1931-04-30

SECOND SESSION-SEVENTEENTH PARLIAMENT 21-22 GEORGE V, 1931 VOLUME II, 1931 COMPRISING THE PERIOD FROM THE THIRTIETH DAY OF APRIL, 1931, TO THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE, 1931, INCLUSIVE BEING VOLUME CLXXXVIII FOR THE PERIOD 1875-1931 INDEX ISSUED IN A SEPARATE VOLUME OTTAWA F. A. ACLAND PRINTER TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
V' * * [DOT] [DOT]
[Stage Direction]


/
House of Commons Befrates
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 30, 1931

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

Mr. REID:: 1.	How many persons were confined as inmates of the penitentiary at New Westminster. British Columbia, for the fiscal years 1926. 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?
2.	How many persons of Japanese origin were confined as inmates in the New Westminster penitentiary, British Columbia, for the fiscal years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?
3.	How many persons of Chinese origin or race were confined as inmates in the said penitentiary, for the years 1926, 1927, 1928 1929 and 1930?
4.	How many persons of Japanese or Chinese origin or race have been deported from the New Westminster penitentiary during the years 1926, 1927, 1928, 1929 and 1930?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	1926-27, 242; 1927-28, 292; 1928-29, 298; 1929-30, 334; 1930-31, 38S.
2.	1926-27, 1; 1927-28, 2; 1928-29, 2; 1929-30, 2; 1930-31, 1.
3.	1926-27, 29; 1927-28, 42; 1928-29, 55; 1929-30, 69; 1930-31, 72.
4-	Japanese Chinese
1906-27	 11
1927- 28	 8
1928-	29	171929-	30	41930-	31	
2	14


CENSUS COMMISSIONER-ST. JACQUES
Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner for St. Jacques division?
2.	What is his address, present occupation, and salary paid?
3.	How was this appointment made, and on whose recommendation ?
4.	What are the names, addresses and occupations of the persons named as census enumerators for the said division of St. Jacques?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. J. A. Masse.
2.	Address is 1082 Beaudry st., Montreal; present occupation is that of real estate and insurance agent; salary as follows:
An allowance of $175 to cover organization expenses and for viseing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa; verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which he is appointed as commissioner the following rates are provided:-1 cent for each name on the "Population" schedule; 3 cents for each "Agricultural" schedule; 1 cent for each entry on the "Animal and Animal Products, not on Farm" schedule; 1 cent for each record of blind and deaf persons; 1 cent for each record of merchandising and service establishments.
3.	Appointed by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
4.	No appointments have been made as yet.


SOLDIERS' ADVISER-TORONTO
Mr. GRAY:: 1.	Has Mr. A. Conroy, formerly official soldiers' adviser for the district of Toronto, been dismissed from his position in the Department of Pensions and National Health?
2.	Is the government aware that Mr. Conroy was employed for over thirteen years by the departments of Soldiers' Civil Reestablishment and of Pensions and National Health?
3.	Is the department aware that Mr. Conroy himself and two of his sons served in the late war ?


Mr. MacLAREN:: 1.	No. The position of official soldiers' adviser was abolished as a result of the amendments to the Pension Act, 1930.
2.	No. Date of appointment as official soldiers' adviser was 19th October, 1923.
3.	As regards Mr. Conroy, yes. No information respecting sons.


CENSUS COMMISSIONER-BONAVENTURE
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner for the electoral division of Bonaventure?
2.	By whom was he recommended?


L'B.l'SO
[Stage Direction]
Questions
[Stage Direction]
3.	What salary is he paid?
4.	What persons were appointed by him as census enumerators in each parish of said county?
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Mr. George M. Kempffer of New Carlisle, Quebec.
2.	Appointed by the hon. the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
3.	An allowance of $600 to cover organization expenses and for viseing of the returns made by the enumerators; checking them and forwarding to Ottawa; verification of enumerators' accounts and the general supervision of the census within the district over which he is appointed as commissioner the following rates are provided:-1 cent for each name on the "Population" schedule; 3 cents for each "Agricultural schedule; 1 cent for each entry on the "Animal and Animal Products, not on Farm" schedule; 1 cent for each record of merchandising and service establishments; 1 cent for each record of blind and deaf persons.
4.	Enumerators have not yet been appointed.


INTERIOR DEPARTMENT-REINSTATEMENT OF FORMER EMPLOYEES
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	How many employees, after having been retired from the public service in the present process of staff reductions in the Department of the Interior, were subsequently taken back to their former positions?
2.	In what branches of the Department of the Interior did the above take place and on bow many occasions in each of the affected branches?
3.	What was the reason, in each case, for (a) letting them out; (b) for taking them
back?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	None.
2.	and 3. Answered by No, 1.


TRENT CANAL-JOHN M. ALLEN
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	How long was John M. Allen employed as painter and labourer on the Trent .canal, Peterborough ?
2.	Is he an ex-service man with five war decorations?
3.	Was he dismissed from his position on the Trent canal on February 2, 1931?
4.	Was he replaced by a man who had no military service?
5.	If so, what was this man's name?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	From season to season since June, 1921.
2.	Ex-service man; no information as to decorations.
[Mr. Marcil.l
3.	Not reengaged for current season of navigation because of previous unsatisfactory service.
4.	No.
5.	Answered by No. 4.


CENSUS ENUMERATORS-PREFERENCE TO RETURNED MEN
Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: 1.	Are returend men given the preference in the appointments to be made of census enumerators?
2.	Has preference been given to returned men in appointments of census commissioners?
3.	Have the commissioners the full power of
acceptance or refusal of applications for positions as enumerators?	_
4.	What instructions have been issued by the department to commissioners regarding the selection of enumerators?
5.	Are applicants refused engagements on account of their political affiliations?
6.	What are the names of the census commissioners appointed who were defeated candidates in the election of July 28th, and the constituencies for which they are appointed?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Yes. A special instruction to census commissioners reads:	"The minister desires that
in appointing enumerators, consideration should be given returned soldiers wherever possible."
2.	Yes.
3.	Appointments are made by the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce.
4.	The more important and specific instructions issued in this connection to census commissioners are as follows:-
Appointment of enumerators.-After proper enumeration sub-districts have been established and approved by the Bureau of Statistics it will be your duty to select a suitable person in each sub-district to perform the actual work of enumeration. This is a very important duty and you must exercise the greatest possible care to secure competent persons. Your own success as commissioner and the success and value of the census as a whole are absolutely dependent upon the thoroughness, accuracy and promptness with which the enumerators perform their duties. The Book of Instructions clearly sets forth the duties and qualifications of the enumerators, while the specimen schedules of population and agriculture and the examination papers relating thereto should enable you to select only such persons as have the capacity for efficient service. You are particularly enjoined to reject all applicants who are unable to pass the examination test satisfactorily and in such cases you are authorized to immediately fill the vacancy. It will be a mark of your fitness for the posi-

Questions
tion to which you have been appointed to make yoitr selection in the first instance in such a way that the numbers of those who will be unable to pass the test w-ill be as small as possible.
Residence of enumerators.-To ensure the best results each enumerator appointed should, as far as practicable, be an actual resident of the sub-division within which his duties are to be performed. This ensures familiarity with the territory and the general character of the people residing in the district he is to canvass. Only in cases where a competent resident of an enumeration area cannot be found should a selection be made of a person living elsewhere. An enumerator should be thoroughly familiar with the boundaries of the various units which are contained within the area assigned to him.
Qualifications of enumerators.-The enumerators should be active, energetic persons of good address, as outlined in Section 35 of the Book of Instructions.
The following classes of persons are suggested as likely to make good enumerators, and they are specially recommended to your favourable consideration:-(a) In rural districts, crop correspondents of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics; (b) School teachers when available and able to give their time to the work; (c) Officers and leading workers in farmers' organizations, live stock associations, co-operative creameries, etc.; progressive farmers and their sons and daughters; and especially young men or women who have attended agricultural colleges or agricultural experimental stations.
It is further suggested that, in certain sections, women would make excellent appointments as census enumerators owing to the fact that in many instances the information must be obtained from the female head of the house. In the last census several women acted as enumerators and gave excellent results.
Enumerators must give their entire time to census work.-It is absolutely essential that applicants for the position of enumerator should understand that their whole working time will be required during the period of enumeration. It will be impossible for an enumerator to complete his district in the allotted time if he undertakes to carry on at the same time any work or business.
5.	No.
6.	Joseph T. Beaudoin, commissioner for Megan tic, resides at Thetford Mines, Que.; J. L. Jacob, commissioner for Beauce, resides at St. Sebastien, Que.; Ulric Simard, commissioner for Hochelaga, resides at 2036 Darling, Montreal, Que.; Peter H. Campbell, commissioner for Middlessex West, resides at R. R. No. 3, Kerwood, Ont.; Alex. Marion, commissioner for Russell, resides at Rockland, Ont.; Milton E. Maybee, commissioner for Northumberland, resides at R.R. No. 6, Trenton, Ont.; Ed. A. Mooney, commissioner for Prescott, resides at Vankleek Hill, Ont.; John L. Stansell, commissioner for Norfolk-Elgin, resides at Straffordville, Ont.; J. E. Woods, commissioner for Macdonald, resides at Somerset, Man.


MONTMAGNY-PROTECTION WALLS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F.AFARD:
1.	Who was foreman in charge of construction work on the protection walls at Montmagny in the month of July, 1930?
2.	By whom was he appointed?
3.	Was he replaced after the election of July, 1930?
4.	If so, why, and by whom was his substitute appointed?
5.	If the appointment was made by the Civil Service Commission w'as the matter proceeded with in the same manner as for the appointment of his predecessor?
6.	Why was not the eligible list set up before the month of July, 1930, followed?
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Mr. J. Elzear Boulanger (inspector of construction).
2.	Civil Service Commission.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) On representations of Mr. A. La-Vergne, M.P., that he should be dismissed for political partisanship; (b) Department of Public Works.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Temporary employment for a period not extending beyond thirty days made by the department.


GROSSE ISLE-FOREMAN OF WORKS
Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Who was foreman or overseer of the works tor the Department of Public Works at Grosse Isle in the month of July, 1930?
2.	By whom was he appointed?
3- Was, h? replaced after the election of July, 1930, and if so, why?
4.	By whom was his substitute appointed?
ti. If appointed by the Civil Service Commission was the matter proceeded with in the same manner as for the appointment of the former foreman or overseer?
6.	If not, why -was not the eligible list set up before the month of July, 1930, followed?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Mr. J. Marius Bernatchez (inspector of construction).
2.	Civil Service Commission.

Questions as Orders for Returns
3.	(a) Yes; (b) on representation of Mr. A. LaVergne, M.P., that he should be dismissed for political partisanship.
4.	Department of Public Works.
5.	Answered by No. 4.
6.	Temporary employment for a period not extending beyond thirty days made by the department.


GLEICHEN INDIAN RESERVE-BUILDING INSPECTOR
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	Was one known as Mr. "Si" Milliken appointed inspector of buildings on the Black-foot Indian reserve at Gleiehen, Alberta?
2.	By whom was this position held previous ;o Mr. Milliken's appointment?
3.	What salary is paid to Mr. Milliken?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2.	The position was not previously held by anyone.
3.	Mr. Milliken was paid at the rate of $6 per day.


CIVIL SERVICE-ATTENDANCE AT MEETINGS
Mr. SEGUIN:: Is it contrary to article 55 of the civil service law for an employee of the federal government to attend: (a) a non-contradictory meeting of a candidate at a provincial election; (b) a banquet offered to celebrate the nomination of a legislative counsellor by a provincial government?


Mr. BENNETT:: We are advised that this is rather a difficult question to which to give a definite answer. It asks for information as to the interpretation of the law, which is a somewhat difficult thing to do. This matter must be determined in each particular case and I think the question is improper in its present form.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: The remarks of my
right hon. friend might serve as an answer to the question.


Mr. JACOBS:: I suppose good taste should prevail in this as in many other cases.


Mr. SPEAKER:: This question being improper, it will be dropped.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Did the present Vancouver harbour commissioners purchase a looomotive for use on the north shore of Burrard inlet?
2.	If so, from whom was this locomotive purchased?
3.	What was the purchase price?

4.	Where was it purchased?
5.	Was it purchased directly or through an agent?
6.	Was it necessary to repair the purchased locomotive? [DOT]
7.	If so, by whom was it repaired?
8.	What was the tender or contract price for such repairs?


VANCOUVER HARBOUR COMMISSION- PURCHASE OF FIRE BOAT
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Did the present Vancouver board of harbour commissioners purchase a boat for use as a fire boat?
2.	If so, from whom was this boat purchased. and what was the purchase price?
3.	Was it necessary to effect any repairs on this boat?
4.	Is this boat now available for fire protection?
5.	What is the price of the repairs?


LAPOINTE PIER-VANCOUVER
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: 1.	Is the work on the Lapointe pier, Vancouver, continuing?
2.	Is this work carried out at a cost plus basis, or at a fixed price per yard?
3.	Who is carrying on the work?
4.	What is the estimated cost of the work when completed?


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION- MR. LEOPOLD POULIOT
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is one Mr. Leopold Pouliot in the employ of the Quebec harbour commission?
2.	If so, what is the nature of his work?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What are his working hours?
5.	Is this Mr. Pouliot the same as the one acting as president of the Young ^Men's Conservative Association of Quebec-West?


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION- MR. TANCREDE FISET
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is one Mr. Tanerede Fiset employed by the Quebec harbour commission?
2.	If so, is he employed as physician?
3.	What are his working hours?
4.	What is his salary?	_	_
5.	On whose recommendation did he obtain this position?



RAILWAY COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Judges Act be amended to provide for an annuity to any judge of a superior court

Canadian High Commissioner
of Canada who is or has been, since 1st Jan-nary, 1931, appointed chief commissioner or assistant chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
He said:	His Excellency, tlie Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.
PEACE RIVER OUTLET On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if he expects in the near future to table the report on the surveys made by the Canadian Pacific Railway in connection with a possible route from the Peace River district.
Hon. R, J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):	For the information of
the hon. member and the house I may say that Mr. Beatty, the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway, did a few days ago give me the report of their investigations into the Peace River outlet, upon which they spent a great deal of money. The report is in typewritten form, and has not yet been printed. We have not yet really had time to go into it, but I think probably a little later the government will decide to get it printed and tabled; but that has still to be considered.	[DOT]



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. W 00 DSW ORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):	By the morning's paper I
notice that the Canadian Pacific Railway has given its general office employees a lay-off equivalent to a 10 per cent reduction in wages. As this corporation is a semi-public utility I should like to ask what the government policy is with regard to this reduction in wages.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must rule the question out of order.
PRIVILEGE-MR. REID On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I rise to a question of privilege. On Friday of last week I was quoted as speaking as a lawyer, and in to-day's papers I am quoted as a Conservative.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Reid: This is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker, and I must draw the line somewhere.



OLD AGE PENSIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN l(Kenora-Rainy River):	I should like to inquire from the
government when we may expect the legislation to be brought down with respect to old age pensions.	.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The information will be available
when His Excellency the Governor General gives his consent to the legislation being introduced.



CANADIAN HIGH COMMISSIONER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Samuel William Jacobs: I would ask the Prime Minister if it is the intention of the government to verify the report of a speech made by Canada's High Commissioner, the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, at Leeds, Yorkshire, as reported by the Canadian Press on April 28. It appears in the Ottawa Journal under the heading of "Ferguson points to U.S. Influence.'' In the body of the report occurs this passage:
What was happening at present was that out of $4,500,000,000 invested in Canada from outside sources, $3,500,000,000 was American capital and barely $1,000,000,000 from this country.
Then follows the paragraph which I wish particularly to draw to the attention of the Prime Minister:
Think of the insidious influence in that connection with its introduction of American executives, American methods and contacts.
I should like to ascertain from the Prime Minister if he thinks this is of sufficient importance to verify the accuracy of the report, and if he finds it is accurate, will some attempt be made to cramp the style of Canada's High Commissioner?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman might, Mr. Speaker, under ordinary circumstances have given the government notice of his intention to ask such a serious question as that involved in the latter part of his inquiry. As to the first part, the government will make inquiries as to the accuracy' of the report. As to the second, the government will do what it thinks best in the public interest.
Mounted Police



ST. PIERRE AND MIQUELON INQUIRY AS TO REPORTED ACQUISITION OP ISLANDS BY' UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Belleehasse):: I
wish to ask a question of the Prime Minister based upon press reports to the effect that the French islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon in the gulf of the St. Lawrence might be acquired by the United States. I should like to ask if this is true, and whether the government of Canada is prepared to take steps to acquire these islands for Canada if they are for sale.


Mr. POWER:: In the interests of our distillers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government of Canada has no knowledge of the matter to which the hon. gentleman has directed attention. Doubtless he is aware that under the treaty by which these islands were relinquished to France there are provisions as to the uses to which they may be put and as to the buildings which may be erected thereon. The intentions of governments cannot be disclosed in this way. I have not heard of any offers of these islands being made, and consequently there^ has been no consideration of any proposals to purchase them either for this country or for the interests mentioned by the hon. gentleman from Quebec South (Mr. Power).



RAILWAY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. OLOF HANSON (Skeena):: May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) when the newly appointed chairman of the Board of Railway Commissioners will take over his duties?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I do not think he has been appointed yet, but as soon as he is appointed I expect he will take over his duties.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 29, to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
Ernest Lapointe: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I thought I might explain it in committee. I did explain it briefly on the resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: Was there a resolution preceding this bill?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I can give the explanation now just as well. In the year 1928 an agreement was come to between the province of Saskatchewan and the Dominion gOYr-ernment under the terms of which police work in the province of Saskatchewan was taken over by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and at the same time certain portions of the provincial police force were incorporated in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. When the agreement was completed and executed on the 22nd of March, 1928-1 may say that the agreement appears in full in the report of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for the year 1928-there was one clause outstanding as to which sufficient data had not then been received to make the document complete. That clause related to the pensions of those men of the provincial police force who were being absorbed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. That clause is as follows:
15.	(a) Arrangements will be rvorked out
whereby men taken from the Saskatchewan provincial police under this arrangement and included within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police shall be entitled to the pension benefits now received by members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and such men shall be entitled to credit for all service performed prior to the first of June, 1928, in either the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or the Saskatchewan provincial police, and the government of Saskatchewan shall contribute to the Dominion government such reasonable Sum as shall be necessary towards the Dominion gorr-ernment pension fund to enable such men to get the benefit in computing their pension for the number of years served with the Saskatchewan provincial police.
The names of those entitled to pension have now been definitely settled. They comprise four officers and fifty-five non-commissioned officers and men formerly in the provincial force and now in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police force. In respect of these men a subsequent agreement has been made and executed by the authorities of the province of Saskatchewan and by the Department of Justice to provide in accordance with the preliminary agreement for the absorption of these provincial police upon the same terms in regard to pension as is provided in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pension scheme. The province of Saskatchewan bears its pro rata cost of the expense. This act is merely to authorize the taking over of these men for the purpose of pension.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not rise to oppose the bill, but I might point out that my hon. friend spoke of having explained this bill when the resolution was before the house. I would remind him that the bill was not preceded by a resolution, but was read on April 17 for the first time.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Hugh Guthrie: My. hon. friend may be right; I thought it had been preceded iby a resolution.


Ernest Lapointe: I believe this bill is of, such a nature that it should have been preceded by a resolution because, in effect, it involves the expenditure of money out of the public treasury. The purpose of the bill is to extend to certain men provisions for pension which do not apply to them under the present law. In my view it is certainly in the nature of a money bill.


Hugh Guthrie: My recollection was that the matter had been brought to the attention of the house by resolution. However, I may be wrong in that assumption. The main object of the bill is to provide that the Dominion government shall be recouped by the province of Saskatchewan for the amount which the federal government will pay out under the former agreement made in the year 1928.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, but we have to pay out first.


Hugh Guthrie: We accepted the obligation in 1928 under the agreement of that date. At that time, however, Uhe figures were not worked out. Now we know definitely that the proposal affects four officers and fifty-five men, and this bill providing for the payment by the province of Saskatchewan to the Dominion of Canada is necessary to provide for the pensions of these men under the pension scheme of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
On looking up the record I find that the bill was not introduced by resolution; I now recollect the occurrence. However, if objection is taken-


Ernest Lapointe: No, I just wanted to draw the attention of the minister to that fact; I do not press the objection.


Hugh Guthrie: The objection is of a purely technical nature, but if it is not pressed I would prefer to proceed in the present manner.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Arrangements with local governments.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask if this bill has reference merely to the service rendered prior to the transfer of these men
from the provincial force to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and whether that is the only portion of their service for which there will be responsibility for gratuity?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: And it will be paid by the provincial government?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time, and
passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Public Works-Quebec, $1,076,900.
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: When the committee arose I was asked to provide certain information, and item number 185 was left open for that purpose, following the requests of the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) and the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot). I was asked for certain information as to expenditures and appropriations on buildings and I am now prepared to give that information.


Mr. VENIOT:: I agree that when the item was up I did request that it be allowed to stand, in case I would have something to ask in connection with it. I am perfectly satisfied now, however, that the item as it appears is correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall give the information requested by the hon. member.


Mr. DUFF:: Has my hon. friend a copy of the information from which he is about to read? It will be impossible for me to follow it, I am afraid, if I have not that information before me.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will see if I have another copy; at any rate, I shall see that as soon as possible my hon. friend receives a copy.


William Duff: I would like to have it immediately.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend will have an opportunity to discuss the information I shall give him when we reach some other item.


