1929-04-25

[Stage Direction]
Tenth report of select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.-Mr. Cahill.
Sixth report of select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Parent.

Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State):: I desire to lay on the table of the
house copies of letters, documents, and so on from the file of the Civil Service Commission concerning the appointment of a stenographer at New Westminster.



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGE PARENT, Quebec West, (for Mr. Jacobs) presented the second report of the select standing committee on public accounts as follows:
The select standing committee on public accounts beg leave to present the following as their second report:
Your committee now have under consideration certain items contained in the Auditor
General's report for the fiscal year _ ending March 31st, 1928, as referred to the =aid committee.
It is deemed advisable by your committee that certain other items which are contained in the Auditor General's report for the previous year also be taken under consideration. Your committee therefore recommend that the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1927, be referred to the said committee.
Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton):: Mr. Speaker, there is an apparent misunderstanding in connection with this report.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. member should
give notice.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I am not opposing the motion, Your Honour. The hon. member for Quebec West (Mr. Parent) is making this motion in place of the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). When the committee was in session yesterday I made two motions, and I think the hon. member for Quebec West has not quite grasped the import of what took place.
The first motion was for the production of material in connection with the Matane dredging contract. This matter dealt with items from the Auditor General's reports of 1924, 1925 and 1926, and it was then suggested that without leave of the house it would not be possible to have the reports for those three years taken up.
The second motion was in relation to the Beauchemin library, and dealt with extracts from the Auditor General's reports for the years 1926, 1927 and 1928.
In view of the fact that information is sought in regard to these matters, and the files relating to entries appearing in the Auditor General's report for those respective years are asked for, it was thought, that the house should be requested to refer to that committee all of the entries and all the files relating to the various years. The hon. member for Cartier undertook to bring that matter up and place it before the house. I am quite satisfied that that was his intention but he has been unexpectedly called away, and I am asking now that the hon. member for Quebec West place the matter before the house.


Hewitt Bostock: Under the circumstances,
I think the motion had better stand.


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I draw this
to your attention, Mr. Speaker:	My information from the hon. member for Cartier is that owing to certain religious observances in which he is at present concerned, it will not be possible for him to be present in the house until some time next week. I think the work of the committee should not suffer
Public Accounts Committee

meanwhile, and I am quite sure the hon. member for Quebec West will concur with me that the matter is as I have stated. Therefore I ask that the motion may be so altered as to enable the committee to go on with its very necessary work.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion had better
stand.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Since the motion has been
called, a rather serious situation has developed. I am not saying at the moment that a deliberate endeavour has been made to prevent investigation, but the fact is that two very prominent members on the opposite side of the house are energetically taking action that, if carried to its finality, would result in the investigations never being completed. I need hardly point out to the house that it has been a rule from time immemorial that when an item is under consideration in the public [DOT] accounts committee, you may trace it back to its origin without any further reference to the house. Unfortunately, however, the contention has been made-and a majority vote in the committee succeeded in carrying the views of that majority, of course-that you cannot investigate an item, the details of which appear in a previous auditor general's report, beyond the year preceding the year just ended. I need hardly say that such a contention, if carried to its finality, would render nugatory any effort made by the public accounts committee.
The rule, as I understand it-and I have asked some of the oldest members of the house-is perfectly clear, that if in the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1928, there appears an item indicating that payments have been made to A. B. and it becomes necessary to trace the matter back to its origin, even as the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) said, to confederation itself; if it is a continuous series of transactions, then you can trace it back to its origin without referring the matter to the house. That looks on the face of it so sensible as not to require discussion. The hon. gentleman who has made the motion has an entirely different view. He believes the house adopted another rule. I do not find any evidence of the adoption of such a rule. The public accounts are on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) referred to the public accounts committee. It will be recalled that last year a little conversation took place with respect to that owing to the late date in the session at which the public accounts were referred; and without prejudice to our position. At the

moment, the motion of the hon. member for Quebec West is a motion intended to empower the committee to go back beyond the Auditor General's report for 1928 with respect to a certain related item, and of course the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) will realize just what that means. You cannot carry on your discussion with respect to the final payment of an account unless you can go back to its origin and trace it down, because it is based on a contract either express or implied, a contract in writing or a verbal contract given by one of the departments. That may be five or six years ago. I know of one ten or eleven years back.


Mr. MANION:: The Welland canal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the Welland canal
contract was signed in-


Mr. DUNNING:: There are a large number of Welland canal contracts dating back quite a number of years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank the Minister of Railways. They go back at least six or seven years and they are being projected into the future. Suppose in 1929 the public accounts committee is investigating the accounts of March 31, 1928, with respect to any one of those contracts: I think the house has ruled time after time-and the committee has always thought it was so plain it was not necessary to come back to the house-that you can investigate from the origin of the contract down to the date you are then considering, on the assumption, of course, that the matter has not been previously investigated, and if so, the details are available. Payments of public moneys are authorized either under statute or by contract. There may be a written contract or sometimes only a verbal contract and the duty of the public accounts committee is to investigate the soundness of the payments; whether they were warranted or not; whether the prices paid were reasonable; whether tenders were called; whether the moneys voted and paid reached the source indicated by the account or some other source. The public accounts committee is endeavouring to function, not as a party machine, but for the purpose of indicating to the people of Canada whether or not the money is properly expended in accordance with the will of parliament. If it has not been, this committee is going to ascertain that fact. The mere fact that the chairman of the committee is absent to-day or to-morrow should not be a reason for holding up the matter. Summer will come and winter too, if we are going to have only one meeting of the committee a week and then

Public Accounts Committee
have it met by such a motion as that which has been considered during the last few days. For that reason, I think the observations made by the hon. member for West Hamilton, which indicate that a certain resolution was to be submitted to the house because a majority of the committee determined that it would be against all precedent-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: There was no vote in the committee at all.


Robert James Manion: I was in the committee and I opposed it throughout.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: There was no vote.


Robert James Manion: No, but I opposed it throughout.


An hon. MEMBER:: The ayes and nays were called.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On every occasion where it has been possible the majority of the committee has been summoned to prevent these investigations from being carried on.


Air. LAPOINTE:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask the minister to read the record. I know what he has seen in his experience in connection with public accounts. The committee has now adjourned until next Wednesday. On Wednesday an effort will be made to have it meet on Thursday alt ten o'clock, and on Friday at ten o'clock. Surely hon. members remember that the public accounts committee, when an opposition was investigating the Arctic accounts, sat for days and weeks and it dragged into a month before they got all the horrid details brought to the attention of the public. We are going to endeavour to do the same thing this year and to do so means that the will of a majority is not going to impose itself against the right to investigate the public accounts of Canada which represent moneys paid by the people of Canada and not by any one party. Let that be clearly understood.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Alinister):: I fail to see just exactly what the leader of the opposition has been asking for. I understood that the request of the hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) was that a certain report, which is before the house at the moment, should be amended before it is accepted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: To carry out an agreement.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is a matter of changing the wording of a report, and
a report that was signed by the chairman. The chairman happens to be absent at the moment; but if my hon. friend will permit me the time necessary to telephone him,
I will endeavour to get his consent to make a change that is a matter, as I gather it, not of any consequence beyond that of having the committee meet, if possible, at an earlier date.


Leslie Gordon Bell: May I interrupt the Prime Minister just a moment? As the Prime Minister rose to his feet, I think the hon. member for Quebec West was about to say something further, and possibly he was about to express his acquiescence in what I had asked for. If that is the case, we can make progress.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If other members of the committee are agreeable, it will facilitate matters, but the chairman who signed the document ought to know, before that document is changed, if there is an intention to alter it. I should not think we would be losing very much time if the motion were to stand over for another day. If it can be settled at the moment, so much the better. I object, however, to my hon. friend taking advantage of a discussion of the kind when a certain courtesy is being asked of the government-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a courtesy; it
is a matter of right.


Ernest Lapointe: Do not insult the members of the committee.
Air. A1ACKENZIE KING:	I do not see
why my hon. friend the leader of the opposition should lose his temper over it. It is not as serious as all that. The government is entirely in accord with the view of my hon. friend that the public accounts should be investigated whenever it is thought desirable to have them investigated, and that the fullest opportunity for investigation should be given. No one takes any other view.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They act the other way.


Ernest Lapointe: It is a most unfair reflection.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is possible that we can arrange to meet my hon. friend in the way that has been suggested, but if the other members of the committee have some substantial reason for not acquiescing in my hon. friend's request at the moment, we shall have to ask him to let the matter stand until to-morrow, and in the interval I will get into communication with the chairman of the committee.
Public Accounts Committee


Leslie Gordon Bell: Mr. Speaker, may I say-


Hewitt Bostock: The horn gentleman has
already spoken.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am only speaking in answer to what the Prime Minister has just said. Is that out of order, Mr. Speaker?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Mr. POULIOT:: I think by unanimous
consent we might hear the hon. gentleman.


Arthur-Lucien Beaubien: I
would like to say a word in answer to the remarks of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). Having been a member of the public accounts committee for many years, I strongly resent the hon. leader of the opposition insinuating or seeking to create the impression in this house that the public accounts committee are trying to prevent hon. members on the other side of the house from investigating in the committee any matter in connection with the public accounts. There is no such intention and there has been no such action on the part of any members of that committee since I have been a member of it, and that is a good many years now.
The report which has been presented by the chairman was discussed last Wednesday before the public accounts committee, and my recollection is that the committee unanimously consented to this reference to the house because some members of the committee thought that we did not have power to go into the public accounts of years gone by. The chairman himself stated that he did not think we had that power. The committee therefore agreed that we should refer back to this house and seek authority to investigate the public accounts of years gone by and go into the files. I wish to repeat that there has been no intention on the part of the committee, and no action taken, to try and prevent a thorough investigation of any item in the public accounts.


Robert James Manion: As a member of the public accounts committee, I was present throughout the whole discussion yesterday, when not only did various members on the other side of the house sitting on that committee take the attitude that we could not examine further back than the present Auditor General's report, but the Solicitor General himself (Mr. Cannon), a member of the government, stated that the reference of the house to the committee concerned only the Auditor General's report which is lying on

the table at the present time; that is, for the year 1927-1928. That was the attitude of the whole party on the other side of the house sitting on that committee-absolutely.	I
argued against that at considerable length, as did others, and in the end, because the government members were in the majority and we could not do anything else, we agreed to refer back to the house for a ruling.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Before my hon.
friend sits down, I would like to ask him if there was any objection on the part of any members of the committee to securing what they regarded as the necessary authority, namely, a reference by the house of the accounts in question?


Robert James Manion: There was objection
throughout to going further back than the present Auditor General's report without first coming back to this house for a reference.


Hon. E. B. RYCKMAN (East Toronto):: As a member of that committee, I desire to support what the last speaker (Mr. Manion) has said, and to say a word in answer to the remark made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe)-"most unfair, most unfair." I would like to point out to the house the treatment that was accorded by that committee. It is true that by a majority vote at the meeting just previous to the last one we asked that we should be allowed to examine the files in relation to a contractor named MacMillan, whom I do not know, in regard to a matter in connection with Bedford basin. We said that we desired the file in order to find out the nature of the case, and to examine the officers of the department so as to have a complete story of the matter. The position taken by the majority on the other side, of course, was that we could not do this, that we could not find out whether there was a proper case or not to allege against MacMillan unless we had MacMillan himself present.


Mr. THORSON:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, should the hon. member discuss the proceedings of the committee when the particular matter on which he is speaking is not before the house? The question before us is a motion to extend the jurisdiction of the committee.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that the
hon. gentleman is simply giving an illustration in leading up to his point that at the last meeting of the committee the opportunity was not given to the minority, I suppose, which they desired. The hon. gentleman will please come to the point.

Public Accounts Committee


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I will come to the point, Mr. Speaker, which is this, that a majority of that committee by a vote of nineteen to fourteen said that we were not to be allowed to examine the files or call the officers of the department and ascertain whether or not there was a case until we had Mr. MacMillan present.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to correct an
impression which the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) left on this house.
I understood him to say that the committee by a majority vote had taken a certain decision last Wednesday. I am a member of the committee and was present at the meeting of the committee. The hon. leader of the opposition was not present. The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Bell) made a motion for the production of certain papers and certain files relating to a certain account, and the question was raised-it was put by myself to the chairman of the committee, for information-as to the rule that should govern in such cases. In the course of the discussion two points were raised: First, whether it was within the power of the public accounts committee to discuss items beyond two years back; second, whether the committee could go beyond the order of reference from this house. Earlier in the session the public accounts as contained in the Auditor General's report for the year ending March 31, 1928, were referred to the public accounts committee, and the question raised in the committee was whether the committee could go beyond that order of reference. Those were the two points raised.
There was no vote taken in the committee one way or the other. The chairman was of the opinion that the committee could not go beyond its order of reference and it was the general agreement of the committee that if it did not have sufficient power to go into the accounts that were desired to be examined, it should come back to this house for an extension of its power. There was no suggestion of blocking inquiry in any way, shape or form. There was no vote taken one way or the other with regard to the matter.


Jean-François Pouliot: As a member of the public accounts committee, I resent very much what the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) has said with regard to supposed obstruction by some members of that committee. I am for fairness in discussion, and for nothing being hidden in connection with the committee's inquiry. I move that not only should MacMillan appear before the committee, but also the
Minister of National Defence in the Meighen government of 1926, the member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), and the Minister of Railways and Canals in the same government, the senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black); that they should be invited to appear before the committee to explain why they stopped the contract, afterwards gave orders to the contractor to resume the work, and later cancelled the contract. I think they should explain their action to the committee.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (South Wellington) :: Mr. Speaker, if I understand aright the difficulty which has arisen, it appears to me that a majority of the committee was of opinion that the committee could not inquire into anything beyond the single Auditor General's report which was referred to the committee on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb). It has always been a rule that any item in that particular report may be inquired into and may be traced to its inception, no matter how far back it goes. But I agree that a new investigation should not be started in regard to an item which appears in past reports of the Auditor General, but which does not appear at all in the particular report under consideration by the committee. But that, Mr. Speaker, is fundamental. Surely the committee does not require instructions in regard to it. With all due respect, I think the majority of the committee has acted very strangely in bringing the matter before the house at all. If an item is in the report which has been referred to the committee, that item can be traced back to its inception, and it has been the custom for the last thirty years to do so. But I do not think the committee has the right, unless specially directed, to inquire into items which do not appear in the last report referred to it; that is, the committee cannot rake up matters contained in former reports of the Auditor General unless those matters are specially referred to it.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I am not a member of the public accounts committee and I do not know what happened there. I have nothing to say about its proceedings but my friend from East Toronto (Mr. Ryckman) has taken exception to the words I uttered, "most unfair". I was not referring to anything that has happened in the committee, but to the words of my hon. friend the leader of the opposition when he said that Liberal members were summoned to attend the public accounts committee for the purpose of preventing the proposals of my hon. friendis opposite being adopted. I thought

Public Accounts Committee
those words most unfair, and I still think so. The members of the public accounts committee who happen to be sitting on this side of the house have a duty to discharge in that committee, as well as my hon. friends opposite. It is their duty to attend there, and it is unfair to reflect on their attendance. It is rather difficult to please my hon. friend, for I remember last year when a certain committee was sitting he complained twice or three times in the house that Liberal members of that committee deliberately refrained from attending its sittings. This year he is complaining because they are attending. I think-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was to make a quorum.


Ernest Lapointe: I think those words
are unfair, and I still protest against them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to correct a statement made by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe).


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a question of
privilege. The Minister of Justice said that last session I complained because Liberal members did not attend the committee. I complained of their non-attendance at that time because there was not a quorum, and there could not be one unless they attended. Why did they stay away?


Ernest Lapointe: It is a great difference.


Charles Avery Dunning: I desire, Mr. Speaker,
to concur in the view expressed by the hon. member for South Wellington-with all due deference to the chairman of the committee,
I suppose we can all have views on the matter under discussion-to the extent that wherever an item appears in the current public accounts, and its source is in the public accounts of previous years it is competent for the committee to follow that item back to its source. But may I point out that so far from this report being a reflection on the motives of the majority of the committee, the report itself, if adopted, will go much further than my hon. friends opposite desire to go,-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Avery Dunning: -because apparently not only will it permit the committee to trace the items which appear in the current public accounts back to their source, but it will also permit the committee to go into any other items which appear in the previous public accounts mentioned in the report. That is my reason for objecting to the unfairness of

the insinuation

shall I say?-which emanated from the ether side in regard to the matter. Without at all debating whether or not the items in the present public accounts can be traced back to their source, at least the majority of the committee desired the house to place every facility at the disposal of the committee.


Robert James Manion: You were not at the committee.


Charles Avery Dunning: I hold in my hand the
report of the proceedings, and I will read it into Hansard for the information of the house. When motives are called in question the actual language used surely can be quoted. Let me read from the report:
It is deemed advisable by your committee that certain other items which are contained in the Auditor General's report for the previous year also be taken under consideration. Your committee therefore recommend that the Auditor General's report for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1927, be referred to the said committee.
This is, the whole report for the previous year.


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker-, while agreeing with the views of both the member for South Wellington and the Minister of Railways with respect to the logical procedure in matters of this kind, I must disagree with the implication of the last remarks of the Minister of Railways. I am wondering to myself what is going to happen if, every time an examination of an item that comes before the public accounts committee discloses that its source is to be found in previous accounts, that committee is to have to come before this house-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just a
moment; if that committee has to come before this house for an extension of power.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend will
surely permit me to say that in my opinion- and I am not the judge; I presume the Speaker is-such a return to this house is not necessary, provided the item in question has its origin in previous public accounts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we have said.


Edward Joseph Garland: With that I agree; but the implication in the latter part of my hon. friend's remarks would lead us to believe that the majority of the committee had met that situation and gone much further.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has.


Edward Joseph Garland: I may be
entirely wrong, but I hold the view that if

Public Accounts Committee
the house adopts this ^report it will create a precedent which will require on every subsequent examination of accounts, other than those of the current year, that the committee must come back to this house in order to gets its powers extended for the purpose of such examination. If it is to be regarded as a precedent, I must object to it, not because I am a member of the committee but because I do not think it is the proper procedure. I do not think it is logical, nor do I think it will facilitate the work of the committee. If it is not to be regarded as a precedent, well and good.


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, as a private member of the house-I am not a member of the public accounts committee-as soon as the report was read I at once intended bringing to your attention what I conceive to be a very serious principle involved in the report. As I understand the situation, it is this. It has been ruled by the chairman of the public accounts committee that it is not competent for the committee to examine into files on matters beyond the single year contained jin the Auditor General's report, in this case covering the fiscal year ending March 31, 1928. I submit to Your Honour that the members of the public accounts committee have a perfect right to request production of the files and to examine officers of whatever department may be involved in regard to any item included in that year's report, and to follow that item as many years as it goes back in the records of parliament. If that is the case, then the submission to parliament to-day is unnecessary. If the adoption of this report is to be accepted as establishing the ruling of the chairman of the committee that it was not competent for the committee to go back beyond the current report of the Auditor General without a further reference to the house, then I would oppose very, very strongly the adoption of the report. And that is the understanding which we on this side of the house have of the ruling of the chairman of the committee. The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has made what I conceive to be a perfectly proper interpretation of the rule, namely, that it is competent for the committee to follow an item back without reference whatsoever to the house; and if the house agrees to that then, so far as I am concerned, I have nothing more to say on the subject. If, on the other hand, the adoption of the report nullifies the opinion expressed by the minister, who is not at the moment leading, then it is a very serious matter.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think I intimated that it was the Speaker who would determine the rule.


Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George):: The objection to the report, it seems to me, is this:	It must be admitted
that when any item in the present Auditor General's Report is under consideration, which relates to an antecedent contract running through two or three prior years, the committee has the undoubted power and authority to proceed to investigate the antecedents of that item, if it is, for example, a continuing contract or a contract on which payments were made, say, three years ago, the final payment falling within the last Auditor General's Report. You have the right to trace the item back to the initiation of the contract under which it arose. That seems to be conceded by the Minister of Railways. Now this resolution assumes, first, that the committee cannot investigate any item further back than the year which has just closed.


Charles Avery Dunning: I read it carefully-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I have it before me.


Charles Avery Dunning: -and I find in it no reference-


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I find in it a clear intimation or implication to that effect. The report states:
It is deemed advisable by your committee that certain other items which are contained in the Auditor General's report for the previous year also be taken under consideration.
That, if it passed, would create, it seems to me, the clear implication that although the item which appears in this last annual report might be investigated, it could be investigated only in case that the previous Auditor General's report is brought before the 'committee. And it is that implication which we oppose in this report. If it is the clear understanding that when an item has arisen in the last Auditor General's report, relating to a continuing contract, that item should be or may be investigated by the committee back to the last year and to the preceding year, or for any number of years until you reach the source from which the item arose-until you reach the contract under which it arose- then the case is different. It is therefore the implication in this report, that the committee cannot go beyond the last year unless by order of the house, to which we take exception. It is suggested that under the proposed order you could not go back beyond the second preceding year, whereas, as a matter of practice in this house, the item should if necessary be traced to its origin.
Public Accounts Committee


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it has been made quite clear from this side of the house that we do not differ at all from hon. gentlemen opposite in the view that any item being investigated by the public accounts committee may be traced back to any number of years. That is perfectly clear. With respect to this particular report, we on this side of the house, might take the view if we wished to be unduly suspicious, that hon. gentlemen opposite in not wishing to have the report adopted, see some desire on the part of Liberals to have some items which appear in the 1927 report and which do not appear in the 1928 report not referred to the committee for investigation, because of what the investigation may lead to. I do . not think that any purpose of that kind is contemplated. The committee was genuine in wanting to clear up to the satisfaction of everyone the difference of view which took place the other day, and if we are agreed on the main point, that an item may be traced back to its source, and that this report was brought down with a view of helping to make that possible in order to remove any difficulties in that direction, we may adopt the report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, withdraw the report; otherwise, as my right hon. friend will see, it limits investigation to 1927 and 1928.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. It may be that the majority would like to have that particular report referred to the committee-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, that is
the 1927 report. The 1928 report is the one which has been referred to the committee. I hope my hon. friend does not want to be placed in the position of preventing the 1927 report from being referred to the committee.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Did not the Prime
Minister, at the last session, say that there would be no objection to considering items in the Auditor General's report, 1926 and 1927? That is covered by the motion, and so long as it is understood, and the Prime Minister's statement implements that understanding, there is no quarrel.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I not only said it last session but I say it now, and would be prepared to say it again next year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking to the point of order, it seems to me, as the Prime Minister has said, that we are more or less agreed. It does not seem to me to serve the purpose of the Prime Minister to adopt the report in the
]Mr. Cahan.]
language in which it now appears, because, as worded, it will be a precedent with respect to the necessity of coming back to the house to obtain authority to deal with matters of this kind which have not originated in the current Auditor General's report. If the report of the committee is so amended as to provide for the consideration of items in the manner indicated, then we are all agreed upon it; but it cannot be accepted in the terms in which it now appears.


