1928-05-10

[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.
Third report of joint committee on the printing of parliament-Mr. Marcil.

Questions


Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth) moved:: That the sixth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce, presented on April 27 last, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE S. PARENT (Quebec West) moved:
That, in accordance -with the recommendation contained in the eighth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, the said committee be given leave to sit while the house is in session.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: In reply to the request from the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead), made a few days ago, I promised to lay on the table the agreement between the Nova Scotia miners and the operators. I wish to lay that agreement on the table now.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. MAYBEE:: 1.	Did Alex. McGregor of Toronto act as counsel representing the government in the Hunter inquiry?
2.	If so, what amount was he paid in fees, expenses, or otherwise?
3.	How much has been paid the said McGregor by the government or by any department of the government in the years 1922, 1923, 1924, 1925, 1926, and 1927?
4.	Has any money been paid the said McGregor in 1928, and is any money now due him from the government or any department thereof ?
5.	Is the said McGregor at the present time acting for the government or any department thereof in any litigation or otherwise?


Mr. RINFRET:: Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment:
1.	Yes.
2.	No account has been received by the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment from Mr. McGregor for his services with Hunter commission.
3.	Nil.
4.	Answered by No. 2.
5.	No information.
Department of Justice:
1 and 2. No information.
3.	As statute revision commissioner:
Salary Expenses
1924- 25	$ 1,525.53	$ 801925-	26	
1,384.39	2201926-	27	
2,409.72	3001927-	28	
1,458.31	1204.	Nothing paid in 1928-29; amount still due, $152.78.5.	No information.
Department of National Revenue
Customs and Excise Division:
1 and 2. No information.
3.	1922, nil; 1923, nil; 1924, $20.81; 1925, $656.21; 1926, 37.11; 1927, nil.
4.	(a) Yes, $20.68; (b) Nil.
5.	Yes.
Income tax division:
1 and 2. No information.
3,	4 and 5. Nil.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY-SUPPLIES
Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: 1.	What was the total expenditure at Halifax last year on the supplies for Hudson bay?
2.	What firms supplied the goods?
3.	Were the goods supplied by tender, and, if so, what are the names of firms who tendered and prices quoted by each?
4.	How many men from Halifax were engaged in construction work? Who engaged them, and on what basis?
5.	What was the total amount paid for construction and the name of the contractor?
6.	Was construction work done by tender, and. if so, what are the names of parties tendering and amount of each tender?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	By the Department of Railways and Canals, on account of the work at Churchill, $30,336.96.
2.	Consumers Cordage Co. Ltd., Halifax; Department of Vendors, Halifax; S. Cunard & Co., Ltd., Halifax; John W. Gabriel, Halifax; Howards, Limited, Halifax; Hillis & Sons, Ltd., Halifax; Imperial Oils, Ltd., Halifax; Fred C. Manning Co., Ltd., Halifax; Nickerson & Crease, Ltd., Halifax; National Drug and Chemical Co., Halifax; Wm. Robertson & Son, Halifax; Smith & Proctor, Ltd., Halifax; John Simon, Halifax.
3.	Tenders were called for 400 tons anthracite stove coal, in bags, and the prices tendered are as follows: S. Cunard & Co., Ltd., Halifax, $20.45 net ton; Dartmouth Coal & Supply Co., Dartmouth, $18.00 net ton; Geo. R. Robertson, N. Sydney, unable to tender. The order was placed with S. Cunard & Co., Ltd., who were able to give immediate delivery.
4.	None.
Questions

5.	The Department of Railways and Canals
expended 1849,513.39 in 1927 at Churchill on labour, equipment* materials, supplies and transportation. These expenditures were made by the department direct and not through contractors.	,.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
hunter building


Mr. STEVENS:: .
1.	What was the total cost of the Hunter
building:	(a) amount paid for land; (b)
amount paid for building; (c) amount paid for furnishings?
2.	What amount has been paid each year for: (a) lighting; (b) heating; (e) annual upkeep and repairs; (d) cleaners and cleaners' supplies?
3.	What is the total floor space of the said building?
4.	What proportion of the said floor space is occupied by ofiiees?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Question stands.


Henry Herbert Stevens: This is not a difficult
question, and the information is required for the consideration of the Public Work3 estimates. The information is of no use to me if I cannot get it for that purpose.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say to my hon
friend that they are working on the answer, but have not been able to devote their time exclusively to that particular question. The staff has had a number of other questions to work on, but I hope to have the answer to this one by Monday.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not asking the staff to work on this one exclusively, but I am simply drawing attention to the simplicity of the question.


John Campbell Elliott: They tell me that it will take some time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If you get your estimates through to-day, there , will be no need for it.


SCUDDER, ONT., WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who has or had charge of repair work at the wharf at Scudder, Ontario?
2.	What, wages did he receive?
3.	How much was spent for repairs at Scudder during the years 1926-27-28 to April 30th?
4.	How many men were employed on the work?
5.	Who were they?
6.	How were they paid, and by w-hom?
7.	How much did each receive?
8.	What qualifications are required to secure employment on such repair work?
9.	From whom was the lumber and materials purchased?
10.	By whom was the lumber used in repairs on docks or wharves in Essex county supplied?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Henry Rahn.
2.	$290. . .
3.	$3,103.09.	^4 to 7. Hubert Taylor, $9; Ruben Jacques, $19.20; Bert Hoare, $88; Wilfrid Guirdian, $34.40; John Rahn, $68.40; William Lidwill, $12;	Arthur	Godwin, $9.60;	Ernie Callow,$24;	Albert	Stoltz, $131.20;	Garnet	Wall,$40;	Arthur	Goodburn, $40;	William	Nye,
$68.80; Edward Renaud, $12.80; William Carter, $21.60; Bob Carter, $17.60; Orton Quick, $4; M. T. Scratch, $23.20; Judson Scratch, $15. (All paid by individual cheques).
8.	It is the practice of the department to employ men in the locality who have the necessary qualifications in the class of work to be undertaken.
9.	Claude Quick, Pelee island, Ont., lumber;	John McCormick, Pelee island,	Ont.,
lumber; Orton Quick, Pelee island, Ont., lumber;	The S. Hadley Lumber Co.,
Chatham, Ont., lumber; London Bolts & Hinge Works, London, Ont., hardware; Ralph Harris Lumber Company, Pelee island, Ont., lumber; Henry Rahn, Pelee island, Ont., hardware; Hobbs-Hardware Company, London, Ont., hardware; Lendon Hardware Co., Leamington, Ont., hardware.
10.	P. G. Piggott Lumber Co., Chatham, Ont.; L. Johnson, Straffordville, Ont.; Laidlaw Belting Lumber Co., Sarnia, Ont.; The S. Hadley Lumber Co., Chatham, Ont.; John McGarvin, Chatham, Ont.; The O'Brien Lumber Co., Chatham, Ont.; Ralph Harris, Pelee island, Ont.; John McCormick, Pelee island, Ont.; Orton Quick, Pelee island, Ont,; Claude Quick, Pelee island, Ont.


PELEE' ISLAND WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who has or had charge of repair work recently done at the wharf at Pelee island, Ontario?
2.	What wages did he receive?
3.	How much was spent for repairs at Pelee island during the years 1926-1927-1928 to April 30 th?
4.	How many men were employed on the work?
5.	Who were they?
6.	How were they paid, and by whom?
7.	How much did each receive?
8.	What qualifications are required to secure employment ?
9.	Who hires the men?
10.	Is there a timekeeper on the job?
11.	If so, who is he?
12.	How does he check up the time of the workmen ?
13.	Is his time book retained by him or the department?

Questions
14.	Have there been any complaints made to the department by residents of Pelee island that inexperienced people had been used on the job?
15.	Is the work under the patronage system?
5.	Space for postal purposes provided by postmaster who is paid 8100 a year rent allowance by the Post Office department.
6 to 13. No information.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Dan Gow.
2.	S340.
3.	$1,704.16.
4 to 7. Wilbert Feltz, $2; Lloyd Gow, $12;-Carl Anderson, $78.40; Donald Gow, $10.40; Edward Gameau, $9.60; John Lidwell, $62; Robert McCormick, $63 60; Gordon Thompson, $75.20; John Holley, $11.20; John Pulford, $10; Stafford Bolton, $11.60. (All paid by individual cheques).
8.	It is the practice of the department to employ men in the locality who have the necessary qualifications on the class of work to be undertaken.
9.	The foreman.
10.	No. The foreman acted as timekeeper.
11.	Answered by No. 10.
12.	By actual observation.
13.	By the department.
14.	No.
15.	No.


COTTAM, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. GOTT:: L Does the government own the post office at Cottam, Ontario?
tl 2- How many rural routes are served from the Cottam post office?
3.	What returns did the said office show for the years 1924-1925-1926-1927?
4.	Has representation to the government been made by the people of Cottam or Gosfield JNorth, for a new post office at Cottam?
5.	If the government rents the said post ofliee, what rent is paid, and to whom?
6.	Has the government had under considera-j10.1?' ,or have they now under consideration, the buiiding of a post office on their own property at Cottam?
7.	Have negotiations been made for the purchase of a site for a post office at Cottam?
8.	Does the government own a suitable site for a post office in Cottam?
9.	If so, from whom was same purchased, and when ?
10.	What was the price paid?
11.	Is there a site available at present for a post office at Cottam?
12.	Has the government an offer of a site?
13 If so from whom, where located and at
what price?


Mr. RINERET (for Mr. Veniot):: 1.	No.
2.	Two.
3.	Revenue: 1924, $1,851.76; 1925, $1,876.86; 1926, $1,667.92; 1927, $1,454.86
4.	No.


LEAMINGTON, ONT., HARBOUR IMPROVEMENTS
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Has the government under consideration the expenditure of any moneys for harbours, or pier construction, or breakwater construction at the port of Leamington, Ontario?
2.	Has the department abandoned former plans for the construction of pier and harbour improvement at Leamington?
3.	Did a vote pass the house for improvement of harbour at Leamington, other than those for repairs to wharf, etc.?
4.	If so, how much was the vote?
5.	When did it pass?
6.	Why was the work not proceeded with?
L.How much did it cost the country for
preliminary engineering reports, etc.?
5.	Is the government willing to revive former consideration for the project at an early date?
9.	Do the records show the proposed expenditure of former plans?
10.	If so, what was the amount?
11.	Has the government had any recent representation from citizens of Leamington to proceed with the work as soon as possible?
12.	Is the department in receipt of communications from a citizen or citizens of Leamington or community requesting resuscitation of old plans?
13.	ill the department make a survey of the surroundings at the port during the summer season of 1928 with a view to proceed with iormer plans, or new ones?
14.	Does the government consider Leamington an important port?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes.
2.	No.
3.	4 and 5. 1914-15, $10,000; 1915-16, $10,000; 19161-17, $10,000; 1925-26, $10,000.
6.	Appropriation voted too late to allow work being proceeded with in 1925-26. No action taken on former votes for breakwater due to war conditions.
7.	Approximately $500.
8.	Yes, when conditions demand.
9.	Yes.
10.	Approximately $300,000.
11.	No.
12.	No.
13.	If deemed advisable.
14.	Yes.


LEAMINGTON, ONT., WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who has or had charge of repair work at the wharf at Leamington, Ontario?
2.	What wages did he receive?
3.	How many men were employed?
4.	Who were they?
5.	How were they paid, and by -whom?
C. How much did each draw?
i.	From whom wras the lumber and materials purchased?

Questions


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	C. B. Elllis.
2 to 6. C. B. Ellis, $135; R. Howe, $96; M. Girarden, $84; L. Howe, $82; E. J. Johnson, $16; H. Maloti, $9; G. Robson, $15. (All paid in individual cheques.)
7. P. G. Piggott Lumber Co., Chatham, Ont., lumber. Hobbs-Hardware Co., Ltd., London, Ont., hardware. London Bolt & Hinge Works, London, Ont., hardware. Conover & Pilswortfh, Leamington, Ont., hardware.


KINGSVILLE, ONT., POST OFFICE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Does the government own the post office at Kingsville, Ontario?
2.	How many rural routes are served from the Kingsville post office?
3.	What returns did this office show for the years 1923-1924-1925-1926-1927?
4.	Has representation been made by the people of Kingsville for a new post office?
5.	Has the government under deliberation the building of a new post office at Kingsville, Ontario?
6.	If the government rents the post office at Kingsville, what rent is paid, and to_ whom?
7.	Does the government own a suitable site for a new post office in Kingsville?


Mr. RINFRET (for Mr. Veniot):: 1.	No.
2.	Two.
3.	Revenue: 1923,19,758.70; 1924, $10,619.09; 1925, $10,066.97; 1926, $10,716.80; 1927,$9,338.65.
4.	Yes (1910).
5.	No.
6.	Space for postal purposes provided by postmaster who is paid $550 a year rent allowance by the Post Office department.
7.	Yes.


KINGSVILLE, ONT.-SITE FOR PUBLIC BUILDING
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Does the government own the vacant lot
on the four corners in the town of Kingsville, Ontario?	.
2.	If so, from whom was same acquired, and when?
3.	What was paid for same?
4.	For what purpose was it purchased?
5.	Has the government the intention of occupying this in the near future?
6.	If so, for what purpose?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	Yes (northeast corner of Main and Division streets).
2.	(a) The Windsor & Essex Lake Shore Rapid Railway Company, (b) 1912.
3.	$2,000.
4.	Site for public building.
5 and 6. No decision at present with reference to this site.


PELEE ISLAND CABLE
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many days wras the Pelee island cable, Leamington to Pelee island, out of order during December, 1927, January, February, and March, 1928?
2.	How many days was the Pelee island cable,
Kingsville to Pelee island, out of order during December, 1927, January, February, and March, 1928?	.	.
3.	When was cable completed from Kingsville to Pelee island?
4.	What was total cost of same?
5.	How was contract for laying same made?
6.	Under whose supervision was the cable installed ?
7.	Who had the contract for laying same?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1.	31, 31, 29, 31.
2.	12, 10, 29, 31.
3.	October 12, 1927.
4.	$4,303.13.
5.	No contract.
6.	Assistant general superintendent, government telegraph service.
7.	Answered by No. 5.


WHEATLEY, ONT., WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who has or had charge of repair work at the wharf of Wheatley, Ontario?
2.	What wages did he receive?
3.	How many men were employed?
4.	Who were they?
5.	How were they paid and by whom?
6.	How much did each receive?
7.	From whom was the lumber and materials purchased?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1. Oliver Lamarsh.
2 to 6. Oliver Lamarsh, $80; Harvey Hickson, $184; Robert Plant, $198; James M. Chute, $22; George D. Smith, $198.
(All paid by individual cheques.)
7.	John McGarvin, Chatham, Ont., lumber. Laidlaw, Belton Lumber Co., Ltd., Sarnia, Ont., lumber. The S. Hadley Lumber Co., Chatham, Ont., lumber. The O'Brien Lumber Co., Ltd., Chatham, Ont., lumber. Allan Lynn, Wheatley, Ont, hardware. Hobbs-Hardware Company, London, Ont., hardware. London Bolt & Hinge Works, London, Ont., hardware. Leamington Hardware Company, Leamington, Ont., hardware. David R. Coleman, Wheatley, Ont., hardware. The Wheatley Garage, Wheatley, Ont., gasoline.


KINGSVILLE, ONT. WHARF
Mr. GOTT:: 1.	Who has or had charge of repair work at the wharf at Kingsville, Ontario?
2.	What wages did he receive?
3.	How many men were employed?
4.	Who were they?

Saturday Sittings
5.	How were they paid and by whom?
C. How much did each receive?
7.	From whom was the lumber and materials purchased?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1. Judson Scratch.
2 to 6. Judson Scratch, $355.50; John Pul-ford, $258; Staford Bottom, $154; Frank Bottom, $124; Alex. McRae, $10; Allen Pearsall, $4; R. H. Scratch, $14; Alex. Cascaden, $105.40; Ed. Townsend, $86.40; M. Scratch, $9.60; Morley Sanford, $8; C. Ellis, $105; Geo. Taylor, $154.50. (All paid by individual cheques).
7.	P. G. Piggott, Chatham, Ont., lumber. L. Johnson, Straffordville, Ont., timber. London Bolt & Hinge Works, London, Ont., hardware.	Kenneth Rae, Kingsville, Ont., hardware.	Hofobs-Hardware Co., Ltd., London,Ont., hardware. J. H. Sweet & Son, Kingsville, Ont., hardware.	Harris Bros., Kingsville, Ont., hardware.	Co-Operative Supply
Company, Kingsville, Ont., soft coal.


UKRAINIANS UNDER SENTENCE OP DEATH
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	Have any representations been made to the Prime Minister by any citizens and residents of Canada, of Ukrainian descent, protesting against the sentence to death of Wasyl Atamanchuk and Iwan Werbyekyj, and demanding a new trial by a jury composed of Ukrainian members in proportion to the Ukrainian population in eastern Galicia and Volhynia?
2.	Has the Prime Minister taken any action?
3.	If not, will he do so in respect of this matter?


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: 1.	Representations have been received from a number of Ukrainian societies in Canada and from persons of Ukrainian descent now resident in Canada.
2.	These representations were noted and replies were sent pointing out that no evidence had been submitted which would establish that there was in this case a denial of justice or that the trial was not fairly instituted. It was also pointed out that an appeal had been lodged with the Supreme Count of Poland and that the course prescribed by law was being followed.
3.	Answered by above.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I beg to move, in accordance with notice given:
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, the 16th instant, it stand adjourned until Iriday, the 18th instant;
56103-182J
That when this house adjourns on Wednesday, the 23rd instant, it stand adjourned until Friday, the 25th instant.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask the consent of the house to move the following, of which I gave notice yesterday:
That on Saturday, May 19th instant and every Saturday thereafter, until the end of the session, the house shall meet at three o'clock in the afternoon, and that the order of business and procedure shall be the same as on Fridays.
That is virtually substituting Saturday for Thursday.


Mr. GARDINER:: I desire to ask the
Prime Minister whether it is intended to sit on Saturday evenings?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That will depend on the progress we make. It may be found that it is unnecessary to sit on Saturday evenings. On the other hand, if it will help to bring the session to a speedy conclusion, it * may be advisable.


Robert Gardiner: Does that motion require the unanimous consent of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it does.
I gave notice yesterday, tout two days' notice is required.


Mr. CLARK:: May I ask the Prime Minister why we do not sit in the morning? The committees are pretty well cleaned up, and we could do that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are sitting afternoons and evenings, and that is going some, as they say. My hon. friend will recollect that the government may have to consider a good many matters during the concluding part of the session, and a part of the day is required for that purpose.


Mr. CHURCH:: If this motion is to be
passed for the purpose of expediting the work of the session, why not suspend the eleven o clock rule, and sit 5n the mornings as well?


Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Speaker, does this require the unanimous consent of the house?


Mr. SPEAKER:: A notice of motion was
given yesterday, and the house seems to be unanimous that it will serve as notice for today.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I do not think the house is unanimous in regard to sitting on Friday, the 25th, and I understood the Prime Minister to say-


Hewitt Bostock: Saturday.
Old Aye Pensions


Thomas Cantley: I am referring to Friday, the 25th. A good many of us from the maritime provinces and the western provinces desire to have the opportunity of going home. I would point out the inequality of the position occupied by the members from the eastern section and the western section of the Dominion, as compared with the members from Ontario and Quebec. The latter are able to get home practically every week end; we are not. I spent six months and two days continuously here two years ago, and last year I was here for over four months. We do not have the opportunity of going home at all as have those of the central provinces. I would ask the Prime Minister that when we adjourn on the 24th, the house do not meet again until the following Monday.


John Arthur Clark: We need ten days to go home and get back again.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government naturally is anxious to consult the convenience of the house generally, and I think the feeling of tfie house, taking it in a general way, is that it is now desirable to try and get through the session as speedily as possible. I believe that sitting on Saturdays will help to effect that result. I do not think it would be wise to adjourn over Friday and thus have three days on which we would not be sitting in that week when two of those three particular days might serve to conclude the business of the session.


Thomas Cantley: I will tell the Prime Minister that he will not get through on the Saturday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be.


Robert Gardiner: I
would suggest that the Prime Minister do not press the motion to-day so that the members may have a little more time to consider the question of sitting on Saturday nights. I would remind the house of the situation that was created in former parliaments where the last few days of the session saw much important business rushed through without adequate consideration. If we sit on Saturday nights members will not have a minute's time to consider the questions before them. I suggest that we should have some time to consider them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Ordinarily we would be sitting five days a week. This motion means simply that we shall be sitting five days a week the same as before because two Thursdays happen to come in as holidays. This is to substitute Saturdays for Thursdays.

It will enable us to get along further with the business of the session but it will not create any undue haste.


Robert Gardiner: While what the Prime Minister says is quite true as regards the first two weeks, when we come to the third week we shall be sitting six days a week.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: This motion, as Your Honour has said, requires unanimous consent because sufficient notice has not been given. As it has been suggested that it be not considered to-day, I would ask the Prime Minister, as our leader is away and will be away until Monday, whether he will be good enough to put this proposal on the order paper and bring it up on Monday.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall be very glad to do that. I hope on Monday all will be prepared to accept the motion.


Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg):: Would the Prime Minister consider having the house meet at two o'clock instead of three in the afternoon and suspending the eleven o'clock rule for the rest of the session?


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I should like to take this opportunity of protesting against the suggestion of suspending the eleven o'clock rule. Speaking simply for myself I am willing to come here early in the morning and work all day up to eleven o'clock. I think the country would approve our sustaining the eleven o'clock rule.
Motion stands.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: I wish to direct the attention of the Minister of Labour to an article in the press which says, in connection with the old age pensions, that provincial appointments are in large measure under the control of the Minister of Labour and that the Minister of Labour would see to it that supporters of the Liberal party were placed in positions. Are such provincial appointments under his control or not?


Peter Heenan: Would the hon. member tell me who made that statement and where he is reading from?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am reading from the Ottawa Journal of the ninth instant.


Peter Heenan: I assume the hon. member is reading from one of the local papers, quoting what a member of the Ontario legislature is reported as having said, namely, that the

Rabies in Ontario
reason he was against the old age pension plan was because the Minister of Labour had all the appointments under his authority. Conditions are just the reverse. Under this scheme the provincial government has full control over the administration and it makes all the appointments. The only thing the federal government does is to pay half the bill; we are glad to do that and we hope the member will acquaint himself with the legislation.