William Duff: But I prefer to discuss it now.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Very well, I shall try to supply the hon. gentleman with a copy immediately. I wish to place before the committee the information contained in the following statement:
Appropriations and Expenditures, 1930-31 Capital-Public buildings Vote No. 180-
Appropriation	$ 2,927,830 00
Expenditures	 2,755,643	47
Income-Public buildings Vote 182, Nova Scotia-
Appropriation	$	302,000	00Expenditure	
126,927	06
Vote 183, New Brunswick-
Appropriation	$	81,125	00Expenditures	
50,297	30
Vote 184, Maritime provinces generally-
Appropriation	$	55,500	00Expenditures	
55,498	84
Vote 185, Quebec-
Appropriation	$	1,509,695	00Expenditures	
561,525	76
Vote 186, Ontario-
Appropriation	$	2,616,323	95Expenditures	
2,283,361	92
Vote 187. Manitoba-
Appropriation	$	382.600	00Expenditures	
243,799	35
Vote 1S8, Saskatchewan-
Appropriation	$	1,010.500	00Expenditures	
837,897	46
Vote 189, Alberta

Appropriation	$	1.676.000	00Expenditures	
1,588,036	99
Vote 190, British Columbia-
Appropriation	$	203.300	00Expenditures	
180,041	87
Vote 191, Generally

Appropriation	$	567,500	00Expenditures	
523,387	12
Vote 192, Rents, repairs, etc.-
Appropriation	$	6.403,750	00Expenditure	
6,310,957	82


Mr. HEAPS:: Mr. Chairman, there	is one
matter arising out of the information which the minister has just given that I should like to bring to the attention of the committee. It appears that there are very large reductions throughout these votes as compared with the expenditures in previous years. This means that the work to be undertaken by the various departments of the government during the ensuing fiscal year will be very much less than in former years, which in turn means that the unemployed problem will be still further aggravated, that is, the men formely employed on government work will not have an opportunity of obtaining work during the coming months. In view of these very substantial reductions I would suggest that the government undertake an extensive program of public works that might in some way help the very acute unemployment situation now existing throughout the Dominion. As instances of these greatly reduced expenditures, I may point out that last year the vote for public

buildings in Manitoba was $382,600, while this year it is only $81,700-less than one quarter of last year's vote. And so on all down the line, less is to be spent this year, which means that the unemployment situation is going to be made worse by the action of the government; that is, the greater the economy practised on government expenditures, the more people are going to be thrown out of employment. Can the minister furnish any information as to the expenditures on public works for the ensuing year on capital account which might assist instead of aggravating the unemployment situation?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
in reply to the hon. gentleman, I can only say that the program of expenditures, either on capital or income account, is fully disclosed in these estimates. The total capital expenditure proposed for this fiscal year, is $3,387,000, as shown on page 30, the details of which are there given. As to money voted last year not having been expended, it may interest the committee to know that the expenditures on public works last year were the largest in our history. These are the figures: Total Expenditures
1930-31	 $32,758,065
1929-30	 25,206,558
1928-29	 20,680,902
1927-28	 17.309,702
1926-27	 13,750,952
Hon. members will observe that the program last year was a very heavy one indeed. In addition to those expenditures, it must be borne in mind that $20,000,000 was expanded for unemployment relief. This amount added to the other figures that I have given, shows a grand total for last year of $52,000,000, which is very much in excess of the total expenditure in any previous year.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I think if the minister would give the committee the amount not expended his statement would be better understood.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am giving the actual expenditures, which is the information I thought was asked for.


Eugène Fiset: The minister is giving the actual amount provided for in the estimates last year, $32,000,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry that I have not made myself clear to my hon. friend. I should perhaps have given the amount appropriated and then stated the expenditure. The total amount appropriated was $38,074,727.


Eugène Fiset: On capital account?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Both capital and revenue. The amount actually expended, as I have said, was S32,758,065. For the previous_ year the appropriation was $30,5(22,389, but only $25,206,558 was actually expended. It will be observed that in every year the amount actually expended is considerably less than the appropriation.


Eugène Fiset: If I understand the minister well-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Just a moment. For 1928-29 the appropriation was $27,038,409, but only $20,680,902 was expended-a larger amount unexpended in that year of expanding revenue than was expended last year when the revenue was shrinking.


Eugène Fiset: What I should like to ascertain from the minister is this: There was provided in the estimates last vear a total amount of $38,000,000 or $39,000,000, out of which only $32,000,000 was spent. Is it a fair question to ask the minister if these credits that have not been expended should be treated as a deduction from the $20,000,000 that was voted last session for unemployment?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not find any relation between these two items. I have considered the matter and discussed it from every angle, and I think when I remind the hon. gentleman that in previous years there were similar and larger amounts unexpended when there was no unemployment relief, that ought to be pretty conclusive evidence that there is no relation between the two matters.


Eugène Fiset: There is this relation: If the government had gone on with the expenditure of money voted by parliament there would have been $6,000,000 less expended on unemployment throughout Canada.


Olof Hanson: This discussion is out of order, and I am going to call item No. 186. Item 185 has been passed and there is nothing before the chair.


Eugène Fiset: I should like to direct your attention to the -fact that the minister himself started the discussion on Item 185.


Mr. GIROUARD:: I understand the minister kindly allowed item 185 to stand until to-day.


Olof Hanson: This discussion has gone far enough
and I am going to rule it out of order. I now call item 186:
Ontario
Belleville public building-addition to site, $20,000.
Belleville public building-improvements to heating, $1,100.
Brockville-public building-alterations and improvements. $12,000.
Copper Cliff-public building-under contract, $26,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $125,000.
Fort Frances-public building, $1,500.
Fort William-public building, $50,000.
Gore Bay-public building-under contract, $4,000.
Guelph-public building. $50,000.
Hawkesbury-public building-alterations to fittings, $1,500.
Keewatin-public building-under contract,

Leamington public building-improvements to heating, $1,200.
New Liskeard-public building, $61,000.
North Bay public building-improvements, $1,100.
Orillia public building-alterations, improvements, etc., $5,000.
Parry Sound-public building, $25,000.
Penetanguishene-public building, $57,000.
Perth-public building, $25,000.
Port Arthur public building-addition and alteratioins-under contract, $5,000.
Port Credit-public building-under contract, $40,000.
Stratford public building-addition, $41,000.
Sturgeon Falls-public building-under contract, $5,500.
Sydenham-public building-under contract, $4,000.
Thorold-site for public building, $4,000.
Toronto - customs house - under contract. $670,000.
Toronto - postal station "A" - mechanical equipment, improvements, etc.-under contract, $33,500.
Welland public building - alterations to fittings. $2,000.
Windsor - combined public building and C.N.R. terminal, $100,000.-Total, $1,379,400.


Wilfrid Girouard: I understand item 185 was passed on the understanding that we would be able to return to it to-day. I ask the minister now if that was not the understanding.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Item 185 stood for the -purpose I have stated.


Olof Hanson: Item 185 has been reported by the committee and so appears in the votes and proceedings, but there was opportunity left to make -an explanation, which the minister has made. The next item is 186, which is now before the chair.


Charles A. Stewart: I should like to direct attention to the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you are now following an arbitrary rule that always has -been ignored in the past, and I should like to suggest also for your consideration that if such rules are to be followed by the chairman you will not make a very great amount of -progress.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Allow me to make a statement, Mr. Chairman. Item 185 was left open with the distinct understanding that

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
the hon. member for Gloucester wished to discuss something in connection with the Montreal postal terminal. I have not any objection to giving any information on any of these other matters if any hon. gentleman desires it.


William Duff: I think the Minister of Public Works is not perhaps quite right in his statement. Item 185 was passed and reported with the distinct understanding, I think, at the request of the hon. member for Quebec South and the hon. member for Gloucester, that when another item was called they could discuss if necessary certain items with regard to Quebec public buildings. Consequently if any member of the house now' desires to discuss any question with regard to Quebec it can be done under another item. You are quite right, Mr. Chairman, in calling the next item.


Olof Hanson: That is the idea of calling item 186- to regularize the discussion.


Wilfrid Girouard: I thank you for your
decision, Mr. Chairman. Will the minister give me some information in connection with the appropriation of 814,500 in connection with the Victoriaville post offiffce?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That item is for the finishing of the new building at Victoriaville.


Wilfrid Girouard: Does this amount of
$14,500 only provide for the building itself or does it provide also for the furniture and fixtures?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount of $14,500 is required to complete the erection of the building, the construction of which is being performed by the Stewart Construction Company, Limited, under a contract price of $35,600, and to provide for the furniture as well.


Wilfrid Girouard: Were tenders called for
the furniture and fixtures?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Wilfrid Girouard: When?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For the fittings
he tenders were as follows:
Gustave Mercure, Drummondville, $1,71625 or one type of fitting and $1,887.87 for another type; The Canadian Office and School Furniture, Limited, Preston, $1,785 for one type; the Interior Hardwood Company, Limited, Kitchener, $2,175 for one type and $2,175 for another; the Office Specialty Manufactur-

ing Company, Limited, Ottawa, $2,819 for one type and $3,100 for another; Renfrew Wood Products Company, Limited, Montreal, $2,836 for one type and $2,550 for another; . H. E. Bourassa, Limited, Montreal, $3,886.90 for one type and $3,691.90 for another.


Wilfrid Girouard: Would the minister tell me if these tenders werfe advertised, and if so where they were advertised?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These tenders
were advertised in the regular way.


Wilfrid Girouard: Where?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were publicly advertised; that would be in the Canada Gazette and in the local papers in the vicinity where the work was being carried on.


Wilfrid Girouard: Is the minister aware
that in Victoriaville, where the post office is being erected, no one was aware that tenders were being called, and that as a matter of fact no tenders were received from any persons in that city'? All the tenders were from outside parties. Does not the minister believe it would have been more fair and just if tenders had been asked in Victoriaville itself?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should be very much surprised indeed to learn that people ifi Victoriaville were not made aware of this tender. I am informed that a copy of the advertisement was sent to the hon. gentleman himself, and we have found in our experience that people specially interested in this kind of work generally get the contract. They are able to quote lower prices than local parties are able to quote. The regular procedure has been followed here; every opportunity has been given residents of Victoriaville to tender in this case.


Wilfrid Girouard: I believe the minister
is under a wrong impression. I understood him to say that I had been sent a copy of the advertisement, and while I do not want to say that the minister has made an incorrect statement, I do not recall receiving such an advertisement. As a matter of fact, the minister will notice that among the tenders there was none from Victoriaville. Am I correct in that statement?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I accept the
statement of the hon. gentleman that he did not receive a copy of the advertisement.


Wilfrid Girouard: I do not recall receiving it.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But I am
assured that the usual routine of the office was followed, and part of that routine is to send every member a copy of such advertisements. As to the fact that no local tender was received, I do not know the reason for it all.


Wilfrid Girouard: Has a tender been
accepted by the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, and the
contract awarded to the lowest tenderer, which is our rule.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the amount?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount was $1,71655.


Wilfrid Girouard: Was that the tender of Mr. Mercure, of Drummondville ?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Wilfrid Girouard: I believe the minister will recognize that this state of affairs is not very satisfactory to the people of Victoria-ville. Here is a building situated in a city with a population of almost 7,000 people. Tenders were called for but no advertisement was published in that city; the fact that tenders were being called for was not made known in an3r way to the people there. I am sure, therefore, that the people are perfectly justified in voicing a grievance. I think that the department should at least have advertised these tenders in Yictoriaville. I have no objection to their having been advertised in the Canada Gazette; but as the minister will understand, that publication is not received by many people in Victoriaville. The fact that no one in that locality submitted tenders Is a justification, in my opinion, of the position I am now taking. I submit that the minister should reconsider his acceptance of the successful tenders. He has a perfectly good reason for doing so. I urge upon him the re-opening of the matter and advertising in Victoriaville and Arthaibaska. The people who should have known that tenders were being called for are the people living in Victoriaville, where the post office is situated, and I think the minister will recognize the soundness of this suggestion. I have no doubt he wishes to be fair to the people there, and he would be within his rights in cancelling the acceptance of an outside tender and having fresh tenders called for, so that the people of that place might have an opportunity of tendering.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The order in council was passed on March 30, awarding the contract to the lowest tender, and it
would be impossible to cancel that contract now. It is not at all unusual to find local firms unsuccessful in securing these contracts; other firms seem to be specially equipped for this kind of work. I can assure my hon. friend, if it is any comfort to him, that regularly we find outside firms securing such contracts. I sympathize with him in his desire to have the people in his town get contracts, but it very seldom works out that way with respect to tenders.


Wilfrid Girouard: I am sure the minister wishes to be fair to everyone, and I think he will admit that my position is equally fair. There is a newspaper in Victoriaville, and three miles away, in Arthabaska, there is another newspaper published. Will the minister inform me whether these tenders were advertised in either of these newspapers.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say in reply that this is purely a matter of routine in the office, of which I have no personal knowledge. I have not a list of the papers in which the advertisement appeared, but I will get that information and see that it ia supplied.


Wilfrid Girouard: Thank you.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The question I have already raised is far more important than a local matter; it affects practically every part of the Dominion, particularly the urban centres. Personally I feel that during a period of depression more than at any other time public authorities should spend large amounts on public works. It appears on this occasion, however, that this is reversed, and the policy seems to be one of practising economy, which, as I have said before, means that more people will be thrown out of employment. The question of the money spent last summer has really no relation to the estimates which are now before us. I know that in many of our large centres, where there are large numbers of men out of work, there is need for public buildings, and those buildings ought to be put up. Now is the time for the government to undertake the erection of these public buildings. I am thinking now particularly of buildings in the city of Winnipeg. We shall presently come to the estimates for the province of Manitoba, but under this item I think the same question might well be discussed. In Winnipeg public buildings are overdue, and at the present time there are vast numbers of men out of work. The federal government would be setting a good example to other public bodies if at this time they undertook the erection of these buildings in order to provide work for these men who otherwise
Supply-Public Works-Ontario

may not be able to find any employment. In my opinion the policy of cutting down at this time is not right. Last year the former government undertook larger expenditures with a view to meeting the unemployment situation which then prevailed. Later on we had the special session of parliament when we passed further large appropriations to provide work. Now that we are in regular session, I should like to know whether the Minister of Public Works is in a' position to inform the house whether the government has in contemplation a program of public works which will in some way take care of those who are unemployed at the present time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The suggestions of my hon. friend will be carefully considered. It must be borne in mind, however, that it is impossible, in preparing the estimates of the Public Works department, to foresee where unemployment will be acute.


An hon. MEMBER:: Not this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, I don't know. And for that reason it is better, perhaps, to arrange for provision of funds to relieve unemployment where the funds are more fluid, where they can be expended to meet requirements as they develop. Unfortunately the consideration of public works by the Public Works department is rigidly limited to the particular estimate for a particular place; and, unfortunately also, it does not afford that measure of relief to a large number of unemployed that can be afforded by other works undertaken locally according to the emergency, as the municipality and1 the province approve, and in the prosecution of which they unite, thus very much increasing in this way the amount of money expended. As my hon. friend knows, the expenditure of the appropriation of twenty million dollars on the basis on which it was made last year resulted in a very much larger expenditure than that amount; whereas if we expend the money it is, [DOT] =[DOT] I have said, rigidly limited to the amount of the particular estimate and does not afford the relief which is sometimes so badly needed. However, my hon. friend's suggestion is very well worthy of consideration, and it will be carefully considered.


Ernest Lapointe: I desire to register my protest against the state of things revealed by the figures which the minister has given. I cannot understand the policy of the government in not spending the money which has been voted for public works in the province of Quebec. I am sorry that my colleagues in the house who represent the province of Quebec in the government are absent. 1 would call their attention particularly to this

fact. In 1980 there was voted for public buildings in the province of Quebec the sum of $1,509,695, of which $561,5i25 was spent, leaving unexpended $948,170, or one-third of the money voted.


Charles Gavan Power: Two-thirds.


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, two-thirds. If there is added to the unexpended portion of the money voted for public buildings, the unexpended portion of the money voted for harbours and riveTS, it will be found that it almost equals the total amount given to the province for the relief of unemployment. What kind of a policy is that? We were called to a special session of parliament to vote money to provide work for the people, but we find that the money which had been voted and which would have provided employment was left unexpended. I do not desire to draw a comparison but I find that in the case of the province of Ontario, so ably represented by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) the amount voted for public works was $2,679,350. That amount was practically all spent and I do not understand why there should be a difference in the treatment meted out to these two provinces. Why was not the money voted for public buildings in the province of Quebec spent in order to assist in the relief of unemployment?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I regret that my hon. friend has suggested that there has been discrimination in the expenditure of public moneys as between the two provinces. I can assure him that there was no intention to do anything of that kind.


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can tell my hon. friend of two items voted for the province of Quebec which would account for over $600,000 of the amount unexpended. One instance is the postal terminal for the city of Montreal, and if my hon. friend will go back to the year before I. believe he will find that there was an item of $500,000 in the estimates for that building, which was unexpended. My recollection is that there was another item of $100,000 for an ordnance stores building in the city of Quebec which was not expended because the plans had not been completed, negotiations being still pending between the departments of National Defence and Public Works as to the location and type of building. Those two items call for over $600,000 and there are good reasons why the moneys were not spent.


Ernest Lapointe: Will that last item of $100,000 for an ordnance stores be expended?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should have said that the $500,000 item for the city of Montreal is in this year.


Ernest Lapointe: What about the other
one?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not in.


Eugène Fiset: It has lapsed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It lapsed last year and is not being revoted.


Eugène Fiset: Mr. Chairman, I notice that you have been kind enough to allow other hon. members to discuss freely any item concerning the province of Quebec. IV ill the minister permit me to discuss a matter which I mentioned recently, that of the building for the Public Works engineers at Rimouski?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly.


Eugène Fiset: A few days ago I asked the hon. minister a question with regard to the size of this building, and he answered it was 37 feet by 25 feet. I asked him if the building was of frame construction, finished on the outside with clapboards and on the inside with tongue and grooved boards, painted, and he answered yes. I asked him the rental of the building and he replied it was the same as had been paid before. There is one thing which the minister had forgotten; the offices rented in the past formed part of one of the finest buildings in Rimouski. That building cost to erect, between $45,000 and $60,000 and in it are the offices of the Bank of Montreal and some of the finest offices of the town of Rimouski. The building now being rented is a match box, 37 feet by 25 feet, belonging to Mr. Asselin. For the minister's private information I would like to give him a little history in connection with this building. I wonder if he is aware that the chief engineer, Mr. Amyot, is the father-in-law of the proprietor of the building? I wonder if he is aware that the assistant engineer, Mr. Trudeau, is the son-in-law of Mr. Amyot and the brother-in-law of the proprietor of the building, Mr. Asselin? I wonder if he is aware that the vice president of the local committee on patronage, Mr. Simard, who came to Ottawa with the proprietor and the assistant engineer, is also the son-in-law of the chief engineer, Mr. Amyot, brother-in-law of the assistant engineer, Mr. Trudeau, and also brother-in-law of the proprietor of the building, Mr. Asselin? We have before us a conglomeration of in-laws which is pretty hard to understand, but it explains why the departmental engineers at Rimouski were so anxious
to leave the best building in the town in order to occupy the flimsy fire trap they are occupying at the present time.
Before this building was rented by the department it was considered to be one of the poorest buildings in the town. It had been vacant for nearly three years but the moment the government changed the young generation, the young wolves who were extremely hungry, went to the chief engineer and proposed to him that he should advance sufficient money in order to enable the proprietor to convert his building into an office building to be rented by the engineer. Two floors and one fourth of the ground floor are being rented bv the engineers, the remainder still being vacant. I would advise the minister to send someone with an unbiased mind to inspect this building in order to determine the true rental. I will guarantee that the proprietor of that building could not get $50 per month rental in the open market for the whole building. I will go further and say that $1,000 per year would be an outrageous rental to pay for that building.


An hon. MEMBER:: What rental is being paid?


Eugène Fiset: It is either $1,850
or $1,800, I am not sure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is $1,800.


Eugène Fiset: Does the hon. minister know that the municipal assessment of the building at the present time is $2,800? Does the hon. minister know that his department is assigning S150 per month to the Banque Canadienne Nationale, which in ten months will cover the balance of the capital expended in remodelling this building. The utmost that would be paid for that building is $6,000. Does the minister therefore think that he is paying a reasonable rental for such a building? Let him bear in mind the family association that came to him here to induce him to take that building. It is nothing less than a scandal in the town of Rimouski, and I may tell the minister that at the present time his department is the laughing stock of our whole population.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to thank my hon. friend for the interesting information he has given me as to the relationships of these families in Rimouski.


Eugène Fiset: I was decent enough to notify the minister in advance that I was going to discuss the matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I admit that,
and I want to thank my hon. friend for the

Supply-Public Works-Ontario_____
interesting information he has given as to these relationships, but perhaps it is not necessary for me to remind him that I am not responsible for them.


Mr. POULIOT:: You are not the ancestor.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am rather inclined to think that these relationships in that vicinity have existed for some time. Perhaps they would be complete if these families could trace relationship to my hon. friend himself.
This lease was made in the regular way. 1 was not visited, nor importuned, nor asked, as far as I know, by any member of this interesting family to enter into this lease.
I propose to inquire into this transaction and to investigate matters around Rimouski, and if I find that there have been any irregularities, that any official has been guilty of neglect of duty or has in any way imposed improperly upon the department, he will not be very long in his position.


Eugène Fiset: I rise simply to thank the minister for his last statement. That is all I was asking. I want to deal fairly with him and his department.


Jean-François Pouliot: Now that we are away from Rimouski, may we stop at Trois Pistoles for a moment?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Eugène Fiset: Your answer says
that your engineer is the head of the family.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He recommended it as the engineer, in the regular way, and he is the one from whom m the ordinary course we would receive a report on the accommodation being provided. the former rental was the same as the present rental. Our reports show that the accommodation that is provided is superior to the accommodation that we enjoyed before.