Mr. POWER:: Is it not a fact that certain members of the committee have asked for the production of documents which are referred to, not in the 1928 Auditor General's report but in the 1927 report, items which have not their origin in 1928? If that is the case, the resolution I submit is a perfectly proper one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not in a position to answer the hon. gentleman's question, but the chairman of the committee no doubt knows. The hon. gentleman himself was present and he would know.


Mr. POM  ER@: I was not there yesterday.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is perfectly clear now-and we are agreed on this point-that the only question is as regards the language of the motion. It is desirable to have the motion so worded that it shall not be a precedent which would make it appear necessary to come back to this house to get authority to investigate items to their source.


Ernest Lapointe: We have asked from the beginning that the motion stand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In view of the fact that the chairman is absent, and as the Prime Minister has properly said he has signed something which he might not desire to have someone else amend, the motion might stand.


Hewitt Bostock: The report cannot be
amended by the house but there may be a motion to refer it back to the committee with a view to its amendment in certain respects.
I understand that it is the wish of the house that the motion stand, but if it is intended that the report be amended it must be referred back to the committee. Bourinot says:
A report may he referred back to a committee for further consideration, or with instructions giving them power to amend the same in any respect.


Charles Gavan Power: Someone who was present
yesterday must know what happened.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not always.

Questions


Charles Gavan Power: Surely some member of the committee can tell us whether or not the items which are required to be discussed had their origin in the 1928 report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been suggested here that it was so.


Hewitt Bostock: I understood the wish of
the house was that the motion should stand.


Mr. ERNST:: I move the adjournment of
the debate.


Hewitt Bostock: It is moved by Mr
Ernst, seconded by Mr. Barber, that the debate on the motion be adjourned. If the debate is not adjourned, hon. members who have already spoken might speak again to-morrow.
Motion stands.



NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL BRIDGE

Mr. F. S. CAHILL (Pontiac) moved:: That the recommendation contained in the tenth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines respecting the reprinting of Bill No. 22, to incorporate the Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company, he concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. E. A. LAPIERRE (Nipissing):: I beg to present a petition regarding a Finnish language newspaper published in Sudbury under the name of "Vapaus " by the communist Finnish Organization of Canada, asking for the suppression of the paper upon what appears to the petitioners good and sufficient grounds. This petition is signed by the following organizations: For the Canadian Legion, B.E.S.L., Sudbury branch, R. H. Hall, president; for the Sudbury High and Technical School Board, by the president; for the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, by Clara E. Andress; for the Women's Canadian Chib by Catherine Moyle; for St. Joseph's Roman Catholic church, Sudbury, by T. H. Trainor; for St. Andrews United church, Sudbury, by Helen Parlow Matheson; for the Sons of England Benefit Society, Sudbury, by Charles H. Taylor; for the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Sudbury, by Teresa Racicot; for the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Copper Cliff, by Minnie F. O'Connor; for the Baptist church, Sudbury, by William Hay; for the Loyal Orange Lodge, Duke of York No. 1088, Sudbury, by A. E. Poulton and for the Catholic Women's League of Canada, Diocese of Sault Ste. Marie, by Teresa Racicot.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DICKIE:: What is the total cost commissioned of the Canadian National Steamships, (a) Lady Nelson; (b) Dady Somers; (c) Lady Drake; (d) Lady Rodney; (e) Lady Hawkins?


Charles Avery Dunning: 1. The Lady Nelson is the only one of these five steamships as to ' which a reasonably complete statement ^ of total cost is yet available, the figure being approximately 81,538,270.00.


BRITISH COLUMBIA FISHERIES
Mr. FRASER:: 
Mr. LAPOINTE (for Mr. Cardin):: 1.	See Fisheries Annual Report 1927-28, page 202.
2.	See same report, pages 86-95.
3.	Certain services are used for all districts. The cost of them for any one is not apportioned.
4.	See above cited report, page 94.
5.	Statement attached.
Distribution of sockeye in the Fraser river
Year	system	Number
1885.. .. 1886 . ..		688,000 2,625,000
1887		3.405,000
1888.. .. 1889		5.375.000 4.419.000
1890 .		6,540,000
1891 ..		3.603,500
1892 .		6,000,000
1898		5,764,000
1894		6.300.000
1895		6,390,000
1896		6,383,000
1897		5,928,000
1898		5.850,000
1899 .		4,242,000
1900 .		6,200,000
1901		
1902.. ..		15,768,000
Questions

Year	Number
1903		 12,612,900
1904		 11,830,000
1905		 9,250,000
1906		 C0.839.900
1907		 34,220j000
1908		 52,515,000
1909		 39,349,000
1910		 63.823,000
1911		 22.737,000
1912		 30.629,000
1913		 30.588,000
1914		 67,095,000
1915		 25,388.000
1916		 63,959,800
1917		 35,104.000
1918		 23,415.000
1919		 33,975.825
1920		 53,894,145
1921		 40,340,583
1922		 37.292.226
1923		 44.743,952
1924		 32.032.711
1925		 44.969.049
1926		 39.760.853
1927		 44,535,530
1928		 40,946.213


LABOUR DEPARTMENT OFFICER IN MARITIME PROVINCES
Mr. MacDONALD (South Cape Breton):: 1.	Is there an officer of the Labour department located in the maritime provinces?
2.	If so, who is such officer, and where is he located ?
3.	What are his duties and what salary is he paid?
4.	Have anjr reports been received from such officer ?
5.	By whom was he appointed?


Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Thomas W. Martin, Halifax, NJ3.
3.	Duties: Under direction, to compile wage schedules for government building and construction work which are considered fair for the locality in question; to investigate complaints as to working conditions, rates of pay, and hours of labour; to act as mediator between employers and employees for the prevention of lockouts and strikes where questions of working conditions, rates of pay, hours of labour, or acts of discrimination are involved; to assist in establishing boards of conciliation and arbitration for labour disputes; and to perform other related work as required. Salary: $2,100 per annum.
4.	Yes.
5.	The Civil Service Commission.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. KAISER:: 1.	Under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the regulations relating to the same, how many animals in each province of Canada were affected during the fiscal year 1928-29? 
2.	How many of each class of animal, in each province, were slaughtered under government authority during the above mentioned period?
3.	How many owners in each province were compensated for loss of such animals during the said period, and how much was paid to each?
4.	How many claims in each province of the Dominion on account of such slaughters are unsettled as of date April 15, 1929?


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS BRANCH LINES
[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 54, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from St. Walburg, in the province of Saskatchewan, to Bonnyviile, in the province of Alberta-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): This bill has been considered by the committee, previously and when it was before us last progress was reported in order that I might have the legal officers of the department give consideration to a point raised by the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie) with respect to a note to the schedule. I think I can meet my hon. friend's point by moving that the bottom line of the schedule as it now appears be dropped to 'below the printing, which will mean that the qualification to the schedule will become a part of the schedule itself which will, I think, effect the object desired.
Mr. SPENCER:: How will that read?


The CHAIRMAN:: It does not change the reading at all.


Charles Avery Dunning: The reading is not
changed, but by dropping that line to below the printing in the bill the qualification will be included as a part of the schedule, which will overcome the objection raised the other day.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 19, consideration in committee of Bill No. 55, respecting the construction of a Canadian National railway line from Alliance to a point near Youngstown or Dobson in the province of Alberta-Mr. Dunning-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: There is a different
amendment to this bill because the criticism was founded on different reasons. First, Mr. APRIL 25, 1929
C.N.R. Act Amendment
Chairman, I move that in the last line of section 1 the word "the" be struck out and the letter "A" added after the word "schedule" in the same line.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Now I move that in the fourth line of section 4 the word "schedule" be struck out and the word "schedules" inserted in lieu thereof.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Now I move that a new section be added after section 8, which will have the effect of making what was formerly a qualification a part of the bill itself. It will read as follows:
In the event of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company commencing to build within one year and completing in two years a line from Coronation to near Youngstown or Dobson, and joint and equal running rights are secured from the Canadian Pacific Railway Company between Lorraine and near Youngstown or Dobson for the company, that part of the line authorized by this act between Lorraine and a point near Youngstown or Dobson shall not be constructed and estimates of cost of construction shall be as set out in schedule "B" to this act.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: Section 9 will require to be renumbered as section 10, and I move that the letter "A" be inserted after the word "schedule."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Charles Avery Dunning: I move that a new
schedule, schedule "B," be added. Schedule "B" is mileage 9.5; the amount to be expended, $408,500; average expenditure! per mile, 843,000. The effect of this will be that if the agreements contemplated between the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific railways is carried into effect, then schedule "B" is the authority. If, through any unforeseen circumstances, these aiTangements are not carried out, then schedule "A" becomes the authority for the construction of the line in question.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 130, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Definition.
Richard Bedford Bennett: These independent lines
acquired would not become .part of the system unless by order in council?


Charles Avery Dunning: The section in that regard is identical with the present section. At the initiation it was not possible to include legislatively these various companies, but from time to time, as circumstances permitted, they have been brought into the system. In that respect, the section is the same.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Take the Kent Northern, for instance. This line should ipso facto become part of the Canadian National system, because that is the only way in which you can secure the proper operation of the line. When a purchase is made, it is made on the assumption that it is desirable in the public interests that the line should become part of the general system. The order in council probably would be passed, but my querry is whether or not there should be any question about our legislatively doing it, as we have done in some instances, without waiting for the order in council. Something might happen which might induce a government-I do not say this government-not to pass the order in council.


Charles Avery Dunning: To use the illustration
of the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett), the Kent Northern; that point would be covered, because the Canadian National acquires the physical properties of the other company.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it is merged into
the system?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is merged into the
system. The feature in the old act, and which is continued in this amendment, only relates to the companies which become part of the system as such but which are not merged iD the corporate sense with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By the acquisition of
shares?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Application of Railway Act and Expropriation Act to company.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned this matter
the other day. It is very difficult for the small property owners bo have recourse to the exchequer court, and these matters could be more readily dealt with by the county or dis-
C.N.R. Act Amendment

trict judge. I gather from the amendment which the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) has said he proposes to move that he thinks the suggestion is meritorious. I mentioned $1,000 the other day, but the minister proposes to make that sum $2,500, so that the exchequer court will deal with all cases in which the amount exceeds $2,500. I think that is a very good solution, because the $2,500 will bring these cases within the jurisdiction of the supreme court and if a litigant felt that there was some great principle at stake he could take an appeal to that court.
The amendment contains the words, "where the claim does not exceed $2,500." That is rather indefinite because a man might claim $5,000 and the government might make an offer of $2,000. I think it should be made absolutely clear and the test should be certain. As it now stands I do not think the test is certain, because we do not know to whose claim this refers.


Charles Avery Dunning: In order to get the matter before the committee, Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment which the leader of the opposition has just referred to.


Mr. GEARY:: Will the minister read it,
please?


Charles Avery Dunning: It would be an addition following the word "thereof" in the eleventh line of subsection (d) of section 2, and reads as follows:
Provided that such compensation may in any ease where a claim does not exceed $2,500, be ascertained under the provisions of the Railway act beginning with notice of expropriation to the opposite party.
I discussed the point just raised by the leader of the opposition with the law officers from the point of view of the actual operation of such a procedure, and I am advised that "beginning with notice of expropriation to the opposite party" does immediately involve the making of a claim for compensation by the opposite party. We are therefore making the amount $2,500 based upon the claim made by the party who is being expropriated. I raised the amount to $2,500, having in mind the factor to which my hon. friend referred, namely, that it would allow greater latitude while at the same time leaving the operation of the amendment to be based upon the claim of the party whose property was being expropriated, rather than upon the action of the company who was expropriating.
[Mr. Bennett.J


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would it not be better
to say " Where the claim of the owner does not exceed $2,500," and thereby remove any possible doubt as to the meaning of the language?


Charles Avery Dunning: I defer to my hon.
friend's legal knowledge in that regard, but, as he is aware, in expropriation proceedings other factors than ownership enter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am therefore afraid of complicating the language. The use of the term " opposite party " later on is intended to apply generally and to include owners or tenants or any others who might have an interest in the property. Probably my hon. friend would examine the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have examined it. The point that I desire to make is that the term " opposite party " does not convey the meaning the minister desires to have us understand. I should think we want to make it perfectly clear that where a claimant sets up a demand for more than $2,500, he must go to the exchequer court, but where the demand does not exceed $2,500, the matter may be heard by the district court under the provisions of the Railway Act. The amendment reads:
Beginning with the notice of expropriation by the opposite party.
Should that not be " by the railway company?"


Charles Avery Dunning: The wording is:
Beginning with notice of expropriation to the opposite party.
That has reference also to the provisions of the Railway Act.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would be
better if it read:	"Notice of expropriation
by the railway company." As my hon. friend will recall, this is the practice: first of all, the plan is filed at the registry office. Then notice is given of intention to take, indicating how much money will be paid. The owners ' or those interested, if dissatisfied, may go to the district court to have that compensation assessed. The difficulty is that the claim must not exceed $2,500, but the man has no opportunity to set up his claim until after the government or, at least, the railway, has filed its plan. The notice to take is the first step; then there is the opportunity to decide upon the sufficiency of the offer. The claimant has the option of indicating that he will not accept the amount offered, and that he requires a larger sum. Would it not be better

C.N.R. Act Amendment
to say: "After notice has been given by the railway company of expropriation," rather than " to the opposite party?" In that case you have no doubt that it begins from the time you give notice.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am looking up the
sections of the Railway Act. I always hesitate to change a purely legal draft without being sure of my ground. Section 215 of the Railway Act is the section dealing with the matter. It reads:
Preliminary to proceeding to arbitration to fix compensation or damages the company shall serve upon the opposite party-
The same language is used, you see.
-a notice, which shall contain
(a)	a description of the lands to be taken, or of the powers intended to be exercised with regard to any lands therein described;
(b)	a declaration of readiness to pay a certain sum or rent, as the case may be, as compensation for such lands or for such damages; and
(e) a notification that if -within ten days after the service of this notice, or, where the notice is served by publication, within one month after the first publication thereof, the party to whom the notice is addressed does not give notice to the company that he accepts the sum offered by the company, either he or the company will be entitled to apply to have the compensation fixed by arbitration as provided in this act.
Apparently what the officers had in mind was to transfer the option of placing the case before the exchequer court or the district court to the claimant, rather than to retain that option themselves. I think that has merit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not objecting to that, but does the provision make it clear that a claim which a man sets up for $5,000 ha? to go to the exchequer court, although he might ultimately receive $2,000?


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that is clear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that what it is intended to do?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having regard to the fact that this country is so large and the facilities of treating with matters in the exchequer court are so limited, when you fix $2,500 as the criterion, as the minister has done, I think it is an exceedingly fair proposition. That will meet most of the cases I had in mind the other day. But I think it should be fixed in the statute itself as being either the sum offered by the railway company on the one hand, or claimed by the owner on the other. As the matter stands now, the man who might
claim $3,000 would have to go to the exchequer court although he might be awarded $2,500. I am only suggesting to the minister, in the light- of my experience, that it is hardly fair to ask persons from whom land has to be taken by expropriation, that they should go to the exchequer court. It is too expensive; it requires the employment of solicitors and lawyers to deal with forms and procedure, whereas the other method is very simple. I have known many men conduct their cases successfully before district courts and while I do not desire in any sense to delay the minister's legislation, it seems to me it would be preferable to say " where the sum offered by the railway company does not exceed $2,500." In other words, the law officers of the minister's department have told him to put the onus on the unfortunate owner. I suggest that it is rather desirable to put it- on the railway company. I only do that because, as the minister himself realizes, in a province as large as Saskatchewan, for instance, there are many cases in which a man has his land taken from him by the railway, values it at three or four thousand dollars, and may get only $2,500, and the costs in exchequer court proceedings would be very considerable, and the court only goes to that country once a year. I do not think it conduces to the orderly conduct of affairs, in view of the small sums of money affected in this way, to put the onus on the individual I leave it entirely to the minister, but if the responsibility were mine, I think I would prefer to put it the other way and let the sum tendered by the railway company be the determining factor.


Charles Avery Dunning: I confess to the committee that the sum suggested to me by the law officers of the railway was less than $2,500. It was in fact $600, to correspond with the normal jurisdiction of the district court judge


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have a jurisdiction of $1,000 in some of the provinces.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not know much
law, but I happen to know-and this I pointed out to them-that strangely enough the district court judge apparently had wider financial jurisdiction under the Railway Act than under the act setting up his court in the first place. That is an anomaly that presently exists. Therefore I saw no reason to adopt any standard contained in any district court act, but for the reason advanced by my hon. friend I would rather raise the limit in favour of the claimant. With regard to $2,500, what I have in mind is the usual small expropriation for right of way which involves the
C.N.R. Act Amendment

crossing of a farm. There are very few farm crossings nowadays that take any such sum as $2,500. I had in mind that general situation in setting the sum.
Apparently the only point my hon. friend asks me to consider is whether I should not go a little bit further and make the basis that the jurisdiction should be determined rather by the offer made by the railway company than by the claim made by the owner. I would like to hear that point discussed a little further, if other hon. gentlemen who have had experience with these expropriation matters would give me their advice. I am quite open-minded about it, with this one qualification: More and more the exchequer court of Canada, in connection with small cases, is using that provision of the Exchequer Court Act or Expropriation Act which permits them to have hearings held by delegates of the court, rather than by the court itself sitting in different parts of the country. That practice is growing, and wisely I think, in connection with small expropriation claims. That is to say, the exchequer court may delegate a district court judge to hear the case, the district court judge not deciding it, but referring his evidence and his opinion thereon to the exchequer court, which in turn renders the decision.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I doubt very much if
they have any power to do that in this
case.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not under the Exchequer Court Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, but this is the
appointment of a tribunal to deal with a definite matter. That tribunal is the exchequer court, and the judgment must be a judgment of that court. That is one of the reasons why I pointed out to the minister the desirability of making it as easy as possible, because the poor unfortunate who fails in his claim will have nothing left, because of there being so much machinery to put in action. Although the exchequer court holds local sittings at various towns and cities in Canada, it is domiciled, so to speak, in Ottawa. It was that which prompted my suggestion the other day. I think the minister has met it exceedingly fairly. But I still doubt, having regard to the very great area of Canada and to the fact that there is but one court with two judges, whether it is desirable to fix the jurisdiction at $2,500 as the sum offered by the railway company, and if any greater sum is offered by the railway company, recourse can be had to the exchequer court.

If it is less than $2,500, the claimant can avail himself of the provision of the Railway Act. I do not think that is unfair. But the minister is charged with responsibility in connection with this matter. The money comes out of the people of the country in the long run.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am prepared to adopt
for a moment the comfortable position of a judge on the bench and listen to argument. I am willing to make either decision in the judgment of this committee. If my hon friend from South Toronto (Mr. Geary) has any suggestion to make, I shall be pleased to hear it. Personally I think there is a difference of opinion between the lawyers themselves,


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I say, without trespassing too much on the time of the committee, thgt usually in arriving at the sum to be offered, the railway company is governed by the report of the engineers and appraisers. They realize that the responsibility is theirs, having compulsorily taken the land in the first instance, and they usually desire to ensure that they will not be compelled to pay a larger sum than they offer. I have been engaged in many of these cases both for the railway companies and the owners. I recall the entrance of the Grand Trunk into Calgary, in connection with which I acted for a very largei number of small owners, some of whose lots it split in two. The railway company offered what they conceived to be a fair land value, but it was not adequate compensation for the lots, and the owners succeeded in getting a somewhat larger sum. I am speaking merely in the public interest in this matter, and I am sure the minister wants to place on the statute books a provision that will work no hardship to any honest claimant, at the same time protecting the public treasury from settlements that are forced, so to speak, by reason of local or other pressure that may be brought to bear in connection with matters of this kind. The local tribunal is a very complete answer, as the minister knows, because the county court judge understands the situation better than a person not residing in the locality.


George Reginald Geary: It seems to me that you are on sounder ground in basing the jurisdiction on the value made by the company rather than by the claimant. I think experience shows that it is quite likely that in most cases the railway company will be more nearly right than the claimant's idea of what he should get. The company is also better versed in the procedure, and better versed in judging what is going to result from the

Supply-Public Works-Maritimes
evidence that is given, and as to the sort of award the court is likely to make. So it seems to me that the company's estimate of damage is more likely to be right than is the estimate of the claimant, and I think you are on a sounder basis if you take the company's proposition up to $2,500 as being the basis of jurisdiction, rather than taking the claim made by a man who may have very exaggerated ideas as to the value of his land, and who who may be kept out of this simple court because his ideas are exaggerated.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And the responsibility
for going into the other court will always be his, if you have it the way we suggest.