NEW EDINBURGH MILLS PROPERTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the government lay on the table any orders in council and other documents referring to the acquisition of the property known as the New Edinburgh mills, so that when we come to discuss the matter we may have complete information before us? The information required will be the order in council, the agreement to purchase, and any other papers of that character pertaining to the acquisition of the property.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to lay on the table the order in council, the agreement providing for the purchase of the property and any other information in the possession the department.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The valuation?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.



SPEAKER'S RULING-CORRECTION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, at your convenience
would you look at page 2858 of Hansard of last evening, where in giving a decision you are reported, I think incorrectly, as saying:
If the previous question is defeated, the bill is also defeated.
I would ask Your Honour to consider whether that should not have read:
If the previous question is defeated, the bill is superseded for the time beins.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman is
right. I used possibly a wrong expression. I meant that when the previous question is defeated, the bill is superseded, but it may be revived later on by a motion.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is what I understood.


Hewitt Bostock: But when the previous
question is adopted the house must proceed without any further debate. I used the word "defeated" where I should have used the word "superseded," which has another meaning.


Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: I
did not understand Your Honour to rule that there is no debate on the motion that the question be now put. It might have been debated.


Hewitt Bostock: It might have been debated, but after the motion is adopted there is no debate. When the motion is made to the house that the question be now put, it may be debated. There was no debate yesterday evening.



OUTBREAK OF RABIES IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. H. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: On Tuesday last I submitted to the
government a question which in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture was answered by the Minister of Health who assured me that he would place the matter before the Minister of Agriculture and that I might expect an answer yesterday. I presume that has not been done. My question to the minister was this. There has been a very severe outbreak of rabies in the county of Frontenac. Several cattle and sheep have become affected and have had to be destroyed. The question is: Under those circumstances is the government prepared to give a certain amount of recompense to the farmers for the losses they have sustained in carrying out the order for the destruction of such animals?


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: I regret to report that there
is no provision that I know of in any of our statutes whereby owners of live stock, when their animals are bitten by rabid dogs, can secure any compensation. The situation is regrettable but there is no provision in regard to the matter.


Mr. A. E. ROSS (Kingston city):: May I
ask the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Health under what regulations are animals destroyed in an outbreak of rabies?


William Richard Motherwell: Under the authority given to the Health of Animals Branch to destroy dogs that have been proven to be affected with rabies. If the dog is only on suspicion through coming into contact with another dog that is affected with the disease, it is quarantined.


Arthur Edward Ross: The minister has
hardly answered my point. I asked under what regulations was this done, under regulations issued by the Department of Agriculture, or provincial regulations.
Civil Service


William Richard Motherwell: Under the Health
of Animals Act itself, or under regulations issued in conformity with that act. It is a federal matter.



CIVIL SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Reginald Geary: May I ask the Postmaster General if he will acquaint the house with the grounds upon which the Civil Service Commission justified its refusal to accede to the recommendation of the minister for reclassification of salaries of the postal clerks, letters carriers and so on?


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: In reply to the hon. gentleman I may say that I am the last one in the world that the Civil Service Commission would take into their confidence. They gave no reasons whatever in justification of their refusal to consider the recommendation made by the Postmaster General for increases or the reclassification of the mail carriers, postal clerks and the other officers mentioned.


George Reginald Geary: No further communications?


Peter John Veniot: No. I laid all the correspondence on the table yesterday, so that it might be seen.
ROYAL COMMISSION ON FISHERIES On the orders of the day:


Mr. H. B. SHORT (Digby-Annapolis):: I should like to ask the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) whether instructions have yet been given to have the report of the Royal Commission on Fisheries printed, if so, when copies will be available to members of the house.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries):: In reply to a similar question yesterday I said that the report was being printed and that I expected it would be ready to-day. Unfortunately I have not as yet been informed that it is ready. I hope it will be available soon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has it been laid on the table?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
DANGER TO BORDER RESIDENTS On the orders of the day:


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) yesterday asked this question:

I desire to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) what will be done to protect Canadian citizens and Canadian interests at Port Colborne from the invasion of several armed American cruisers, as set out in articles in yesterday's Mail and Empire and the Toronto Star. One man was shot at. There is a heavy tourist traffic in this district at the opening of the season, and it is important that the necessary protective measures should be taken.
I asked to see the articles that I might give my hon. friend a reply to-day. Having seen them, I would say that the assumption that steps will be necessary to protect Canadian citizens and Canadian interests at Port Colborne from an invasion of several armed American cruisers is not borne out either by the newspaper articles to which the member for Toronto Northwest refers, or by other sources of infoimation. The shooting by coast-guards to which reference is made, was on the United States side of the border. There is no ground for believing that United States revenue vessels will endeavour to operate in any way on the Canadian side of the boundary.



SUPPLY-PROC EDURE RESUMING ON THURSDAY OR FRIDAY DEBATE ON AMENDMENT

['Very well; I do not want to insist. The same applies to St. Stephen. The hon. member is here who asked for information as to why a contract was not let.\nProgress reported.\nPrivate Bills']
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Order No. 5.


The CLERK ASSISTANT:: Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go again into committee of supply, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Tolmie.


Hewitt Bostock: The house should go into supply without question put on a Thursday, unless the rule is suspended. Otherwise I will leave the chair and no debate can go on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is the only order on the paper relating to supply which can be called, Mr. Speaker.


John Wesley Edwards: 
Hewitt Bostock: Standing order 28 reads:
On Thursdays and Fridays %vben the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question.
That is the case to-day. And if the house will bear with me, I will read also paragraph 233 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which is a reproduction from May:
The adjournment of a debate on an amendment to the motion for the Speaker's leaving the chair-
We have the amendment of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie).
-may create an exceptional result, owing to the direction contained in standing order 28 that on Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the bouse to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except with the consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken on a day other than Thursday or Friday. If an adjourned debate on such an amendment is standing upon the order paper when supply, for consideration of which in committee it is not necessary to propose the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair, is to be taken, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate is removed, and procedure on the amendment lapses, in order that the Speaker, in obedience to standing order 28 may leave the chair without question put.


George Halsey Perley: Before you give your decision, Mr. Speaker, may I be allowed to say a word or two? I read over these clauses carefully this morning, and I submit that the action taken by the Prime Minister does not bring this clause into force. The Prime Minister called, "Order No. 5," and thereupon the assistant clerk read out:
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go again into committee of supply, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Tolmie.
As I understand it, it might have been possible for the Prime Minister, had he so chosen, to have called, "Supply", and thereupon Your Honour might have been able under this rule to leave the chair without question being put.


Mr. DUNNING:: Which item would that
be on the order paper?


George Halsey Perley: Simply "Supply"; no item at all. But the Prime Minister has called, "Order No. 5," and I thought that the Prime Minister had done this intentionally. If the Prime Minister wished to go on with the adjourned debate, which I think we ought to do at the very first opportunity, he could have taken no other action
than to call Order No. 5. According to the rule which Your Honour has cited, the Prime Minister could have taken advantage of it to go into supply without question being put. But he did not choose to take that position. Quite properly, I think, he called item No. 5, thereby implying that the government were willing to have this amendment disposed of. I submit for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that by the mere calling of item No. 5 the government proposed to proceed with the discussion on the amendment in order that it might be disposed of and the business of the house expedited. Whether intentionally or not, the Prime Minister took the course necessary to resume the adjourned debate on the amendment, and, having done so, he must now go on with that adjourned debate as it was called by the Clerk Assistant.
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING
(Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend will recognize at once that the government cannot call an item which is not on the order paper. With respect to the item that was called, the government is restricted to those subjects that are on the order paper. Last night before the house adjourned it was announced that the government wished to proceed with supply to-day. The only number on the order paper which relates at all to supply is No. 5, and accordingly I moved that No. 5 be called. Whether as a consequence of going into supply to-day some amendment that is already before the house lapses, is entirely a matter governed by the rules, to which members of the government, like all other members, are subject. I believe it is a fact that the rules have been so drafted as to make it possible, notwithstanding what amendments there may be to the motion to go into supply, for the government to go into supply on Thursdays and Fridays. My hon. friend will see at once that unless there were some such rules a situation might be created whereby the government would never get into supply. But the rules provide that with respect to estimates that already have been under consideration on Thursdays and Fridays the government may get into supply by the Speaker leaving the chair without any question being put. Therefore the government is simply following the procedure applicable in such a case.


Mr. W. A. BOYS (North Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to endorse what has been said by the hon. member for Argenteuil. It seems to me that no motion to go intc
Supply-Procedure

supply, has of necessity to be made to-day under the rules, and that ordinarily, had it not been for the debate on the amendment to the motion to go into supply having been adjourned on Tuesday night, the Prime Minister would call what he wanted and that being supply you, sir, would automatically leave the chair and the committee would then be in supply. Being in supply, the Prime Minister would have the right to call for any departmental estimates he liked providing they had already been dealt with, and as far as I know the only two departments he could call would be Public Works and Agriculture, none other having been dealt with as yet. The Prime Minister called order No. 5, which is as follows-
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of the Minister of Finance, that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go again into committee of supply, and on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Tolmie.
-is it pretended that the debate which was carried on with you, sir, in the chair, could be carried on to-day with the house in committee? It seems to me that the proposition is preposterous. If the debate is to be resumed it can be resumed only in one way- with you in the chair. I am ready to concede at once that the Prime Minister can to-day, irrespective of the order mentioned, make a motion that we do proceed to supply, and thereupon another amendment could be moved. But the rules certainly provide that on Thursdays and Fridays you automatically leave the chair, and then the Prime Minister calls whatever is in order in committee of supply, and, as I have already said, the only two estimates open to him would be those of Public Works and Agriculture. I cannot see how it can be contended that the debate on the amendment is to be terminated by this procedure; or, on the other hand, that it could proceed in committee when it commenced in the house, where it must be concluded.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the result which my
hon. friend claims would be preposterous has been foreseen not only in this house in the words which Your Honour has quoted from Beauchesne, but even in the British house.
I find at page 527 of May, 13th edition, the following:
The adjournment of the debate on an amendment proposed to the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair may create an exceptional result,

[Mr. Boys.)
It is exceptional.
-owing to the direction contained in standing order No. 17, that except on first going into committee of supply on the annual estimates or on a vote of credit, the Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question. If an adjourned debate on that question is standing upon the notice paper when supply, for the consideration of which in committee it is not necessary to propose the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair, is to be taken, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate is removed, and procedure on the amendment lapses, in order that the Speaker, in obedience to the standing order, may leave the chair without question put.
As May says, it is an exceptional result, and it is the same as is worked out in this house by our rules, which provide that on Thursdays and Fridays the Speaker must leave the chair automatically when supply is to be taken. Of course, if it could be taken as my hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) suggests, merely by saying "supply" without reading the orders of the day, then this exceptional result would not happen either in the British house or here. But this is the first time I have heard it suggested that the house can take up any order of the day without specifying the number of it on the order paper.


George Halsey Perley: Mr. Speaker, let us admit that the government had the right to call for supply on Thursday and Friday without the question being put. There were two courses open to the government in this instance. The Minister of Justice will not contend that the government had not the right to go on with the item on the order paper for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion and the amendment.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes; it would be against the letter and the spirit of standing order 28.


George Halsey Perley: I beg my hon.
friend's pardon. He will not contend that the government had no power to propose going on with the item for resuming the adjourned debate. They had it in their power, according to his own argument. It was optional with them whether they would go on with the adjourned debate or would move the house into supply under the other rule, without question being put. I submit the Prime Minister has chosen the alternative of going on with this item. To argue otherwise, Mr. Speaker, reduces the procedure to an absurdity. How did the government lose the right of calling item No. 5 and proceeding with it? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that they had that power, and exercised it, and therefore they should go on with the adjourned debate.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, before the Conservative govern-

Supply-Procedure
ment came into power in 1911 a motion to go into supply could be made on every government day, and amendments disposed of and grievances remedied before the house went into supply. But after 1911, for the purpose of expediting the business of the house, the Borden administration had the rules changed so that on two days of the week, Thursdays and Fridays, the house would go automatically into supply without question put. The government has to abide by that rule; it is a standing order of the house. Unless therefore there is consent to waive the rule I do not see how the house can proceed with the motion and the amendment thereto, proposed by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie).


George Halsey Perley: The Prime Minister called order No. 5. Will the hon. gentleman be good enough to read order No. 5.


Charles Marcil: But the rule of the house lays it down that the Speaker shall leave the chair on Thursday and Friday without question put, unless the house consents to suspend that rule.


Mr. CANNON:: My hon. friend's argument is that the government could call order No. 5-


George Halsey Perley: And did call it.


Lucien Cannon: -or any other order.
Now what is the rule we are discussing? The rule in question is standing order 28, which provides:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question.
The rule does not say "may leave;" it says "shall leave the chair." It is imperative and no one has any discretion to alter the rule.


William Alves Boys: That is the argument I am
making. The moment the Prime Minister calls supply, without any further discussion Mr. Speaker leaves the chair and the house goes into committee of supply. That is one procedure that could be followed. Another course the Prime Minister might adopt, if he saw fit, would be to call order No. 5, which of necessity would require the house to proceed with the debate begun the other day, and which would be a debate with Mr. Speaker in the chair, and not with the house in committee. That is the point we are contending for. If the other view is taken, what is the result? I do not suppose for a moment that this is a trick, nor do I think that the Prime Minister is trying to use it as a trick to avoid the motion and the amendment
thereto, moved by the hon. member for Victoria, being disposed of by the house. If however that course is persisted in it can be nothing but a trick; and judging from the way matters have been going in the last two or three days, my hon. friends should be the last to talk about free speech. There is not very much free speech; we are not given opportunities to move or to discuss amendments. And this is only a further effort along that line, if such is the intention. I cannot believe that this is the intention; I do not think the Prime Minister would want to bring about such a result. Let me read the rule in its entirety-because I cannot see anything in it which has the effect my hon. friends contend for:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question, provided that, except with the consent of the house, the estimates of each department shall be first taken on a day other than Thursday or Friday.
The Prime Minister had two courses open to him. He might have called supply, and rule 28 would have become effective. You, Mr. Speaker, would automatically have left the chair without any motion for the house to go into supply. The other course open to the Prime Minister was to do what as a matter of fact he did do-call order No. 5. That brings about a continuation of the debate upon the amendment which was moved the other night by the hon. member for Victoria. And surely, sir, that debate must continue with yourself in the chair; it must be resumed in the house, where it started. How could it be otherwise? Will anyone seriously contend that a debate, begun with the speaker in the chair, can by any rule be continued, and a vote taken upon the question at issue, with the house in committee? I think I am justified in describing such a proposition as preposterous.


Ernest Lapointe: It happens in the British parliament.


William Alves Boys: I am not sufficiently well in-'
formed in that regard to say that it does not, but I can hardly imagine such a procedure being followed. Now is it necessary. If the desire of the government is to go into supply without continuing the debate already in progress, all they have to do is to call supply and under rule 28 Mr. Speaker leaves the chair, the only restriction being then that the committee may deal only with the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and Public Works. As a matter of fact I intended
2S74
Supply-Procedure

asking the Prime Minister what the government had in mind if we did go into committee of supply. Will hon. gentlemen suggest that because of this situation they have a right to go into supply in connection with departments other than the two named?


Ernest Lapointe: No.


William Alves Boys: I am glad to hear that. I
have not much more to say. I appeal to the Prime Minister, in the absence of our leader (Mr. Bennett), to let the house go into supply without calling order No. 5. No one on this side of the house would, I think, object.


George Halsey Perley: But he has called order No. 5.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My first duty is to see as far as may be possible that the rules of the house are observed. It is the duty of His Honour to decide what the rules are in the event of a difference of view. We have stated what we honestly believe to be the rules and have given authority from the rules, and we are quite prepared to abide by the decision of Mr. Speaker.


William Alves Boys: One more observation and I
am through. The Prime Minister called order No. 5, which is for the resumption of a debate which was adjourned with the Speaker in the chair. If that debate is continued it must continue with the Speaker n the chair, and standing order 28 is not in-roked in the circumstances. The calling of order No. 5 is not affected by standing order 28. Mr. Speaker was in the chair when the debate was adjourned and t'he debate must continue in the house and not in committee.


Ernest Lapointe: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether supply can be taken, as my hon. friend suggests, without order No. 5 being called?


Hewitt Bostock: That is the government's business. If the government calls supply, either to-day or to-morrow, then automatically I leave the chair.


William Alves Boys: But they did not say "supply".


Ernest Lapointe: Can the government say merely "supply" without referring to any order?


Hewitt Bostock: I have 'heard "supply"
called without reference to any order. The Minister of Finance says "supply".


Ernest Lapointe: But the clerk always
says "No. 5" or "No. 6".


William Alves Boys: The Prime Minister did not
call supply and therefore did not invoke the provisions of rule 28. He called order No 5.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says I called No. 5. But that is the only order on the paper that relates to the house
going into supply; it is the only order in order to get into supply that it is possible for the government to calk It is for His Honour to say whether, in accordance with the rules of the house, be can do otherwise than leave the chair and have the house go into supply.


George Halsey Perley: If the Prime Minister desired to go on with this adjourned debate to-day, what motion would he make?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We should
have to suspend the rules of the house.


George Halsey Perley: Not at all. One
word more. I do not want to inflict myself on the house, but I claim, as my hon. friend from North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) does, that standing order 28 has nothing at all to do with the question. I claim that the government, according to their own arguments,-supposing that they could call supply with this motion on the order paper-could, if they so wished, call supply and have the Speaker automatically leave the chair, under standing order 28. The government had a perfect right to go on with the adjourned debate if they saw fit, or they could -have had the Speaker leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply without any motion being put.


Lucien Cannon: Will my hon. friend allow me a question? Should his contention be right, and should we resume the adjourned debate, then the house would be called upon to discuss the question whether Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair, notwithstanding that the rule lays it down distinctly that on this very day, Thursday, he shall leave the chair without any motion being put. The house would therefore-if my hon. friend's contention is correct-be discussing a procedure which according to the standing order in question Mr. Speaker shall-not may-follow without any motion. My hon. friend from North Simcoe has advanced an argument which I would acknowledge had the Prime Minister said, for example, "No. 8" instead of No. 5. But the moment he called order No. 5 he called an order relating to supply; and under standing order 28. on Thursdays and Fridays, Mr. Speaker is bound to leave the chair without any question being put.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I would direct attention to the fact that there is before the house a

Supply-Procedure
motion of want of confidence, made so by the Prime Minister himself, and this government are not entitled to supply or anything else until this house has decided upon that motion.


John Wesley Edwards: In our business to-day we have reached what are called the orders of the day; those are government orders. This program was prepared for the house by the government, and while the Prime Minister says he had to call order No. 5 because there was no other order he could call to get into supply, I would suggest that if there has been any neglect or oversight it has been on the part of the government in not preparing the order paper so that they could call an order that would get them into supply. The government prepared these orders; the Prime Minister has called order No. 5, so we cannot stop until we finish with that order. How can you call order No. 5 and stop short of everything included in that order?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is mistaken when he says the government prepared the orders of the day; that is a part of the duties of the officers of the house, and the government has no control over it.


John Wesley Edwards: Does the
Prime Minister seriously state that officials of this house go ahead and prepare anything that suits them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I say it would be absolutely wrong for the government to insert any orders on the order paper other than those which come in the regular course of procedure, in accordance with the rules.


John Wesley Edwards: Then I
would say that the government have the responsibility of instructing their officials to prepare the order paper in such a way as will enable them to get on with their business. We have before us a program; order No. 5 has been called and that order must carry with it a continuance of the debate on the amendment. If that is not done I should like to know what becomes of this amendment.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I submit for Your Honour's consideration that when the Prime Minister called order No. 5 he was entirely out of order, because by calling that order he insisted that we consider a formal motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply, which carries with it a proposed amendment. The rules of the house provide that on Thursdays and Fridays Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without
putting any question; therefore there is no question before the house. When supply is called no formal motion may be made and no formal question may be put to the house for decision; therefore I think the Prime Minister was out of order. It is only necessary now for the Speaker to decide that on this day, Thursday, we go into committee of supply without a formal motion. Nevertheless, the adjourned debate on another motion stands on the order paper, and at the proper time, on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, the Speaker may be called upon to decide as to whether that motion and that amendment are still subsisting. They are not before the house to-day.


Ernest Lapointe: Would that not be a
question to discuss later, when the time comes?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Certainly, but the time is
not come. On this day there is no motion before the house, and there can be no decision by the Speaker on any motion to go into supply, because there is no motion. There can be no question put on this day, and therefore there is now nothing for the Speaker to decide, except that we now go into committee of supply by the Speaker leaving the chair, and on a future date His Honour may decide whether that formal motion No. 5 may take its regular place on the order paper.


John Arthur Clark: With all due respect to my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George, I believe it is quite clear the government had open to them two courses: First, they might have determined to go into committee of supply automatically, in those departments which have had their estimates before the house previously. On the other hand, the government might have decided to move the house into supply of a department whose estimates have not been before us. I do not think there can be any dispute about that.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You cannot do it.


John Arthur Clark: The Prime Minister or any member of the government to-day or tomorrow could move to go into supply of a department whose estimates have not been up already. That course was open to the government and the Prime Minister has made that motion. He has elected to move the house into supply, taking up a department which has not been in supply before, and in order to proceed with that business order No. 5 had to be called. To that order there is an amendment, and the Prime Minister has elected to continue the adjourned
Supply-Procedure

debate by Balling that particular order. Otherwise, what would be the result? This would provide a very convenient way for the Prime Minister and the government to avoid the discussion of a want of confidence motion; it would be simply necessary for the government to go on with government orders day by day and on Thursdays and Fridays go into committee of supply automatically, thus avoiding discussion of the want of confidence motion. Such a course would be preposterous, but that is exactly what the government propose to do to avoid continuing a very important debate which concerns the country at large.