Eugène Fiset: Even as to the
quality of the building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Both as to space and in every other way it is superior accommodation. Not only is the space provided, but the lessor attends to all repairs during the currency of the lease, pays taxes and water rates, and provides heating, hghtag, cleaning and toilet accommodations. All that is worth something and must be taken into consideration in addition to the actual value of the building.


Eugène Fiset: Were not all these provided under the old lease?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, but the
point I am trying to make, and which I think my hon. friend will admit is a fair one, is that you must take something else into consideration besides the actual value of the building when all these services are provided.


Eugène Fiset: They were all provided before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And they are
provided in this building. So I say you must take into consideration the value of the services as well as the actual value of the property. I would say to my hon. friend that


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. The other day I asked the minister this question:
Is the minister aware that that very building has been condemned by the board of health?
The Minister replied:
This is the first intimation that I have received of anything of that nature.
I want to say just a few words about the post office at Trois Pistoles. The building was condemned by the board of health of the province of Quebec.


Olof Hanson: This discussion is out of order, but will be quite in order under vote 191. I suggest that the hon. member defer his remarks until we reach that item; othenvise on this item we may be discussing buildings all over the province of Quebec.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am ready to bow to your ruling, Mr. Chairman, but I would stress the fact that I asked for and received the minister's permission to speak. I wish to be very courteous to him because he is a friend of mine.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection to my hon. friend completing his discussion right here and now.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister very much. Let me say at once that I do not wish to put the blame on him but on the people in my constituency who made the recommendations. The report of the board of health was sent to the Deputy Minister of Public Works on May 5, 1930, and the receipt of it acknowledged on the following day, as follows:
Dear Mr. Pouliot,-
I have yours of the 5th instant with enclosed :opy of report in regard to existing conditions it the post office at Trois Pistoles, and in reply

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
may say that the representations made have been carefully noted in connection with the request at present under consideration by the department for a public building at this place.
Yours very truly,
(Signed) J. B. Hunter,
Deputy Minister.
I	will quote a paragraph from the letter of the director of the board of health. I translate :
I entirely approve of the report, and I strongly recommend that the actual conditions should be remedied wdth the shortest possible delay.
I shall not take the time of the committee to read the whole report, but I will give the conclusions of the report made by Dr. B. Blaudet, medical officer at Riviere du Loup, and dated April 10, 1930:
Mr. Director,-
According to the attached plans and the figures given in this report, it is easy to see that the present post office in the town of Trois Pistoles is not at all satisfactory, and that the lodging of the postmaster should be more sanitary.
As for the changes to be made, I believe it is a matter that should be decided by the Minister of Public Works at Ottawa.
The rental for the post office was $360, as the minister may easily verify from his own files. The rental stood at that figure for several years until the new building was constructed.
On September 11, 1929, Mr. T. W. Fuller, chief architect, sent a report to Mr. Arthur Pouliot, Esq., clerk of works, at the custom house, Quebec. The report is headed "Re Post Office accommodation, Trois-Pistoles, P.Q.," and goes on to state that a copy of a resolution dated March 4, 1929, had been received from the secretary-treasurer of the municipal council of the town of Trois-Pistoles, stating that the council authoritiesare prepared to enlarge the town hall building and requesting that the department enter into a new ten-year lease for space for postal purposes at $800 per annum. (2) Letter of acknowledgment, dated April 3, 1929, requesting a plan showing the proposed enlargement ana improvements estimated to cost $4,000 on which the Increased rental would be based. (3) Letter, dated September 4, 1929, from the secretary-treasurer of the town of Trois-Pistoles, enclosing plans and specifications of the proposed changes.
I have only this to say that the town of Trois-Pistoles was at that time ready to make those improvement if the rent was increased from $360 to $S00. According to information the hon. gentleman has given me I learn that the rent at the present time is a thousand dollars per annum. Am I right?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: First of all, as I have said the council was ready to improve that building for a rental of $800 per year. Now they have received a thousand dollars. I wonder why this year more money is asked than was asked in 1929, which is not so long ago. The town of Trois-Pistoles has been asking for money from the unemployment relief fund to enlarge the city hall so as to provide better postal accommodation. They are allowed to spend $6,000. Three thousand of that is paid by the provincial and federal governments and three thousand 'by the city. The sum is a little greater than it was in 1929. However, according to some information I received on January 16, 1931, from the Minister of Labour at Quebec, I learn that the $6,000 included some other works 'besides the enlargement of the city hall for post office purposes. The letter of the hon. gentleman is as follows- translating from French into English.
Mr. .Jean-Francois Pouliot, C.R., M.P., Riviere-du-Loup,
Temiseouata.
Dear Sir:
I have received your letter of January 15th inst. You will find underneath the information asked for with regard to the grant to the town of Trois-Pistoles from the unemployment relief fund. Six thousand dollars at 50 per cent for the enlargement of the city hall, for central sewer route, and the opening up of a new street.
It is mentioned that the above mentioned works will be executed only for the amount granted. I understand that they will do only part of those works. With best regards.
J. N. Francoeur,
Minister.
That grant included other items. In view of the fact that a report has been given by the board of health to the effect that the building was unhealthy, unsanitary and in very bad condition, did the minister stipulate in the deed that the building should be put in proper condition before any increased rental payment would be made to the town? What are the reasons the rent had been so greatly increased? The point is, that those works were first estimated at $4,000. The work which was to be done there was arranged on a very generous scale. The interest at 5 per cent on $4,000 is $200. The increase in the rent is $640. On the amount that is being spent by the town an interest of over 15 per cent would be required. I wonder if the people who have made a request in that direction have convinced the minister that it would be fair to pay such a rate of interest to the town without first asking town officials to reduce the taxes. The people of Trois-Pistoles will receive no advantage whatever. The money will be spent on a very ugly and dirty build-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
ing; I wonder what stand the government will take in that respect. May I say further to the hon. minister, that there is no saving for the government, because a rental of $1,000 a year means the interest on $20,000 at 5 per cent, exactly the amount which had been voted for the building of a new post office at that place, a post office which would have been a real asset to the country at large.
Before taking my seat, may I ask the hon. gentleman why the rent has been increased from $360 to $1,000 peT year, and if the plans which have been submitted by the town tc the department have been approved. Further, I would ask if the rent has already been paid or if it will be paid only after those improvements have been made.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the best way to answer the hon. member is to give a short, concise, and complete history of the whole transaction. The lease was an old one and the rental being paid in this town was very low. The department desired to secure better accommodation, and the municipality came forward with the proposition to give us the desired accommodation in the municipal building. I submit that hon. members of this committee, as reasonable business men, will agree that when an opportunity is presented to the Dominon government to rent from a municipality suitable accommodation for its postal service, and such offer is accepted, the government is thereby rendering a service to the municipality concerned. The fact is that in the last estimates $20,000 was appropriated for a post office at this town. My hon. friend seems to be annoyed1 and disappointed that this $20,000 was not expended. Let us see what the expenditure would have actually amounted to. The vote was $20,000. From our experience it is reasonable to suppose that the cost of the building would have exceeded the estimates by $5,000 or $10,000. Interest on $30,000 at 5 per cent would be $1,500; caretakers' remuneration $500 or $600, perhaps more; then there would be heating and maintenance to pay for. The annual expenditure for the postal accommodation would have run into between $2,000 and $3,000. We have secured suitable quarters for $1,000 a year. I submit that this commendable economy will inure to the benefit not only of the municipality directly concerned, but of Canada as a whole. Personally, whenever an opportunity is presented of doing any like service to the public, I propose to embrace it. The lease is for five years and covers a portion of the ground floor of an annex to the city hall. We do not have to provide for caretaking or any similar expense. The lessor has to pay taxes, if any, and provide water,

heat, light, cleaning, insurance and look after snow removal and large and small repairs. The transaction was carefully considered before being entered into, and I think it is in the interests of all concerned. We have a resolution from the local council approving the course taken by the department. It seems to me that it can be justified from every standpoint.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the lease contain a provision for its cancellation by the government within a certain time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it is a straight five-year lease without any provision for cancellation. My hon. friend said the condition of the building was unsanitary. It is difficult to believe that any municipal corporation would maintain a building in an unsanitary condition. In any event the provincial authorities have control over such matters, and I do not think there is anything to fear on this ground. We are certainly going to insist that the accommodation be sufficient and that it be maintained in a proper sanitary condition.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the hon. minister for his statement. It is perfectly true that the provincial authorities have control over sanitation, and therefore the director of health condemned the building as being unsanitary. The town has been very neglectful in regard to the sanitary condition of the building. Will the minister inform me if increased rent was "aid to the town authorities before the improvements in the accommodation were made?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The information which I have under my hand does not state when the instalments of rent are payable. I am sorry I cannot tell my hon. friend whether any rent has yet been paid.


Jean-François Pouliot: I desire again to direct
the minister's attention to this fact, that during last winter the carpenters, labourers and other workingmen in the district had no work. I state this of my own personal knowledge because some of those men came to me for charity. If the building provided for in last year's estimates had been undertaken, those men would have had an opportunity to work and would have been saved the bitter humiliation of having to seek charity to tide them over the winter. Trois Pistoles, I admit, is not a big urban centre, but it is the second town in my constituency, and any hon. members who may motor to Gaspe this summer will have an opportunity of seeing it. The building in which accommodation has been leased by the government is very ugly, and as I have already, stated, in an unsanitary

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
condition. Apparently the local Tories frustrated my efforts to provide work for the artisans and labourers of the community, simply because the item of $20,000 was placed in the estimates *as the result of a request that I had transmitted to the former Minister of Public Works. I hope in future the hon. minister will be very careful in dealing with any representations he may receive from those hard-hearted Tories.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I hope some day to go down through my hon. friend's county, and I shall be pleased to drop into Trois Pistoles.


Jean-François Pouliot: I invite the hon. minister
to do so, and I shall be very pleased to receive him at home; indeed, I will give a cocktail party for him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I accept the
invitation at once.
Mr. ST-PERE:	We will all be there.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Now, will the
hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard) allow me to give him some information which I had not at hand when he asked for it. Advertisements for tenders were inserted in the following papers:
\ ictoriaville; La Voix des Bois Francs; Ste. Marie de Beauee, Le Guide; Sherbrooke, The Record, and The Forum; Ottawa, The Canada Gazette.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-Ontario
Belleville public building-addition to site, $20,000.
Belleville public building-improvements to heating, $1,100.
Brockville-public building-alterations and improvements, $12,000.
Copper Cliff-public building-under contract, $26,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc., $125,000.
Fort Frances-public building, $1,500.
Fort William-public building, $50,000.
Gore Bay-public building-under contract. $4,000.
Guelph-public building, $50,000.
Hawkesbury-public building-alterations to fittings. $1,500.
Keewatin-public building-under contract, $8,000.
Leamington public building-improvements to heating. $1,200.
New Liskeard-public building, $61,000.
North Bay public building-improvements, $1,100.
Orillia public building-alterations, improvements, etc., $5,000.
Parry Sound-public building. $25,000.
Penetanguisliene-public building, $57,000.
Perth-public building, $25,000.
Port Arthur public building-addition and alterations-under contract, $5,000.
Port Credit-public building-under contract, $40,000.
Stratford public building-addition, $41,000.
Sturgeon Falls-public building-under contract. $5,500.
Sydenham-public building-under contract, $4,000.
Thorold-site for public building, $4,000.
Toronto - customs house - under- contract, $670,000.
Toronto

postal station "A"

mechanical equipment, improvements, etc.-under contract, $33,500.
Welland public building-alterations to fittings. $2,000.
Windsor-combined	public building and
C.N.R. terminal, $100,000.-Total, $1,379,400.
William Duff: Mr. Chairman, before we
deal with the individual items under this vote I desire for a few moments to refer to a statement which the minister read when the committee met this afternoon. This statement was given in response to my request a few days ago for certain information with regard to the appropriations and expenditures for 1930-31. In looking over the statement, I notice, as the minister said-and this, of course, includes only the Public Works department-that a total of $38,099,727.70 was voted at the general session of 1930, of which only $32,981,613.74 was expended-or a balance unexpended of $5,118,113.96. In answer to the member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) the hon. minister sought to set up an alibi by stating that other governments had done the same thing, that is. not expended the full amount of the vote. I am surprised that because previous governments, and especially Liberal governments, had not expended the full amount appropriated that the minister should use that as an excuse for not spending money voted before the Conservative government came into power last August. It is quite true that this money was voted three or four weeks before parliament was dissolved, but the present government had an opportunity in August, September, October and November, of spending this $5,000,000 odd,-or perhaps more, because it is quite likely that some of the $38,000,000 was expended during those months. I say it is a pretty small excuse for the Conservative government and for the Minister of Public Works to give, as a reason why this money was not expended, that the previous administration, in former years, did not spend the money which was voted by this parliament. May I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that there was a different condition existing last year than existed in 1929, in 1928 and in previous years. This country was prosperous during those years and perhaps there was not the necessity for spending public money in this country.

1134	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
However, this government came into power; almost immediately they were compelled to call a special session of parliament to vote money for unemployment purposes, and they did vote $20,000,000. What I want to ask the minister now is why, when he had $5,000,000 in his hands voted by this parliament, he did not spend that money and tell the Prime Minister there was no need to vote $20,000,000 for unemployment, that the only thing necessary at the special session was to vote $20,000,000 less $5,000,000.
The whole trouble was just as the hon. member for Quebec East said. If you look over this list you find that in the province of Alberta, which is represented by the Prime Minister, practically all the money voted last year was expended. The same thing applies to the province represented by the Minister of Public Works; in Ontario nearly all the money voted last year by the Liberal government was spent by him and his colleagues after the Liberal government went out of office and the Conservative party took over the ministerial benches. But in Quebec, in Nova Scotia and in the other provinces, I notice a different condition, exists. Let us take Nova Scotia, for instance; $302,000 was voted for public buildings while only $126,000 was expended. Unemployment relief was just as necessary there as in any other province, but $170,000 was left unexpended by the Minister of Public Works. Has he the same inferiority complex with regard to Nova Scotia that is held by some few people in the province of Ontario, and that was expressed by the Ottawa Journal, for instance, in its editorial two days ago, in which it tried to make out that the people of the maritimes were always coming to this government and asking for money? Is that why the money was not spent? Take New Brunswick; $81,125 was voted for public buildings last year and only $51,050 was expended. Again I ask the Minister of Public Works whether he suffers from that inferiority complex, coming from the province of Ontario, and if he does not want, to give the maritime provinces a fair show in connection with the expenditure of public money. The same thing applies to Quebec. The sum of $1,509,695 was voted by this parliament last year for public buildings, but the Minister of Public Works, as soon as the Conservative party came into power and he occupied his present important position, cut that expenditure down to $600,000, leaving $900,000 unexpended.
Now let us take harbours and rivers in the different provinces. The Liberal government voted $1,263,728 for harbours and rivers in the province of Nova Scotia, and $229,000 of that

money remains unexpended. I could go right down the list. Quebec, for instance has $600,000 unexpended; British Columbia has $100,000 unexpended, and so on. As I said before, the total amount unexpended is something over $5,000,000, but here is the principal point I want to make in regard to this matter. In my remarks a few days ago I showed that whoever was responsible for making up these estimates did not make them up in a businesslike or correct manner, and the first hon. gentleman to object to my statement was the Minister of Public Works. I proved, I think to the satisfaction of every business man who listened to me or who read my statement, that instead of a saving of $37,000,000 in the estimates this year, there was in fact, and only on the surface, a saving of only $12,000,000.
To-day I am going further, and this is the reason I asked for the statement which the Minister of Public Works was good enough to hand me this afternoon. This statement shows that although this $38,000,000 appears in the estimates, only $32,000,000 was expended, and in other words there is a difference, of over $5,000,000. If you take that $5,000,000 from the $12,000,000 which I showed the other day was the real decrease in the estimates, instead of there being a saving of $37,000,000 as this book shows, there is only a saving of some $7,000,000. Let me go a little further. In 1930, when the Liberal government was in power, under item XVII, "Public Works-income," the Liberal government voted $25,000,000. When my right hon. friend the Prime Minister came into power, surrounded by his able cabinet-


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I include in that my friend the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who did not say anything. When the Prime Minister gathered this great aggregation around him and wanted to show that he was going to economize, the first thing he did-presumably with the consent of the Minister of Public Works-was to turn to the maritime provinces. The estimates were reduced from $25,000,000, which was voted last year by the Liberal government for public works, to $17,000,000 this year, a difference of $8,000,000. So if you add the $8,000,000 to the $5,000,000 which was unexpended, and deduct $12,000,000 from that, you will find that instead of the ToTy government saving $37,000,000 they are actually $1,000,000 behind the Liberal government.
I might go further and show that this so-called saving claimed by the Tory government is only a figment of their imagination, because in addition to saving the money which I

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
mentioned a moment ago they were able to reduce expenditure in the Interior department, for example, and certainly the government does not deserve any credit because they dismissed or fired from seven hundred to one thousand employees and thereby saved a great sum of money in the estimates. I will say, however, that they do deserve .credit for reducing the estimates of the Minister of National Defence. I am only sorry that poor Roeh Lanctot, one of the former members for Quebec, is not here bo read the estimates and see that after all the years he fought to get the estimates of the Department of National Defence reduced, this is the first year that has happened.


Mr. GOTT:: Believe it or not.


William Duff: Yes, believe it or not, but the fact remains that when all this talk that has gone out in the newspapers throughout the country, of a reduction of $37,000,000 in the estimates, is boiled down it merely comes to this, that instead of reducing the estimates $37,000,000 this government has not saved one dollar except at the expense of the country and by starving the various services. In other words, this government has been penny wise and pound foolish in reducing certain items.
Take for example the province of Nova Scotia. As I said a moment ago, some $200,000 was unexpended last year, but that is not the worst of the picture. Not only was there $200,000 unexpended last year, but what do we find in the main estimates this year, when the government has ten supporters from that province? Do we find as much money as wa3 voted last year, when there were only three members supporting the government? We do not; we find a reduction of something like $200,000 as compared with last year.
Mr. M'acDONALD (Cape Breton): Last year there was an election.


William Duff: That is quite right, and let me say to my hon. friend from Cape Breton, whom I helped get through this house a vote for the new Waterford post office, that not only in election years but in previous years there have been large expenditures in the maritime provinces. Take my own constituency, for example; during the four years from 1926 to 1930, when I represented Antigonish-Guysborough, I secured $600,000 for those two counties. This year there is only $2,100 in the estimates for Antigonish-Guysborough. This year, when we have ten members from Nova Scotia supporting the government, ten members who could go and no doubt went to the hon. member who repre-
22110-73J
sents an Ontario constituency, and who is Minister of Public Works, asking for more money to be spent in that province, there is $200,000 less in the estimates than was the case last year.
And do not forget that most of the estimates appearing in this list to-day are not new moneys at all; they are either re-votes or expenditures in connection with repairs which it is impossible to avoid. I do not say it is because my hon. friends have no influence with the government; I do not know what the reason is. But I hope that when the supplementary estimates come down every hon. member supporting the government on the opposite side from Nova Scotia will see that, instead of this condition of affairs which we have to-day, there will be a decent vote for each of the different counties of Nova Scotia.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If I sent another sheet of figures across to my hon. friend I suppose he would be able to prove that there had been no expenditures anywhere in Canada. He was speaking about Nova Scotia, Ontario and Quebec in relation to harbours and rivers, and he complained that in the province of Quebec there had been unexpended the sum of $606,600 on harbours and rivers. If he will go to Ontario he will find that the amount unexpended is larger than that-$731,6-13.20. He did not make that comparison.


Charles Gavan Power: The amount voted was nearly a million larger.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, but the proportion is about the same.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, approximately the same.


William Duff: The figures the minister gave me are wrong, then.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, they are not wrong. Now, my hon. friend was speaking about the excuse for not expending the moneys We are not looking for excuses; we are giving the reasons-perfectly good reasons. As my hon. friend knows, these expenditures are made from revenues, and the revenues declined. But let me suggest that in the prior years to which he referred, when the revenues were ' not declining, when in fact they were abundant, there was no excuse for the failure of the government to expend a larger sum than we failed to expend in the last year. Then he speaks about Nova Scotia and complains that the expenditure there this year is not as large as it should be. Well, he cannot charge this on political grounds, surely. With the

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
number of representatives we have from the province of Nova Scotia, it is apparent that there is no attempt to make expenditures on political grounds. He must agree with that.


William Duff: I certainly agree that the lack of expenditures is not on political grounds; I certainly agree with that. I am sorry the minister did not understand me. What I said was that there are certain reasons why a few people in Ontario d'o not appreciate the importance of Nova Scotia, and I am afraid the Minister of Public Works is one of those people. I said I thought that some people in Ontario had an inferiority complex. Now is that plain enough?


An hon. MEMBER:: A superiority complex.


William Duff: No, inferiority. Get that
straight. Then my hon. friend says that the reason why he did not spend this money last year was that the revenues decreased. The hon. gentleman evidently does not know enough about business to realize that when the Liberal party went out of power last year they left a surplus of some eighty million dollars in the treasury. The money which went to make up the estimates of last year was voted out of money that was in the treasury at the time, before we went out of power; consequently my hon. friend has no right to make the statement that he did ,not spend the money because the revenues were not sufficient. It is true that as soon as the Tory party got into power a blight came over the country. Providence has never favoured the Tory party ever since I can remember. As soon as the Tory party has come into power, whether from 1878 to 1896, or from 1911 to 1921, this country has gone to the dogs. The only time the country was prosperous was when the Liberal party was in power. My hon. friend surely could not say that when we left them in 1911 with a surplus of $37,000,000, and in 1930 with a surplus of $80,000,000, that was the reason he did not expend the money. That will not go down with any man who has any business sense at all and who understands the financial condition of this country. There is no reason why the money was not expended except that my hon. friend did not went to spend it. It was voted by a Liberal government, and he said, "I presume it was to be spent in Liberal constituencies, or constituencies represented by Liberals," and so he would see that the money was not expended. He would do that to teach the electorate a lesson. I notice in the estimates that there is only $2,100 for my constituency. I am quite satisfied; it shows the difference between the Tory candidate in the county and myself.
[Mr. H. A. Stewart.l


Mr. EULER:: I note that the total estimate for Ontario is reduced almost 50 per cent,. Unlike my hon. friend from Nova Scotia, I will find no fault with that, even if there is nothing whatever for the constituency 1 represent; we did not ask for anything. I would ask the minister, however, to give soma explanation with regard to some of the larger items. Take the first item, Belleville public building, addition to site, $20,000. Does this mean that a site is purchased contiguous to the public building there, and is it the intention to erect another building or an addition to a public building at present on that site?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The proposition
is to acquire some additional land adjacent to the post office in the city of Belleville for needed extensions.


