1929-04-24

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hay.
On motion of Mr. F. W. Hay (North Perth) the sixth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce was concurred in.

Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I desire to lay on the table the return with regard to the number of permanent servants of the male sex employed in full time occupations and receiving less than $100 per month, which was referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer).



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many different departments of the government support the establishment and equipment of dredging services?
2.	What is the cost of same in each department?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Three.
2.	Department of Marine and Fisheries, Marine branch-1927-28. Ship channel, staff salaries, $27,643; dredging-fleet, wages, $557,829.61; dredging-fleet, operating expenses and repairs, $1,336,429.95; maintenance and operation, Sorel shipyard, $95,561.83. Department of Railways and Canals:
Department of Railways and Canals maintains dredging services in connection with the operation of canals and the development of Fort Churchill harbour. Approximate cost of dredging equipment on canals, $278,400; approximate annual cost of operation of dredging plant on canals, $68,963; cost of dredging equipment at Fort Churchill, $1,120,306; cost of operation of Churchill dredging equipment not ascertainable until close of season's operations.
Department of Public Works:


$1,225,658.26 (1928-1929). ARMED BOATS ON GREAT LAKES
Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: 1.	Is the government aware that a gun boat from the United States lately approached the Canadian shore of one of the great lakes?
2.	Is there any agreement between the present government and the government of the United States as to permission for use of armed boats on the great lakes?
3.	Does the government know how many armed boats are now or have been employed by the United States on the great lakes since the war of 1812-15?
4.	Are any of these armed boats employed by the United States for training purposes?
5.	Has the government of Canada any armed boats on the great lakes?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	No information.
2.	Rush-Bagot agreement.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes.
5.	No.


CONSTRUCTION WORK AT BEDFORD BASIN
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Are any sums of money payable to A. S. McMillan and C. A. MacNearney in respect to construction work at Bedford basin in the county of Halifax, during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928, and in respect to which a payment of $100,000 appears at page Q-70, volume 2, Auditor General's report, 1928?
2.	If so, what is the total amount payable to, or claimed by the contractor in addition to the sum already named?
3.	How much of such amount, if any, is claimed as extras and how much as balance due under the original contract price?
Questions


Mr. RALSTON:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by 1.
3.	Answered by 1.


DISTILLERY EXPORT TRADE
Mr. STEVENS:: What amount of duty was received from the duty paid export trade of the distilleries of Canada during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1929?


Mr. EULER:: 87,807,679.58.


IMMIGRATION INVESTIGATING OFFICERS
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	Have appointments been made by the Civil Service Commission as a result of a recent examination for immigration investigating officers, grade 1 (female) ?
2.	Are the persons selected graduates of standard Canadian hospitals? If not, from what hospitals have they been graduated?
3.	How many of those selected were holding positions in the Immigration department?
4.	Was special consideration given to nurses who had served overseas during the Great War, and what special consideration was given?
5.	Were the questions for examination prepared by someone holding a position in the Immigration department; did the same person correct the answers, and was such person a graduate of a standard Canadian hospital?
6.	How many investigating officers were selected ?
7.	What are the duties pertaining to the office, and what is the remuneration given per year?


Mr. RJINFRET:: 1.	No. The competition has not yet been completed.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.
4.	The usual preference will be given as authorized by section 29 sub-section 4 of the Civil Service Act.
5.	The examination papers were prepared and examined by an officer of the examination branch of the Civil Service Commission in collaboration with an officer of the Department of Immigration and Colonization. Neither is a graduate of a standard Canadian hospital.
6.	Answered by No. 1.
7.	(a) Under direction to conduct investigations relating to the satisfactory settlement, in Canada, of women from the British Isles and other countries who enter Canada to take up domestic employment; to deal with difficulties in connection with such settlement; to adjust complaints; to prepare reports; handle office work and correspondence; and to perform other related work as required. Ob) $1,500-41,800 per annum. Annual increase, $60.


SERVICES OF P. MONETTE
Mr. FRASER:: What is the detail of the services rendered by P. Monette, Montreal, $11,215.82, vote 62, Health department, Auditor General's report, 1927-8, page GG-6?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: These are legal services on account of prosecutions under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act. All accounts rendered by P. Monette were taxed by the Justice department before payment.


SOLDIERS' ADVISER AT CALGARY
Mr. COOTE:: 1.	What is the nature of service rendered by the soldiers' adviser at Calgary?
2.	Does he give his full time to this work?
3.	What remuneration does he receive?
4.	What amount, if any, is allowed him for rent of office?
5.	What amount, df any, is allowed him for stenographic assistance?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	Generally to advise and assist ex-members of the forces in matters pertaining to reestablishment, treatment and pension, and to perform such other duties as may be prescribed by the minister.
2.	His employment calls for part time only.
3.	$2,400.
4.	There is no allowance for office rent, as this is presumed to be included in the salary paid.
5.	$480 per annum.


PENSIONS ARISING FROM GREAT WAR
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: What was the total number of pensions arising from the Great War 1914-18, paid in each of the nine provinces for the year ending: (a) 31st December, 1927; (b) 31st December, 1928?


John Warwick King: Province	At 31-12-27	At 31-12-28Quebec	. 5,118	5,302Nova Scotia and P.E.I..	. 3,872	4,290Ontario.. 	. 21.990	23,465Manitoba	. 6,104	6,535Saskatchewan	. 3.68S	3,836Alberta	. 4,714	4,019British Columbia	. 7,892	8,304New Brunswick	. 2,002	2,189The statistics compiled	55,380 58,940 in this office show	these two provinces as combined.	
Questions


CHEQUES FOR PENSIONS
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	How many cheques for pensions arising from the Great War 1914-18 were mailed by the department during the month of February, 1929?
2.	How many cheques for pensions arising from the Great War 1914-18 were mailed to addresses in Canada during the month of February, 1929?
3. How many cheques for pensions arising from the Great War 1914-18 were mailed to addresses in the United States during the month of February, 1929?
4. How many cheques for pensions arising from the Great War 1914-18 were mailed to countries other than Canada and the United States during the month of February, 1929?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: 1.	74,643.
2.	59,881.
3.	6,633.
4.	8,129.


FISH AND GAME WARDENS
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: 1.	What are the names of the fish and game wardens in the province of Prince Edward Island ?
2.	What territory do they look after, and how much salary is paid to each respectively?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1 and 2. There are no employees that are so-called. The attached list shows the special fishery guardians that were employed during 1928-29.
The following is a List of the Persons employed as Fishery Guardians in the Province of Prince Edward
Island during the 1928-29 Season
Fishery Guardians-Queens County
Name and Address
Position
District
Total
Amount
paid

George Brown, New Glasgow	
Augustine Crane, Vernon	
Earl Henry, Stanley Bridge	
Bruce McCormack, Mount Stewart Replaced by
Geo. R. Clark, Mount Stewart....
John Hughes, Clarktown	
A. Jenkins, Pownal	
R. A. McDonald, Pisquid	
A. F. McNeill, Long Creek	
J. F. Murphy, Vernon Bridge	
Temple Murphy, French Village...
D. P. O'Keefe, Vernon River	
Joseph Weir, Scotchport	
Fishery Guardian
ti	it
|	tt	it
ti	it
New Glasgow-Trib. to Rustico Bay..
Vernon, Seal and Orwell rivers	
New London bay and vicinity	
East river	
East river	
Pisquid river west tributary to East
river	
Pownal bay	
Mount Stewart-head of East river____
West river and tributaries	
Vernon, Seal and Orwell rivers	
East river and tributaries	
O'Keefe's lake	
'Scotchport and Mills creeks	
45 00 90 00 20 00 44 04
44 05
20 00 45 00 20 00 90 00 60 00 213 00 60 00 15 00
W. F. Blanchard, Bloomfield E. Bradshaw, Freetown	
Bruce Burns, Freetown	
Thos. Croken, Kinkora	
S.	Crossman, Bedeque	
Levi Dyrnent, Tyne Valley..
W. Unman, Enmore River_____
R. Johnston, Kinkorh	
Jonah Lewis, Freetown	
Fred Luxton, Coleman	
G. H. Mills, Mills Point...
J. J. 1'eters, Duvar	
P. M. Tucker, Summerside..
N. Bulger, Glenwood	
Fishery Guardians-Prince County
Fishery Guardian	
	Dunk R. from Dunk R. bridge to Roger's mill	 Dunk R. from Smith's farm-McIvor's
it it	Dunk R. from Dunk R. bridge to
a ti	
a it	Head of Tyne valley and Mill creek...
it it	Dunk R. from Smith's farm-McIvor's
a ti	Dunk R. from Wall's bridge-Monaghan
it u	
it it	
a a	
a a	Dunk R. from Ross Corner Byrnes
a a	
	
45 00
15 00
15 00
15 00 20 00 20 00 50 00
15 00
15 00 100 00 20 00 30 00
15 00 151 61
Questions

Fishery Guardians-Kings County
Name and Address	Position	District	Total Amount paid 1928-1929Richard Betts, Bangor	Fishery Guardian Ct U u u	Morell R. from Dan Grant's to Red bridge	$ 45 00 45 00 45 00 45 00 90 00M. Cullen, Morell	Morell R. from Red bridge to mouth of river	A. E. James, Midgell	
P. A. McDonald, Peakes Road	 Chas. Steele, Gaspereaux			Morell river between Dan Grants' and Laird's mill		
		Gaspereaux, St. Mary's bay and Murray harbour


STEAMSHIP LAKEVIEW
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: 1.	What officers does the Department of Marine require the steamship Lakeview, a passenger boat plying between Sydney and Baddeck and other ports, to have?
2.	What kind of certificates are required of each one of such officers?
3.	What certificates did such officers hold in the years 1926, 1927, and 1928?
4.	What are the requirements for life saving equipment on this boat?
5.	W'hat life equipment did this boat have in 1926, 1927 and 1928?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	The Canada Shipping Act requires the steamer Lakeview to have both a properly-certificated master and engineer.
2.	Master: Certificate as master passenger coasting; engineer: certificate as second class engineer.
3.	1926: Master: certificate No. 8409. Master passenger steamer coasting. Engineer: certificate No. 10115. Second class engineer.
1927: Master: certificate No. 9658. Master passenger tugboat coasting. Engineer: certificate No. 10376. Second class engineer.
1928: Master: certificate No. 9658. Master passenger tugboat coasting. Engineer: certificate No. 10376. Second class engineer.
4.	The Lakeview on this route carries a crew of ten and is certificated to carry nineteen passengers. She requires two lifeboats aggregating at least 300 cubic feet capacity, or lifeboats for total number of persons carried, passengers and crew, minimum size of lifeboat 125 cubic feet.
One lifejacket for each person on board.
Four lifebuoys.
5.	1926: Two lifeboats aggregating 306 cubic feet; 89 lifejackets; 4 lifebuoys.
1927: Two lifeboats aggregating 306 cubic feet; 30 lifejackets; 4 lifebuoys.
1928: Two lifeboats aggregating 306 cubic feet; 40 lifejackets; 4 lifebuoys.


COLLECTION OP CUSTOMS AND EXCISE TAXES
Mr. ODETTE:: What steps have been taken to effect collection of the amounts mentioned in the report of the royal commission on customs and excise stated to be owing the Department of National Revenue ?


William Daum Euler: Amount collected	
Amount in Litigation:
Brewers and distillers	
Guarantee companies re bonds on liquor
shipments	
Other cases	
Payments arranged' for	
Amount owing by companies in liquidation or having no apparent assets (including four cases where judgment obtained by
default)	
Amount being collected through ordinary channels

It will be noted the total amount remaining unpaid is $7,336,249.47 in place of $7114492.33 as presented in a return dated 16th April, 1929. Two or three small amounts were omitted in the amount shown on the above mentioned return and an amended return -being presented accordingly.

Questions


AUSTIN PETERSON
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Has Austin Peterson, of Lockeport, in the county of Shelbourne, 'been employed as a preventive officer of the Customs department at any time within the past two years?
2.	Is he in such employ at the present time?
3.	If so. is he a whole or part time officer?
4.	What salary does he receive, and how much did he receive during the calendar year 1928 (a) as salary; (b) expenses?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Whole time.
4.	Present salary 81,320 per annum; (a) $1,260; (b) $20.


MRS. MART ELLEN SMITH
Mr. SINCLAIR (North Wellington):: Has Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith been appointed to represent in any capacity the Dominion of Canada or the Canadian government at Geneva at a meeting of the League of Nations, or the council or any committee thereof?


Mr. HEENAN:: Mrs. Mary Ellen Smith has been appointed as one of the delegates to represent the government of Canada at
the twelfth session of the international labour conference (League of Nations) to be held in Geneva, Switzerland, commencing May 30th, 1929.