George Reginald Geary: With all due reference to the Solicitor General, I think he was wrong in his presentation of the case. Standing order 17 provides:
Whenever government business has precedence, government orders may be called in such sequence as the government may think fit.
We have before us the government orders, and order No. 5 includes the adjourned debate. My friend the Solicitor General says it would be useless to proceed with that debate, because its termination may decide that the house should go into supply, which is absurd when the house does not need a motion to take up supply. That is an incidental result; it may happen that there may be a different ending to the discussion, but a motion having to do with the public business of the country is before the house as an amendment to the motion to take up supply and I submit that that should be discussed after having been called. If it should be an incidental result of that discussion that we decide to go into supply on a day when we do not need a motion to go into supply, I do not think that can make any possible difference to the precedence of that particular order of the day. I think this discussion should continue until the question is finally settled.


William Gordon Ernst: I would like to say just one word in reference to this particular motion. This amendment was moved on Tuesday evening; yesterday, being Wednesday, was a government day under the present rules, and the government proceeded with government orders. To-day, by the rules of the house, the government can go into supply automatically, but altogether apart from the question in dispute there is a question of policy involved, and when a similar question came up previously an illustrious predecessor of the present Prime Minister decided otherwise. In 1876 a question of this kind came before the house,

when Sir John A. Macdonald moved his famous national policy as an amendment to the motion to go into supply. The Right Hon. Alexander Mackenzie, who was then leading the government, said that it was a motion of want of confidence, just as the right hon. the Prime Minister has said; but in this' case he wanted that question resolved and determined by the house, and desired to take a private members' day in order to have it determined.


Ernest Lapointe: Is my hon. friend aware that the present rule governing Thursdays and Fridays was not in existence at that time?


William Gordon Ernst: I am not talking of the present rule; I am referring to the way the Right Hon. Alexander Mackenzie treated the question. In both cases there was a motion of want of confidence before the house. In one case the government wanted to have it determined, but in this case the government is trying to side-step the issue, and does not want a vote.


Hewitt Bostock: The Speaker is the servant of the house and the slave of the rule. Standing order No. 28 is a new rule, dating from 1913, and reads as follows:
On Thursdays and Fridays when the order of the day is called for the house to go into committee of supply, or of ways and means, Mr. Speaker shall leave the chair without putting any question,

A situation arises to-day, here in the Canadian parliament, as has already arisen in the British parliament. Members need only refer to what May says at page 476 (12th edition) where exactly the same question arose. It so happens that by automatically leaving the chair to-day, as I am forced to do, the debate which was adjourned the other evening in good faith, on the motion which was presented by the hon. member for Victoria, would lapse. Certainly I cannot do otherwise but leave the chair-standing order No. 28 is imperative-but I do not rule that this debate, on a motion presented in good faith, shall thereby lapse. The procedure lapses, but the question can be revived. Here is what May says:
If an adjourned debate on such an amendment is standing upon the order paper when supply, for consideration of which in committee it is not necessary to propose the question for the Speaker's leaving the chair, is to be taken, the order of the day for resuming the adjourned debate is removed, and procedure on the amendment lapses, in order that the Speaker, ii\ obedience to standing order 28 may leave the chair without question put.
I must give a liberal and broad interpretation of this dictum of May's. The procedure may lapse, 'but the question itself is not

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
lapsed, because there has been no judgment of the house on the question. It has simply been adjourned. When the time comes I will therefore allow that motion to be revived.


Ernest Lapointe: By way of a new motion?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly.


William Alves Boys: Can we be sure that the government will accept the ruling at that time?


Hewitt Bostock: That will be a matter for the house. When I am in the chair on Mondays or Tuesdays, when supply is called, any member can move any grievance that he may have.


William Alves Boys: If the government would accept it, I am quite sure their followers would. And if they would accept it there would be no question, and the debate would continue at a future time. I feel sure that no one on this side of the house wants anything more.


George Halsey Perley: Will Your Honour
allow me to ask you one question? Does Your Honour rule that the government had no power to-day to call this order No. 5 in such a way that the adjourned debate on the motion to go into supply, and the proposed amendment thereto, might be proceeded with?


Hewitt Bostock: By rule 28 I am forced automatically out of the chair. I must obey that rule. But, as I said a moment ago, on another day, when I am not automatically forced out the chair, a motion, similar to the one which was made the other evening, and which was adjourned by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson), can be made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In answer to
my hon. friend I would say that our desire is to follow the rules of the house, and, in every particular, the wishes of His Honour the Speaker. I do not think my hon. friend will find any difficulty in the question being revived at the right time.


William Alves Boys: I hope that is an assurance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is.


John Wesley Edwards: The amendment moved by my hon. friend, in the words of the right hon. Prime Minister, constitutes a motion of want of confidence. It is a desire to get from this house an expression of opinion as to whether or not this government has anjr right to get one dollar of supply. Now the proposition is that they be allowed to go ahead and get $100,000,000, or so, of supply, and later on, after they have got all the supply they want, the motion of want of confidence on going into supply may be brought in.



[Stage Direction]
The 'house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Saskatoon-public building, $150,000.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I wish to get
some information from the minister regarding this item. We in Ontario are very much interested in the value of properties in Saskatoon. Years ago a number of our people bought lots out there, and I fancy that we could supply sites for post offices at very reasonable rates. I have no reason to doubt, if the information given to us is correct, that it is a very desirable location. I should like to ask the minister if the site for this building has been acquired?


John Campbell Elliott: The site has been acquired, subject, of course, to the passing of this estimate by this house. It is a site having a frontage of 150 feet on First avenue and 140 feet on Twenty-second street. It has been purchased from Butler Byers Brothers, Limited, for the sum of $53,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: From whom?


John Campbell Elliott: Butler Byers Brothers,
Limited. That is apparently a limited company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Would the minister give us some further information? Could he give us tihe numbers of the lots?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it would be better if I just sent a plan over to my hon. friend. The present post office is in a building on the comer of First avenue and 21st street. That site is 83 feet by 71 feet and it is a very desirable site. The department endeavoured to get land in the immediate vicinity of it and they were offered two pieces but the cost of them would be about $102,500. As these two pieces of property had on them buildings which were leased, if we attempted to make a contract without expropriation, the best contract we could get was $102,500 for the additional land required and in addition we would have to bear whatever the cost of settling with the lessees would be. A site approximately 250 feet north on exactly the same street, on the comer of First avenue and 22nd street, was obtainable at $53,000 and that is the site which we have purchased. I will send across to my hon. friend a plan which has been prepared showing exactly the location of the site.
2878	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the property that is being acquired vacant property.


John Campbell Elliott: Practically vacant.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then we have
a property, 150 feet on one street by 140 feet on another, practically vacant, costing $53,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Can the minister give the committee any information as to the history of this property and the sales and purchases in connection with it shortly prior to its acquisition by the department; further, if any valuations had been made on behalf of the department before the agreement for the purchase was entered into?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give
my hon. friend the information which he requires as far as we have it. This property was, according to our report, obtained by a company with a view to placing upon it a theatre or moving picture building. I cannot give my hon. friend the cost to them. It was obtained, I understand, in various pieces, but the report from our resident architect is that he considered $68,000, which was the amount first asked by the owners, a reasonable price for the site. We asked three men to value it. One realtor, Mr. Angus McMillan, was of the same opinion. Mr. J. H. Cameron, of Saskatoon, places the approximate value at $50,000, and Messrs. Heddle, Thorburn and Spring, at $48,950.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What were the dates of
those valuations?


John Campbell Elliott: They were immediately
prior to the order in council obtaining it and the order in council was passed on the 26th March.


Mr. EVANS:: I think the site secured for the new post office at Saskatoon is a very desirable location. While the price for the lot may seem high, it is not excessive according to values in that part of the city. I feel quite well pleased, and from all accounts I have received from Saskatoon I believe the people are well satisfied with the location for the new post office on the comer of 22nd street and First avenue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: How long has
the department been considering the construction of a post office on this particular site, and how long before the date when the order in council was passed was it that the company acquired the property?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give the exact
dates in connection with either of the questions that my hon. friend has asked, but the question of extending accommodation for the post office, customs and various other Dominion services in Saskatoon dates back a number of years. The government have been considering for at least five or six vears the question of obtaining an additional site. The negotiations with regard to land in the immediate vicinity of the existing building have been going on for several years, but it was out of the question for the department to obtain that property at a price which they thought reasonable. The other land owned by the government was not considered at all suitable. If they could have secured for $53,000, or perhaps a larger amount, land in the immediate vicinity of the post office, they would have preferred that. But there were two objections to that. First of all our architect reported that the building did not lend itself to being transformed into a building giving additional accommodation for the services there. Of course, as my hon. friend knows, Saskatoon is a city that has grown very rapidly and in the last few years has been particularly active.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did I understand the minister to say that he could or could not give the number of the lots? I understand there are three lots.


John Campbell Elliott: The order in council
describes the property simply as property having a frontage of 150 feet on First avenue and a frontage of 140 feet on 22nd street.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister must have
the lot numbers before him.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not have them here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister say whether two of those lots had shortly before been sold by the city of Saskatoon for taxes?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say as to that; I have no information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Daylight
Theatre Company who owned one of the lots recently, shortly before this purchase, apparently purchased it for a very small sum of money. Does the minister think he could obtain any information as to the earlier cost of these two lots?


John Campbell Elliott: I made very careful inquiries at the time, and my recollection is that while a small part of the property was

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
purchased, probably at the tax sale to which ray hon. friend refers, at a smaller cost than the balance, yet my inquiries led me to believe that we were getting the property for very little more than it had been sold for. That is, some of the pieces had been purchased at a much higher price, but we were satisfied that the whole 150 feet was a valuable property and worth all that we were paying for it. We are also quite satisfied that it was wise to obtain it as we did, instead of taking expropriation proceedings.


John Wesley Edwards: It is the first duty I presume of every hon. member to seek to express on the floor of this house the views and opinions of the constituency that he represents. To vote $150,000 for putting up a [public building in Saskatoon may or may not be a proper proceeding. I have a great admiration for Saskatoon, and such a building may be necessary, but when we vote $150,000 for this or any other purpose, by the passing of that vote we express our confidence in the judgment that the government will apply to the expenditure of this money. I believe I am expressing the views of the people of the county of Frontenac when I say that they have no confidence in the judgment of this government in connection with an expenditure of $150,000 or even $50, and there are reasons for that. We have only to walk a short distance down the street here to see whole city blocks that have been pulled down, costing millions of dollars, to satisfy the temporary whim of somebody or his idea of the 'beautification of Ottawa.
But there is another reason why I believe the people of my constituency, or a part of them, would ask me to oppose this vote at this time. People who are suffering the loss of much money every day because of unjust legislation, or because of the lack of proper legislation, have through their representatives in this house asked that that injustice be removed so that they shall no longer be subjected to this loss. The people of my constituency are working without any profit at all; they are working at a loss and suffering daily injustice 'because of the dumping of fruits and vegetables into this country, and they have asked this parliament to redress that grievance. We have taken the stand that that grievance should be redressed before any further money is put into the hands of this government to expend. Voicing the opinions of the people of my county, I say that we have no confidence in this government and in their judgment in spending this amount or any other amount, nor can we have any confidence in their sense of justice
and fair play, which is an indication of their lack of judgment so long as they refuse to rectify the wrongs and just grievances of our people before applying to parliament for the appropriation of further moneys. This simply drives home the fact that we are voting supply to a government to-day which has so manipulated things as to prevent this house from expressing its opinion as to whether they should be allowed to spend a five cent piece, let alone $150,000 or $1,000,000 or more. My judgment is that if the government had not prevented a discussion of the amendment, this house would have expressed such a vote upon it that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works would have been relieved of the worry of getting through any estimates whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh.


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, I have a right to suppose that a vote of want of confidence would have carried, and that the government would have been obliged to resign.


John Campbell Elliott: Yesterday's vote did not look much like it.


John Wesley Edwards: My opinion is just as good as that of the hon. gentleman until the vote is taken. I have no doubt what the result would have been.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a point of order,
Mr. Chairman, I refer you to standing order 58, subsection (2), which reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
I submit that the item under discussion is a vote of $150,000 for a post office at Saskatoon, and not the question which my hon. friend is discussing.


George Reginald Geary: But the money is to be
spent by the government.


John Wesley Edwards: I submit,
Mr. Chairman, that I have a perfect right to give reasons why this government should not be voted $150,000 or any other amount to spend in any part of Canada, and I am giving my reasons why. Like every other hon. gentleman in this house, I appreciate the fact that even to be recognized for a moment by one so great as the Minister of Railways and Canals is far better than not to be recognized at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: Thank you.


Charles Marcil: The hon. member knows the rule.
2880	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


John Wesley Edwards: Yes, perfectly.


Charles Marcil: It says:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
There is an old rule that the ruling of the chair cannot be criticized.


John Wesley Edwards: I am not
criticizing it. You have had a long experience in this house, Mr. Chairman, and I can assure you that it is hardly necessary to protect yourself ahead of time by suggesting that I might criticize your ruling.


Charles Marcil: I was
referring to the Speaker's ruling on the question of going into supply to-day.


John Wesley Edwards: I did not
know that I mentioned the Speaker. I was referring in general terms to the fact that the people in my constituency, whom I am here to represent, have no confidence in this government to spend this or any other amount, and surely when we are asked to express confidence in the government by voting this amount, we must be allowed to show why we have no confidence in them. However, I have covered that point as far as I wished to cover it.
I will now give another reason why I think this amount should not be placed in the hands of the minister to expend. Fourteen years ago a site was bought and paid for in the county of Frontenac, and no building has been erected on that site from that time to this. In the meantime, the people of my county have not got what you might call even half way decent accommodation at that place for the carrying on of the business of the country. I am perfectly safe in saying that the city of Saskatoon, having regard to its relative size and importance has far better accommodation, according to its population and needs, than has this little village in my constituency which has been entirely overlooked or disregarded. And for what reason? Because, we are repeatedly told, the government has not got the money to spend for this purpose. That is the reason we are given. Well, if the government has not money to spend to put up a five or six thousand dollar building to provide the people with the accommodation of which they are sorely in need, where is it going to get this hundred and fifty thousand dollars? I propose to take this stand, and I shall take it on other occasions, that in my judgment a government which has shown such an utter disregard of
[The Chairman.]
the needs of the people of Canada as this government has in throwing away millions of dollars to tear down city blocks in Ottawa for a park, part of which will be covered with concrete at a cost of 130,000, to be a monument for all time to the present Prime Minister-for I can conceive of no other reason why it is being done; beauty is out of the question altogether; the park cannot add one particle of beauty to these buildings-I say that a government which has shown such an utter disregard of the urgent requirements of the people from one end of Canada to the other by throwing away millions of dollars as it is doing to-day is not entitled to the confidence of the house in passing this or any other item.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite appreciate my
hon. friend's reference to the site in his own riding. His riding is in a similar position to many other ridings with regard to sites for public buildings purchased years ago and upon which, for various reasons, successive governments since that time 'have not seen their way clear to construct buildings. He also mentioned that in his opinion the town to which he refers was quite as much in need of a post office for the amount of public business it was doing as the city of Saskatoon. Now, I have no quarrel with him for expatiating on the merits of his town, but of course he knows that we in this house have heard of that centre before.


John Wesley Edwards: And you
will hear of it again.


John Campbell Elliott: We expect to hear of it
again; that is my hon. friend's privilege. No doubt it is deserving of all the commendation he has given it. But the circumstances in the city of Saskatoon are exceptional, and for the information of hon. members in every corner of the house I wish to give figures of the growth of business in that western city. The postmaster of Saskatoon states that twenty years ago the revenue of the post office was $19,711; while for the year ending March 31, 1927, it was $280,943.


Charles Avery Dunning: When was the present
post office built?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1908. He says:
Therefore it is evident that since 1908, the time at which the present post office was built, the postal business in the city of Saskatoon has increased approximately 1,500 per cent.
I should be glad if every town in the Dominion was doing as well. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that under the

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
present government, towards which he is not as enthusiastic as the great majority of the people are at the present time,-


Eccles James Gott: What majority?


John Campbell Elliott: The majority you heard
about yesterday in this house.


Eccles James Gott: The government has been in
a minority for the last two years.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend may think so, but the votes do not show it.


Eccles James Gott: The votes do show what was the popular opinion.


John Campbell Elliott: I am speaking of yesterday's vote in the house. I do not know whether my hon. friend was here or not. He is very sincere in thinking that he and his party got a majority of the votes yesterday, but he is mistaken; no doubt about that. I have looked over the record, and I was here when the division was taken.


Eccles James Gott: I should like to put the minister right. He has a wrong impression of my thoughts. What I think and know is that of the popular vote taken at the last general election the Conservative party polled a decided majority.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: That is why we are
here.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend and I are agreed on one thing-that the vote taken at the last general election was a popular vote. But I was dealing with Saskatoon and the growth of its postal revenue in the last twenty years from $19,000 to $280,000. Of course, no one will contend that it is possible for the public business to be carried on properly in a building erected when Saskatoon was practically a city of tents. The customs and other branches of the public business have grown correspondingly.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Before the minister leaves the post office revenue,-of course, he is including in the figures the twelve sub post offices in the city.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I assume that there are newer post offices in that district. This, as everybody knows, is the main centre in that whole section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Quite.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite
right in saying that all the post offices for miles around will be served from Saskatoon.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, the minister misunderstands me. The revenue he gives is for the whole city of Saskatoon, including the various sub post offices there.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I always enjoy the suggestions of my hon. friend from Frontenac, for they are usually helpful. Of course, I cannot agree with them all, particularly when they apply to this government; but I do not know that any hon. member deserves more credit for presenting on every possible occasion the claims of one particular town in his riding. He does it well, but I am bound to tell him that the requirements at Saskatoon are much more urgent, and the accommodation much more inadequate, if I may say so, than possibly obtains at any other post office to-day. There is the same need for the other government services in the city, and it would not be in the interests of the exchequer not to provide this accommodation, because the revenue that this country needs, even under the most economical administration that it has ever had, cannot be efficiently collected unless reasonably suitable buildings are provided for the purpose.


John Wesley Edwards: Mr. Chairman, may I say with what unspeakable joy and felicity I listen to these delightful little tributes from the Minister of Public Works. Somehow or other they come to my ears more pleasantly than the commendations of the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning)-I suppose because the Minister of Public Works has cultivated a smile in connection with the discharge of his public duties, which is one of the finest assets that the King government possesses to-day. May I compliment him on the very skilful way he has of using the King's English, of selecting words with a desire to make you feel that you are bathing in taffy or molasses; while at the same time we know that he has not the slightest intention of granting any favours or fair play to anybody who sits on this side of the house. Nobody, unless he is a Grit and a good Grit, spelled with capital letters and rolled in sand to make it sufficiently gritty, will receive any sort of consideration from the Minister of Public Works. My hon. friend's supporters, whether they deserve it or not, will get the public buildings; we shall get the oily smiles. And that is all we shall get. But that is material of a kind that you cannot commercialize; you cannot make anything out of it in the way of selling it. It can be of use only here. I cannot get any money out of it to build a post office in Sydenham; I cannot get anything out of the minister's oily smiles. Now I do not want to be understood as opposing proper accommodation in the city of Saskatoon. I have had the privilege of visiting that city on many occasions, and in my humble judgment it is

2882	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
one of the finest and most promising cities in the whole west. I am not opposing a vote of 8150,000 as being too much money to spend on the building of a post office there. I do not want to be understood as taking that position. I do not know whether it is too much or not. In all probability there is a lot of information, in regard to buildings that have been acquired and that sort of thing, which the minister has yet to supply us. I should be surprised if that were not the case. But he will open up after a while and be perfectly frank, and we shall know what all this property cost, what was paid, and who got the graft, if there was any, out there. But what I do emphasize is this. While the minister may be very properly spending this amount for this building in Saskatoon there are scores of places throughout the country that had to wait, and did wait patiently because of the war, and which are receiving no consideration whatever from this government, while at the same time the government can spend millions in tearing down buildings and in other useless work in the city of Ottawa. That is my point.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not intend to reply at further length to my hon. friend, except with regard to one statement. I refer to his request for an explanation as to who got the graft-


John Wesley Edwards: If there was any.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, I beg your pardon.


John Wesley Edwards: I put that in.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to assure my hon. friend absolutely that I shall be only too delighted to have the matter investigated as to the purchase of this building, the ownership of the land, and everything connected with it. I shall have it investigated to the very minutest detail, and I think my hon. friend will be satisfied that the best portion of his speech was that part in which he said, "if there was any."


Eccles James Gott: I am opposed to such a large expenditure on a public building in Saskatoon in view of the fact that, according to a return brought down to-day, one of the finest cities in western Ontario has been asking the Department of Public Works for the last twenty years, without success, for a new post office. I refer to the city of Windsor. The people there also made this request through the late Hon. W. C. Kennedy, one of the finest men who ever occupied a seat in this house -and this at a time when there were three cabinet ministers representing that part of

the country. In order to show the committee how this tally-ho is regarded by the public I may read an extract taken from the Border Cities Star under a full line heading: "New post office plans told by Odette. Ottawa ready to erect post office in Windsor now." Does the minister realize that when the old post office was built in 1879 Windsor had a population of only 6,000, whereas today, with the same post office standing, that population is 75,000. Let me inform the hon. gentleman that fun is being made in the city of Windsor, and some are becoming the butt of these good-natured jokes, because the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette), is up against it. I quote from the Border Cities Star:
Local Boy Makes Good. A torchlight procession, hot-dog barbecue and bome-eomm' celebration is bein' organized in honour of Eddie Odette, who is expected to arrive in our midst soon with a new post office. Eddie recently visited the p.o. factory at Ottawa and looked over the new models, selecting a snappy four-door job, it is said, for this enterprisin' community.
I would suggest to the minister that it is time to quit this bally-hoo in connection with the Windsor post office and come across with a good appropriation, something definite in the estimates, for that city.
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds):	The minister
was good enough to say that a proper investigation would be made with respect to this site.


John Campbell Elliott: If it were wished.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest that
the proper time to make an investigation is before the site is purchased. I am sure the minister must have made some investigation. He intimated that he had some information in regard to the amount of land sold recently for taxes. I desire to know more definitely how much of this site was sold for taxes. Can he tell us the total number of lots in the whole site, and by what material the valuator supported his conclusion as to the value of the property? It seems a very large sum for a piece of land 150 by 140 without buildings on it, except for some very inferior ones. Does the valuation show separately the value of the land and the value of the buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: I think I can satisfy my
hon. friend by quoting to him the prices asked for land


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not care
what was asked.