William Daum Euler: Which will be in the estimates in the succeeding year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Does the department consider it a good practice to purchase a site, leave it vacant, expend money and not erect the building at about the same time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a good
practice to purchase a site when it is in the market at a good price, and the conditions in Belleville in that respect are peculiar at this time. If the property is not secured in the near future, it will probably be lost and will have to be expropriated or acquired at a much greater cost.


William Daum Euler: One hears at times of sites
being purchased. I have in mind one in the constituency of Prince Rupert purchased some years ago at a cost of some 8100,000. Some $20,000 was spent in digging a basement out of solid rock, and the property has never been made use of since; it is still there. I want to caution the minister against that practice. I wish to ask for some explanation of what appear to be new public buildings in some of the towns and cities in Ontario. Take, for instance, the following: Fort William, $50,000 for a public building -perhaps I should say the city of Fort William in deference to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). Then Guelph, $50,000; New Liskeard, 861,000; Penetanguishene, S57,000; Stratford, $41,000. Are these new buildings, and what is the purpose of the appropriation?

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
William Daum Euler: Is the reason the same as
that given with respect to Belleville-the time is opportune to secure the site?


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Is there a land boom
at Fort William?


Robert James Manion: No, I wish there were.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I hope not, for
the purposes of this vote; I hope there is a land depression there temporarily. What was the next item?


William Daum Euler: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to provide for the erection of a public building at Guelph to accommodate all the government services, which are at the present time very much overcrowded. The population is 19,000, the postal revenue $101,567 and the customs revenue $760,549.


William Daum Euler: Is this amount merely for
a site, or is it for a new building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is to make a
beginning towards a new building. Since 1919 demands have been received for a building.


William Daum Euler: You have to have a site
before you can erect a building. Is this for the purchase of a site or does it include a portion of the cost of the building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This vote will
be for the purchase of a site. I do not know what the site will cost; if there is anything left, it will go towards the construction of a building.


William Daum Euler: I suppose the same reason
would apply-the real estate market is down at the present time and it is advisable to buy now. There is an appropriation of $670,000 for the Toronto customs house; does that complete the building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was a contract undertaken, as my hon. friend knows, by the previous administration. It is now well under way. This vote is required to complete the existing contract. It will not complete the building, as there will have to be another extension made some time.


William Daum Euler: I am quite interested in this because it was initiated while I was in the Department of National Revenue. How much will be required to complete the whole contract, and has anything been added to the original contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Nothing has been added to the contract. The contract was for $2,057,000 and this amount is required to complete it. There will be some small items in addition, but I do not anticipate they will amount to very much.


William Daum Euler: I have no fault to find with that. When may we expect the completion of the building? As I remember, it is very badly needed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We hope to have it completed in July of this year.


William Daum Euler: Why should not an amount
be included in the estimates to complete the building if it is intended to complete it in July?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As my hon.
friend knows, it is contemplated to make an extension to the west some time in the future.


William Daum Euler: Does this vote include
equipment and furnishing of the building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


William Daum Euler: There is another item in
connection with the city of Windsor, a combined public building and Canadian National Railways terminal, $100,000.


Eugène Fiset: A Canadian National station.


William Daum Euler: Yes. I have some recollection of being in Windsor and noting that the customs building-I think it is a combined post office and customs building-is situated in a very valuable part of the city. I think the suggestion was made at that time that that land should be sold and the moneys applied to the erection of a public building so that practically no additional appropriation would be required. Will the minister advise the committee if he has that plan under consideration, and exactly what the $100,000 is intended to cover? Perhaps he would give us some little explanation as to what the gbvemment expects to do in Windsor.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a revote of an item which appeared in the estimates of last year. The Canadian National Railways need a station very badly in the city of Windsor, and it was suggested that accommodation might be provided in the building
1138	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
which they would erect, in return for which we would contribute to the cost. Negotiations have been proceeding along that line and this is simply a revote of an item which appeared last year for that purpose. If cooperation is secured this amount will be used; if not, we will have to consider what other steps will be taken.


William Daum Euler: I am not criticizing the vote made last year, but I should like to know what is to be done with the $100,000. The erection of a joint public building to include a terminal station for the Canadian National Railways will require more than $100,000. Perhaps the hon. minister can give the committee a little more definite information as to what the scheme implies and involves.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would be similar to the arrangement which exists in Toronto, where the easterly end of the terminal buildings is used as a postal station. We paid for that as the building was being erected.


William Daum Euler: Will a capital expenditure be made by the Canadian National Railways and rental paid by the federal government for the use of the premises? I think that is what was done in Toronto; I do not think the federal government contributed to the erection of the building as a capital expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am told that as the work went along we contributed towards the capital expenditure based on progress estimates, and this is to be a similar arrangement.


William Daum Euler: That is, we have an actual ownership in the Toronto union station building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have an actual ownership; we own that easterly portion of it.


William Daum Euler: And the government proposes to make a similar arrangement in Windsor?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the basis of this vote.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Can the minister give the committee some information regarding the amounts spent in Ontario out of the unemployment relief fund? I am particularly interested in what are known as public buildings. I understand that certain amounts were expended in Ontario out of that fund through the provincial government and the municipalities, and I would like to know what buildings were erected, and their cost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my answer would apply to other questions which have been asked; no expenditures have been made through the Public Works department for the relief of unemployment.


Frederick George Sanderson: Do I understand the minister to say that no amounts were spent in Ontario out of that fund?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: None of the $20,000,000 was expended through the Public Works department; it was all expended in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, through the Department of Labour, and was administered by that department. We have no information in this department as to those expenditures; as far as I know there were no expenditures on Dominion public buildings made out of that fund.


Frederick George Sanderson: I quite understand that no money was .spent for unemployment relief by the Public Works department, but I believe some money was spent on public buildings which will eventually come under the jurisdiction of the federal Public Works department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know of any expenditure on a building which will come under the control of this department. The unemployment relief was an undertaking in partnership of cooperation with the municipalities and the provinces, and the expenditures were made on municipal and provincial works. No expenditures were made on Dominion work as such.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would that answer apply to the other provinces as well? Were there no amounts spent out of that fund on public buildings in any of the other provinces?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No amounts expended out of that fund for Dominion public buildings in any province.


Mr. FACTOR:: Did I understand the minister to say that the amount of $670,000 for the Toronto customs house will complete the first unit of that undertaking?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is correct.
It will complete what my hon. friend knows to be under construction there.


Samuel Factor: Does the minister propose
to carry out in their entirety the plans for the Toronto customs house as originally drawn?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no provision in the estimates for any extension of the work this year.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Samuel Factor: I quite appreciate that,
but what I wish to know is this: The government has not abandoned the plans and does not consider this as completing the entire scheme for the customs house?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, no. There
is no abandonment of the plan. As time goes on and circumstances warrant, I have no doubt that the building wild be completed.


Eugène Fiset: The minister a few moments ago stated, quite correctly, that no part of the $20,000,000 voted last fall had been spent by the Public Works department on public buildings, but what we want to ascertain is whether any part of that amount was used to construct public buildings which later on may be owned by the Public Works department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So far as I know, there has been no expenditure such as my hon, friend refers to.


Frederick George Sanderson: Will the minister endeavour to get that information and give it to the committee?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think that information will be given to the house in another way through the regular channel, namely, by the minister who must report on the expenditures under the appropriation for unemployment relief. I would not like to undertake to go into another department to get that information.


Eugène Fiset: The minister must
realize that the Minister of Labour has not a seat in this house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sure that
all the information -will come down. When it does I am pretty well assured that it will be complete in every detail, and I hope that it will be pleasing to the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: It was distinctly
understood, I think, by hon. members in the emergency session held last fall-if you look up Hansard I think you will find it mentioned many times-that part of the $20,000,000 would be spent for federal public buildings in different parts of the Dominion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am sorry I have
not Hansard here, but my hon. friends I think are mistaken when they say, "no, no." Apparently the minister is quite willing to give any and all information that he can, and I do think it is a reasonable request that he should get that information and give it to the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All I can say
is that the Minister. of Public Works tried very hard to get a part of that $20,000,000 to spend, and he did not succeed. As I recall the debate and the statement of the Minister of Finance at that time, some mention may have been made of public works, but the Public Works department received no money from that source. I think my hon. friend might, very well await the statement of the Minister of Labour as to the expenditure in his department.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am not altogether
satisfied with the answer of the minister. He says that he does not know of any such expenditures. Will he be good enough to find out definitely? If there have been no such expenditures, well and good.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am able to
state definitely that no expenditure of any part of the $20,000,000 has been made through the Public Works department.


Frederick George Sanderson: Not through the Public Works department-that was not my question. I would not expect it would be spent through the Public Works department, but I would expect it would be spent for public buildings which eventually would come under the control of the Public Works department or which are now under its control.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What type of
public building has my hon. friend in mind?


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister is more
conversant with public buildings than I am. I mean any kind of federal public building -post office, custom house or any other.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only assure my hon. friend that not a dollar of the twenty million has gone into post offices or any public buildings constructed under the authority of the Department of Public Works.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not mean constructed under the authority of the Department of Public Works.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the
only authority under which public buildings are constructed except such buildings as are constructed by the Department of National Defence and one or two other departments.


Frederick George Sanderson: Was there not a
special provision in connection with the twenty million dollar appropriation for the relief of unemployment that some of it would be spent for the erection of public buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Frederick George Sanderson: Or public works?
1140	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works*-Ontario


Robert James Manion: Largely municipal public
works such as sewers, and that kind of thing.


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not mean sewers and that kind of thing.


Robert James Manion: Those are public works,
but municipal public works.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The grant was
left open to be appropriated by the governor in council, and appropriations have not been made for public buildings.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I think there is a large building going up in Regina for the World's Grain Congress, constructed out of that fund.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not built by the Public Works department.


William Richard Motherwell: No, but out of the


William Daum Euler: In connection with the vote of $61,000 for a public building at New Liskeard, $10,000 of which is a re-vote, $15,000 having been voted last year, am I to assume that that is now under contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


William Daum Euler: What is the purpose of this vote of $61,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is to construct the building. Plans are being prepared and, when ready, tenders will be called and the building probably constructed.


William Daum Euler: Is the same true with respect to the public building at Penetanguishene, for which there is a vote of $57,000, part of which is a re-vote?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is to acquire the site and construct the building.


William Daum Euler: It includes both?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Mr. HEENAN:: In connection with the minister's reply to the question of my hon. friend from Toronto (Mr. Factor) with respect to the customs house there, and the minister's assurance that it would be completed at some time in the future, can he assure the committee that there will be no cessation of work on the building in the meantime?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There will be no cessation of work in respect of existing contracts; that is all.


Peter Heenan: According to the estimates there is a reduction of approximately $1,250,000 in the expenditure on public buildings in Ontario this year. In view of the unemploy-

ment situation in this province, does the minister consider it a good thing to reduce the expenditure on necessary public buildings and at the same time grant employment relief through other channels?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only repeat what I have mentioned frequently, that these buildings are constructed out of the revenues, and we are going as far as we think the revenues of Canada warrant in the construction of public buildings at the present time.


Peter Heenan: I do not think the minister got my point. Last year we voted $20,000,000 to make grants to the provinces and municipalities for unemployment relief. After all is said and done, the revenues come from the taxpayers of Canada, whether they be collected by the municipalities, the provinces or the federal government. My thought is that, we might well have gone on with our building program and spent money in that way through the construction of necessary public buildings. As the minister said, the revenue of the country has to be considered. If however we are going to spend it, would it not be better to spend it on our own public works rather than hand it out to some other body to spend in some other way?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend will agree that the manner of spending the money is a matter of policy. He has laid down, I believe the principle that the relief of unemployment is primarily a provincial and municipal matter, and that the federal government may properly assist when unemployment becomes acute. Undoubtedly lie will agree with me that funds providing for the relief of unemployment should be fluid and available for expenditure where unemployment exists in the greatest measure. If an item were placed in the estimates the funds would be available for expenditure only on that particular work at that particular place, so that an item in the estimates would not meet an emergency as effectively as a direct vote for the relief of unemployment when from time to time urgent conditions arise. The principle has been adopted of securing knowledge of local conditions through the cooperation of the provinces and municipalities. On reflection I think my hon. friend will agree that the direct vote is better fitted to give a greater measure of relief than is a fixed amount in the estimates for some particular place where unemployment may not be acute. On the other hand it might so happen that such moneys would not be available where conditions were unfavourable. Expenditure on public buildings does not always afford as effective measure of unemploy-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
ment relief as the making of funds available for expenditure on other works. For instance, under the statute the department has the power to make contracts for public buildings. We may enter into a contract to complete a building by July 1 of next year. Yet the contractor is his own master; he alone controls the number of men he employs, where he will secure his material, and when he will do the work. For those reasons the department would be unable to give that measure of relief to unemployment which might reasonably be expected.


Peter Heenan: I agree that there is good reasoning in the argument of the minister. But may I point out that it was a Conservative government which first laid down the principle-by order in council in 1920 and 1921-that unemployment was primarily the responsibility of the municipalities and the provinces. Foolishly I think, we followed suit [DOT]-and I believe the only time I ever got into trouble was when I followed the example of my hon. friend. However, we proceeded with the building program, and received the thanks of the unemployment conference held in Winnipeg in 1930. We thought that if federal moneys were spent on federal projects and the provinces and municipalities respectively followed a similar course, we would arrive at the same result as is now suggested by my hon. friend. For instance, in Toronto, which, with the exception of the constituency of Toronto West Centre represented by my hon. friend behind me (Mr. Factor) is not a Liberal stronghold, we let a contract for a public building aggregating about $3,000,000. At that time there was a great deal of unemployment in Toronto, and the contract provided a considerable amount of labour. The point I wish to make is-


Mr. GEARY:: Is that the reason my hon.
friend let that contract?


Peter Heenan: I agree that the municipalities could probably better tell us where unemployment exists. The government has taken the credit of appropriating $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. If however they save five or ten million dollars through not proceeding with public expenditures, that amount should be deducted from the amount for which they take credit.


Samuel Factor: Undoubtedly the minister is aware that the government owns the site at the northwest corner of Oxford street and Spadina avenue in the city of Toronto. That particular point happens to be in my constituency. I learn that the site was purchased
for the purpose of erecting a branch post office, The former government did not proceed with the building and now that the Conservative government is in power and the member for the locality has changed, I thought perhaps the minister would proceed with the building of the post office.


An hon. MEMBER:: There is no revenue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That site was
purchased some time ago. I do riot know whether or not conditions in the city of Toronto, which have been rapidly changing, would warrant at the present time the construction of the building. However, the request of my hon. friend will be considered.


Samuel Factor: I wish to thank the minister for his courtesy, and would add that a post office building is very badly needed in that particular location.


Charles Gavan Power: In connection with the discussion which has taken place between the Minister of Public Works and the hon. member for South Perth, I refer the minister to the debates of the last session concerning the expenditure of moneys under the vote of $20,000,000. The Prime Minister is reported at. page 65 of Hansard-


Eugène Fiset: Ex cathedra.


Charles Gavan Power: Yes, speaking ex cathedra,
and with all the infallibility of which he is capable. The extract is as follows:
It is proposed that this money shall be utilized just as the conference held in Ottawa concluded in their resolutions that they should be used. That body being a non-political one, we propose in the broadest and most proper sense of the term to follow that course in dealing with these moneys.
First there are national undertakings which this country may embark upon-public undertakings, buildings, wharves, piers that might not be constructed until next summer, but a portion of which work might well be done now instead of then. There might be the extension of existing contracts in connection with public undertakings.
Then he states further:
There are public undertakings which provinces and municipalities will engage in, but which otherwise they would not engage in until perhaps a year from now.
Giving an instance of the work which might be carried on under the vote of $20,000,000. the Prime Minister is reported at page 67 of Hansard as follows:
I will give an illustration of what I think my hon. friend will at once see covers the case. Work is being carried on in connection with the breakwater, we will say, at the head of the lakes-I give that as an illustration-the parliamentary appropriation has been exhausted; the work could be usefully carried on and give
i 142
Supply-Public Works-Ontario

employment to several hundred men for several weeks longer; it would be proposed, at the same unit cost, to continue that work. With respect to public works and similar undertakings, the government has considered no claims of that character at the moment, because I am bound to say as I think my hon. friend will agree, that the estimates passed last session were very generous in their appropriation of public moneys, and we are endeavouring to see that those moneys are expended with a view to providing employment.
This statement of the Prime Minister would seem to me to be a direct contradiction of the policy laid down by the Minister of Public Works. I am sorry the right hon. gentleman is not in the chamber; if he were I would ask him why he allowed the Minister of Public Works to make that statement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not make a statement.


Charles Gavan Power: I would ask the Prime Minister Why he allowed the Minister of Public Works to give the committee the impression this afternoon that none cef these moneys were being expended primarily for the purpose of unemployment. Now we find that his leader has laid down that not only were the moneys which were voted last year for public works to be expended, but we were to get something more out of the $20,000,000. That is the situation which the Prime Minister outlined to us at the special session. He said: If there is not enough money left out of the appropriation made in the main session of 1930, we will give you more out of the $20,000,000. Instead of following that policy the hon. minister now says: I am going to save that money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, he did not say so.


Charles Gavan Power: He said: In the province of Quebec I will spend $1,500,000 less; in Nova Scotia, so much less; in New Brunswick, so much less; in Prince Edward Island, so much less, and in Manitoba, so much less. As a matter of fact his leader laid down the principle that the first moneys to be expended out of that $20,000,000 were to be applied to continue the erection of public works which were then being undertaken. It seems to me that there is a decided difference between the policies of the right hon. Prime Minister and his Minister of Public Works. In a way I am glad the Prime Minister is not here, because with his usual politeness-may I say?- he might tell the minister that it would have been better for him not to have made the statement which he has made this afternoon. The Prime Minister might have said it more

harshly. In all sincerity I suggest to the minister that he discuss this matter fully with his leader and that he get his leader's assent to any statement he may make in the house. Otherwise when his leader reads Hansard-


Mr. SPENCE:: You are going too far, and you know it.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend gives me credit for more generosity than I possess.


James Houston Spence: You are just putting on a show.


Charles Gavan Power: I had the honour and the pleasure of listening to my hon. friend for many years when I was on the other side of the house, and much as I appreciate the courtesy he has always shown us, I think I may remind him that I never have been lacking in courtesy to members on his side. I may tell him that if I stress this matter with the Minister of Public Works it is because the country wants to know just where we are getting. Time and again in this house policies are announced, or it is said that we are going to have an announcement of policy, or there is a splurge in the newspapers, then Humpty Dumipty marches up the hill-only to march down again. That is the situation we have confronting us, and we are spending less on unemployment to-day than under any other administration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
my hon. friend has quoted from Hansard, and quoted quite correctly; but the Prime Minister did not intend to, and did not do, more than indicate possible lines of expenditure for this money. If my hon. friend will look at the statute he will find tt is provided that the money shall be disposed of by order in council in such way as may be directed. So there was no absolute or definite commission to expend any part of this $20,000,000 on public works as such.


Charles Gavan Power: Does my hon. friend mean to insinuate that his leader was not definite on anything?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of course not. As my hon. friend knows, the Prime Minister is very definite and quite able to take care of himself. But if my hon. friend will follow the statute through, he will find that to be the fact, that that was simply an indication of how the money might be used. Subsequently a policy was evolved, and I believe the orders in council asked for have been laid on the table showing the lines on which

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
these expenditures were made. As is now pretty generally understood, they were made in cooperation with the provinces and the municipalities. In that way a larger sum was secured for the relief of unemployment than could have been provided through the expenditures of the whole $20,000,000 on public works. If any different policy from that suggested was adopted, it was because circumstances fully warranted the change, and because the policy finally adopted was better in the public interest, and, as was calculated, has resulted in giving a very much larger measure of relief to unemployment than could have been possible by the method referred to by my hon. friend.


Peter John Veniot: May I ask the minister if
the amount voted in the winter session of 1930 had been expended, would not that have increased the amount provided for unemployment? Did not the Prime Minister by his statement in September give the house and the country to understand that if the money voted in the winter session of 1930 had not been voted, it would have been necessary to vote even more than $20,000,000 for unemployment relief? That is the point which I wish cleared up. We voted the money in 1930 for certain public works. At the time we were discussing in the house the unemployment situation, and the intention of the government of that day in voting the money was to carry on as rapidly as possible the proposed public works to provide employment. The general election takes place, the government of the day is defeated, a new government comes into power, a special session is called in September, and in order to relieve the unemployment situation the Prime Minister states to this house that in addition to the money already voted by parliament it is necessary to vote $20,000,000. That having been done, why hold back the expenditure of the $20,000,000 and give as a reason, as the minister himself has given with respect to certain cases in my county, that the holding back was in consequence of lack of revenue? It was clearly pointed out to the minister by myself personally, and by various letters that, he received, that the situation existing in that counity was such that the people were practically on the verge of starvation. The necessary expenditure had been authorized by parliament, tenders had been called for, the minister himself recommending that the lowest tender be accepted at a figure of $6,000 less than the cost of the work as estimated by the engineers of the department. After receiving appeal upon appeal the minister's heart was softened, he went to council to recommend
that this work be carried out. Yet in the face of those apeals and of the recommendation of the minister himself-I give him credit for his change of heart-the necessary work was cancelled and the people were left almost on the verge of starvation. All that was expended in that district out of the share of the $20,000,000 allotted to New Brunswick -expended on the recommendation of the provincial government-was the small sum of betwen $250 and $300. Now, I take it that in the winter of 1930 money having been voted for these public works, the present Prime Minister having stood up in this house in September and said that in addition to all that money it was necessary to vote $20,000,000 to relieve unemployment, surely there was no reason why these public works should not have been proceeded with even in the middle of winter.


