city. Ever since its erection the citadel has been the headquarters of the representative in Canada of His Majesty the King.


James Arthurs: No, no.


Lucien Cannon: It has. If the hon. gentlemen who have visited Quebec will recall, the quarters of the governor general are mot a separate building from the citadel as the hon. member for Labelle has intimated, but are a part of the citadel1 itself.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: That is not so.


Lucien Cannon: The quarters of the governor general are that part of the citadel beginning at the quarters now occupied by the 22nd 'battalion on to the bastion which overlooks the river, but these quarters do not comprise a separate structure or building; they are not distinct from the citadel but are part and parcel of the citadel itself.


James Arthurs: If the hon. gentleman would answer a question I would ask whether these quarters were prepared for that purpose.


Lucien Cannon: Certainly they were.


James Arthurs: A hundred years ago?


Lucien Cannon: Certainly.


James Arthurs: We had no governor general a hundred years ago not until thirty years later.
Mr. 'LAPOINTE: Where does my hon. friend get his history?


Lucien Cannon: In answer to my hon. friend 3 would say that that part of the citadel always has been used as the headiquarters of the representative in Canada of His Majesty the King.


James Arthurs: That is not what the hon. gentleman said.


Lucien Cannon: Those are the facts, and to show just what kind of historical monument this is I would remind hon. gentlemen that .when you enter the quarters of the governor general you see on all the fireplaces the arms of England. You will also notice the date and the fact that William IV was king of

England at the time this building was constructed. These being the facts, can we pretend o.n the one hand that we are in favour of maintaining the historical monuments of Canada while we support an amendment designed to eliminate an expenditure for the maintenance of such a monument as the Quebec citadel? That is the whole question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is not the question.


James Dew Chaplin: The question is as to the carpets and curtains.


Lucien Cannon: I am coming to that, if my hon. friend will allow me to explain my position. This question has been often asked of my colleague the Minister of Public Works: "How much of that money has been expended in repairing the walls and how much has been expended for the embellishment of the quarters of the governor general?" It is impossible to put the quarters of His Excellency the Governor General in proper shape without repairing the walls, because the quarters are enclosed by those very walls.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: If the hon. gentleman will allow me, the walls which are tumbling down are five hundred feet from the quarters of the governor general.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I saw them last fall.


Lucien Cannon: Not at all.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: The walls on St. Louis street were tumbling down last year; I called the matter to the .attention of the government and I went there again last fall and saw them in the same condition.


Lucien Cannon: My hon. friend is not discussing the question at all. He talks about walls on St. Louis street, but I am talking about the walls of the citadel where the quarters of the governor general are located. My hon. friend cannot take one section of the walls and leave aside the other section in order to build up his case. I am talking of the walls as a whole.


James Dew Chaplin: I would suggest that some of these curtains be hung over the holes in the wall.


Lucien Cannon: If my hon. friend will permit, I will continue to discuss this question seriously. I was trying to show the committee that the walls which have been mentioned and which every member of the committee desires to see maintained and kept in

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
proper condition, are the veTy walls which enclose the quarters now being repaired. How can it be contended that this expenditure is simply to provide quarters for the governor general when it provides for repairing and maintaining the old walls?


James Arthurs: No one claims that.


Lucien Cannon: That was claimed by the hon. member for Labelle a few moments ago. Now, Mr. Chairman, let me touch another aspect of this question. Why did the governor general choose to live in Quebec for a certain period during the year, ever since we have had British rule? For the very excellent reason that this country is peopled by two different races, and that Quebec is historically and traditionally the capital of French Canada. It is true we have a federal capital, Ottawa; but so far as the oldest section of Canada is concerned, its capital is Quebec. In recognition of this ethnical fact, in order to promote the very highest object that omy man in public life may have, namely the union of the two races in this country, the British governors chose to come to Quebec in order to keep as closely as possible in touch with French Canada. They did that up to 1915 or lt>16, when conditions in the citadel were such that it was impossible for the representative of the king any longer to grace with his presence our city of Quebec. This government has decided to revive an old tradition and to allow the representative of our king in Canada to come into the city of Quebec for certain periods during the year. The only way to do that is to restore the old quarters and to allow Their Excellencies to live on the citadel, as has been done by all governors general for a hundred years past.
Coming to the last argument put forward by my hon. friend, they talk of carpets, of laces, and of extravagance. I am astounded at hearing such remarks coming from Tory lips. We are living in a period where appeals to demagogy are very often heard. Social unrest is frequently produced by appeals such as those we have heard in this house with regard to laces, curtains, extravagance. Tonight we talk about laces, curtains and extravagance in very exalted quarters, and my hon. friends opposite are those who are responsible for this appeal. On the other hand they are always eager to rise when any attack along the same line is made against people who sometimes are not as worthy of defence, namely, the capitalists of this country. They are willing to have as high a tariff as possible in order to allow the capitalists to reap as large a profit as they possibly can. That is
their policy; that is what they call their national policy. But when we suggest that we revive an old tradition, that we continue a movement to promote union in Canada, their answer is "curtains, laces, extravagance."
Coming from the province of Quebec, I may tell these gentlemen that although we have been accused at times of not representing as high an ideal of British traditions as they do, we are not afraid of expenditures when it comes to giving to the representatives of His Majesty proper accommodation. Our province is a model to every other province in Canada in that regard. Our lieutenant-governor lives at Speneerwood, and our provincial government votes every year over forty thousand dollars, sometimes a hundred thousand, to see to it that the lieutenant-governor of Quebec is enabled to occupy his very high position in a becoming manner. I have no doubt, Mr. Chairman, that this committee will also come to the conclusion that our Canada is big enough, large enough a country, to see to it that proper accommodation is provided for the representative of His Majesty in Canada.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Was not the city of Ottawa chosen as the capital of Canada because it was contiguous to the sections occupied by both races?


Lucien Cannon: Yes, to a great extent because it was the centre of the country. But as I stated before, although Ottawa is the federal capital, Quebec will always remain the capital of French Canada.


Mr. POWER:: I understand that before I entered the chamber this evening reference was made to certain remarks which I had made in support of the vote last year. According to my information it was said that there had been an atempt on my part to deceive the house by stating that the amounts voted were for the purpose of repairing the ancient walls, in which the older members of this house know I have taken considerable interest for some years. I have taken the trouble to look up the record, and I find that I stated my position in words which are found at page 1114 of Hansard of 1928-27. After referring to the walls and to the sympathetic attention which this house had always given to any request to have them repaired, I stated with reference to this vote:
With regard to this particular vote, in so far as it will help to build up the walls near where the governor general's quarters are, it has my hearty support and endorsement. In order that the house may know that there is nothing political in this, I may say that the

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
citadel is situated in my constituency, and I never knew until the estimates came down that there was any question of having a vote to repair the governor general's quarters.
That was absolutely true, and I repeat the story told the house last year with respect to thait. Then I went on to say:
I have made no representations to the Minister of National Defence or any minister with reference to this matter, but I may say that the repairs had been asked for by His Excellency, Lord Byng, and by other governors general. Moreover it is, I understand, the intention of the government and of Their Excellencies to receive the Prince of Wales at the Quebec citadel next summer when he comes to Canada, and it is only fitting that the quarters should be put into proper repair and made fit to receive the Prince.