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


John Campbell Elliott: -in the vicinity of the old post office, which is on the same street, 250 feet lower down.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When it is found that the government wants to secure a site, the people desire to know a good deal more about the property than the information we have been given in this connection. It is the valuation I want.


John Campbell Elliott: I obtained the services of three reputable valuators, and I have given the valuations which they have made. Naturally they vary considerably, but I came to the conclusion that we were getting excellent value.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There must be
some details in connection with these valuations, surely. They must intimate how many lots there are.


John Campbell Elliott: No; we asked them to
value this piece of property 150 by 140 on that corner and they gave the valuations in lump sums.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are we to understand that there are no details in regard to the valuations of the land and of the buildings-no details giving the number of the lots acquired? How many lots were there altogether?


John Campbell Elliott: There are six lots, but I
do not see any details here. My recollection is that there were six.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That would appear to be correct?


John Campbell Elliott: That is what it would be on a 150-foot frontage.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That would in' dicate that there were six lots?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. STINSON:: What is the city assessment of the property?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the assessment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Surely the valuator has given the minister something more than a brief statement as to what he considers this property to be worth. Surely he supports that statement by something in the nature of the assessment of the property, the values of the buildings, the values of sur-56103-183i
rounding property, and so on. Surely no valuator simply makes the bald statement, "I value this property, 150 by 140, at $52,000". or whatever the figure is. I should like to have the full details.


John Campbell Elliott: That is what was done.
We sent out three valuators and they reported lump sums. We did not ask for details. We made the best deal we could and we think we have done well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely in receiving these
valuations the minister would receive the numbers of the lots, the legal description of the property and the assessed value.


John Campbell Elliott: I knew that the legal
description of the property was 150 feet-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Surely the minister knows that is not a legal description of the property.


John Campbell Elliott: It is quite legal, I may tell my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Campbell Elliott: It is quite legal. You
start at the corner and go down one street for 150 feet, then across parallel to the other street for 140 feet and so on. That is a perfectly legal description.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is a lawyer,
while I am not, but I will venture the statement that in any city, town or district where the property has been plotted and surveyed and where plans have been filed in the registry office, he will not describe any transfer of property by metes and bounds, nor will any other lawyer of reipute. Metes and bounds are used wherever the property is not surveyed or where a portion of a surveyed plot is described. I think there is no doubt that this property has been surveyed. Will the minister be good enough to tell me if this property coloured red on the plan and marked, "site of new building D on the corner of Twenty-second street and First avenue" includes lots 15, 16 and 17, and is the block number 148, plan Q2?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid I have not that information, although I think there would be no difficulty in getting it. I am satisfied that this property goes back 140 feet, with a frontage of 150 feet on First avenue.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister any
knowledge as to whether there are six lots or three lots in this property?


John Campbell Elliott: The deputy advises me,
and this is my recollection of it, that there are six lots, but I am bound to tell my hon.
2884	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
friend that the data before me does not show the number of lots. However, I do not think there is any doubt that these are 25 foot lots.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister the order in council concerning the purchase of these
lots?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I simply have a memorandum that on March 25 an order in council was passed to purchase this property, but I will be glad to hand a copy of the order in council to my hon. friend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will the minister lay
that order in council on the table at six o'clock or eight o'clock.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, as soon as I get it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the minister say this property was bought from Butler, Byers Brothers, Limited?


Mr ELLIOTT:: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who are these people?


John Campbell Elliott: 1 could not say.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister know if they are dealers or real estate agents?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not say as to that; my information was that they were a company formed to build a theatre.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did they own all this
property?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The entire 150 feet?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What have they been paid so far-just a deposit?


John Campbell Elliott: They have not been paid anything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There was just an order
in council passed to purchase the property?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Did the minister consider expropriation?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Why was not that process followed?


John Campbell Elliott: I concluded that I had
to take the responsibility of getting this property for the best possible value, and I was quite satisfied that if it were expropriated it would cost the government more than $53,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When did the minister
first open negotiations for the purchase of this property?
IMr, Elliott.]


John Campbell Elliott: I would say in the early
part of March.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Has the minister the date of the valuations from which he quoted?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I do not have them here, but- I know they were made just prior to the passing of the order in council. The reason we proceeded as we did, I believe, was that plans had been drawn for the theatre, and unless we obtained the property at that time we would have had to pay more for it or would have had to get some other property one they started construction.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister tell us when instructions were given for making these valuations?


John Campbell Elliott: That would be done shortly before the order in council was passed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There would
have to be a report before the passing of the order in council, and surely the minister can tell us when he gave instructions to have the valuations made?


John Campbell Elliott: We had the general report on file in regard to this post office and the sites available; this has been a matter which has been very active in the department for years. There is a big file of correspondence in this connection, and I cannot think of any particular time within the last year or two when it became more active than at any other time until perhaps the latter part of February, or at any rate after the opening of the session.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the minister brings down the information at six o'clock could he inform the committee as to when instructions were first given to value this particular parcel of property?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I will be very glad to give that information. I know from personal knowledge that it was shortly before . this order in council was passed, because we were given the impression that we should act with some despatch if we desired to secure this piece of property.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I presume it
would be done by correspondence?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Might we have a copy of that correspondence?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not questioning the desirability of a post office in Saskatoon; like my hon. friend from Frontenac I know that city well and have known it for the last

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
thirty years, ever since it was a small, insignificant place. Now it is one of the leading centres of the west, and must have adequate accommodation for its business. There can be no question of that, but these questions which we are asking are pertinent, and I am sure the minister has no objection to answering them.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not, and more than that I appreciate the interest of my hon. friends in asking them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister quoted the engineer's report; would he be good enough to read it so that we might have it on Hansard, and would he also give us the date of the report?


John Campbell Elliott: I will give my hon,. friend the parts of the report which I think are most important; if he wishes any others I will be glad to read the whole report, which covers several pages.
At present, the post office building, which is 83 by 71 feet, is situated on a lot 100 feet on First avenue by 90 feet on Twenty-first street, and was erected in 1907.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I can save the minister a good deal of tiresome reading; we take it for granted that the engineer has stated what my hon. friend is now reading. We now ask for the report of the engineer on this site which is marked D on the plan, and the date of the report.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps this will do:
As the present site is now completely covered, if the building is to be increased, it will be necessary to purchase the property to the east on Twenty-first street, and to the north on First avenue. Should this additional property be acquired, it is considered advisable to increase the building in height, as well as in area, in order to accommodate all other government offices now in rented premises in Saskatoon. The present building, from a structural standpoint and the standpoint of appearance cannot be economically and satisfactorily enlarged in area and height. Accordingly, it has been found advisable to ascertain the cost of another suitable site, on which to erect a building of a size sufficient to accommodate the post office and all other departments of the Dominion service in Saskatoon. Mr. Stephenson, our district resident architect at Regina, was requested to report on various sites available, and on the 7th instant _ stated that to acquire additional property adjacent to the present site, the price asked for 50 feet on First avenue is $40,000; this has now been reduced to $37,500, and for 50 feet on Twenty-first street, $05,000; that in addition the government would have to take care of certain leases, which would be rather an expensive item. The total amount asked for land to increase the present site is $102,500, plus a further amount to take care of existing leases.
On the attached plan, the present site is marked "A". Mr. Stephenson further reports
that site "B", having a frontage of 150 feet on 21st street and 130 feet on 3rd avenue, belongs to various parties, and can be purchased for approximately $165,000, which he states he considers rather high. Site "C", having 130 feet on 3rd avenue and 150 feet on 22nd street, can be purchased for approximately $135,000. which Mr. Stephenson states is also rather high. Site "D", having 150 feet on First avenue and 140 feet on 22nd street, Mr. Stephenson reports can be purchased for approximately $68,000, and that this price is fair and reasonable.
This was the site that we got eventually for $53,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What date is that?


John Campbell Elliott: March 20th.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am going to suggest that the minister be good enough to let this item stand until these papers are tabled after eight o'clock.


John Evans: What height is that building to be?


John Campbell Elliott: It is proposed to erect a new building upon this site, consisting of five storeys and basement, with frontages of 140 feet and 130 feet, to cover all the property. It will be a brick structure with stone trimmings, and will provide accommodation for all the government services. The rental of $18,0(53.85, for ten premises, will be eliminated.


Mr. EVANIS:: Is that a yearly rental?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Evans: What is the cost?


John Campbell Elliott: The proposed building is estimated to cost $600,000, made up of $575,000 for the building, and $25,000 for fittings.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: If I am in ordter, I would ask the minister if he has received an application from some public 'body pointing out the necessity for a post office in Wynyard?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the details regarding Wynyard, but there are over 150 places that are asking for buildings of this kind. With regard to Wynyard, my recollection is that some gentlemen from there made representations to me personally, and possibly the board of trade, if there is an organization of that kind in the town of Wynyard, made representations, and sent a resolution of the board of trade urging the government to construct a public building at Wynyard.


Milton Neil Campbell: I would just like to point out that at the present time part of the town hall is being used for the purpose of a post office. It is entirely too small, and it
2886	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
is utterly inadequate to properly handle the business; The postmaster can hardly be expected to erect a new building himself, and it is absolutely necessary that something be done there to properly look after the business. I notice in the next item there is $28,000 provided for a post office at Tisdale. I notice that the revenues at Tisdale for 1927 were $6,967, while those of Wynyard were about 85 per cent of that amount, or $5,500. I am just drawing the minister's attention to the fact that Wynyard is certainly entitled to some consideration.
Item stands.
Tisdale-public building, $28,000.


Mr. LUCAS:: What is the revenue per year?


John Campbell Elliott: My recollection is that it is just about what my hon. friend stated. With the local post offices, which are served, I think it runs to about $12,000. The postal revenue for 1926-27 was $6,957, and from the outlying post offices, which are served from this point-I am simply speaking from memory-


William Thomas Lucas: That would apply to any other district, likewise.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is about 900.


William Thomas Lucas: Has, there been any recommendation from the Post Office department?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I might tell my hon. friend that this is another old standing matter. An appropriation of $12,000 was made in the year 1927-28, to provide for a building containing 730 square feet of space. This is a revote of nearly $12,000. The Post Office department insisted on an area of 1,200 square feet, and stated that the smaller building would be practically useless for postal purposes and, as a result, it is necessary to increase the appropriation.
Mr. (SHORT: May I ask the minister what constituency Tisdale is in?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the constituency of Melfort.


Milton Neil Campbell: Regarding the post office at Wynyard, is that included in the list you spoke of?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the list. My hon. friend from Kingston (Mr. Ross) asked for this list, and I should have got it to him before, but I received it myself only this afternoon. He asked for a list of the public buildings for which we had applications

throughout the country. I told him that we had over 100, and the cost would run around $5,000,000, speaking from recollection. I have asked the department to make up a list of what would be called practically live applications at the present time, and it includes 154 applications. These applications are the ones upon which the greatest pressure is being brought to bear upon us. The estimated cost of constructing the buildings asked for would run to twice $5,000,000; to over $12,000,000.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: Does that include additions?


John Campbell Elliott: Some of them are additions.


William Garland McQuarrie: I would ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, if that list shows the buildings that have been recommended by the Post Office department for consideration?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it does not show that. It is a list showing the buildings that are under consideration.


Milton Neil Campbell: The minister has hardly answered my question. Could he give me any indication of what action the department is likely to take in connection with a post office at Wynyard? Is there any chance at all of an estimate for it being placed in the supple-mentaries?


John Campbell Elliott: There is always a chance. That is about as far as I can go with regard to any of the applications for which items have
not been placed in the estimates.


William Thomas Lucas: Does the government already own the lot in Tisdale?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: How long have they had it?


John Campbell Elliott: It (was purchased on the 23rd January, 1928, from the Canadian National Railways for the sum of $750.


Robert Gardiner: Is it intended to accommodate any other government service than the post office?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: How many surrounding districts obtain their mail service from this post office?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot tell my hon.
friend.


John Evans: Before we leave this item regarding Saskatchewan I should like to draw to the attention of the minister a matter which has been brought to his attention now for two years, namely, the need of a public building in the town of Biggar.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


The CHAIRMAN:: We are now discussing an item in connection with a public building at Tisdale, $28,000. Item 132 has to do with public buildings generally, and that matter might be better taken up then.


John Evans: As we are discussing Saskatchewan items now, I thought this would be the best time, but if I can have an opportunity later, that will be satisfactory.


John Frederick Johnston: My hon. friend will
have an opportunity under item 132.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.
Mr. ADSHElAD: I hope I am in order under this item. The last time the question of the Calgary post office came up, the Chairman allowed the hon. member for West Calgary (Mr. Bennett) to discuss the matter at some length and the Minister of Public Works to reply. When I endeavoured to follow them I was informed that I was out of order and that I must discuss the matter in connection with the Alberta estimates. I wish, not to make a special plea, but to direct the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the committee to the fact that the government are losing money by the way in which they are handling post office affairs in Calgary. A retrospect of what has happened in that city might very well go on Hansard.
In 1911 the city of Calgary had a three-storey stone building which was a post office and which was occupied also by the Dominion Lands office. My hon. friends to my right at that time got into power and with all good intentions they pulled down the postoffice in order to build a larger one because the accommodation there was not adequate. They also bought lots to the east of that site for $3'12,46o, with the intention of erecting a building such as the Minister of Public Works has just described for Saskatoon. The war came on and they put a board fence around those vacant lots and for fifteen years the people of Calgary have had to look at that board fence right in the heart of the city where my hon. friends pulled down these buildings for the purpose of erecting a new one.
Mr. SPENCER:: Where are the stones
now?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not know. I inquired about that last year and I could not get any information in regard to the matter. If I could make a comparison I would say; Look at the square west of the Ottawa post office which is just being modelled into a
park, and I would ask the committee ta visualize if they can a square of that size in the heart of the city of Ottawa surrounded by a board fence, and the people of Ottawa being allowed to look at that for fifteen years and to go without a post office altogether. Comparisons, they say, are odious to the general public. I may say to the Minister of Public Works that the city of Calgary is more important than the city of Ottawa. I do not mean it is more important politically but it is more important financially. I would direct the attention of the minister to the fact that of all the cities in the Dominion, Calgary stands fifth in regard to bank clearings. The bank clearings for Ottawa for April, 1928, were $33,727,739. For Oalgary for the same month the bank clearings amounted to $50,656,715. In other words, although we are the fifth city of the Dominion in regard to bank clearings for the month of April, we have no post office but we have to look at that blank square across a hideous board fence. In the matter of post office revenue for the year ended the 31st March, 1927, the collections at Calgary amounted to $566,871, that city being the seventh in the Dominion of Canada. It was ahead of Quebec, Moncton, Edmonton and most of the other cities, and still we have no post office.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How did it stand with
regard to the city of Ottawa?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It was within a few
thousand dollars of the post office revenues of the city of Ottawa. I propose to deal with the rentals that we are paying in Calgary and to show that we are losing money by the process that is going on. I asked for information as to the annual rental of the post office building which we have in Calgary and the answer I received from the Minister of Public Works was that we are paying a rental of 70,000 per annum for a gross space of a little over 70,000 square feet. I think the minister the other day observed in the house that as regards some building which was proposed for the Bureau of Statistics the rental asked was a dollar per square foot, and he thought that altogether too high for a building of that sort-


John Campbell Elliott: The best we could do
was $1.25.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: -so he decided to purchase a building. In Calgary we have been paying under lease nearly $1 per square foot, a figure which I consider too high for the rental of that particular building. If we were to capitalize that $70,000, not of course including depreciation or maintenance, at five

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
per cent we could erect a building at a value of $1,400,000 and at four per cent we could erect a building at a value of $1,750,000. The minister has just told us that in some city, I think it was Saskatoon, they propose to erect, on a lot somewhat similar in length and size to the lot I have indicated we have in Calgary, a five-story building, for the sum of $600,000. If a building of that size can be constructed for $600,000, the interest and depreciation on it would not nearly reach the $70,000 of rent which we are paying for our post office and the Dominion land office in Calgary. I suppose the matter could be arranged under the plan of a sinking fund. I know the minister has not inserted an item for it in the estimates this year, but there is a phase of the situation to which I wish to draw his attention and that is that the lease on the building which they have rented for $70,000 a year expires at the end of 1929. I would suggest to the minister that if he wants to save money; if he wants to be economical; if he desires to have in Calgary a building which will belong to the Dominion and which in interest, depreciation and maintenance will not cost more than $70,000 a year, he should make some plan or have some prospect of erecting a building there whereby the government will have a building of their own prior to the expiration of the lease. I think preparations should be made at once with the idea of providing a building. I hope the government has no idea of purchasing the building in which the post office is now located. It would be very much against the wishes of the people of the city of Calgary if you purchased that building and left vacant the lots upon which the post office was originally built, together with the $312,465 worth of lots which were purchased for the express purpose of erecting a building right next to the old post office building site. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to this question from a business standpoint, and not simply give me the usual platitude, "I am going to give the matter serious consideration." It should be considered from a business standpoint, and also from another standpoint. The government did intend before the war to build a public building in Calgary, and for the last fifteen years not only has that hideous board fence been left in the heart of the city, but property values all around have depreciated, and what is more, the government is actually losing money by continuing the present conditions. You have no building of your own, and it is costing more for rentals than the interest and depreciation 
on the new buildings would amount to. I would ask the minister what he proposes to do when the lease on this building expires in 1929. Does he propose to renew the lease for three or five years, or what preparations are being made for putting the thing on a business basis and relieving the people of Calgary from that hideous eyesore in the very heart of the city?


John Campbell Elliott: I will answer my hon.
friend as far as I can. I think he will realize that it is quite impossible for me to say at the moment what we can do on the expiration of a lease which does not expire until some time in 1929.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Some preparation is
necessary before the lease actually expires if you are going to put up a building.


John Campbell Elliott: I am bound to tell my
hon. friend that even if we had come to a decision, we might not think it was in the public interest to say just what that decision was this far ahead of time. But I will be very frank in stating that we have come to no decision in regard to renewing the lea^e.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And no decision as to
buying the present building?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in the same category. There are a number of buildings in the smaller places throughout the country, old bank buildings occasionally, and other buildings that have been purchased in the past for the public services and turned into a public building, and among the applications that we have before us at the present time are a few asking us to purchase buildings already in existence, which no doubt could be purchased very much cheaper than we could construct a new building. That proposition was made to us in the city of Saskatoon. There was a building there that we were asked to purchase, and no doubt we could have purchased it and got floor space much cheaper than we could consrtuet a new building. The same is true of many other places, but of course these buildings would never look very much like a post office, and there is just the difficulty. If it is in a town where you consider that you are getting exceptionally good value, and where possibly you would not construct a new building costing from $20,000 to $30,000, my view would be that we might be justified in buying a building in some of these places if the people were satisfied with the accom-

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
modation it would provide, say a building costing 810,000 or $12,000, perhaps half the cost of constructing a new building. So far as Calgary is concerned, there is certainly no decision in favour of buying a building for customs and post office and government services generally.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There is a customs office there already.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand that. I want to say further, as regards the prices my hon. friend mentions-and prices were also mentioned in connection with Saskatoon-that they are altogether out of proportion to the figures shown in the actual tenders. So far as Calgary is concerned, tenders were called for in 1914 for the construction of a building which was considered sufficient to meet the requirements of Calgary at that time, and the lowest tender received was for $1,399,000, and the highest tender, $1,703,000. There were five tenders altogether. There is no question that the cost of the building has increased enormously since that time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Surely the minister has
no idea of purchasing the building in which the post office is now located. I asked that question last year, and Hansard will show that the minister said that they did not have that intention. I hope there is no doubt about that.


John Campbell Elliott: I will be very frank in saying to my hon. friend that there is absolutely no change in the condition from what it was a year ago, and no serious consideration has been given in the last year to purchasing that building. That answer was true then, and it is true now.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: If there was any such
intention, it would raise a terrible disturbance among the people of Calgary.


William Thomas Lucas: I would ask the committee
to look at page 32 of the estimates and compare the amounts being voted for the three western provinces, and ask hon. members if in their opinion Alberta has been fairly dealt with. In 1927-28 Manitoba was voted $114,000; Saskatchewan, $212,950; and Alberta, $32,000. In 1928-29 Manitoba is being voted $105,700; Saskatchewan, $353,850; and Alberta, $56,850.
I also see in looking over the estimates that no provision is made for a public building in Camrose, for which there was an appropriation in the estimates in 1926, and
which was brought before the house last session. I would ask the Minister of Public Works if he can give any reason why that vote, which was considered and approved by the government and placed in the estimates, has been withdrawn.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That ought to be easy to explain.


John Campbell Elliott: I gave my hon. friend
the answer last year, and there is nothing I can add to what I then said. Camrose is in this long list of applications that we have here, where the need has not been considerec as urgent as in the other places for which provision is being made.