IMPORTATION OF BUTTER, MILK AND EGGS
Mr. SENN:: 1.	How- many pounds of butter were imported
into Canada each month between January 1, 1928. and March 31, 1929; from:	(a) New
Zealand: (b) United States; (c) British Isles?
2.	How many pounds of milk have been produced in Canada during each fiscal year from 1923 to 1928, inclusive?
3.	How many dozen eggs were imported into Canada each year from 1925 to 1928, inclusive, and for each month of 1929 to date; from: (a) United States; (b) China; (c) other sources?


Mr. MALCOLM:: See table.
Estimated production of Milk in Canada, Calendar Years 1923 to 1928, inclusive-
Pounds
1923	Not available
1924		 12,318,538,000
1925		 12,651,308,000
1926		 13,407,340,000
1927		 13,060,242,000
1928	Not available
1. Canada's imports of Butter from (a) New Zealand; (b) United States; (c) United Kingdom. (By months-January 1, 1928, to March 31, 1929)
Months	(a) New Zealand	(b) United States	(c) United Kingdom	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value1928	Pounds	$	Pounds	$	Pounds	$January	3,183,289	1,126,291	2,016	1,071	February	3,052,311	1,097,875	957	463	March	2,676,492	943,895	2,565	1,303	April	1,005,199	340,243	11,041	3,827	May	1,063,408	363,155	6,177	2,856	c e c	2,541June	352,631	117,285	3,334	1,681	July	37,816	12,346	1,376	696	August	192,776	57,013	3,009	1,509	300	90September	348,780	128,993	1,109	570	1,382	486October	769,197	275,340	3,210	1,664	November	1,006,795	354,1S6	1,240	620	December	2,435,947	856,716	2,318	1,110	1929	January	7,660,681	2,710,988	2,065	1,111	February	6,598,476	2,319,566	3,117	1,590	March	3,259,145	1,149,426	8,685	4,240	601,888	225,395
Question as Order for Return
3.	Canada's Imports of Eggs from (1) United States; (b) China; (c) Other Countries. (Calendar Years 1925 to 1928, and January, February and March, 1929)
(a) United States	(b) China	(c) Other Countries	Quantity	Value	Quantity	Value	Quantity	ValueDozen	$	Dozen	s	Dozen	$Eggs in the shell:	Calendar Years-	1925	2,577,400	922,059	79,174	15,501	65,032	20,2201926	3,506,579	1,036,051	2,440	725	51,345	16,7971927	3,171,116	1,382,516	125	35	55,404	21,6131928	932,452	403,740	833	164	63,595	21,101January, 1929	3,626	1,694	333	52	8,104	2,204Februarv, 1929	22,673	8,923	83	12	7,869	2,154March, 1929	593,525	194,844	250	84	5,287	1,425Pounds	$	Pounds	$	Pounds	$Eggs, n.o.p.:	Calendar \ ears-	1925	54,390	15,333	1,342,692	218,118	109,975	17,0581926	263,120	62,206	1,115,659	203,225	397	1831927	728,918	177,862	1,224,927	267,153	71,194	17,8821928	548,700	138,735	1,754,692	426,280	726,341	122,000January,1929	February,1929	36	33	March, 1929	38,746	18,996


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: 1.	Is the Rail and River Coal Company, Cleveland, Ohio, owned by the Canadian National Railways?
2.	Is it operated by said railways? If not, by whom, what are the particulars as to contract, management, etc., under which it is leased or operated ?
3.	How many mines are included in the Rail and River Coal Company property?
4.	Where are same located?
5.	How many men are engaged at the present time by the Rail and River Coal Company?
6.	Is union or non-union labour employed?
7.	What is the capital stock of said company?
8.	What was the total production of coal from these mines in each of the years 1928, 1927, 1926 and 1925?
9.	How much of the output from said company was taken by the Canadian National Railways, and what price was paid peT ton in the years above mentioned?
10.	Where was the balance, if any, sold, and what price was received for it?
11.	What amount does the Canadian National Railways pay annually for interest on bonds, maintenance and other charges in any way connected with said company?
^ 12. Is there a contract between the Canadian National Railways and the Rail and River Coal Company to supply coal to the said railways? If so what are the terms of said contract?
13.	Have the mines of the Rail and River Coal Company been idle during certain periods of the years 1925, 1926. 1927 and 1928? If so, on what dates in each of the said years?

14.	What has been the cost to the Canadian National Railways per month to maintain said mines during the periods of idleness in the past four years?
15.	Has the Canadian National Railways purchased coal from the West Virginia coal fields and elsewhere in the United States during the periods of idleness in the Rail and River Coal Mines? If so, what quantities, where purchased, and at what price per ton?
16.	Did the Canadian National Railways transfer their orders for coal from the Rail and River Coal Company at certain periods in the past four years when union labour was engaged by said company, to non-union fields in the United States? If so, when and for what qua ntities?
17.	What has been the cost per year in 1928. 1927. 1926 and 1925 to the Canadian National Railways to keep the Rail and River Coal Company operating? State particulars.
18.	What is the policy of the Canadian National Railways with regard to its coal areas in the United States?
19.	How much coal was used in 1928 on Canadian National lines owned in the United States, where was said coal mined, from whom was said coal purchased, what price per ton was paid for it?
20.	What was the total amount of coal purchased in the United States for use on the Canadian National railway lines in Canada and the United States during the year 1928?
21.	What was the total quantity of coal used on all lines of the Canadian National Railways in 1928?
22.	How much was used in Canada on the Canadian National railway lines in 1928?
23.	Where was said coal purchased, by provinces and states of the union of the United States of America, and what price per ton was paid for same in every instance?

Unopposed Motions for Papers


UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a return showing: 1. The names of persons to whom refunds of not less than $500, under the Income Tax Act. have been made in the past five years, and the amount of such refund in each case.
2. The names of all persons or corporations in arrears or default of income tax, during each of the past five years, and the amount involved in each case.


Edward Joseph Garland: Dropped.
Motion dropped.


OUTSTANDING SURVEY ACCOUNTS
John Anderson Fraser: For a copy of all correspondence and documents relating to the following payment in the Auditor General's report, 1927-8, Part K-31:
Outstanding survey accounts of previous years, for particulars see Auditor General's report, 1922-23. and correspondence in Auditor General's report, 1908-9, page K-151-155. $22,743.55.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: With the
permission of the hon. gentleman I would like this motion to stand until next day.
Motion stands.


WINNIPEG POST OFFICE
Mr. DICKIE:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and other documents in the possession of the government, in connection with the Winnipeg post office from the 1st February, 1928, to date.


Mr. VENIOT:: I would like the hon. gentleman to tell me exactly what he wants. Does he refer to the post office generally or to the postmastership ?


Charles Herbert Dickie: One of the officials in the
department has taken up the matter with me and I have told him my reference is to the
postmastership.


Peter John Veniot: Then it is understood that the motion is to be taken in that way.


DOMINION ARSENAL, LINDSAY-PAYMENTS TO E. A. MCPHEE
Mr. PECK:: 1.	For a copy of all pay lists furnished by E. A. McPhee for wages for the work done at Dominion arsenal, Lindsay, at dates and for amounts following, namely: (a) December, 1926, $508.30; (b) November, 1925, $761.80.
2.	For a copy of the evidence furnished to the department that the fair wage provisions in the contract with E. A. McPhee, dated 26th September, 1927, for work at the Dominion arsenal, Lindsay, were complied with.
3.	For a statement in detail of the wages paid by said McPhee in connnection with said contract.


Mr. RALSTON:: I would call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that the department would not have a detailed statement of the wages paid; subject to that being on the file, I have no objection to the resolution.


INVERNESS TOWN, N.S. POSTMASTER
Mr. MACDOUGALL:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, petitions and other documents, relating to the dismissal of W. L. Blair, postmaster at Inverness Town, Nova Scotia.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-APPOINTMENTS
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: For a copy of all letters, telegrams, correspondence, memoranda, recommendations or communications of any nature on file in the Post Office Department or the Civil Service Commission in any way relating to the rejection or refusal 'by the Postmaster General or his deputy or his department of the 32 recommendations or appointments of the Civil Service Commission referred to in the answer of the Postmaster General and reported on page 1074 of Hansard.


Peter John Veniot: Last evening the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart), specified some ten or twelve different post offices out of the thirty-two. I expect to be able to lay upon the table this afternoon the files in connection with those specified by the hon. gentleman last evening, and if there are any others which he would like to have I will continue to work on them and table them at a later date.


REPORTED STATEMENT OF MR. ODETTE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct the attention of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), tc an article which appeared in the Border Cities Star of Saturday, April 20, which reads as follows:
Robb's next budget promises a surplus of one hundred million dollars and a record of a period of prosperity the greatest in the history of the nation, Mr. Odette declared.
I would like to ask the minister if his departmental officers are working upon the next budget, when we may expect that it will be brought down, and what surplus there will be.
Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman
should put that in the form of a notice.
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

ARCTIC REGIONS On the orders of the day:


John Anderson Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I desire to ask the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) when he will table the report of Porsild Brothers on the Arctic regions. I notice there is a vote in the estimates which I presume is based upon that report, and I think it would be very instructive to the members to have the report when they are considering that particular vote.


Charles A. Stewart: If the hon. member will make a formal request for the report I will be glad to table it.


John Anderson Fraser: I make that request now.
PORT COLBORNE ELEVATORS On the orders of the day:


Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the limited capacity of the government elevators at Port Colborne, the serious grain congestion which is occurring and the consequent diversion of the grain to Buffalo, I would ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) whether the government contemplates the enlargement of the elevators at Port Colborne. The capacity of these elevators is only 2,000,000 bushels, and a great number of vessels are tied up there and other vessels are being diverted to the port of Buffalo.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): As hon. members know, that port is used as a transfer point in order to transfer cargoes from the large lake vessels to the smaller St. Lawrence river boats. The problem to be solved is the shortage of the small boats in relation to the number of the large boats arriving at the elevator. Subject to further study, I would say that an increase in the storage facilities would not be a solution of the problem. Last year, and for several years past, the elevator has handled more grain than any other elevator in Canada, handling over 70,000,000 bushels of grain last year. I shall be glad to ask my departmental officers to give attention to the point raised by the hon. member, and if there is anything that can be done I can assure him that the government will give it favourable consideration.


PRIVILEGB-HON. R. B. BENNETT
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I think I am within the judgment of the house when I say that I rarely refer to newspaper criticism of my-
self. I realize that one of the incidents of the position which I occupy is that I must be criticized. The other evening I had occasion to direct attention to an editorial which appeared in Le Droit, and it has been alleged that I did not correctly interpret or translate the sense of that editorial. The editorial appeared in the issue of April 20, and I am sure that hon. members will realize that I am conscious of my imperfections in pronunciation when I do not endeavour to read it in the original. I have asked the Clerk of the House if it would be possible to provide me with a translation made by an official translator, and in order that there may be no misapprehension as to what this article contains, I wild read the translation I have received. It is as follows:
These Accusations
Attack on the Postmaster General-Political
favouritism-The rights of the Ministers [DOT]-Fanaticism and Bilingualism
The Postmaster General, Mr. Veniot, has been this week and will continue to be for several days more, the object of the attacks of the Conservative opposition, so long as the house has not passed the estimates of his department.
These attacks hardly surprise us, since Mr. Veniot himself has done all he could to provoke them. It is a crime for certain people to see that the constitution is respected, to see that the two official languages are on a footing of equality and that the field of action of the French language is enlarged a little. We do not fear to say that certain people object to the father of the bilingual postage stamp more than to the minister who is charged with favouritism.
And these charges of favouritism, what do they amount to? We are not silly enough to ignore that notwithstanding the existence of the Civil Service Commission, political colour has something to do in the choice and appointment of a candidate, to whatever position he may aspire. Political patronage is still being exercised. The government endeavours to appoint as many of its own supporters as it can, and this is quite human. Should it be asked, perchance, to practise self-abnegation to the extent of giving the preference to its opponents? No, and this is why it may be said without danger of error, that under the present administration a Liberal has a better chance of entering the civil service than a Conservative. And should Mr. Bennett become Prime Minister to-morrow, it is quite probable that the Conservatives would have easier access to public office. And so, Mr. Veniot stands at good advantage in the present debate. All he has to do to defend his ease, is to admit himself guilty of all the charges laid against him, while stating vigorously that his political opponents did much worse when they were in office.
But the minister has no need of using this argument ad hominem. He has already given the number of postmasters dismissed under his administration and stated in each ease, the reason for such dismissal.
It is also alleged as a crime against Mr. Veniot that he has not always accepted the