William Gordon Ernst: That was done.


Charles Gavan Power: No, it was not. The committee will understand that last year no attempt was made on my part to deceive any member. I stated my position quite frankly and to a large extent that is my position to-day. I am supporting this appropriation because I understand the estimate first provided was not sufficient to carry out the work intended. Whatever may be said with reference thereto by other members, I can assure the committee that the governor general's quarters are part and parcel of the ancient citadel. Those of us who have been to Quebec and have come up the river have seen the citadel frowning over the river St. Lawrence. It is that portion in which the governor general's quarters are situated.


James Dew Chaplin: We would rather see it
smile.


Charles Gavan Power: More than likely the hon.
member would. If he will come to Quebec I shall not be on the citadel but I shall be on the wharf and I shall meet him with a smile and a long one-quite a few smiles. As I -was saying, this was part and parcel of the old citadel. The outer walls are falling on the terrace known as the Lord Grey terrace. It is true, as the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) says, that the inner walls and the walls of the moats are perhaps in a more dangerous condition, but I think he will also tell the committee that he may have noticed scaffolding on the outer walls where repairs were actually going on last year. I am particularly interested, quite apart from the historic standpoint, in that the portion of my constituency which gives me the largest majority is situated immediately beneath the citadel and if the walls fall down I shall lose 
a great deal of my majority. I have made repeated representations to the government to see to it that my majority is not wiped out by a landslide, and I am in hopes that within a very short time steps will be taken to ensure that that portion of the cliff and citadel do not fall down. This amount, however, is being expended to a large extent in repairing the walls.
With reference to the interior I understand the reluctance which hon. gentlemen opposite and indeed hon. gentlemen in all parts of the house have to voting money for interior fittings; but as has been explained by the Solicitor General the quarters are part and parcel of the citadel, and I do not think any member would wish us, in repairing the outer walls, to leave the inside an empty shell. If we are to do something with the inside of it, would there be anything better than to continue the tradition of housing the governor general of the country therein? Hon. members will understand that if we are to expend money on the walls, we must also see to it that there is something inside. As has been explained by the Solicitor General, the governors of this country, long before confederation, long before the start of the British regime, since the early days of the colonj^, have resided in Quebec. The earlier governors resided in the Chateau St. Louis on the site of which the famous Chateau Frontenac has been erected. Later the governors were commanders in chief of the garrison and they were quartered with the troops in the citadel. It is only fair, it is only reasonable, if we intend to maintain the traditions of the past, that we should so maintain them as to make these ancient historic places comfortable to the uses to which they were put in past years. For that reason I think members should without too much difficulty be enabled to make up their minds to vote again for the estimate.
With regard to laces and so forth, I want to be quite frank with the committee. When I supported this vote last year I had no idea that this amount was to be expended for such uses as this. But it has been shown by the minister and by other speakers that if we are to house the governor general, we must house him in a manner befitting his position and dignity. Personally I would not need $70,000 worth of furniture in a house and I do not know any hon. member who would require as much as that. But education and my ex-

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
perience on the few occasions when I have visited vice-regal residence lead me to believe it is the common thing in such places and forms, so to speak, part of the position.


James Arthurs: Not $70,000 for a year.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite understand that $70,000 for a year would be a great deal of money. My hon. friend is mistaken. The amount of $70,000 is not per annum. Let us hope with this amount the furniture purchased will be of such a nature that it will last for a considerable number of years. The hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) suggests that it should last for another century. If it does -and I have no doubt that is what is in the mind of the Minister of Public Works-no doubt a hundred years hence those who follow us will be protesting in the same way as hon. members are to-night against an expenditure of such an amount of money as $70,000 for furniture.
I commend the vote to hon. members, first, on the ground that we cannot dissociate from the citadel and from the walls themselves the quarters of the governors within them, and, second, that as we are to house the governor, whether it be in Quebec or in Ottawa, we must see to it that the furnishings and the interior of the building are so arranged that he can receive in a manner befitting his dignity and proper to the governor of a country like ours the distinguished visitors whom he often has to receive.


Abraham Albert Heaps: A few moments ago I asked the minister if he would give the committee some idea as to the annual upkeep of the governor general's quarters in the citadel of Quebec, what the amount of $100,000 voted last year was spent on in connection with making the place habitable for the governor general, and also what the present item of $150,000 is for.


John Campbell Elliott: With regard to the probable cost of upkeep in the future, it is quite impossible to give an accurate estimate. One can judge only from what has happened in the past. Up to 1871 the imperial government had maintained this structure, but the Canadian government took it over in that year. From 1871 up to about fifteen years ago we spent money upon it from time to time, but about then the expenditures practically ceased From December 2, 1871, up until twelve years ago we had expended $269,929.


James Dew Chaplin: That was up until twelve
years ago?


John Campbell Elliott: It is nearly fifteen years now. There has been no expenditure since the outbreak of the war. My hon. friend the Solicitor General has stated that the cost of this whole structure was in the vicinity of $40,000,600. That is the best estimate we can obtain. It is impossible to consider the governor general's quarters apart from the citadel itself. A point that I think is being lost sight of by my hon. friends is that this is not an innovation by any means; it is not a new form of expenditure. Until circumstances during the war made it impossible to continue the expenditures, these expenditures were always made, and of course now we have to make good the great depreciation that took place during the years in which the building was allowed practically to fall into decay. That is the position with which we are now confronted. I just want to say, as one coming from a province other than that in which this expenditure is to be made, that surely we are not in the present condition of affairs going to take a backward step in so far as providing accommodation of this kind in our neighbouring province is concerned.
I want for a moment to direct the attention of the committee to the position in which we would find ourselves if the motion moved by my hon. friend were to carry. The money that we have expended has been spent on building and structural repairs. An additional amount is required. I think my hon. friends will agree that it was made perfectly clear by me last year that the amount then voted was only an estimate, because it was impossible to tell at that time what the condition of the building was. As they took up the floors and certain repairs were made, it was found that in many cases the condition was even worse than had been expected, and that, of course, necessitated larger expenditures. The amount that is now required is what we are asking for here. The principle of maintaining a residence for the governor general at the city of Quebec was settled last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, that priciple was accepted practically unanimously by the house last year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


John Campbell Elliott: It was. There was no
vote on it, and the discussion Which took place was all along that line.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: The vote last year was just for- repairs.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite wrong. It was for remodelling, renovating and rebuilding, and to provide for a permanent addition for servants' quarters. Will any hon, gentleman say that after the expenditure of 8100,000 we should stop short of making the necessary repairs to bring this building into a habitable condition, and into such a state of perfection as will make it a suitable residence for the representative of the sovereign in this country? Once the repairs are made, will anyone say that the motion of my hon. friend that we do not furnish these quarters, after we have built the house, is a reasonable proposition?