Charles Avery Dunning: The officers of the company who deal with these matters advise me that the most extraordinarily exaggerated demands for compensation arise mainly in connection with small compensation claims- that the larger the actual amount involved, the less the degree of exaggeration in the claim of the claimant. That is the broad experience.


George Reginald Geary: That is natural too.


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes, and I have no doubt that the officers, in considering it, had in mind that the legal advisers of the claimant would pay due regard to the court before which the claimant would have to appear in the first instance and present his claim in connection with these small amounts. However, in order not to take up further time, as my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works is anxious and ready to go on. I would suggest that we follow this course: strike out the word "claim" in the second line of the amendment, and insert instead the words "offer of the company." With this understanding, that we will report the bill out of committee and leave it for third reading in order that I may make absolutely sure that no complication will arise as a result of the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that will oover
it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not question the
legal advice of my hon. friend, but he will understand my desire to get the legal advice of the officers of the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think that entirely
covers the situation, Mr. Chairman. I quite appreciate the minister's position. His duty is to take responsibility on the advice of his legal officers, and we do not happen at the moment to be in that happy position. If on third reading it is thought desirable we can again deal with the amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: The section will now
read:
provided that such compensation may in any case where the offer of the company does not exceed. $2,500.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is it.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section a3 amended agreed to.
Sections 3 and 4 agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 122, page 31 of
the estimates:
Maritime provinces generally - Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $50,000.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Before this
item carries, Mr. Chairman, I desire to call the attention of the minister, as I have foT the past four years, to the most disgraceful condition of the post office facilities in the town of Oxford, Nova Scotia. When discussing this matter last year or the year before I asked the minister whether this new post office building was on his list for consideration of those that I understand have to be first submitted to the treasury board for approval, and he intimated that it was, and that the estimated cost was $35,000. There is nothing in the main estimates this year for the much-needed post office facilities in this town. The people there have been clamouring for a better service. The post office is conducted, as I have said at least four times before, in a shack. The population of Oxford is about 1,500, it is the hub of the county, and is the centre of several rural routes. Petitions have been circulated and forwarded to the government by the town council, and the board of trade, and many prominent citizens have urged the Department of Public Works to improve these deplorable facilities. May I urge once more on the minister that when the supplementary estimates are brought down this year provision be made therein for building a post office at Oxford. It would be well, I think, when the minister is visiting in the east, to view this particular part of the province and see for himself in what an inadequate building the Oxford post office is located. Recently the customs office was closed there and in future this branch of the public service as well will have to be conducted in this shack of a building which will cause the public still

1926	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Maritimes
greater inconvenience. I appeal to the minister on the grounds mentioned and also on the decency of conducting public business in a proper standardized building that he include in the supplementary estimates this year a vote of $33,000, which has been estimated by his departmental engineers to be sufficient to provide adequate postal facilities at this point.


Mr. GARDINER:: What was the total
amount spent under this item last year?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: For a number of years the item
has been fixed at $43,000, but it has always been found inadequate. Therefore we are asking for $50,000 this year.


Robert Knowlton Smith: May I have
a statement from the minister in this connection? I think I have been fair and reasonable in the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I apologize to my hon.
friend if he thinks I am not paying attention to his request. I have again made a note of it, along with many other similar requests. I do not deny what the hon. gentleman says with regard to the advantage to be derived by having a new public building at Oxford, and perhaps if funds were available we could not justify refusing his request, but I do say that this is one of the places which is not any worse off than a number of other places where we have had to refuse such requests. However, his request is receiving consideration, and I shall be very glad to accept his very courteous invitation to visit Oxford to look personally into the situation if I get an opportunity.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I omitted to
say that the Post Office Department instructed me in the past that the building at Oxford is totally inadequate for the proper performance of their duties. It is not a case of desiring a building simply for the ornamentation of the town; it is absolutely necessary for the proper conduct of public business. I shall be delighted to have the minister come to the county. I would not urge him to visit us just when there is an election, but on any other occasion he will be most welcome.


John Campbell Elliott: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec
Beauharnois-public building, $10,000. Cowansville-public building, $10,000. Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc.-$110,000.
Farnham-public	building-enlargement-
[Stage Direction]
Grand'Mere-public building, $54,000.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvements, repairs, etc.-$20,000.
Huntingdon-public building, $20,000.
Lennoxville-public building, $12,000.
Maisonneuve-public building. $25,000.
Montreal-Craig St. drill hall-mastic floor- $20,000.
Montreal-new examining warehouse-improvements to heating, $6,500.
Montreal-postal station in Notre Dame de Grace-$15,000.
Montreal-St. Henri postal station-$15,000.
Montreal-Stephens building-improvements, alterations and equipment-$25,000.
Montreal general post office-installation of pickup table and alterations to fittings, $8,500.
Montreal-postal station in Outremont division-$27,000.
Montreal-postal station "B"

improvements and alterations-$9,000.
Montreal-towards purchase of Lavut building for postal station "G"-$13,200.
Montreal-old examining warehouse-reconstruction-$75,000.
Quebec Citadel-Governor General's quarters -maintenance, etc.-$20,000.
Quebec-Savard	Park	hospital-repairs,
alterations and addition-$80,000.
Quebec-accommodation for military stores- $100,000.
Quebec public building-installation of pickup table-$3,500.
Rock Island-Customs-excise building-$15,000.
Ste. Anne de Bellevue-public building-$10,000.
St. Hyacinthe public building-addition and improvements-$30,000.
St. Marie de Beauce-public building-$20,000.
Ste. Martine (ChSteauguay)-public building-$10,000.
St. Romuald-public building-$27,000.
Ste. Rose-public building-$25,000.
St. Roch de Quebec-public building-improvements and repairs-$3,000.
St. Pascal-public building-$24,000.
Thetford Mines armoury-improvements and repairs-$1,000.
Viictoriaville-public building-$30,000.
Waterloo-public building-$20,000.
Westmount-armoury-$13,500.-Total, $937,200.
Robert James Manion: Are you taking one item
at a time, Mr. Chairman?


Sir EUGENE FISET:: No, the whole.


Mr. SHORT:: They want them in bulk
in Quebec.


John Frederick Johnston: We have been taking
the whole resolution for the other provinces.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Surely the minister will
explain some of these items.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give
all the information available relating to the different items. I would point out that the total asked for in connection with public buildings in the whole province of Quebec

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
is under 81,000,000. I hope hon. gentlemen opposite will feel that we have exercised the same care in granting only those that were absolutely essential as we are trying to take in respect to the other provinces.


Robert James Manion: We are not criticizing
these votes but the item is a big one and we want a general explanation in regard to the more important votes. Here for example is 8100,000 in connection with accommodation in military stores. The minister might tell us what need there is for this.


John Campbell Elliott: This item deserves attention. At the present time the military stores in Quebec are housed in quarters which are needed by the Quebec Battlefields Commission, who have moved to other quarters. The suggestion has been made that rather elaborate buildings should be provided and that they should be moved into these buildings. It is also suggested that if they are moved during the present year they be moved to the Carriere Laine property in Levis, which belongs to the government and is now vacant. All we are asking for is the cost of removal; we are not making any provision at the present time for other buildings.


Robert James Manion: Take, for example, the
item in connection with the Savard Park hospital, amounting to $80,000, of which this is a revote of $48,000. How much was spent in the past year and how much will be spent altogether?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount is for repairs and addition to hospital begun in 192829 under contract with Scott Brothers of Scotstown, Quebec, involving the sum of $83,870, and also for general alterations and repairs to the old building. The amount already spent is $43,736, and the revote asked for now is $48,000, together with a new vote of $32,000.


Robert James Manion: Is that the total?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the total for
building work.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Is this a quarantine
hospital?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Peter McGibbon: How many patients
were there last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry I cannot give
that information. Those who come in will be under the jurisdiction of either the Department of Health or the Department of Immigration. I think the Department of 78594-122$
Health would be able to furnish the information my hon. friend asks for. This accommodation has been requested in order to enable the Department of Health properly to carry out their duties at this particular point. The contract was entered into last year.


Peter McGibbon: Where was the work
carried on before?


John Campbell Elliott: This is not a new hospital but merely an addition to an existing hospital which has proved inadequate.


Robert Gardiner: This is in connection
with immigration work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, a quarantine station.


Harry Bernard Short: How many of these items
in this vote for Quebec are for new buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: There must be twelve
or thirteen new buildings, nearly all small.


Harry Bernard Short: You are dealing fairly
generously with Quebec in the matter of buildings compared with the maritime provinces. There are two new buildings in Nova Scotia, one in New Brunswick and none in Prince Edward Island. In other words, there are three new buildings in the whole of the maritime provinces compared with twelve or thirteen in Quebec. I do not want to complain about what Quebec is getting, but I call attention to the meagre amount provided for the maritimes.


John Campbell Elliott: It is about in proportion
to population.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the population
of Beauharnois?


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Robb and a few others.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell us
whether this amount in the estimates is the total; what is the total cost of the new building, and will there be another vote next year?


John Campbell Elliott: This is not the total.


James Dew Chaplin: It will not be the total?


John Campbell Elliott: No. The amount of
$10,000 in connection with Beauharnois is to provide for the purchase of a site and towards the erection thereon of a public building for postal purposes. The chief superintendent of post office services reports that the present accommodation is entirely inadequate and he asks for this building. It is contemplated that the total building, fittings, concreting of sidewalks, contingencies and superintendence will

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
run to about $30,000. The population of the town is 2,400, while that of the parish outside the town limits is about 2,700 more. This is one of the towns which are growing quite rapidly.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue is
$5,691.97. This is a district where it is expected there will be a very extensive development in a short time.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister a moment
ago said that this estimate for Quebec was a very moderate one in relation to this year's votes. Here is a case where, as he tells us, the sum of $10,000 appears in the estimates whereas building and outfit will cost $30,000. Does that apply pretty generally to the rest of the estimates? Let us get the history of the next one and' we shall be able to determine better. Will the minister give us some information in regard to the Cowansvilie public building?


John Campbell Elliott: In the case of Cowansvilie it is expected that the building will cost $41,000. This is towards the purchase of site and erection of building.


James Dew Chaplin: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: In view of the representations made by the district superintendent in his report regarding the inadequacy of accommodation afforded by the premises in which the post office is at present located, and the impossibility of providing improved accommodation in the present building, it is felt that this expenditure is warranted. It is recommended that an item be placed in the estimates for the erection of a public building at that point which will be adequate to meet the present and future needs of the community so far as postal facilities are concerned. At present Cowansvilie has a population of between 2,400 and 2,500, which represents an increase of about 100 per cent in the last ten years, and it is stated that there is not a single unoccupied store or dwelling in that town. The report further goes on to say, "I was in the office during the last inspection and found the lobby crowded to suffocation It was only with the greatest difficulty that a person could force his way from one end of the lobby to the other." Then there is an additional difficulty here; there is also an objection to the present location of the office. It is situated at the intersection of two highways and in the summer time, with the con-
tinuous traffic over these two roads and the parking of buggies and automobiles belonging to patrons awaiting their mail, it is a very dangerous spot. In 1928 the revenue was $6,768, an increase from $5,327 in five or six years.


Peter McGibbon: What was the revenue in 1927?


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue was $3,119 in 1927.


Peter McGibbon: Surely the minister does not claim that to 'be a remarkable increase.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I was directing attention to the fact that in 1920 the revenue was $5,237 and that last year it was $6,768.


Peter McGibbon: That does not indicate that the place is growing so rapidly as was indicated by the minister's first statement.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will also notice that in 1927-28 the customs revenue was $148,775 at this point, and this building is for customs as well as postal purposes.


James Dew Chaplin: From a cursory glance at these two items it would appear that they represent only about 25 per cent of the total expenditure which is to be made, and I suppose next year we will be asked to vote more money. So it would seem that the minister is not very accurate in his statement that the votes asked for are small, because the total cost of these buildings will be three or four times the amount of these appropriations. Tlie minister says this is a case of need, but- let me direct his attention to a case of need in my own locality.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Dew Chaplin: My hon. friends need not laugh, this place is not in my constituency at all. It is a town whose population has doubled or trebled in the last feiw years; at present it has a population of about 5,000. The attention of the minister has been directed to this place repeatedly, and although the revenue is greater than that obtained from both these places, mo accommodation at all is provided. The minister knows the town to which I refer;
I am speaking of Thorold, which is in a constituency adjoining my own, where the need is possibly greater than that of any place of which I have knowledge.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Where is the member representing that town?


James Dew Chaplin: The member has spoken about it; no doubt he has gone personally ' to the minister and I have heard him mention

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
in "this house the need which exists, but nothing has been done. It appears to me that the charge made the other day with respect to Nova Scotia could be made again in this case. In Nova Scotia only three towns were provided w'ith public buildings, but the government were mighty sure that those towns were in constituencies represented by hon. gentlemen opposite. The minister said money was being spent in Halifax, but that money is spent to benefit the whole province and the whole Dominion. I am quite sure that if Halifax alone were considered not a copper would be spent, judging from what has been done elsewhere. The same thing applies in this case, and I would like to see a little more consideration given these small places which are growing rapidly and which need accommodation. There are several towns in this list about which I do not propose to say anything; with regard to Grand'Mere and Farnham. for instance, probably these buildings are needed, but I do believe that some of the other places mentioned could very well wait until more pressing needs are filled.


George Reginald Geary: Is the minister going to put a clock in this building also?


John Campbell Elliott: Clocks are getting pretty expensive, and we are cutting down expense as far as possible. That will be a matter for consideration.


George Reginald Geary: I might just suggest to the minister that since a clock was put in the Glencoe building he might finish the job and put in a weather vane so that he might always know which way the wind is blowing.


John Campbell Elliott: It is more difficult in certain other ridings to tell which way the wind is blowing than in the riding to which my hon. friend refers.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Chatham public building-addition-$20,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc.-$125,000.
Exeter-public building-$21,000.
Fort Frances-public building-$35,000.
Haileybury-addition to armoury-$30,000.
Hamilton public building-alterations and repairs-$11,000.
Hawkesbury public building-addition-$7,000.
HespeleT-public building-$35,000.
Kenora public building-improvements to heating-$1,600.
Kingston R.M.C.-messing accommodation- $20,000.
Listowel public building-improvements and repairs-$1,600.
London-Westminster hospital-paving roadway
[Stage Direction]
Mildway public building-addition and alterations-$2,500.	...	„„
Niagara Falls-public building-$95,000.
Oshawa public building-installation of elevator and improvements, etc.-$2,000.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc. -$60,000.
Ottawa-equipment for Post Office department-$26,000.
Ottawa-forest products laboratory-addition and improvements-$10,000.
Ottawa-laboratory of hygiene-$10,000.
Ottawa post office-installation of pick-up table-$3,500.
Ottawa-laboratory for Department of Mines, Booth St., and alterations-$100,000.
Ottawa-towards purchase of building for government workshops-$12,200.
Ottawa-towards purchase of Daly building -$112,000.
Parkhill public building-improvements to heating-$2,000.
Port Arthur public building-addition and alterations-$23,000.
Rockland-government's share of cost of local improvements-$1,200.
Sarnia public building-improvements to lighting-$3,500.
Sturgeon Palls-public building-$28,000.
Sudbury public building-addition and alterations-$7,500.
Timmins-public building-$30,000.
Toronto-customs house-$750,000.
Toronto-armoury-$28,000.
Toronto-postal station "A" mechanical equipment-$60.000-Total, $1,683,600.
Robert James Manion: Once more I want to direct the attention of the minister to a matter which I mentioned last year and which on one or two occasions I have taken up with him privately. The post office in my city has not 'been repaired for a great many years, although the city has grown very much since that building was erected. The accommodation is very insufficient; at Christmas time they find it almost impossible to carry on the work, and in general the post office is badly in need of some extension or alteration, not necessarily costing a great deal of money but sufficient to put it in good condition. I would like the minister to give consideration to this matter in the estimates next year. I am not going to press him to place an amount in the supplementary estimates this year, but just as a friendly suggestion I would say that next year, the year before an election, would bo a good time to put in some work on that building. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee in discussing this question now but I hope the minister will give it serious consideration when he is preparing his estimates next year. I think it should have been done this year, but for the moment I am going to overlook that in the hope that some attention will be given this matter in order that fair play may be given the people of that city.

Supply-Public Wotks-Ontario


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I would like to direct attention to a situation which exists in my own county, where a public building is absolutely necessary, and to ask the minister if, during the recess, he received a delegation from the town of Georgetown, with reference to a post office in that place. Perhaps he might also say whether or not he received a delegation from the town of Oakville requesting some improvements there.


John Campbell Elliott: Georgetown, in common
with a great many other places, sent a delegation which made certain representations. Perhaps I can answer my hon. friend and the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Mandon) at the same time. No doubt a building is needed at Georgetown, as well as improvements at Fort William and Port Arthur. I think I can fairly say that the Georgetown situation perhaps is not as urgent as the situation at Fort William, and neither of them are as urgent as those which have received attention.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Such as Hantsport.


John Campbell Elliott: Hantsport perhaps was
the most urgent.


James Dew Chaplin: What about Thorold?


John Campbell Elliott: Thorold is a place which
has nearly doubled in population in the last three years, but I would call the attention of my hon. friend to the fact that that place is not the only one in that part of the country which has nearly doubled in population during the last three or four years. I know the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) will be fair; he knows that we have had to incur heavy expenditures in that very riding to provide for a public building at Niagara Falls.


James Dew Chaplin: The necessity there was
caused by a fire.


John Campbell Elliott: That is quite true, but it is also due to the great increase in business.


James Dew Chaplin: That is for the general
good of the country, not of the city.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
will agree that we have been treating that section of the country with great consideration. I would say to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Anderson) that the same thing would apply to Georgetown.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: The expenditure
at Niagara Falls is necessitated by the pro-

tection which this country is giving to the exportation of liquor to the United States; the government is spending far too much money in that direction. Why should we protect the United States?


John Campbell Elliott: There was a fire and explosion at Niagara Falls which practically demolished the whole building.


Robert Gardiner: What exploded?


John Campbell Elliott: The boiler.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The building must have
been full of booze.


John Campbell Elliott: We intend to erect a building which I hope will be in keeping with the growing needs of that community. It will be a much more expensive building than the previous one.


James Dew Chaplin: I am very curious to
know in what riding the city of Chatham is?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is not
as well up on the geography of the western part of Ontario as upon the geography of other sections. Chatham is in one of the most beautiful ridings in that great western Ontario section, a riding which was represented in this house 'by my hon. friend's brother.


Charles Gavan Power: And well represented too.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it received pretty
good treatment from this government when my hon. friend's brother was here, and I hope it will continue to receive as much consideration.


James Dew Chaplin: They needed the post
office as much when he was here as they do now.


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue was hardly as iarge. I would tell my hon, friend that this is a very delightful part of the country, next to Middlesex one of the finest.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister has been
very good in giving me information. Will he go down the line and tell me in what constituency the town of Exeter is?


John Campbell Elliott: Exeter is in another excellent constituency; it is in South Huron.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell me what constituency Fort Frances is in?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in the constituency of Kenora-Rainy River.


James Dew Chaplin: That is the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan).

Supplymi
-Public Works-Ontario


John Campbell Elliott: Another constituency
which is exceedingly well represented.


Robert King Anderson: I do not want the minister to get away from Georgetown. Georgetown is one of the most needy places in the Dominion of Canada at the present time as far as post office accommodation is concerned. As far back as fifteen years ago an estimate was put in for the purpose of building a post office, and the people purchased a site and have had it waiting there all these years. The post office is very small, the entrance to it is poor and the accommodation for the public is about as bad as anything you could find in this country. There is considerable revenue from the office as a number of rural mail routes start from this point. I would like the minister to take this matter under serious consideration and endeavour to implement the request made by the delegation which came down here asking for the early erection of a post office building. I would like to know if the minister gave any encouragement to that delegation as to the erection of a post office building within, say, the next year.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not like to say that we got down very definitely to dates, but it is one of the places which must have a public building some time in the future, and that not very distant. I would direct my hon. friend's attention to this fact, which I think distinguishes Georgetown from the two places mentioned by the hon. member for Lincoln-probably as conversant with Ontario in general as any member of the house. As far back as 1914 my hon. friend's friends thought that a building was necessary at Exeter, and a site was purchased. The same thing applies to Fort Frances, referred to by the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) on many occasions, and I think he will be one of the first to stand up and say that he thinks the necessity for a building at Fort Frances was very urgent. A site was purchased for $16,500 on September 28, 1912, and a site was purchased in Exter on March 18, 1914. Unfortunately Georgetown was not considered quite as urgent at that time by my hon. friend's friends, because during the time they were buying sites in these other more urgent places, no site was selected for a building in the town of Georgetown. I think that is one of the best tests of urgency.


Robert King Anderson: I differ with the hon. minister; a site was purchased and it is there to-day. As I said before, an estimate was provided in 1914 for the building of a post office in Georgetown.


Peter McGibbon: Seeing that the hon. minister is in such good humour this afternoon and as he is admitting that the revenues are quite large, I am going to call his attention to the condition of the wharfage at Bracebridge. As the minister knows, that part of the country is very dependent upon the tourist trade and during the summer months great demands are made upon the wharf facilities. The department has the information regarding the needed improvements there. A new wharf is not needed and it is not going to cost much money, but the improvements would be of very great assistance to navigation. I hope when the minister brings down his supplementary estimates he will be good enough to include this small item of a few hundred dollars. I thank the minister for his promises.