Mr. BERTRAND:: I notice an item for alterations to fittings in the public building at Hawkesbury. What is the nature of the alterations?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is an item
of $1,500 to provide for alterations to the screen and fittings in the post office at Hawkesbury, as requested by the deputy postmaster general.


Peter John Veniot: It is quite necessary.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I wonder if the minister is aware that this was an extension to the post office building in Hawkesbury and consequently there will need to be some alteration of the fittings. When these alterations are made it will be necessary to have a regular cleaning up of the post office, including new paint, because it looks very bad at the present time. I quite approve of the alterations which are to be made and I would ask the minister to have this building cleaned up. I was in the cellar of that building recently, and from the top to the cellar it is in a very bad state. It should be cleaned up in the interests of public health and for many other reasons. I hope the minister will give this question his kind consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
to my hon. friend that expenditures of this kind are made from the general fund for maintenance of buildings. The condition of this post office will be investigated and needed repairs will be made.


Mr. DONNELLY:: In this list of appropriations and expenditures with which the minister has furnished us for 1930-31, referring to vote 185 for Ontario, I see that the difference between the appropriations and the ex-

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
penditures is 1332,962. When I refer to the estimates I find at the bottom of the column the words "appropriations not required,' and the amount is 8539.450. Will the minister kindly explain the difference in those figures.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These are cases
where votes are made for a certain amount and it is found that the full amount is not required or is not expended, and it lapses.


Mr DONNELLY:: But why the difference in the figures? These two sets of figures refer to the same thing, so why should there be a difference of 8200,000 ?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a matter covering a great many details and a great many cases.


James J. Donnelly: I cannot see the reason for the difference. Here we have a list of the appropriations and expenditures, the difference being that part of the appropriations which was not required, which is given as some 5332.000. In the other case the amount of $539900 is given for the same thing. Why should there be any difference?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend would ask for any particular appropriation I could give him the details and the amount.


James J. Donnelly: You give us the whole list here, under vote 186 covering Ontario, and at the bottom you say, "appropriations not required, 8539.450." Now I take up this statement which was handed us and I hnd that under vote 186. for the province of Ontario 82,616,323.95 was appropriated, of which we are told $2,283,361.92 was expended, leaving a difference of approximately 8332,000 I am asking only for the reason for the difference between the two sets of figures.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The difference
arises from several causes. In some cases the work is started and not completed, while in others the amount required is less than the amount voted, and the difference lapses.


James J. Donnelly: I fully realize that, but I am asking the reason for the difference between these two sets of figures, which are lor the same year and are supposed to cover the same thing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not the
same thing, the difference being that we have an appropriation one year and we complete the work the following year.


Mr. RUTHERFORD:: Looking over the
estimates for public buildings in Ontario I see the town of Wallaceburg has been overlooked. Last session $20,000 was voted for a public building at this point and tenders

were called for last September. There is no doubt that Wallaceburg had its share of unemployment, and I think it would have been of great advantage to the town if work had been proceeded with in connection with that building. I should like to know why nothing has been done and why there is nothing in the estimates this year for this building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The plans for
this building were prepared by an outside architect.


James Warren Rutherford: Pardon me, but the plans were prepared by an architect in Chatham, not an architect outside the county of Kent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I meant an
architect outside the department; the plans were prepared by a local architect. There was some more or less serious objection raised to the plans after the matter was submitted for consideration, and further representations were made to the effect that the building was not adequate, so other plans had to be prepared.


James Warren Rutherford: I understand that
the people of Wallaceburg were perfectly satisfied with the plans, but that apparently when the tenders were opened they were not satisfied with the man who was supposed to receive the contract. Then certain objections were raised to the plans; they wanted two doors instead of one, which was simply an excuse to delay the construction of the building. I should like to know why that construction was not proceeded with.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The objections
to the plan were very much more extensive than my hon. friend suggests. With reference to the contractor I can only say that it is the policy of the Department of Public Works to accept the lowest tender, and that policy is rigidly adhered to.


James Warren Rutherford: Why was not the
lowest tender accepted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have given
my hon. friend the reasons; it was because of certain objections to the plans. It was suggested that there should be radical changes made in the construction of the building.


James Warren Rutherford: Then after those
radical changes were made why was not an appropriation put in the estimates for this year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A great many
demands have been made for the inclusion of amounts in the estimates to provide for public buildings. We have not been able to meet all those demands this year.

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


James Warren Rutherford: If I understand the matter correctly, departmental architects prepared the plans and everything was perfectly satisfactory. I should like to know who objected to the proposed design of the building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The plans were
not prepared by our department. They were prepared by an outside architect, as I have said. I do not know just where he resides. My hon. friend's opponent took very serious objection to these plans.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friend why a verandah was not built on the Riviere du Loup post office? Tenders were called for and submitted, and it was only a small expenditure of $200 or $300.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not
know the facts about that small item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would my hon. friend be
good enough to produce the correspondence dealing with the matter?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sure there
is no correspondence, but I will look it up.


James Warren Rutherford: Would the minister have any objection to producing the statement of the gentleman who objected to the plans for the Wallaceburg public building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no
written report.


James Warren Rutherford: I should like to see all the correspondence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The correspondence is on file and there is no objection to producing it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I see the sum of $4,000 for a site at Thorold. Has that site been purchased?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; this is an appropriation with a view to acquiring a site.


Frederick George Sanderson: In whose constituency is Thorold situated?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the constituency of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit).


James Warren Rutherford: Will the minister let me have, after eight o'clock, the correspondence for which I asked?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If I can; if not, I will produce it, If my hon. friend will come to the office I will show him everything I have in connection with the matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: The item of $25,000 for Parry Sound is for a public building. This is an entirely new building. Is there a public building there now, and is this an addition?


Mr. ARTHURS:: As the member for Parry Sound, perhaps I may answer the question. A building was proposed for Parry Sound. Plans and specifications were prepared and a sufficient vote provided in 1912-13. The advent of the war stopped the construction of the building. Parry Sound, as my hon. friend knows, is a very important town.


Frederick George Sanderson: I take my hon. friend's word for it; I have never been there.


James Arthurs: It has a very large postal revenue, amounting to more than that of some cities. It has a very large customs receipt, sometimes approximating a million dollars, the average being well up to the half million mark. It is also headquarters for the Marine department for the great lakes, and it has an Indian agency. The building is to accommodate all these services. The site has been purchased and owned by the government for some years.


Frederick George Sanderson: When was the site purchased?


James Arthurs: In 1913.


James Warren Rutherford: Why is this new vote put in for Parry Sound?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. White, London):: When the committee rose we were considering the resolution with regard to the Ontario public buildings.


James Warren Rutherford: Would the minister be kind enough to give me the correspondence I asked for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the correspondence here this evening, but I assure my hon. friend it will be available.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Buildings-Manitoba
Deloraine-public building

under contract, $13,500.	....
Dominion public buildings-improvements, reparis, etc., $30,000.
Neepawa public building-improvements to fittings, $1,200.
Oak Lake-public building-under contract, $12,000.
The Pas-public building, $25,000.-Total, $81,700.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Mr. Chairman, before this resolution carries I desire to make a few observations. At the last session of the last parliament an item was placed in the estimates for the construction of a post office at Dominion City, Manitoba, in my constituency. Up to the present time this building has not been constructed. In order to obtain some information in connection therewith, I wrote a letter the other day to the hon. Minister of Public Works as follows:
Dear Sir:
At the last session of the previous parliament an amount of $12,000 was voted for the construction of a post office building at Dominion City. Manitoba. Tenders were called and closed on the 15th August. I understand that three tenders were submitted at figures much below the estimates passed, up to the nresent and no work has started.
Would you be kind enough to give me the reason which caused your department to ignore the will of parliament.
I received from the minister the following reply, dated April 24:
Dear Mr. Beaubien:
I have your letter of the 22nd instant, with reference to a post office building in Dominion City, Man.
At the time the matter of awarding the contract was under consideration, a careful review of the financial situation disclosed that the revenues were decreasing, and as buildings of this character are erected out of revenue, it was felt that circumstances at the time did not warrant the government in proceeding with the construction of this building.
As you know, revenues have not increased, and under the circumstances, it is not thought that the public interest would be seriously prejudiced by the erection of this building not being proceeded with. The small revenue from the office, namely about $1,300 would not appear to warrant an expenditure on the construction of a public building at Dominion City at the present time.
It may be true that the revenues from this office are not very large, but the postal business is being carried on in a store and every hon. member knows the inconveneince of a post office being conducted in a general store. It seems to me that the all-important question in regard to the expenditure of public money is that the will of parliament be snpreme. At the last session of the last parliament the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) introduced an item of $12,000 for the construction of this public building. The item was placed in the estimates because of the representations which had been made to him with regard to the inconvenience resulting from this post office being in a general store. No other building was available in the town for post office purposes. The estimates were brought down, the item was passed in

committee of the whole, the present Minister of Public Works, then in opposition, as well as other hon. members in opposition, allowing the item to pass. I see no reason why the will of parliament should not take precedence over every other consideration. The Prime Minister in nearly every speech he has made has advocated that our parliamentary institutions be respected and that the will of parliament be supreme. But how can we respect the parliament of Canada if an item passed unanimously by the house, advertised in the newspapers all over the country, is disregarded, the new Minister of Public Works -I do not accuse the hon. minister of any unfairness; far be it from such-claiming as an excuse that the revenues of the country are decreasing and therefore this work should not be gone on with. During the special session of parliament I urged that this building should be constructed. I was told by the minister that the matter was under consideration. When I returned home after prorogation, in answer to telegrams sent to the department I was told that the matter was still under consideration. The representatives of that municipality came to me and asked me when I expected the contract would be let. May I point out that the tenders were called for and came in by the 15th of August, and that those tenders were below the estimated cost of the department? Three tenders were submitted, one at $6,925, another at $7,133, and another at $8,3S6. I know nothing about the politics of the tenderers; it makes no difference whether they were Conservative, Liberals, Progressives or anything else. But I do know that the tenders were far below the estimated cost of the department. That being so, and the proposed expenditure being only small, I can see no reason why it should not have been made.
We from the west sitting in this house had to pass in the last days of March or early in April a vote of $2,000,000 for work done on the Welland canal, which had not been authorized by parliament, work which the Prime Minister first said was authorized by order in council, but in respect of which in the evening he said there was no order in council. The Minister of Railways and Canals, on that occasion said that that expenditure was authorized on account of the unemployment situation that existed at that time, as well as the favourable weather conditions, in order to help the unemployed. How did this government treat different parts of Canada in the matter of providing employment? The representative of the muni-

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
cipality I have been speaking of sent a telegram to the Minister of Public Works, dated September 25, 1930, as follows:
Hon. H. A. Stewart,
Minister of Public Works,
Ottawa.
The council of the municipality of Franklin strongly urge the immediate letting of a contract for post office building in Dominion City.
Would greatly relieve the unemployment
situation.
John R. Witty,
Secretary-Treasurer, Municipality of Franklin.
The Minister of Public Works knows, as does every member of the house, that in these small communities there are always from twenty-five to thirty young men, some of them married, who go out and work on the farm during the spring and for whom there is no work in the fall after farming operations have ceased. They cannot go into the city and get relief of any kind because most of the cities have regulations regarding residents with which people from outside cannot comply. I would forgive the minister and the government for their negligence or- shall I say?-for overlooking certain constituencies and certain parts of Canada if the minister would promise me that in the supplementary estimates an amount will be provided for the construction of this post office. I will sit down to allow the minister to give me an answer.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Before the minister makes any such promises as that-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is the hon. member
answering for the minister?


James Dew Chaplin: No, I am not.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then I am going to go
on, and you can talk after I am through.


James Dew Chaplin: You sat down.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: You cannot speak in
my time. Afterwards you can have all the time you want.


James Dew Chaplin: I understood, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. member was through. He sat down.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am not through. I
said that I would sit down for the minister to give me an answer, and if he will answer me I will sit down now.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will not take very long to answer the question. I cannot promise the hon. gentleman or any other hon. member of this house that any item will appear in the supplementary estimates.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the minister take
it into consideration?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, certainly.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Serious consideration?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Very serious consideration.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In order'that the minister may give it very serious consideration, I am going to present a few more arguments in favour of this post office. I took very good care at the special session of parliament to ask a question with regard to public moneys which had been voted by the last parliament and earmarked for certain public works. We were discussing the $20,000,000 grant for unemployment relief, and I asked this question, which will be found at page 160 of Hansard of September 12, 1930:
Mr. Beaubien: Under clause 2 of this bill we are giving the governor in council the right to expend $20,000,000 without knowing where or how that money is to be expended. 1 understand that this sum is for the relief ol unemployment. In view of the fact that certain moneys were voted during the last session of parliament, earmarked for certain public works, is it the intention of the government to go on with those works which were designated in the estimates passed unanimously last year, with a view to relieving unemployment that may exist in the smaller communities, where any unemployment that exists is not given so much prominence in the press?
The Prime Minister, after answering certain questions that had been asked by the hon. member for Quebec East, replied to my question as follows:
Apart altogether from the question by my hon. friend who has just taken his seat (Mr. Beaubien) as to public building undertakings, with respect to those, the details, or shall I say?

particulars of general expenditure were given for the purpose of meeting that situation if it arises.
He goes on:
So far as I am concerned, I hope the expenditures federally will be as little as possible in that regard, but it -well may be that with the necessity' and opportunity combining-that is, the necessity for something being done and this providing the opportunity to enable it to be done-it is in the public interest that it should be done now rather than ten or twelve months later. This affords an opportunity of calling for tenders, drawing plans and letting the contracts for doing the work. That is all.
Then comes this paragraph, to which I wish to direct particular attention:
So far as those undertakings that are covered by the estimates of the present year are concerned. they are constantly engaging the attention of the government. As the former Min-

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
ister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) has saict, contracts are being let frequently-you saw three or four yesterday-and certainly between July 28 and August 7 many contracts were made by the outgoing government; the date for the expiry of the tenders having arrived between July 28 and August 7, contracts were let by the administration in the ordinary course of business in order that work might go forward and employment be provided.
That is what the Minister of Public Works in the late government did; that is the course which the late government took. The Prime Minister went on to say:
I take it that was the purpose of the late government in doing that. So in respect to these undertakings they will be advertised and carried forward as public works under the provisions of the law.
So the Prime Minister himself there distinctly said, if I put the right construction on his words, that the money that was voted and earmarked for certain public works by the last parliament would be expended just as fast as tenders could be called for and contracts let.
I come back to the telegram which was sent by the secretary treasurer of the municipality. If I am misinformed I hope the Minister of Public Works will correct me, because I notice his deputy is sitting in front of him. May I say at this point that I have every admiration for the officials of the Department of Public Works. They are very courteous and if a man is at all reasonable in his demands they are always ready to do everything in their power to give service. I think I' have always been reasonable. I am informed that no reply was received to the telegram sent by this secretary treasurer, who was authorized by his council and who knew the local situation. I do not think it is fair to treat any public body in that manner. If I am wrong in my statement I would ask the minister to correct me. If the minister will say it was answered I do not wish to proceed further.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot answer my hon. friend without having the file before me. However I assure him that we in the department are particularly careful to answer every communication received.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: My information may be wrong, but that is the word I received before the opening of this session from the secretary-treasurer of the municipality. It seems to me that we are leaving our institutions open to criticism and to the possibility of their losing the respect they should at all times command. I repeat, and it cannot be repeated too often, that the will of the last parliament was expressed to the effect that this building

should be constructed at the point I have mentioned, that was not done. The question of reduced revenues, and of expenditure being made out of revenue, is no answer; it is not even an excuse. When the Minister of Public Works sat on this side of the house he knew that the revenues were decreasing. He could learn that from the reports issued by the audit department; he could see it in the reduction of customs and excise collections in the Department of National Revenue. He knew that railway company revenues were decreasing, and everybody knew that by the end of the year there would be a considerable reduction in receipts. At the same time this amount was voted and was not expended.
During the last election campaign what was the cry of the Conservative candidates in the ffrovince of Manitoba? I do not know whether all used the same expressions in regard to the late government of the Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King, but I know some of them said "What is the use of sending this man back to Ottawa? He has been there for a good many years, yet Manitoba has received very little money for expenditure on public works". What is the difference today? In the last session of the last parliament $382,600 was voted for the province of Manitoba.


An hon. MEMBER:: There was an election coming on.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It does not matter
whether there was an election or not. It was the will of parliament that that amount of money should be voted, and I wonder why my hon. friends who were then on this side of the house did not oppose the vote. Will the minister tell me why he did not oppose it? I have stated the accusation made against us in the province of Manitoba. In the present estimates $81,700 is allocated to the province of Manitoba to be spent during the coming year. I wonder how my hon friends from Manitoba sitting on the other side of the house can justify that.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Economy


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Economy?


Olof Hanson: Yes.


Mr. YENIOT:: There was no economy in
my county.
Mr. BEAL'BIEN:	Economy was not practised when $2,000,000 was authorized to be spent on the Welland canal.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is
an expenditure under a contract.

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


An hon. MEMBER:: Do not argue with
him.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Last year 8382,600 was
authorized and only $81,700 this year. Then what happened? Out of the $380,000 which was voted last year for public buildings, only $243,000 was spent, leaving a balance unspent of $131,000. For harbours and rivers $124,000 was voted, $93,000 was spent and $31,000 not spent. Again the will of parliament was not carried out.
Again, as compared with the province of Ontario the province of Manitoba was discriminated against. I make that statement and take the full responsibility for it. I do not blame the minister, but there seems to be some kind of influence at work which has the effect of discriminating against certain provinces. But according to figures quoted to-day between $5,000,090 and $6,090,000 voted last year was not spent. At the same time a special session of parliament is called and hon. members are brought from the western provinces to Ottawa. What for? To vote $20,000,000 for the relief of unemployment. Well, would not the expenditure of $162,000 voted by the last parliament for the province of Manitoba have helped the unemployment situation? Manitoba received about $990,000 from the relief fund, and if it had received that $162,000 and was able to take care of the unemployment situation with the $900,000, it could have done it with $140,000 less than it did. The $20^000,000 voted by parliament to relieve unemployment caused the rural municipalities who could not afford it to borrow money and to continue in their public expenditures. It caused those municipalities to go into debt in order to comply with the regulations and make up their share of the $900,000 expenditures received by the province of Manitoba. At the same time there was money voted by parliament which would not have cost the municipalities one cent. In those localities the expenditure of this money would have relieved the unemployment situation and the municipalities would not have had to make further expenditures.
I have just about completed my remarks. It seems to me that the will of parliament has been thrown to one side. Members of parliament are being made the laughing stock of the country. One ministry goes out, another comes in, and work which was provided for by the preceding ministry is not proceeded with.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
my hon. friend started out with a wrong assumption. He is arguing on the wrong basis, and having so started the rest of his argument
is unsound. He says that because parliament votes a particular sum of money for a certain work it is obliged to carry out that work in the year stipulated. If my hon. friend will go through the estimates of past years he will find that that practice has never been followed, All that is meant by a vote of money in parliament is to place at the disposal of the government a certain sum to be used when the government finds it practicable to proceed with the work.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask a question
at this point?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What is the principle
of responsible government? When a minister presents an estimate before parliament it should be reasonable for us to assume that he has examined the situation and that he is convinced of the necessity of the expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let me assure the hon. gentleman that a minister submits his estimates in good faith and based always upon information that has been supplied to him. Sometimes that information is imperfect or incomplete, and a minister always has the right to review the situation in the light of subsequent developments. My hon. friend seems to suggest that this is the first time that votes have been inserted in the estimates and not expended.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I did not make that statement. The Prime Minister accused me of knowing nothing else but "last July," but I know something more than that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to make it perfectly clear that with respect to the expenditure of public money no course has been pursued by this government different from that pursued by any government that has preceded it. Let me call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that in the fiscal year 1929-30 there was an appropriation of over $30,000,000 but only $25,000,000 was expended; therefore the minister who preceded me did not use the appropriation to the extent of some $5,000,000. In the fiscal year 1928-29 he asked for and was voted $27,000,000 odd, and he spent only $20,000,000. So my hon. friend will see that, the same course has been pursued by other ministers.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am not accusing any previous administration at all.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why did you not
blame them?