Mr. SPENCE:: What furnishings are there now?


John Campbell Elliott: They are the old furnishings, a number of which have practically fallen apart and are of practically no use. It means renewal of the furniture. The motion before the house means that we can go on and complete the building, but not furnish it after it is built, and I would urge upon the committee that we do not place ourselves in any such position as that.


John Wesley Edwards: How long
is it since the governor general stayed there?


John Campbell Elliott: I think 1915 was the last
year he resided there.


Richard Burpee Hanson: How many weeks in the
year did the governor general reside there when he did go there?


John Campbell Elliott: It varied.


Richard Burpee Hanson: About two weeks in the
year.


John Campbell Elliott: Not a great portion of the year; that is quite right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Two weeks per annum-
870,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to give the house
all the information we have. I have given this matter very careful consideration. I hope that I am as economically inclined as any member of this committee, and with perhaps a little more intimate knowledge of the circumstances than any other member of the committee, I have come to the conclusion that this is the only thing we can do if we are to maintain the position which I am sure all hon. members are anxious that we should maintain for the representative of the sovereign in this country. I submit to my hon. friend that it is not desirable to build a house and then leave it absolutely unfurnished, and I urge upon him not to press his motion.


James Houston Spence: The minister said that if
this money was spent it would bring the citadel to a state of perfection. Will he give the committee the assurance that he will not come back next year and ask for another $150,000? Have you seen the citadel yourself? Do you know what you are talking about? Hon. members come here and tell this committee what other people have told them. They know nothing of the situation themselves, and they try to fool the committee. That is all they are trying to do. Let the minister give this committee the assurance-we have confidence in him-that he will not come back again next year for another vote for this purpose. If he will give us a positive statement of that kind he will get some support, but you cannot get any the way you are going. We are not opposed to this vote at all because it is for Quebec. We are all proud of the city of Quebec, and we would be glad to vote money for the citadel if we knew that it would be spent in the right way, but we do not know anything about it. There is nothing but deception everywhere.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Frontenac (Mr. Edwards) a moment ago asked what was the last time the governor general's quarters at Quebec had been occupied by the representative of the crown in this country. The answer already given is I believe, correct: it was in 1915 during the regime of His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught. That was I understand the last occasion on which the governor general made Quebec his headquarters for any considerable part of the year. Prior to that time it had been the custom, running back many years beyond the days of confederation, for the representative of the crown to spend part of his time at what we, of this Dominion, speak of at times as the ancient capital. His Royal Highness the Duke of Connaught discontinued the customary visits to Quebec because of the war and the conditions arising therefrom throughout the country.
When His Excellency Lord Byng came to Canada he wished as the representative of the crown, to resume the practice of visiting Quebec during part of the year and residing at the citadel. I recall very well the conversation I had with His Excellency in regard to his visit there. Lord Byng said to me at the time that he much regretted having to give up the custom that all his predecessors had followed, for the reason that the quarters of the governor general at the citadel had fallen into such disrepair during the time of

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
the war and the years succeeding that they were no longer habitable. He made special reference to the difficulty of finding suitable quarters for the servants. He remarked that if he were to visit Quebec as his predecessors had done it would be necessary to have the governor generals quarters at the citadel considerably refitted, new quarters built for the servants, and the house in part refurnished. His Excellency said he thought that as the country had just come out of the war, and there were many obligations with respect to re-establishing our returned men, and the like, it would not do for him to urge on the government to make those expenditures at that time. But he expressed the hope that postponement would not in any way militate against the old custom being continued in the future of having the king's representative spend part of the year in Quebec. Owing to the representations made in that particular the government did not ask the house at that time for the necessary moneys to put the citadel in proper repair. At the same time the members for Quebec were repeatedly directing the attention, not only of the government, but of this house, to the extent to which the historic walls of the citadel were being allowed to fall into disrepair and the degree to which the citadel as an historic monument was being more and more impaired.
Shortly after His Excellency Lord Willing-don reached Canada he said to me, speaking as the representative of the king, that it was his hope and his desire that he might be able as speedily as possible to take up quarters again at Quebec during the summer and also during the winter. I explained to His Excellency that this would involve considerable expenditure-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think
there is a well-defined practice not to bring the representative of the crown into discussions of this kind. The rule is very clear [DOT] that the Prime Minister of all men should not mention what was said to him by the representative of the crown. He will recall what happened to Mr. Lowe, afterwards Lord Sherbrooke, and the view taken by Mr. Gladstone as to the absolute and wholly erroneous practice from the standpoint of order of introducing the name of the sovereign into any discussion at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have considered, Mr. Chairman, this phase quite as carefully as my hon. friend has. There is
a great difference between bringing the name of His Majesty into controversy in the House of Commons and the making knowm the wish of His Majesty, or His Majesty's representative, with respect to what pertains to his own immediate household.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. The Prime Minister will recall the difficulty Mr. Lowe got into was through bringing into debate the name of the sovereign, charging that Mr. Disraeli did a certain thing at the instance of Her Majesty. Mr. Disraeli went to the queen and got her permission before he even introduced her name into debate. Now the Prime Minister is telling of conversations which he had with His Excellency.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not saying that the government is doing this at the request of the Governor General. I am pointing out to the house exactly the position in which with respect to Quebec the crown's representative in this country has been placed, and I am giving to the house the author-tative source of m}' information in that particular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as the opposition
is concerned. I protest in the name of the House of Commons against dragging the name of the sovereign's representative into debate, in view of what took place at the imperial conference as to the position of the governor general, who acts only on the advice of his ministers, and can effect no matter touching the Canadian people unless he is so advised by the government of the day. I protest it is wrong not only from the standpoint of the constitution but from the standpoint of the Canadian people.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that I am not dragging the name of His Majesty's representative into this discussion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You are.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hon. gentlemen opposite apparently feel that the government is not to be allowed even to mention the name of the residence of the governor general or His Majesty's representative, because it involves mentioning his name.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nobody suggested that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I again
say to the house that the government takes full responsibility for what it is asking the

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
house at the. present time to do with respect to making the citadel suitable quarters during part of the year for the representative of the king in Canada. His Majesty's representative has expressed a wish to reside there part of the year. I submit there is nothing unconstitutional in allowing the house to know what the representative of the crown has expressed a wish to do. If in the discharge of his responsible duties as the representative of the crown no latitude is to be given to His Excellency to make known his wishes through his responsible ministers, I fail to see how the house in a matter of this kind can get the information which is so essential to enable it to vote.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the
Prime Minister think then that it would be permissible and proper for us to criticize the language or expressed wish of His Excellency in criticizing this item?


An hon. MEMBER:: That is what you
have been doing.