Privilege-Mr. Bennett
candidates recommended by the Civil Service Commission, and the case of Mr. Whittaker is mentioned with the contention that the minister did not want this man as postmaster at Simeoe. The commission itself had declared this returned soldier unable to fill the job and Mr. Veniot had another returned man appointed in his place.
According to the Civil Service Act, the ministers have the right to reject the candidates of the commission. And this is practised in every department. Thus, during the last three years, sixty-one candidates were rejected in this way: four in the Department of Agriculture, five in the Department of Finance, nine in the Department of National Revenue, twenty-three in the Post Office Department, five in the Department of Public Works, one in the Department of Justice, etc. If one takes into consideration the fact that the Post Office Department employs nearly eleven thousand hands, it is evident that Mr. Veniot has not taken advantage of this privilege any more than his colleagues, but even less, due allowance being made for the number of employees.
And so, there is no reason to feel uneasy with regard to Mr. Veniot. The administration of his department is as good as in the past if not better, and the postal service has not retrograded as far as we know. All this noise around certain appointments or dismissals is like a tempest in a tea-pot: it is the madness of fanaticism against a minister who is convinced that the sun shines for everybody and acts accordingly. A minister who, like Mr. Veniot, tries to put in practice the letter as well as the spirit of the constitution, deserves the support of all political and national elements.
That is the article which I shall now place on Hansard with the original. The following is the original:
Ces accusations
Une offensive eontre le ministre des Postes.- Favoritisme politique.-Les droits des mi-nistres.-Fanatisme et bilinguisme.
M. Veniot, ministre des Postes, a ete cette semaine le point de mire des attaques de l'op-position conservatrice, et il le sera encore pendant plusieurs jours, tant que les credits de son ministere n'auront pas ete votes.
Ces attaques ne nous etonnent guere, puisque M. Veniot lui-meme a tout fait pour les provo-quer. C'est un crime, pour certaines gens, que de faire respecter la Constitution, que de placer reellement les deux langues officielles sur un pied d'egalite, que d'elargir un peu le champ de rayonnement de la langue fransaise. Nous ne craignons pas d'affirmer que l'on en veut plus au pere du timbre bilingue qu'au ministre soup-?onne de favoritisme.
Que valent d'ailleurs ces accusations de favoritisme? Nous ne sommes pas assez nai'fs pour ignore!' que, malgre l'existence de la commission du service civil, la couleur politique a quelque chose a faire dans le choix et la nomination d'un eandidat, a quelque poste qu'il aspire. Le patronage politique continue de s'exercer. Le gouvernement s'efforce de nommer le plus possible de ses partisans, et c'est tres humain. Fau-drait-il, par hasard, lui demander de pousser l'abnegation jusqu'a donner la preference a ses adversaires? Non, et e'est pourquoi on peut admettre, sans courir le risque de se tromper, que, sous l'administration actuelle, un liberal a
plus de chance d'entrer dans le service civil qu'un conservateur. Et si jamais M. Bennett etait demain premier ministre il est assez probable que les conservateurs auraient un acefes plus facile aux fonctions administratives. Aussi, M. Veniot a-t-il beau jeu dans la discussion actuelle. Pour les fins de son argumentation, il n'a qu'a se reconnaitre coupable de tout ce dont on l'accuse tout en criant bien fort que ses adversaires politiques avaient fait pire lorsqu'ils etaient au pouvoir.
Mais le ministre des Postes n'a pas besoin d'user de cet argument ad hominem. Il a deja fait connaitre le nombre des maitres de poste congedies sous son administration et donne, pour chaque cas, la raison du renvoi.
On fait egalement un crime a M. Veniot de ne pas avoir toujours accepte les candidats pre-sentes par la commission du service civil, et l'on cite le cas de M. Whittaker dont le ministre n'aurait pas voulu comme maitre de poste de Simeoe. Ce veteran avait ete reconnu par la commission elle-meme incapable de remplir ses fonctions et M. Veniot fit nommer a sa place un autre veteran.
D'apres la loi du service civil, les ministres ont le droit de rejeter les candidats de la commission. Et cela se pratique dans tous les mi-nisteres. Ainsi au cours des trois clernieres an-nees, il y a eu soixante et un ref us de la sorte: 4 au ministere de l'Agriculture, 5 aux Finances, 9 au Revenu national, 23 aux Postes, 5 aux Travaux publics, un au ministere de la Justice, etc. Si l'on tient compte du fait qu'il y a au ministere des Postes pres de onze mille employes, il faut en venir a la conclusion que M. Veniot n'a pas use de ce privilege plus que ses collegues et meme que, toutes proportions gar-dees, il en a use moins.
Il n'y a done pas lieu de s'alarmer sur le compte de M. Veniot. Son ministere est aussi bien administre que par le pass6, sinon mieux, et le service des postes n'a pas, que l'on saehe, retrograde. Tout ce tapage autour de certaines nominations ou demissions, e'est une tem-pete dans un verre d'eau, c'est la rage du fanatisme eontre un ministre qui est convaincu que le soleil brille pour tout le monde et qui agit en consequence. Un ministre qui, comme M. Veniot, s'efforce de faire passer dans la pratique la lettre et 1'esprit de la constitution, merite 1'appuie de tous les elements politiques et nationaux.
Charles Gautier.
Yesterday morning I received from the director in chief of the newspaper, a communication which was in the sense that bis attention had been directed to what appeared in the paper, and that apparently I had been misinformed. I will therefore give merely *the sense of that letter and not endeavour again to impose my bad pronunciation upon the house but I will ask the permission of the house to put the original on Hansard:
Ottawa, le 23 avril 1929. L'honorable M. R. B. Bennett,
Chambre des communes,
Ottawa.
Monsieur,
Je vois dans les journaux de ce matin que vous avez accuse le Droit d'avoir insinue que l'opposition conservatrice en voulait a M. Veniot
Privilege-Mr. Bennett

parce que celui-ci etait de lignee acadienne. Le Droit n'a fait une telle insinuation, ni dans Particle auquel vous faites allusion, ni ailleurs. II n'a meme pas songe un seul moment a la faire. Vous aurez ete sans doute mal informe.
Etant donne la violence avee laquelle vous avez attaque le Droit a ce sujet, je vous deman-derais de lire cette lettre a la prochaine seance de la Chambre des communes.
Veuillez croire, monsieur, a ma parfaite consideration.
Le redacteur en cbef,
Charles Gautier.
I will refer further to what appeared in the paper yesterday as translated by the official translator. This is the translation of what appeared:
Parliamentary News
An unjust attack. The Conservative opposition
keeps up its obstruction of the Postmaster General's estimates (By Charles Michaud)
The leader of the opposition stated yesterday that "'Le Droit" had accused the Conservatives of making war on the Postmaster General because the latter is an Acadian and consequently of French descent. "Le Droit" has never said anything of the kind. The question is who could have so misinformed Mr. Bennett. Accordingly, the editor in chief of this newspaper immediately wrote, this morning, the following letter to the leader of the opposition :
Hon. R. B. Bennett,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Sir,-I see by this morning's newspapers that you have accused "Le Droit" of having insinuated that the Conservative opposition bore ill-will to Mr. Veniot on account of his Acadian parentage. "Le Droit" has made no such insinuation, either in the article to which you allude or elsewhere, and has never even thought for a moment of doing so. You have doubtless been misinformed.
In view of the violence with which you have attacked "Le Droit" in this matter, I would ask you to read this letter at the next sitting of the House of Comons.
Believe me, etc.
Let us not forget that this Mr. Bennett who unjustly attacks "Le Droit" is the same Mr. Bennett who, Thursday last, in the House of Commons, awarded the following certificate to Mr. Edwards, who had just been called away by death:
"No man could point to a single observation that he had ever made in which he attacked any man's religion or denied to anyone of his fellow-citizens the right to worship his own God under his own vine and fig-tree. He had that tolerance which sometimes was denied to him."
The Grand Master of the Orange Order of Ontario, author of "The Wedge", a book which bears on its cover the picture of a priest, armed with an axe, destroying British institutions, must have smiled in his grave on hearing such praise. We, who know better, find the author of the lines just above quoted rather ill-acquainted with the deeds of the deceased member of parliament.
I did not deal with this matter yesterday because I was in the chamber but a very

few minutes, but I received the letter yesterday morning and had I been in the house a sufficient length of time to hear the orders of the day called, I would have dealt with the matter. I desire merely to say that when I read from the translation of the original article which I produce, I did so in good faith believing that it correctly interpreted what was stated. The official translators have confirmed that translation. I shall not in any sense traverse the articles to which I have alluded. I merely desire to say that in any discussions in this house, my voice shall at all times be raised to promote harmony and unity amongst the races which comprise this Dominion.


INQUIRIES FOR RETURNS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vaneouver-Burrard):: Yesterday the Secretary of State undertook to lay on the table the Civil Service Commission file relating to the post office at Sutton, Quebec.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have been in communication with
the Civil Service Commisison on this matter. I am informed that the return was tabled last year on the 29th May, I think it was, and it contained all letters on file with the Civil Service Commission at the time. The Civil Service Commission is now at work copying this file, and it may be available at any time. As soon as it is handed to me, it will be tabled.
At the same time I might refer to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuar-rie) whose request was of a similar nature, but for a complete file, because it was a new request concerning the appointment of a stenographer in New Westminster. I have seen the file which is a very extensive one. It will also be copied, but it may be a few days before I am able to procure it from the Civil Service Commission.


John Arthur Clark: I should like to draw the
attention of the Secretary of State to the fact that, since the return of last year was tabled, a supplementary file has been tabled by the Postmaster General, containing certain letters and documents from the Civil Service Commission. That file is not complete and it does not contain certain documents which are obviously in existence. All that I am asking now is that those documents should be

St. John Post Office
produced. I am quite satisfied, if the Secretary of State will get the Civil Service Commission file, he will find the missing documents and they can be laid on the table of the house in an hour's time.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I fully agree with my hon. friend that he is entitled to all these documents. If a new return had been asked for this year in the ordinary way, a complete return would have been tabled in due course. But my hon. friend made a request during a debate on the Post Office estimates; the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) tabled what he had in his department, and it was only yesterday he drew my attention to the fact that other letters were with the Civil Service Commission. I may say on behalf of the commission that the demand for returns this year has been exceptionally heavy and it was only to-day they wrere able to complete a return for the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer). They are working now on the very thing my hon. friend is asking for.



SUPPLY-ST. JOHN POST OFFICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['By unanimous consent I beg to lay\non the table supplementary return regarding the appointment of a postmaster at Sutton, which return was asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark).']
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, before the motion is put, I desire to make one or two observations. I was not present during the discussion yesterday in connection with the Post Office estimates; but I have been visited by a gentleman whom I regard as being a highly reliable person and I ascertained from him that in the city of St. John a situation exists of the gravest character. I have consulted with members who represent that constituency in the house, and I have been advised that rumours are very prevalent in the streets of that city and elsewhere in New Brunswick about that situation. I refer to the situation in connection with the district office, that is, the office responsible for the conduct of the postal business in that, province. I observe, from looking at the debate, that reference was made to three gentlemen: Mr. Woods, who is the chief; Mr. Emerson, and Mr. Griffiths. It is apparently a common rumour on the streets of St. John that the junior inspector had very grossly insulted his senior officer; that everyone knows of the matter; that officers have been sent from Ottawa to take charge of the office; that grave irregularities have been discovered; that reports have been made to the Postmaster General or his deputy-my informant is not
quite certain as to which-and they disclosed a situation that is very serious from the public standpoint.
I suggest to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) who is temporarily leading the house, that if will serve no useful purpose to precipitate further discussion upon the Post Office estimates, thereby tvasting public time, until we have before us the files connected with the matters to [DOT]which I have referred. The gentleman to whom I referred at the outset came to me saying he felt it was my duty to bring these matters to the attention of the house, and I would be derelict in my duty did I not stand in my place and state the position which I now take. It is my desire and the desire of those who sit to your left, Mr. Speaker, not to impede public business, not to take up time for the sake of doing so, and I suggest that if the minister would provide that the files dealing with this situation be made available, possibly in one of the rooms of the house, with one of the members of his staff present, it might enable us to ascertain to what extent these reports are justified; for according to the information which I have received, Mr. Speaker, in the manner I have indicated, the minister has received very definite information touching the conduct of at least one of the inspectors involving very serious allegations regarding honesty and the dealing with and payment of moneys. All these are matters which we should not permit longer to continue to float as rumours vague and undefined about the streets of a great city, but rather we should get to the bottom of the matter, and if there is anything in it, we should deal with it at once. If there is nothing in it, that is the end of it, and the rumours are disposed of.
I gave my promise that I would endeavour to have this matter brought up at the earliest possible moment, and in the very earnest desire to expedite rather than impede the transaction of public business, I make the suggestion that the post office estimates be held over until such time as we shall have had an opportunity to investigate the matters to which I have referred, and then having obtained the information, instead of wasting the time of the house trying to get the information piecemeal here, we should be able to precipitate a discussion around the concrete matter to which I have referred. In that event there would be no delay, no waste of time, and no opportunity for its being said that we had in any sense delayed rather than assisted in the conduct of public business. When I say "we", I mean any of the members of the house who seek information in this way; because I realize, as you must realize, Mr. St. John Post Office

Speaker, having occupied the office of postmaster general, how impossible it is for a minister to get copies of all the files prepared at one time. But we might be able to deal with the situation as I have indicated, and in that way precipitate a discussion that would be concrete and directly connected with the matters we have been discussing.
There are a number of files that have been mentioned that we might thus be able to deal with; I do not recall what they were, but they were mentioned yesterday. As the Minister of Finance has stated that it is proposed to deal with the estimates of the Public Works department for the moment, we can deal with them in committee, and if there is any other business we might dispose of that to-day, and then to-morrow morning we ask that the opportunity be afforded to the members on this side of the house, with the minister's official present, to inspect the files to which I have referred to see whether or not these reports are warranted and what they disclose in connection with the post office situation in the district of New Brunswick, the headquarters being the city of St. John.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the observations made by my hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) are not at all unreasonable; indeed, on 'behalf of the government I desire to say that they are most reasonable, and I speak as one who has been in apposition. I am sure that my colleague the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) will be prepared to view the suggestion made by the hon. leader of the opposition in the spirit in which it is offered, and to regard the request that he made on behalf of the opposition as a most reasonable one. I will leave my hon. friend the Postmaster General to deal with that.
It is the intention of the government today to go into supply on Public Works, and if we make sufficient progress there are some bills on the order paper standing in the name of .the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) that we might advance.