John Campbell Elliott: Let us have no misunderstanding about this. I am not going to quarrel with my hon. friend about the necessities of the case, but we are dealing now with public buildings and he is referring to a matter which comes under the heading of harbours and rivers. This matter has received consideration by the engineering department, and the representations which have been made by Bracebridge and several other places in that section of the country are receiving the very best attention.


Robert King Anderson: I would correct my statement. I said there was a site or plot for a post office in Georgetown, purchased not by the government, but by the town itself. In 1914 an amount was placed in the estimates for the erection of that post office, but the intervention of the war prevented the building of it. At that time it was considered very necessary to have a post office in that town. I am bringing the fact to the attention of the minister in order to assist him in coming to a decision.


James Dew Chaplin: To come back to the Fort Frances public building for which the sum of $35,000 is placed in the estimates, what is the total cost of that building?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be much more
than $35,000. This amount of $35,000 is required towards the erection of a public building on a site on Soott street, at the corner of Portage avenue, for postal purposes.


Robert James Manion: That is the same site that was purchased some time ago?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. The proposed building will be a two-story, L-shaped brick structure, having a frontage of 94 feet on Scott street by a depth of 54 feet on Portage avenue, and will provide accommodation for the post

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
office, National Revenue, Indian Affairs, immigration, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and living quarters for the caretaker. The total estimated cost is as follows:
Building-$75,000.
Post office and customs fittings-$6,000.
Grading and sidewalks-$1,500.
Superintendence-$2,000.


Robert Gardiner: When this item was
before the house last year, I called the minister's attention to some new sidewalks built in the parliament grounds. Can the minister make any reply to my question as to those sidewalks, and does he notice they are deteriorating this year to a greater extent than last?


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are scandalous, disgraceful.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot quarrel very much with what my hon. friend has said or what my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has said. The matter was under consideration at the time is was referred to in the house a year ago. Under the contract we had with the contractors, they were not bound to make the repairs.


Robert Gardiner: Last year the minister produced a contract by which they were bound.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but my recollection is that it did not bind them to make the repairs. At any rate, I think they were wise enough to know that one of the reasons we give in the department for refusing to accept a tender is that work has been bad in the past. They were men enough to say: We will make the sidewalks right, and they attempted to make them right. Due very largely, I think, to the fact that tie contract was let perhaps a little late, and the frosty weather came on before the concreting was completed as it should have been, the job turned out badly. They made some repairs; the repairs they have made are not satisfactory, and they have undertaken to rebuild the sidewalks at their own expense and without cost to the government.


Robert Gardiner: That is very satisfactory I would call the minister's attention to another important point, and that is to the coating of the concrete. The minister will see that in many places the finishing coat is not more than a quarter of an inch thick. What officer of the department was looking after the inspection of this work, and is he still in the employ of the government?
_ Mr. ELLIOTT: I could not give my hon. friend offhand the name of the inspector, but I know the inquiry revealed to me the 
fact that frost had something to do with the matter. I do not think my hon. friends can tell, by looking at the sidewalk now, just what the real cause of the trouble may have been. He knows very well, of course, that as regards mixing cement, unless it is properly set or kept warm, it is liable to be injured by frosty weather.


Robert Gardiner: I am talking about the finishing coat.


John Campbell Elliott: That applies to the finishing coat. The rest does not make much difference. At any rate while we are on this subject I should like to call the attention of hon. members to the fact that very frequently the work of the department does not get started until the middle of the summer. Last year, for instance, I do not think our estimates were passed until the middle of June. I am not finding fault with anybody in regard to this, but it is- worthy of consideration by hon. members in every section of the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The estimates were not
taken up until very late in the session.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but the difficulty was that our estimates were not passed until the middle of June. I am not objecting to the criticism which can be made; I think that is proper and it is helpful to the officers of the department; but I think it is in the interests of every hon. member who is anxious that this business should be carried on in a proper way, that the estimates of the public works department should be got through, if it is possible to arrange to do so, so that we would have warm weather for doing the work which is largely work that cannot be done after the frost starts. It is very largely seasonal work and if you do not get your men started preparing the tenders until the month of June, as was the case last year, a great deal of work that should be finished in the warm weather will not be completed until the frost comes.
I want, however, to say to the credit of the two gentlemen who are the contractors in connection with the work in the parliament grounds, that I hope whoever lives to see the house meet another year will find that they have done the job right.


Harry Bernard Short: I hope the minister does
not blame us on this side for the fact that he did not get his estimates through earlier. Why did the government not bring them down at the beginning of the session? The estimates are not brought down until about the middle of the session, and the supple-mentaries do not come down until just a

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
few days before prorogation. No one is to blame but the government themselves that the estimates do not get through earlier. The estimates should be one of the first matters that the house should take up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They used to be.


Harry Bernard Short: Ever since this government
came into power, or since I have been in the house, the estimates have not been brought down until away on in the middle of the session, and the supplementaries until just a few days before parliament prorogues.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows
that the estimates are not passed until after the budget.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


John Campbell Elliott: That has been the practice for years.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That is a new practice.
The Minister of Finance is very clever; he brings his budget in before the rest of his more innocent colleagues get wise, and he is finished and has a nice, easy time afterwards. It was April 15 when the estimates started. The house has been sitting since February 7. Let the minister not forget that.


James Dew Chaplin: The remarks of the minister regarding the lateness in bringing down the estimates have no bearing on the repairs of the cement sidewalks about which he is speaking. If those men want to make those repairs they do not need to wait for any estimates to be passed. They can go ahead with the work whenever they like, and if they leave the work until the frost comes, that shows they are delinquent in their work.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not made myself
clear, and I apologize. I want to be fair to the contractors. They had to do the work late in the fall. The fact that the frost started before the work was completed is, to my mind, partly responsible for the condition of the sidewalks. I am saying this without prejudice to our right to have them put in proper condition. There is no doubt that this cement work would have had a much better chance if they had got started on the work and completed it before the frost came.


James Dew Chaplin: I have this to say in
reply to the remarks made by the minister. No contractor had any right to go on with that work in frosty weather unless he took proper precautions to protect it. What were your inspectors doing? If that work had been properly supervised it would have been
protected, and the work would have been good. There was some fault somewhere, either with the inspection department, or with the contractors for going on with the work in that kind of weather.


Robert Gardiner: I am glad to hear the
minister's statement in regard to the contractors being willing to rebuild these sidewalks, but in view of the contractors making such a slipshot job as they have done here, what are they likely to do on work that is not under the eyes of the members who can see what is being done? Is this typical of the character of the work done generally by the department?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend think that is a fair question? Does he not know that eveiy riding in this country is represented in this house?


Robert Gardiner: But the members do
not see all the work that is being done.


John Campbell Elliott: Members even on this side have been very ready to make criticisms of bad work, and I hope they will continue to do so when bad work is found anywhere. Every riding is represented in this house, and if we are doing bad work in connection with this department I shall not only be obliged to the member who draws my attention to it or brings it to the attention of some of the officials of the department, but I shall endeavour to see that that bad work is remedied, and we will watch very carefully when that contractor is tendering on another job.


Robert Gardiner: Before vote 117 for
Ottawa public buildings comes up, I would like the minister to tell us who was the inspector who had charge of that work, and if he is still in the employ of the government. I would also like to know what was the nature of the mixture used for the finishing coat, and what was the depth of that finishing coat as called for by the contract.


George Reginald Geary: Is it not usual to have a
provision in the contract that the contractor shall look after the work in connection with sidewalks and pavements for a certain number of years? That is in all city contracts.


John Campbell Elliott: When my hon. friend was
city solicitor for Toronto I think that was the practice, but I am advised that it is not the practice in cities to-day.


George Reginald Geary: I think it is.


John Campbell Elliott: The question of my hon.
friend from Acadia is a fair one; I think we should know who the inspector was. I
1934	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
made inquiries about it some time ago, but I have not been able to carry the name in my head; I will look it up. The mixture was the usual mixture for cement, and is supposed to produce a good job. The reason we are able to get the work replaced is that it did not produce a good job.


Robert Gardiner: I would take it, from
an examination of that sidewalk, that the finishing coat was not very good for a piece of work like that. I hope the minister will look into that, point and give the committee the information in time for us to discuss it when the item comes up. That certainly is not a good finishing coat.


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


Mr. KENNEDY:: Would the minister give rs an explanation with regard to the public ouilding at Hespeler, and tell us on whose recommendation this vote is in the estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: It is pretty hard to name
anybody from that district who has not asked for it. This is one of the places where my hon. friends opposite thought it was necessary to have a public building, and they purchased a site for it on January 16, 1913. This building is being requested by deputations from Hespeler, including the town council, and from what I can gather from the hon. member who represents that constituency, he met with no opposition whatever to the idea of this building being constructed there.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Is it a post office?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. We were in a rented building. I can assure my hon. friend that this vote was not put in for political purposes, but because the building was really required in order to provide proper postal facilities. That is the information we have in a report from the Post Office Department.


Mr. LUCAS:: What is the population and the revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: These young towns are
doing pretty well under the present government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Despite the government.


John Campbell Elliott: Hespeler has made great
progress.


George Reginald Geary: Put back that duty on yarn and it will do better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The yam we are listening to is the trouble.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend's remarks
are intended for my colleague the Minister of Finance rather than myself.


George Reginald Geary: I do not think the member for that riding (Mr. Edwards) would be so remiss as not to ask for the post office.


John Campbell Elliott: Do not think for a moment that he has ever let a month go by without asking for that post office. If he has, I have forgotten it. Here are a few details of this vote: This amount of $35,000-there is a revote of $15,000-is required to complete the erection of a public building on the comer of Queen and Cooper streets in the town of Hespeler for post office purposes. The work is being performed under contract by G. H. Thomas and Son, Limited, for the sum of $33,276. The cost of the site was $5,200. That was paid out some time ago. The expenditure for 1928-29, on contract, was $5,000. It is estimated that $35,000 more will be required. Tenders were called for, and the lowest tender received was for $33,276. An order in council was accordingly passed granting authority for the acceptance of the lowest tender.
Mr. SANDERiSQN: Will the minister tell us who is the member for that riding?


John Campbell Elliott: That riding is well represented by my hon. friend from South Waterloo (Mr. Edwards) who started out well, politically.


Mr. EDWARDS (Waterloo):: He is going to finish well, too.


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad to hear that.
The population of Hespeler is approximately 2,900. The revenue for the last fiscal year was $9,351. All the reports are that Hespeler is a growing town, and the absolute requirements of the department made it necessary to provide these facilities. The building we are now providing is not a bit too commodious, and if things go on as they are now doing there will have to be an addition to it before a very great length of time.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Mr. Chairman, I feel
rather lonely when I find every constituency contiguous to my own has received consideration in these estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: Evidently you have not
looked at Harbours and Rivers.


George Spotton: I am afraid to discuss
harbours after a recent incident.


John Campbell Elliott: You are too timid.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


George Spotton: I wish to mention at the
moment the village of Brussels, as the government owns a piece of property there. This of course was purchased just prior to the war. The building is in very bad condition. If the Minister of Public Works has not been in that building, at least I know some of hia colleagues who have been there. One visited Brussels on a very important mission on September 12. 1927. I am not objecting to the vote for Exeter. I wish to congratulate the member for South Huron (Mr. McMillan) and that part of our county on getting a new post office. I hope that since relative urgency in these matters seems to be based upon the good judgment of the previous administration in selecting sites-that appears to be the guiding star with the minister-


John Campbell Elliott: Well, it is a certain amount of corroboration.


George Spotton: I hope the minister will
compare Brussels and Exeter and tell us why the one -was taken and the other left, because I know my people are expecting something, as it is not long since they were told, "Ask and ye shall receive." I find South Bruce, North Perth, Lambton West and South Huron-all represented by members on the other side of the house-have received a little donation from the funds of the Dominion of which the minister is trustee, and I congratulate them on their good fortune; but we have not received anything in Brussels. The building there is in very bad shape, in fact it ia riot any better than an ordinary livery stable. I would ask the minister to give his reason why he selected Exeter, for instance-I am not objecting-and left out Brussels, where so many of his friends in September 1927 were fully seized of the fact that something was very urgently needed with respect to post office accommodation. I do not want the minister to say that he is lying awake at nights because we are all asking for consideration. I know he is in a hard position, I know he cannot grant everything that is asked, but I would respectfully suggest to him that he keep his engineers or inspectors a little closer to their jobs at Ottawa. When I pick up a local paper here and there I find that an inspector or an engineer of the Public Works department or of the Marine department has been in a constituency looking over things and looking very wise, giving a nod here and a wink there. It is not long since that 1 saw an article in a western Ontario paper stating that two members of parliament were travelling about the district in company with an inspector or an engineer either from the
Public Works department or the Marine department, I am not sure *which. They were slipping around two contiguous constituencies exhibiting this official, and they felt so shy about it-their consciences must have been chiding them-that in one village, the paper says, they were shadowed by the local constable. Apparently they themselves felt that they were hardly doing the correct thing. Before the government chides us any more about asking for too much in the way of public buildings, I would respectfully suggest that they stop the practice of sending out departmental officials to look over constituencies with a view to finding an excuse for spending a little more of the people's money.
I do not wish to labour this point, but since Hantsport, Buctouche, Exeter and all these other favoured places have received consideration- and the minister has said their cases must be urgent because sites were purchased in 1913 or 1914-I would ask him next year to be prompted by the same, reason and build a post office at Brussels, and so carry out one of the many promises made by his friends. True, he did not commit himself, but on the other hand he did not in any way chide those who were making the promises. In the meantime if he will tell me on what he based his ultimate conclusion that Exeter should be taken and Brussels left, I may be able to uistify his action to my constituents.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister would be justified by faith.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but my hon. friend has both faith and works. I am rather surprised to hear him compare the riding of North Huron with the riding of South Huron, because he looks alarmingly like the gentleman who was in my office not very long ago with a deputation from his riding expressing their great appreciation of what was being done by this department for that particular riding.


George Spotton: No, what was being promised.


John Campbell Elliott: What was being done.


George Spotton: Promised.


John Campbell Elliott: No. The words of the deputation as I recollect them referred to what had been done last year to the harbour at Goderich, and stated what excellent results were flowing therefrom.


George Spotton: We will discuss that when the harbours are up. We are dealing with post offices now.
1930	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


John Campbell Elliott: But I see some of my
hon. friends wish to mix the two, and I am not objecting to that now. If he will look at the estimates a little further on he will see that for Goderich harbour there is an appropriation of $205,000. He is the last man that I would expect to object to this set of estimates.


George Spotton: I did not object; I congratulated the member for South Huron on his good fortune and stated I was delighted to see Exeter get a public building. I was simply asking the minister to tell us how he reached his conclusion which resulted in his taking Exeter and leaving out Brussels.


John Campbell Elliott: If that is what he was trying to do I am satisfied.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Manitoba
Brandon-public building-$50,000.
Dauphin public building-addition-$9,500. Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc.-$35,000.
Emerson-building for customs and immigration purposes-$20,000.
Gretna-public building-$25,000.
Transcona-public building, $27,000.
Winnipeg-Fort Osborne Barracks-power plant-$9,100.
Winnipeg-hospital for Department of Pensions and National Health-$160,000.
Winnipeg post office-extension, $90,000. Winnipeg public building-improvements and alterations-$8,000-Total, $433,600.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the whole of 124
carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not what was intended, Mr. Chairman. You were calling the Hespeler public building.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: That is the resolution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the buildings at Ottawa have not yet been discussed.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is no good for hon. gentlemen opposite to shout " carried." We want to know something about these buildings at Ottawa, particularly regarding one matter. Many departments of the public service are engaging in the same enterprises, especially with respect to research work. I think the minister should make some statement to the committee with respect to these matters.


John Campbell Elliott: Which item is my hon. friend referring to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last item called was the Hespeler post office.


John Frederick Johnston: We have been discussing indiscriminately the items in the resolution and not any one of them in particular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Ottawa items are all together; in vote No. 124 the Ottawa buildings all follow one after the other. On page 32 in the Ontario item there are these votes: Ottawa departmental buildings, fittings, etc., $60,000; equipment for Post Office Department, $26,000; forest products laboratory, addition and improvements. $10,000; Ottawa, laboratory of hygiene, $10,000; Ottawa post office, installation of pick-up table, $3,500; laboratory for Department of Mines, Booth street, and alterations, $100,000, of which $40,000 is a revote; Ottawa, towards purchase of building for government workshops, $12,200; and towards purchase of Daly building, $112,000. The Prime Minister will realize what I have in mind when I point this out. We are now endeavouring to establish a research department and I have been looking into the matter to ascertain what duplication there is. The minister will observe that we are providing for a laboratory of hygiene and a laboratory in connection with mines and minerals, and the new building discussed last year was to deal with certain other matters in connection with forest products which are being tested. Now the question is whether or not there is duplication of activities in the various departments. Why. for instance, should the Minister of Public Works deal with the matter of machines in the post office? Take that $26,000 for equipment in connection with the post office. Is this for the new machines that have been patented, for the purpose of lessening the amount of manual labour which has to be done, and which machines are merely leased and not bought? I ask this question because this is the only means whereby we may get information on the subject.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no departure
from the practice that has been followed with regard to the fitting of post office buildings. This item of $60,000 is required for the purchase and installation of metal file cases, shelving and other fittings needed in the parliamentary and departmental offices in Ottawa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: All over?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. It is impossible to give in specific detail a list of the requirements, but. I can give what we spent last year and in other years, and my hon. friend will see that this amount is required.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What is the $26,000 for?

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


John Campbell Elliott: It is to provide for the
purchase of steel equipment for the money order branch of the Post Office department. It was asked for by the Postmaster General in a letter forwarded in April 1928.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That conveys nothing.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I might read the letter:
I wish to inform you that it is the intention of this department to submit a requisition to your department in the course of the next few weeks for steel equipment for the reorganization of the money order work in the Blackburn building. Ottawa. It is considered that this equipment will cost approximately $26,000. 1 am bringing this matter to your attention in case you may be able to place an item in the supplementary estimates to provide for the work.
This request was made a year ago but we did not see our way clear to comply with it at the time. As a matter of fact an item of $20,000 was provided in the supplementary estimates for 1928-29 but the treasury board, in cutting us down, cut it out, stating that they thought it could wait another year.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What sort of steel equipment is it?


John Campbell Elliott: They are steel cases for
filing the various money order records.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister is sure they are just steel filing cabinets?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They are not these cancelling machines we hear so much about?


John Campbell Elliott: No; this vote does not
apply to them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is there provision in these estimates in that regard?


John Campbell Elliott: No, not for Ottawa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Is the department replacing those machines bought four or five years ago?


John Campbell Elliott: Not that I am aware of.
The department supplies facilities largely for the various other departments which require them, and we endeavour to satisfy ourselves as far as possible not only that a particular department wants them but that they are absolutely necessary. There has been no request, so far as I know, for a renewal of the equipment the hon. member speaks of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have already referred
to installations in connection with various laboratories. I shall have something to say in regard to dredging and the advisability of
having some central organization in connection with the conduct of public affairs, but I will not go into that matter at the moment. Just now I am dealing with laboratories and other buildings of that character. We cannot possibly get along if each department claims the right to have one of these establishments; we cannot possibly make progress under such conditions in a country such as this. We are establishing this new department of research, about which we are all so anxious and which will serve useful purposes in this country, and what I want to point out in this connection is this: We are voting public money to establish, in several other branches of the service, undertakings which ultimately must be regarded as research in the true sense of the term, and I for one am opposed to that being done. I mentioned the matter last year when the Prime Minister was discussing the matter of research activities. We are engaged, for instance, in wood testing and activities of that sort, all desirable, all admirable in their way. But the Prime Minister having invited suggestions as to how public money might be saved, I suggest that we prevent duplication wherever possible; in other words, that a well organized department should take care of the very work which at present is being done in several departments of the public service. I do not think it is conducive to the public interest that one particular service should set up a research department of its own for testing purposes, say, another department do the same, and still another. We are endeavouring now to consolidate our activities, and while one could understand such duplication at one time :t should now be avoided. I am not saying this in any critical or censorious spirit; I say it because I have been investigating the matter and I find that there is on the part of officials a tendency, which after all is but human, not to let go what they now have. I do not think however that we should expend public money to erect buildings which will indicate, on the part of this parliament, a desire to have more than one department dealing with questions of research, however manifold may be the activities of the various departments. I cannot consider it desirable that the departments should engage in these various enterprises.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps my
colleague (Mr. Elliott) will allow me to say a word on this matter inasmuch as it affects many departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, many of them.
193S	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is a
committee of the cabinet composed of ministers in whose departments research work is carried on, and the object of the committee is to centralize as much as possible all research work of the government. The committee has been considering this whole matter very fully having in mind the establishment at an early date of the new industrial and scientific research laboratories, and I can assure my hon. friend that these particular requests, especially from one or two of the departments, have been examined in relation to the larger equipment for which arrangements have been made. There is a special reason, which the Minister of the Interior would be able to give if he were here as to why one or two laboratories separately existing should continue so to exist, but I can assure my hon. friend that the government is entirely of his view with regard to consolidating scientific and industrial research work and will prevent, as far as possible, any overlapping of the service in that regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the country
will receive the statement just made by the Prime Minister with great satisfaction, but a laboratory of hygiene, for instance, is perhaps one of the matters with which a well organized research bureau would think it had a great deal to do as a branch of its activities. In putting up these buildings I fear we may be promoting what I might call the sense of an independent branch of the public service rather than a coordinated branch having to do with research work. That is the point which I endeavoured to make, although I have not made it very clear. Perhaps we will ask the Minister of the Interior about the workshops, the mines and the forest products.
It seems to me that the Department of the Interior is hardly the department under which one would expect forest products testing operations to be carried on, for instance, because so far as the local situation is concerned the companies interested usually look after that work. However, I believe that with respect to export business this work has been very valuable; I might mention the work which has been done in connection with the tensile strengths of woods and so on. I should think that work would be very properly under the Department of Trade and Commerce,. and that is the reason I ventured to bring this matter to the attention of the house at this time. The observations of the Prime Minister quite assure me that the government are desirous of doing what I think most thoughtful Canadians desire in 
this regard, but to vote money for these separate buildings will put them in a bad way when they begin the work of consolidation. Many difficulties will be interposed; I am sure that during his investigations my right hon. friend has ascertained how difficult it is to overcome that great jealousy possessed by men which will not let them surrender any of their activities in connection with scientific work. The jealousy with which men will hold on to their little positions in an endeavour to maintain an organization is amazing, and these four items struck me as being so related to the large activities to which this country has very properly committed itself that I venture this criticism in the hope that the minister would lend himself to the expenditure of public money in such a way as to afford a foundation for the effort which will be made later on not to coordinate but rather to maintain independent organizations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. VENIOT:: I know this is rather
irregular, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to announce that I have here the remainder of the returns which were asked for and which will be laid on the table of the house for the benefit of any hon. member.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: The next item to be considered is vote No. 125, public buildings, Manitoba.


