1936-02-14

MAIN ESTIMATES, 1936-37

Hon. CHARLES A DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved:: That the message of His Excellency the Governor General received by this house on Tuesday, 11th instant, and the estimates for the year 1936-37 transmitted therewith, be referred to the committee of supply.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
PRIVILEGE-Mr. MacINNIS
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege, in reference to a statement I made in the house on Wednesday last. I read the statement from page 151 of Hansard:
However that did not prevent the Liberal party ifrom helping the communists in Vancouver East. I am told that the communist candidate in Vancouver East did not put in an account of his election expenses, and I understand his reason for refraining was, as he stated, that the Liberal party had provided the funds and that it was up to them to put in the expense account.
Since that time I have received information from Mr. Bruce, who was the communist candidate, that my statement was not correct. As he has no one here to make the statement for him, I wish to put that on record.

Business oj the House-Procedure



HYNDMAN REPORT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. WILTON (West Hamilton):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Pensions (Mr, Power). Is it the intention of the government during the present session to implement the Hyndman report in respect to providing employment for war veterans disabled or otherwise?


Hon. C. G. POWER (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: The hon. member for West Hamilton (Mr. Wilton) was courteous enough to give me notice of the question, and I thank him for doing so. No doubt he is aware that the Hyndman report contains something like twenty-four recommendations with respect to ex-service men, of which eight deal with the problem of unemployment and sixteen with what is called unemployment assistance. Of these recommendations a considerable number were implemented by the late government, and some few have been implemented since. At the present time the remainder are receiving the serious consideration of the government, and I anticipate that within a very short time I shall be in a position to make a statement to the house.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, when we
reach government orders it is my intention to ask the house to consider order No. 1, which relates to supply. That there may be no possibility of further misunderstanding between my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) and myself with respect to the committee having been properly constituted by the action taken by the house last evening, I have asked the clerk of the house to let me have a memorandum which I could read to the house and which would set forth accurately the position with respect to the appointment of the two committees of the whole house, namely the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means.
The following is the memorandum I have received:
There is only one way to appoint the committee of supply. It is done by moving that the house will at a future sitting resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty. When this motion has passed, the committee is in existence. The same practice is followed in Great Britain, where standing order No. 14 states: 12739-13
"This house will, in future, appoint the committee of supply and ways and means at the commencement of every session, so soon as an address has been agreed to, in answer to His Majesty's speech."
May, page 520, says:
"The action taken by the House of Commons upon the demand of aid and supply for the public service made by the speech from the throne is the appointment, pursuant to standing order No. 14, of those committees of the whole house, which are known as the committee of supply and the committee of ways and means. Motions setting up these committees are made immediately after the house agrees to the address in answer to the speech from the throne, and are put forthwith from the chair, no debate being permitted thereon."
It was not merely a notice that was given last night, February 13th. It was the actual appointment. The committee is now in existence, but it cannot sit until a motion has passed for the Speaker to leave the chair except on Thursdays and Fridays when he does so under standing order 28.
I also looked up Hansard of last year to see what was done at that time with respect to the appointment of these committees, and the referring of the estimates to the committee of supply. At page 153 of Hansard it will be seen that the Minister of Finance moved:
That the estimates tabled on the 23rd instant, together with the accompanying message of His Excellency, be referred to the committee of supply.
The motion was agreed to. This motion to refer the estimates was made immediately after the motion appointing the committees of supply and of ways and means. The motion reads as follows:
That this house will at its next sitting
resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
There was a similar motion with respect to the committee of ways and means.
May I point out that under the rules of the house, if the government calls the order with respect to supply, the Speaker on Friday leaves the chair without motion being put.
It is the desire of the government to proceed as rapidly as possible with government business, and the order respecting supply will be called immediately. When the house is in committee of supply and the deputy speaker is in the chair, the committee will have the estimates before it. As none of the estimates, however, have been considered in the early part of the week, that is to say on Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, unless the house gives its unanimous consent, the government cannot consider estimates of any department of which an item has not already been called at some previous sitting of the committee of the whole. It will be necessary, therefore, for us to obtain the unanimous consent of the house to take up any supply.