Peter John Veniot: I would like to say a word before we go into supply. I feel that the request of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) is a very reasonable one. So much did I feel that such a request, if made, would be a reasonable one, that when the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) yesterday asked me about that matter, after I had attempted in some way to explain the situation although without going fully into it, and he interjected the question whether I

would lay the correspondence on the table, I immediately said yes; but after due consideration, and in view of the fact that the investigation into some of these difficulties is now going on, I was going to suggest to the hon. member for York-Sunbury to-day, if I went into supply, that the correspondence be not laid on the table, but that he have an opportunity with me or with one of my officials to go fully into the correspondence, because I felt that while we were carrying on this investigation and endeavouring to discover the foundation of the difficulties in the St. John district it might not be right to lay all this information on the table. I am therefore pleased indeed to accept the suggestion of the hon. leader of the opposition that the original file in the possession of an official of the department be placed in the hands, say, of the hon. member for York-Sunbury and whomever he wishes to have associated with him, so that he can go over the whole thing.
Let me say, to correct what is perhaps a wrong impression that grave irregularities were discovered at the time the two gentlemen mentioned yesterday had visited the post office at St. John-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to assure my
hon. friend the Postmaster General that I was simply trying to indicate to him the information that had been conveyed to me, and I thought it was in the public interest that the matter should be cleared up. I was not indicating whether I believed it or did not believe it, but merely stating that such rumors were prevalent.


Peter John Veniot: It is not quite consistent
with what really took place. What took place was this: There were charges made of irregularities, and charges of want of discipline. There was the report of this fight, if I may use the word, between the chief of the district, Mr. Woods, and one of the subordinate officers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which one was that?


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Griffiths. When I
heard of this, and knowing, previous to that, that there was some lack of discipline in that office, I sent to St. John two men who we consider are experts, one in operation and the other in financial administration, not at that time to go into any charges made, but to start an investigation into the disciplinary end and discuss with these two fighting fellows, if I may use the term, the cause of

St. John Post Office
this lack of discipline and lack of respect on the part of an inspector for his superior officer, the superintendent. They went into that, and they brought back to the office here in Ottawa statements of charges touching financial affairs. Those are on file, and that part of the investigation is to be continued.
I shall be only too pleased to submit these papers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps I might ask my hon. friend a further question, with his permission. My informant had been advised that these two gentlemen-one of them, I think, was Fortier and the other Underwood -had gone down there and that the minister himself had visited St. John during the Easter recess and was thoroughly familiar with the situation that developed. That was the information given to me, and it might enable the minister to make a statement in regard to it.


Peter John Veniot: I was in St. John at the
opening of the airport there-no, it was the Easter recess; my hon. friend is right. I think these two men were there before I got there. I knew they had been in St. John, but I did not know they were there at the time. I visited St. John for two days and I found these gentlemen there. They had been there two days. I met them in the hotel. I knew what they were there for, because instructions had been issued from Ottawa. They remained another day, and then came back to Ottawa. They made me familiar with the disciplinary end of this fracas between the officials, but I told them I did not want to hear further about any irregularities until I got back to the office.


Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: The offer made by the Postmaster General is very satisfactory so far as it goes, but it does seem to me to be a little narrow. He said we are to have an opportunity of examining the original file, but I failed to hear him say that we would have the privilege of making copies of any of the documents we might require. I should like to have that incorporated in the offer.


Peter John Veniot: I may say to the hon. gentleman that in view of what took place yesterday I have had copies of the file made, so there will be no difficulty in that regard.


Edward Joseph Garland: Since the house appears to be in a very friendly mood at the moment, and as the minister is apparently dealing courteously with members on this side of the house-


Mr. DUNNING:: He always does.


Edward Joseph Garland: There have been occasions when that has been in question, and such occasions may again arise.
I wish to direct the attention of the Postmaster General to the fact that although the matter of increase in salaries of our postal workers has been raised, and although he has protested again and again that he made recommendations to the Civil Service Commission in this regard, no statement as to the character of those recommendations has yet been laid on the table of the house, and I would ask him to be prepared to table a copy of any recommendations made by him to the Civil Service Commission in relation to postal salaries.


Peter John Veniot: I laid those on the table
over a week ago, and I referred to them yesterday. They are in the possession of the house.


Edward Joseph Garland: I refer to the minister's personal recommendations to the commission.


Peter John Veniot: Yes.



[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: Item 119, page 31 of the estimates.


PUBLIC WORKS-CHARGEABLE TO INCOME
[Stage Direction]
Public Buildings Nova Scotia
Halifax-immigration building-payment to Department of Railways and Canals for accommodation-$25,000.
Halifax quarantine station-improvements, repairs, etc.-$15,000.
Halifax naval and ordnance establishment-new buildings-$50,000.
Halifax-repairs to buildings and wharfs at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyard-$46,000.
Halifax-tractor for postal purposes-$1,300.
Hantsport-public building-$15,000.
North Sydney public building-addition- $4,500.
Pietou public building - improvements, repairs, etc.-$5,500.
Sherbrooke-public building-$15,000.
Truro public building-addition-$8,000- Total-$185,300.
Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) for a declaration of the policy of the government with reference to the ever-recurring question of the erection of public buildings in the various provinces. I notice in this vote an item of $15,000 for a public building at Hantsport. If my geography is

1894	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
not astray, that is in the constituency of Hants-Kings. There is also an item of $15,000 for a public building at Sherbrooke, which I understand is in the constituency of An-tigonish-Guysborough. Those two constituencies are represented in this house by supporters of the government. Other much larger communities, many of them in need of public buildings, are entirely ignored by the minister. I think we ought to have a statement from him informing us under what circumstances these two votes are in the estimates and what is the policy of the government. I remember last session trying to extract this information from the minister, but he very skilfully declined to be drawn. I now return to the question because later on when we come to the province of New Brunswick I desire to revert to it. There is no doubt that many places are seeking the erection of public buildings, places where the revenue must be much greater than the revenue at Hantsport or at Sherbrooke. I am not seeking to belittle either of these two important places in the province of Nova Scotia, but I do submit that they are both rather small communities, with correspondingly small revenues. I should like to know what justification there is for this expenditure in these two places, because I think we all realize that next session we shall be asked to supplement the present vote by an amount equally as large if not larger. Therefore I invite the minister at the very outset of his estimates to give to the house a statement of the policy of the government in respect to this matter.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, it is rather interesting to hear my hon. friend repeat the question which for two years I have endeavoured to answer to the effect that the policy of the government was as far as possible to erect public buildings only in places where the service was such that they were urgently required. It is rather interesting also to note- and I may say to my hon. friends on this side of the house that I rather hesitate to refer to this fact-that of the vote for public buildings in the province of Nova Scotia amounting to $185,300, the expeditures in constituencies represented by government members of the house total only $30,000, if the glance I have taken over them is correct.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And none at all in the
other constituencies represented by Conservatives.


John Campbell Elliott: Of the total vote, $155,000 is to be expended in constituencies represented by gentlemen on the other side of the house. The total expenditures in constituencies rep-

resented by gentlemen on this side are the two items of $15,000 each for the erection of post office buildings which are urgently required. The $15,000 for Hantsport is a start, the total for building, fittings, grading, sidewalks and contingencies being placed at $24,500. The $15,000 for Sherbrooke is to provide a site and commence a building, the total cost of which will be $28,500. So that the total expenditures contemplated by these two items are just in the vicinity of $50,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the total cost
of the Hantsport building?


John Campbell Elliott: For building, fittings, sidewalks, clerk of works and contingencies, $24,500. I should hardly expect my hon. friend to think that we could spend $185,300 in the province without spending something in some Liberal constituency.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should be astonished if
it were otherwise, knowing the minister as well as I do and the operations of his mind. But let us outline the situation as he has given it. He says that the buildings are to be placed only where urgently required. He goes on to tell us that out of that $185,000 all but $30,000 is to be spent in constituencies represented by Conservative members. Let us take the very first item, $25,000, for the Halifax immigration building. That is merely a bookkeeping entry, representing an amount paid by one department of government to another; it is paid by the Public Works department to the Department of Railways and Canals, and no money at all will be passed, although they may go through the form of issuing a cheque. So that as regards that item at all events the minister's assertion is not carried out. You are renting accommodation from another department of government; that is all that means. And with respect to every other item in the total for Nova Scotia, of $185,300, they are all simply repairs or additions to existing buildings. But that is not what I asked the minister about at all. What I asked him was to give us a statement as to the policy of the government with respect to the erection of public buildings, now that .that policy has been resumed since the war. He has told us that buildings are to be erected where they are urgently required. May I ask him whether there are any other points in Nova Scotia, outside Hantsport and Sherbrooke, where public buildings are urgently required. An analysis of the vote does not bear out the situation as he has described it to the house.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
wants to be fair, and I take it-if I may put

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
it this way without seeming to be impolite- that he has read over the facts in regard to which he speaks. He need only go to the third item, with reference to the establishment of new buildings, Halifax naval and ordnance, to realize that we are spending there, not for repairs as he has stated, but in the erection of a new building in that riding, which I am sure he will not argue is represented by any of the Liberal members, the sum of $50,000. That quite contradicts the statement he has made. As I say, I know he made it unintentionally and in good faith; but it proves that he has suspicions which are absolutely unfounded. That is the situation in that one riding alone, and I doubt very much whether the new construction there is more urgently required than new buildings in any other place. But we are spending there, as I have stated, $50,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Have tenders been called
for in connection with these buildings? I admit at once that I overlooked the new ordnance building.


John Campbell Elliott: I know it was unintentional.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I did not wish to be unfair to the minister. But I would point out that this $50,000 is purely a departmental matter; it is not for a building to be put up in the interests of the general public. It will never be a public utility such as the building at Hantsport or Sherbrooke. It has no doubt been asked for by the technical officers of the Department of National Defence, and so far as the public are concerned they will never be allowed inside it. Will these buildings be put up by tender and, if so, will Mr. A. S. MacMillan be the successful tenderer?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. MacMillan may
construct these buildings if he is the lowest tenderer.


Mr. SHORT:: I presume your department
will see that he is the lowest tenderer, because he seems to get all contracts let by the department in Nova Scotia.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend does not
mean that. He is another gentleman who I know wants to be fair, even in spite of that almost suspicious mind of his. And I can satisfy him by going over the tenders in connection with various works in this country, from one coast to the other, that a great proportion of those who are the lowest tenderers are not supporters of this government.


Harry Bernard Short: Not in our province.
78594-120J


John Campbell Elliott: I do not believe that either my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman will get up and say that the men who have tendered for public works in Canada, whether it be buildings or harbours or anything else, have not been judged on the sole question as to whether or not their tenders were the lowest. That is the test, and if Mr. MacMillan is the lowest tenderer he will get the contract. If he is not the lowest tenderer, and if some friend of the hon. gentleman is-unless he is on the black books by reason of having fallen down on some contract before-he will get the contract if he puts up 10 per cent of the cost.' I can assure my hon. friend that this is the policy of the department.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the population of Hantsport, what is the public revenue, and what departments of government are intended to be housed in the building here? The same with reference to Sherbrooke.