John Wesley Edwards: No; and we would have been called to order if we had attempted to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend may criticize anything I have said if he wishes, and I will take full responsiblity for all that I have said. In that way we will avoid the possible conflict which my hon. friend has in mind. What I wish to make perfectly clear to the house with respect to this vote is that not only does the government take responsibility for seeking to arrange to have suitable headquarters for the king's representative in this country at Quebec, but that in so doing it is furthering what I have already said is the desire of the sovereign's representative himself with respect to his relation to the people of this country. As I have intimated, to all intents and purposes the quarters of the governor general at Quebec have not been officially occupied since 1915. Every hon. member knows that when a house is left unoccupied for the most part over a period of ten or fifteen years, particularly when it has been years before since it was in a fit and proper condition, you cannot make it habitable, and particularly you cannot make it suitable for the residence of the representative of the crown without some expenditure on furnishings and equipment, to say nothing of extensive repairs. Hon. members know that the cost of material, the cost of labour, the cost of furniture, the cost of 
furnishings have all increased enormously in the last few years, and any figures that may be quoted with respect to these expenditures, in comparison with earlier years, are very far from representing the true position.
The government have gone carefully into the probable expenditures with the chief architect of the Public Works department, and we have intimated that we desire that nothing of an extravagant character be done. More than that, we have indicated .that we wish everything to be done as economically as it can possibly be done, having regard to what in the circumstances is fitting and adequate. I believe that if hon. gentlemen will take that fact into consideration, and also the fact that the citadel at Quebec is after all not only the greatest historical monument on this continent, but, as I believe, an historical monument of greater significance to the British Empire as a whole than any monument existing anywhere else in the world, they will feel that what we are asking for at the .present time is wholly right and proper and should be voted without a division in the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not propose to discuss the merits of this item in view of what has been said by the Prime Minister. The right hon. gentleman has stated in his place in parliament, as the first minister of the country and as being in control of this chamber, that he now expresses the wish of His Excellency-those are the words he used in one instance-and his desire, to quote his other expression. In other words, in introducing His Excellency's name into a controversial matter-and it is now a matter of controversy, an amendment having been moved before the Prime Minister delivered his speech-the right hon. gentleman is endeavouring to influence the mind of the committee by stating that it is the wish or the desire of His Excellency that this should be done. We on this side of the house will therefore place ourselves against the wish of His Excellency, against the desire of His Excellency; and we protest against the Prime Minister introducing His Excellency's name and endeavouring to influence us in the discharge of our public duties by a speech such as that to which we have just listened.


John Evans: The time has come when this country and this .parliament must decide whether we want to preserve these old national heirlooms or not. Throughout the British Isles numbers of old castles are falling into ruin and no attempt is being made to preserve them in a modern way. It seems to me

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
that if this great heirloom in Quebec is modernized it ceases there and then to be a link with the past. I view this vote as an aet of extravagance on the part of the government, and I must say I cannot support it. We have been told of the great prosperity in this country; that fact has been impressed upon us ever since we have come to Ottawa this session. It seems to me that wse have simply run mad in our expenditures this year. For the concentration of wealth and industry and acts of extravagance I do not think there has been any parliament since confederation that has indulged itself as this one has done. A vote of 810,000,000 for one city in one year is rather too much. The other day we were called upon to support a vote to beautify this city in the interests of national culture. I hesitated to get up to oppose this vote, being afraid that I might be deemed to show a want of culture. Let me say that to me culture does not consist in lavish extravagance. I can remember out west not so many years ago when some of the churches were built of sod, and in one particular case the old superintendent, who was one of the greatest of the nation builders of Canada, insisted on a Gothic window even in that church, because he said it made it look like a church. And the settlers were only too glad to have it so. There was more evidence of culture there than there is in any lavish expenditure of this kind for beautifying a city on so large a scale. If it is to cost so many millions to maintain this old heirloom at Quebec, I think we had 'better let it go right here and now. I think I can see the end pretty well, placing burdens as we are on the taxpayers of this country. I can see the exit of the old settler from western Canada, the settler who wants to live and not merely to exist. He will have to say goodbye to his home, which will be taken over by the sheepskin coated peasant of central Europe, whom we are so frantically seeking now to take the place of the farmer in the west. I say again I am opposed to this vote. I do not see that we have suffered at all in prestige either in the British Empire or anywhere else through any lack of a residence at this old place during the last twelve years. Ottawa is our capital now, and I think that is quite enough to maintain as it is. I am strenuously opposed to this vote.


Robert James Manion: In view of the debate that took place a moment ago regarding the use of the governor general's name, I desire to
put on record what May has to say, at page 320 of the thirteenth edition:
The irregular use of the king's name to influence a decision of the house is unconstitutional in principle and inconsistent with the independence of parliament. Where the crown has a distinct interest in a measure, there is an authorized mode of communicating His Majesty's recommendation or consent, through one of his ministers (see page 598): but His Majesty cannot be supposed to have a private opinion, apart from that of his responsible advisers; and any attempt to use his name in debate to influence the judgment of parliament, would be immediately checked and censured. On the 12th November, 1640, it was moved that some course might be taken for preventing the inconvenience of His Majesty being informed of anything that is in agitation in the house before it is determined; and on the 16th December, 1641, the Lords and Commons tendered to Charles I a remonstrance to that effect. On the 17th December, 1783, the Commons resolved-
"That it is now necessary to declare, that to report any opinion or pretended opinion of His Majesty, upon any bill or other proceeding depending in either house of parliament, with a view to influence the votes of the members, is a high crime and misdemeanour, derogatory to the honour of the crown, a breach of the fundamental privileges of parliament, and subversive of the constitution of this country."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps the
committee will permit me to continue where my hon. friend left off. Following exactly from where my hon. friend quoted, May has the following to say:
On the 26th February, 1808, in the debate on Mr. Canning's motion for papers relating to Denmark, Mr. Tierney said, "The right hon. gentleman had forfeited the good opinion of the country, the house, and, as I believe, of his sovereign". This the Speaker held to be such an introduction into debate of the personal opinion of the sovereign, respecting the conduct of a member of the house, as justified Mr. Tierney's being called to order. On the 19th March. 1812, complaints were made in the House of Lords of the use of the Prince Regent's name in debate:
Then May continues:
The rule, however, must not be construed so as to exclude a statement of facts by a minister in which the sovereign's name may be concerned.
I contend that the statement I made to the house was a statement of fact to the effect that the representative of the crown desired to reside in Quebec part of the year in accordance with the custom of his predecessors. That is the reference and the extent to which in this connection I brought in the name of the representative of the crown. From that point on, with respect to this vote, I made no reference whatever to His Excellency; I only spoke of what the government is seeking to do, that is, to make the quarters at Quebec suitable for the repre-

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
sentative of His Majesty. If hon. gentlemen consider the rules as laid down in May they will find that I was wholly within the rules in making the statement of fact which I did make in this connection.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to carry the controversy further; the remarks of my right hon. friend and myself will speak for themselves. So long as the Prime Minister simply gave it as the opinion of the government that these repairs should be made for the proper convenience of His Excellency I think he was' absolutely on solid ground, but the moment he began quoting a conversation between His Excellency and himself he was quoting the opinions of the representative of the sovereign to influence a vote of this house.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Why was the conversation delayed so long?