William Thomas Lucas: The minister says it does
not appear to have been considered as urgent as the need in other places. I will ask the committee to follow these figures I am going to give in regard to votes passed this session for public buildings at different places. For the province of Quebec there are two votes: St. Jacques, population 1,714, revenue $2,017; Waterloo, population 2,000, revenue $6,356; Durham, Ontario, population 1,640, revenue $5,060; Rockland, Ontario, population 3,156, revenue $2,412; Rosthern, Sask., population 1,500, revenue $6,248; Tisdale, Sask , population 900, revenue $6,957. Now I come to the town of Camrose, in the province of Alberta, which has a population of 2,000 and a revenue of $13,186-more than double the amount of the revenue of the other post offices for which votes have been passed this session. In addition there is a sub customs office there with a revenue of over $50,000 a year. In view of these facts I think the minister should state to the house what is the policy of the government in determining whether or not a town is entitled to a post office.
In case the minister may think that I am prejudiced in putting forward the claims of Camrose, let me read an article from the Camrose Canadian of January 5, 1928. It is a Liberal paper published in Camrose, and I feel sure the minister will accept this article as fairly representing the facts. It is headed, Why the Delay?
Away back in 1911 the Department of Public Works in the Dominion government purchased a very desirable site in Camrose for the erection of a post office building. The volume of business transacted at the local post office at that time warranted this action on the part of the government, and it was the hope of the citizens of the town, and residents of the surrounding country, that a building in keeping with the needs of the community would be ready for use within a reasonable time.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
With the completion of the various railroads, radiating in all directions from Camrose, resulting in the creation of many new villages and country post offices, the local office acted as a gathering and distributing centre for a large proportion of the mail in and out of this portion of the province. This meant a tremendous increase in the amount of mail passing through the Camrose office. The selection of Camrose as the location of the normal school for northern Alberta, the building of the Camrose Lutheran college, and the establishment of several large wholesale houses, made it necessary to provide more commodious and up-to-date quarters for the proper handling of the rapidly growing business of the post office.
Sixteen years have passed since the site was purchased, and the lots lie as they did in 1911, bare a3 the virgin prairie. No use whatever has been made of them. Eight thousand dollars of the peoples' money have been tied up in this unproductive investment all those years. The town treasury has been deprived of a sum of money amounting to approximately $4,000 which, had the property remained in private hands, would have been paid to the town as taxes. In the interval the needs of Camrose for larger post office accommodation has been growing from year to year.
I wish the minister to note particularly this part:
It is not necessary to draw the attention of the public to the utterly inadequate premises in which the business is carried on at the present time. The unsatisfactory conditions are familiar to all. The space in the building for the public, as well as the employees, is far too limited. Frequently it is impossible to enter the building, particularly at the noon hour, when the schools close and the students call for mail. It is clearly obvious that the clerks are cramped for space, especially when scores of mail hags are dumped into the rear part of the building. As a result of overcrowding, the air becomes so foul that it is sickening, and the wonder is that the employees whose work compels them to remain in the unhealthy atmosphere for hours at a time, have so far escaped serious illness. Under such unfavourable conditions in any other place of business it is doubtful if the public would be given the same courteous service which is invariably rendered by the clerks of the Camrose office. In all probability the health officer would interfere and insist on better sanitary conditions.
It was a Liberal government that purchased the property for the proposed building. That government was defeated later in the year. Efforts were made to interest the newly-formed Conservative government to carry out the program begun by its predecessors, but without avail. Then came the Great War when all public works in Canada were suspended. Following the defeat of the Union government, with the Liberals again in power, hopes were revived that it, which recognized the needs of the community in 1911, would feel its responsibility and carry out the undertaking.
In the preliminary estimates presented to parliament last session, an item was included for the construction of the Camrose public building. As a result, high hopes prevailed in the hearts of the people of Camrose that the long delayed building would shortly become an established fact. But such was not to be; something miscarried. What happened has 
remained a mystery to the present time. When the iten) was up for discussion little, if any, support was offered in its favour from the government side of the house. Strange as it may seem the cause of the constituency was championed by opposition members. The final outcome of the matter was its entire withdrawal from the estimates. The same government which placed it there allowed it to perish unsupported. No reason whatever was given for their indifferent action. Surely we are entitled to an explanation. Sinister motives on the part of the government were imputed for the unusual treatment.
The Canadian does not care to view the matter in that light, rather it believes that some of the fault rested with us. During the debate on the item it was very clear that little was known of our requirements, some members even being ignorant of the existence of such a place as Camrose. Our case had not been presented in a manner which would demonstrate the importance of the situation. We believe our claim is fair and just, and can be supported by the facts, and the government should be made aware of these facts at the earliest possible moment.
Some very interesting figures are revealed by the census taken during the summer of 1926. That extensive, fertile territory, through which the Battle river flows, extending from Wetas-kiwin on the w-est to Hardisty, and from Yegre-ville on the north to Stettler, is shown to have a population greater than any other rural area of like size in Alberta. Being nearly one hundred miles square, it combines an area equal to that portion of western Ontario lying south of a line drawn from Toronto to Sarnia. In this block of highly improved parkland country, there is a population of 50,000 people, over 8,000 occupied farms, and 50 towns and villages.
Many of the urban centres are shown to have populations ranging from 200 to 500, and Camrose, located fairly near the centre of this territory, had a population of over 2,000 in June 1926. More than twenty banks serve the needs of this thriving region, and the same number of coal mines are in operation most of the year. Much of this country has been settled for over twenty-five years, and in that period many millions of dollars' worth of farm products have gone to swell the export trade of the Dominion. The wheat grown in this territory in 1927 exceeded 25 million bushels, and the value of all the products of the farms and mines during the past year will approximate at least $40,000,000.
Now for what really hurts. Never has one dollar of federal money been expended in this large and important part of western Canada for public buildings of any kind. Does that seem fair? We doubt if any other section of Canada of like size and importance has received such treatment. How much longer must we wait?
It will be noted, Mr. Chairman, that the article says that the needs of Camrose have never been fairly presented to parliament. When I came down here in 1922 as the representative of what was then the constituency of Victoria and in which Camrose was included, it is a well-known fact that the policy of the government at that time was not to spend any money on public buildings as we

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
were still feeling the effects of the heavy war expenditure. Therefore I made no representations in regard to this post office. But within the last few years the present government has changed that policy, and I certainly made such representations that in 1926 an amount was placed in the estimates to provide for this building. Having secured that recognition, I felt I had gone far enough to convince the government that we were entitled to the post office building. When the item came up for discussion last session there was no opposition offered to it, and therefore I did not deem it necessary to take up the time of the house by giving any further explanation. But now that that estimate has been withdrawn, I desire to endorse everything that is contained in this leading article which I have just quoted, and to point out to the committee that Camrose is one the most flourishing towns in western Canada. It is a very important railroad centre, lines radiating in eight different directions; there are three wholesale houses; a large normal school for the northern half of Alberta is located there, and a large Lutheran college. The result is that when all these people attempt to get in, especially when schools and colleges are out, and the vrfiole-sale houses are closed, the present accommodation in the post office is entirely inadequate. I feel sure that the government does not want to treat Camrose unfairly, and I would ask the minister to give some promise that in the supplementary estimates an item will be provided in this connection.


John Campbell Elliott: I know something of the
needs of Camrose. I know the town, and 1 do not agree with my hon. friend that the need there is more urgent than in many other places on our list. I do not think it is as urgent as any of those that have been granted. It is on the list that we have under consideration and it will receive the best consideration we can give it. But I think my hon. friend heard me say that it would be quite impossible for me to pi'omise him or anyone else that it will be put in the estimates.


William Thomas Lucas: On what basis did the government consider it urgent in 1926 to put a vote in the estimates if it is not urgent now? Was it more urgent then than it is to-day? What has occurred to cause the government to change their opinion?


John Campbell Elliott: I was not in charge of the department when the vote was included in 1926. I go over the information we have and submit to the treasury board first of all, and afterwards to council, a certain list of appropriations. It did not seem to either the treasury board or council, nor did it appear to me, that this was as urgent as some of the other places whose applications were granted.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Does the minister think that the previous minister made a mistake in including the item in 1926?


John Campbell Elliott: There are certain times
when it looks as if a town is growing very rapidly. We have a great many towns that are growing rapidly and the accommodation of several years ago is not adequate to-day. It might have appeared in 1926 that the town was going ahead very fast and additional facilities would have to be provided; but perhaps when the next record comes in-returns for the following year-the increase does not look nearly so marked. When all these circumstances are considered we have to make the best recommendation we can.
At six o'clo'ck the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
Alberta-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $17,000.


William Thomas Lucas: Just before six o'clock I understood the minister to say that some places for which we have voted money for public buildings showed evidence of increased growth of one kind or another. Would the minister tell us more about that in regard to some of the places for which we have already voted money?


John Campbell Elliott: The item last under discussion, the public building for Saskatoon, is an outstanding example.


William Thomas Lucas: Would the minister leave out the cities and take up some of the rural places which I mentioned this afternon?


John Campbell Elliott: There are very few buildings in the whole vote. To what does my hon. friend refer?


William Thomas Lucas: I gave a list this afternoon.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think my hon. friend expects me to go over all the places for which we have voted money, although there are not many of them. Will my hon. friend name any particular place and ask to have a comparison made?


William Thomas Lucas: I do not wish the minister to go over all the places, but I gave a list of six this afternoon, two in Quebec, two in Ontario and two in Saskatchewan, small rural
Supply-Public Works-Alberta

towns similar to Camrose. I understood the argument of the minister to be that some of these places were starting to grow and were therefore entitled to money for a public building, but I contend that Camrose has shown as much growth as any of them, if not more. For instance, take Rosthern, Saskatchewan; the postal revenues in 1924 amounted to $6,429, while in 1927 they totalled $6,248. Then there is Durham, Ontario; in 1924 the postal revenue amounted to $7,145, and in 1927 it was $5,683. Take Waterloo, Quebec; in 1924 the postal revenue was $6,673 and in 1927 it amounted to $5,731. Personally I cannot see any evidence in these cases of the growth to which the minister referred.


John Campbell Elliott: All the circumstances,, the accommodation which is being used, the opportunity for obtaining 'better accommodation and the urgency for making a change of some kind, are looked into, and the department arrives at the best conclusion possible under the circumstances.


Robert Gardiner: I have heard the Prime Minister say time and again in this house that the government are but a committee of the house, responsible to the house for all their actions, and further that the government are responsible for carrying out the wishes of this house. In the supplementary estimates of 1926 there appeared an item for the construction of this building at C'amrose. The committee will remember that the supplementary estimates and in fact many of the main estiates were not passed in the first session of 1926. On December 9 of that year this house was called together primarily for the purpose of passing the estimates so that the government would not have to issue governor general's warrants; I remember that the supplementary estimates at that session contained this item for the Camrose post office, which item was passed by this house. That means that this house instructed the government to construct this building at Camrose. When the main estimates came up the next year, because of the fact that the building could not be proceeded with immediately after the item was passed the estimates did not contain any item for the Camrose post office. What I want to know is this: Is the Prime Minister satisfied in his own mind that the government are a committee of this house and as such are willing to carry out the instructions of this house? If so, will the minister explain why, after this house once passed this particular item, the government so far forgot their duty to the house that they did not proceed with this work? I think that should be explained before we go any further.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member heard my explanation a year ago and he has heard what has been said so far this session; the department have gone over all the available data and have come to the best conclusion possible as to what shall be recommended to the treasury board and to council. That is all I can say; I cannot add anything to that statement.


Robert Gardiner: Then do I take it from what the minister says that he does not believe in the principle enunciated by the Prime Minister, that the government are but a committee of this house and responsible to the house? Does the minister wish to repudiate that statement by the Prime Minister?


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all.


Robert Gardiner: The minister is evidently doing it under the circumstances.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all.


William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister say there was any evidence came up to show that Camrose was not just as much entitled to a post office this year as in 1926, when this estimate was first passed?


John Campbell Elliott: I will certainly say there was no evidence to lead the department, the treasury board or council to believe that Camrose was more entitled to a building than a great many other places whose applications were being refused at that time.


William Thomas Lucas: That was not the question I asked. Evidently this matter was considered by the government and the treasury board in 1926 when the item was placed in the estimates, and I am asking the minister now if any new evidence came up which would justify the government or the treasury board in cutting this item out of the estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite wrong when he says the item was cut out of the estimates; that was not done. It was in estimates which lapsed, and another set of estimates was made up. For reasons which the government considered sufficient from all available data, the item was not inserted again. That is all I can say to my hon. friend.


William Thomas Lucas: I would just like to say
to the hon. minister that the town of Camrose has been making rapid growth. Only this last year a large business block costing over $40,000 has been erected there. A very large hotel, estimated to cost $90,000, has just been completed, and also several new churches,

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
all costing very large sums of money. All the evidence is to the effect that the town of Camrose is prospering and growing rapidly, and therefore it seems rather difficult to understand why the government consider this matter in 1926-because I feel sure that it would not have gone in the estimates unless they had considered it-and later cut it out. As far as the evidence of development is concerned, the government cannot produce anything to show that the town of Camrose is going back. I should like to know for what other reason the government decided to leave this item out.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, will the minister ask his deputy to give him the reasons for putting the item in the 1926 supplementary estimates, and his reasons for leaving it out in the 1927 main estimates? There must have been good and sufficient reason why it was put in in 1926, and no doubt there were good and sufficient reasons why it was 'taken out in 1927. Would he let us have the information with regard to those two particular items of procedure?


Arthur Edward Ross: I should like to
ask the minister regarding this installation of pick-up table.


John Campbell Elliott: That is a patented device, known as the Cummins pick-up. It is thought to be the best device available for picking up the letters from the floor, or the table, or whatever place they are on at the particular time. I have never used one of these machines myself, but they are a distinct type, and very well known. I believe that it is the type of machine that investigation has shown to meet the requirements, and is the best machine available at the present time.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where is it manufactured?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it is an American concern; the Interprovincial Equipment Company, Queen street, Ottawa, is the Canadian representative. I have a note to that effect, so I take it that it is an American concern.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is it being installed in all the large offices?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the investigations that were made with regard to the new terminal station at Montreal were made in New York and various other places. If my memory serves me right, their information was that this was the type found most satisfactory there. It is what the post office asks for.


Robert Gardiner: I asked the minister
two questions, and I hope he will be given time to answer them.


Mr. SPENCE:: Is this pick-up table supposed to be a labour-saving device, and if so, is there any actual saving in connection with it? Will it save any extra help and cut down the overhead, or is it a laboursaving device which will allow men to stand around and do nothing?


John Campbell Elliott: I will give my hon. friend all the information I have on the subject. By authority of an order in council passed on July 15. 1927, 10 Cummins pick-up tables were purchased at a cost of $3,500 each, from the Interprovincial Equipment Company, of Ottawa, four of the tables being for Montreal and six for Toronto. This equipment is a patented article, made in Chicago, and is the only mechanical pick-up table on the market. For this reason there was no object in calling for public tenders, and a contract was entered into without this being done. This is the information which I was unable to give to my hon. friend a few minutes ago. At the time these tables were purchased the following memorandum was submitted by the Deputy Postmaster General on May 16, 1927, regarding the advantages of the same:
This machine has been under consideration by the department for some time, as a means of economy, and for the expediting and prompt despatch of letter mail. This type is the only mechanical pickup table and stacker produced commercially, either in this country or the United States.
Other experimental types were investigated, and as there were no plans available, sketches were made for the purpose of a general report to this department at the time. The Mayer type, of which only one was constructed for test purposes in the New York post office, was too cumbersome and complicated, as will be seen on reference to the sketch mentioned. The output of the Rotary type developed by the United States government for smaller offices has been disappointing and unfavourably reported on by the majority of United States postmasters who have used them.
The Cummins type has produced the most favourable comment, and it has the advantage of having passed through the experimental stage, and being a standard article substantially built and produced by a reliable firm.
The stacker attachment alone will do the work now performed by a porter, and the statement made by the concern introducing this machine "that it will save its own cost in a year" is well founded, as the labour charge during the peak load period can be reduced 50 per cent in the "facing up" process.


James Houston Spence: No one is denying that
this is a labour saving device, but are we going to save anything by using it?

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


John Campbell Elliott: They say that the tea that were purchased will pay for themselves in a year, by the saving in labour.


Arthur Edward Ross: Would the minister repeat the name of the agent in Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: The Interprovincial Equipment Company, Queen Street.


Arthur Edward Ross: Who are they?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot tell my hon.
friend.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Is it the intention of the minister to install this device only in the larger post offices, or in the post offices generally?


John Campbell Elliott: The Department of Public Works purchases articles such as these, the little tractors and other machinery of the kind used in connection with the Post Office department, upon the recommendation of the officials of the department, with such information as we are able to get.


Robert Gardiner: Will the minister answer the questions I put to him a few moments ago?


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry, but I will have to ask my hon. friend to repeat them.


Robert Gardiner: In the supplementary
estimates for 1926 there was an item for a post office at Camrose. I would like to ask the minister the reason for including that item in the estimates. What representations were made that finally led to this item being in the supplementary estimates of 1926? I will put one question at a time.


John Campbell Elliott: I must apologize to my
hon. friend for not having answered that before. He added to that the request that I would ask my deputy just how that had been done. He would not have added that to his question had he realized just what I propose to tell him about the procedure. The deputy is not in the council when these matters are being considered and the decisions really made. Perhaps that will be a sufficient answer as regards the deputy.
Of course as my hon. friend knows I was not in the department at the time. My predecessor, after considering the question, decided to place this item in the supplementary estimates. The procedure is this. I will in a few days put before the treasury board a large number of items for the supplementary estimates. I am not sure yet what fraction of them I will get. They first go before the treasury board and the treasury board in their discretion say:	Well, we will cut this

out and we will leave that in. Sometimes, but not often, something that is cut out by the treasury board is replaced by the cabinet council when the estimates are subsequently submitted to them. It is quite impossible, as my hon. friend will understand, for me to tell him the particular history of this one item out of very many that went through at a time when I was not in charge of the department. I know it was in the supplementaries and I know it did not come through the treasury board and council at the time that the next estimates appeared. That is all I can say in regard to the matter.


Robert Gardiner: Has the minister any
information as to the representations made in the first place which warranted the inclusion of that item in the estimates of 1926?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Who receives those representations?


John Campbell Elliott: They would be considered by whoever was making up the supplementaries for 1926.


William Thomas Lucas: Has the Post Office Department recommended a new building at Cam-rose?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say as to that.


William Thomas Lucas: The minister has laboured a
great deal in an endeavour to explain why this item has not appealed in the estimates this year. He might just as well be frank and tell the committee that the real reason why this item was cut out was because the hon. member for Camrose did not support the government on all occasions.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Following up the reasoning of the hon. member for Camrose (Mr. Lucas) I may say that in the constituency of South Battleford we happen to have a situation that has been hanging fire for a long time before 1926. It has been hanging fire since 1911 when the Department of Public Works purchased a site for a post office in the town of Wilkie. I do not think the hon. member for Camrose should raise half the objection that we do and in spite of what he says, namely, that he did not vote right, I hope we have always voted right and the town of Wilkie has always voted right-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Vallance: Yes, and yet I could not get any closer to the minister than my hon. friend seems to be able to get. I do not think his reasoning is very good

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


William Thomas Lucas: Did the hon. member ever
have an item inserted in the estimates for the building?


John Vallance: The lot was purchased in 1911 but the building was never erected.


William Thomas Lucas: A lot was purchased in Cam-rose in 1911, the same year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Edmonton-tractor for postal purposes, $1,350.
Mr. FRASER:: Probably the minister could give me the information which I asked for the other night in regard to these tractors. He has given us the information about the pickup tables. It was information similar to that which I was looking for the other night with regard to tractors.


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry but I do not
seem to have under my hand information about the tractors in as much detail as about the pick-up tables, I suppose for the reason that the departmental officials assumed that the tractor now in use had become so well known that perhaps such information was not so necessary as it was when the tractor was first installed. This is the type and the price of a tractor that seems to be used in practically all post offices in Canada where a tractor is used. It is the tractor that the officials of the Post Office department ask for and the one that we try to secure. I shall be glad to make inquiries and to give my ihon. friend further information at some later date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Wainwright public building, $35,000.
Mr. KAISER:: Would the minister kindly
explain the re vote in this case? There was a vote of $15,000 in 1927; now there is a item of $35,000 for this year with a revote of $15,000.


John Campbell Elliott: The history of that is that the appropriation of $15,000 in 1927-28 provided for a building containing 830 square feet of area. The Post Office department insisted upon an area of 1,200 square feet and the Customs and Excise department require 600 square feet. In order to provide the required accommodation, that is for all the services, under the one roof, the proposed appropriation had to be increased to this amount.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is the building likely to
be erected this year? I understand the people are very anxious to have the building erected and probably the Minister of Public Works knows the present post office is a very poor
affair. They are particularly anxious that the work be begun soon so that private interests may know whether or not there is going to be a public building there this year.


John Campbell Elliott: It is hard to say positively, but as soon as this item passes instructions will be given to have the plans prepared so that the matter may be proceeded with just as in the case of all the other buildings and other works for which money is appropriated in these estimates.


Thomas Cantley: What is the population
of Wainwright?


John Campbell Elliott: About 1,000.


Mr. BARBER:: What is the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue is
$5,557, and the customs revenue $15,739.


Mr. McPBEE:: Who is the member for the district?


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member for Battle River.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $40,000.
Mr. ESLING:: I regret that there is no
provision made in this vote for a public building in Trail. I regret that particularly because there seems to have gone out from the government to the people of Trail information to the effect that a vote for a public building in Trail would be "noted" in the supplementary estimates. I presume that what is meant by "noted" is considered, and I hope that such will be the case. We are not, like some of our friends from Saskatchewan and elsewhere, asking for a public building in Trail simply because we want to get a whack at the public treasury, but because in Trail there is urgent need of a public building. We have an industrial institution with a continuous pay roll, and it is not necessary for us to come down here and make inroads upon the public treasury just to get a few thousand dollars spent there. We have there a pay roll of approximately $5,000,000 a year, and I am asking for this public building solely because it is in keeping with the policy laid down by the hon. Minister of Public Works last session, when he said that the policy of the government was to construct buildings where the accommodation was inadequate and the need urgent. I think that is a very sane and sensible policy. It sounds more like a Conservative policy, and I want to congratulate the minister upon having laid it down.
The first intimation we had from the government about a public building in Trail came
2896	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
from the hon. Minister of Health, formerly the Minister of Public Works. He notified the Trail board of trade that this item would be noted by the government and of course the people of Trail were pleased to hear that. The city of Trail then sent a telegram to the minister, stating that they had received such advice, and urging the immediate construction of this building for the reason that the accommodation was inadequate and the necessity urgent. They went further and passed a resolution emphasizing this urgency. The resolution goes on to say, in keeping with the general prosperity of Trail:
Whereas the number of boxes in the post office is at present 1,047, and whereas the present requirements are 2,500-
That is a little stronger than I put it before, but evidently the city seems to think that their requirements are a little more than double the present accommodation. The resolution goes on:
Owing chiefly to the rent of the present premises having been increased from $75 to $115 a month, the postmaster in like manner has increased the rent for the boxes from 2o to 33 per cent.
There are 1,047 boxes in use in the Post Office, and there are 500 people waiting for boxes; in addition, there are from three to five families using many boxes. I am confident that the minister will admit that that is a case of inadequate accommodation.
Considerable has been said to-day about the growth of the various communities for which votes have been asked. To-day the governor general is laying the comer stone of a new city hall for Trail. That is pretty good evidence of prosperity. The people of Trail by public subscription are preparing for the erection of a $200,000 hotel. That is a little better than some of these Saskatchewan hotels. Within the last two years there have been erected a $100,000 hospital and a $45,000 artificial ice rink; and within the last two months there has been constructed a new $75,000 theatre. This large industrial company at Trail of which I spoke has loaned [DOT] to its employees $700,000 for the erection of homes. I would like to know if you can get any better evidence of prosperity and progress.
The city of Trail in the past five years has grown beyond all bounds. During that time they have carried on construction work, street paving, a water system and so forth, to the amount of $475,000, and the Canadian Pacific Railway has just completed the construction of a new brick station. I submit to the Minister of Public Works that the Can-

adian Pacific Railway is not building stations except in places where the requirements of the people demand it. Within the last five years the city of Trail has issued building permits to the value of $1,731,000. I have taken the precaution, Mr. Chairman, to get these figures from the city clerk, so there can be no dispute about them-$1,731,000 in building permits in Trail within the past five years; what better evidence could you have of progress? The company at Trail has also disbursed within the last five years $7,800,000 for construction work. When you consider all these evidences of prosperity, it is difficult to realise how any fair-minded government could hesitate to meet the requirements of the city of Trail.
In addition, the city of Trail pays into the federal exchequer in business and income taxes $1,000,000 a year-$1,000,000 a year from this little city'" of Trail, for the purpose of building wharves down in Quebec province and public buildings in Saskatchewan. Then we pay into the provincial exchequer $800,000. As a matter of fact, the city of Trail pays in taxes to the federal exchequer three times as much as this parliament votes for public buildings in the entire province of British Columbia. The city of Trail and its industrial plant pay in excess of one per cent of the total freight bill by rail and by water for the entire Dominion.
Now, what is needed is a three-storey building to take care of the postal and customs requirements. The customs collections for the past year amounted to $120,000. That is a pretty good figure for a small community. The post office revenue for 1926-27 was $20,381. Trail post office ranks nineteenth out of the 941 post offices in British Columbia. By way of rent, interest and incidental expenses in connection with the post office and the customs office the government pays the equivalent every year of 5 per cent on $90,000.
Much has been said in behalf of some other communities about their growth of population. Trail's population has increased in the last five years from $5,000 to 8,500. The government post office inspector has reported to the department that in two or three years the population will probably reach 12.000. Just compare this with the vote of $28,000 passed this afternoon for a post office at Rosthern, Saskatchewan, which has only 271 boxes, and it needs another 40. We have 1,047 boxes, and the post office inspector reports that 500 people are waiting for accommodation. The Minister of Public Works justified the Rosthern vote on the ground of lack of accommodation. Then we have the right hon.