John Campbell Elliott: The proposed building at
Hantsport will be a one and a half storey brick structure and will provide accommodation for the post office, with living quarters for the caretaker. The post office is at present located in a section of the ground floor of a large building. The floor area is only 429 square feet, of which 156 feet consists of lobby, the remaining 273 feet providing working space. These quarters-and I wish to direct attention to the fact that this is the communication we have received from the Post Office department in this matter-are not adequate for either lobby or working space, and it is recommended that a post office building be erected. In regard to the other one-


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: I want to call attention to this, because it will appeal to my hon. friend that this site is a place where a public building is really needed. An order in council was passed on January 7, 1914. Bear in mind the date-January 7, 1914. It granted authority to purchase from Mr. Whitman, for the sum of $1,000, a piece of land situated on William street, Hantsport, Nova Scotia, having a frontage of 93.9 feet by a depth of 100 feet. The land in question is required as the site for the proposed public building at that place. My hon. friend will be one of the last to argue that sites were selected in 1914 for public buildings which were not required for the public service; he will remember that those sites were selected by his friends. This site was purchased in 1914, and I think perhaps that will allay the suspicion he seems to have that this is not necessary
1896	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have not said anything of the kind; I do not intend to oppose the vote but I ana asking the government for a declaration of policy which will cover the whole Dominion. I am not opposing this vote but it is up to the minister to justify and explain it.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the postal revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The irrenue for 1927-28 was $2,767.


James Dew Chaplin: And the population?


John Campbell Elliott: The population was 683.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And what about Sherbrooke?


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the building to cost?


John Campbell Elliott: As I told my hon. friend, the total is expected to be about $24,500. The 3ite has been already provided.


James Dew Chaplin: There are many other cases of that kind in which the minister is not acting.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but we are getting along, making some progress; we cannot do it all in a year.


James Dew Chaplin: What will be the total cost of the Sherbrooke building


John Campbell Elliott: I gave it before, but I shall be glad to repeat it. It is expected that the total cost, including the site, which has not been provided, will be $28,500, of which $1,500 is set apart for the site.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: Very much the same as the other town; about 700.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is the minister sure of that? My information is that it is very much less.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that according to the census of 1921 the population was 679, and it is greater at present.


Mr. ERNST:: What was the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue was $3,291.


Harry Bernard Short: I do not wish to oppose either of these votes; in fact I am very much in favour of them. I am glad the minister has listened to the advice of the members for those districts and given post offices to these towns, because I believe these smaller

places are entitled to public buildings. However, I must direct his attention to the fact that he has not provided one building in any constituency with the exception of these two which are represented by friends of the government.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


Harry Bernard Short: My hon. friend says hear, hear. He is living in the dark ages, when the spoils system was in effect. If that is the policy in the province of Quebec I want to tell my hon. friend that in Nova Scotia we are above that sort of thing. My hon. friend belongs to the last generation; the spoils system is out of date not only in this country but in ever3' civilized country throughout the world.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why?


Harry Bernard Short: Because we should be treated equally. We are entitled to some consideration; we pay the same revenue.
Now I am going to turn my attention to the minister for a moment. I am glad to see that at last he has decided to make a start in these two towns. A few moments ago we were told that the site for the Hantsport building was purchased in 1914, so it is time the building was constructed. But I want to direct the minister's attention to another town nearly twice as large as this and with three times the revenue. I refer to the town of Bridgetown in Nova Scotia. In 1925, when this government was in power, the then Minister of Public Works visited Bridgetown and was so impressed with the need for a public building that he decided to purchase a site, for which $5,000 was paid. When Doctor King was there he said it was disgraceful that the post office in a town as large as Bridgetown should be in such a condition, and he repeated that statement in this house when these estimates were up the first year the present minister was in office. I have repeatedly made application for a grant for a public building in that town; the people of Bridgetown have petitioned this government for that appropriation; the board of trade passed a resolution praying that this building should be constructed, but nothing has been done.
I brought up this matter last year; the minister is quite familiar with it, but no action has been taken in that regard. The town of Hantsport, however, with about one-half the population and one-third the revenue, is able to secure an appropriation of $15,000 for the construction of a public building. Does the minister consider that fair play to

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
the people of Nova Scotia? Why should not my constituency 'be entitled to the same consideration shown the constituency of Hants-Kings or that of Shelburne-Yarmouth? If we were all treated fairly we would have no comments to make on these estimates, but you do not listen to our requests, so you must expect us to criticize these votes. We want to know why partiality is shown.
I would like to have some explanation from the minister as to why this building at Bridgetown has not been constructed, when in 1925, before the election of that year, the then Minister of Public Works considered the post office in that town a disgrace to the department and thought the public of Bridgetown entitled to much better accommodation. A site was purchased, and during the election campaign of 1926 my opponent promised the people of Bridgetown that a public building would be erected there in the near future if he were elected. Nothing has been done as yet and I say that in fairness to these .other towns the minister should bring down in the supplementary estimates sufficient sums to provide public. buildings in these other places.


John Campbell Elliott: I would like to have the
opportunity of making an explanation which I am quite sure will be satisfactory to the hon. member who has just sat down (Mr Short). I recall very well the pleas which he has made for a building in this particular town, and he always makes those pleas in a manner which would be very hard to resist were the money available and were it possible to meet with his wishes.


James Dew Chaplin: Another case of being
almost persuaded.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member for
Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) knows that it is not sufficient to have me persuaded; I must persuade the treasury board, and I am glad the Minister of Finance is present. I think hon. gentlemen on both sides of the house will agree that in all probability his generosity is not anything like the generosity of the Minister of Public Works.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is the villain in
the piece.


John Campbell Elliott: If it were I would have a much easier time. The hon. member (Mr. Short) failed to hear what I said before, or he has overlooked the fact that we are not omitting the providing of buildings in Conservative ridings in his province of Nova Scotia. The third vote on the list is for $50,000 for a new building at Halifax.
M". SHORT: That has nothing to do with the minister's department. It is only a case of paying the bills; the obligation is upon the Department of National Defence. That has nothing to do with this case whatever.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
thinks that that is a perfectly good argument, but I have told him already that the reports we have received from the Post Office Department state that they l.'quire the accommodation, just as do the departmental requisitions made in regard to that building.


Harry Bernard Short: I must take exception to
that. The minister can get the Post Office Department to agree that they need every building; he can get them to agree to anything he wants them to.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the hon. member
overrates the amiability of the Post Office Department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


John Campbell Elliott: Because they would not
agree to that as easily as he thinks. I think every department of the government has asked for and suggested that we erect buildings, but where the treasury board have found that we could not put up the buildings we have been forced to erect the ones which seemed the most necessary.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From a political standpoint.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, no.


Harry Bernard Short: That is rather inconsistent.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) says that that is done from a political standpoint. I want to appeal to the fairmindedness of my hon. friends, and ask them if they will not be courageous enough to admit-in spite of what they would like to do on behalf of the various constituencies that they are appealing to-that when we spend $185,300 in the province of Nova Scotia, and only $30,000 in Liberal ridings, they are being treated pretty fairly.


Mr. QUINN:: How many ridings are there?


John Campbell Elliott: There are not as many
as we hope there will be another time. However, they are very well represented.


Felix Patrick Quinn: They would need to be.


John Campbell Elliott: Upon the invitation of
some hon. members of the house I had the great pleasure of visiting that province last summer. It is partly my knowing the fine sensibilities of the people of that province that accounts for the great care which has

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
been taken to see that they get absolute fair play in the preparation of these estimates. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that there has been generous treatment of the ridings represented by the hon. members opposite. The various departments are very generous in recommending further buildings, but we must go over those recommendations and pick out the ones which seem the most urgent, and do the best we can with the money provided for the different services.
With regard to the particular case mentioned by the hon. member, the facilities there are not so bad but that they can carry on for a short time. Like a great many other places, a building could be put up but it does not seem as urgent as at other places. The erection of this building at Hantsport has been under consideration for the last fifteen or sixteen years.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There was the little matter of a war intervening.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no doubt that
that had a great deal to do with it.


Harry Bernard Short: I must take exception to the remarks of the minister when he calls the attention of the house to the $185,300 for Nova Scotia. He wants to lead this house to believe that that amount is being distributed among the different ridings in Nova Scotia. But when we look at the vote we find that the first item is $25,000 for an immigration building at Halifax. That building is for the Department of Railways and Canals, and this item is purely a matter of bookkeeping. The next item is $15,000 for a quarantine station at Halifax.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is for the general advantage of Canada.


Harry Bernard Short: That has nothing whatever
to do with the port of Halifax; it is absolutely necessary to have that quarantine station there. The next item is $50,000 for naval and ordnance establishment at Halifax. That is not for the advantage of Nova Scotia; that is for the general advantage of Canada, asked for by the Department of National Defence. Another item is for $46,000, repairs to buildings and wharves at R.C.M. barracks and H.M.C. dockyard. The minister is trying to leave the impression that this S185,300 is being distributed through the different constituencies of Nova Scotia. Let us see what the estimates disclose. The only two ridings for which an appropriation for public buildings is being made are both represented by friends of the government. Three ridings out of the 
total of fourteen are represented by government supporters, and for two ridings out of the three a public building is being provided. There are eleven other constituencies for which nothing has been done.
As I say, I have no fault to find with these items because I believe they are needed, but I would point out to the minister that there is much better accommodation at Hantsport than there is at Bridgetown, a town twice the size. I am glad to see the vote for Sherbrooke, but we are finding fault with the fact that nothing has been provided for our constituency and we are going to continue to find that fault until we finally get something. I am very glad to see that the previous Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), is in his seat, because he may tell us aJbout the condition in which he found the Bridgetown post office when he visited there three years ago.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Just before the 1925
election.


Harry Bernard Short: Yes, when he purchased a lot in the town. The then Minister of Public Works considered the post office there such a disgraceful place that he immediately gave instructions for the purchase of one of the best lots in the town for a new site. I commend him very much for that, and had he remained minister of public works we would have had a new building there long before this. I have no fault to find with my hon, friend who occupies the position of Minister of Pulblic Works at the present time. While he has never given me a new appropriation, he has certainly listened to some of my applications in reference to repairs.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member has fared pretty well.


Harry Bernard Short: The government have looked after their own properties which they already have there. In some instances the minister has done remarkably well; in others he has not done so well.


John Campbell Elliott: All I can say is that I hope I shall be able to do better in the future.


Peter John Veniot: I know this is not quite regular, but when the Speaker was in the chair I promised that certain returns asked for would be tabled. If you will permit me, Mr. Chairman, I wish to state to the committee that the reports that I said would be tabled before six o'clock will1 be placed in the hands of the clerk as tabled this afternoon, so that the members can inspect them.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton South):: I trust the Minister of Public Works will

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
listen to a plea that I am going to make this year. Last year I made a plea to him on behalf of the post office at New Waterford, in the county of 'Cape Breton South. Since that time we have had a visit from the Minister of Puiblie Works and we have also had a visit from the Postmaster General. I did not see the Postmaster General, but I saw the Minister of Public Works, and we were all delighted to have both of those hon. gentlemen visit us. With regard to that particular post office, I want to say, on behalf of the town of New Waterford, that it is an incorporated town with a population about six times as great as that of the two towns of Hantsport and Sherbrooke put together. It is an incorporated town with all civic advantages such as water, sewer, concrete sidewalks and everything of that sort, but the post office accommodation is very much inferior to what they have in either Hants-port or Sherbrooke. The Postmaster General saw the post office there last year, and if I am correctly informed he said that we must have a new post office. Why is that town deprived of proper post office facilities? The minister is perfectly frank in saying that political considerations must have some weight. I quite agree with that; but there is a limit to which political considerations should go, and in such a place as New Waterford, where the post office and customs revenues and population call for a decent service and a decent service is not available, I think, in all fairness, the minister should give some consideration to the matter. Last year the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough was generous enough to give the matter support, and I want him to join with me this year.	.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Make him minister of
fisheries and the hon. member will get it.


Mr.   MacDGNALD@Cape Breton South: We on this side of the house would welcome the appointment of that hon. gentleman. I hope he is going to join with me this year in insisting that a vote be inserted in the supplementary estimates for a post office in New Waterford.


John Campbell Elliott: I know something about the needs of New Waterford. They were brought up before; in fact, they have been brought up from time to time. This is one of the many places where, as I said before, they could do very well with a public building if the funds were available and could be secured without an expenditure that my hon. friends opposite and my hon. friends on this side of the house would think was not justified at the present time; because it must be remembered that all these buildings cannot be provided for in the same year. It has been considered that, in view of the facilities which New Waterford has, some of the others were more urgent. I hope the treasury board and the government will become more liberal later on and that we shall receive further grants for this particular department. But may I point out to my hon. friend that, even as economical as we have been in this department, we receive criticism from the other side of the house that we are spending too much money at the present time.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister does not spend it in the right locations.