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Robert Gardiner: I have always held a very high regard for the Prime Minister's knowledge of constitutional procedure, but I would remind him of some things which happened in 1926. He will remember that memorable occasion when he resigned his position because the governor general of the day did not accept bis advice, and following that resignation this country got into more or less of a squabble over the question of constitutional procedure. On many occasions the Prime Minister Stated that it waS the duty of the government to advise the representative of the king, but to-night it has been contended that the Prime Minister has been advised by the representative of the king.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not at all.


Robert Gardiner: Under these circumstances I submit that it is very improper for the Prime Minister to use a conversation which took place between His Excellency and himself for the purpose of influencing this vote.
|Mr. MACKENZIE KING: May I say to my hon. friend that he has drawn an entirely erroneous impression froim my remarks, as I think he will see when he reads them over carefully. There is a very great difference between the representative of the crown expressing a wish which he regards as important in relation to his own office as the representative of the sovereign in this country and that wish being communicated as a statement of fact to the house, and whether or not, for the purpose of making certain quarters suitable for the governor general to occupy, a particular vote shall be passed by this house. With respect to the latter, the govern-

meut take the whole responsibility; His Excellency never advised that quartern should be provided at Quebec but merely expressed the wish that during part of the year he might reside there. The government have to take the responsibility as to whether or not it is desirable that that wish shall be complied with, and what provision may accordingly be necessary. Quite apart from any wish having been expressed, even if such had not been the case, I would have felt it desirable that these quarters should be provided as formerly and that the ancient custom should be continued.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The interesting feature of this item which we are discussing and of the dbbate which has taken place is that hon. gentlemen opposite stand revealed as the upholders of tradition and precedent, and the Prime Minister's words to-night are in striking contrast to the speeches he makes throughout the country, particularly in western Canada. This is a new country; we have very heavy liabilities, and it seems absurd that we shoulld spend about $250,000 for the	purpose	of providing a	seasonal
residence for His Excellency. Let me just compare this amount with some other votes which are found in the estimates. If hon. gentlemen will turn to page 60 they will find the following:
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.
I am sure that when the people who are spending a great deal of effort and time in these different organizations, dloing a great deal in the public interest, compare this item with the meagre sums they receive by way of assistance in their work, they will not look upon this vote with any great favour. I am sure the house was not very much impressed by the camouflage, if I may call it such, of the Solicitor General when he attempted to bring in the racial issue in connection with this vote.


Lucien Cannon: I rise to a point of order. If the statement that I made use of camouflage had been made by any other hon. gentleman than the hon. member for Mackenzie I would insist upon my point of order.


Milton Neil Campbell: I was just going to say, when I was interrupted, that I had too high an opinion of the good sense of the Frenchspeaking people of Canada to believe that
T *'

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
they would take an attack on this vote as an affront to their race. I have many French people in my own constituency, and I believe if they were here to-night each one would vote as I propose to vote in connection with this particular item. In connection with this matter I would take the opinion of the hon. member for Labelfe as readily as I would take that of the Solicitor General as representing the opinion of .the people of French Canada. The words of the Solicitor General remind me of an expression used by the late President Wilson, which was something like this:
-the devious use of words by which a horse chestnut is made to appear as a chestnut horse.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, I am somewhat astonished to note the hostile attitude of my friends sitting on the opposite side of the house over this item of $150,000, of which $70,000 is for a suitable residence for His Excellency the Governor General. I am the more so astonished because, this afternoon their leader (Mr. Bennett), made it sufficiently clear to the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr Elliott), that the postmaster at Calgary was not suitably lodged and that the sum of $1,000,000 wTould have to be spent to give him comfortable quarters. We, from Quebec, resent this hostile attitude taken at present by the opposition and which might result -what we would sincerely regret-in depriving us each year of the traditional visit of His Excellency the Governor General. Nevertheless, the discussion we have had to-night clearly indicates that the British flag which floats over the Quebec citadel encloses in its folds as much patriotism as that of the flag which floats over Toronto or Calgary.


Mr. COOTE:: I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to furnishing these quarters. Gan he tell us how many rooms are to be furnished with this $70,000?


John Campbell Elliott: It includes furnishing,
carpeting and curtaining practically the whole of the premises.


George Gibson Coote: I understand the minister does not know how many rooms?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I cannot give that.


John Frederick Johnston: The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Chaplin) negatived: yeas, 64; nays, 75.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec 
Savard Park hospital - repairs, alterations and additions, $75,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give
us an explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of $75,000
is required for the repairs of Savard Park hospital and additions to the building. The proposed work consists of repairs, alterations, improvements and so on :n the existing building, amounting to $7,000; and the construction of an additional hospital unit, $68,000.


John Anderson Fraser: Who controls this hospital?


John Campbell Elliott: The Department of Health. They have requested the extra unit.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the hospital for?


John Campbell Elliott: It is used in connection
with immigration work.


Mr. SPENCER:: Does this amount cover all the necessary expenses, or will this only partly do the work?


John Campbell Elliott: This covers everything.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Jacques L'Achigan public building, $9,000.
James Dew Chaplin: What is the population
of this place, and what is the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The population in 1921
was 1,714, and the postal revenue, $2,107.


James Dew Chaplin: There was a vote last
year of $21,000. Has that money all been spent?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: And $9,000 is estimated
to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: That is to say, in a town or village of 1,700 people a public building is put up at a cost of $30,000, the revenue, as given by the minister, being less than $2,000 a year?


John Campbell Elliott: No, a little over $2,100.


James Dew Chaplin: What does the minister
himself think of this expenditure? What does he think of the policy of spending that much money in a place of that size?


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), I must say that over and above the annual revenue that the Post Office Department receives from the Saint-Jacques l'Archi-

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
g'an post office and which amounts to about $2,000, the excise branch collects from this municipality many thousands of dollars yearly. I wish to further add that in this public building to be used as a post office, some space also will be occupied by the Customs and Excise department.
I may say that the revenue from this building for the government of Canada should be about $10,000 or $12,000 a year.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not ask the hon.
gentleman what the revenue was, although he appears to know more about it than the minister. I should like to get a reply from the minister.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: There is an excise office
in this same building; the revenue from the post office only has been given. The total revenue would come from both excise and post office.


James Dew Chaplin: In view of the report
that was made by the customs commission regarding the desirability of doing away with customs houses in a great many outlying places, wThat does the minister say about this expenditure?


Ernest Lapointe: This is excise. It is
in a tobacco district.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: This place produced more
tobacco than the whole of the rest of the province of Quebec.


James Dew Chaplin: If the revenue is only
$12,000 and they produce more tobacco than all the rest of the province of Quebec, I ask the minister whether it is necessary to have a building of this extent and cost in a village of that kind?


John Campbell Elliott: In the opinion of the minister it is necessary or it would not be in the estimates. The item is not new. It was inserted in the estimates for 191L15 and carried until 1917-18, when it was dropped on account of war conditions. Under both governments apparently it was thought to be necessary or it would not have been placed in the estimates.