Hugh Guthrie: Are you taking these up item by item?


John Frederick Johnston: We have been considering the resolutions as a whole.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You will never get supply through that way, Mr. Chairman.


John Frederick Johnston: It is for the committee to say whether it wants them called item by item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: That has been the practice, and we might as well follow it.
Brandon public building, $50,000.


Hugh Guthrie: What is that building intended for?


John Campbell Elliott: The intention is to arrange
for the erection of a new public building to provide adequate accommodation for all government services.

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


Hugh Guthrie: Are there any buildings
there now?


John Campbell Elliott: There is one building which was erected some years ago, but it is thought that the present building will be required as well as the one proposed.


Hugh Guthrie: Is this a post office?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $35,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: How much of that was
used last year?


John Campbell Elliott: About $20,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Gretna public building, $25,000.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue for
1927-28 was $2,329, and the customs revenue $18,370.


Hugh Guthrie: What part of the province is Gretna in?


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


William Thomas Lucas: What is the population?


John Campbell Elliott: About 600.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the total cost of the building?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will include the cost of the site?


John Campbell Elliott: The cost of the building is estimated at $17,000; cost of fittings, $3,000; grading sidewalks, and so on, $2,000; and contingencies and superintendence, $3,000. The site was purchased in June, 1913.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Transcona public building, $27,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the population of that town?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is 5,300, and the postal revenue is $5,187.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg-hospital for Department of Pensions and National Health, $160,000.
Peter McGibbon: How many patients were there in this hospital last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend that information. The necessity for this hospital arose from the fact that these patients were formerly housed in the Winnipeg civilian hospitals and they served notice upon the government that they were overcrowded and would not be able to accommodate these cases. We started the construction of this building a year ago.


Peter McGibbon: Has not the department more hospital accommodation in the Dominion than is really required?


John Campbell Elliott: That is something which could better be answered by the department concerned. They succeeded in satisfying us that they could not get along without this accommodation.


Hugh Guthrie: This was a very doubtful proposition last year, and we want to get some information about it.


Peter McGibbon: As a matter of fact the departments of health and soldiers' civil reestablishment are closing hospitals in a number of places in Canada, and it looks unreasonable to be spending more money for this kind of accommodation.


John Campbell Elliott: On January 11 we received the following from the Minister of Health, dealing with the necessity for additional accommodation:
At present there is an extremely urgent situation in respect to hospitalization of pensioners in Winnipeg.
Hitherto the department has maintained an eighty-bed hospital of its own, which has been chiefly used for convalescent cases and aged veteran pensioners, while the active treatment cases have been attended to by contract with the civilian hospitals in Winnipeg.
Last spring this department received notification from both the Winnipeg General Hospital and St. Boniface hospital that, in consequence of civilian bed shortage in Winnipeg, it would be impossible to guarantee further accomodation for ex-soldiers as provided by them for the past ten years. You will remember, therefore, that appropriations were passed late in the last session for the building of a new wing to the existing departmental hospital in Winnipeg. Meantime temporary arrangements were made with the civilian hospitals to take a lessened number of soldier patients, in order to tide over the emergency. My medical advisors inform me that the situation at present is much more urgent even than last year in respect to bed shortage in Winnipeg, and that this department is at the present time incurring a great deal of extra expense in consequence of having to pay extra for private rooms and private nurses, because no public ward accommodation is available-this in spite of the fact that the St. Boniface hospital, for example, has cleared out the wing where formerly their help were housed, in order to provide additional beds.
Neither civilian hospital will guarantee us any further accommodation, and are clamoring
1940	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
to have the present beds allowed for the treatment of ex-soldiers cut down to at least half of what the department has been using, because they cannot at present accommodate all their civilian patients, who have the first call on them.
Today there are seventy-four active treatment cases in the Winnipeg General hospital, sixty-two in St. Boniface hospital, and seven in St. Roeh hospital, while the departmental hospital (Deer Lodge) is full and overflowing, and patients waiting for admission.
The urgency is so great that tentative arrangements are being considered for obtaining a part of the old Immigration building in Winnipeg. and fitting it up as an emergency hospital. If this is necessary, it will have to be done at a great expense which will not be recoverable.


Hugh Guthrie: How much has the department spent on this building already?


John Campbell Elliott: The expenditure to the
31st March was 8215,516.


Hugh Guthrie: How much will it take
to complete it?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $160,000
is expected to complete it.


Hugh Guthrie: Will that furnish it, too?


John Campbell Elliott: I think so. It includes
laboratory and equipment.


Mr. MALONEY:: What is the capacity of the new hospital?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the total accommodation is to provide for all the patients that I have already referred to, namely, seventy-four in one hospital, sixty-two in another, and so on. I think it is a 200-bed hospital.


Peter McGibbon: My point is this: if I am correctly informed, the department are closing hospitals in different parts of Canada. Could these not be so readjusted by moving the patients as to avoid the expense of building another elaborate hospital? The work of this department is, of course, diminishing all the time and this looks to me to be a waste of money.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will perhaps remember the discussion last year in regard to that very question. It is considered only fair to the pensioners who are receiving treatment in these hospitals that accommodation should be provided within some reasonable distance of their place of residence, and therefore we have to have hospitals in different areas. That was the explanation that was given at the time.


Robert James Manion: What is the total area
that this serves?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think there is
any hospital but this one between British Columbia and Winnipeg.


Martin James Maloney: Will this item cover the equipment as well as the building?


John Campbell Elliott: It includes an amount
of $10,000 for equipment.


Martin James Maloney: $10,000 for a $350,000
hospital!


John Campbell Elliott: There are different kinds
of equipment. This is additional to the equipment they already have. There is $10,000 for equipment, $10,000 for X-ray and laboratory, and there is the dumb waiter and various other installations. I think this finishes everything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here again we have the
Department of Public Works constructing a hospital, according to the statement just made, of only 200 beds. The minister must have observed from the other figures he gave that there is not sufficient capacity in the new hospital to take care of the requirements. If he takes the figures he has already given us as to the crying necessity for this new institution and adds on to that Calgary and parts of British Columbia, he will find that the hospital is unable to cope with the situation. As the minister will perhaps recall, we rather hoped last year that before the country launched upon this undertaking, it would endeavour to construct the hospital as an added unit to the general hospital. I think the minister will remember that was the suggestion and it was to be looked into, the hope being that the government would thereby obviate the necessity of duplicating equipment and that facilities would be provided in the larger institution which would also be available in this one instead of having an isolated unit. We have a hospital at Deer Lodge and I think there is one at the Fort Osborne barracks.


Joseph Thorarinn Thorson: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When I lasted visited
it, there was rather a considerable unit being maintained there.


John Campbell Elliott: I have a further explanation to make which perhaps I had better do before my hon. friend proceeds with his remarks. I am informed that I was in error in saying 200 beds. The information I receive from the Department of National Health is that the accommodation is 250 beds.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As I understand the matter, the hospital cases are not increasing in number. They are decreasing, as my medical

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
colleague tells me. Some effort should be made to correlate these added hospitals facilities to the facilities of a great city so that utilization could be made of the advanced scientific methods and apparatus that a great hospital has, because if we have to duplicate them with this hospital, we shall have a vast expenditure for which there can be very little warrant. This is another instance of unnecessary duplication with respect to a portion of the proposition, and this hospital should be attached as a unit to the larger hospital of the city so that the inmates of this hospital would have the advantage of the benefits of the great city hospital. That was a matter we suggested last year and it was understood that it would be looked into. I assume tenders were called for the hospital, the contract has been let and the building is partly completed?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot think this sum is adequate to provide for proper facilities in the way of scientific and other apparatus such as is used in a returned soldiers' hospital, because my observation, and in fact, my knowledge is that it costs a great deal of money. Ten thousand dollars would not go anywhere in equipping a hospital.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend says about the suggestion being made a year ago is quite true as to making additions to the civic hospital-


Richard Bedford Bennett: With this very money to build a new unit.


John Campbell Elliott: -for additional accommodation ; but I was advised that suggestion was not new by any means; that it had been threshed out years ago by previous ministers in the department, and that the department and the municipalities had never succeeded in getting together on a satisfactory basis along the line suggested by my hon. friend. It was tried, and the records show that during the war time it was thought that theory could be worked out. It is a theory that appealed to me after it was mentioned in this house a year ago, but the result of the trials and the efforts have been that apparently the civil and the military do not seem to get along so as to make the arrangements satisfactory to both.
With regard to equipment, it looks offhand as if this would not be sufficient to supply the necessary equipment, but I find on inquiry that they have a fairly adequate supply of equipment now. The thing they most need is bedroom accommodation and it is hoped that this will fill the requirements.


Martin James Maloney: Is it intended that this hospital will 'be for the care and treatment of returned soldiers only?


John Campbell Elliott: Pensioners.


Martin James Maloney: After these poor men have passed away, possibly fifteen or twenty years from now, what does the minister propose doing with the building and so forth?


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon. friend that the government will then consider what is the best thing to do under the circumstances.


Robert James Manion: This government might be back in power by that time.


John Campbell Elliott: We have no notion of
making any change before then.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to supplement what my leader has said. I think the minister is proceeding on the wrong path at present. He says that it has not been found satisfactory to combine civil and military hospitals. There is in my riding one which I think is working very satisfactorily. Some years ago, about 1920, the government of Canada built an addition to the Graven-hurst sanitarium purely for military patients, and that has been probably one of the most successful soldier hospitals in Canada. Those who go there always want to return, and those who cannot get there are very desirous of going to that institution 'because of the good reports they have heard of it. I think the point raised by the hon. member for North Renfrew is a very important one. These patients are gradually growing less and less in number and it will not be so very long before they disappear. Then the government is going to have on its hands a lot of buildings and equipment for which it will have very little use. The department has already closed many hospitals in different parts of Canada; they have been or more or less scrapped. Here we are launching upon an expenditure for another 250-bed hospital. I think the suggestion that this should be combined with the civic hospital at Winnipeg is sane and rational.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Winnipeg post office-extension, $90,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Those of us who know
the city of Winnipeg and are familiar with the circumstances under which the present site was chosen for a post office are very curious to know just what extensions are contemplated. Perhaps the Minister of Public Works has himself seen the post- office in Winnipeg-


John Campbell Elliott: I have.

1942	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Richard Bedford Bennett: -and perhaps he is familiar with the circumstances under which that site was acquired for a post office. He might explain in what direction he proposes to make the extension, whether up or down or east or west.


John Campbell Elliott: We already have title to the property above and below. There is no question but that an addition must be made to the post office very shortly. This amount is to provide for the purchase of lot 122 and the building thereon on the east side of Garry street south of and at the rear of the post office building in the city of Winnipeg, in order to provide increased accommodation. The purchase of this property has been urged by the Postmaster General in a communication dated November 19, 1923, and by the Deputy Postmaster General in letters dated May 9 and 17, 1924, February 29 and November 14, 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it proposed to expropriate the land?


John Campbell Elliott: I think not, if it can be purchased at what looks like a reasonable price. If it can be acquired for something like $90,000 my own judgment would be to take the responsibility for making the purchase.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is in the rear of the building?


John Campbell Elliott: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan
Canora-public building-$12,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc.-$17,000.
Gravelbourg-public building-$23,500. $180O0n Hea
John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of
the committee that we take this vote up item by item?


John Campbell Elliott: I am in the hands of the
committee, but I would think we would make better progress in that way. If there is any item included in the vote which some member of the committee tvould like considered, we will consider it if he mentions it, or else we will take the items separetely one after the other.
My hon. friend from Westmorland asked wt.ih regard to the $400,000 item for a public building at Saskatoon. This amount is required to begin the construction of a public building at Saskatoon for the housing of all the government services in that 'city. A site situated at the corner of First avenue and Twenty-second street was purchased in 1928-29 from Byers Brothers, Limited, for $53,000. It is the intention to erect upon this site a new building of six stories and a basement, with frontage of 138 feet on First avenue and 128 feet on Twenty-second street. It will be a brick structure, but the fronts on the abovenamed streets will be of stone. The building is estimated to cost $795,000-building, $740.000; fittings and boxes, $40,000; gradings and sidewalks, $2,000; contingencies, $13,000; or a total of $795,000.


Robert James Manion: I do not think those items total up to the amount the minister mentioned.


John Campbell Elliott: I think so.


Robert James Manion: What about the site?


John Campbell Elliott: The site has been purchased.


Robert James Manion: What did it cost?


John Campbell Elliott: It cost $53,000.


Robert James Manion: When was it purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: It was purchased in 192829 from Byers Brothers, Limited.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the minister aware
when they purchased the site?


John Campbell Elliott: I am reasonably well
aware of all the circumstances, because this matter was considered a year ago. Part of it they had owned for some time, and part of it had been purchased not very long before the purchase by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the city?


John Campbell Elliott: They obtained the site
with a view to building a theatre, and they were .about to build the theatre at the time the government made the purchase from them.

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I would direct the
attention of the minister to the fact that the postal facilities at Wynyard are very inadequate. I think it was drawn to his attention last year and again this year by the local Liberal association and other bodies. The post office is in a very small part of a public building owned by the town, and is entirely inadequate for the purpose, but no other suitable accommodation is available. Is there any possibility of anything being done this year to relieve the situation?


John Campbell Elliott: It is hard to say what
may take place this year. I know a number of representations were made by my hon. friend and by others on behalf of Wynyard, and the matter has received some consideration, but up to the present time we have not seen our way to set aside an appropriation for a new building. I think it could be very well justified, but the case did not seem more urgent than some others that we had to postpone.


Milton Neil Campbell: Has the minister had
any report on the situation from the local inspector or some other officer of the department?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not say offhand.
As I have already explained, I have before me only the details relating to the estimates.


Milton Neil Campbell: Will the minister get
a report on the situation? Then I hope he will treat the case so sympathetically that something will be done, because really the need is urgent. If the postmaster could secure a suitable building he would do so, but there is none available. To make matters worse, I understand that the council require the space at present occupied by the post office, and the postmaster fears that he may not be allowed to retain the accommodation very much longer. It is really imperative that a new building should be provided very shortly.


John Campbell Elliott: If there is not a comparatively recent report in the department I shall be very glad to have the matter looked into again and see what can be done.


Mr. EVANS:: I had hoped to see in the
estimates provision for a public building at Biggar. The Postmaster General himself has admitted the need of such a building, and I thought from what the Minister of Public Works told me that he was not averse to having a public building erected in the town. Biggar has a population of three thousand, and the post office yields a yearly revenue of $11,000. It is a railway centre and growing 78594-123}
very fast. I think the minister knows the place very well. No suitable building is available for a post office. I do think the government should follow some well-defined policy in meeting the need for post offices in certain places. Gretna, although only one-fifth the size of Biggar, is being given a public building. Not only is Biggar a much larger town than Gretna, but its need for a public building is very urgent. I do not think it is fair to the people of Biggar to discriminate against them in this way. Seeing that the government does not follow any policy so far as population or need is concerned in allotting these grants, I should like to know what its policy really is. In looking over the estimates for Saskatchewan I see no grant is made to any but Liberal constituencies, and it does not seem fair that there should be this discrimination against Biggar when the need of proper post office facilities is so great.


John Campbell Elliott: It would be pretty difficult to make a grant towards a Conservative constituency in Saskatchewan. That is our first difficulty, if it can be called a difficulty, but I have not found it such. But, joking apart,
I do know the town of Biggar, and something of its requirements, and I am aware that it together with a number of other towns might be provided with better post office facilities. Biggar is a much younger town than Gretna and other places which were in existence before there was even a townsite at Biggar; and the post office there is not in an old building, there being no very old structures in the town. My hon. friend never omits an opportunity to advance the cause, and the requirements of Biggar have been receiving consideration. The town is deserving of consideration, and I am sure will get it in its proper turn.


John Evans: Next year?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say next year,
but I can assure my hon. friend that it will get consideration in the proper order of urgency.


Mr. PRICE:: What is the net revenue
expected from the $400,000 expenditure on public buildings in Saskatoon?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal census for
Saskatoon in 1901 was 113; for last year it was a little over 30,000.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: It was 45,000.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend from
Saskatoon admits that it is 45,000 now. I have no doubt it is not any more than that or he would have said so. The postal revenue for 1918-19 was $194,420.
1944	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Otto Baird Price: That is net?


John Campbell Elliott: Net; for 1927-28 it was


James Dew Chaplin: Perhaps the local member can tell you whether that has increased.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt. But
it is not in any special category from that fact because there are many other places increasing by leaps and bounds. The customs revenue last year was $1,059,772.


Otto Baird Price: Can the minister explain
why we will not set aside sufficient money for a new post office in the city of Moncton which returns a profit of over $1,000 a day, while he can make an appropriation of $400,000 for public buildings in Saskatoon, where the postal revenue does not warrant such an expenditure? Will he please stand up and justify his action?


John Campbell Elliott: I hope my hon. friend
will not expect me to start my defence until he finishes his arraignment. What did he say was the customs revenue in Moncton?


Otto Baird Price: There is over $1,000 a day
net profit in Moncton, yet you will not put up a building there.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not the customs
revenue; what is that revenue?


Otto Baird Price: I think the revenue from
the customs is just as large in Moncton as it is in Saskatoon.


John Campbell Elliott: I will not contradict my
hon. friend.


Otto Baird Price: I am speaking about the
general revenue turned into the treasury and I want the minister to explain why he cannot put up a building in Moncton.


John Campbell Elliott: Unfortunately I do not
know as much about Moncton as my hon. friend does, but he does not know offhand nor do I know what the customs revenue of Moncton is.


Otto Baird Price: I will say to my hon. friend, be careful you don't back into something. If you were before a court and the judge were hearing your case, with the information you have at the present time, and the way you are backing up, he would say, and very properly, "Be careful you don't back into something."


Mr. GOTT:: I want to call the attention
of the minister to the fact that the postal department alone in Windsor had a net operating surplus in the last six years of LMr. Elliott.]
$1,144,159. The post office in Windsor was built fifty years ago and both staff and business have increased, the net revenue for the last 3'ear having been $386,622, while the salaries paid amounted to $182,839.20. The customs revenue at the port of Windsor is $6,070,357.92. The minister will no doubt recall a splendid demonstration given him by the Liberals of Windsor when he visited the city and attended a banquet. At that meeting, if I mistake not, he promised a new postal building to Windsor.


John Campbell Elliott: What was that last remark?


Eccles James Gott: I say that to my knowledge
the minister, at this splendid banquet in Windsor, promised a new postal building to the city of Windsor.


John Campbell Elliott: I must say to my hon.
friend-


Richard Bedford Bennett: You weren't conscious
of it.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I wras quite conscious; and if there is one thing more than another I did not say to the people of Windsor it was that I was going to put up a building there. No one knows that better than my hon. friend does.


Eccles James Gott: Unfortunately I was not
present at that banquet. The Minister of Justice laughs; I may tell him that I had an invitation to the function, and the only reason I was not present was the fact that I was not going to sit there and concur in the general activities of the evening- Now if the Minister of Public Works did not say to the people of Windsor, "We will construct a new building for you," may I ask him what he did say?


John Campbell Elliott: I would refer my hon.
friend to a copy of The Border Cities Star of that date which he will find contains, I think, the speech in full.


Eccles James Gott: With a full page heading.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. PARENT:: It was worth it.


Ernest Lapointe: And photograph.


John Campbell Elliott: That report makes it
perfectly clear, if my hon. friend will read it, that I made no promise whatever.


Eccles James Gott: You got a warm reception, I
will say that.

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


John Campbell Elliott: I must say they are most hospitable people, and any representative of this government who visits a town that has done as well as Windsor has done since this government came into power would get nothing but a wonderfully hospitable reception.
I cannot speak too highly of their wonderful cordiality and hospitality.


Eccles James Gott: The minister has said either
too much or not enough. There is nothing in the estimates for any post office building there, and if he thinks that he can put it off until next year and then offer it as a bait to the people of Windsor I can assure him they will resent it.


Hugh Guthrie: Why is it that in a city
the size of Saskatoon there are twelve postal substations? It seems rather extraordinary. There must be a reason for it, but what is that reason?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is a very scattered
city.


Hugh Guthrie: The revenue of the head
office is some $272,000, and there are twelve postal substations. This does not occur in any other city of the same size.