John Campbell Elliott: Let me say to my hon. friends: You cannot get it all in your ridings at the one time. New Waterford, however, is a place that is under consideration and I have no doubt it will come in its regular turn according to urgency.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I want again to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works the matter of the extension of the New Glasgow post office. What is he going to do in regard to that matter during the present year? Does he contemplate carrying out the arrangement that we discussed and which, I think, he promised to carry out two years ago?


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member will hardly go that far.


Thomas Cantley: I know my hon. friend disputes that, but at the same time he does so with some little mental reservation. He remarked, in regard to the erection of public buildings in Nova Scotia and elswhere, that such must depend upon the urgency with which they were required. He is thoroughly familiar, I take it, with all the circumstances surrounding the New Glasgow post office, and it should not be necessary again to remind him of them. Will he be good enough to say what- he proposes to do in regard to the matter?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think I can say
anything more than I have said to my hon. friend in conversation a short time ago, except that I am not going to get into an argument with him as to whether I promised at any time to put up a public building there. He will realize perfectly well that I could not make a promise of that kind, because in the first place a great many things that I recommend to the treasury board are cut out by that board. If I made a promise to my hon. friend, which I did not do, I may tell
1900	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
him frankly that he is the only man I ever promised anything to, because I realize as well as anybody else how impossible it is for a minister to make a promise that anything will be put in the estimates, because you do not know whether or not the item is going to be in after the estimates have been considered by council, and even after they have passed the treasury board you cannot be sure. I do not think it would help my hon. friend for me to express an opinion. The matter has been receiving consideration, is still receiving consideration, and I hope we shall be able to meet the desires of my hon. friend some time in the not far distant future. That is the best I can say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It will be met anyway
after the next election.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
is unduly optimistic.


Thomas Cantley: "Some time" is a long way off. This matter has been before the house for five successive years. The building we have is nearly fifty years old. The office has produced in the last fifteen years a revenue of over half a million dollars, or over one thousand dollars a day. The floor space is not anything like sufficient for the staff that is attempting to operate in the building. Conditions are entirely unsatisfactory; plaster is falling down and has been falling down for some time, and the building has been in disrepair for a very considerable period.


John Campbell Elliott: It is an addition to the present building that my hon. friend is requesting.


Thomas Cantley: Exactly. I think the minister will remember the situation. Plans were prepared some years ago for an extension to that building to provide the necessary accommodation, but the amount was thought to be excessive, and after some consultation with the minister revised plans were prepared which reduced the cost very considerably, about twenty-five per cent. The situation is unsatisfactory in the extreme, as I think the minister will admit if he recalls all the circumstances. How long is such a condition of affairs to be allowed to continue in the town of New Glasgow, which is a large and growing town, with office accommodation entirely inadequate for serving about twelve thousand people, an office which is distributing mail to a large number of rural routes, handling from sixty to seventy-five bags of mail every day, and dealing with the mail coming in and going out on ten or twelve trains daily, an office where the floor space does not provide in the busy season 
for handling mails ten square feet of space to each postal operative? That is a condition of affairs which I think cannot be duplicated in any part of this country east of the city of Montreal. The matter has been brought to the minister's attention by the Liberal candidate in the last election, and by the Liberal candidate in the election before the last, and they write that they have exhausted all their resources and all their patience in bringing the matter to the attention of the minister. Now I ask the minister and I ask this house, is it fair that that condition of affairs should prevail over a long period of years, and particularly during the last five years? It is useless for the minister to tell me that after he has prepared his estimates they have to run the gauntlet of council, the Minister of Finance, the house and all the rest. That does not answer the question at all, because the minister can get $15,000 or $20,000 for other buildings in places where the conditions are nothing like as onerous, and he knows it. I would like to know what he is going to do about it.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope my hon. friend
will not be too imperative in his demands.


Thomas Cantley: Too what?


John Campbell Elliott: Imperative.


Thomas Cantley: I am, and in this matter have been, the most long-suffering man in this house.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend's
plea when he sees me privately is much stronger than the one he makes in this house, because in private conversation he never accuses me of the things that he is now suggesting. However, there is no question about it. This is one of the many places that are receiving consideration at the present time, and I have no doubt that it will be dealt with in the not far distant future. That is all I can say. I am not for a moment attempting to argue with my hon. friend that an addition to the accommodation at the place he mentions is not required. I have the place very clearly in mind and all the conditions. It is not a question of a new building, but a question of an addition to the present premises, and I have no doubt that that addition will come in due course.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask the minister
if he has decided that nothing will be done this year? Will he tell me that?


John Campbell Elliott: That is pretty hard to
say.
APRIL 24, 1929	rB
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia


Mr. ADSHEAD:: May I ask the minister
a question that will relate to all the public buildings in these estimates? Will there be a fair wage clause satisfactory to the Minister of Labour inserted in all the contracts which the government lets, and will union labour be employed?


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad that some hon. member asks me a question that is easy to answer. There is no question that a fair wage clause is and will be inserted.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Satisfactory to the Minister of Labour?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I asked because the last clause I saw was impractical.


John Campbell Elliott: Without attempting to
place upon the shoulders of my esteemed colleague the Minister of Labour anything that I should bear, he furnishes all the fair wage clauses that are put in our contracts.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And with respect to
union labour?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know about
union labour. I do not think you could always get that.


Mr. MacNUTT:: I do not rise for the purpose of offering any criticism of the vote for public buildings in Nova Scotia. I wish first to congratulate the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough and the hon. member for Hants-Kings on being successful in securing a vote for these necessary public buildings. I had the pleasure of living some seven years in the little town of Sherbrooke, and I can vouch for the necessity of a public building there. While the population as stated is somewhat small, Sherbrooke is a very large distributing centre for that portion of the county, and I am very glad that the people there have at last received recognition of their claims for a better public building. I hope the hon. member for Hants-Kings, having secured the ear of the government, will endeavour at the next session to get a vote for a public building at the other end of the county in the little town of Shubenacadie and in the sister town of Stewi-acke where I have the honour to reside. Both these towns are much larger than Sherbrooke and yield a greater revenue to the government.	In both cases lots were purchased
years ago for these long-hoped-for public buildings.
I notice in this vote an item of $8,000 for an addition to the Truro post office. At the time this vote was up last session I
pointed out that the government architect reported that it was impossible to make the necessary repairs and additions in such a way as to render the building suitable for the use of a town of the size of Truro. He advised a new building, The Postmaster General-I regret he is not in his seat replied that he considered the addition to be placed in the rear would make it as good as a new building. Now we have $8,000 added to $24,000 voted last year, a total of $32,000, or almost the cost of the new building which was asked for and for which a suitable lot had been purchased. This I think bears out my contention at that time that a new building would cost very little more than the repairs to the old one.
However, my purpose in rising was to refer more particularly to a remark made by the Minister of Public Works. A few moments ago he said the policy of the government was to accept the lowest tender regardless of party affiliations of the tenderer, I direct his attention to the now famous Bedford Basin magazine contract, which has been in the public eye for some time.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend say
that that is a contract in the Department of Public Works?


George Taylor MacNutt: It may have been in the
Department of National Defence.


John Campbell Elliott: I was speaking about the
rule in my own department. I cannot speak for other departments.


George Taylor MacNutt: At the time tenders were
invited the Standard Construction Company of Halifax was the lowest tenderer. Several other firms tendered and their deposits were returned to them, but the department retained the deposit of the Standard Construction Company. It was charged that I had an interest in the company, and word came to Ottawa that the tender of the Standard Construction Company must not be accepted. For months and months the deposit was held at Ottawa until finally new tenders were called for. The Standard Construction Company again submitted the same figure.


John Campbell Elliott: May I interrupt my hon.
friend?-because I know he desires to be fair about the matter. There are certain reasons applying in other departments that do not apply in the Department of Public Works with regard to accepting the lowest tender. Where the work is of a technical character it may not be as easy to follow the practice of my department, and I want to say it is not always easy to do it here. The case to which

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
my hon. friend refers must be subject to some such conditions. I would take it that it would be more advantageous to deal with this matter when the minister of the department is present. It is something I know nothing about.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He is here now.


George Taylor MacNutt: I understood the minister to say the policy of the government in every case was to accept the lowest tender.


John Campbell Elliott: I said that was the policy in the Department of Public Works.


George Taylor MacNutt: Since I have made reference to the matter I may as well conclude my observations in regard to it. At the time when the new tenders were called for the figures of the original tenders were public property. The Standard Construction Company tendered again at the same figure they had submitted on the first occasion. The result was that Mr. MacMillan-who by the way is a personal friend of mine-knowing the figures submitted by the Standard Construction Company in their original tender placed his figure a little lower and secured the contract. Now, I am sorry if I have cast any reflections on the Minister of Public Works, but I merely wished to refer to this matter.


James Layton Ralston: 
William Gordon Ernst: The matter is scarcely relevant, but the Minister of National Defence has said either too much or not enough. If he wants to give a complete explanation he might have added that the Standard Construction Company when they put in their tender a second time expressly stated that the amount of their first tender was public property on the streets of Halifax.


James Layton Ralston: Certainly. The fact that the first tender was public property did not affect the case one way or the other.


William Gordon Ernst: It affected the department.


James Layton Ralston: Not at all. This was after the tenders were opened. I have no doubt you will find that Mr. Gould discussed the matter of his tender, that he did not keep the amount secret after the time was up-


William Gordon Ernst: Are you sure it was not Mr. MacMillan?


James Layton Ralston: That is a remark hardly worthy of my hon. friend, but perhaps it is typical of the sort of remarks he makes. I do not know, and I do not believe that Mr. MacMillan was here in connection with the tender, but the hon. gentleman will have full opportunity to inquire into the matter. I

very distinctly repudiate, however, any suggestion that from the department, either directly or indirectly, Mr. MacMillan got the slightest suggestion as to the amount of Mr. Gould's tender.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: We accept, of
course, the statement of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), but at the same time it is a very remarkable coincidence that when these tenders were received they were considered not satisfactory. The gentleman who performed the work paid a visit to Ottawa with the result that new tenders were asked for, and that gentleman or his firm, or one of his firms, because he has a great number that get all government work down our way under one name or the other-that gentleman got the contract at a couple of thousand less than his previous tender, knowing the price named by the Standard Construction Company. I would ask the minister, how much in excess of the tender of Mr. MacMillan was the actual cost?


James Layton Ralston: I never thought of the
matter coming up, but my hon. friend will have the fullest information. The matter is before the public accounts committee and he will have full opportunity to find out. But I suggest this is one contract he did not delay.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Injustice has been done another tenderer.


John Warwick King: I rise to a point
of order. I submit that the present discussion is out of order. We are discussing Public Works estimates, and other estimates not before the committee have been gone into. We should confine ourselves to the business before the committee.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the point well
taken; but by the same token I want to ask the minister, who was former minister of public works, whether he did publicly promise the people of Bridgetown in 1925 that a new post office would be erected, as stated on the floor of the house to-day.


John Warwick King: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And whether he did not
in furtherance of that promise authorize the purchase of a lot in 1925. I should like to know why the post office was not built.


John Warwick King: I had the pleasure of visiting this town in Nova Scotia and I did recommend to council the purchase of a lot. The property was purchased. I am not minister of public works, and whatever recommendations were made have been considered by council and acted upon.
Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia


Harry Bernard Short: Did the minister state to
the people there that he considered they were entitled to a post office and that the present one was a disgrace as a public structure? And did he not make pretty nearly the same statement on the floor of the house when the estimates of the present Minister of Public Works were under consideration in 1927?


John Warwick King: No, I did not
make a statement of that kind. I did probably indicate to the people there that it would be desirable to have a public building, but that was all right. And that was all, I think.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was the point of
spending $5,000 for the purchase of a lot in the town of Bridgetown in 1925 on the recommendation and at the instance of the hon. gentleman who was then Minister of Public Works, if the then minister did not intend to build a post office? Why buy the lot? Were you farming it out for pasturage,^ or what? I submit that the Minister of Pensions and National Health must have gone as far as it is alleged on this side of the house that he did go, namely, that when he received authority and spent money for the purchase of a lot he must have promised the people of that community that he would build a post office there, where the people are suffering from lack of accommodation. If that is true, fiow can the government square themselves with their lack of performance? That is the gravamen of the charge against the administration, not particularly against the present incumbent of the office but against the whole administration. They either impliedly or expressly made a promise to the people of Bridgetown which promise they have not carried out. What is the justification? They have spent millions elsewhere in public works. The reason of course is apparent to me: the county voted wrong from the standpoint of the government, both at the election of 1925 and at the succeeding election of 1926. And I want to point out that that county will continue to vote wrong, from the government's standpoint, so long as they fail to implement their promises to the public of that community.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: You admit they
voted wrong?