Business oj the House-Procedure
I hope bon. members will find it possible to give their consent to permit the house to proceed immediately with the estimates. If that consent is given, it is proposed this afternoon to give consideration to estimates of the Department of Public Works, and this evening to those of the Department of Agriculture. I should like to point out the importance of progress being made as rapidly as possible with government business. It is in the public interest that this should be done, and I am sure it is equally the desire of hon. members that at this session in particular we should proceed as rapidly as possible with the business of the session. The government sought to have the estimates placed before hon. members at as early a moment as was possible in the session. The estimates have been before hon. members now for some days. I hope, therefore, that when the house resolves itself into committee of supply, consent will be given to discuss the estimates of the departments to which reference has been made. In the event of there being any item called which is likely to be contentious, and which hon. members may wish to have held over for discussion at another time, it will not be proceeded with. I would ask the clerk to call order No. 1.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the right hon. gentleman has said I should like to direct attention to the fact that it is not regular to read an opinion of the clerk of the house with respect to these matters. Questions of procedure are dealt with by the Speaker, who, for the first time, according to a statement made by a Speaker of the British House of Commons, had the assistance of the late Sir Erskine May, Lord Farn-borough, who had written a book on procedure. At that time the Speaker referred to the fact that for the first time he was able to command the assistance of so eminent an authority as the clerk at the table.
I do not in any way suggest that the procedure taken last evening by the right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Mackenzie King) was in any sense irregular. In fact, I agreed with the motion. He made two motions, one being as follows:
That the house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of a supply to be granted to His Majesty.
And the further motion:
That this house will, on Friday next, resolve itself into a committee to consider of the ways and means for raising the supply to be granted to His Majesty.
Both motions were agreed to without dis-tussion. Those are the usual motions, as
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
they may be found in the journals of the house for all these years. Those two motions having been agreed to, I merely asked, as a question of procedure, whether or not the motion to refer the estimates to the committee of supply was a proper procedure, before the committee was set up. As a matter of fact, my question was in these words:
On a question of procedure, must we not wait until the setting up of the committee on supply before that motion is made? The committee could be set up to-morrow.
As a matter of fact, what the right hon. gentleman has said is correct so far as the committee is concerned. But there must be a motion, before estimates can be taken up, that the Speaker do leave the chair, usually with the deputy speaker taking the chair in committee. And as there was no provision for the Speaker to leave the chair on Friday, under our rules as they now exist, I was asking whether or not the committee should be set up. As a matter of fact that is hardly the correct way to put it. The committee was; it would be correct to say that it was not under our rules competent to move the Speaker out of the chair and take up estimates to-morrow. That is now admitted by the right hon. gentleman.
But I did not object; I merely asked a simple question, and the reason I did so was this: When I was in office a motion was made with respect to the estimates, and a question was brought to my attention by the clerk as to whether or not it was proper to make that motion. After my attention was directed to it I had some doubts about it, and communicated that to the house. I merely asked a question with respect to procedure, without any desire to impede or in any sense to interfere with the conduct of public business; but I am not unmindful of the fact that when for the first time I was charged with the responsibility for the conduct of public business the right hon. gentleman said that I should have had everything prepared, and that I should not ask the house to agree unanimously to certain procedure. It was suggested that the business should be ready, and that here we were, without any business. That was on the second day in which I occupied the seat now occupied by the right hon. gentleman. I was not even thinking of that when I asked a civil question with respect to the question of procedure.
Leaving that for the moment I would say that the right hon. gentleman now suggests that the motion be made unanimous, that the Speaker do now leave the chair, and that the house take up the estimates of two depart-