John Campbell Elliott: I must say frankly that
this is a departmental matter, rather within the post office than within the Department of Public Works. Perhaps I ought to have that information but I have not. There is no doubt however that they are not subpost offices in the ordinary sense of the word. There are a number of places where postage stamps are sold. My hon. friend knows something about the layout of Saskatoon, and he will recall that the river Saskatchewan runs between two portions of the city. It is a large territory, and I think the twelve substations to which he refers include some districts outside, like Sutherland and some of the adjoining places.


Charles Avery Dunning: It includes the university.


John Campbell Elliott: The university and other
places the mails for which are made up at Saskatoon.


Hugh Guthrie: These, then, are merely
places set aside in stores for the sale of stamps, money orders and so forth.


John Campbell Elliott: That is all, so far as I
know.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister explain
the S100,000 for the Regina public building?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for the erection
of an addition to the public building at Regina in order to provide adequate accommodation for all the government services in that city.


Robert James Manion: Will this complete the
work?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it will not.


Robert James Manion: I see the Minister of
Railways shakes his head; he is looking for more. How much will it take to erect this building?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it will take about $150,000 in addition to this amount, at least.


Robert James Manion: Then there is another
item of $28,000 for the Regina armouries. What is that for?


Charles Avery Dunning: Amortized rent.


John Campbell Elliott: This is required as a
second payment in connection with a building for armoury purposes.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Railways says it is amortized rent.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. As a means of
providing adequate armoury accommodation a building is being erected by an organization incorporated under the name of the Regina Armoury Association. The city of Regina donated a site worth $40,000 in the northeast comer of the exhibition grounds for the proposed structure, and the association has raised an amount of money sufficient to construct a building to cost $350,000. An amortization arrangement was made and this is the second payment on account.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this not an amazing
thing? Imagine the Dominion of Canada being a party to a transaction of this kind. It is true it has been done before by other governments, but that does not make it right. Imagine the Dominion of Canada letting private enterprise build a $350,000 armoury in Regina and paying $28,000 yearly under an amortization arrangement. I ask the minister if he does not think that little short of a public scandal. The Dominion of Canada, mark you, with a surplus in the treasury, allows private enterprise to obtain the gift of a site and erect thereon a building costing $350,000, and the government pays them $28,000 a year. For how many years, may I ask?


John Campbell Elliott: For twenty years.
1946	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then $560,000 without
interest is to be paid by this country in order to obtain a property built by private enterprise at a cost of $350,000, with the site donated by the city of Regina.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend hardly
stated the matter fairly. He said the payments will amount to something over- $500,000, without interest, but of course he knows that the interest on the cost of the building would have to be paid in any event, no matter who built it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not if it were built out of the revenues of the country, as are all other buildings.


Charles Avery Dunning: The interest on the
money would have to be met. However, my purpose in rising was to clear up one point only, because this arrangement was discussed in this house before it was agreed to and entered into. As my hon. friend indicated, this same policy has been followed previously by other governments.


Hugh Guthrie: Will the minister tell us
where?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes; in Westmount,
Montreal, and I believe in one instance in Toronto.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And in Saskatoon, where they took up an old building.


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot say as to that,
but in justice to those public spirited citizens who joined themselves together for the purpose of erecting this building it should be stated that the organization in question is entirely a non-profit organization, organized by the officers of the various battalions in the military district and consisting wholly of those officers. As a matter of fact, the organization cannot make any profit. It happened that the Saskatchewan military district was the only district in Canada without adequate headquarters accommodation; large sums were being paid in rent for various buildings there, but now military headquarters is well equipped in the new armouries under the arrangement approved by this house last year. I may say that the building is located on the exhibition grounds; the city, which owns these exhibition grounds, donated the site, and therefore the building can be used much more frequently for what might be called peace time activities than for normal military purposes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not present when this question was discussed last year, and that is my Teason for bringing it up now. I

have a very strong feeling against the Dominion of Canada doing this sort of thing. We have had a revenue surplus for many years, and if it were necessary to erect an armoury costing $350,000 in Regina that building should have been paid for out of the revenues of the country in the ordinary course. Under this arrangement we are paying capitalized interest over a period of twenty years; in other words, we have prevented ourselves from paying off this amount. That is the objection I am trying to make clear, purely a question of finance. My hon. friend knows, as do most of us, that we personally make contributions continuously to assist in maintaining just such organizations as this to which he has referred; I have done so for twenty-five years. I think a very great and useful service has been rendered in western Canada by military establishments, but the point I am trying to make is that it is altogether wrong that private enterprise should be required to construct an armoury and then, instead of getting their money back at once, have the payments extended over a period of twenty years, including interest at some rate which I do not know at present but which I will know very shortly. Really that is my objection. Now may I ask the minister what is the rate of interest?


John Campbell Elliott: Five per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And last year we paid


Charles Avery Dunning: That included rents for
other buildings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who maintains this
building now? Has it been taken over by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: The government takes it
over at the end of the term, but the rental is not supposed to take care ox the upkeep in the meantime.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who makes the repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: I assume that under such an amortization agreement the upkeep will be borne by the government, who will eventually own the building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who heats it and who
looks after the caretaking now?


John Campbell Elliott: The government pays the cost of heating.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is it not an imposition on private individuals to compel them to put up their own money for the construction of a public building in a city like Regina, and is it not an indignity to the Dominion

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
of Canada that instead of putting a sum in the estimates sufficient to take care of this work and be done with it we have agreed to an amortization arrangement, with interest to be paid at 5 per cent for a period of twenty-years, at the end of which time we own the building? We should have expropriated it at once and that would have been the end of it. The rifle range at North Vancouver was expropriated in that way. Of course my hon. friend says this organization was not formed in order to make a profit. The real fact is that somebody is putting money into a venture with the best sort of intentions, and we are giving them a twenty-year investment at 5 per cent guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada. How many people are there who would not be glad to make an arrangement of that kind if they knew the government was going to come along and take over the investment on a basis of 5 per cent per annum, providing an annuity for a period of twenty yeans and paying 5 per cent in conection with the undertaking? Surely the principle is wrong. I know there is one hon. gentleman in this house, for whose busines judgment and acumen I have the very highest regard, who would not do it in the province he came from, and that is the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). You could not have induced him to do it. Just think what this means. Three hundred and fifty thousand dollars has been put in by private enterprise, and instead of buying them off and taking the building over, we are making an investment for twenty years with interest at 5 per cent. This country is paying $210,000 as interest for the privilege of taking the property over at the end of twenty years.
Mr. MoLEAN (Melfort): You paid more than that for vacant lots in the city of Regina not long ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the remarks of the hon. member for Melfort add greatly to and brighten up the discussion in connection with this question which the minister is aibout to answer. I am sure it is very interesting, but passing over that for the moment-


Charles Avery Dunning: Pass over it, it is pretty bad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It may be pretty bad.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not introduce it, but it is pretty bad.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What were the lots acquired for in Regina?


Charles Avery Dunning: I canont give you the exact figures, but it is probably ten times as much as they could be sold for to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Grand Trank Pacific railway and the National Transcontinental railway were built by the people of this country for many times more than they could be sold for to-day.


Charles Avery Dunning: There was no building involved in the purchase of these lots.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was intended to put a building on them. Instead of that, the city of Regina gives the lots to a private corporation and instead of buying the corporation off this country has undertaken to pay $28,000 per annum for twenty years.


Charles Avery Dunning: The lots referred to were not purchased for an armoury.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were purchased by the government of this country for some purpose.


Charles Avery Dunning: But not for armoury purposes. My hon, friend will remember that for years there was a standing offer by the city of Regina to give sufficient property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is wise for this house quietly to sit down and vote, in the days of surpluses when you have plenty of money, money in this way? Instead of buying the property at a reasonable price and extinguishing the private interest in it, you are paying $28,000 per annum for twenty years, which is $500,000, outside of the other expenditures in connection with caretaking, fuel, and matters of that kind, and $350,000 from $560,000 leaves $210,000. Divided by twenty, that amounts to something over $10,500 per year which is being paid by the Dominion of Canada for interest in connection with this matter. With the surpluses which this country has it should be able to find money enough to take care of the investment and not pay an annuity of $28,000 per annum to private interests over a period of twenty years.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend made a somewhat flattering reference to my business acumen. I would like to ask him if he knows of a similar case, similar in the sense that money was obtained at the rate of 5 per cent under such circumstances and with the prevailing rate being as it is? So far as the arrangement is concerned, I for one am prepared to defend it, because the rate of interest is low enough and it represents a real economy in that regard. In this connection I would refer my hon. friend to the relative rates prevailing when the Westmount armoury proposition was undertaken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the one I had in mind.
1948	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not suppose the Minister of Public Works has the agreement before him, but if my memory serves me correctly, when this matter was before the house a year ago it was stated that the agreement provided that the government retained the right to buy the property at any time. I think that is correct, but I am subject to correction from the minister in that regard.


John Campbell Elliott: That is my impression; 1 have been trying to check it up, but I cannot say positively.


Charles Avery Dunning: The arrangement having been approved last year, it is quite natural for the minister not to have all the material here this year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no approval given; there was just an item in the estimates.


Mr. DUNNIN  G@: Full explanation was given by the minister and the vote was passed subject to that explanation given one year ago Everyone proceeded on the assumption that the house having been made aware of what was contemplated had approved of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not an approval of an agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I have some respect also for my hon. friend's business acumen, and 1 would be ready to submit that agreement to him and ask if it was not a good agreement, once he grants the principle with which it commences to operate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot approve of the principle. I would not care whether it came from Westmount or anywhere else, because I think the minister will agree with me that it is an indignity to the Dominion of Canada that a private enterprise-


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not agree with that at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say that the Dominion of Canada was not borrowing money at 5 per cent when Canadian national securities were being sold at 4.6 per cent on the world markets.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think the rate was 4.72.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year?


Charles Avery Dunning: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret I was not here last year when this matter was discussed, but is there no way by which we can purchase the annuity? That is the point I desire to have cleared up.


Charles Avery Dunning: My memory of the agreement-this can be confirmed by the minister and the department-was that the right was retained by the Dominion to buy off the whole property at any time and terminate the amortization.


John Campbell Elliott: I happen to have an extract from Hansard showing the discussion which look place last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not here.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think you were; at any rate your name does not appear in connection with the discussion.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which is prima facie evidence that I was not here.


John Campbell Elliott: Negotiations were under way at that time and were practically completed at the time the matter was presented to the house, figured on a basis of $33,500 per year at the rate of 5J per cent interest. Later on we were able to come to an arrangement of 5 per cent, which accounts for the lower payment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has a formal agreement been drawn up?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year when the estimate was passed, there was no formal agreement. There now is, and the point I think it would be for the Attorney General of this country to consider, is whether there is any power in any minister, without any statutory authority, to commit the country to pay an annuity for twenty years. I have the information at last. There was no authority given to make such an agreement. That has to be done by statute. The executive of this country, without parliamentary sanction or authority, but by the authority of an order in council, have signed an agreement to commit Canada to pay $28,000 a year for twenty years. Can the government legislate for twenty years by order in council without regard to parliament? Is there an obligation on this country with respect to this matter? Where is the statutory authority? That was what I was asking.


John Campbell Elliott: I think there is a very
distinct obligation upon this parliament, having passed an agreement on the understanding that-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there was no agreement.


John Campbell Elliott: Parliament having passed the first payment with the distinct understanding that it was one of twenty payments at the-

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
rate of $33,500 a year, it would hardly repudiate it after it had been reduced by one-half of one per cent per annum, and now amounts to less than was approved by parliament a year ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the Attorney General of this country is supposed to advise upon questions of law, and I put this question to him: What authority had the executive of Canada, without legislative sanction or authority, to sign a document that commits the Dominion of Canada to pay any sum of money for twenty years? When the minister said that this had been approved last year; when both ministers said it, not being present I did not desire to controvert it. When the Minister of Railways was the one to say what took place, followed by the Minister of Public Works, I then understood thoroughly that no agreement had been signed, nor was one signed until after parliament prorogued. All documents that are executed by the government must be either by reason of the prerogative of the crown or with statutory authority. Where is the statutory authority to warrant the signature being affixed to an undertaking to pay $28,000 a year for twenty years?


Ernest Lapointe: AH the details were given to parliament when this vote was accepted by the committee of supply last year. It was part of the supply bill. Every particular was given; it was ratified by the house and, apart from that, the same thing has been done many times in the past. For instance, we are still paying for the famous Daly building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: Exactly in the same way we are bound by a contract and parliament ratifies it every time supply is voted for the purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right of the crown to buy a building is undoubted, but the question is whether or not the executive branch of the government has power, without statutory authority, to bind the country to make payments of money for a period of twenty years. The Attorney General of Canada will remember that this question was discussed last year. The view I have entertained is that no statutory authority for the payment of money should contemplate any further period than the life of the government or perhaps a few months or a year beyond that, to enable an incoming government to consider the matter.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree in principle that we should not bind future generations.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This parliament, without
passing a statute-and that is the essential thing to keep in mind-and having given no authorization in the matter, finds itself called upon this year to pay $28,000 which we are voting. That in itself shows that there is no agreement, because, if there were, it would not be necessary to place this sum in the estimates. That is, if there is an agreement to pay, the government could pay it out of the consolidated fund under the authority of statute without reference to an appropriation.


Ernest Lapointe: All leases of buildings
are made in the same way, and we are voting the money every year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not vote it for
each separate lease.


Charles Avery Dunning: We are doing the same
thing in the case of the Daly building, in the case of steamship subsidies, which are voted each year but which are five-year contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Some are and some are not, The point is this, and I do not think there will be any difficulty in finding authorities that support this proposition,; without statutory authorization the executive should not endeavour to bind the future to the extent of the payment of money for twenty years. That is the position I take with relation to the matter. If it were intended that this agreement should be binding upon a future generation, there should have been a ratification of the agreement by parliament. That is the principle upon which a former Liberal administration acted in connection with the Yukon. It is a very serious principle. Surely the house must see where this leads: it puts the country in a very difficult position in the future.


John Campbell Elliott: May I say in answer to
my hon. friend's argument that the object of having this item in the estimates now is to have parliament pass upon it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. Supposing it is
skipped next year?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will permit me for a moment. That must be done every year during the twenty years. What greater safeguard can the people have than that parliament passes upon that item each year? I ask my hon. friend: When the general policy was submitted to the house-


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend has begged the question.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all. When the
policy was submitted to the house and approved before the first payment was made,
1950	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
is my hon. friend going to argue that any subsequent parliament would repudiate an agreement that is one-half of one per cent per annum better than the one approved by parliament last year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is amazing that the
Minister of Public Works would make that statement. First, there was no agreement. That was settled when parliament granted $33,500.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will call it a proposal. Will my hon. friend permit me a question? Does he think anybody had power to make an agreement? Could I have come to the house with an agreement before it had been submitted to parliament?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, the only kind of agreement that should have been made was a provisional one subject to ratification by parliament, and this is not a ratification. Surely the minister knows that. Parliament has never seen or considered the agreement and, what is more, the minister now has made a statement that is amazing. He has said: Do you think any parliament would repudiate it? In other words, I have no right now to consider the matter at all. It is settled by parliamentary sanction. I saw the Minister of Railways smile when my hon. friend made the statement.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not smile at the Minister of Public Works. I smiled at my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister says: Could anything be better than that parliament should pass on the matter for the next twenty years? And in the next breath he says: Does he think any parliament could repudiate it?


John Campbell Elliott: I said "would".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then why should we
discuss it?


John Campbell Elliott: I submit it to parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but we have to take it willy-nilly. The whole thing is a mockery, and my hon. friend knows it. There was no agreement last year. An agreement has been signed in between times. Now we are asked to vote one instalment of that payment, and thereby confirm that agreement without its being submitted to parliament for approval. That is the story and all the sophistry in the world cannot do away with it. The good faith of this country is committed, so that we have to pay these amounts whether we want to or not, and because the government, by order in 
council, has done this, there is no opportunity of discussing the merits of it in any way, shape or form. In other words, government by order in council has superseded the legislative power and authority of parliament. The Minister of Justice will say so.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is surely unfair, for this reason:	Had the Minister
of Public Works entered into an arrangement or agreement for twenty years without advising this parliament, before he got the authority to spend the money, of the nature of the agreement which he contemplated entering into, my hon. friend's point, I submit, would be well taken; but before any agreement was entered into, what did the minister do? He came here with a vote sufficient to pay the first year's rental-


Richard Bedford Bennett: On a 5i per cent basis.


Charles Avery Dunning: On a 5i per cent basis,
and he said: "We hope to put through this kind of arrangement," and he outlined the kind of arrangement he proposed. Parliament approved the amount of money, but later on, after negotiations, the minister was able to get the rate of interest reduced from 5i to 5 per cent; consequently, because of a smaller instalment being necessary this year, he comes to the house with a better arrangement than that which he communicated a year ago, and then the leader of the opposition says: This is a mockery; the house has never been consulted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that. I
said that the house had never had the opportunity to pass upon that agreement, and it has not now. Where is the agreement?


Charles Avery Dunning: The house last year
passed upon-


Henry Herbert Stevens: What date?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot tell the exact
date offhand, but it is easily ascertainable. The house last year in passing this estimate passed upon the nature of an agreement proposed by the minister whereby the sum then being voted would be expended. The minister has been able to make a better agreement than the one he communicated to the house last year, and my hon. friend the leader of the opposition says that there is some deception about it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I did not say that.
I said it was a mockery.


Ernest Lapointe: A milder term.

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Richard Bedford Bennett: That special pleading
does not get home either, Mr. Chairman. There is a rule which at least the gentleman who sits to the left of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Ralston) will tell him, if not the gentleman who sits to his right (Mr. Lapointe), that any confirmation or ratification of an agreement by parliament you should be able to find in the statute books of the country. That is an elementary rule. A resolution of parliament has no force in the courts of the country; a resolution of this house has not.


Charles Avery Dunning: What about the Daly
building?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am saying that I
disagree with the principle without a ratification or agreement of sale.


Charles Avery Dunning: If this is not legal, the
agreement with respect to the Daly building and the agreement with respect to the West-mount armoury are not legal, and if I hunted through past years, without reflecting on any government, I could find scores of instances of the same nature.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not scores, but you may find several. The point I desire to make is this:	When the Minister of Railways said
that that agreement was communicated to this house, he certainly did not seriously mean it; for his colleague had said that the agreement did not come into existence until after the house rose.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend is not
quoting me correctly. I said that the nature of the agreement which the minister purposed entering into was stated as a condition on the passing of the vote last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The mere statement of
the nature of the thing does not constitute an agreement, and no man knows that better than my hon. friend the Minister of Justice. What we have done is this: We have agreed, by solemn agreement, to pay $28,000 a year for twenty years. There is no statutory authorization for it. The only authority is a statement made by the minister that he contemplated doing something that would involve an expenditure of $33,500 a year, not $28,000, and he now says:	I have been able
to do better than that, because I am only paying $28,000 for twenty years. Now I find that early last year Canadian 4i per cents were selling in New York at 101, so we could have borrowed the money at 4A per cent and paid that off, and saved this country one-half of one per cent on the purchase for twenty years.


Charles Avery Dunning: You could not have got that rate for the government at the time the agreement was entered into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What was that date?


Charles Avery Dunning: I cannot tell the date.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then what do you know about it?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have a distinct recollection of the difficulty of financing at 5 per cent.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Financing what at 5
per cent?


Charles Avery Dunning: Financing the armouries at 5 per cent. I make no excuse for having given what assistance I could to the armouries' association to enable them to meet the condition which the Minister of Public Works imposed, which was to finance at 5 per cent. I do not think I am giving away any secrets when I say that it was finally arranged through the medium of the Royal Bank.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, but that cock
does not fight so far as I am concerned. My hon. friend might as well say that it was the Bank of Nova Scotia. I want to point out to my hon. friend that early in the year the direct securities of Canada were selling at 4i per cent. The guaranteed securities always sell for less, and this country could have borrowed $350,000 at 4i per cent, which is only $15,750 a year and the amortization fund of 2 per cent would not have brought it up within $8,000 of the sum we are now paying.


Charles Avery Dunning: I would like to check
your figures.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is mental arithmetic- $350,000 at 4i per cent is $15,750, according to my arithmetic.


Charles Avery Dunning: You are quicker than I
am.


Richard Bedford Bennett: $15,750 plus the sinking
fund, and the result would have been that we would have had the armouries paid for in full and we would have owned them, and saved several thousand dollars per annum. The point I am making is that it is time that attention was directed to the undesirability of doing business in this kind of way. Immediately after the war when revenues were not buoyant it was suggested that this was a good way to do business, but when you have surplus moneys, and when you have markets where you can borrow at 4i per cent on the direct securities of the country-
1952	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Charles Avery Dunning: I do not think any
bonds of the country were sold at 4J per cent net to the treasury in 1928.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of my friends ascertained for me that the 4| per cent securities of Canada were quoted in New York at 101.


Charles Avery Dunning: Not net to the treasury I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I could not say.


John Campbell Elliott: Might I just say a word
in answer to my hon. friend? In his calculation he is starting with 4J per cent. May I call his attention to the fact that he does not estimate any interest on the cost of the site which is being included as part of the agreement, or proposal, or arrangement, or whatever he chooses to call it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the site was given.
There was no interest on that.


John Campbell Elliott: It was given by the city of Regina as part of this proposition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are we paying interest
on that too? This is getting worse. I understand that we made a gift to the association, and now I understand that we are paying interest to the association on the money we gave.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is too
shrewd to know that that is not fair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what the hon.
gentleman said.


John Campbell Elliott: Not at all. My hon.
friend started figuring how this government could have made this purchase at $350,000 on the basis of 4J per cent.' He spoke as if the property were worth only $350,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is what has to be paid.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
permit me, I think he will see it more clearly. This is not the purchase of $350,000 worth of property. This is the purchase of property for $350,000 in addition to a site worth $40,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Nonsense. The site is
free.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend whose main talk is " Nonsense "-


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, nonsense.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend just contain himself for a moment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have been waiting
a long time.