1150	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I submit that the course I have taken is perfectly sound and sane. The mere fact that on certain information and at the request of members of parliament or others a certain sum is put in the estimates, does not obligate the government to make the expenditure under all circumstances. ' Let us get down to this particular case. Dominion City is a small, though no doubt an important place. My hon. friend has in season and out of season vigorously urged the claims of Dominion City, but, as he has said, the postal revenue is only about $1,300, and there are no other public services there that require accommodation. The postmaster's salary absorbs practically all the revenue. If we were to erect a post office building at even the small expenditure of $10,000 that he mentions-and I am sure that that would not suffice to complete the building and furnish it-we would have an annual expenditure for interest on capital outlay, maintenance and caretaker's wages, and with these added expenses there would be a substantial debit balance each year against that particular building.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Have all the public buildings a credit balance to-day?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not any doubt that there is a debit balance against several of them. But in the smaller places expenditures on public buildings for services that will show a deficit, are, in my opinion not warranted at this time. When revenues are abundant we may be able to overlook these local deficits, but I think my hon. friend will agree that any government with a sense of responsibility must take into consideration the prevailing conditions, the demand for public buildings, and all the other demands that are made upon it, and if it is to command the confidence of the people it must in large measure cut its coat according to the cloth. My hon. friend has again referred to the Welland canal. I submit there is no parallel between the two cases.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How much by way of dividend is the Welland canal paying to-day?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I hope the Welland canal will pay very substantial dividends to western Canada. There was no part of the Dominion louder in its demand for the construction of the Welland canal than western Canada.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I have no objection to the Welland canal.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A very substantial part of the motive behind the construction of the Welland canal was to get the western wheat to the seaboard as cheaply as possible. The Welland canal is a great public work upon which a very large expenditure has been made.. The continuation of such a great national undertaking is not at all comparable with the erection of a small post office building. The Welland canal had to be completed, and I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will agree that the government acted wisely and properly in continuing a great work, the completion of which is absolutely necessary from a national standpoint. Let me assure him again that there has been no discrimination, either on provincial or political lines; I do not know the political complexion of the tenderers or anything of that nature. In regard to relieving unemployment, as I said this afternoon, when you let a contract often you are disappointed in the amount of relief that is afforded local unemployment. We have had many complaints that a contractor has not considered local conditions, that he has brought men in from outside and has purchased his materials elsewhere. We have no control over a contractor in that regard. If we insist on his purchasing his materials locally, or employing local labour, he comes back with a claim for extras. I can assure my hon. friend that we will give his claim for a building at Dominion City careful consideration, but I really do not think it is warranted at the present time, and this is the only reason why it has not been proceeded with.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said the expenditure did relieve unemployment to some extent, but the results were often disappointing.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: 
Robert James Manion: In regard to the Welland Canal perhaps the hon. gentleman might be enlightened just a little. The Welland canal contracts were let, and the men were at work, under the old government. If the Welland canal work had stopped it would have meant throwing out of work two thousand employees who were carrying on at the time, which is a little different from a new contract. In addition to that, as my hon. friend has expressed it, the contractors were working at unit prices, and they could have carried on if they had chosen to do so. Most of them did so. So long as they were working on a unit contract they could carry on as long as they are willing to wait for their pay. In a sense we had no control over them, because

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
the contractors could have gone on and we would have had to pay them either by a supplementary estimate, as we did, or by a main estimate. Following the discussion of this matter some time ago I found that the late government sometimes followed that practice, and I do not criticize them for it. In connection with the Hudson Bay railway, at one time the contractors over-spent $1,700,000, which was not paid until the following year, exactly as we did in connection with the Welland canal. So it will be seen that this was in a different position from the matter to which my hon. friend has referred. We had the contract, and if the work had not been authorized it would have meant closing down all these activities. The work was on a unit basis, so we had practically no control over it.
May I point out another fact which the Minister of Public Works probably has pointed out, though I have not heard him do so today. The question has come up very often as to whether it would have been wiser for the Department of Public Works to go on and do a certain work or, in another way, use jpart of the $20,000,000 unemployment fund -voted at the last session of parliament. It Is worth remembering that if the Department of Public Works carries on a piece of work, we will say a $1,000,000 contract, the $1,000,000 Is spent and in some cases it gives a good deal *of employment. In other cases, however, it does not give so much employment. In dredging contracts, for example, it does not mean much in the way of employment, but in any event only $1,000,000 is spent. Under the $20,000,000 contract, the spending of $1,000,000 by the Dominion government brought about the expenditure of $3,000,000 in all, because the province added $1,000,000 and the municipality another $1,000,000. There was this added advantage, that the muuicipality which required assistance asked for it, because it had a lot of unemployment, and it undertook some public works such as sewers or sidewalks and contributed part of the cost, the balance being contributed by the province and the Dominion government, so there was a larger amount of work going on and a larger amount of money spent in the sections of the country needing unemployment relief, if they were willing to go forward and do their share, than otherwise might have been the case.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I am very glad the minister has given that explanation. When I went back home at Easter the newspapers had advertised the fact tljat $2,000,000 had been voted by parliament for the Welland canal.
{Mr. Manion.l
Some of the people seemed to be under the impression that this $2,000,000 was voted while other public works, the money for which had been voted previously, had not been carried forward. I think that is a bad impression to have going throughout the country, because the people feel they are being discriminated against and I do not blame them, because they do not know all the details. The only difference between the project about which I am talking, this small building in Dominion City, and the Welland canal, is that the people engaged on the Welland canal were already employed and were about to be thrown out of employment if this money had not been spent, while in the other case the people were already unemployed. That is the only difference.


Robert James Manion: Except that the municipality could have come forward and secured assistance for the construction of public works, in cooperation with the province and the Dominion.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I quite understand that, and this municipality did take a certain percentage of that relief fund, and had to make their own contribution to that work. They said to me, "An amount was voted by parliament and placed in the estimates for the construction of certain buildings here. Why should we have to borrow money to work in conjunction with this relief fund when there is public money already voted by the parliament of Canada?" Parliament at the special session voted $20,000,000 for unemployment. I do not object to that, but at the same time this amount was voted at the regular session and should have been expended. Most of these municipalities went into debt in order to take care of their unemployed under the $20,000,000 fund, in conjunction with the province and the Dominion government, while this money was voted and was not expended. Tenders had been called for; contracts were about ready to be let; plans and specifications were prepared, but nothing was done. There is a wrong impression among the people, and I think perhaps this discussion will clear it up in my riding at all events. However, the situation remains; money was voted by parliament during the regular session and was not expended, to the extent of $164,000 in Manitoba, yet we came back for the special session and voted still more money, which to my mind looks ridiculous.


Abraham Albert Heaps: These being Manitoba
estimates, I wish to say a word or two. The Minister of Public Works has just made the statement that he is opposed to the erection

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
of public buildings where the revenue is too small to pay interest charges on capital expenditure. With that principle I am in accord, and I hope he will continue to carry it out not merely with respect to this building now under construction but as regards all other buildings, irrespective of the part of the country in which they are located. I am, myself, opposed to the erection of public buildings merely for the sake of putting them up, and unless buildings have some utility and can show some return for expenditures involved, then in the long run the country will be better off without them. But there is another aspect of the question to be considered. From statements made this afternoon by the minister I am led to infer that there will be certain other sums of money proposed to the house as a means of relieving in some way the unemployment situation. I am led to believe that from what the minister has said.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not make any such statement as that. It may be an inference my hon. friend is drawing-


Abraham Albert Heaps: I said so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and he can draw any inferences he likes.	But that is not
warranted by anything I said.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I so gathered, but I cannot see how the government can get out of it this session, even if they wanted to. However, I wish to distinguish between money voted by parliament for relief undertakings and money voted for government buildings. The voting of money by this house implies almost immediately that the provincial and municipal authorities will contribute approximately an equal amount. In that case, let me point out that there are to-day many municipalities that are not in a position, in view of the money they have spent, to meet a situation of that character. But there is to-day, to my own knowledge, in Manitoba and elsewhere, urgent need for certain public buildings. They are essential, and it would be a good policy, a matter of economy on the part of the federal government., to provide in the estimates for proceeding with the erection of such buildings fortw'ith. No minister in this house can stand in his place and say that I have ever gone to his department and asked for a cent for my constituency. I have not done so and I do not intend to. I do not go round asking for public buildings just to show my constituency that I have been on the job, hammering away at the departments, in order to get some credit for myself. I believe in putting up buildings where they are essential, and I certainly believe that in Winnipeg, and in the province of Manitoba at large, there is need for such
buildings. The government might well proceed in that direction to relieve the unemployment situation. For example, an addition to the post office is long overdue. The quarters are cramped and they are unable to carry out the work in that efficient way which we have a right to expect. A site was purchased ten years ago and year after year we have waited for a vote of money to proceed with the erection of an addition to the post office. Had the government thought fit to proceed with that capital expenditure it would to-day, to a certain extent, relieve the situation in that district. Again, a new customs building is required, and if it is not put up this year it will have to be put next year or the year following. That is a federal undertaking in which the municipality is not expected to participate, and I submit that this is the time to proceed with the erection of that building. That is what I have been trying to impress upon the minister, and I hope that when the supplementary estimates are brought down he will again take into consideration the necessity for these buildings, not merely in Winnipeg but in every other part of Canada where the erection of buildings should be proceeded with, and where the work would help to relieve the unemployment situation. If we are to depend upon the municipalities to pay one third of the cost, some of these works will not be proceeded with. I repeat-because I cannot put it too strongly-that these works are essential; moreover, they would be productive. And it is only a question of putting them up now rather than later on, a few years hence. I trust that between now and the time the supplementary estimates are down the minister will have taken the matter further into consideration.


James Dew Chaplin: I did not intend to say anything in this debate, but I was somewhat apprehensive, when the hon. member for Provencher so strongly pressed him, that the minister might in his inexperience make him some promise. I agree with the hon. member for Provencher that when money is voted by parliament it has a right to be spent where it is voted; and having that in mind, I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that some years ago the gentlemen in his department advised the late government to build an addition to the post office at St. Catharines. And to the member for Provencher I will say that that vote appeared three times in the estimates.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How much was the vote?


James Dew Chaplin: I do not think that signifies; it was a matter of twenty or thirty thousand dollars. But it a question of
1154	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
principle. Now I have never asked them since to put that vote in, notwithstanding that it was needed. This was the report from the department. It was kept out by somebody, and not particularly in the public interest either.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Is it in this year?


James Dew Chaplin: No, it is not in this year;
I have never asked the minister to put it in either. I knew the circumstances, I knew the situation, and I would not ask him to put it in.


Paul Mercier: Why?


James Dew Chaplin: For the reason given, that we can wait for such things until conditions are better.


Mr. McINTOSH:: It may be a long time.


James Dew Chaplin: We may wait a long time, but my friend will wait longer.


Paul Mercier: How does the minister explain that there are so many other post office items in the estimates?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend from Provencher has one impression which is not quite correct, and that is, that some communications were sent asking that the building should not be proceeded with. Let me assure him that there were no such communications Every communication received has been along the line of urging the construction of the building. Friends of his and friends of ours and every other interest have all so represented. Then he spoke about a telegram which was not answered. I find that it was answered by a letter on a later date.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. member for Lincoln substantiated the remarks I made to the effect that public money voted should be spent in the place for which it is destined. He is right. I do not care what government was in power; if money was placed in the estimates for a public building in St. Catharines and voted by parliament, that work should have been proceeded wi.th. I have every sympathy with the hon. member; he and I are in agreement on that. The Minister of Public Works has spoken of falling revenues and the necessity for curtailing public expenditures, especially on public buildings, and he has been supported strongly by the hon. member for Lincoln. I see in the estimates for Manitoba the sum of $25,000 for The Pas, for a public building. I have no objection to a public building being constructed there; I think it is needed. But I do not think the minister because of falling revenues can justify the application of economy to one district and 
not to another. He claims that the drop in revenues has prevented his spending $6,500 in my district. The revenues have fallen much more since September 25, the last date I heard of this; yet we find an item of $25,000 in the estimates for The Pas. I repeat, I have no objection to that item; at the same time, I do not think the minister is consistent. If he is going to stop the construction of public buildings because of falling revenue, he should stop it all over the country and not in one part. There is another item for Oak Lake; that item is all right because the building is under construction, but if the excuse is offered that falling revenues will not permit the construction of buildings in one part of the country, the same should apply to other parts. I know that the revenue at The Pas is more than that of the town I speak of, but I do not think the difference in revenue *justifies an expenditure of $25,000 in one place and a refusal to construct a public building in the other.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The revenues at Dominion City would not be sufficient to pay for the cost of this building, in fact would not go beyond the bare maintenance of it. The postal revenue at The Pas is $25,526 and the custom revenue amounts to $301,207, yet they have no public building at that point. Surely my hon. friend will agree that the cases are different,


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I admitted that the
revenue is greater at The Pas than it is at the place I spoke of. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) claimed he was discriminated against in the case of St. Catharines.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is on the map.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I might be permitted to give a few words of enlightenment to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien). The post office at The Pas does more business in one month than the post office at Dominion City does in five years. The north country is growing continually and provision must be made for expansion. The mail for 10,000 people is handled through The Pas post office. The figures as to revenue have been given by the minister. The work of the customs department is done in a room 12 feet by 14 feet in the officer's private residence. In addition to that, we have an Indian office which administers about ten Indian reservations. We have mounted police stationed there and the officer is forced to use one of the rooms in his house for a cell. We have

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
been trying to get this public building for the last nine years and not successful simply because we did not have any representation in the house.
Mr. MoINTOSH: You had representation.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: We in the north did not have any representation in this house. The hon. member at that time, Mr. Bird, represented Swan River valley, not the northern part of his constituency. He was a very useful member to the government then in power.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, he was not; he was more of a Tory.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: He worked with
the government then in power, but did not procure anything for his constituency, even though he did vote inadvertently. I am quite satisfied that this item of $25,000 will no more than start this building. I for one will not be satisfied with merely $25,000 for a public building in The Pas.


An hon. MEMBER:: How much do you want?	.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: That is onlly enough for the basement or probably the first storey.
This afternoon the hon. member for Rimouski was complaining that the government was paying too much rent for a building in his constituency. I would like to draw the attention of the committee to the rent that has been paid for years for the present post office in The Pas. It is a building 30 feet by 40 feet which could not be called anything else but a rabbit hutch. The government has been paying $300 per month for that building, whiclj could not be rented to anybody else for $75. I feetl 9ure of my ground when I say that if that building were put under the hammer it would not sell for the amount of one year's rental. The hon. member for Rimouski is not the only one who has been affected by high rentals for buildings. I hope the minister proceeds to construct this building at the earliest possible moment, because there is no town in this Dominion which needs a public building as does The Pas.


An hon. MEMBER:: Where is that?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: When expenditures are mentioned for the north, hon. members hold up their hands in horror. That remark applies to hon. members on this side as well as on the other side of the chamber. Eastern and western members have been looking to
the south so long that they have developed an inferiority complex; if this country is going to develop they had better do an about-turn and look northward for a while.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I do not want the hon. member for Nelson to leave the impression that I am opposing this item. I have been at The Pas and I have some good friends there. I know it is a growing community; there are wonderful prospects for the northern country, and the eyes of Canada will more than ever turn in that direction. However, the hon. member has proved my point; he is on the right side of politics, therefore he is getting his building right now. He said that his predecessor in office could not get this building; he was not on the right side, but as soon as a member was on the right side, the vote was put in the estimates. I repeat again that if the minister is adopting in respect of certain ridings the principle that because of falling revenues he is prevented from carrying out public works for which the money was voted in a previous parliament, he should adopt the same principle for other ridings. Dominion City needs a public building, even if the revenue is one one-hundredth the revenue of The Pas. The people are entitled to proper accommodation, and there is no reason why they should not get it. I do not want the hon. member to create the impression that I am against the vote for The Pas, because I believe it is the coming city of western Canada.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Will the minister give us the particulars of the item for Dominion public buildings, $30,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is an item which appears from year to year to cover repairs, rentals and other incidental expenses in connection with all public buildings in Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Melville-Government's share of cost of local improvements, $1,050.
William Richard Motherwell: I was just wondering, Mr. Chairman, what this vast sum was for, whether it was for grading around the new post office or for fixing up the sidewalks.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount is to provide for the payment of the government's share of the cost of a concrete sidewalk on Fourth avenue, and of a sewer on Main street, fronting the Melville public building.
Supply-Public Works-Sask.


Mr MOTHERWELL:: That is what I
thought it was for. I was wondering if the government intends to finish the post office building. Reference to the contract and to the files and plans will indicate that provision was made for a tower clock. The building is finished except for that tower clock, which will involve a separate contract in itself, just as separate contracts are made for fixtures for the building. We are very proud of this building. It is a very creditable building for the purpose for which it was erected, but we do not like to see those three vacant places where the clock should be. If the clock is not put in. provision will have to be made for boarding up the opening to keep the weather out. I understand that the cost of the clock would be approximately SI,000. It may be said that in these hard times we should not spend $1,000 on a clock. Well, in that case, something else will have to be done to keep the weather out, and the new government will be advertised as not finishing a building that was started by the former government. I know that my hon. friend the minister does not want to be put in that position. The people of that thriving town are very desirous of having the work finished. If the minister will consult with his deputy he will find that the original plans called for a clock, and I feel satisfied that he will carry out the original plans.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The construction of this building has just been finished. Provision has been made for a clock, as the hon. gentleman said. This government desires to be up to the minute and on time-


An hon. MEMBER:: Daylight saving.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, and every
other kind of saving, but notwithstanding that, we shall endeavour to provide a clock for the hon. gentleman's building.


William Richard Motherwell: There is no provision for it in these estimates that I can see.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It can come out of the general vote if circumstances permit. We will take it into consideration.


William Richard Motherwell: Thank you. I will report that to the mayor and residents of the town of Melville.
With reference to the item "Appropriations not required for 1931-32," I notice that the amount being spent in Saskatchewan for public buildings this year is only one-sixth of what was spent last year, and I would like to have some explanation of that very substantial reduction. Considerable relief was

required in Saskatchewan out of the $20,000,000 voted at the special session, and if public buildings are looked upon as a means of providing relief why reduce the aggregate expenditure for public buildings in Saskatchewan this year to one-sixth the amount spent last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply I can
only repeat what I said this afternoon, that in the opinion of the government the construction of public buildings such as we hive now under consideration is not the most effective or the most desirable way of providing unemployment relief. It cannot be denied that it does in a measure afford relief for unemployment, but a specific appropriation of a specific amount at a particular place may not afford the relief that a fund not so earmarked would afford. For instance, we might be constructing a building where relief was not really necessary at all. The government has adopted the other policy, and I think it has worked well. We are endeavouring to keep within our revenues because our expenditures are made from the revenues. I think my hon. friend will appreciate the importance of a government having some regard to the amount of the revenue at its disposal and endeavouring to balance its budget and keep its expenditure within reasonable limits. That is why we are reducing this expenditure.


William Richard Motherwell: I think that governments, like people, should keep within their revenues if at all possible. I quite appreciate that and approve of it, but I wish to point out that a similar reduction is not to be found in the expenditure for public buildings in the other provinces. In the main, I think my hon. friend is quite right, that perhaps this is not the best possible way of giving relief, but still it is one way. The vote for Saskatchewan this year is just one-sixth of what it was the year before, and I cannot understand why that should be so with regard to Saskatchewan and not with regard to the other provinces. I am not suggesting that it is being done for political purposes, because after all the parties in Saskatchewan are about equal in strength at the present moment, so it must be for some ether reason than that. I do not know what the reason is. There does not seem to be any particular basis for such a substantial reduction in Saskatchewan as compared with other eastern provinces.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot add
anything to the explanation which I have made so often during this discussion as to

Supply-Public Works-Sask.
the reasons for these reductions. My hon friend asked as to the appropriations not required. The appropriation for Saskatchewan was 8609,500, and the expenditure was 8537,323. Certain buildings were not completed, and one or two others were not undertaken. The details are as follows:
PUBLIC BUILDINGS Saskatchewan
Appropriations-Expenditure-Remarks
Yorkton public building-addition, $3,000; $1,650.40; completed.
Wilkie-public building, $40,000; $37,780.77; completed.
Saskatoon-public building, $445,000; $105,583.14: completed.
North Battleford - immigration building, $30,000; $26,132.37: completed.
Indian Head-forestry building-addition, $8,000; $7,199.42; completed.
Melville-public building, $31,000; $31,000; completed.
Biggar-public building, $10,000; nil; not undertaken.
Canora-public building, $20,000; $17,765.69; completed.
Areola-public building, $12,000; $158.29; not undertaken.


William Richard Motherwell: All right.


James J. Donnelly: I agree with the minister that the erection of public buildings does relieve unemployment. It may not be the best method of relief, but to a certain extent it does help. I agree also with the hon. member for North Winnipeg, that public buildings should be built only where they are needed. In a growing and young country such as Saskatchewan many public buildings are needed. I can state that in every constituency in Saskatchewan public buildings are required. Looking through the estimates one thing impressed me more than anything else. I have sat in this house for the last four or five weeks and have heard people talk about a depression existing in this country. The people who talked most about the depression were the farmers from the western prairies, and more particularly from Saskatchewan. There is more talk about unemployment and depression in western Canada than anywhere else. Bearing that in mind I would ask hon. members to look at the estimates for public buildings. We find that moneys are not to be expended where they should be; public buildings are not to be located where they should be located. In the year 1930, 8302,000 was voted for public buildings in Nova Scotia; this year the figure is $261,000, a reduction of 15 per cent. In New Brunswick there was an appropriation of 881,125 last year, and this year it is 8175.900, an increase of nearly 100 per cent. Then we come to the province of Quebec, for which last year the appropriation was $1,509,695, while this year it is $1,076,900, a decrease
of 30 per cent. Last year the figure foi Ontario was $2,616,323.95; this year it is $1,379,400, a decrease of about 50 per cent. Now we come to the western provinces, where we hear of hard times and depression. Last year $382i600 was voted for public buildings for Manitoba; this year the amount is only $81,100, a decrease of 80 per cent. That decrease occurs where there is unemployment and extreme depression.


James Houston Spence: There was too much voted last year.


William Richard Motherwell: That is a decrease of more than 80 per cent; it is about 300 per cent.


James J. Donnelly: Well, I did not figure
it out very closely. Then we come to the province of Saskatchewan, and we find that last year $1,010,500 was voted; this year the amount is $176,050.


William Richard Motherwell: That is about one-sixth.