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
ments, namely those of the departments of Public Works and Agriculture. Certainly I have every desire to facilitate the business of the house, and I do not purpose raising any objection to such a motion being made, except to the extent that it may prejudice the rights of some hon. member who may desire to make a motion on the days he is entitled to do so with respect to the Speaker leaving the chair. After all, this house has made its own rules, and they cannot be disregarded without the unanimous consent of the house. I take it that if the motion is made unanimous that the Speaker do now leave the chair, any member who desires to express his opinion with respect to existing conditions, or desires to bring his grievance to the attention of the house before supply is granted, may do so as though it was a regular motion.
Hon. members on this side of the house have been endeavouring to familiarize themselves with the estimates for the purpose of carrying on an intelligent discussion, and I suggest that it might be well to confine the discussion of estimates to those matters which, while not statutory in form, must be voted as a matter of course to enable the public service of the country to be carried on. So far as the Department of Public Works is concerned, there are some votes which might be passed without question, but they will be few in number. So far as the Department of Agriculture is concerned, that being one of the departments in which a substantial change in the personnel has taken place, many questions will be asked, and inasmuch as every time a department goes into supply the opportunity is lessened of any hon. member bringing any grievance he may have to the attention of the country on the motion that the Speaker do now leave the chair, I think it might be well to confine our activities in the estimates to those items which are plainly non-controversial and about which there can be no doubt that they have to be voted as a matter of course, even though they appear in the estimates in the form in which they do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
as my right hon. friend is so obliging I shall not refer further to any possible differences between us. The record will disclose as between us who was in the right and who was in the wrong. May I say, however, as respects quoting from a memorandum given to me by the clerk of the house that I think my procedure in that particular was wholly correct. I did not need to mention 12739-131
the clerk's name at all; I might have taken the whole credit to myself. Seeing, however, that I had asked the clerk to give me a memorandum, he being a recognized authority on rules and procedure, and knowing that very probably His Honour the Speaker, had I conferred with him, would have handed me the same memorandum, I thought I would give credit where credit was due and quote an authority that might appeal more perhaps to my right hon. friend at this moment than were I to have quoted the Speaker himself.

Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By leave of the house.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Sanderson in the chair.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Public buildings-Nova Scotia-
Bridgetown-public building, $5,000.
Halifax - maintenance of immigration quarters, $25,000.
New Waterford'-public building, $9,500.


Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, before going into the estimates in detail I think it is only proper that I should make the statement that these main estimates do not provide for any new work. We are providing only for the necessary amounts to complete works already undertaken, and we are asking the committee to revote also certain amounts of money which have not been expended. With regard to the first item of $5,000 for a public building at Bridgetown, work on this building has been carried on up to the present moment and a further amount of $5,000 is required to complete the building.


Mr. STEWART:: Mr. Chairman, before the item is carried I think it advisable, if the minister is in a position to do so, that he inform the committee of the general policy of the government in connection with public works. In the past there has been a program of public works with respect to buildings, and then a supplementary program with regard to other works. I noticed in the press this morning a statement that the government had under consideration an extensive program of public works of a kind perhaps different from those provided for in the estimates, and it seems to me that it would facilitate the work of the committee and the consideration of the estimates if the minister would outline what the policy of the government is for the
196	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
coming fiscal year in connection with such works. I have gone over the estimates and I find, as the minister says, that a large number of items relate to the completion of buildings undertaken by the former government, and in so far as moneys for this purpose are necessary there will be no objection, I am sure,' from those on this side, certainly none from myself, because I feel a responsibility in the matter of facilitating the completion of any buildings already under way.
I wish also to point out to the committee that during the last few years the late government undertook, as a combined measure for the relief of unemployment and for the improvement of our public buildings, a fairly extensive program of repairs and alterations. It does appear to me that the public buildings throughout the dominion must now be in pretty good condition.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Not in all counties.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, but in most, and I think the buildings in my hon. friend's county are in good shape; he has not been neglected, I am sure lie will agree. I want to emphasize the necessity of continuing that policy, and so far as I am concerned any request for moneys which the minister might make for the purpose of keeping the public buildings in Canada in a thorough state of repair I shall be glad to support. It is false economy to allow buildings to get into disrepair. A stitch in time saves nine. Unfortunately in years of stress and financial difficulty there may be a tendency to overlook some necessary repairs, but as I say, we have pretty well overtaken those repairs, and I hope the minister will continue the policy of keeping ,our public buildings in first class condition. The work was undertaken during the late administration for the double purpose of supplying tradesmen and mechanics with a measure of employment-and I am glad to say that in a measure the program met that requirement -and of keeping the buildings in repair.
Coming to the vote before us, the first item of $5,000 for a public building at Bridgetown is a revote; there is no objection to that. The second item, $25,000 for the maintenance of immigration quarters at Halifax, is the same amount as last year. Is this just the regular maintenance, or what is contemplated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Just the regular maintenance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then there is an item of $9,500 for a public building at New Waterford.