James Dew Chaplin: Let us get the deal anyway.


John Campbell Elliott: The city of Regina put
up a site estimated at $40,000. This company is formed, and undertakes to expend the cost of putting up the armoury, which is estimated at $400,000, which we are able to get eventually for an annual payment of $28,000.


James Dew Chaplin: Tell us how the figure of $28,000 is arrived at; then we will know the details.


John Campbell Elliott: The $28,000 a year for twenty years is to pay not only the rental, but to give us the property at the end of the twenty years-not merely the $350,000 that the building cost, but the site that was presented as well.


James Dew Chaplin: But you are not paying anything for that.


John Campbell Elliott: May I call my hon. friend's attention to what took place? Last year, as shown by Hansard, I made this statement, which is to be found at page 2718:
This is the first payment on the purchase of a building for armoury purposes in the city of Regina. As a means of providing adequate armoury accommodation it is proposed to erect a building by private enterprise by an organization to be incorporated under the name of the Regina Armoury Association. The city of Regina is prepared to donate a site worth $40,000. situated in the northeast corner of the exhibition grounds for the proposed structure, and the association proposes raising the necessary funds for the erection of an armoury building costing approximately $400,000. It is proposed to lease the building to the Dominion government on a rental-purchase basis at an annual rental of $33,500 for a period of twenty years, at the end of which time the building becomes the property of the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What becomes the property of the government?


John Campbell Elliott: The building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly; but not the land.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The land belongs to the city


John Campbell Elliott: They have given it.
Now, in the purchase of the Westmount property or of any of the other properties, what was the procedure? Exactly that followed here, only we did not get a free site. Has there ever been in this house in connection with any of those arrangements that have been carried out such a proposition as my hon. friend now suggests? What would it mean? It would mean that the minister

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
in charge must come to the house and say: This is what is proposed. I have not an agreement, of course, because I have not power to enter into any agreement until I obtain authority from the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


John Campbell Elliott: I may not have power
to get the agreement completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


John Campbell Elliott: As a matter of fact, if my hon. friend's statement is right it was August before the final arrangements with the bank were made.


Charles Avery Dunning: I forget the month, but about that time.


John Campbell Elliott: At the time the house was not sitting. My hon. friend's proposal would mean that I must first come to the house with the proposal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ratify the proposal by statute, of course.


John Campbell Elliott: Would my hon. friend
suggest that that practice has ever been followed in this country?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly was in connection with the Yukon railway.


John Campbell Elliott: But in connection with the purchase of property of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I say is wrong. There must be statutory authority for the exercise of this power.


John Campbell Elliott: Then until authorization for entering into the agreement is made by parliament no agreement could be entered into.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No authorization ever
was given.


John Campbell Elliott: Authorization was given because the item was agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not authorization.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not?


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. Nobody knows it better than my hon. friend.


John Campbell Elliott: It is the kind of authorization in connection with what are called rental-purchase agreements.


Henry Herbert Stevens: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I defy my hon. friend to cite any rental-purchase agreement that has ever been entered into by any of the departments where such a statute has been passed as he suggests.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are only two. The Daly building was not of that kind-it was a purchase by instalments; and the Wench building in Vancouver was purchased by the present government but they could not pay off-


John Campbell Elliott: The principle applies to all rental-purchases. You have to have your vote each year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; but the only two rental-purchases that I know of are the armouries in Saskatoon, an old building, and the other in Westmount. The Daly building was a purchase by instalments.


Charles Avery Dunning: What is the difference
in principle?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is entirely different.


John Campbell Elliott: The Lavut building in Montreal-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the other one.


John Campbell Elliott: And the workshop building in Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last year?


John Campbell Elliott: No, we are pretty near at the end of the payments. When I call my hon. friend's attention to what would have to take place, I know he will be one of the first to admit that what he is now suggesting is a rather unreasonable procedure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The only correct procedure.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister has persisted in saying that last year parliament authorized him to enter into this agreement with the Regina Armoury Association. What happened is very clearly set out in Hansard and covers about a 'column and a half. What the minister read a moment ago is practically all that appears there in regard to the matter. I notice the item passed just before eleven o'clock on May 4 last year. This is all that was said:
Regina-armoury, $33,500.
That was the item called. Then the report continues:
Mr. Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?
1954	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
Thereupon Mr. Elliott, the minister, said what he read a moment ago-which I shall not repeat-stating at the outset:
This is the first payment on the purchase of a building for armoury purposes in the city of Regina.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend surely admits he will find there that I had something to say on the matter?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, the Minister of Railways has about eight or ten lines in reference to it, which he will admit is not a very complete exposition of the agreement later entered into.


Charles Avery Dunning: A very simple one.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I will read his words. I am quoting from Hansard at page 2719:
Mr. Dunning: Perhaps I might say that while the term "private enterprise" was used by the minister, the association which is being formed is a non-profit organization consisting of the officers of the various units in the city. In connection with the arrangement there is no private profit of any kind at all. The city itself is contributing the site, as I say the organization will be a holding company merely to enable the cost to be amortized over a period of years.
That, I think, is virtually all that was said about it last year. No one will contend that that constitutes serious consideration by parliament of a proposed agreement.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it does constitute a complete explanation.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would say a very meagre explanation.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Let both hon. members be fair in this matter. Obviously parliament was in an amiable mood on that occasion because I see "Item agreed to" appears five times on this page; so the estimates were passing through in a fairly expeditious manner -there was no critical examination of the items. The point at issue is whether by merely voting estimates 'from line to line, followed by a general money bill at the end of the session incorporating all the estimates, parliament is by statute sanctioning an agreement of that kind. I think my hon. friend will agree that obviously that is not a statutory approval or authorization of the agreement to which he has referred.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because the agreement jid not exist then.


Henry Herbert Stevens: By statute we voted
833,500 last year, and absolutely no more.
IMr. Stevens.]
This simply authorized the government to pay out $33,500, nothing more. There is a moral obligation resting on parliament to carry out an agreement the minister has entered into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is no doubt of
that. I think if the minister comes before parliament-or his successor who will soon follow him-and says: "This $28,000 is a moral obligation resting on this country; we entered into an agreement, and we must carry it out," undoubtedly parliament will vote the money to carry out the agreement. But, as my hon. leader has pointed out, would it not be better in future, and indeed in this instance, that such an agreement should be ratified by act of parliament, or else that that class of business should not be done at all? Personally I agree with my leader that the whole sum should have been voted last year-$350,000 for the construction of an armoury in Regina. Such things should be paid for out of the consolidated revenue of Canada and not be erected into a series of semi-capital issues, because they are neither one nor the other. My own opinion is that it would be far better for parliament in the future to frown upon this class of transaction, because the argument of the Minister of Public Works shows that we may expect more. An hon. member comes to the government wanting some particular and rather expensive piece of work done in his riding, and he cites Regina, Westmount, Saskatoon, and says, "In these cases you did so and so". By showing that $25,000 or $28,000 or $40,000 a year, over a period of forty years, will not look very bad in the estimates he may be able to persuade a kind-hearted minister to grant his request, whereas if parliament faced the full expenditure it would say-no, it is not warranted. And multiply a transaction of this sort by a number of instances and the country is let in for a very heavy sum. The long and short of it is that the country is still obligated in connection with this matter to the extent of half a million dollars. It would be far better for the minister to have brought in an estimate this year for the sum of $350,000 to pay off the whole business. The total for Saskatchewan is $352,000; I say, it would be better to add another $300,000 and pay the whole thing off if the agreement would permit this being done-and I presume, from what the minister says, that it can be done. For my part, at any rate, I do not want to

Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
endorse the theory that because an estimate is presented to parliament, parliament has therefore ratified the agreement, or authorized the government or the minister to proceed.


Mr. RALSTON:: What about leases
ordinarily, say a five-year lease?


Henry Herbert Stevens: We have entered into a
large number, especially in Ottawa. My hon. friend is a lawyer; I am not. But I am under the impression-


James Layton Ralston: I am speaking of
parliamentary practice.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am under the impression that there is some general authorization whereby the government has the right to enter into leases for public buildings. The deputy is beside the minister and will undoubtedly be able to tell him whether or not I am correct.


Charles Avery Dunning: That means this, if it
means anything: that if the minister had entered into an agreement to lease this building from the armoury association for twenty years, or for any other period, paying the rental, it would have been perfectly all right; but because he added a provision whereby two per cent amortization should be paid, the government to own the property at the end of twenty years, then he has done something wrong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not saying that the
minister has done anything particularly wrong. My leader says-and I entirely concur in what he says-that this principle is bad; it is not the course that should be followed by parliament. I ask the government to consider this. Suppose we multiply this instance year after year, increasing the number of such cases; parliament will never know-unless it issues an order each year for a statement to be laid on the table of the number of such cases-just what our liabilities are. This creates a liability of half a million; and I would point out that, on the balance sheet in the annual statement of a private company, it would have to appear as a contingent liability, an undischarged liability. But it is not included at all in the public accounts of the country; it does not appear anywhere, nor does the Westmount item, nor the Saskatoon, nor the Lavut. And the minister said he thought there were many more. It would be interesting to know. The practice is obviously a bad one, and I contend, agreeing entirely with my leader, that this should
be voted out of the consolidated revenue and paid for outright. Take the Wench building in Vancouver. When that transaction went through I thought it was a great mistake.


Charles Gavan Power: The Daly building in
Ottawa.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, both of them; it was a mistake to purchase in that way.


Charles Avery Dunning: Was authority obtained
for the first payment on the Wench building? Was it done in the same way?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Speaking from memory,
I believe the Wench building was purchased in this way. The government had the old post office site, with an old1 building on it- and by the way it is held now for $1,000,000. That site was given for $300,000 about four years ago.


Charles Avery Dunning: Given?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Yes, given to a gentleman for S300,000. The late Mr. McPherson, the former member, who negotiated the transaction, was down here. And in addition to this, the government made an agreement to pay $400,000 at the end of a certain period, on which sum they now pay $20,000 a year interest. It was a mortgage.


Charles Avery Dunning: My hon. friend approved of that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In that case you could
not help it. But it was not similar to this; it was not an analogous case.


Charles Avery Dunning: These fine legal distinctions are too close for me; I cannot get them.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was a mortgage not
yet due, and the government is paying interest upon it. I think myself the government could have got a much better arrangement in connection with the purchase of that building had they taken more time. Expropriation proceedings could have been taken, or some other method followed. What we object to is the principle involved in this sort of thing, without parliament having each year full knowledge as to how much we owe on just such transactions.


John Campbell Elliott: Pages 32 and 34 of these
estimates will show the agreements that are outstanding at the present time. Offhand, my information is that the first one was the Westmount armoury. That was $13,500 a year for twenty years.
1956	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is here only as an
ordinary payment. If it were cited in the item as intended to pay off a lease purchase agreement then the information would be correct.


John Campbell Elliott: I appreciate the argument of my hon. friends, because these are matters that are of interest to eveiy hon. gentleman. The practice, however, has not originated recently; it was in vogue at the time the Westmount armoury transaction was put through, before the advent to power of the present government. That was an annual payment of $13,500. But may I point out that the next one, the Daly building, involved not a small amount but some 31,000,000, with ten payments annually. And that was done by my hon. friends.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, by the Union government.


John Campbell Elliott: No. My information is
that it was done by the Meighen government. That was the purchase of a $1,000,000 building. The next item was the workshops at Ottawa, appearing lower down on page 32:
Towards purchase of building for government workshops.
That took place under the present administration and involves a payment of $12,200 a year. The next one was the Wench building, which was purchased subject to mortgage, and the matter was done in the same way. In each case the agreement entered into was prepared and passed upon by the Department of Justice. The instructions of the Department of Justice, which the Auditor General follows, are that if you are going to lease a building in the ordinary way that money may be paid out of the general vote for rentals, but if you are going to purchase under what is called a rental-purchase agreement the proper way is that which has been followed in this case, and which, I need not repeat, was not instituted by the present government. The difference between this method and 'the ordinary rental-agreement is that the annual payment must be voted each year. That has been the practice.


Mr. IRVINE:: Why not change the
practice?


John Campbell Elliott: That might be a good idea if it were not for the fact that it is absolutely impractical, as I have pointed out. In this case we would have had to stay here until August before the negotiations were concluded. That is the difficulty. According to 
the Department of Justice this is the proper way in which this action should have been taken, and in spite of what has been said by my hon. friends I take it that this is according to law.


George Reginald Geary: The Department of Justice
say that is the right way to provide for payment, of course, but I hardly think they would say that is the right way to do business of this kind. Is it the opinion of the Department of Justice that without an order in council and without any other authorization the government may go ahead and buy whatever they like? Is that the way these things should be done?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; that is the way it has been done under all governments. The Department of Justice prepares the agreements and advises the Department of Public Works.


George Reginald Geary: On the assumption that it
is properly authorized they see that the agreement is properly prepared.


John Campbell Elliott: They say that getting the vote this way properly authorizes payment, and that is the proper way to do it.


George Reginald Geary: But that does not impose
any liability upon you to continue making the payments?


John Campbell Elliott: No; that is why I am
asking parliament to continue to vote the money.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The minister for whom I feel more strongly than any other member of the government is the Minister of Public Works, for I know what he is up against. I have never seen this agreement, but I suppose it starts off by saying that the Dominion of Canada, represented by the Minister of Public Works, agrees to do so and so. If the minister has signed such an agreement he has had no authority from parliament to do so. There are berms in that agreement which provide for yearly payments; of course those moneys cannot be voted except from year to year, and we find as a result that the minister has entered into a contract not authorized by parliament. If there is any default under the contract, therefore, it would involve the personal liability of the minister himself, because he should have seen that there was parliamentary authorization for the agreement.


John Campbell Elliott: Surely my hon. friend as
a lawyer, and quite a good lawyer, does not submit that argument.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I never was more serious in my life.

Supply-Public \Vorks-Saskatchewan


John Campbell Elliott: I know what kind of
lawyer my hon. friend is, and I know he does not mean that.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: I can refer my hon.
friend to a case of that kind pending just now before the privy council, a case involving the same principle. If a government passed legislation to do a certain thing the government would have power to do that thing, but in the case before the privy council the government did not pass that legislation and one of the ministers undertook to carry out that action himself, under the impression that he had the approval of the legislature. As a result the whole matter is in question.
Answering my hon. friend frankly and seriously, I think things should be done in a regular way. By what right did the Minister of Public Works say he represented' the Dominion of Canada in this matter? I should think the minister would be very anxious that no default should be made under this contract, otherwise he might have to part with some of the money which I am glad to say he made in this part of that province. Parliament should not be confronted by a situation such as this.
The Minister of National Defence referred to the power of the government to enter into a lease for five years or for twenty years. It is true that this government inherently has the power to enter into such a lease; it has the power to incur any expense necessary to the carrying on of the business of the country, but it cannot enter into a five-year lease or a twenty-year lease for the benefit of some private individual or corporation. Any 'expense which is necessary for the carrying on of the affairs of the country can be incurred by the government, with .parliament reviewing the expenditure, but that is not the situation here. It seems to me that if important expenditures of money are to be made there should be a clear authorization by parliament. In a matter of .this kind there would have been no difficulty in entering into an agreement subject to ratification by parliament; that would have satisfied the other parties and the agreement would have been ratified by parliament readily if such ratification were justified by circumstances, and of course that would constitute an agreement of the highest standard. My objection is that this is not good business; this matter concerns $560,000, and I do not think the public money is being handled in the best interests of the Dominion. We all feel sympathy for these men who have been good enough to devote their time and energy to a laudable cause from which the country benefits, but it is not strictly a business agreement. The same result could have been 78504-124
arrived at with less money paid out of the treasury. If there are to be any more undertakings of this kind I hope parliament will have an opportunity to consider them before they become finally binding upon .this country.


George Reginald Geary: What will happen if parliament does not approve of this payment?


John Campbell Elliott: Then .parliament must accept the responsibility for its refusal.


George Reginald Geary: What would happen? Would these people have no recourse?


John Campbell Elliott: They would have no recourse against me.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In answer to the hon. member for Wetaskiwin I believe the minister said this was the only way to pay off this amount of money. What is there to prevent the government from putting an amount in the estimates sufficient to pay off the balance of this amount in one year or in two years, instead of waiting for twenty years?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think there is any objection to paying off the amount, and I have no doubt that such an arrangement could be made in practically all these cases. However, apparently it was thought at different times by different governments that this was a better way of doing it, or else the house would not have passed the item.


James Dew Chaplin: It is certainly a more expensive way of financing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister ought not to say that; there are really no grounds for that remark. Will the minister lay on the table at the next sitting the agreement and the other documents?


John Campbell Elliott: I will endeavour to have them by the next sitting.


George Reginald Geary: Is the government estopped from denying there is a contract by having njade a payment?


James Layton Ralston: The king can do no wrong.


Charles Avery Dunning: There are too many lawyers here to-night.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I take it that there is nothing in the agreement which prevents this amount being paid off.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister say that he will include the necessary amount in the estimates next year and clean the matter up?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Or put it in the supple-mentaries for this year?


John Campbell Elliott: I am very anxious to get these votes of mine through, and anxious also

1958	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Saskatchewan
to give the committee all the information I can, But the hon. member for Lincoln knows as well as anyone else-


James Dew Chaplin: I know it would be good business to do it.


John Campbell Elliott: I have great regard for the business acumen of my hon. friend, and hia advice goes a long way on both sides of the house, but that any particular amount will be in the estimates is something which I hope my hon. friend will not press me to say.


George Reginald Geary: I think the minister would much rather leave it for this party to pay.


John Campbell Elliott: In that case the annual instalments would have been paid.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Eugène Fiset: The next item is No. 127-public buildings, Alberta.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are calling these item by item. This afternoon I directed the attention of the committee to the fact that there had been a departure from this procedure.


Eugène Fiset: I
was simply following the procedure which had been adopted to-night before I took the chair.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It was not adopted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly correct, Mr. Chairman.


Henry Herbert Stevens: We asked this afternoon that they be called item by item.


Eugène Fiset: Is that the desire of the committee?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a quesiton of the committee's desire, it is a question of the practice of the house.


Charles Avery Dunning: In fairness to the Chairman may I point out to the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) that this is apparently a misunderstanding; we were following that practice this evening.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We succeeded this afternoon in getting back to the practice of calling the resolutions item by item. When the hon. member for Wetaskiwin asked about that $400,000 item we got away from that practice.
I want to inquire about some of these items, especially those with regard to the pick-up table.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend is
referring to the pick-up table installation at Saskatoon.


Charles Avery Dunning: There is one at Regina. 
Regina post office-installation of pick-up table, $3,500.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is involved in
this?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for
what is known as the Cummins pick-up table for the Regina post office, as requested by the Deputy Postmaster General on September 18, 1928, as follows:
I wish to inform you that the department has decided to install mechanical pick-up machines in the Saskatoon and Regina post offices. These machines to be similar to those already in operation at Toronto and Montreal.
After examination of practically all devices of this kind, the Post Office department decided upon the Cummins table as being the most satisfactory. It is said to save the labour of several men.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What does it pick up?


John Campbell Elliott: It picks up letters.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The same machine is
being installed at Calgary.


John Campbell Elliott: There was quite a long
discussion a year ago with regard to this machine, and it was then pointed out that the department had decided that it was superior to any other.


Charles Avery Dunning: It is being installed
throughout Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: In the larger places.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does this pay for the
purchase of the machine, or is it on a rental basis?


John Campbell Elliott: It is for the purchase of
the machine.


Mr. FRASER:: Where are they purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: From the International
Equipment Company of Ottawa.


John Anderson Fraser: Where are they manufactured?


John Campbell Elliott: They are made in Chicago. This is the only large pick-up table on the market.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is there any duty against them?


John Campbell Elliott: I think there is.


Henry Elvins Spencer: So the government is
penalizing itself in paying duty on a table to be used in a government department, and *which is not made in Canada?


John Campbell Elliott: It is a bookkeeping entry; we have to get them wherever they are made.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Herbert Bealey Adshead: There would be no
duty if they were not made in Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps not.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Regina public building-addition, $100,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is that for?


John Campbell Elliott: We passed this item some time ago. It is for the erection of an addition to the public building at Regina in order to provide adequate accommodation for all government services in that city. The situation here is similar to the situation in Winnipeg. The facilities are not adequate and it is desired to utilize the building and the site now owned by the government, and adjoining property has been expropriated by the government.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rosthern-public building, $32,000.
Mr. BARBER:: What is that for?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote of $21,000 from last year.


Harry James Barber: What is the revenue of
this post office?


John Campbell Elliott: The postal revenue is
$6,871 and the customs revenue is $5,634.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Will this amount complete the building?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatoon-public building, $400,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: What is this for?


John Campbell Elliott: This item was passed
some time ago.


George Reginald Geary: I suppose in all these items we are getting no accurate idea at all as to the ultimate expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: Where there is a revote I think I can safely say to my hon. friend that it completes the building.


George Reginald Geary: I hope that is not the ease with the Toronto customs house.


John Campbell Elliott: That is not in this list.


George Reginald Geary: The minister may rely on an alibi for the moment. I do not wish to question the action of the committee in passing the item for the customs building at Toronto, but I should like to ask the minister when he is going to commence the work.