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) coming from Prince Albert, and Prince Albert is voted $95,000 on the plea that in twenty years its population has grown from 1,785 to 7.500. It didn't take Trail twenty years to wake up; in three years its population increased from 5,000 to 8,500. Then we have an appropriation for Waterloo, Quebec, with a population of 2,000 and a revenue of $7,804. There are several cases of that kind appearing in the estimates while Trail with its much larger population and postal revenue is ignored.
I think it is generally admitted throughout the country that it is unfair for any member or any community to ask for public improvements that are not needed, and I commend the Minister of Public Works for discouraging such applications. But surely this has been about the largest spending program of any government since confederation. We have voted $8)500,000 for Quebec harbour, $6,000,000 to beautify Ottawa, $100,000 last year and another $150,000 this year for Quebec citadel, $100,000 last year and a similar sum this year for Rideau Hall, and $30,000 for a greenhouse. I merely mention those votes by way of comparison with the small sum which is asked for a community that is actually suffering for want of adequate post office facilities.
I have a letter here which I have hesitated to read, because it is rather amusing in view of the huge sums which have been voted. It comes from the hon. Minister of Health (Mr. King), who was formerly in charge of the Department of Public Works. It is his second letter to the Trail board of trade. For some reason or other he seems to have changed his attitude, foT which I am very sorry, and I do hope that the present Minister of Public Works will not be influenced by his colleague. He says:
The Minister of Public Works informs me that it is felt by the government that it is better to continue the reduction of taxation and payments on the national debt,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Kemble Esling: Yes, it is amusing, and hard to believe in view of about twenty million dollars voted recently. Let me continue: -and this can only be done by strict economy and delaying, for the present, any undertakings which, although necessary, are not essential to the carrying on of the public business.
If that is not a joke, I do not know what is, particularly following the budget speech of the Minister of Finance, in which he noted a surplus of $54,000,000 and said that the estimated revenue for the coming year wa3 56103-184
sufficient to meet the needs of a growing country.
I have dealt with the inadequacy of the accommodation in the buildings at Trail. Now I am going to refer to the urgency for a new building. On October 6-and may I ask hon. members to recall that the genera, election came on October 29, 1925-the hon. Minister of Health, was at that time Minister of Public Works and distributing such patronage as he could on the eve of the election, purchased in Trail a site for a post office. That is, he did so three weeks before the election, and this is what I wish to impress upon the present Minister of Public Works and my friends on the other side of the house so that they may observe how the former head of the department regarded this matter. The Public Works department, of which, as I say, the present Minister of Health was then the head, sent the following wire to the surveyor:
Make the survey of these lots with the utmost despatch, as the matter is very urgent.
That was three weeks before the election. If it was so urgent back in 1925, why has it not been urgent enough since to proceed with the construction of the building? But that is not all. The then Minister of Public Works sent another letter in which he says that he is quite familiar with the necessities of the situation, and that he purchased the site with a view to the construction of a building. I am merely giving these facts to impress upon the government, if it is possible, that I am entirely within, bounds in urging the construction of this building, not because we want to get at the treasury, but simply because we need the accommodation. There are many days when the men come off shift, line up on the sidewalk waiting to get their mail, and after vainly waiting for half an hour or more they find it useless to remain longer and go home disappointed. Surely that is evidence of the necessity and urgency of better accommodation. Let me quote a letter from the post office inspector who has sent to Trail to investigate conditions. Under date of December 16, 1926, he wrote to the department:
I would respectfully request that a new building be erected as soon as possible. Three times more floor space required. There are now 1,047 boxes and 500 people are waiting.
He recommended that the new building should contain 2,100 boxes. That is evidence enough of the necessity. I present these facts in the hope that the minister from British Columbia will put aside political prejudice and follow the policy laid down by the Min-

2898	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
ister of Public Works, and give to a growing community of wage earners the accommodation so urgently needed.
We had another letter which I shall be pleased to read. This one comes from the Minister of Health; it is addressed to myself. He says:
I am thoroughly conversant-
You see, the Minister of Health is aware of the needs of the district. He says he is thoroughly conversant with them.
I am thoroughly conversant with the matters of that district, and it was with a view of giving better accommodation that I recommended the purchase of a property in Trail some time ago,-
He was a little reticent about saying when.
-it being my intention to advocate the erection of a suitable building on the site.
The situation just comes down to this. The Minister of Health is certainly in a peculiar position. He is a member of the cabinet and he cannot go to Trail and say, "I have not recommended your post office", because he has already intimated that the supplementary vote would be considered. It would not be healthy for him to go to Trail.


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I always find it very healthy there.


William Kemble Esling: I may remind the Minister of Health, with all courtesy, that he was out there last autumn and was within an hour's ride of Trail; and yet, curiously enough, he passed by us and went up the lake. He could not go there and say that he had not recommended the vote. The Minister of Health is in fact in a most embarrassing position and a position of humiliation if he says to his colleagues in the cabinet, "I firmly and honestly believe that the vote is necessary and I urge you to provide in the supplementary estimates for a public building in Trail", if that representation is to be disregarded. I should not like to be in the position of a minister of a government who could not receive sufficient attention from his colleagues to meet his wants in a matter of this kind, particularly when, as in this case, the hon. gentleman is the sole cabinet representative of the province of British Columbia. I may say that all we have got in British Columbia from this government is the Minister of Health.
I am now going to conclude these remarks with a courteous request of the Minister of Public Works and the other members of the cabinet. I appeal to them not to disappoint the citizens of Trail in regard to this post office.
	.	'
I have another letter here-I have saved the best for the last. This letter is dated January 4, 1927, from the Postmaster General, who naturally receives reports from all quarters. Under this date he sends me a letter in which he says:
I have already made representations to the department (Public Works) that the accommodation at present provided at Trail is totally inadequate-
The Postmaster General says that the accommodation provided at Trail is totally inadequate, and it is on that basis that I trust the Minister of Public Works will meet our wishes in this matter. He continues:
*-and have urged-
He has not asked them, mind you; he has urged:
the erection of a suitable public building.
My appeal to the minister and to the government will, I hope, be entertained. I know we are on the wrong side of the fence, but it was not altogether our fault.


John Warwick King: We pretty nearly got you in Trail.


William Kemble Esling: Never mind about Trail. The Minister of Health should not say anything at all in regard to votes. He managed to slip into his seat by a slim 275 votes, and if he is well advised he will slip into the senate at the first opportunity that offers.


Harry James Barber: I feel sure the post office for Trail will appear in the supplementary estimates. I wish to congratulate the hon. member (Mr. Esling) on the case he has put up and I am sure the minister and the cabinet cannot very well turn down the Trail post office. There is one matter I want to refer to. Anyone who will casually glance over the estimates for public buildings in the province of British Columbia will be struck by this fact, that, outside the city of Vancouver, the amount for new buildings is jusit $29,000. It is quite apparent that British Columbia has been overlooked. We do not know whether it is because we are so far from the capital-some 3,000 miles distant- or whether it is because of the political complexion of the province. At any rate there is some reason for it. It seems to me that the Trail post office and applications for other public buildings in that province should be considered in the supplementary estimates. As I say, the amount for buildings in British Columbia, outside Vancouver, is $29,000, although we find in'the votes the other day the sum of $30,000 allotted to cleaning up a site west of the post office in the city of

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
Ottawa-$1,000 more than the sum given to the province of British Columbia for public buildings outside of Vancouver. Then we find, coming to Saskatchewan, in Prince Albert, with a population of 7,500 a vote of $95,000 for public buildings this year, making a total of $133,000 for public buildings in the district of Prince Albert.
The minister has said that it is the intention to provide accommodation, in certain towns and cities, sufficient to facilitate the carrying on of the various services. The other day we had a number of items for public buildings, in connection with which the postal revenue ranged from $2,000 u,p to $6,900, and I find that in the Fraser valley district it is twenty years since we have received a vote for any public building. I have here an application which was made to the government by the Mission City Board of Trade some time ago, directing attention to the fact that a lot had been purchased a number of years ago, in 1911 or 1912 I think, an amount having been voted for the construction of a building. That amount was subsequently revoted, but it disappeared, because of the conditions which existed during the war. Now the government apparently have undertaken to commence a program of construction throughout the Dominion, and certainly the people of these cities and towns in this district expected to receive consideration.
Mission City is the centre of one of our greatest fruit districts; the Minister of Health will bear me out when I say that it is one of the centres of the small fruit district of the Fraser valley, and has developed considerably in the last few years. The post office in that town is housed in a very small frame structure. The postal revenue is given by the Post Office department as $6,669.21, and in addition a rural route is served. A lot has been purchased, and as I have already said appropriations have been voted and revoted; the people of that district feel that they have waited patiently and that they are entitled to some consideration now that the government have commenced to provide buildings in such centres. Many other places with smaller revenues are receiving grants; I might mention the town of Wainwright, which has a postal revenue of about $5,000, and for which we have voted an amount tonight to provide for a public building. I would ask that the government and the minister consider the case of Mission City and see if something cannot be done.
56103-lS4i
Then there is the town of Abbotsford, which is one of the customs ports of entry. We all know that the customs commission recommended that many inland ports be closed, but it is certain that a port such as Abbotsford must be retained. The Board of Trade of that town took up this matter on July 19 in regard to accommodation for the post office and for the Customs department; they pointed out that three railways meet at that point, namely, the Canadian PacificRailway, the Great Northern Railway and the British Columbia Electric Railway, and the revenue from customs imports and exports and the postal revenue has greatly increased during recent years. I belieye the board of trade have already communicated with the minister in regard to this matter. Last year the customs revenue amounted to about $75,000 and the postal revenue to over $4,000, making a total of almost $80,000. It will be easy to realize the conditions which exist with regard to the Customs department when you consider that they pay only $185 a year for their accommodation, 'although the revenue amounts to about $75,000. This is a port which will remain; it is just on the border, and is in the centre of a rapidly growing district. This town should receive attention in the very near future, and I would ask the minister to take these facts into consideration. I must say the people in British Columbia are disappointed with the very small vote for public buildings in that province and we hope the government will consider the applications which have been made for public buildings and provide for them in the supplementary estimates.


Mr. NEILL:: As a British Columbian I
have listened with interest and pride to the1 description given by the hon. member for West Kootenay of the prosperity which exists in the city of Trail, but that is only one instance which might be duplicated in a score or more of cases throughout British Columbia. I could give examples on a smaller scale of half a dozen towns which have grown very rapidly in the last few years. This growth and prosperity should not be attributed to any one cause but rather to the general conditions which exist in British Columbia, and I am glad that the eastern members have learned that British Columbia is a growing community which needs attention and which requires to have money spent there. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat says that only $29,000 is being spent in
2900	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
British Columbia outside of Vancouver. Of course you can do anything with figures, but as I read them these estimates show that for public buildings in British Columbia we are voting some $243,262.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Harry James Barber: I said that sum was being spent for the construction of new public buildings outside of Vancouver.


Alan Webster Neill: Surely the money for repairs is spent on the buildings.


Harry James Barber: I was referring to the
construction of new buildings.


Alan Webster Neill: I am talking about all the
buildings, and I do not think it would be a very wise policy to spend money on new buildings and not repair old buildings. I want to emphasize the fact that, we are spending $243,262 on public buildings in British Columbia.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If my hon. friend will
permit me, he is looking at the wrong column. The sum of $100,262 represents the appropriation not required, and there is a total of $311,000 provided for British Columbia.


Alan Webster Neill: My natural modesty made
me place the figure much lower. So we are spending $311,000 on public buildings in British Columbia, and not one cent of that amount is being spent in the district represented by the Minister of Health or in the district represented by myself. Hon. gentlemen opposite talk about the pork barrel in British Columbia but they will notice that the constituency represented by the cabinet minister from British Columbia and the constituency represented by myself are getting no benefits at all. In spite of that fact we find hon. gentlemen opposite getting up and doing the Oliver Twist act and asking for more.


Harry James Barber: Not one cent is being
spent in the district represented by the hon. member for West Kootenay nor in that represented by myself.


Alan Webster Neill: At any rate, this amount
is being spent in districts represented by Conservatives. Now I want to go back for a moment to the town of Trail and the glowing picture presented by the hon. member for West Kootenay. I do not believe he overdrew that picture, but certainly he dwelt on it with a great wealth of detail, missing only one thing. No doubt inadvertently, he
IMr. Neill.]
omitted to tell the committee the cause of that prosperity, which was the action of this government some years ago in putting a bounty on copper rods manufactured in that town. As a result of that policy initiated in 1923, just the period to which he refers-


William Kemble Esling: Mr. Chairman-


Alan Webster Neill: I have the floor at the
present time.


William Kemble Esling: I rise to a-point of order.
In the first place, the hon. gentleman attributes our prosperity to the bounty which this government paid on copper rods.


Alan Webster Neill: The hon. gentleman is making a speech.


William Kemble Esling: There has been no bounty
paid on copper rods made in Trail.


Alan Webster Neill: The house is in committee,
and a point of order is not an opportunity for a speech.


William Kemble Esling: I object to that statement, Mr. Chairman. The hon. gentleman said that our prosperity was due to the bounty on copper rods. I say that that is a misstatement, and moreoever it is a ridiculous statement, because there has been only $270,000 paid by way of bounty on copper rods in the history of this government. Would that make a pay roll of $5,000,000?


Alan Webster Neill: Do you wish to rule on the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I think we had better send for a microscope to see if we can find a point of order in his statement. The prosperity of Trail, so we were told in this house by the representative at the time, and his colleagues, was going to be materially increased by that copper rod bounty. It was unfavourably received at that time by many of the members in this house, but it passed and I think it was renewed again last year. If I am not mistaken, the period of the bounty coincides with the period the hon. member mentioned, when he said that in the last five years the population had gone up from 5,000 to 8,000. I think when he was dilating on the growth of prosperity, he should have at least mentioned that fact.
I just want to say, speaking more particularly to the members from British Columbia, that I do not begrudge these votes that are being passed for their districts. I know they are entitled to them, and I know they will be wisely and justly expended. I do not


-Public Works-British Columbia
object to the fact that they are getting $311,000, but I would just suggest to them that, when there is some little wharf vote for the district of Comfox-Albemi, in. the supple-mentaries or elsewhere, to develop the trade of fishing or lumbering, they will take the same position I have, and admit that it is necessary for the development of our district and our province.


Mr. BRADY:: As the government has
renewed the lease on the Prince Rupert post office for five years, I suppose we cannot ask for a new post office, but I would like to point out the condition of our Dominion public building in Prince Rupert.
I would like to draw the attention of the committee to a few points, and I can illustrate what I am going to say by reference to the Prince Rupert post office. On February 13 I asked certain questions of the Postmaster General. Some of the questions I asked him were:
What is the annual rental paid by the government for its lease of said building?
When does the present lease expire?
Has the lease recently been renewed, and if so, on what date?
The answers were as follows: It was leased for five years; rented on June 1, 1927, to terminate June 1, 1932, at a rental of $6,540.
I also asked who recommended the renewal of the lease, and the answer given was:
The various departments interested.
I endeavoured to find out who were the parties interested. I found that it was not the citizens of Prince Rupert as a body; it was not the board of trade representing the city of Prince Rupert, but it was confined to a very small section, and that section, undoubtedly, does not hold the views of the people of the city. I will leave it to the hon. members of this committee to know who recommended the renewal of that lease. _
I wish to read a letter from the Prince Rupert board of trade, asking this government to do something towards meeting the requirements of that city. The letter is as follows: That as the building now' leased at Prince Rupert for federal offices, such as customs, post office, government telegraphs, marine and fisheries, harbour master, excise department, Indian agent, etc., is hopelessly lacking in accommodation and is badly arranged, poorly ventilated and altogether unsuited for the occupancy of the Dominion government offices in this city; and as the rentals paid for these offices are sufficient to justify and provide for the erection of a suitable federal building upon the government's own property situate in a more central and convenient location: therefore, that representation should be made to the
Dominion government, urging the immediate erection of a federal building ir. Prince Rupert, in keeping with the requirements of the city, and that the lease of the building now used be not renewed, except for such period as may be necessary for the completion of the new building.
I am now going back to the hon. Minister of Public Works, and will refer to his own statement, given in answer to one of the hon. members from the prairie provinces, as to why Saskatoon was given a vote of $150,000. The answer was not satisfactory to me, because it was not based, I thought, upon sound reason. Here is what the minister said.
The reason why this vote was given to Saskatoon was on account of the increased trade and revenue.
And then, later on:
Twenty years ago the revenue was $19,711, and in 1927 it was $280,943.
If that is the basis upon which the Minister of Public Works based this vote, I should like to draw his attention to the post office in Prince Rupert and give figures which may Convince the committee that things are not dealt with in accordance -with the facts. Here are the figures:
Fiscal Year
1922-	23..
1923-	24..
1924-	25..
1925-	26..
1926-	27..
Customs Revenue .	$369,901	95.	4S1,431	08.	327,844	78.	491,451	04.	430,641	89
The average customs revenue for five years amounted to $420,317.69. Added to that, we find that the post office revenue for last year Was $32,047.
We find that Vancouver is the first customs pijrt in British Columbia; Victoria is the second; New Westminster the third; and Prince Rupert the fourth. In other words, Prince Rupert ranks fourth -in -the collection of revenue, and it ranks third in its shipping in and out of the port. In 1926-27, 2,278 seagoing vessels arrived at that port; and 2,428 *de-parted; 4,786 coasting and inland vessels arrived, and 4,757 departed.
I wish to draw attention to this fact. The Minister of Public Works has explained how these items are put into the main and supplementary estimates. He tells us that the treasury board and later the cabinet decide exactly what items shall be retained, what shall be omitted and what shall be added. Consequently I am not going to blame the Minister of Public Works. But let me tell him and the committee a few facts regarding Prince Rupert post office. It was originally a gymnasium for the young men belonging to a local society. It never was and never has
2902	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
been intended for a public building. Furthermore it is unhygienic; secondly, it is hopelessly inadequate for the large amount of work that is carried on therein, and, thirdly, it is not in the centre of the city. It was placed in its present position-and I am sorry to say this in the house where men are supposed to be above common politics-for the good not of the city but of the member at that time. It is completely out of the way, on a side street; it is not meeting the requirements of the city trade and it is so hopelessly inadequate for the amount of work that is being carried on that last Christmas the postmaster issued a public notice begging the people to come to his aid in order to enable him and his staff to cope with the heavy amount of work. The condition of affairs last Christmas can be described as confusion and chaos. Christmas letters and Christmas parcels could not be delivered as they should. The staff was not to blame. Mail to the outlying islands did not reach their destination; in the hurry, excitement and hubbub where hundreds of thousands of letters were going into that wretched place, mail to the islands was often sent to wrong places. This information I had from people who have written to me.
I wish to say just this, because I believe it is for the good of all. These Dominion buildings are as important as parliament buildings, the reason being that in these federal buildings we carry on our customs and excise and other important business. They stand as the external proof of law and order and in our cities where federal work is being carried on, the buildings should teach the people that in them things are being conducted in a law abiding manner, meetihg every requirement of public life. Surely a filthy, unsightly, wretched building is by no means in keeping with the work which a federal government should carry on. Second, the principles under which our Dominion buildings should be erected should not be actuated by political exigencies. They should be based on a sound and definite principle. Are they really needful? What requirements are to be met? If necessity be the basis on which public buildings should be erected and if the minister here to-night is able to tell us that Saskatoon is entitled to $150,000, merely because of a slight increase in its revenue, then I say that as intelligent people we have good reason to object to certain of these votes.
Therefore I say on behalf of the people of British Columbia and, indeed, every other province of Canada that the hour has come when any government in power should place

its public works department completely out of the control of politics; there should be nothing of politics in it. Why should a former member of parliament be the final judge whether this or that building should be erected? Why should I have to come here and plead for something w'hich it should be the duty of the Minister of Public Works to know is required? He has the machinery; he has his federal engineers in his own department to give him the facts. We waste endless time in connection with these matters and we get nowhere. I know what I say now will not get me a post office because there is a five-year lease in existence; but even if there were no five-year lease I do not believe my words would enable me to succeed in getting what I want. Nevertheless I know as well as I stand here that if the Minister of Public Works, the Prime Minister or any other member of the cabinet went and looked at that building, he would admit that it is unfit, not merely for carrying on federal work but for any man or woman to spend six or eight long hours therein.
For fifteen years I was presiding examiner for the Civil Service Commission. It was my duty to supervise the examinations and I shall never forget the comic-tragedy of the examination papers sent out by the Civil Service Commission for applicants for positions of janitors in the post office. I am sorry I have not a copy of these papers under my hand but I can get one. These unfortunate people, whose hours were spent in nothing more than a stable, with poor ventilation, with doors that would not open properly on their hinges, with a roof that could be blown off by an ordinary wind, were asked questions such as these. What method would you adopt in order to ventilate a post office? What are the various hygienic things that are essential for the cleansing and keeping in proper order of a Post office building? I sat down myself while three of those unfortunates were scratching their heads, wondering, and I said to myself: If these men get five per cent out of a hundred they are better men than I am. I am afraid they did not get that five per cent. I have just a simple question to ask. Are we to continue carrying along on the same old lines of tit for tat? Is it because in the past something was done, we shall do the same? Or is it possible, when we come to the important question of deciding how the money of this country shall be spent on public works, that they shall be spent where the money is needed, where it will do the most good and bring the greatest return?