James Dew Chaplin: There are hundreds of just such cases throughout the country.


John Campbell Elliott: Not where conditions are as they are in this case. The site was purchased years ago, the government committed to the work, and it was considered advisable and necessary to make the expenditure.


Mr. LUCAS:: What are the conditions
peculiar to this place, apart from the population and the revenue that have been given, that make a public building of this character necessary?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no other accommodation available that is suitable for the needs of the public. That is the main consideration, and apparently governments of both political complexions have for years thought it desirable to erect a building there. We could not get properly housed in anything that was available and we felt we should erect a building of our own.


John Wesley Edwards: This building is evidently not being erected for post office purposes, because it is inconceivable that the government would spend money to put up a post office in a place where the post office revenue is only $2,100, while there are throughout the country hundreds of places where the revenue is three, five and ten times that amount and there is no accommodation at all. Therefore we must consider that it is being erected on account of the excise collected on tobacco grown in that particular district. It seems to me that if we take the revenue into consideration the estimate is greater than is warranted. I believe millions upon millions of dollars of the money of Canada have been wrongfully expended on public buildings of this kind; scores and hundreds of buildings have been erected in this or that constituency at a cost of two, three, four, or five times the amount really required to meet the needs of the people concerned. Why? Because an individual has had sufficient pull with the government. For years the question has been not of what is required but of to what extent the political favourites of the government can pull the leg of the minister and for how much money. In many cases throughout Canada, therefore, we have post office buildings erected at a cost of $50,000 or $100,000 where one costing half that amount would amply fulfil the needs of the district. Since I have been in parliament there has not been any system based on population and revenue to guide governments in the erection of public buildings; consequently in many places buildings have been erected at entirely too high a cost, while in others the people have received no consideration whatever and cannot secure the much needed accommodation. The minister says that the site for this building was purchased years ago. There are many hon. members who can tell him a similar story and who can point to sites that were bought before the war. Nevertheless through

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
all these years we have had to put up with very inadequate accommodation, and we have always been met with the cry, not that the building was not needed, not that better accommodation was not urgently required, but that the money was not available. I want once more to impress upon the minister and the government that they will have to get some other kind of argument or excuse than that to present to the committee, in view of the fact that they apparently have plenty of money to spend on embassies at Washington, Tokyo and Paris, and millions to devote to tearing down whole city blocks in Ottawa-certainly not a matter of urgent necessity,-while in various parts of the country the people are struggling along without any accommodation worthy of the name. The government is following a wrong course. Regardless of what side of politics we are on or what party we are affiliated with, hon. members have been extremely patient, appreciating to the full the obligations upon the government arising out of the war and the post-war years. But it seems to me that the government is not giving the members or their constituencies the consideration they deserve in spending money lavishly on such things as the purchase of the Russell block for about a million and a Quarter dollars and the tearing down of perfectly good buildings merely in order to gratify the personal whim of the Prime Minister, who wants to erect a monument to his name in the shape of a public park in this city.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Waterloo public building, $22,000.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain the
item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
for the erection of a public building in Waterloo for postal purposes. The probable total cost will be 822,000. An order in council was passed in September last granting authority to purchase a site and the town council, the local board of trade and other organizations urged upon the government the necessity of proceeding to provide the accommodation. The postal revenue is $6,356, and the population is a little over 2,000.


James Dew Chaplin: How much has already
been spent on this?


John Campbell Elliott: $7,804 to the 31st of March of this year.


James Dew Chaplin: And $22,000 more will
complete it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


James Dew Chaplin: The original estimate for the building was how much?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the estimate. We are just starting the building now.


James Dew Chaplin: But more than $7,000 have been spent.


John Campbell Elliott: That was for the site.


Robert Gardiner: Will that come out of
this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: That was spent out of last year's vote, before the end of the fiscal year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Westmount-armoury, $13,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to pay the Westmount armoury association the instalments due for the year 1928-29 for armoury accommodation at Westmount. There are two instalments of $6,312.15 due on June 8 and December 8, 1928, respectively, under an agreement dated May 25, 1925, between the Westmount armoury association and the Department of Public Works, whereby the association undertook the financing of the construction of an armoury, and the Dominion government undertook to pay an amount not exceeding $13,000 for twenty years.


Robert Gardiner: What was the original
cost?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Robert Gardiner: Is the government entering upon a policy of renting buildings for armouries? Has not the policy been to provide armouries out of public funds?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the usual policy to
build them ourselves, but occasionally there is an opportunity like this of obtaining the building more cheaply.


Robert Gardiner: Will these amounts pay for the building, or are they only rentals?


John Campbell Elliott: The armoury will become
the property of the government after twenty payments. It is like a rental-purchase.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Henry Herbert Stevens: I would point out, Mr. Chairman, that the whole of vote 126 is not carried. One item stands.


Eugène Fiset: Yes, one item stands.



Supply-Public Works-Ontario
Ontario - Dominion public buildings - improvements, repairs, etc., $115,000.


Robert James Manion: I wish to refer to an unfortunate situation that exists in one of the public buildings at Fort William. I have had it drawn to my attention on a number of occasions by the people of Fort William and by those who are affected by the conditions which have prevailed. It is seventeen years since any improvement or enlargement was made to the post office, and yet t'he business has increased very greatly since that time. The revenue from the post office, according to the last report, is between $72,000 and $73,000 per annum. As to the ability of the officials in the post office to carry on under the conditions prevailing, while I do not wish to quote them unnecessarily or to bring them into the discussion in any way that would do them harm, I have gone out of my way to ask their opinion and they are agreed that the post office really requires some form of enlargement in order to cope with the business thait has to be done. Since 1911, when, so far as I can find out, the last improvement was made, the population has greatly increased, the mails have doubled, c.o.d. and parcel post have been added, I believe, and there is required additional accommodation for parcel post packages, extra wickets, and more lobby space, because at Christmas it is practically impossible to cope with the heavy business owing to the crowding. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee further. I understand that the minister is familiar with the situation; it has been taken up with him by the board of trade, I believe, or the city council, and I am bringing it to his attention now simply for ithe sake of the service. Indeed, that is the only ground upon which I would dare to press any expenditure of any kind. But due to the long time since any enlargement has been made to the post office at Fort William, and to the very real need of additional accommodation due on account of the overcrowding which the people using the post office have to endure, I would ask the minister to give this matter his attention at the earliest possible opportunity.


John Campbell Elliott: Representations have been made in the matter; my attention was personally drawn to it when I was in Fort William last fall, and it was suggested that further accomtmodation be provided. The matter is now under consideration, I can assure my hon. friend.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is this just a vote to cover contingencies? If so, would the minister give details of the expenditure last year?
[The Chairman.]


John Campbell Elliott: This has been an annual vote for a number of years. The expenditure in 1922-23 was $109,000; 1923-24, $102,000; 1924-2(5, $97,000; 1925-26, $103,000; 1926-27, $114,993.


William Garland McQuarrie: What buildings does it cover?