This is a revote. Will this amount complete the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: I must apologize for not having made a general statement at the time of the constitution of this committee regarding the government's policy with respect to estimates. This would have answered the inquiry of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). In the preparation of the estimates now before the committee it was the intention to present what might be called broadly the normal cost of administering the country, leaving out all those extraordinary matters to which my hon. friend has referred and which in past years have been dealt with by means of what has come to be described as the blank cheque method. It is the intention of the government to present further estimates which will be known, for lack of a better name at the moment, as emergency supplementary estimates, designed to provide for all expenditures of an emergency character which are necessary because of the condition in which the country finds itself at the present time. The emergency expenditures to which I refer are those connected with relief in its various forms; with programs with respect to work of any kind arising out of the necessity of creating work; with railway deficits and all other matters which might be described as extraordinary in their nature and which are not associated with the normal operations of the country. Our intention is to set forth to the house as clearly as possible what is required over and above the normal cost of running the institutions of government due to the conditions which prevail at the present time.


Mr. HEAPS :: I did not know that a railway deficit was something extraordinary; I thought it was something quite ordinary so far as we in this house are concerned. I do think we should have some information from the government at this stage as to what they intend doing with regard to a building pro' gram. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Dunning) has informed us that the government will bring down emergency estimates, but I think the character and extent of these estimates ought to be known to the people of this country. There is no part of our population that has been hit harder than those engaged in the building industry, and it is desirable at this time when we are discussing public works estimates that we should have an authoritative statement from the government setting out what they intend doing in the near future in this particular respect.

Supply-Public W orks-Buildings


William Lyon Mackenzie King: A building program is under consideration and it will be announced as soon as the government has reached a final decision upon it. I hope this assurance will serve to meet what my hon. friend has in mind. I give him the assurance that the government has under consideration such a program and it will be brought before the house at an early date.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-New Brunswick-
Perth-public building, $9,000.
Rexton-public building, $2,500.
St. Andrews-public building. $13,000.
St. George-public building, $19,500.
Saint John quarantine station-Partridge island-improvements, alterations and repairs, $7,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The observations made with regard to item 87 apply to this item. There is nothing new in the item; it is to complete works already undertaken.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Take the Saint John quarantine station, Partridge island. This vote is slightly in excess of the amount voted last year. Would the minister explain what is contemplated to be done to this station? I thought the building was in good shape.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of $7,000 is required for general repairs and improvements as requested by the deputy minister of Pensions and National Health in a communication dated December, 1935. The amount of $7,000 is made up of the following items:
To provide for leaks that may develop in water pipe line under bay, supplying water to station, $2,000.
Disinfection building: Replacing piping by copper in bath division, replacing three exterior doors. Shingling portion of rear exterior, renewing steps at rear, caulking windows and redecorating rvhere paint damaged, $1,525.
Staff residences: Roof repairs and renewals, repairs to exterior painting, renewing heating, $1,900.
General: Installation of suitable boxes to water shutoffs, $400.
Laboratory: Exterior repairs and painting, $150.
Materials:	Paint, furnace parts, etc., for
station staff, $1,025.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will that put the building in a good state of repair?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the information I have received from the officers of the department who have made a survey.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is the building all in use?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My information is that it is all in use.


Mr. STIRLING:: Could the minister give the committee an explanation as to the relation between a sum voted this year, a sum voted last year and a revote? There are many new members in the house and I am quite sure that such information would be of interest to them if not to some of us who have been here for a number of years and who often get befogged with this question. Take as an illustration the public building at St. Andrews. Last year $45,000 was voted; this year $13,000 is required and $9,500 is shown as a revote. Are we to assume that of the $45,000 voted last year; $36,500 has been spent already and $9,500 is yet required to be expended, while $3,500 is required over and above the estimate for extras or for fittings or other things?


Eugène Fiset: Your statement is absolutely clear.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The revote is the unused portion of the money voted the year before. In those cases where the amount seems to be higher it is because we need a little more money than was voted last year in order to complete a work which has been started. This is the explanation of the discrepancy to which the hon. gentleman calls my attention.


Grote Stirling: It does not necessarily imply that there are extras on the work estimated for last year, but rather that the work has been found to be more expensive.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is the case exactly. When we find that we require an amount larger than the amount voted the year before, we ask for a revote and the amount is mentioned in the revote column. That is an amount taken from the estimates of last year.