James J. Donnelly: That is a decrease of 80 per cent, or a little more. In that province there is more unemployment than in any other spot in Canada. For Alberta the amount last year was $1,676,000; this year it is $521,000. Again there is a reduction of at least 70 per cent. For British Columbia the amount was $203,300 last year and it is only $81,000 this year. In other words, where unemployment is greatest we find the least money being expended by this government to help unemployment conditions. I think I may state frankly that in my constituency there is more depression than in any other part of western Canada. During the past election campaign my Conservative opponent stated on numerous occasions "If I am elected the Conservative government will build a post office at Assini-boia." Undoubtedly a post office was needed at that point. I ask this government: when are you going to build it? I would like to see it, but I do not see anything in the estimates to provide for such a building. The construction of a post office building will undoubtedly help the unemployment problem in that vicinity. For two years there has been no crop and there is no sign of a crop this year. The people are not sowing their seeds; they cannot sow. The wind is blowing; the land is drying out, and there is no chance of getting their seed back. Those people are looking for relief, and some measure of assistance will have to be given them. Why not erect a public building which is very much needed and give them relief in that way?
Supply-Public W.orks-Sask.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree with my hon. friend that the need for public buildings throughout the Dominion of Canada is very great indeed. Demands are numerous, pressing and urgent. If my hon. friend but knew the total moneys required he would realize how severe the pressure is. The department is endeavouring gradually to overtake the demands for public buildings and as a result year by year the amounts expended are increasing. In the year 1922 the total amount expended was only 814,000,000; in 1923 it was
816.000.	000. I am giving round figures. In 1924-25 the figure was 818,000,000. In 1925-26 it amounted to $17,000,000. In 1926-27 it was $13,000,000. In 1927-28 it was 817,000,000; in 1928-29 it was $20,000 000; in 1929-30 it was
825.000.	000 and in 1930-31 it was $32,000,000. Hon. members will observe that the expenditure is progressing all the time, and the department is endeavouring to overtake the requirements.
Let me suggest to my hon. friend that very little is gained by comparing the expenditure of different provinces in any particular years. Very heavy expenditures may be incurred in a given year in a particular province becatise certain large buildings are under construction. As an example maj' I point out that last year in the city of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, a building was completed at a cost of $750,000. Another building costing $2.50,000 was erected in Regina. Expenditures such as those throw comparisons out of balance. Very little can be deduced by comparing one year with another without due consideration to the work under construction. It will be found that from year to year there are discrepancies in expenditures owing to large undertakings in particular localities.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, I was
somewhat impressed by the appeal made by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stitt) with regard to the northern portions of western Canada, I represent in this house a riding in the northern part of Saskatchewan, and while I have no complaint to make of the development of that portion of the province during the last five or ten years and no complaint in connection with the erection of public buildings necessary to promote that development, yet when the items for Saskatchewan are under consideration I hope the minister will listen to the appeals made with regard to the northern portion not only of Saskatchewan but also of Manitoba, Alberta, and British Columbia. So far as the middle west is concerned, I would say that the portion of country running in a northwesterly direction

after you leave Saskatoon and cross the North Saskatchewan river is the coming portion of that part of the Dominion. There can be no question that that country has all the possibilities of a great future. There is water power, lumber, timber; there are wheat areas and mixed farming areas. Hon. members know what that means. We know that when there is an impetus given to the building up of this great Dominion, the northland more than ever must come into its own, depression or no depression. Therefore I urge that that part of Canada be given the necessary facilities in the way of post offices and other public buildings, for it is vitally important for the minister in charge of the Department of Public Works to be at all times on the alert in helping forward the development of the great northern areas of the western provinces. Personally I believe the hon. minister will do his best in this respect.
During the discussion on the omission of an appropriation for a post office building in Dominion City, in the riding of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beaubien) I understood the minister to say that the demand for the building of the Welland canal came largely from western Canada. May I tell him that I think he is not quite correct. True, the demand came from the west in the sense that it came from the southern parts of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but the northern and middle portions of the three western provinces were not greatly concerned about the. undertaking. I admit that they did not knock the proposition, but this was because they regarded it from a national standpoint-as all great public undertakings should be regarded-and to-day they ask the rest of Canada to be nationally minded with regard to the completion of the Hudson Bay route. We expect the terminal and other facilities at Churchill to be completed so that every chance may be given to demonstrate the feasibility of this great undertaking to provide for our products an outlet to the markets of the world. May I add that western Canada can always be depened upon to regard all national undertakings from a national viewpoint.
The hon. member for Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has drawn attention to the small appropriation for Saskatchewan of only $176,000 as compared with the appropriation last year of $1,000,000 odd, or a decrease of 80 per cent. In the case of Manitoba there is approximately a decrease in appropriation of 28 per cent. There is no doubt about the importance of undertaking public buildings in order to relieve unemployment. In this

*connection it is significant that Germany has decided to spend more money on public undertakings of a national character to do away with unemployment. I think this would be an equally sound course for Canada to take, for I believe if we appropriate funds for the erection of public buildings where they are really required, not only will the expenditure relieve unemployment, but it will help to build up our country as a whole. While the minister holds office-I am not sure how long that will be-
Some lion. MEMBERS: A long time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Well, whether short or long there is no question of the importance of being on the job in looking after the requirements of northern Saskatchewan, northern Alberta and northern Manitoba-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: And northern
British Columbia.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Yes, and northern British Columbia, with respect to public buildings in *order that the various federal services may be carried on efficiently and with proper consideration for the convenience of the public.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I beg to assure my hon. friend that in respect to northern British Columbia, northern Alberta, northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec, northern New Brunswick, northern Nova Scotia, northern Prince Edward Island-


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The whole north.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Right up to the
north pole.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That's the idea.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree with my hon. friend that if, standing here to-night, we could foresee just where unemployment is going to be acute next winter, and could appropriate public money to be spent in each particular place, we would be helping to relieve that impending condition. But, as he knows, we have to come to this house with a specific appropriation for a particular point, and that appropriation cannot be diverted to any other point, no matter how badly its expenditure is needed there, or how much more insistent the demand may be for it. The appropriation is earmarked and must be spent at the point specified. WTe have to be careful of the appropriations we ask for in view of the many demands that we are not able to meet. I think my hon. friend can recall an expenditure of about $25,000 that was made in his constituency last year. This was for an immigration hall, which now is not needed at all.
Supply-Public Works-Sask.


Mr. HANBURY:: Sell it to Dominion City.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The mounted
police are now asking permission to use it. So discretion must be exercised in making appropriations, and even using the best judgment mistakes may be made.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I do not
notice in these estimates an item of $12,000 that last year was voted for a public building at Areola, although the minister informed the hon. member for Melville.(Mr. Motherwell) that there were one or two buildings that would not be proceeded with. Why has he discriminated against the town of Areola? Areola is a divisional point on the Canadian Pacific Railway, the land titles office is located there, it is a judicial centre, and, in short, an important place. I quite appreciate what the hon. minister has said with regard to the necessity for economy, but this is only a small item of "$12,000. And let me refer again to the estimates for Ontario. I notice for Thorold, there is an appropriation of $4,000 for a site for a public building. Why should the department be buying a site for a public building at Thorold when in Areola the site has already been acquired and an appropriation made for the building in last year's estimates? Specifications were prepared and tenders called for the building. I should like the minister to tell roe why the building was not proceeded with. Perhaps the minister will also inform me who objected to the proposed expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 10.	W. H. McDiarmid. Regina, $32,887.
11.	Broders Ltd., Regina, $33,000.
So there we were with an appropriation of only $12,000, upon which my hon. friend thinks we should have entered into an obligation to spend $27,870. With the revenues as I have stated, we did not feel ourselves warranted in incurring that obligation.
Supply-Public Works-Sash.


Robert McKenzie: I never
anticipated, Mr. Chairman, that $12,000 would complete this building, and I do not think that was the intention of the former administration. We did estimate that it would probably cost between $25,000 and $30,000; that was what I believe was anticipated. Did the specifications that were sent out specify any particular amount which was to be expended? Was there any limit imposed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; specifications never give any information as to the amount of the government's estimate or what we expect the building will cost.


Robert McKenzie: What was the government's estimate?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry but
I.	have not that information.


Robert McKenzie: I do not want to repeat what has been said with regard to conditions generally, but the minister did say that if he could anticipate where the greatest relief would be needed next year with regard to the unemployment situation he would know better how to act. I can assure him that he will be perfectly safe in placing this $12,000 back in the estimates this year, because that was what we anticipated would be spent last year, and we thought the additional amount required would be voted this year. So far as the unemployment situation is concerned, I think the minister will be perfectly safe in placing $12,000 in the supplementary estimates to proceed with this building, since the site has been procured. The site was purchased at a very reasonable figure, I am sure; I believe it only cost about $200, if I am not mistaken, which cannot be called extravagant. The people out there are very anxious for the building; there is need of it, and I would ask the minister to consider placing this amount back in the estimates for this year in order that this $12,000 may be expended and the building started this year, *vhich would relieve the unemployment situation in that district.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The Minister of Public Works made a statement in connection with the new immigration hall at North Battle-ford. I am very glad he made that statement. As I watched him when he was making it I felt that he was very anxious to give r.he house that information, and I am very glad the house and the. country have received these details.
I might say, Mr. Chairman, that there was a new immigration hall built in North Battle-ford last year. North Battleford is one of the keys to the north country; Prince Albert is

another and Edmonton is still another. There was a new immigration hall built at Edmonton which cost, I believe, about $75,000, while the hall at North Battleford cost between $25,000 and $30,000. The immigration hall at Prince Albert was completed the year before, and cost between $30,000 and $40,000. What do these expenditures mean? These-immigration halls were undertaken largely because of the vision Canada had a few years ago with regard to a greater population. The war had built up a vast national debt, and the feeling had spread throughout the Dominion that we should have a greater population to bear that debt. Consequently not only the Conservative party but the Liberal party of the day felt that immigration was necessary. I am sure my hon. friend will remember the vision of immigration into this country given the house and the country a few years ago by the organizer for his own party, Mr. McRae. His proposition was that each year for ten years we should spend $30,000,000 on immigration, giving a total expenditure of $300,000,000. Can anyone wonder that when the party then in opposition, led by such men as the minister and the organizer of his party, went across Canada advocating greater immigration this vision was accepted and anticipated by these public buildings to accommodate those who were to come to this country?
I might say that personally I think the construction of that building in North Battleford was in order and I believe that every official of the Department of Public Works who knows anything about North Battleford and that north country will admit that fact. With regard to the old building I say to the-minister that it was a disgrace to Canada to-bring any mother or family from any part of the world for the purpose of settling in that north county and leave them overnight or for a week or more in that old building in North Battleford. That being the case certainly I set myself to do all I could to have a new immigration hall erected there, and I succeeded in having that building constructed. I believe the day is coming when, if we do not accept the vast scheme advocated by the Conservative party when in opposition in regard to immigration, at least we will need' a greater population, and we are going to-select that population from the best people outside of Canada. We have stopped immigration for the time being, but we have no proof that this is to be a permanent policy. It is only a temporary expedient, as the minister well knows. Consequently, when the time comes for immigration to flow into this country again that building, which is worth

Supply-Public Works-Sask.
the money which it cost any day in the year, will be there ready to take care of settlers going in to open up that vast northern hinterland, which will not only build up western Canada and start the flow of settlement northward in the western provinces, but which will also help to build up the entire country.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In answer to my hon. friend I wish to make it perfectly clear that I was not criticizing the construction of that building. I was simply pointing to it as an example of an expenditure of public money which, through a change of circumstances, is temporarily at least rendered unproductive and practically of no value. I do want to point out to my hon. friend, however, that while this building and the others he mentioned were being constructed, speeches were being delivered in this house against increased immigration into the provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I have heard hon. members get up one after another and say, "We do not need any more immigration; it should be restricted and curtailed," and I am sure my hon. friend will recall those speeches also.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does the minister suggest that this is the policy of the present Prime Minister?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no announcement to make with regard to the immigration policy of this government; that will come through the regular channels.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister says
speeches were made against immigration at that time. Does he say that was the policy of the present Prime Minister at that time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no statement to make in that connection.


James J. Donnelly: We all fully realize that there is great necessity for economy in Canada to-day because of our falling revenues, and I fully appreciate the position of the minister when he expresses the need for that economy. I do not wish to criticize the department in any way for the steps which have been taken along these lines. We must all fully realize also the great necessity for relieving unemployment, and the expenditure of $12,000 in connection with this building in Areola, to which reference has been made by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie), would have helped to relieve unemployment in that district. There is no doubt that unemployment is more rampant in the west than anywhere else, and when the minister draws
the line and says he cannot spend this money because it would probably mean the expenditure of $15,000 more, I would direct his attention to other places where, apparently forgetting economy, he is spending a good deal more. Take Fort William, for instance: we have an estimate of $50,000 there for a site for a public building. How much unemployment will that relieve? How many people will that put to work? The government is only buying land there, spending $50,000 for the purpose. Turn again to Thorold-$4,000 for a site there. To how many people will that give employment? Then look at Belleville; there we have an expenditure of $20,000, right in Ontario, just for a site or an addition to a site. I do not know how much land is going to be acquired, but it does not seem to be consistent that the government should spend money in these places where buildings are not going to be erected immediately, and neglect other places where construction could be proceeded with at once.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Circumstances
differ. There are times when it is good economy to buy land even if you are not going to use it for some time. I think my hon. friend will agree with that. As to Areola, I can only say that, with falling revenues and a very much larger expenditure than was provided for in the estimates, we did not feel warranted in proceeding.


Robert McKenzie: Regarding the minister's statement that the expenditures are larger than were anticipated, I do not think that is right. I know that last year the Minister of Public Works did not anticipate that $12,000 would complete the building, but it was considered that that was all it would be possible to spend that year, because it was August before the tenders were called for and $12,000 was all it was felt could be expended for the time being. The minister says further that the revenues do not warrant this expenditure. I should like to have a comparison -not that I am going to object to any other expenditures that have been made

between the revenues, on the one hand, in the town of Deloraine, Manitoba, where there has been an expenditure already of $33,000-we do not know whether that will complete the contract -and Watrous, in Saskatchewan, where $50,000 has been spent, and, on the other hand, the revenues derived from Areola. There is being spent in Watrous twice as much as we think would put up a proper building in Areola. Does the revenue in Watrous warrant an expenditure of $50,000, which probably by the time the building is completed will increase to $60,000?

Supply-Public Works-Sask.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
have not to-night the revenues of these different places. As to Watrous, we have not started any expenditures there yet. There has been a revote.


Robert McKenzie: Yes, some
$38,000. So that there has been no work done there yet. Has the site been purchased?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.
Mr McKENZIE (Assiniboia;:	Then why
does the minister proceed in Watrous when he has no site, and not go ahead in Areola where there is a site already purchased?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have not
proceeded with Watrous yet.


Robert McKenzie: Apparently by this vote the minister intends to.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: In my opinion the building of the post office at Watrous should be proceeded with. We have a very unusual condition there and one which muSu be met. Hon. members may know-if they do not, they will know it before many years have passed-that W atrous has come to be known as the Carlsbad of Canada. It is located on the shore of Little Manitou lake, which is the most heavily mineralized body of water on the continent. The result is that a new health resort has rapidly grown up there. Last year thousands of people flocked to Watrous to get the benefits of the iake. and this year the crowds will be greater than ever. These thousands of people, in a town already large, a divisional point on the Canadian National Railways, do require postal service, and in my opinion it is necessary that this building be proceeded with. We must take care of the business that is arising in our country. To-day, the government of Saskatchewan, realizing what is taking place in Watrous, is building a new provincial park and also a beautiful chalet., I am not saying this merely to secure the votes of hon. members, but I want to point out that this chalet is being built for a definite purpose and is being properly furnished in consideration of the value of Watrous to the people. This chalet will be a place which any prominent man, either in Canada or from any other part of the British Empire, might visit-a place fit for the Prince of Wales or any of our own cabinet ministers or members of parliament. There they will be the guests of the provincial government, on the shores of Little Manitou lake. I would invite hon. gentlemen to come out there.


Charles A. Stewart: Are federal members invited as well?


Walter Davy Cowan: Yes, I invite
you all to come.


Robert McKenzie: I had no
intention of objecting to the vote for Watrous; I simply wanted the minister to give me a comparison of revenues as between Areola and the other two places I mentioned. Will the minister furnish that information?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will endeavour to get the information and give it to the hon. gentleman.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I want to clear up one
point made by the minister. I understand his point of view very well. He is under the impression that the public building in North Battleford to which he referred-in fact he made the statement-is at the present time non-productive and of no value. I do not admit that for a moment, but if that is the case, then the policy of his own party made it non-productive and of no value. Consequently the minister and the party of which he is a member must bear that responsibility. Another point in this connection: when the minister makes a statement of that kind he is taking a distinctly short view of the matter. If he would take the long view, the view of a larger Canada, an expanding Dominion, ho would not make a statement of that kind. Again, the minister made the statement not long ago that land purchased for a publicbuilding in any centre in the west or in any other part of Canada was not a losing proposition: the department could hold it and later build on it. In his view, that was all right. If that is all right in the case of land bought by the department to be held for use later on, it must be all right in the case of land with a public building erected on it. There is no question about that. And the minister's own statement is to the effect that this building is as good as used departmentally at the present time. In that case it cannot be non-productive; it must be productive and of use to the government. It may not be 100 per cent productive, but just the same it is being put to use. I look forward, therefore, to the time when, with a new vision before Canada, with a new party in power, more than likely, there will be some of the' best people outside of Canada coming to this country to build it up, and when that takes place, which will not be very long in coming, this building in North Battleford will be used.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will say to my hon. friend that I have just as much faith in Canada as he has, and I have just as great a

Supply-Public Works-Sask.
vision of its future, but when he says that responsibility must be attributed to this government for present day conditions, then I differ with him. Canada began to slip long before this government came into office.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not intend that
statement to be taken to include conditions totally speaking; I was dealing with the immigration question and nothing else.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My answer is
quite as applicable to that phase as it is to the general conditions. My hon. friend has made the statement that it is not wise to purchase land and then hold it. That depends upon the circumstances in each particular case. I have a case in mind where an extension to a public building is absolutely essential. Adjoining that building are structures of a very inferior character, and the land can be acquired at a reasonable price. Those buildings are such that improvements must be made in order to produce revenue, and if the site is not procured at this time and new buildings are erected on it we will have to spend a much larger sum if it should be necessary in the future to expropriate in order to provide room for expansion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the hon. minister for his statement; I believe it is a very candid and fair statement, but I believe his statements hold true not only with regard to land purchased in the way mentioned, but also to public buildings erected thereon.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: With
regard to the item, "Saskatoon, old post office building, improvements, under contract, $12,500." the late government entered into a contract to remodel this building in order to create a palatial home for a young friend of theirs. Perhaps that is why some hon. gentlemen cannot get the money for the buildings they are talking about.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is that why there is a
revote for that amount?


Frank Roland MacMillan: The late
government entered into the contract.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What is the present
government going to do, carry out the contract?


Frank Roland MacMillan: Don't ask me that question, the hon. member's government did that.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The present government is introducing this item.


Frank Roland MacMillan: My hon
friend's government entered into the contract with Smith Brothers & Wilson Limited to
remodel the building. As yet it has not been vacated by the post office. They were going to move into a new building just completed, but the hon. member's government entered into that contract so that this young man could do business when other men in similar lines of business were forced to get their own capital.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the minister bring
down that contract? I would like very much to see it.


Mr. RALSTON:: Who is the gentleman for whom the palatial home was being provided?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount of $12,500 is required for improvements to the old post office building at Saskatoon in order to provide satisfactory accommodation for Messrs. Caswell's Limited who have rented the whole of the main portion of the first floor and part of the basement at an annual rental of $7,800 for a term of ten years. The improvements are being performed under contract by Smith Brothel's & Wilson Limited of Saskatoon for the sum of $10,700. The contract was awarded on August 6, 1930, just a day befofe the late government went out of office.


Olof Hanson: Were Smith
Brothers & Wilson the lowest tenderers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think so.


Olof Hanson: Was the late
government wrong in placing a contract with the lowest, tenderers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There were three tenderers and the lowest tenderer was Smith Brothers & Wilson. The tenders received were as follows:
Smith Brothers & Wilson Limited, Saskatoon, $10,700.^
A. W. Heise Company Limited, Saskatoon, $12,390.
A. W. Cassidy & Company, Saskatoon, $14,294.


Olof Hanson: Is there anything wrong with that?
Mr, MACKENZIE (Vancouver): The hon. member for Saskatoon was very successful in creating a mystery, but the minister has given the committee a clear explanation.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Does the hon. minister consider the rental to be paid for this building when it is completed as sufficient?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry but I am without that information. The lease was not entered into since this government came into office and we have had no occasion to review the matter.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I suggest that this item stand until the minister gets the file.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can give my hon. friend all the information he requires at any time.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: WThat
about the contract? Is the government satisfied with the amount and the way in which it was obtained?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract
was obtained in the usual way. We followed the practice which had been followed by my predecessor in office and accepted the lowest tender. Let me assure the committee now and for all time that that is the policy to which we will adhere. We are no respecters of persons; whoever makes the lowest tender is going to get the contract.