John Campbell Elliott: I have a long list here,
which includes examining warehouses, the office of the assistant receiver general, various postal stations in Toronto-


William Garland McQuarrie: I do not want the whole list.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: This is a general vote, but has the minister in mind any particular places where he is going to expend this money? If so, I should like to draw to his attention the condition in the post office in the city of Oshawa. In the first place, let me say that the customs house accommodation in the city of Oshawa is entirely inadequate to serve the needs of the people. A customs revenue of $12,000,000 is collected annually in Oshawa, and the government has not provided its officials with proper accommodation for carrying on their work. The same is true of the post office. I have no doubt that the postmaster who has recently been appointed is endeavouring to do his best, but under the conditions that obtain there it is impossible for the best service to be given, and there are bound to be difficulties all over the district w-here mails are distributed. I would respectfully urge upon the minister the necessity of affording relief and providing the necessary accommodation and equipment there to serve that large district.


John Campbell Elliott: I am aware that the conditions in Oshawa are much as my hon. friend indicates. Business there has increased very greatly, and I shall be glad to give consideration to the matter that he mentions. I might add that this amount is not allotted to any particular place, but is used where repairs for buildings are found necessary. There has been spent in Ontario annually for the last number of years a sum running from $112,000 to $115,000 to keep the government buildings in a state of reasonable repair.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Will the minister look into
the claim which the city of Oshawa has against the department for arrears of local improvement tax, amounting to $87.35? I see no reason why he should not attend to this gigantic matter and get it off our hands.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
Durham-public building, $4,000.
John Campbell Elliott: This is to complete a
public building. It includes fittings and lock boxes, 82,300; grading and sidewalks, $1,000; superintendence and contingencies, $700.


William Thomas Lucas: What are the population and
revenue of this town?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is 1,640;
the revenue, $5,684.


William Thomas Lucas: Is this recommended by the
Post Office department?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. This is an excerpt
from the report of the chief post office superintendent made in 1920:	Population 1,640;
four industrial concerns employing about 300 hands; two banks; sixteen stores. The post office is located in a building, one of a block of stores. The floor space is 650 square feet, of which the public lobby comprises 350 square feet,' leaving a working space of only 300 square feet. The carriers working in the office are not separated from the rest of the staff. It is recommended that more space be provided.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
London-tractor for postal purposes, $1,350.
Robert Gardiner: Is that the usual price
for a tractor?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Niagara Falls-public building, $100,000.
John Campbell Elliott: The existing building was
partly destroyed by fire on November 9, 1927. A larger building is necesary to provide accommodation for the post office and customs. The present property is not large enough to give the desired accommodation, and it may be necessary to purchase a new site and erect a new building. In either case $100,000 is necessary for a beginning. There is nothing political in the vote. .


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc.-, $60,000.
Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister will remember
that I put a question on the order paper about three weeks ago with respect to the lighting of this and the other public buildings in Ottawa. I find that for the year 1927-28 the government paid to the privately-owned corporation for electrical energy $86,524.31, and to the publicly-owned utility $38,964.86. In other words, considerably more than twice the amount was paid to the privately-owned corporation.


James Dew Chaplin: What was the quantity of current used?


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am going to ask the minister for that information. I think when there is a publicly-owned utility able to supply light and power for the buildings the government ought to give it the preference, particularly in Ontario. I do not know whether the minister has information as to the amount of energy supplied to the government buildings by both the privately-owned and the publicly-owned utility, and the price paid to each. If he has not that information available to-night, I hope he will be able to bring it down when we take up a vote of a similar character on another occasion.


John Campbell Elliott: An answer to a similar question was given a few days ago. The hon. member has the figures of what has been paid to the two companies. One is a local company; the other provincial. One pays taxes to the city; the other does not. One has a stand-by power plant which can be used in cases of emergency; the other has not. I am not able to give my hon. friend information as to the amount of current, but I shall be glad to obtain it for him. The prices paid to each company are the same.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why should not the government patronize a publicly-owned utility?


John Campbell Elliott: We patronize it to a
certain extent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But why to such a small extent compared to the privately-owned company? That the latter pays taxes is not a very good reason for this discrimination, especially in view of the fact that the government itself does not pay any taxes to the city of Ottawa.


John Campbell Elliott: The local concern does not get all the business, but we thought it was entitled to its share. I do not think it would be fair to give everything to the provincial concern that has the local business in the heart of the city, when the local concern is supplying light on the outskirts where the service is a little more costly on account of distance. After careful consideration of all the circumstances it was thought to be a fair division between the two concerns.


George Reginald Geary: The hydro is a local concern.


John Campbell Elliott: It does not pay taxes here.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is municipally owned.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: This is one of the votes where the Public Works, department probably has erred in the wrong direction. List year
Supply-Public

W orks-Ontario
I drew the minister's attention to the condition of the building occupied by the Bureau of Statistics. I was there to-day, and I found it in a most deplorable condition. If a fire occurred many priceless documents would be destroyed. I hope he will do something ^ to protect those documents instead of leaving them in this ramshackle place, which is nothing better than a fire trap and a discredit to Ottawa or any other place.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend
says is true; the predicament we should be in if a fire unfortunately occurred in the building now housing the statistical branch has been a matter of serious concern for some time. Steps are being rapidly taken with a view to having at an early date the branch located in a building which will provide suitable accommodation and will be at the same time absolutely fireproof.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How long will that be?


John Campbell Elliott: We are hoping that it
will be within sixty days.


James Dew Chaplin: Why on earth move
them a mile and a half away, or even half a mile? It will be inconvenient for those who have to use the branch.


John Campbell Elliott: The building on the other
property we can use right away.


James Dew Chaplin: Is it proposed to use
that building temporarily or permanently?


John Campbell Elliott: We shall fix it up with a
view to utilizing it probably for many years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It will cost a lot of
money to repair it and put it into proper shape.


John Campbell Elliott: It will cost about one
year's rental; that is the estimate.


Robert Gardiner: Have you not better
accommodation in the Daly building if you cleaned up the mess that is there? Could you not put the bureau there?


John Campbell Elliott: It is filled to overflowing
now.


Mr. MALONEY:: Where is the new loca- Mr. MALONEY: Do you propose to house tion?	these people in that old saw mill?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no hesitation in
stating where it will be, if an appropriation which I am going to ask the house to pass in the supplementary estimates is made for the purchase of a property known as the New Edinburgh mills. One of the buildings on that property will house the statistical branch.


Martin James Maloney: I understand it is a saw mill.


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the city just on the other side of Earnsclifie, if my hon. friend knows where that is.


Henry Herbert Stevens: At the mouth of the
Rideau river.


John Campbell Elliott: Immediately east of
Dalhousie street.


George Gibson Coote: Would it not be nearly two miles from the parliament buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


George Gibson Coote: At any rate it is a long way for members to go for information.


James Dew Chaplin: Is it not a fact that the
government own property in the neighbourhood of the building in which the statistical branch is now located?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is it-the New
Edinburgh saw mill.


James Dew Chaplin: They call it new, but it is a little old.