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


John Anderson Fraser: I am going to ask the Minister of Public Works some very pertinent questions along the same lines as my hon. friends have been asking. I note in the Auditor General's report under f)he British Columbia item which we are now considering, an item ''Ashcroft public buildings". Is there in the item we are now considering an amount to provide for the brick veneering of the Ashcroft public building?


John Campbell Elliott: The Ashcroft public building is not included in the item that is now before the committee.


John Anderson Fraser: Let me explain the situation as it was laid before me when I was on my way to Ottawa last January. This is a very good public building erected about eight or nine years ago. The building, however, was not completed. It was to have been brick veneered following its occupancy, but it has been occupied now for eight or nine years and no attempt has been made to veneer the building. The result is that the department is paying a good deal more than is necessary for the heating of the building in the winter time on account of the extra amount of fuel that is required, and in the summer the employees are hardly able to live in the place on account of the heat. As the minister knows, the temperature runs very high in Ashcroft in the summer, and the building is not sufficiently complete to make it habitable either in winter or in summer. I would ask the minister to look into the matter * at the earliest possible opportunity and see that the building is completed so as to make it reasonably comfortable for the employees.


John Campbell Elliott: I am very glad to assure
my hon. friend that what he has just mentioned will receive consideration. I would also like to point out that out of the general vote for public buildings in Canada last year, $725 was expended on the public building in Ashcroft for general repairs.


John Anderson Fraser: That was in 1927?


John Campbell Elliott: In 1927-28.


John Anderson Fraser: Are you going^ to spend
more money out of that vote this year to finish that building?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the data here
of the general vote. We have not come to that yet.


John Anderson Fraser: We can discuss it when we
come to it.


John Campbell Elliott: When we come to the vote I shall have the details of how the money will
be expended, and I have no doubt that Ashcroft will receive its fair proportion of the general expenditure for the province the same as it did last year.


John Anderson Fraser: That was for the ordinary
upkeep; it was not for veneering the building.


John Campbell Elliott: For general repairs.


John Anderson Fraser: That is what I said. It
was not for brick veneering the building. ^ I want to ask a question in' regard to the city of Kamloops, I find according to page \ -66 of the Auditor General's report that you have two buildings in the city of Kamloops, Kamloops public building and the old Kamloops post office.


John Campbell Elliott: A new and a temporary
building.


John Anderson Fraser: But they are both used by different departments of the government. I find here an expenditure of $950 for coal for these two buildings. Can the minister tell me what was spent during 1927-28?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not that information with me, but I shall be glad to get it for myr hon. friend, if he wishes it.


John Anderson Fraser: I should like to have it.


John Campbell Elliott: I see that $245.50 was spent on Kamloops post office, and $444.75 on what I take to be the temporary post office, in the Fremont block.


John Anderson Fraser: But that was for the general upkeep of the building. The information I want to get is what amount of coal was used for these buildings during 1927-28, from whom it was purchased, and whether tenders were called for.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend can rely upon it that tenders were called for. As he readily understands, I do not carry in my head all the details, but I shall be glad to get that information for my hon. friend.


John Anderson Fraser: I want to take up another question. For the last three years I have been asking for the construction of a post office building in the city of Prince George. Unfortunately I cannot go back twenty years to show the comparative revenues of the city, because twenty years ago the city was not in existence at all, but according to the latest report of the Post Office department the postal revenue of the city of Prince George is $11,522. I would like to ask if representations have been made to the minister for the construction of a new public building in the city of Prince George.
2904	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the list in front of me now, but I have no doulbt that Prince George is in the list of 150 places for which applications have been made for public buildings. I think my hon. friend was referring a moment ago to the two post offices in Kamloops.


John Anderson Fraser: Two public buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: One is referred to as new, and my information is that that is a building that was built in my hon. friend's constituency a few years ago at a cost of $78,000.


John Anderson Fraser: Quite so; it was built in 1922.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to get the particulars of how much coal was used.


John Anderson Fraser: And you are still using the old building that was in use before the new one was constructed. It was used by some of the departments, either the Department of the Interior or the Department of Customs, I think. Will the minister give me information in regard to the representations that have been made to him for a public building in Prince George. I think promises have been made to Prince George in regard to the construction of a new post office.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think my hon. friend will suggest that any promises have been made iby me.


John Anderson Fraser: By the department for
which the minister is responsible.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think so.


John Anderson Fraser: Has the minister any information in regard to the situation in Salmon Arm?


John Campbell Elliott: What situation? I do not recall that we have a public building in Salmon Arm.
[Mr. FRASER: There is no public building there, but representations have been made,
I under-stand to the government, for a public building.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt that is right.


John Anderson Fraser: What representations have been made to the minister in that regard?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not carry them in my head, but I am satisfied that the same prosperity that has been spoken of by my hon. friend from West Kootenay and my hon. friend from Comox Alberni and my hon. friend from Skeena exists also in Salmon Arm, as it does throughout practically the whole country. From all parts of Canada we are

hearing of the wonderful prosperity that exists and the progress that is taking place under the excellent administration of the present government, and nearly all these places are asking for public buildings if they have not received one in recent years.


George Reginald Geary: I wonder if the minister might be induced to confine himself to discussing the item under consideration.


John Anderson Fraser: That is all very fine for the minister, but I want to tell him the position that I am in. I come to parliament and sit here for four or five months, and twenty minutes is all the time I have in which to get information from the minister in regard to these things, and when I ask him for it he tells me that he has not the information. This is the only opportunity I have to get the information. Now, what answer am I to get from the minister?


John Campbell Elliott: I would just like to ask my hon. friend, because I think he wants to be fair, if he has been here the length of time he says he has, and with the excellent ability which we all know he possesses, does he think he has been using it to the best advantage to come here and ask me what representations have been made in regard to a place that is not mentioned at all in any of the votes we are considering? Does he think that is quite fair?


John Anderson Fraser: Where else am I to get the information?


John Campbell Elliott: Surely my hon. friend
knows where to get it. He might follow the example of my hon. friend from South Essex (Mr. Gott) or some other hon. gentlemen on his side. There is an order paper-


Eccles James Gott: I should like to explain-


John Campbell Elliott: Questions are put on the order paper, and they have not been few so far as some sections have been concerned. He would get the information just as my hon. friend from South Essex has got it-I think the day after it was asked for.


Eccles James Gott: I should like to tell the minister why the member for South Essex had to put so many questions on the order paper.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Eccles James Gott: I hope it is not out of order to furnish information. The reason is that the man who holds the patronage in South Essex is so egotistical and self-centred that the good Liberals of the riding cannot get any information from him.

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


John Anderson Fraser: I thought I was going to the proper place to get this information.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to make a note of my hon. friend's request.


John Anderson Fraser: Of course, when I put my
question I thought the minister still had the list of places that were asking for post offices. I believe that my three points are on that list, and the minister has not got it. When can I have it?


John Campbell Elliott: It is right on the desk in front of him. I sent it over to the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys).


William Alves Boys: I may say to the minster
that I have not had time to digest the list.


John Anderson Fraser: There are three points,
and they are all in exactly the same position as my hon. friend from British Columbia said.


John Campbell Elliott: I believe Salmon Arm is
on that list.


John Anderson Fraser: "Merritt public building,
Salmon Arm public building." But the Prince George one is not on this list.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It got lost in the shuffle.


John Anderson Fraser: I put some questions
on the order paper a year ago about the Prince George building, and I know there has been a requisition for it. But here we have $45,000 for the city of Merritt. Its position is a little different from the other two that I have been speaking about. They are both in need of public buildings, especially Salmon Arm. Last March I placed a question on the order paper asking for the following information with regard to Merritt public buildings:
1. Did the government in 1911 purchase a double corner in the town of Merrit, B.C., for the purpose of erecting thereon a public building?
The answer was:
1.	No, but a site on the northeast corner of Granite evenue and Voight street was purchased in 1913.
My second question was as follows:
2.	Did the government in 1911, or subsequently, appropriate the sum of $24,000 for the construction of said building?
To which the minister answered:
2. No, but appropriations were granted as follows:
1911- 12	 $ 5,000
1912-	13	
10.0001913-	14	
20,0001914-	15	
25,0001915-	16	
25,0001916-	17	
25,000
We have heard a good deal about some of these appropriations being dropped from the order paper. I would point out that this building was considered necessary some twelve or fifteen years ago. The board of trade of Merritt has made representations for this new building. After waiting since 1911 I should think it was pretty nearly time that the government took into serious consideration the question of providing the town of Merritt with a suitable public building.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver-public building-amount required to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000-$20,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is this a mortgage on which the government is paying 5 per cent?


John Campbell Elliott: This building when purchased was known as the Winch building. It was situated on the northeast corner of Hastings street west and Howe street, and was purchased from A. J. B-uttimer, of Vancouver, for $700,000, the old post office building on .the southwest comer of Granville and Pender streets being taken as part payment at a valuation of $300,000. The remaining $400,000 is held by the Montreal Trust Company as a mortgage on the building, and this the government took over and is paying interest at the rate of 5 per cent specified in the mortgage. The $20,000 is required to meet one year's interest.


Robert Gardiner: When is the mortgage due?


John Campbell Elliott: The mortgage is for five years from July 1, 1925, to June 29, 1930.


Edward Joseph Garland: No doubt
there is a clause in the mortgage permitting .payment of the principal two or three years after the date of purchase.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would it not be wise to borrow some of the money that the Minister of Finance can raise so easily at a low rate and pay off this mortgage?


John Campbell Elliott: It might be advisable.


Edward Joseph Garland: Why has it not been done?


John Campbell Elliott: I want to be sure that it can be done. Not all mortgages contain the clause to which my hon. friend refers. I shall
2906	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works*-British Columbia
be glad to look into it, and if something along that line can be done I will suggest to the Minister of Finance that he furnish the money to discharge the mortgage.


Milton Neil Campbell: Probably that is covered by provincial legislation, as in the province of Saskatchewan.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No, not in British
Columbia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver-public building-addition to site, $150,000.
Henry Herbert Stevens: Is this site being secured by expropriation; and is it the comer immediately adjoining the main post office?


John Campbell Elliott: It adjoins the main post office. Of course, like any other site, it can be acquired by expropriation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the price to be paid?


John Campbell Elliott: There were some negotiations early in the summer, and when I was west last fall I looked the site over. The owners were asking about the prices that we have in the estimates. It looked to me a good price. It is unoccupied property, as I recall.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is it to be acquired for the extension of the post office facilities?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and for other public services, if we acquire the property. I think a tentative contract might have been entered into before this had it not been that after negotiations had been in progress for a certain length of time someone attempted to get an option on the property. The owners do not seem to be anxious to sell now at the $150,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is a very reasonable price if you can get the property.


John Campbell Elliott: I thought so. I think it is a good price, and personally I would not feel like paying any more.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Douglas-site and building for immigration and customs excise purposes, $25,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: Does the minister think this will provide sufficient accommodation at this point? The minister knows where this building will be on the new Pacific highway. It is one of the main ports of entry in British Columbia and very considerable motor traffic

is handled there. It seems to me this is a rather small item. While the government is thinking about the matter it should provide ample accommodation at this particular point.


John Campbell Elliott: This will not cover the full expenditure by the time the work is through; it will probably run to about $40,000. We have to expropriate about fifteen acres. The point in question is on the international highway-


William Garland McQuarrie: The Pacific highway.


John Campbell Elliott: -at a strategic point on the new Pacific highway. There has been a great increase in traffic, particularly, motor traffic, over the highway which has rendered it necessary for the departments of Immigration and National Revenue to provide accommodation for the examination of persons and baggage entering or leaving Canada. It is proposed to erect a frame building for the general use of these departments, at a cost estimated at between $40,000 and $43,000, depending upon the class of structure. The details have not been completed as to exactly what class of structure will be erected. It will also be necessary to procure fifteen acres of land from the Department of Indian Affairs owing to the fact that the highway will have to be diverted at this point.


William Garland McQuarrie: This is not on the
Pacific highway; it is on the new Pacific highway.


John Campbell Elliott: New Pacific highway, I
said.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister received any suggestions as to improvements required there?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no note of any.


William Garland McQuarrie: I know the point very well and I know that automobile traffic there is very heavy, indeed much heavier than it is at the other point covered by the item. It seems to me the accommodation is quite inadequate and something should be done to improve conditions. The department has had the matter in hand, but I do not think it has been taken up at all seriously so as to meet the requirements.


Mr. LADNER:: Are these expenditures, the details of which the minister has given, in connection with buildings at the new customs point where there stands the monument put up by the Honourable Sam Hill-


Henry Herbert Stevens: The peace arch.

Supply-Public Works


Leon Johnson Ladner: Yes, the peace arch put up by Sam Hill.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, that is the location.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I support the views of my hon. friend (Mr. McQuarrie) as to the extent of the traffic on the road to which he has referred. There will always be a very considerable traffic there. I commend the minister on his undertaking the construction of buildings at or near the peace arch; it is the natural location. The condition on the Pacific highway-and the same remark might be applied to the other-is such that during rainy weather there are not many points where there is such an enormous traffic as there is just there. The traffic is lined up for a mile or so and there is great congestion. A great many conveniences are lacking, such as sheds into which cars might go; and even toilets and washrooms are needed. I suggest to the minister and his deputy that this is something that should receive consideration. I understand that requests have been made in this connection but have not yet been attended to.


William Garland McQuarrie: Before we leave British Columbia buildings, may I ask the minister whether there has not been a recommendation for an addition to the New Westminster post office. I believe the minister was in New Westminster not long ago when he looked over the situation. The floor space is altogether inadequate, as there has been a large increase in the amount of business in that office. Besides taking care of the postal business of the city, the office is a distributing centre for a large district and at the present time it is almost impossible for it to carry on business in a satisfactory way. I know the minister has heard this story a good many times in connection with other places, but it does seem to me that New Westminster should be attended to, particularly in view of the fact that the Post Office department, as I believe, has recommended that this addition is urgently and immediately required. The Postmaster General visited New Westminster himself not long ago, and if the Minister of Public Works would confer with him I am sure he would be told that this is really a case of urgent necessity.


John Campbell Elliott: An application is on our list for an addition to the New Westminster building, the addition to cost $80,000. It is quite in line with a number of other places that have made a similar request.


William Garland McQuarrie: I believe it has been recommended by the Post Office department to the Department of Public Works-


John Campbell Elliott: I 'have no doubt that is correct.
Mr. MoQUARRIE: -for immediate construction.


John Campbell Elliott: A large number of places have been recommended for consideration. I agree with my hon. friends in regard to the traffic. Our records show that for the year ended July 31, 1927, something over 850.000 persons crossed the boundary at this point. That means between two and three thousand persons a day.


Leon Johnson Ladner: In the course of time a
good deal of that traffic will go by the peace arch.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: There is a new road being built in that direction. The government has taken the right course in making these improvements, but it should not forget the other, because at present there is great inconvenience to tourists from California, Washington and Oregon, travelling north and south.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a greater accommodation for the travelling public at this point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Generally
Experimental farms - replacements, repairs, improvements, etc., $100,000; Flags for Dominion public buildings, $5,000; Installation of fuel saving devices, $10,000; Military buildings-repairs, fittings, alterations and additions, $50,000; Military hospitals-repairs and improvements, $79,000; Public buildings generally, $45,000.
Mr. TOLMIE:: As there will not be another opportunity to refer to experimental farms I should like 1o again call the attention of the government to the importance of establishing an experimental farm in that great empire, northern British Columbia, a section of country very rich in natural resources, ideal for the production of live stock, excellent for dairying and good for all kinds of general farming. When I had the honour of occupying the position of Minister of Agriculture a favourable report was made by some of the experts of the department with regard to the necessity of placing an experimental farm in that section. With such a farm it would be possible to demonstrate quite clearly both to prospective settlers and to those already on the ground the opportunities of that great region, and in addition it would be a good point from which to carry on the distribution of live stock of improved quality. This is particularly necessary now because of the fact
Supply-Public Works

that the distribution of pure-bred sires, which was carried on for a number of years, has been suspended, and I sincerely hope the government will keep that section of the country in mind. I have travelled over a good part of it and can speak from experience. The prospects there are excellent indeed, and with a little encouragement and by opening up the country excellent results will be obtained.
Having brought this matter to the attention of the government, before taking my seat I would like to say one word about the prosperity of British Columbia in the line of mining, and to what that prosperity may be attributed. In the first place, we cannot mine without ore; certainly the ore was not placed in the ground by any Liberal government but by the Creator, and we who live in British Columbia are very thankful that it is there. For a long time a good deal of this ore, which was low grade, could not be mined successfully and put through the various processes of refining at a profit, but the oil flotation system was discovered only a few years ago and this put an end to that trouble. The big Sullivan mine, located in the Crowsnest region, was offered for sale to a prominent mining man in that country for $10,000 and he would not look at it. To-day that mine is turning out 4,000 tons of ore a day; it is being worked at a splendid profit and is one of the chief sources of supply for the smelters at Trail. That is also true of many other sections of the country; old mines which were abandoned years ago before the discovery of the present system of refining are now being opened up and are becoming quite prosperous. This prosperity extends over practically the entire province; it is not due to any Liberal administration but rather to the discovery of the ore and the methods through the use of which it is now possible to refine these ores at a profit.


Mr. BROWN:: Would the hon. member suggest that we cancel the bounty on copper rods?


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I said all I wanted to say
when I was on my feet; I do not propose to receive any suggestions from my hon. friend.


James Charles Brady: I would like to direct just
one word to the Minister of Agriculture. The experimental farm for central and northern British Columbia which has been advocated by the hon. member for Victoria is really something which should appeal to the house at this time when the question of immigration is so much discussed and when solutions are being sought for the difficulties which have arisen in agriculture and dairying throughout Canada. Central and northern British Columbia,

as you all know, is an immense empire in itself, and never has had the privileges or the opportunities which other more fortunate parts of British Columbia have enjoyed in the matter of experimental farms. If the government really believe in the efficacy of experimental farms, which I believe they do, and knowing as they do the impetus given all branches of agriculture by the establishment of these farms, surely they should extend that system to northern and central British Columbia. The people of that great area have wonderful opportunities but they lack the scientific requirements which are essential in these modern days. I do not think anyone should have to direct the attention of the government to a matter of such importance. The Irish Free State

and I do not know why I bring this up, except that I read it lately- are adopting a splendid, up-to-date and progressive agricultural policy. Denmark is doing the same 'thing, realizing that the one way to keep their young men on the farms is to give 'them that scientific training and education in agricultural and dairying activities which is really essential. Therefore I trust that this government will seriously consider the advisability of adding to their existing experimental farms throughout Canada one more farm in this wonderful area, which will prove of great benefit in developing agricultural and dairying activities in a part of British Columbia admirably adapted for these industries.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
Minister of Public Works explain the items of this expenditure? What is it all about?


John Campbell Elliott: As my hon. friend can see from the estimates, a similar amount was voted last year. This is required for replacements, improvements, alterations, repairs and so on in connection with the several experimental farms and stations throughout the Dominion, requested by the Deputy Minister of the Department of Agriculture in a letter dated November 30, 1927.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does this
include any new buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: I see nothing here which
leads me to believe that it includes new buildings.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the
minister give me the amount which will be expended on each farm?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes:	Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, $38,030; branch farms, $61,970. Those are the only two items.


William Alves Boys: The other night when these
estimates were under consideration I asked

Supply-Public Works
the minister if he could supply a list of the applications for public buildings throughout Canada, and he was kind enough to say that he could. To-night that list has been handed to me; I have it here, and I observe that the total number of buildings requested is 150, with a total estimated cost of $12,700,000. I understand that this list shows all the applications which have been under consideration, but which up to the present have not been granted by the department; they are still pending, but will not be granted this year.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say that; it
may be that some will be included in the supplementary estimates.


William Alves Boys: Then I will say that most of
them will not be granted this year, and at all events the supplementaries will show which of these items are taken care of.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps if my hon. friend would permit me, we might refer back to the item which was allowed to stand until this information was furnished.


William Alves Boys: After we get through with this resolution?


John Campbell Elliott: Whatever meets the convenience of my hon. friend.


William Alves Boys: I would like to say what I have in mind first. I want to make some remarks with regard to this matter, but I am not in a position to do so to-night; I wish first to obtain some further information.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend may not
think that that list was prepared very hurriedly, but it was. In view of the returns in various branches which we have found it necessary to prepare, in the last couple of days, to say nothing of the preparation of the supplementary estimates, we perhaps have not been able to give it the necessary time. I have not looked over it very carefully myself, but that is tentatively a list that I would say is fairly accurate.


William Alves Boys: You might put "E. & ,O.E."
on the bottom of it, and make it all right. I notice that there are some items which are not even carried out. I was not after an accurate list; I simply wanted a general statement which would give some indication of the situation. It is fairly long, and I am quite sure it would be interesting to many members in the house. I suppose it would take twenty or thirty minutes to read it, and if there is no objection I would ask that I might hand it in and let .it be printed. If we do that we save the time of the committee, and the information would then appear in Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: That is quite agreeable
to me, but I should like to have the opportunity of going over it again before it is printed. I thought my hon. friend would want to refer to it to-night while the estimates were under consideration. I should like to go over it with my hon. friend before that is done.