John Campbell Elliott: We are about to advertise for tenders. My hon. friend is perhaps sufficiently familiar with the local circumstances to know that we have been urging for the removal as soon as possible of the bridge that has been in the way on the site for some time. Plans and specifications are being prepared and I understand .that within about a week advertisements for tenders will be issued


George Reginald Geary: Are the plans prepared in the department?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I shall be glad to have my hon. friend look them over. They will be found satisfactory, I hope.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta-Calgary post office-installation of pick-up table, $3,500.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: What is the company that supplies these tables?


John Campbell Elliott: The International Equipment Company.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Of Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Can the minister inform me as to the personnel of that company?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I cannot.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: Can the minister's deputy enable him to answer the question?


John Campbell Elliott: He tells me that he does not know.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister buy from an outfit without knowing anything of the personnel? That is not customary. None of us do that.


John Campbell Elliott: The Post Office Department investigate as to what they want. The function of this department is largely to supply to the various other departments the facilities that they require. If they decide, for instance, upon a pick-up table of a certain kind, and if 'they insist upon that particular table, we want first of all to be assured that it is the only one of its kind procurable, so that we may have an opportunity of comparing prices. The International Equipment Company have probably supplied all the pickup tables that have been purchased by the government for a number of years. There is a uniform price.


James Dew Chaplin: The department is a sort of purchasing agent for the Post Office Department?


John Campbell Elliott: That is somewhat the position.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


James Dew Chaplin: Then I suppose we can get the further information we desire from the Post Office Department, or should we get it from this minister? Does the minister mean to say, from' his remarks of a minute ago, that we have ,to go to the Post Office Department to get any information respecting the personnel of a company from which he is buying these goods, or do we get it from him?


John Campbell Elliott: We have a purchasing
agent, and while perhaps I should have made an effort to come into contact with .this particular company, I have not found time to do so. I have not done so, at any rate, and I am very frank in telling my hon. friend that I do not know any of the personnel of the company.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister wish to lead the house to believe, from his last few remarks, that he carries on the personal negotiations in regard to all these contracts?


John Campbell Elliott: No; I am trying to lead him to believe the opposite.


James Dew Chaplin: Why does he try to do so when he knows this is being done by the departmental officials, and that they meet these people? No doubt somebody meets them, and they can surely inform us as to the personnel of the company.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the price is fair, what difference does it make whether Joe or Thomas is the president?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not know that the price is fair. How does the hon. member know? Does he know anything about it himself? Is he answering for the minister? Surely the minister is able to answer for himself.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend did not catch my "if." I did not give any information. It was just a reflection.


Charles Avery Dunning: Just for the sake of information, I should like to ask the hon. member for Lincoln a question. I have not so far conceived it to be part of my duty to know the personnel of the various institutions with which the Department of Railways and Canals deals and I doubt if I could name one in a score. Surely it is not reasonable to expect the minister to know that. I doubt very much if the purchasing agent would know the personnel in connection with many institutions. He might know the salesmen or the officials in charge of tenders, in respect to some of the companies. If my hon. friend, 
on my estimates, asks me that question in connection with almost any company, I cannot answer it.


James Dew Chaplin: I am sure the minister's chief officials will be able to tell him about the personnel of the companies with which his department is doing business. Nearly all the letterheads will state who the president and the secretary of the concern are. That is all we ask in this case.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am quite sure it would be difficult for me to answer.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not doubt that what the minister says is true, but that does not alter the facts. It is possible to have such information in respect to any company one is dealing with, and it is only reasonable that at least some of the personnel of this company should be known.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know whether I should trouble my hon. friend again with what I have already stated. This is the information that comes from the Post Office department:
I wish to inform you that this department proposes to install mechanical pick-up machines at the following post offices during the fiscal year 1929-30:	Calgary, Saskatoon, Hamilton,
Ottawa and Regina.
These machines to be similar to those already in use at Montreal and Toronto.
I could go back and find out what investigations were made by the purchasing agent when he purchased the machines for Montreal and Toronto, whether they were the first ones purchased or not. I know my hon. friend is not very serious about the objections he is making in this case, because he cannot refrain from smiling.


James Dew Chaplin: I am smiling at the information. The information the minister is giving is entirely apart from what I have asked.


John Campbell Elliott: Then I cannot help my hon. friend.


John Anderson Fraser: If the minister has the information so far in advance in regard to the number of machines he is going to use throughout the country, and if the Post Office department have made a thorough investigation of the machines, why does he not buy them from the manufacturers?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know how you
would buy from the manufacturers other than through their agents. That is what we do.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


James Dew Chaplin: One reason why I asked for the information was that in many cases United States manufacturers of articles such as this, appoint officials from their own company as their agents in Canada, bring the goods in, pay the duty themselves and then resell their product. That is why I want to know whether this company is a branch of an American manufacturing concern, or whether it is a bona fide business proposition of somebody else selling their goods.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister say on which side of the Niagara river that firm is located?


James Dew Chaplin: Another bright remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I ask the minister
this question? We have a purchasing department. Here again is a principle to which I made up my mind I would try to direct the attention of this committee. We are purchasing vast quantities of goods of various kinds. We are installing pick-up machines, for instance, in several post offices, and in the larger cities I suppose there would be two or three of them. They cost $3,500 each. What do we maintain this purchasing department for, paying gentlemen very considerable salaries, if not for the purpose of dealing with matters of this kind? I find in the Public Works department one article, in another department another article, and in another department something else, and there is no coordinated effort to buy these various goods at the 'best prices obtainable. Dredges are used by several departments-by Marine and Fisheries, Railways and Canals, Public Work3. There is no central purchasing organization, nothing to provide information in connection with many of these purchases which the different departments of the government are making, and each department is very jealous in retaining its rights with respect to the others. Instead of the Post Office Department asking the Public Works department, of all places in the world, to buy pick-up machines for the post offices, why is not all this purchasing done by a central agency? How is the Public Works department better equipped to make purchases of that kind than somebody else? How is it better equipped to buy filing cabinets, office equipment and that kind of thing? What is the purchasing department for, what are these men paid their salaries for, if not to enable the country to get the benefit that business gets by having purchasing agents? We all know the factors which a purchasing agent puts before a business executive. He prepares information as to the prices at which given goods can be bought,
where they are made, the net cost delivered; and with all this information before them the management say yes or no, and that is the end of it. But here we have the Post Office Department writing a letter to the Public Works department-of all places in the world -to get filing cabinets and pick-up machines for the post office. The post office is a public work, it is true, but why should the Public Works department, which is charged with the responsibility of constructing and maintaining public buildings all over Canada, be bothered with making these purchases when we have a purchasing department?


James Dew Chaplin: The post office might as well have applied to the Health department.


An hon. MEMBER:: Another bright remark.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When -Sir Edward Kemp was chairman of the purchasing commission during the war, and Sir Hormisdas Laporte was with him, they evolved a purchasing system which I think Challenged the admiration not only of this country but of all other countries as well. They kept minutes, they had their figures, and they are there yet as a permanent memorial to what they did. The Prime Minister said to us:	Where can we
save money? Money can be saved right here. In connection with many of the items I have been able to discover just by a little study, looking through the Auditor General's report and the estimates, if all the purchasing were put in charge of one central agency you could afford to pay a man a very large salary and still save at least half a million dollars a year. That is worth while; it represents the interest on a very substantial sum of money.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend's
argument is rather an argument in favour of the practice that is now being followed. Perhaps it is not followed to the extent that my hon. friend would like, but just the same the Public Works department does purchase for several government departments. We purchase for the Post Office Department, for instance-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do you purchase for the Department of Railways and Canals?


John Campbell Elliott: I think they do their own purchasing pretty well.


Henry Herbert Stevens: They will not let you in there.


John Campbell Elliott: The cabinets and office
equipment for the Department of Trade and Commerce, for instance, are all purchased through the one purchasing department.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Charles Avery Dunning: You purchase filing
cabinets, office equipment and furniture for the railway department.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, we are carrying out
in that respect the policy which my hon. friend the leader of the apposition as arguing for, that as far as possible there should be one central purchasing agent for all the departments of government, with a man at the head1 who knows about costs and prices.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We already have a purchasing commission. I am trying to find out what it is doing.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It has gone so dead
that the minister has lost sight of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They call it salvaging
now, but it has not salvaged itself yet.


John Campbell Elliott: I think we are agreed
that one central purchasing department can purchase to better advantage than several. It gets back to the sound business principle on which the chain stores work, the purchasing for all the stores in the chain being done through one agency instead of individually by each store. That is why a number of these chain stores have made such a great-success of their business. That is why the Public Works department-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is so successful.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I should not say
is the most efficient department in the government service-


Richard Bedford Bennett: But if the rest of the
ministers were out, you would admit it.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not deny it. I
really think that what is being done is largely what my hon. friend is arguing for. Perhaps it could be carried out to a greater extent than it is at the present time. I think that if my hon. friend saw the recommendations that come from the purchasing agent, as I have done for the last two years, and scrutinized them closely, he would come to believe that when the purchasing agent recommends a certain purchase it is about the best purchase that could be made of that particular class of goods.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Who is the purchasing
agent?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Dawson, and if my
hon. friend will go up and discuss with him the prices, for instance, of office equipment of various kinds, I am sure he will be satis-

lied that the purchasing department is in the hands of a man who knows his business pretty well.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: You have one central
purchasing agent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the Public
Works department only. Let us assume that a considerable number of yards of carpet are required and that it is of a kind not manufactured in Canada, that it can be secured only from England. Do I understand that there is any rule requiring the purchasing agent to buy that through a set of merchants in London, Ontario? Perhaps the minister would give us information on that point. In view of what he has said it would be highly interesting to know just why the public accounts indicate such large sums of money being paid to firms in London, Ontario, if the purchasing agent has such a large scope for his activities and exercise the authority which the minister has indicated.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend
will find that that is another example that proves the efficiency of the purchasing agent. It is perhaps the best example you could have of the care and good judgment he exercises in connection with matters of this kind.


Mr. OHAPLIN:: I am glad to know the
minister feels that his buyer is so well acquainted wiith the value of all the houses in the Dominion that he has determined in his own mind that the market at London for certain things is much better than in Montreal, Toronto or some other large city. If something is required in the Department of National Defence, does the purchase go through the Public Works department or through some other agency, or is there a special buyer in the Department of National Defence?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will understand that the Department of National Defence would itself buy military clothing and other equipment.


Charles Avery Dunning: Sam Brown belts.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ross rifles.


John Campbell Elliott: But if the Department
of National Defence requires something that comes reasonably within the scope of the Department of Public Works they issue a requisition to us and we purchase accordingly.


James Dew Chaplin: We were supposed to
have a purchasing department that was a real purchasing department and acting for all the

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
various departments. How many of these departments have their own purchasing agents?


Charles Avery Dunning: There is no purchasing
department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We had it for years.


Charles Avery Dunning: I never knew of the
time historically that the Department of Railways and Canals, for instance, did not have its own purchasing department. I think every department always has had a purchasing agency.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh no.


Charles Avery Dunning: If my hon. friend can
tell me any period of years when the Department of Railways and Canals did not have dts own purchasing agent I shall be glad of the information.


William Irvine: If the post office has its
own purchasing department, why does it apply to the Department of Public Works when it requires anything?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will explain the matter as I understand it. While the Department of Railways and Canals has a purchasing agent, if the department requires anything in the way of office furniture or equipment of that character it applies to the Department of Public Works where such purchasing has been centralized for years. But when it comes to buying cement for the work on the Welland canal, or timber for repairing lock gates, and all that sort of thing over the canal system, with all due deference to my hon. friend from Lincoln, the purchasing has always been handled by the Department of Railways and Canals. I think there must be some misunderstanding between us, because I do not recollect the time when there were not several departments which had their own purchasing agencies, while at the same time, according to my understanding, the purchase of office equipment and buildings has been centralized for a number of years past in the Department of Public Works. I know if any office furniture, such as filing cabinets, pick-up tables in post offices and similar equipment, is necessary it is requisitioned from the Department of Public Works. But so far as buying machinery for the Department of Railways and Canals is concerned-


John Campbell Elliott: Cars, for instance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Private cars: they dcn'i buy any others.


James Dew Chaplin: Where do they purchase
cars?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not mention cars.


James Dew Chaplin: The other minister did.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not hear him.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister say he did not?


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not hear him. At the time I was trying to listen to the hon. member, I think from Peace River, who was on his feet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Don't deny that other
people may have heard. Learn a few lessons in the amenities, if nothing else.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I understood that we
had a purchasing commission.


James Dew Chaplin: It has gone out of business.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Chloroformed.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Have we a purchasing
commission?


Charles Avery Dunning: Perhaps my time in the government has been too short to answer positively, but I have no memory of any purchasing commission, other than the commission for the purchase of war material. My understanding with respect to that-subject to correction from other ministers-is that it went out of business before this government took office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No sir.


Charles Avery Dunning: We have a salvage commission, which has to do with seeing as far as possible that materials required by one department are not already in the possession of another department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are two of three
statements made by the Minister of Public Works that should be checked. I am sorry to have to do this, but I do not propose that Hansard should go out with these inaccurate statements. He has left an impression on the minds of hon. members that the Public Works department does the purchasing for the Post Office Department. The hon. member for East Calgary certainly got that impression, and one other hon. gentleman made the same observation. But his department purchases equipment only, it does not purchase, for instance, stationery for the post office.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor mail boxes, nor the locks.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, the lock-boxes.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am talking of the
rural delivery boxes.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course his department does not. It does purchase equipment for the post office in the way of furniture. The boxes with "D.C." on them I think are purchased through the Department of Public Works. But the great bulk of the purchases made by the Post Office Department we know are made by the department itself. The Railway department has its own purchasing agent; the Interior department in its manifold activities does much purchasing. The Public Works department does not purchase anything for the Interior department except office equipment, files and so on. The Public Works department does purchase equipment for buildings because it is charged with responsibility for buildings. Is not that a correct statement?


John Campbell Elliott: That is pretty much what J said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not think the
minister intended to leave that impression but-


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
does not want to be unfair, and I think Hansard will bear me out when I say that he has gained an impression that he should not have gained from what I said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am familiar with the
purchases of the various departments, but the hon. gentleman from East Calgary is not.


Charles Avery Dunning: How do you know; you cannot speak for him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I cannot speak for
him, but he asked because he said he desired to know. I know because for the space of a few minutes I had something to do with various departments of the public service; and what is more, during one period of my career as a member of parliament I made myself fairly familiar with the operations of the departments. I was much younger and more active then. During the war we had a purchasing commission, presided over by Sir Edward Kemp.


Charles Avery Dunning: But it did not perform the functions of the purchasing agents of the various departments.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It became the central
purchasing agency for all departments of the government.


Eugène Fiset: For all items chargeable to war appropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Rimouski is very familiar with that part of it, and his subsequent speeches when he was a candidate for election indicated that.


Eugène Fiset: I have no regrets
for any speeches I made when I was a candidate and have nothing to retract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad his memory is so bad.


Eugène Fiset: It is more than you can say.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure it must be very delightful to the hon. gentleman to have forgotten his speeches. But the commission presided over by Sir Edward Kemp dealt not only with war purchases but with all purchases incidental to the conduct of government, because there were then no public works being undertaken in Canada, during the war, except two public buildings.


Eugène Fiset: That is exactly
what I said-in charge of every purchase for all departments of everything chargeable to war appropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But they were not
chargeable to war appropriation, because there were no civil undertakings going on except two public works in the whole of Canada.


Eugène Fiset: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. friend, but there was a civil vote for every department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course there was a
civil vote. But I am talking about expenditures in connection with public works; and there were only two undertakings in connection with buildings in the whole of Canada from 1915 until 1919.


Charles Avery Dunning: In connection with the department over which I now preside the work at Nelson was going on during a considerable part of the war.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was talking about buildings.


Charles Avery Dunning: Purchases is the point at issue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They were not making
any purchases at Nelson at that time.


Charles Avery Dunning: Material purchases, yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall have something
to say in that regard in connection with expenditures going on at Churchill at the present time, and which I wish to have checked up.


Charles Avery Dunning: I shall be delighted.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am interested for instance in the work of carpenters, paid 75 cents an hour, one of whom 'by the name of Scott I have in mind. He did not knew the difference between a buzzsaw and a handsaw. Now, there was subsequently appointed a commission on which Colonel Lafleche sat, and associated with him was another gentleman whose name I do not recall.


Charles Gavan Power: Sir Hormisdas Laporte of
Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Colonel Lafleche was subsequently chairman of that body. The name of the gentleman associated with him I do not recall at the moment. Perhaps the hon. member ifor Rimouski will remember the name.
a director of contracts in the Department of National Defence, and he is still there; in fact, he has been in the department twenty-five or thirty years, the same man. There was a director of contracts or a purchasing agent in the Public Works department; there was one in the Department of Railways and Canals; and, although I do not know about the Department of the Interior, I think there was one there. These directors of purchases functioned during the time this super purchasing commission was in existence, and if after a while its functions were somewhat curtailed it was because the government came to the conclusion that they did not want any overlapping of responsibility. At least, that was the reason given in the house, and I think it was acquiesced in on all sides.


Eugène Fiset: Walsh, I think.


Richard Bedford Bennett: 
Charles Avery Dunning: Does my hon. friend say that it ever functioned in relation to the Department of Railways and Canals?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In my somewhat cursory stopover at various departments I was never Acting Minister of Railways and Canals and therefore cannot say. But I can speak with respect to most other departments.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not want to interrupt the leader of the opposition, but I might point cut that I happened to be a member of the house at the time the purchasing commission was in existence as such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Which one?


Charles Gavan Power: The purchasing commission to which the hon. gentleman has referred, as it existed during the war and for a period afterward. During its lifetime it had the greatest powers such as the hon. gentleman ascribes to it; there were purchasing agents in all the departments. There was a director of equipment and supply in the Post Office Department, and he is still there. There was


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member has stated the case correctly so far as the various departments are concerned. During the period of the war the commission presided oyer by Sir Edward Kemp met daily, kept its minutes, and dealt with the whole problem of purchasing, and it was estimated at the end of the war that it had saved the country many millions of dollars-not hundreds of thousands
__as the hon. gentleman from Rimouski will
recall. Then it was thought that by reason of being able to fix prices it could be utilized in various departments in connection with purchases, and it was so utilized, although that was not part of its original function. The various purchasing agents were responsible, through that commission, for whatever was purchased, and they were able to get better .prices. After the war a commission was appointed, and my memory is that Colonel Lafleche was chairman. But that commission was objected to by certain of my hon. friends opposite for reasons that are fairly obvious, having regard to the ante-war conditions with respect to purchases; and so the old procedure was reverted to. We chloroformed the purchasing commission, as my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre has said, and the commission is now a salvaging commission, whatever that may mean. No accurate definition has been given of it. The Minister of Finance last year, essaying the gentle art of sophistry, attempted to define its duties, but without much success; and no one has yet been able to suggest a satisfactory definition. The point is this. Why should we not be able to have this commission function as originally intended, so that the various departments that require the same things for the conduct of their business might be able to purchase satisfactorily-not to have several orders coming in, as they now are, through purchasing agents,
Supply-Public Worki-Alberto

an order from the International Machine Company here and someone else there, Cut by reason of just the very principle my hon. friend has mentioned, the chain store principle, obtaining satisfactory prices through centralization of requirements? In this way purchases might be made effectively, efficiently and to the best possible advantage of the country. That is the position we have endeavoured to indicate, and therein lies the answer to the question proposed the other day, as to how money might be saved in the conduct of the public service. I shall have something to say later on ,to the same effect in connection with dredging.


James Dew Chaplin: The hon. member (Mr. Power) tells the committee that during a certain period different departments had .purchasing agents of their own. He knows very well that these purchasing agents did not purchase; they were purchasing agents only in name. They were men who were left in the department for the purpose of making up specifications of goods required and handing them over to the purchasing agent, who purchased them in one lot. That was the sensible businesslike way of doing it. because goods can be purchased better in that way than in any other.


Charles Gavan Power: Now that my hon. friend recalls it to my memory, I remember perfectly well, when I sat on the other side of the house as he is doing now, wishing in my own little way to embarrass the government and to prevent them from getting their estimates through. I advanced arguments similar to the argument the hon. member is now making. But I said: Why in the world should you keep these purchasing agents if you are going to have a super-purchasing agent? Why keep these individual agents in the different departments? I suggested that if they were not acting as purchasing agents there was no use paying them three, four and five thousand dollars a year; there was no use doing so if they were only clerks who were required to sent out requisitions to the government contracts supervision committee. I do not know whether my hon. friend was then sitting on this side of the house, but if he was not at any rate someone laughed at me and assured me that these agents had functions to perform. I am sure they told me that, because otherwise they would undoubtedly have listened to me. They were either doing something useful or 
they were not, one or the other; if they were not doing a useful service they should have been abolished and if they were doing something useful they are doing it to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At page 66 of the estimates I find the following details:
Government contracts supervision committee including L. R. LaFleche, secretary, at l^non' a?' H13*' ot" U. H. Beer, salvage officer, !f>5,000, telephones, telegTams, travelling exstationery, et cetera; 1929-30, $21,200; 1928-29, $21,500; decrease $300.
That is the commission to which I was directing the attention of the minister. It is now called the government contracts supervision committee, and the salvage committee has become a salvage officer.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Calgary-public building, $300,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: How far will that $300,000 go?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid it will not go very far; this will be a fairly expensive building, costing nearly $1,000,000. We are trying to cut down the expense a little, but we cannot do very much.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to ask that the same amount be given to Temiscouata county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.

William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg to lay on the table copies of the correspondence between the government of Canada and the government of the United States with respect to the I'm Alone incident. I have no doubt the house will wish to have this correspondence printed, and if it is agreeable I would move:
That 750 copies in English and 300 copies in French of the correspondence with respect to the I'm Alone incident now tabled be printed forthwith and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Special War Revenue Act
Friday, April 26, 1929