Richard Burpee Hanson: From your standpoint. I do not admit anything of the kind you imply. There is no reason why the hon. member for Stormont should take that view.


John Campbell Elliott: As regards the preparation of the estimates now before the committee,

Supply-Public Works-Nova Scotia
and with reference to the question whether the site was purchased in 1925, or 1914, or whenever it was, we have to consider a number of cases where sites are already owned by the government. So far as I am concerned we have not gone into an analysis with respect to the time at which any site was purchased. I have endeavoured to make clear to my hon. friend that it was a question as to just what the accommodation is at the present time and what were the possibilities of the people getting along, for another year at any rate, without a new public building in that place. I am quite frank in saying that a number of buildings have been stricken off the list where we could very well have justified their erection.
Mr. HAJvSON: Where were they?


John Campbell Elliott: I have before me only the list in the estimates but I am satisfied that my hon. friend will not find in the estimates buildings that have been put up in any place where they were not extremely urgent.


Harry Bernard Short: The point my hon. friend
(Mr. Hanson) wants to make is that the Minister of Pensions and National Health considered that it was very urgent that a post office or a public building should be put up at Bridgetown, and a lot was purchased for $5,000. There was a building on that lot and they went so far as to tear it down, leading the people to believe that a public building would be erected immediately. There was an old hotel on the lot, which is one of the best business sites in the town, and I do not think the price was exorbitant. Certainly the then Minister of Public Works, when he visited Bridgetown, led the people to believe that a public building would be erected there; there is no question about it. Why did he purchase the lot if he did not intend to put up the building? The Minister of Public Vv orks says that public buildings are being built only where the need is really urgent. Well, the town of Hantsport is not half as important as Bridgetown. The people in Hantsport have better accommodation today than have the people of Bridgetown, although the revenue of their post office is three times less than the revenue of the Bridgetown office. And the population is only half. You cannot justify expenditures on those grounds. I am perfectly in accord with the vote for Hantsport and Sherbrooke, but the same treatment should be meted out to these other towns; and unless the government does that we are going to take exception to these votes.
[Mr. Eiiiott.j


Felix Patrick Quinn: I just want to point out to the Minister of Public Works the niggardly *and miserly way in which he is treating the province of Nova Scotia. If we look at the first four items in this vote we find first an item of $25,000, which is an annual vote for the immigration building. This is simply transferring money from one pocket to the other, robbing Peter to pay Paul; the Immigration department pays the Railway department $25,000 and that money is charged to the province of Nova Scotia. The next item is $15,000 for the Halifax quarantine station, which is a national expenditure. That building is maintained for the reception of immigrants coming to this country, but they do not come to Nova Scotia. We get no foreign immigrants; the immigration policy of this government has not reached us yet. We do not receive any benefit from this item; these immigrants all go to the west but we have to maintain a quarantine station for which we are charged $15,000.
The next item is $50,000 for a naval and ordnance establishment. What for? Are you going to build a nest to encourage the birds to come there? We have no navy in Canada; we have only two little borrowed tin ships, but Nova Scotia is charged $50,000 for a naval establishment. That should not be charged against the constituency of Halifax; it should be charged to the Department of National Defence. The next item is for $46,000 for repairs to buildings and wharfs at the R.C.N. barracks and the H.M.C. dockyard. This is also a national expenditure which brings no benefit to the city of Halifax.
If we total these four items we find that $136,000 of the $185,300 devoted to Nova Scotia is included therein, so we have left the magnificent sum of $49,000 for the whole province, which contributes much more to the revenues of Canada than it has ever received. Of that $49,000 which will be spent in Nova Scotia $30,000 goes to the two Liberal constituencies which have been mentioned, so the eleven constituencies represented by hon. gentlemen on this side of the house get $19,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Shame.


Felix Patrick Quinn: You may well say " shame."
I say this is miserly, niggardly treatment of the little province of Nova Scotia which has done so much for this country and which played such a prominent part in confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I thank hon. gentlemen for the cheers; I am proud to hear them ac-

Supply-Public Works-P.EJ.
knowledge what Nova Scotia has done. I do not take those cheers as derision or ridicule, because I challenge any hon. member on that side of the house-


Mr. DENIS:: Oh, oh.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, any hon. gentleman opposite; I challenge anyone to dispute the fact that Nova Scotia played a prominent part in Canadian confederation. I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that we are being treated in a niggardly, miserly way.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Oh, oh.


Felix Patrick Quinn: My hon.-friend should not be so fresh. The story is told that when Sir Charles Fitzpatrick sat in this house a young fellow like yourself, sitting on that side of the house, upon being rebuked for interrupting, excused himself as being a young member, but Sir Charles said, " No, not young but fresh." That should keep you quiet.
As I have already stated, $19,000 is spread over eleven constituencies in Nova Scotia. In Halifax we get $1,300 for a tractor for postal purposes, and I think even that is a revote from last year. On the other hand Hantsport, represented by my hon. friend from Hants-Kings, is given $15,000 for a public building. I do not criticize the Minister of Public Works on that account, but I do ask him why we should not all be placed on an equal basis. The hon. member for South Cape Breton (Mr. MacDonald) has drawn to the attention of the Minister of Public Works on several occasions the need for a public building in New Waterford, but no attention has been paid to that request. Sherbrooke, however, springs up like a mushroom, just as Kensington did a couple of years ago; Sherbrooke, a little village of 500 people, is given $15,000 while New Waterford must wait. I -suppose it will have to wait until the government changes.


Mr. POWER:: Or the member.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Now let me direct the attention of the minister to something else. I have been looking over the figures as to the money given the other provinces. To be exact, $49,000 goes to Nova Scotia; New Brunswick, the majority of whose members sit on this side of the house, is given $115,500; Quebec gets $937,200; Ontario is given $1,683,600; Manitoba receives $433,600; Saskatchewan, with which province the government is flirting, is given $842,000; Alberta, with which it is also flirting, gets $596,700, but poor
British Columbia, where there was a change of government a few months ago, gets only $160,500. They suffer with Nova Scotia.
If this is the business administration of which there is so much boastful talk why is it that such important parts of this Dominion as the extreme east and the extreme west are neglected simply because they do not send a majority of members to support the government? If the government wish to maintain a business administration every province throughout Canada should be placed on an equal basis, and if the government wishes to win some votes in Nova Scotia it had better play up to that province much more than it is doing at present. In the general estimates I see a vote of $75,000 for the county of Antigonish and nearly $100,000 for Yarmouth, together with almost $30,000 for Hants-Kings. That is not the way for the government to win the people of Nova Scotia. You must deal more generously with them; the representatives on this side of the house from Nova Scotia were sent here because that province has been neglected in the past, not only by Liberal governments but by Conservative governments as well. That is why hon. gentlemen on this side advocate maritime rights. We are not getting justice from this government and I tell the Minister of Public Works that if this is the treatment he is going to accord the people of Nova Scotia the government will soon obtain the answer of the people of that province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-Charlottetown public building -improvements and repairs-$2,500.
Richard Burpee Hanson: I would like to ask the
minister why he is so niggardly with the province of Prince Edward Island. Are there no more Kensingtons there? Is there no place in that province where a public improvement is urgently required? I am sure if you ask the hon. member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald) he will tell you of many places in Prince Edward Island which in the public interest urgently require a substantial allotment of money for public buildings. Why overlook this little island? I am sure the minister must have some reason to offer.


Charles Gavan Power: It is the three Liberal members.


John Campbell Elliott: If any idea remains in the minds of my hon. friends that these estimates are arranged for political purposes, this vote must convinoe them that the idea is
1906	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-New Brunswick
not correct. The improvements and repairs to the public building at Charlottetown were things which seemed more urgent than other things which had to be omitted in other provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Buctouche-public building; Forest Citybuilding for immigration and customs-excise purposes; Ste. Croix-building for customs-excise and immigration purposes at international bridge; St. John quarantine station

Partridge island-new pipe line; St. John quarantine station-Partridge island-water supply; St. John quarantine station-Partridge island-improvements, repairs, etc.-$115,500.
Mr. HANSON; I would like to ask the minister why he has neglected to provide accommodation at McAdam which I have been asking for for the last five years. A vote was provided last year, and there is a revote this year for a building at Forest City. This was not asked for by any public body, although it has probably been asked for by the customs service or the immigration service, and to that I take no exception. The town of McAdam has a revenue of nearly $50,000 per annum, of which $4,600 is derived from the post office. Buildings are being rented for the customs department, the immigration service, and the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture. I made it my business to write a letter to the minister some months ago with regard to this situation.
I pointed out to him that this building was required and that I had urged it upon his predecessor without success. I described the character of the town, which is a railroad town with a population of about 2,500, all being very highly paid and skilled mechanics.
The post office accommodation there is a disgrace to the government of Canada. They use a little wood box owned by the postmaster, for which I believe they pay a rental of $80 per year, which is too much for the accommodation given. It is out of keeping altogether with the size and importance of the town and with the amount of public revenue derived from that point.
A customs house is required as well, with floor space for the Department of Immigration, which maintains three offices at that point. Accommodation should be given to the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture, because they maintain a veterinary surgeon at that point, it being one of the principal ports of entry from the United States.
There is no excuse for the government failing to provide this accommodation, especially when they can provide $25,000 for a public

ouilding at Buctouche. This place is the headquarter for all the big bootleggers in New Brunswick, and they pay no customs revenue on their liquor importations. This is the [DOT]principal port for the illicit smuggling of liquor from St. Pierre-Miquelon and all down the Caraquet coast. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) knows very well that the bootlegging business in New Brunswick is located in Buctouche. I know attempts are being made to stop this traffic, and I give due credit to his department for the efforts they have made.
I would mention also the city of Moncton, which provides a postal revenue of nearly $300,000. When the member for West Kootenay (Mr. King), the present Minister of National Health was Minister of Public Works, that department paid about $50,000 for a site in that city. This purchase was made after the election of 1921 to fulfil a pledge made by the then member for Westmorland (Mr. Copp). This government has not done a single thing to implement the promises which were made to the people of Moncton at that time, and yet it can find funds to erect a building at Buctouche, where I venture to say the per capita revenue is not one-tenth or even one-twentieth of the revenue received from Moncton.
I would like to point out to the minister the situation prevailing in the town of St. Stephen. This is one of the most progressive towns in the province, the seat of some of the largest manufacturing establishments in the maritime provinces. For years the postal accommodation here has been wholly inadequate. I understand that plans were prepared and prices asked for, but the town has consistently voted against the Liberal party-I will be frank and tell the house that it will continue to do so-and as a result of the political attitude of the inhabitants of that town their requirements have been ignored by the Department of Public Works.
Referring again to McAdam. The minister cannot say that the accommodation there is ample. The customs -house is located in the Canadian Pacific railway station, and is wholly inadequate to the requirements of the port. There are seven or eight customs officers at that port and the men are herded into one little room, while the collector has a little congested room as his own private office. It is not too late for the minister to take care of this great public necessity, but I will say to him quite frankly that no candidate of his party will ever carry McAdam; he will get no

Supply-Public Works-New Brunswick
return in votes, but he will be performing a duty to a very important community in the province of New Brunswick.
I notice the government is always able to take care of the requirements at Saint John.
I am not finding any fault with that, but I would ask the minister to realize that that city is not the whole province as has been said on many occasions. I presume that the new pipe line is necessary, although it will be an expensive undertaking due to the physical conditions which exist, but I want to tell the minister that we are not satisfied with the attitude of his department with respect to these questions. As far as I am concerned, I intend to see that a public building is built in the town of Mc-Adam; if I do not get it from the minister I will get it from the government which I support.
Mr. MacLAREN:: Mr. Chairman, no one
can accuse the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) of being extravagant with his estimates for New Brunswick. He is practising great economy. There are six items altogether, and five of them have to do with immigration. As the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) has said, the main portion of the immigration work is the passing of people through to the western part of the Dominion. When we exclude the items for immigration there is only the one item for Buctouche remaining. I would ask the minister in the future, provided he is in position to deal with it, to scrutinize carefully the requirements of the province and determine upon such new buildings and such new work in order of urgency. That he should say that the erection of buildings should be spread over a period of years, is correct, but it does not follow that a building such as the one in Buctouche should be the one which should be selected. On the contrary, the building for Buctouche would come well down on the list. There should be a list in accordance with the needs. We have heard something about the need, which is unquestionable, for a new building in Moncton and the minister cannot go on without paying some attention to that railway city of the maritimes, an enterprising and growing town. I know that the other instances just given by the hon. member for York-Sun'bury are equally correct. The minister is now having a building erected in Buctouche. I do not know whether that is needed or not; but supposing, for argument's sake, it is, it does not, in my opinion, come on the list for this year. There are other appropriations which are much more needed, and which would serve much more
useful purposes were they placed in the estimates, rather than what I might call almost the one estimate for the province of New Brunswick, because immigration work is general for the whole Dominion and we benefit in it to an infinitesimal degree.