Olof Hanson: It is a credit to the present administration that they let the contract to the lowest tenderer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We did not let this contract; it was let by the firmer administration.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It was
to the lowest tenderer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is as I have
said.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta - Dominion public buildings - improvements, repairs, etc., $15,000.
Mr. BUCKLEY:: Would the minister give us the particulars of this item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is an item which is carried year after year to cover needed repair's and unforeseen requirements for all the public buildings of the province. It covers such items as the renewal of a roof, repairs to plumbing, painting and general upkeep of the buildings.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Mr. Chairman, while
this item is under discussion I should like to discuss another matter in which a rather important principle is involved. Some little time ago I placed a question on the order paper with regard to the redecoration of the interior of the post office at Red Deer. I was informed that two men had tendered for the work, that the lowest tender had been accepted and the work had been completed. I have no exception to take to the man chosen to do the work, because he is a man of probity, a skilled worker, and his charge was a reasonable one. There is no question
[Mr. H. A. Stewart.1
about that. My reason for placing the question on the order paper was this:	In the
little city of Red Deer three or four men carried on that kind of work. One of those men, a man of good standing, came to me and made this complaint. He said that when the tenders were called for, he, together with the two whose names are mentioned in the answer given, offered tenders for consideration and he was informed very definitely that instructions had been issued that no tenders could be accepted for consideration-the minister will appreciate the difference between, "accepted for consideration" and "accepted"- save from two whose names are given in the reply which I received. So this man went back with his tender in his pocket. According to him, his tender was refused all consideration because his name was not on the favoured list, and as supporting the right party. The minister will see, in the first place, that I am not making this statement as something of which I have personal knowledge I do not know first-hand that this man was refused consideration. I am simply passing on to the minister the complaint that was made to me in a very serious, not to say energetic, manner by a man whose probity there was no reason to doubt, a business man of good standing. If he was right in his complaint as to the treatment he received, he complained with very good reason. If that did happen, it is a very serious thing. It is not a matter of small political patronage which we know occasionally happens in the best of families and in the best of parties. But it is a serious matter from the public point of view if a tender which may be the lowest, and may be a satisfactory tender in every other respect, is not considered because of the political views of the would-be tenderer. I cannot expect the minister to know anything about it just nowr; indeed, I doubt if he ever knew anything about it; but I would ask him to look into the matter very closety and ascertain whether the answer given on April 22 to the question I placed on the order paper is the full and complete answer, and to assure himself that neither from anywhere in his department nor from anywhere connected with his department have such instructions or suggestions gone forth; because, as he will readily appreciate, such a matter strikes at the root of the decency and honesty of all public service. In bringing the matter to his attention I am not making any charge. I have watched the minister in the house, and I believe that he is efficient and fair and doing his best to carry on his work. I bring the ir^ter to his

Supply-Public Works-B.C.
attention simply because the complaint was made to me in all seriousness by a business man of good standing, and because I think it should be looked into very carefully. If anything like that was done, steps should be taken to prevent its happening again. I shall be glad to give to the minister the name of the complainant and any other names concerned. He will appreciate, of course, why I am not making the name public at the moment.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. I can assure him that no instructions of that character have been issued by the minister or by any person with his authority, and none will be. I shall certainly investigate the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Drumheller-public building-under contract, $60,000.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Is the work on this building progressing satisfactorily, and when will it be completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract
was awarded on February 2, 1931. The date for completion is September 3, 1931. I should think at this season they will be going right ahead with the work, and we shall endeavour to see that it is completed on time.


Edward Joseph Garland: The original contractors are carrying on satisfactorily, I take it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As far as I
know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. LUCAS:: Before we pass from the
Alberta vote, may I say that some time ago the town of Viking sent a petition to the Minister of Public Works requesting a public building at that point. I notice that no such provision has been made in the estimates, and I would ask the minister just what attention that petition has received.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that I have many such petitions, and they have been the subject of much serious and anxious consideration by me. I regret that not more of them appear in the estimates. I will look this particular one up and see how it stands.
British Columbia-Dominion public buildings -improvements, repairs, etc., $45,000.


Olof Hanson: The constituency of Skeena, which I have the honour to represent, includes the city of Prince Rupert.
Prince Rupert has no such thing as a federal public building. The federal government are just renting a shack which a reputable farmer would not use as a barn. We have had it for a number of years. A delegation from the city of Prince Rupert waited upon the government within the last two weeks, and I understand that they were given the assurance that when the present lease pxpires their representations will be given serious consideration. We have in Prince Rupert, which has a population of approximately 10,000, a provincial building which cost about $500,000. Prince Rupert, as some hon. members realize and others do not, occupies a strategic position as- a British Pacific port at the terminus of the Transcontinental railway. I understand that the government gave the representatives from the city of Prince Rupert and the chamber of commerce a good hearing, and no doubt the claims of the city will be given consideration. But when I see only the small amount of $45,000 in the estimates for improvements and repairs to Dominion public buildings in British Columbia, I think it is up to me as a member representing one of the ridings of that province to remonstrate and to say that that is not doing justice to British Columbia. I trust that the government will look into the matter and see that central and northern British Columbia are given consideration in the supplementary estimates. I repeat that because of Prince Rupert's location at the end of a (transcontinental railway and as a. British Pacific port it occupies a strategic position. It stands third in customs and post office revenue in British Columbia. Prince Rupert is the second British North America port on the Pacific, and I am sure hon. members on both sides of the house will agree that we cannot develop British North America as it should be developed unless we do justice to the port of Prince Rupert. From the fact that only $45,000 is appropriated to the province of British Columbia for improvements and repairs to public buildings, one might almost think the government.had forgotten that such a place as British Columbia exists.
Before I sit down I would like to impress my hon. friends opposite with the fact that Prince Rupert lies in a strategic position also in respect to northern and central British Columbia. At the present time we have only this rented shack, which accommodates customs, post office, telegraphs, fisheries, and public works. For that shack we are paying something like $7,000 a year in rent. I received that information from the Minister of Public Works, who wras kind enough to give



Supply-Public Works-B.C.
it to me. I think the government would be saving money if it would consider the erection of an adequate public building in the city of Prince Rupert.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The claims of Prince Rupert have been strongly urged upon the government, and have been supplemented by my hon. friend to-night. Many representations have been made to the department by the people of that city. Let me assure my hon. friend that the claims and requirements of Prince Rupert will not be overlooked, and as soon as revenues warrant it the construction of a building will be considered. I can only ask my hon. friend to be patient. The item of $45,000 is the same amount as that voted last year. It is for general upkeep and repair of public buildings in British Columbia. No new building is included in this item.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: Of that amount how much was expended in the last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was all required last year.


Olof Hanson: I would add that the Dominion government did buy a federal site about ten or twelve years ago in the city of Prince Rupert. I am not criticizing the government because of the way they picked out their sites. I am advocating the establishment of a federal building in Prince Rupert, whether a site owned by the federal government be chosen or otherwise; I am not particular about that so long as Prince Rupert and central British Columbia are recognized. To my mind it is vital to have a federal building in that, portion of British North America. I call it British North America instead of British Columbia, because as I say we are the second port on the Pacific coast, Vancouver being the first. Sometimes it has been said that British Columbia is in Vancouver, but I ajfii here to demonstrate that Vancouver is in \British Columbia. I would like the house to learn where British Columbia is. I would ask hon. members not to look for Vancouver but to look for British Columbia, and they will find that there is such a place as Prince Rupert. When we receive the report concerning the Peace River outlet which my hen. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals is going to give us, I hope hon. members will study it and realize our geographical position. British Columbia requires not only the port of Vancouver but another port in order to do justice to the development of British North America, and Prince Rupert is the second port.


John Anderson Fraser: Hear, hear.


Olof Hanson: My hon. friend says "hear, hear". He is a friend of mine. I realize what he has in mind, but I am not prepared to go into that now. Probably we will need three or four ports, because in that part of the country we have room for millions of people. I represent a constituency which is bigger in area than England, Ireland, Scotland and Belgium combined.


An hon. MEMBER:: Mr. Brady told us that.


Olof Hanson: Well, it is all right if you know it. I venture to say that- most hon. members do not know, however, that there is room for 30,000,000 people in that part of the country, and we have plenty of resources to back them up. We have agriculture, fishing, mining and all the resources to be found on God's earth. They are all in there.
When the government is considering the erection of public buildings I feel they should give my constituency some consideration. I know, however, that my hon. friend has it in mind and will give it due consideration. We are not trying to force the minister; I have no criticism to offer. However, I just wish to draw his attention to the magnitude of the country I represent, and especially the territory of Prince Rupert. The government is paying something like $7,000 a year by way of rental for a building that is nothing more than a shack. Why not erect a proper building and apply that $7,000 towards interest on the capital invested and thus have something for your money? By doing that we would get somewhere. I hope the present government will consider that proposition. If they do not now see the necessity for this accommodation at Prince Rupert, I have no doubt that some time they will, because I cannot believe they will leave it to their successors.


Thomas Reid: Not seeing any appropriation
in this item for the constituency I have the honour to represent, I would like to direct a few words to the Minister of Public Works. I was glad the hon. member began at last to talk about British Columbia, because although I have heard the north, south, east, and west mentioned, this is the first time British Columbia has been under consideration. Some of us are too far away. Three thousand miles is a long journey, and it is about time the members from British Columbia raised their voices. I wish to draw the attention of hon. members to some figures I have before me. For the erection of public buildings, out of a vote of over $6,000,000

Supply-Public Works-B.C.
British Columbia gets only $81,000. Out of that amount $8,000 is a revote. Expenditures authorized by statute amount to $579,712, and British Columbia gets only $112,000. For miscellaneous items the total amount is $929,000, nearly a million dollars, and of that amount British Columbia gets nothing. The total amount for roads and bridges is $173,250; of that amount British Columbia gets nothing. For telegraph and telephone lines the total amount is $205,950; of that amount British Columbia gets $63,600. Then we come to the heading "mail subsidies." There is a great deal of talk about the development of our markets. Of late we have been turning to the east to build up our trade. One would think that in connection with mail subsidies British Columbia would receive a substantial amount. Well, the total figure under this heading is $1,052,220 and of that amount British Columbia receives only $266,400. The total amount for ocean and river service is $3,697,300, and of that British Columbia receives only $20,000. The total amount for the marine department is $4,602,933, but of that British Columbia does not get a cent. I agree with the minister that we have to cut our suit according to the cloth, but I am afraid that on the suit he makes for Canada British Columbia will be represented by the buttonholes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will not be as bad as that.


Thomas Reid: Our appropriation has been cut down very considerably. I agree with the minister that we should exercise economy, but for public buildings we are cut down from $203,000 to $81,000, which is out of proportion to the decreased appropriations for the other provinces. Out of a total vote of something like $22,422,782 British Columbia is going to get only $880,000 odd. Is it any wonder we rise in our places and protest? I have long been of the opinion that British Columbia has been neglected by the federal authorities, but this is the first opportunity 1 have had of expressing that opinion in this house. As long as this neglect continues I am going to raise my voice in protest. It seems to me that the nearer you are to Ottawa the more you get.
Talking about public buildings, we have a post office at New Westminster that was built I do not know how many years ago. Practically all the mail for the Fraser valley goes through that post office. I venture to say that if the provincial department of health had any jurisdiction over government buildings they would have closed this one up long ago in view of the disgraceful conditions under which the postal staff are working.


Olof Hanson: They would do the same thing in Prince Rupert.


Thomas Reid: I ask the minister to consider this matter very seriously. The post office is so congested that the men are working back to back. The building should be enlarged, and we have the land for the purpose. I understand that last year the necessary plans were prepared in the department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have not these conditions prevailed for some years past?


Thomas Reid: I am not responsible for what happened in years past. Although my predecessor raised his voice in protest, apparently he did not raise it loud enough. Not only are we getting too small an appropriation in relation to our population, but we are getting a great deal less than the amount collected in relation to the duties on exports and imports through the ports of British Columbia. At one port alone the amount of duties collected is the second largest in the Dominion. In case it is urged that British Columbia has only a small population and does not amount to anything, I desire to put these figures on record. The duties collected last year at Vancouver amounted to $14,000,000, according to the returns given by the Department of Trade and Commerce. This figure is exceeded only by Montreal. The port of Quebec-where so much money has been spent-collected duties to the amount of only $2,500,000 odd. There the value of the imports for consumption amounted to $17,000,000 odd and of exports upwards of $12,000,000, while at Vancouver the value of the imports for consumption amounted to over $79,000,000 and of exports over $127,000,000. I am not going to plead the case of Vancouver, for she is ably represented in this house, but I should like to see the needs of British Columbia, and particularly the riding of New Westminster, taken into consideration by my hon. friend.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would remind my hon. friend that the appropriations for public works are not based upon the population of the different provinces; they cannot be. Regard must be had for many factors. If he will go back through the public accounts I think he will find in some years that the expenditures on public buildings in his province have been out of proportion to the population-the basis for which he is now contending. He has already spoken to me about an appropriation for New Westminster. In that locality we have been spending a good deal on the Fraser river, but his request will be carefully considered.

Supply-Public Works-B.C.


Thomas Reid: Even during the last regime the port was not discriminated against because it happened to be represented by a member in opposition to the then government, as a matter of fact the appropriation was increased. I should like to see that policy continued. What is the reason for making such a great reduction in the appropriation?


Charles A. Stewart: The appropriation for any locality, I may tell my hon. friend, is not reduced because of the character or political complexion of its representation in this house, and it never will be.


Thomas Reid: I am very glad to hear that.


Charles Gavan Power: Put up that declaration in every post office.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does the minister contemplate any increased accommodation at the Vancouver post office? He is probably aware that that post office is used as the centre from which all the mail going north and to many of the interior parts of the province is transferred. The present accommodation is not sufficient. I understand that recommendations have been made to the department for the past two or three years that further accommodation is necessary. Further, I understand that these recommendations have been endorsed by the minister's departmental officers. I repeat, this increased accommodation is urgently required, and I should like to know if the minister contemplates taking the necessary steps to provide it in the very near future.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to the hon. member for Burrard I may say that I am informed that the matter has been receiving consideration for the last eight or ten years. Undoubtedly increased accommodation is necessary. I understand that it would cost approximately 8350,000 to acquire a site and about 81,000.000 to erect a building-a heavy expenditure. The matter is receiving consideration, and as soon as circumstances warrant action will be taken.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am more or less familiar with the figures mentioned by the minister, but I would point out to him that the rentals now being paid for the accommodation of the various Dominion government services in the city represent interest on a capital investment that would amply take care of all these requirements. I think the minister will find that an increase in the public buildings in Vancouver would be justified as a good investment from the standpoint of the government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Again I wish to point out that these expenditures are not made from capital as such, but from revenue.


John Anderson Fraser: May I suggest to the minister that it might entail less cost to the Dominion government to transfer some of the many federal offices we hear of in Vancouver up into the interior of the province, where I think you would get the site a good deal cheaper and the buildings would be constructed for a good deal less than the figures mentioned 'by the minister, for Vancouver. I offer this suggestion for his consideration.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am sure my hon.
friend's constituents will welcome his suggestion, but I doubt whether it would be welcomed in other parts of British Columbia. People from all over the world, from British Columbia in particular and especially from that portion of the interior of British Columbia represented by my hon. friend, like an excuse to come to Vancouver, even if it is only to see one of the government officials.


John Anderson Fraser: I might also say that we welcome the people of Vancouver in the central part of British Columbia. It will not hurt the health of my hon. friend a bit to come into that part of the province and look at it once in a while.


Wilfred Hanbury: When we go into that
part of the province its beauties are so great that we do not like to have our minds distracted by business.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver postal station "D"-improvements,
Wilfred Hanbury: I would like the minister to explain this item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This station is
in my hon. friend's constituency, I believe, and this amount is to provide for the installation of a new screen in postal station D for the purpose of providing improved postal facilities. The estimated cost is 81,800, with 8200 for contingencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver public building-to meet one year's interest at five per cent on mortgage of $400,000, $20,000.
Wilfred Hanbury: Before we leave this
resolution I should like the minister to give the details of the appropriations which were not required for the last year.

Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation for British Columbia was $128,300, and the expenditure was $112,879. The balance falls in, and I can give the hon. gentleman the particulars if he wishes them. For Vancouver public buildings, improvements and repairs, we voted $17,000 and only spent $14,995. For accommodation for the Royal Canadian Naval Volunteer Reserve we voted SI 1,590 and spent $11,410, and the work is completed. For a public building in Trail $66,000 was appropriated and $56,648.46 was spent, and the building is completed. The balance falls in. For a public building at Rossland $5,000 was appropriated, S4.625.36 was spent and the building is completed. For a public building in Kimberley, $28,800 was appropriated; $25,195.28 was required for the construction of the building, and the balance falls in.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like as full information as I can get from the minister with regard to that appropriation for the R.C.N.V.R. accommodation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of last year?


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
have not the particulars of last year's appropriations with me.


Wilfred Hanbury: I understand that appropriation was made for the purpose of acquiring the old buildings of the Royal Vancouver Yacht Club.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is correct.


Wilfred Hanbury: That item went through last year. I understand a cheque has been issued so that it will come out of last year's estimates, but as yet the cheque has not been sent out. The point I wish to make is this: The government rented that property from the yacht club and paid a rental of $1,800 a year. They had the opportunity of purchasing the property at $10,000, I think, and they considered that expenditure justified. However, it is now over a year since the appropriation was made and I understand that the yacht club have received neither cheque nor rental in the meantime. I think they are at least entitled to receive rental, and failing that I think they should receive interest for the time the payment has been held up.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assure my hon. friend that this matter will be brought to the
attention of departmental officials. The matter will be checked up, and if there are any errors they will be corrected.


Wilfred Hanbury: Just for the information of the minister I might say that I understand the papers in that connection are in the possession of the Department of Justice now and are being held up there because the department is anxious to secure a right of way to this property from the city of Vancouver. However, the sale of the property did not contemplate that the club would be required to give this right of way, which is in the control of the city of Vancouver. That is the cause of the delay, and I do not think there is any justification for withholding that payment.


Mr. SPENCER:: Could the minister give us some information with regard to this interest of five per cent on the mortgage of $400,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was the Winch building, which was purchased by the former government subject to a mortgage, and we. are paying the interest on the mortgage.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings generally - experimental farms-replacements, repairs, improvements, etc., $50,000.
William Richard Motherwell: Having regard to the fact that the announced policy of this government is that it will take a strong forward movement on behalf of agriculture, this cut from $100,000 to $50,000 is rather an unhappy exemplification of that strong attitude. Especially is that so when I find the Prime Minister reported in the Telegraph-Journal of St. John, under date of July 3, as saying that he would regard it as a great responsibility, if elected, to see that the collective weight and power of the Dominion is placed behind agriculture. I think this is rather an unfortunate illustration of that power, to cut down this item from $100,000 to $50,000. I suppose this will include new buildings as well?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, this is just for ordinary repairs.


William Richard Motherwell: It is the regular vote, but the amount is irregularly small. It covers some twenty-five farms, including the tobacco farms, and I feel sure that the Minister of Agriculture, who is present, could very well use that other $50,000 to keep those farms in good order during the coming year.
Supply-Public Works

Sometimes it is easier to get through two small bites than one large bite; that often has been found to be the case in the past, and I would suggest that a second bite be taken in the supplementary estimates. I am sure it would be a welcome contribution to the system of experimental farms so well kept up for the last eight or ten years.


William Duff: What amount was expended last year?	.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: While the information requested by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is being looked up, I can only say to the hon. member for Melville that this reduction will not curtail the extension of any agricultural program which may be adopted. This is just to cover minor, casual repairs and improvements that come along from time to time. We think we can get through this year with that amount.


William Richard Motherwell: It is a bad start


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry, but the officer informs me that he has not the information as to the amount spent last year. However, we can get it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings generally-military buildings -repairs, fittings and additions, $50,000.
Wilfred Hanbury: In connection with
military buildings, I wish to direct the attention of the minister to the condition in Vancouver. He is probably quite familiar with the situation. I do not propose to criticize the expenditure he is making this year in connection with the rental of the horse show building, which is now used there, but it seems to me that the rental being paid is exorbitant. It cannot be avoided at the present time, but I do think it is very necessary for the government to consider the whole situation in regard to militia units in Vancouver. The government are paying $9,000 at present for the horse show building, and I am informed that the purchase price of that building was approximately $25,000 to $27,000. There is no other building in Vancouver at present suitable. Now, housed in that building are military stores to the value of between $400,000 and $500,000. The place is nothing but a fire trap, and if the government are going to continue militia establishments at all they would most certainly be well advised to consider seriously the building of an armoury, to capitalize the sum that is paid now and to obviate the risk to this military equipment. I would suggest that the minister give that serious consideration. At present we have there other military units

that are improperly housed. Under the present system of renting quarters it is practically impossible for them to better their condition, and again I suggest that if we are to continue militia units the government should consider some accommodation that would justify the efforts of these officers and men and the time they are putting in. We should give them quarters much more suitable than those they have at present.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This lease has
been current for some years. I thank the hon. gentleman for his information, which will be taken into consideration. I should like to pass this item to-night, if possible.


Mr. NEILL:: I wish to refer very briefly
to the Shaughnessy hospital, which is in bad condition. It is a fire trap. I took the matter up with the Minister of Pensions and National Health and he indicated that there had been an attempt to reduce the fire risk by placing in another building some of the worst cases in the upper stories, and including in the estimates a substantial sum for rebuilding or repairing the place. Is there any vote for the Shaughnessy hospital concealed in this estimate?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is nothing in this estimate to cover the item to which the hon. member refers.


Alan Webster Neill: But this is for military buildings-repairs.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is only
repairs.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, this building should be repaired; something should be done to it. It is really in a dangerous condition now. As I say, it is a fire trap. My hon. friend (Mr. Hanbury) is quite right when he refers to another building as being a fire trap for military stores. But surely where human life is concerned, the matter is much more serious.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish
to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with reference to the Shaughnessy hospital. I would impress upon the Minister of Pensions and, as well, upon the Minister of Public Works the necessity for a new military hospital in Vancouver. I think my recollection is correct, that the previous administration had prepared plans for a new military7 hospital there, and I wish to urge upon this government the importance of this undertaking.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did not vote the
money for it.

Wheat Marketing


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I may tell my
hon. friend for Comox-Albemi that we have in the estimates $11,500 for the particular hospital he mentions. That will help out.


William Duff: I think we had better report progress.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: May I carry
vote 191?


William Duff: There are a number of items in that vote which we wish to discuss.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In that case, I
move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Friday, May 1, 1931.