George Gibson Coote: Is it proposed to erect a
departmental building in Ottawa this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Does that come under some
other item?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, on page 30.


George Gibson Coote: Is it to be erected where
the cornerstone stands at the present time.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


George Gibson Coote: Can the minister do something to improve the ventilation in this chamber? The air in the chamber is very bad to-night, and it is the same practically every night. Coming in from the fresh air which one gets at the front door one at once realizes how far this chamber is from perfection. The atmosphere is certainly not what it should be, and the ventilation could unquestionably be improved. Will the minister have his engineers look into the matter, giving them definite instructions to. improve the ventilation?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: The matter is by no means new. Within the last week I have taken it up with some of the engineers. When the building was erected they thought they had the most modern system of ventilation obtainable, and perhaps they have. But I am told that in a building occupied, as this chamber is, during a great part of the day, it is almost impossible to devise a system which will properly ventilate the place and at the same time avoid draughts. On this side of the chamber at certain times in the day we can feel a draught at our backs when the ventilators are open. I have recently asked the engineers to investigate the matter to see whether something cannot be done.


George Reginald Geary: I suppose you would like
to turn the draught over here.


John Campbell Elliott: That might have some
advantages. Really, after all is said and done the system is perhaps about as good as we can get it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not good enough.


John Campbell Elliott: I am bound to say it is
not absolutely satisfactory.


George Gibson Coote: I can assure the minister
there is something wrong with the system in the building as a whole. I know that in some of the lavatories upstairs more than half the time the air, instead of being drawn from the lavatory through the ventilator, comes through the ventilator into the lavatory. There is obviously something wrong with a system when it works backwards in that way. The sergeant-at-arms is acquainted with the situation and on many occasions he has sent someone to correct it. I do not know how it is done. It will work all right for a day or a day and a half, but the next time you go back you find the current of air reversed in the manner I have indicated.


Mr. STIRLING:: It would not be so
unbearable of an evening here if the air were not heated so much. Is the minister aware that this evening, for the third time this week, the thermometer has been 74i? The difference between 64 and 74 seems to make all the difference between reasonable comfort and absolute misery.


Martin James Maloney: In addition to the
vitiated state of the atmosphere there is another-a worse-feature. I refer to the acoustic properties of the chamber. Here is a room which has cost the country many
thousands of dollars and I doubt whether there is in Canada another room of its size where a voice carries a shorter distance than it does in this chamber.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Martin James Maloney: The day has come when our voice should be heard. [DOT] The day has come also when we must provide accommodation for a library of parliament. At the present time we have a building allocated for this purpose, a building which has been filling rapidly and is now taxed almost to capacity.
I offer this suggestion to the minister for his consideration: convert this chamber into a real library and convert the present library into a chamber, after the style of the old amphitheatre, where the boys will have to stand up on a pedestal before the crowd and say what they know. That would give us a chance to make our voices heard.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I do not want to see the Bureau of Statistics removed from a position a few hundred yards distant to a place a few miles away from the House of Commons without making a protest. I know of no department that means more to us than the Bureau of Statistics. We are always dealing with figures and facts from which we make our own deductions and it is quite important that we should be able to keep in touch with the bureau. It is true that we shall be able to do so by telephone or by letter, but some of us find it much more convenient to discuss matters personally with someone who is conversant with the facts, and to get our information at firsthand in that way. If the bureau is moved out two miles, which I think is about the distance, it will be almost impossible for members to take the time to go there to discuss matters with the officials who have the desired facts. I do not see why it would not be possible to rush the construction of this departmental building in order to have the bureau located within a reasonable distance of the House of Commons.
Mr. ElLLIOTT: The present building must be moved away before the departmental building can be erected, because the latter will be constructed partly on the present site of the statistical branch.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understand that, but I also understood the minister to say that they were fixing up this building in New Edinburgh to provide for the accommodation of the bureau for a number of years, so to all intents and purposes this will be its permanent location.
Supply-Public Works-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: That will be so for a number of years, at any rate.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I am very much dissatisfied with that arrangement; I think it is wrong.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister inform the committee who owns the building which it >s proposed to buy?


John Campbell Elliott: The Gatineau Power Company.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Who are the people behind the Gatineau Power Company?


John Campbell Elliott: The International Paper
Company.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I hesitate to add to the discomfort of the Minister of Public Works, and I am not going to discuss this particular item. However, all these items have been rolling through and I have not noticed any appropriation for a post office in the village of Brussels in the riding of North Huron, which was most urgently needed in the first few weeks of September last. I am not accusing the Minister of Public Works of promising this post office, but I did call upon him and upon the Prime Minister through the press to say to the people in my riding that money would be provided where needed regardless of any political consideration. A number of years ago the government purchased a site in Brussels on which stood a building unfit even for a common livery stable.


John Campbell Elliott: Can my hon. friend tell me the year?


George Spotton: It was ten or twelve years ago.


John Campbell Elliott: The government were not so carefpl then.


George Spotton: Quite so, and we will just drop it at that for the present. At any rate, the government of Canada thought this village needed a post office, and during the first few weeks of September 1027 most hon. gentlemen opposite were fully convinced of that fact, although I am not charging the Minister of Public Works with making any such statement. However, he did not slap any of his confreres on the wrist when they promised it. We already own this site, in a prosperous section of this province and surely we could complete that project before we start to tear down public buildings in Ottawa, and before we erect other buildings all over the country. According to press reports men have been going to such places as the village
of Arthur and the town of Southampton to look for sites for public buildings, but I find that in Brussels, where a post office is expected, where the goods were delivered, and, where a post office is needed, we own a site containing a ramshackle building, and I can find nothing in the estimates to construct this post office. The Minister of Finance says that we have emerged from poverty into prosperity; the treasury of Canada is heaped up, pressed down and flowing over, and I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works, in this great period of prosperity when we are buying buildings costing a million and a quarter to tear down, when we may expect him to take into consideration the completion of this work which was started by the government some years ago. I believe the revenue from this village is good; every person representing the government early in September was convinced that a post office was urgently needed and that if the proper thing were done a post office would be erected. The village of Brussels did the fit and proper thing; I am not twitting the government nor am I holding a post mortem in this chamber, but the fact is that an urgent canvass was made; a minister .of the crown visited that village on election morning, got the factions together and a post office was definitely promised. If necessary I can bring affidavits from a few hundred men, regardless of their political affiliations, stating that that is the fact. I do not accuse the Minister of Public Works of making any public promises in my riding; he made no statement in connection with public buildings, but I think before we spend money so recklessly and extravagantly in buying buildings like the Russell house at one million and a quarter dollars only to wreck them, the good citizens of North Huron should be considered and an amount should be placed in the supplementary estimates for a public building in the village of Brussels.
The province of Ontario is being penalized. During the war a previous government voted 8336,000 annually for agricultural education, but, now that the war is over even though the treasury is overflowing that amount is cut off, and we are told that the contribution for technical education is to cease. I would ask the Minister of Public Works to take this matter into his serious consideration.


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