Mr. PRICE:: Referring to this item, I wish to say a word or two with regard to the necessity for a new post office in the city of Moncton, and I propose reading the reports of the deputy minister and other officials in that regard, and making a few observations on the situation as it exists there to-day. The city of Moncton is a railway centre for the maritime provinces generally, and there is great need for more public buildings there. As has been stated by the hon. member for York-Sunbury, the present Minister of Public Works purchased a site a few years ago.
I have no fault to find with the site; I think it is a very good one, but they paid an exorbitant price, $49,000, for a site which is assessed in the city of Moncton for about $30,000. The fact, however, is that a political partisan desired to dispose of a site, and that is what took place. The sum of $1,000 was paid for legal fees and advertising in connection with the matter. The department has rented the premises for $40 a month and I think at the present time we are receiving something like $45. It has been pointed out that the present building, which accommodates the post office and the customs, together with the additions which I shall mention later, has been in existence for forty-five years. At the time that building was erected, no doubt it was properly placed, having regard to the situation in that city. But the city has grown since then when it had a population of about 5,000, until to-day it has a population of about 22,000. The following is a memorandum dated December 1, 1923, from Mr. P. T. Coolican, general superintendent of the postal services branch:
With reference to the Deputy Postmaster General's letter of the 6th April, 1922, and previous correspondence, in regard to the question of the erection of a public building at Moncton, N.B., I would be glad if this matter could receive special consideration, and, if possible, an item placed in the estimates to provide for this building.
This is another memorandum submitted by Mr. Coolican under date of December 27, 1923:
With reference to my communication of the first instant, in regard to the question of the erection of a public building at Moncton, N.B., I wish to inform you that an officer of this department recently visited Moncton and he
1908	COMMONS
Supply-Public. Works-New Brunswick
is strongly of the opinion that something will have to be done without delay to provide suitable accommodation at this point.
The Deputy Postmaster General reported upon this matter on May 30, 1921, as follows:
I beg leave to direct your attention to the inadequate postal accommodation at the above named place. Representations have repeatedly been made to your department in this regard, but on account of the financial stringency, no action, with the exception of the rental of space in the Harris building, has been taken.
The Moncton office is congested to an almost unworkable degree. This is due largely to the fact that the present post office was built about the year 1885, when the population was only 5.000 whereas the population is now about 22,000. The city has built up west and northwest of the present site, and consequently, the present building is in the southeasterly section of the city, thus making it inconvenient for possibly 75 per cent of the inhabitants.
Then he goes on to state what the revenue has been in the past. He says:
The revenue of the Moncton office has increased from $69,333.31 in 1919 to $323,273.38 for the year ended March 31, 1921.
Those figures have risen until last year the gross revenue was $482,578.82. The total expenditure, including contingencies of $1,741.13 was $116,300.98, leaving a net revenue from the Moncton Post office of $366,277.84 per annum. I would think that under those conditions, and in view of the innumerable inconveniences, it is pretty nearly time the government took steps to build a decent post office in the city of Moncton, and if necessary utilize the old post office as a customs house. Something simply has to be done. The locality is very difficult for postal deliveries, and it is very inconvenient for anyone to get service at that office. The post office also has to rent additional premises for the mail order business, for the air mail service, and so forth.
I also wish to make reference to the customs accommodation. At the present time the customs department is paying an exorbitant rent for the quarters which it occupies. George A. Robertson, who was previously a merchant in the city of Moncton, and is now retired, rents to the provincial government a store at the corner of Main and Duke Streets, on the opposite corner from where the present quarters of the cutsoms department are situated, floor space covering an area of 4,800 square feet for $125 per month, together with the use of a basement. The building occupied by the customs department was offered for rental at $65 per month or $780 per annum. To-day a middleman gets the difference between $65 and $166.66 per month, or a rake-off of $101.66 per month. The customs department has a two-year lease' on this property, which expires I think in August of
iMr. Price.]
this year. That is a condition of affairs that should not exist. The excuse was made in connection with a former property owner from whom the department rented that his prices were excessive. A man by the name of Wilbur got 81 cents per square foot for the rental of his premises. Mr. Ryan, who at present rents to the Customs department, gets $1.05 per square foot, or 24 cents per square foot more than the price at which the Robertson Store rents to the New Brunswick liquor commission.
As is well known, the department have been carrying on under difficulties at Moncton. The premises are not suitable. I have repeatedly called the attention of the former minister of public works, Hon. Mr. King, and of the present minister to the situation at Moncton during the last three or four years, and I have heard the minister in his statement this afternoon point to the many different places throughout the Dominion, all of which he said could not be served at one time. There is no question about that, but if it takes four years to convince the minister of the necessity of building an extension to the breakwater at Cape Bald, it is going to take one hundred and sixty years to convince him of the necessity of building a post office at Moncton at an expenditure of some $400,000. I would ask him if he thinks it is a fair deal to the people of the locality for which I am speaking at the present time, that they should not have a decent, respectable building. Moncton is one of the finest and most up-to-date cities in Canada, with its paved streets, many miles of cement sidewalks, beautiful parks and beautiful churches; but the post office is a disgrace. If a man wants to go through it he has to traverse a labyrinth of canals to reach it. It is also in an insanitary condition. I would urge the minister and the government to have this situation at Moncton cleared up. Previous to the last election a large hole was dug on the post office site, and the rumour was prevalent that a post office was going to be built. In fact, tenders have been called for repeatedly, but absolutely nothing has been done. I think if the Minister of National Revenue would look into this matter I mention, where a rake-off is being taken by a middleman amounting to $100 a month, he would put a stop to it. I regret very much that an item for a public building in Moncton has not been included in the main estimates, but I hope that when the supplementary estimates are brought down they will include a vote of five or six hundred thousand dollars, which is just a little over the net receipts per annum from the Moncton post

Supply-Public Works-New Brunswick
office, for the building of a decent and respectable public building in that- city, because the building at the present time is a disgrace.


John Campbell Elliott: In reply to my hon. friend,
I do know something about the situation at Moncton. Anything that may have occurred in connection with the renting of the building to which he refers does not belong to the Department of National Revenue but to the Department of Public Works, for which I am responsible.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then we will pass it on
to you.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and I take it freely.
The situation is this. I quite agree with what the hon. member has said, that we are not very well situated in the city of Moncton at the present time so far as the facilities for carrying on the various departments of the government's business are concerned. That has been the situation for some years With regard to the rentals of which my hon. friend spoke, I regret that I have here only the details relating to places for which there is an estimate, but I do know something about that particular matter. In the year 1927 we were renting premises in the city of Moncton at approximately $2,400-I am not going to bind myself to a dollar or so. The landlord sought to raise the rent by $600, which would have made it necessary for us to pay a rental of $3,000. We made diligent inquiry to see if there were not other premises which could be rented at an amount which we thought was reasonable. The premises referred to by my hon. friend were then under lease to a man by the name of Ryan, I think. At the time he had been in possession for about two years under a four year renewable lease.


Otto Baird Price: Wilbur, I think, is the name.


John Campbell Elliott: We left the Wilbur premises and went into the Ryan premises at a rental of $2,000 a year.
Mr, PRICE: But with less space.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not quite as satisfactory as the larger space, but we were able to save $1,000 a year in rent. What our lessor is paying to the original lessor I am not exactly able to say, but I do not quarrel at all with my hon. friend^s statement that it is considerably less than the rent we are paying him. But I think he will be fair enough to bear in mind that our lessor leased the premises in 1925 when property in Moncton was not nearly as much in demand as it was later, and a good deal of that time the premises were vacant. He did considerable 7S594-121
repairs to the property and leased it to us for a term of two years, which expires I think this coming August, with the right to us to renew our lease. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that under the circumstances we could get no better accommodation at the time for the rent we are paying, and I think he will further agree with me that we have effected a saving of $1,000 in the rental as compared with the arrangement made by our predecessors.
I do not find fault with my friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) for his criticisms, but I would call his attention to the fact that the items in the New Brunswick vote, with the exception of one for $25,000, are for public works in ridings represented by members on the other side of the house. It has been asked why Buetouche was selected for this expenditure. Let me state that the order in council providing for the purchase of the site was passed on August 6, 1913, and in the intervening years we have owned the land and received nothing from it. It is another of the cases which was thought to be more urgent than any of the others mentioned by my hon. friend's friends when they were in power. I think -they were correct. In my view it is one of the most urgent cases in the province. Having held the site for sixteen years without getting a cent of revenue from it, we now propose to utilize it. I thank my hon. friends for the fairness of their criticism in connection with these various items.


Otto Baird Price: Of course, during the war
years the administration of which the minister speaks was not in a position to embark on expenditure for a new public building in Moncton; every available dollar was required for other purposes.


John Campbell Elliott: Quite so.


Otto Baird Price: Is not the minister convinced from what he finds on his file and from what I have said that a new building is absolutely required at Moncton to accommodate both the customs and the post office? I can assure him that the file contains reports from Mr. Gaboury, from the architect, the present postmaster and his predecessor, stating that a new building is a necessity.


John Campbell Elliott: Whether a new building is a necessity or not depends to a large extent upon how much it is going to cost and what your present premises are costing. Undoubtedly the government offices would be better housed in a half-million dollar building than in the premises for which we are paying a rental of $2,000.

1910	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-New Brunswick


Otto Baird Price: In addition to that you own the post office.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. There is no question that it would be infinitely more expensive to build new premises. Financially, we can do better by remaining tenants. But I do not think my hon. friend can complain that we have selected Buctouche instead of Moncton for expenditure on a new building in view of the fact that the party which he supports evidently thought it more urgent to provide accommodation at Buctouche than at Moncton or they would not have purchased a site in the former place.


Otto Baird Price: I have mentioned nothing about the Buctouche one.


John Campbell Elliott: No, but my hon. friend is not the only member of his party from New Brunswick.


Otto Baird Price: Is the new building at Buctouche for a post office or for a customs house?


John Campbell Elliott: For both.


Otto Baird Price: Will the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) say whether or not it is correct that within the last three or four years the customs house in Kent county has been closed and the people there obliged to go to Shediac to transact their business? Shediac is in my constituency. Will he say, further, whether or not an order has been issued for the closing of the customs house at the latter place on May 1, with the result that the residents will then have to go to the city of Montcon in connection with their customs business?


William Daum Euler: WTe have closed some two hundred offices throughout the country. I do not remember the names of them all, but it is quite possible, and perhaps probable, that what my hon. friend states is the fact. I cannot say without looking up the files.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The Minister of Public W orks has dealt with the situation at Moncton, I presume because he realizes how serious it is. But he does not undertake to do anything to remedy that serious condition. That is the quarrel I have with him at the moment. He admits all the charges made against the deficiencies of the present lay-out.


John Campbell Elliott: Is not that doing pretty well?


Richard Burpee Hanson: I should like to get in behind him and galvanize him into action. What we want is action, not palaver about this, that and the other thing. fMr. Elliott.!


John Campbell Elliott: We shall be very glad to have my hon. friend get in behind us. I understand that a number of other hon. gentlemen on this side of the house contemplate the same course, and we will welcome them.


Richard Burpee Hanson: 
Harry Bernard Short: The Minister of Public
Works has spoken about a number of lots purchased in 1913 and 1914 and has advanced the argument that it is a good investment to put up buildings on these sites. That was his excuse, or one of his excuses, for the erection of this building in Buctouche- because the lot was bought in 1913. Well, I want to inform the government that in 1913 or 1914 a lot was bought in Middleton, Nova Scotia, where a public building is required. If it is a good investment to put up a building in Buctouche because the government

Public Accounts Committee
owns a lot there, it is an equally good investment to put up one in Middleton where it has owned a lot since 1913 or 1914. That seems to be the principle on which these buildings are being constructed, and on that principle a building is due the people of Middleton. I want to say to the minister, therefore, that we shall expect to find in his estimates next year a vote for a building to be erected on that site in Middleton, Nova Scotia. From his own statement he considers it a good investment to use these lots which are owned by the government, and we can expect him to carry out this policy with regard to Middleton.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: By unanimous consent I beg to lay
on the table supplementary return regarding the appointment of a postmaster at Sutton, which return was asked for by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark).


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 25, 1929