Mr. PELLETIER:: Am I right in assuming that there is $9,500 brought forward from last year and that in addition the sum of $13,000 is required, bringing this year's estimates to S22.500?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. This year we require
$13,000 instead of $9,500, the difference being accounted for by the changes made in the plans, or unforeseen expenses that were not contemplated when the amount of $45,000 was voted. If there were no extra costs involved, $9,500 would be sufficient; but owing to expenditures not contemplated at the time we are obliged to ask for the higher amount.


Mr. SENN:: Will the minister explain why the item at the end of No. 88 is included, "Appropriations not required for 1936-37, $20,000."


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: There was money voted
last year that was not expended, and we do not propose to go on with the undertakings
198	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
covered by the amount indicated here as appropriations not required. There is 820,000 in connection with New Brunswick.


Mark Cecil Senn: Will the minister itemize
that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The 820,000 is for an addition to the armouries.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister's explanation as to the revote of the amount required is quite satisfactory to me, but it does not follow that in all cases the extra amount is for extras or changes or alterations. There may be instances in which the tenders invited publicly have exceeded the amount of the estimate, and that is the only omission, I think, which the minister made in his concise and very comprehensive statement. Some of these additional amounts, over and above the amount voted last year, may be due to the fact that the estimate of last year was insufficient to meet the amount of the public tender. As the minister will find out, and as he no doubt already knows from experience, estimates are often prepared and submitted to the house without that complete information which a greater amount of time would enable the department to secure. It is decided, for instance, to erect a public building at a particular place and the architect is asked to give an estimate of the cost. From his experience in matters of that kind he can roughly estimate what the cost of the building will be; but if the estimate is to be brought before the house and the work got under way he may not have an opportunity of going into the details and ascertaining local conditions-and local conditions do vary from time to time. So that, giving the chief architect and his staff credit for the best intentions and everything they can do to ascertain the cost, there may be factors which leave their estimate insufficient. They always try to keep their estimates down as much as possible. That, I think, is the only amplification the committee should have of the statement made by the minister. In some instances at least the amount of a tender, without changes or alterations, exceeds the amount of the estimate.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend is correct
and I thank him for supplementing the observations I made on that point.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $50,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That covers general repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
IMr. Cardin.]
Public buildings-Quebec-
Bagotville-public building, $4,000.
Bedford-public building, $26,000.
Dolbeau-public building, $9,000.
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $100,000.
Grosse Isle quarantine station-improvements, alterations and repairs, $10,500.
Montreal immigration building - improvements and repairs, $7,500.
Montreal - instalment on purchase of armoury, $15,900.
Montreal postal terminal building-additional amount required, $250,000.
Quebec Citadel'-improvements and maintenance, $19,000.
Stanstead-public building, $10,500.
Westmount - instalment on purchase of armoury, $12,700.
Abraham Albert Heaps: The minister might explain to the committee in his pleasant way why it happens that Quebec is the only province in Canada that shows an increase in the estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, I confess I have not given any consideration to that question; but as all these amounts are revotes, most of them are necessary to complete works already undertaken, and I may safely conclude, therefore, that the explanation is that the estimates of last year were a little higher in Quebec than in other provinces, so far as this general item is concerned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister's observation is quite interesting in view of the facts. Last year I thought it was the other way, that Quebec was getting altogether too little; that was what I heard. I am glad to hear now that my contention last year was right, that really Quebec was getting a fair share of the expenditures.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: My hon. friend is human, and he has too much experience of life not to realize that favours done do not seem to amount to very much.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a thought I endeavoured to impress on many of my friends in the past, but without success. I do not know how far the minister will succeed with his friends in converting them to that theory. In connection with Bedford public building, I notice there is a revote of $21,000, and that means that $5,000 additional is required. Can the minister say what that $5,000 additional is for?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is quite a proper explanation, and again it illustrates some of the difficulties that a minister and departmental officials have to meet in accurately estimating the correct amount to put in originally, because what a site will cost cannot be within their knowledge. It varies according to circumstances; it varies according to the site selected and the conditions in the town or at the site. The next is Grosse Isle quarantine station, improvements, alterations and repairs. This is a little greater than last year's vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because we require a larger amount for the repairs and cost of maintenance-this year. As my hon. friend knows, these figures are always based on the report of the engineers of the department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are there any items of particular interest that the minister can give, or is it just general? Again I say I was under the impression that, substantial repairs having been made, these items might possibly not be as great this year as they have been in the last two or three.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: If my hon. friend desires, I have a list of the items, but-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not if they are small.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Brick work, doors, repairs to boiler settings-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not want to ask the minister to give all the details. Is there any large item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Part of what I intended to ask in connection with the Bedford public building was asked by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart). In reply to the hon. member, I understood the minister to say that the difference of five thousand dollars in the total cost of the Bedford building was for the site. Looking at the estimates I note that apparently $2,500 has already been spent on the building. I am at a loss to understand how anything could be spent on the building unless the site had already been purchased. It seems to me a rather peculiar way for the department to carry on its business if it either commenced the building before it purchased the site, or on the other hand, arranged to erect the building without already having the site purchased and later has to pay $5,000 additional cost for a site it either contemplated buying and had not bought, but which it had afterwards purchased.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: A certain amount of money, $2,500 was spent on a site which had been chosen last year, but it was represented to the department that that site is not satisfactory. Instead of building at the rear of a block there, it has been represented to the department that we should have the building on the corner of Main and Bridge street, and we are thinking of changing the location of the building by acquiring a section of property on the main street.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Adjacent to the site that had been contemplated?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Before this item carries I
would like to ask the minister about an expenditure of S250,000 on the Montreal postal terminal. What was the original estimate for the last cost of that building, and what is the amount already spent? Can he give us an estimate as to how much it will cost to complete the building.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that that
building was started first under the Public Works Construction Act. It was not covered in the last session of parliament by the regular estimates of the department: it was money expended out of the Public Works Construction Acts of 1934 and 1935. The amount of $250,000 mentioned in this vote is for mechanical fittings for the building. But I will get the total cost of the building.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then perhaps the item might be allowed to stand.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Grote Stirling: Would the minister explain what the item "Quebec citadel" means? Is it for the rebuilding of the crumbling walls of the citadel itself, or what is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, it is for maintenance
of the building, the governor general's quarters there.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How much money has been
already spent during the past eight or nine years on this same project?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Well, practically the same
amount, I am informed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; in past years there have been much larger amounts in the estimates for the Quebec citadel. I would like to have an idea how much it is going to cost the government and the country, including what has been spent in the past eight or nine years since the governor general has taken residence in the citadel for a few weeks in each year.
200	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings


The CHAIRMAN:: I understand that this item stands.


Abraham Albert Heaps: No; perhaps the minister
may have the information right at hand.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The expenditure in 1929-30 was S20,000; 1930-31, 815,860; 1931-32, $13,499; 1932-33, 813,483; 1933-34, $12,181; 1934-35, $11,449.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Are those the only expenditures that have been made on the Quebec citadel during the years mentioned?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed those are
the only amounts during those years.


Mark Cecil Senn: The amount of $215,200 for
appropriations not required seems to be very large in proportion to the total vote.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Does my hon. friend desire a list, of the items?


Mark Cecil Senn: If they are not too numerous.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Amqui, public building,
$19,000; Asbestos, public building, $8,000; Cap de la Madeleine, public building, $54,000; Montreal, addition to the 4th Division Engineers armoury, $7,000; Montreal, purchase of site for addition to 4th Division Engineers armoury and alterations, $7,000; Point Claire, public building, $25,000; Quebec, examining warehouse, repairs and renewals, $1,200; Quebec, immigration building, repairs, $33,000; Ste. Anne de Beaupre, public building, $25,000; Ste. Martine, public building, $17,000; Timis-kaming, public building, $19,000. These were the amounts that were provided in the last estimates.


Mark Cecil Senn: Are any of these projects that have not been gone on with, or is it because the contract price was left in the vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In these items I am informed there are certain things which might be considered only as bookkeeping entries required by the department. I confess I am not quite clear on that procedure. Take for example, the Amqui public building, $19,000; the amount spent up to the first of February, 1936, is $14,503. The note that has been handed to me is that this building has been completed. The Asbestos building is also completed. The Cap de la Madeleine public building site has been purchased, but the building is not being proceeded with at present. Montreal, addition to 4th Division Engineers armoury, not to be utilized because substituted by vote 338. Point Claire public building, site has been purchased but building not proceeded with. Quebec examining warehouse, repairs and renewals; this has