William Alves Boys: Perhaps at this juncture I
had better hand it back to the minister to give him an opportunity of checking it.


John Campbell Elliott: If the hon. member has
any remarks to make I should be glad to have them now.


William Alves Boys: I did not expect to get the
list to-night, and I have not the information that I would need to make the remarks. I would prefer to give it back, and have it checked over and corrected. Then, at a later date I can read it if necessary, or have it put on Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend can keep
it for his own purposes, and I will use the copy.


John Anderson Fraser: Let me clear up one question. I notice there is an item in this list for the city of Salmon Arm, covering a building for the forestry branch, Department of the Interior, S6,500. Do I understand from the minister that that is the only item there is for the city of Salmon Arm? I understand that there is a requisition in the department for a public building for general purposes. The idea I gathered in the city of Salmon Arm was that they were going to use the one building for postal, customs and fisheries purposes, as well as for the Department of the Interior.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give you the
details, but the amount of $6,500 cannot be intended to cover any other service of any great extent.


John Anderson Fraser: Your interpretation of it
would be that it would only cover the Department of the Interior?


John Campbell Elliott: It would look that way to me.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Flags for Dominion public buildings, $5,000.
George Gibson Coote: Will these be Canadian flags?


John Campbell Elliott: Is my hon. friend serious?
Supply-Public Works


George Gibson Coote: We heard something a year
or two ago about establishing a distinctly Canadian flag. I wonder whether any progress is being made on that, and if we are going to have a Canadian flag.


John Campbell Elliott: The flags referred to here
will be union jacks.


George Gibson Coote: Is the government considering the adoption of a new Canadian flag?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Installation of fuel saving devices, $10,000.
Thomas Cantley: What type of fuel-saving devices are these, and where are they to be installed?


John Campbell Elliott: It is what is called the
Burnhall fuel-saving device. It is a Canadian product, made in the town of Peterborough. I am advised by the officials of the department, who have made a study of it, that it has given good satisfaction, and has made a very substantial saving. I have a statement here which might be of interest to the house, made by, I think, a former member of this house for the county of Wentworth. This letter was written on March 10, 1924, and is in the way of a testimonial. It rather appealed to the department, because I see that they have it here in the data that has been supplied to me. It reads as follows:
I have your bill for the two Burnhall fuel savers, and enclose herewith cheque for the amount.
These have given us the utmost satisfaction. Our furnace man, who is a very reliable young man, assures us that there is a saving of approximately 25 per cent in the amount of coal used and we are satisfied that, with whatever amount of coal he uses, the house is kept at from three to five degrees warmer. He tells us that the thermometer on the furnace shows continually from ten to fifteen degrees greater heat in the water.
I note that you guarantee this device for ten years, and that it will never be too much trouble for your engineer to call and explain anything, or to fix anything that might by any chance go wrong, which seems impossible, as the device is very simple.
That letter was signed by Mr. E. D. Smith, of Winona. I think it is a good device and a good investment.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister tell
us what kind of fuel this device bums?


John Campbell Elliott: Ordinary soft coal.


Thomas Cantley: Soft coal screenings?


John Campbell Elliott: Lump coal.


Thomas Cantley: At what points are you
going to install it?


John Campbell Elliott: I could give you, in a
general way, the buildings in which we have installed it for a number of years. In 1922-23 we installed it at Barrie, Belleville, Brockville, Cobourg, Guelph, Lakefield, Lindsay, Milverton, Newmarket, and several other places. In
1923-	24 we installed it at Montreal, a number of buildings in Ottawa, Aylmer, Amherstburg, Aurora, Bracebridge, Bowmanville, Carleton Place, Chatham, Deseronto, and so on. In
1924-	25, at Hull, Ottawa experimental farm, in a number of buildings, St. Catharines, Niagara Falls, Bridgeburg, Dundas, Paris, Burford, Simcoe, Elmira, Elora, and so on.


Thomas Cantley: I understand from the
minister that it is purely a device for heating buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: Is it an American or a
Canadian invention?


John Campbell Elliott: Canadian.


William Garland McQuarrie: Has the minister made any experiments in connection with smokeconsuming devices? This city of Ottawa is a very dirty city so far as the atmosphere is concerned, and it would seem advisable, when we are talking about the beautification of the city, that the government, with all the buildings that it has here, should endeavour to do something in the way of taking care of the smoke from the various chimneys. Is anything being done along that line?


John Campbell Elliott: We have what are known as automatic stokers in a number of our largest buildings. They are smoke consumers, more or less; that is, they eliminate a good deal of the smoke.


Edward Joseph Garland: I may be able to offer to the Minister of Public Works a suggestion that will enable him to get rid of the smoke nuisance of which my hon. friend speaks. If the government would take advantage of the excellent rate on coal from Alberta to Ottawa and use that coal in their public buildings, they would have very little, if any, smoke or soot. They would also be doing a very patriotic act in that they would be helping to get a market for Alberta coal definitely established, at least in Ottawa.


Thomas Cantley: I can give the minister
a very much better suggestion, namely, that he should use Nova Scotia coke and then he would have no smoke at all.

Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
will be glad to hear that we are using it.


Thomas Cantley: I hope the minister will extend the use of it.


Robert Gardiner: What is the cost of
these fuel savers?
Mr, ELLIOTT:	They vary according to
the size of the building. The prices generally are as follows:
Barrie	 $342
Belleville	 346
Brockville	 489
Lindsay	 575
Milverton	 375
Peterborough	 285
Trenton	 293


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings generally, $45,000.
John Evans: Before six o'clock I was
promised an opportunity under this item of bringing before the minister the question of the urgency of a public building in the town of Biggar. I was assured last year that it would have very sympathetic consideration and the Postmaster General went so far as to get a report. I was in hopes that this year, owing to the urgency of the case, an item for the erection of this building would be included in the estimates. A post office official in Saskatoon assured me that there was no other place he knew of where there was such urgency as in Biggar for the erection of a public building. Biggar is a growing town with a population now of nearly 3,000, and it is almost impossible to rent a suitable building. It is a railway centre with the two main lines of the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National and also lines running north and south. It is a divisional point and the railways have established repair shops there. Comparing the revenue from this office with the revenues of other places where the government have considered it necessary to make appropriations for the erection of public buildings, I find the figures are as follows: Town	Revenue
Tisdale	 $6,957
Durham	 5,683
Rockland	 2,412
Wainwright	 5,957
The post office alone at Biggar has a revenue of nearly $9,000. This shows the importance of the place. It commands a wide district.


John Campbell Elliott: What has been the increase in population, say in the last ten years, or has there been any?


John Evans: I do not know what the increase has been, but the population at present is upwards of 2,800. I want to impress upon the minister who, I believe, knows something of the district himself-


John Campbell Elliott: I know it well.


John Evans: -that it is impossible to
rent a suitable building. There is not room even for the boxes that are needed and the fire hazard is tremendous. I hope the government will see fit to increase the supplementary estimates sufficiently to include an item for a public building in Biggar because it is an urgent case.


Harry Bernard Short: The other day when the
minister was putting through his items for New Brunswick a considerable discussion took place and the matter was left over. He said that we could discuss public buildings generally when this item came up. You can talk all day about public buildings in the- west, in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, British Columbia


John Campbell Elliott: May I interrupt my hon.
friend for a moment? He is referring to St. Stephen?


Harry Bernard Short: Yes, but the minister said
that when this item came up we could discuss public buildings generally; that we could take in the whole country.


John Campbell Elliott: Unfortunately my hon.
friends did not accept the suggestion and the item was left over. I suggest that we revert to it.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister will not revert to the New Brunswick item to-night because there are not many members from that province present.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will defer his discussion.


Harry Bernard Short: The other day the minister
stated that when this item came up we could discuss public buildings generally. The minister has made appropriations very generously for the west and I want to call his attention to the fact that in Nova Scotia, outside of the city of Halifax, only $14,500 is appropriated for public buildings. Does he think that is a fair proportion to be allotted for public buildings in Nova Scotia? Why is it that Ontario, Quebec and particularly Saskatchewan have been so liberally looked after in the way of public buildings and Nova Scotia completely neglected? A public
Supply-Public Works

building is urgently required in Bridgetown in the constituency which I have the honour to represent. This matter was brought to the minister's attention last year; in fact, it has been brought to his attention since 1925. They evidently thought the matter was urgent then because a site was purchased for that building. The Liberal candidate in 1925 and 1926 promised that if he was elected a public building would be erected there. I want to know what the policy of the government is? Are they going to erect buildings only in those constituencies that are represented by their Liberal friends?


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: Is that the policy-to the
victor belong the spoils? I want to tell my hon. friend that that day has gone by. People are not living in the past. We on this side of the house are just as much entitled to appropriations as my hon. friends opposite are and we are going to get them; otherwise we are going to hold up some of these other items or at least criticize them. I should like to know what the disposition of the minister is with respect to the Bridgetown post office. The minister's predecessor, the present Minister of Health (Mr. King), when Minister of Public Works, made the statement when his estimates were before the committee that he had visited Bridgetown and that the post office there was a perfect disgrace, and so it is. The postal revenue i3 $6,600, and the customs revenue $10,800. We have not a public building of any kind. It is nothing but a shack, practically, that the post office is in; it is a disgrace to the community. The government is making liberal appropriations for other parts of the country, and I do hope that the minister will consider the application from Bridgetown and that an item will be placed in the supplementary estimates to provide for a public building there.


John Campbell Elliott: I see it is in the list that we have, a public building at an estimated cost of $36,000.


Harry Bernard Short: Will an item for that amount be included in the supplementaries?


John Campbell Elliott: I would have to consult
the treasury board and council.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Has the minister in that list an application for a post office in Oxford, in the county of Cumberland, Nova Scotia?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but not for quite such a good post office. The estimated cost is $35,000.


Robert Knowlton Smith: That is good enough if you will give us the building.


John Evans: Has the minister received
representations from the town of Biggar? I think he is impressed with the urgency of the case, and I should like to know if an item will be included in the supplementary estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I see that a public building for Biggar is included in the list, at an estimated cost of $30,000. I have spent a good deal of time in that district and know the town of Biggar well. I do not think it is one' of those towns that are growing rapidly, but as I recollect the figures it has a fairly healthy growth. Some time ago I went over some of the requests that had been made. I think the board of trade has sent in a request with regard to Biggar within the last six months, and I can assure my hon. friend that it will not be forgotten.


Harry Bernard Short: I understand that the list which the minister has compiled contains about 150 applications.
M'r. ELLIOTT: To be accurate, 154.


Harry Bernard Short: And that the total cost is $12,700,000. I suggest to the minister, in view of the spending government that we have and the generous treatment that is being accorded to Ottawa

I see items here for Ottawa totalling about $8,000',000-the minister might well appropriate S12,700,000 for public buildings that are urgently needed for these 154 places all over the country, and then everybody would be happy.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course there are a lot more than 150 places in the Dominion.


Harry Bernard Short: Well, then next year you would have another list of 150.


John Campbell Elliott: That is just the point I was going to make.


William Thomas Lucas: Is Camrose on that list?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Thomas Lucas: What is the estimated cost?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is in cold storage.


John Campbell Elliott: It is a cold locality.


William Thomas Lucas: No, quite the contrary. The very name indicates that it is the rose garden of the west.


Mr.   MacBONALD@Cape Breton: Has the minister the town of New Waterford on that list?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, there is no doubt
about that.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Did the minister say he was going to do something for New Waterford? Last year two delegations came up here from that town, and they had the assistance of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. New Waterford is an incorporated town of from eight to ten thousand people, with a town council and board of trade, and all civic improvements, such as sidewalks, sewers and so forth, and five or six large schools. The post office is only about twelve by twenty, and it is not even on the front street, but is in the back part of the building and is entirely too small for the business that is done there. There is a postal revenue of about $6,000 and a customs revenue of about the same amount. Urgent representatipns have been made to the minister in this regard, and I would ask if there is any possibility of the government considering the application favourably and of an item being included in the supplementary estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not hold out a great deal of hope to my hon. friend for an item in the Supplementary estimates. So far as my information goes, I cannot see that New Waterford is in any more fortunate position than a great many other places on this list, and from what I know of the gentlemen that I have to get past with the supplementary estimates, I would not think that there will be a large list.


Finlay MacDonald: With all deference to the minister, I think the house should be given some idea of the system upon which these grants are made. Last year we had a vote of $16,000 for a post office at Kensington, and this year there have been three or four votes of from $20,000 to $30,000 for small towns in the province of Quebec that are perhaps only one-fifth the size of New Waterford. There must be some method by which the minister can be approached, and I was wondering whether it was the physical size of the members who represent these constituencies. I see that my hon. friend from Melfort got a vote through, also the hon. member for Princeton, who is a very large man. Are physical threats necessary to get a vote?


John Campbell Elliott: If size or good looks have anything to do with it, my hon. friend will stand an excellent chance.


Finlay MacDonald: That is very pleasant indeed, but I would rather take home some assurance that the minister will consider favourably the application of New Waterford.


George Reginald Geary: What are the details of the $45,000?


John Campbell Elliott: This' vote is required for items of expenditure which have to be met every year in connection with public buildings controlled by the Dominion government, together with such special outlays for works as cannot be charged against any other of the general appropriations made by parliament for prospective improvements in the several provinces.


Thomas Cantley: I would like to refer again to the question of public buildings in Nova Scotia. The hon. member for Digfoy-An-napolis in referring to the vote for Nova Scotia was over generous. The total amount for Nova Scotia, as given on page 31 of the estimates, outside of the government buildings in Halifax, is $7,500. In the list which the minister was good enough to give to my hon. friend, the total number of buildings is ten, and the total estimated cost, $127,000- a mere bagatelle as compared with votes for public buildings in many other sections of the country. To refresh the minister's memory in regard to the alterations and repairs to the public building in New Glasgow, let me say that we have a postal revenue of practically $3,000 a month or $36,000 a year. We have customs and excise of about a quarter of a million dollars a year. That building is certainly nearly fifty years old. The minister is thoroughly familiar with the whole situation. Will he be good enough to tell me what he is going to do about it?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing has been decided for this year.


Thomas Cantley: That is not very satisfactory. We went over this whole question last year. I think the minister made me a promise with regard to it at that time. Is he disposed to fulfil his undertaking?


John Campbell Elliott: I will certainly fulfil anything I said to my hon. friend or to anybody else. But I am not going to put myself in the position-of having him come back and say that I made him a promise and did not keep it. He got pretty close to that last year-


Thomas Cantley: Yes, he did.


John Campbell Elliott: -and is just bordering on it again. I am as near it as I intend to be at the present time.


Thomas Cantley: Instead of just bordering on it again the minister is sliding away from it again.

Supply

Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: No, I am quite as near it as I ever was with my hon. friend.


Thomas Cantley: He is flirting with it.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I never do that.


Thomas Cantley: Possibly the minister
might be better off if he had done a little flirting and then decided on the date. But I should like to get an assurance that he is going to make the alterations in that building that he knows, that ihis deputy knows, and that the postal department knows are absolutely necessary and have been for some years. I am quite sure he will admit that he has in his department letters from the postal department calling attention to the conditions and stating that they are disgraceful, and that in the public interest the building ought to be remodelled. A year ago the plans for the alterations and addition to the building were revised and the cost very materially reduced, and I understood from him last session that this year the matter would be attended to. Now I ask him to carry out what I understood to be a virtual promise in that connection. I want some assurance.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend is quite sincere when he says he wants some assurance.


Thomas Cantley: "Sincere" does not
measure up the situation at all. I am in earnest, I want it, and I expect him to give it to me.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite admit he has been in earnest; hle has been any time he spoke to me about it. And the other 1491 gentlemen who have asked for the balance of this list are also in earnest. There is no doubt about their sincerity or mine, but what will be done this year or next year is more than I can promise, because if I promise my hon. friend definitely-


Thomas Cantley: Your troubles would end right away.


John Campbell Elliott: They would! My good friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) would think that he was entitled to a promise, and he would be if my hon. friend in this quarter was, and knowing something of human nature I have not any doubt that every hon. gentleman representing a riding mentioned in this list-which I was unfortunate enough to give to my genial friend from North Simcoe- would want similar assurances.


Thomas Cantley: I am very sorry the minister makes any reflection on my sincerity or his own.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend permit me? I disclaim making any reflection whatever on my hon. friend's sincerity in any respect, and especially in respect to this particular public building. No man ever was more sincere.


Thomas Cantley: Thank you.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no doubt about that. Perhaps my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Brady) is in the same class. But I have no doubt about the sincerity of any hon. gentlemen who have asked for buildings, and I hope they will give me credit for equal sincerity in connection with the matter.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, I am not asking for a building. All I am asking for is to have a patch put on a building. The matter of sincerity was raised by the minister. He disclaims referring to my sincerity. I hope he did not refer to his own.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Mr. SINCLAIR (North Wellington):: I
wish to call the attention of the minister to the flag over the post office at Harriston, my home town. The last time I was home it was at half mast and all in ribbons. I now ask him to send along a flag for the building. This is the first time this session that I have asked him for anything.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Send the flag along.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: While we are on this item I wish to refer to one or two matters in connection with these votes, some of which have been passed. In considering the generosity, I might say the enormity of many of the votes which have been passed, I think we in the eastern end of the Dominion must conolude that we are getting really the pin point, not the pinhead. In anything I say I do not wish to create a feeling of jealousy between provinces and districts, but let me call the attention of the committee to the fact that during the last two or three days I find with respect to Ottawa that instead of nearly five million dollars having been voted, as was stated a few days ago, the total is ten million dollars, and this does not include several small items which might reasonably come under that head. I take vote 127, and there I find for Ottawa a total of $3,220,000 odd.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will find that vote 127 in the aggregate is only $1,200,-940-a great difference.

Supply-Public Works


William Anderson Black: I should have said $382,000. Then I take vote 132, and I estimate the proportion of that applicable to Ottawa is $96,000-a third of the whole.


John Campbell Elliott: It is only $38,000.


William Anderson Black: Very well, we will cut that down, but I do not know how you arrive at your figure. I take it that the experimental farm-


John Campbell Elliott: That is the part of the
experimental farm vote that will foe spent in Ottawa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Where is the $60,000 being spent?


John Campbell Elliott: On branch farms outside of Ottawa.


William Anderson Black: Then I go on to 133 and I find in the first dozen items, down to and including telephone service, the sum of $1,854,500 expended in Ottawa. That does not include rentals, which total $1,565,000, over $700,000 of which is spent in Ottawa. I am not estimating at all the salaries of caretakers and all that sort of thing. With the exception of the last two, a certain proportion of all these items must be fairly chargeable to the vote for Ottawa, but I am not including any of them. Then I come to another item, 121, $1,380,000 for Ottawa alone. Item 145 is a small item, it is true, $14,600; and as regards item 144, there is a dredge at work in the canal digging out what was put in in the winter time.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not under public works.


William Anderson Black: In item 150 we find, for the National Gallery of Canada, $135,000, and for the national monument on Connaught place $35,000. During the hot weather in the summer it will be pretty nice walking around on the hot tar looking at that monument, instead of walking on a green plot, won't it? Then we come to the $3,000,000 to the federal improvement commission; and there is $200,000 annually to that organization. For the New Edinburgh mills there is the sum of $525,000 and $100,000 for repairs. Under item 232, observatories at Ottawa, we have an expenditure of $75,000 as against $59,000 last year. So that adding all these figures together, you have practically $9,000,000. That does not include any expenditure in connection with the Rideau canal; I could not locate what had been allocated to that. I understand, further, that there is an expenditure of $4,000,000 in con-56103-1851
nection with the Chateau Laurier. That means, over $13,000,000 spent in Ottawa by this government. But what do we find in regard to Nova Scotia? In the estimates little Nova Scotia gets, for buildings, $84,500, while you are expending'$13,000,000 in Ottawa. What justice is there in such a condition of things as that? What justification is there for it? I will not refer to national parks. Suffice it to say that out of $1,300,000 odd in the estimates for national parks we had an expenditure last year or the year before in What might be called a national park, inasmuch as it is owned by the Dominion, of $1,800, and a small expenditure in Annapolis for a fortification. That perhaps does not come under this vote. But this is the way that we in the east have been treated, not only by this government but by previous governments as well. When we apply for a small grant it is not given us.
I must protest most vigorously against the neglect shown the maritime provinces and particularly Nova Scotia in relation to these votes from year to year. We are contributing our full quota and we are not getting half of what we pay. I may be told by some hon. gentlemen, "Look at your breakwaters, wharves and so on". But my reply would be: Are there none in Quebec and Ontario and in the Pacific province of British Columbia and elsewhere throughout the Dominion? Look at the estimates and you will find $2,000,000 for breakwaters in Quebec, while we in Nova Scotia receive less than $500,000, a quarter of what they get in Quebec. I could spend an hour referring to these discrepancies which appear in this blue book, the official publication of the government, but I have said enough to call the attention of the government to the injustice and I hope that some consideration will be given us in Nova Scotia, if not in the supplementary estimates then in another year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: We have only a minute or two left but perhaps we might consider Saskatoon, in regard to which I gave an hon. member a memorandum with reference to the public building site there. We might clear that up.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let that stand.


John Campbell Elliott: Very well; I do not want to insist. The same applies to St. Stephen. The hon. member is here who asked for information as to why a contract was not let.
Progress reported.
Private Bills


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 292, for the relief of Edward Aranha.

Mr. McGregor.
Bill No. 293, for the relief of Mildred Jarvis Aspinall.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 294, for the relief of William Bell. -Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park).
Bill No. 295, for the relief of Lillias Agnes Cressman.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 296, for the relief of Jane Glass. -Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 297, for the relief of Laura May Hinscliffe.-Mr. Edwards (Waterloo South).
Bill No. 298, for the relief of William Hogg. -Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 299, for the relief of Helen Horn. -Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 300, for the relief of Jessie McPherson.-Mr. Hoelcen.
Bill No. 301, for the relief of Sylvia Orten-berg.-Mr. Hepburn.
Bill No. 302, for the relief of-Thomas Joseph Warmington.-Mr. Geary.
On division.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 11, 1928