been completed. Quebec immigration building; repairs are completed. Ste. Anne de Beaupre, public building, $25,000, not being proceeded with. Ste. Martine, the same thing. Timiskaming public building, $19,000, the same, not being proceeded with. That accounts for the total of $215,000 under the heading of appropriations not required for 1936-37. We have no vote and we do not propose to have these expenditures repeated in this estimate.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in giving particulars of the expenditures at the Quebec citadel the minister gave the amounts for the different years. I think he is correct in his statement, except that possibly there may have been some expenditures under the Public Works Construction Acts that would not appear in the record the minister now has.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed by the chief architect that as far as he can remember no expenditure in the citadel has been made under the Public Works Construction Acts.
I have here some information in regard to the postal terminal in Montreal. The appropriation was $1,800,000 under the Public Works Construction Act. The actual expenditure up to December 1, 1935, is $1,268,542.93, and commitments and liabilities incurred up to the present time are $521,421.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Over and above the item just given?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No. The two items, SI,268,-000 and $521,000 practically take up the amount of the appropriation of $1,800,000. Therefore the expenditures up to the present and those contemplated will not go beyond the appropriation for the building. There is an amount of $250,000 for mechanical devices and fittings in the interior. That was not included in the contract.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What was the contract price?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not have that in the present estimates, because that work is not covered by the estimates we are considering at present; it is an expenditure under the Public Works Construction Act. My hon. friend will have the opportunity of asking that question later, and I can give my word that if he wants that information I shall be quite ready to give it.


Mr. McGEER:: Will a summary of all the expenditures under that act be presented as a supplement to this statement?

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I believe a return has been made in the house. What I am reading from is a copy of a return which has been tabled relating to all these expenditures made under the Public Works Construction Act.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister will recall that under the provisions of the Public Works Construction Acts the orders in council and all papers must be laid on the table. In fact they are laid on the table from time to time; the minister laid some papers on the table the other day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That will be quite satisfactory if we get all this information later. There is another point I want to raise in reference to these estimates relating to the province of Quebec, and it may apply to other provinces as well. I notice two items relating to the purchase of armouries. Some time ago we had a discussion in this committee regarding the unusual way the government went about the building of armouries in different parts of the dominion. I see there are items here for Montreal and Westmount, "instalment on purchase of armoury," $15,900 and $12,700 respectively. I should like to know whether these armouries are being purchased from private institutions or have been erected by the government. If they are being built by private corporations for the government I should like to have the present standing of the agreements between the government and the private corporations.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In regard to the item, "Montreal, instalment on purchase of armoury, $15,900," that building was acquired under a lease. It was agreed that by the payment of a certain rental, after the expiration of a certain number of years the building will be paid for. That is, it is bought on a rental basis. It is being acquired from the Victoria Rifles Armouries Association of Montreal.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long since?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Since 1931, I am told. The first appropriation was in the year 1931-32.


Abraham Albert Heaps: For how much?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: For $15,140. In 1932-33 and in 1934-35 the amount was the same, and it has been the same all through.


Abraham Albert Heaps: How long has this agreement to run?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed it is for twenty years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the one at Westmount being purchased on the same basis?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The same basis.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Mr. Chairman, I raised this
question a number of years ago when the former Minister of Public Works, who is now in opposition, had charge of the estimates. At that time he told the committee that personally he objected to this form of purchase by the government of buildings to be used for armoury purposes. I object to a government department entering into negotiations for the purchase of buildings as has been done in connection with armouries across the dominion. In my view if the government find it necessary to erect armouries they do not have to go to a private corporation and have that corporation erect a building at possibly a fabulous price, the government paying it off on the basis of a twenty year agreement or at so much per annum. The government is in a better position than are the private concerns to finance the building of armouries, if the necessity for such buildings arises. I do not know the original cost of these armouries, but I was told by persons interested in the erection of such buildings that an agreement to erect a certain building had been offered to the government, and that if the contract had been let by public tender and contract it could have been built at a much lower price than that stipulated by the corporation gracious enough to enter into the agreement with the government. I want that policy to stop. I should like to have this afternoon from the Minister of Public Works a definite understanding that if the government find it necessary to erect buildings, whether they be armouries or buildings of other kinds, they will undertake to put them up on their own account, and have tenders called for in the usual way.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I should like to ask a
question about the rent being paid for the Montreal armouries. I remember being present when the Toronto armouries vote was under consideration, upon which occasion I had a few words to say. That was before any construction was started. My memory is that the rental was to be the same amount for each year, and I notice that at a later point in the estimates, where the Toronto armouries are mentioned, the amount was the same for last year as it is for this. I find however that in connection with the West-mount armoury the amount paid last year was' $15,200 whereas this year it is $15,900.
202	COMMONS
Supply-Pu b lie Works-Buildings
The minister mentioned varying amounts for intervening years. Do the agreements not state what the rental is to be each year, or does the amount vary?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract shows that
$15,140 is to be paid every year.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Then, why is it $15,900 for 1936-37?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that the
larger amount covers fire insurance on the building.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Who paid the fire
insurance the year before?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The insurance is paid every three years.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to have a statement from the minister on the point I raised, namely as to the policy of his department and that of the Department of National Defence should they find it necessary to erect more buildings of this kind.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Of course my hon. friend
cannot seriously ask me to state a question of policy on the part of the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Oh, yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Policies of the government are expresed in the form of legislation presented to the house, or by proclamation by the proper authority. I am not in a position to state what the policy of the government will be in the future, but if I may be permitted to say so I would guess that we are getting these properties at a much lower cost than would be entailed if we had to erect the building ourselves. It costs less money to acquire properties in this way than to erect the buildings.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister be good enough to state the reason?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am stating what has been told me by an officer of the department, namely that in that case we were more fortunate in acquiring the property on the basis indicated than we would have been had we erected a building ourselves.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I have information with
respect to a contemplated armoury which would be paid for on the same basis as the ones now under consideration. All some people wanted was an opportunity to tender for the contract. I was told there would be a considerable difference between the cost on the basis of public tender and contract, and the amounts stipulated in the agreements. If 
the minister and his officials believe that these buildings are being sold to the government at a cost lower than that at which the government could erect them, I should like to know on what basis that view is held. I do not think it is logical.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I know the hon. member has criticized this method of acquiring armouries, and as some were acquired between 1930 and 1935 on this basis perhaps a statement from me is not out of place. The hon. member seems to think that this method is unsound. Let me point out to him that ordinary public works of the dominion are not paid for over a period of years. All buildings constructed in the ordinary course of events are paid for out of revenue. If in one year we undertook to pay the whole cost of an armoury we would be obligating ourselves to the payment of a large amount of money out of any one year's revenue. In the cities, or other places where there are regiments, there are associations of officers and others, public spirited gentlemen, who desire these accommodations. They feel that to ask a government in any one year to expend the amount necessary to construct a building constitutes a heavy demand. Therefore they have devised a scheme by which over a period of years a building will be acquired or constructed and paid for on the instalment plan. In entering into the transaction the department have an agreement with the association and have supervision over construction. It must be constructed according to plans approved by the department, and under public tender. There is no opportunity, such as the hon. member suggests, for an association t'o run at large or to construct a building at any cost and entirely without supervision of the department, afterwards calling upon the department to pay the cost. The plan is not as unsound as apparently the hon. member 'believes it to be. I know some purchases have been made on a very favourable basis. The reason for the plan, as I have indicated, is that if constructed in one year and paid out of revenue the cost would be a heavy burden indeed.


Mr. YOUNG:: If the explanation of my hon. friend the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) with respect to armouries is sound, it is equally sound with respect to any public building. I entirely agree with my hon. friend over here that when public buildings are erected for Canada the dominion government can borrow money more cheaply than any private concern, and therefore can build the building more cheaply. I recognize that this is not the first time this has been

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
done. I am not in favour of this method of building public buildings. It has been the method used particularly with respect to armouries; and there may have been some reason for using it with respect to armouries.
I should like to ask the minister when this building was erected, what was its cost, how did the department supervise the cost and know exactly the final result in that regard, and also what rate of interest is being paid.
I take it that the cost is amortized, and I am sure that if we went into these matters in detail we should find that we are not saving money by buying buildings in this particular way.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The agreement between the department and the Victoria Rifles Armouries Association was entered into on March 22, 1932. It was agreed that the association would erect the armoury, not to exceed $190,000 in cost, which included architects' fees and so forth. The dominion government agreed to take over the building on a rental-purchase basis covering a period of twenty years, with an annual payment of $15,140.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will be the total amount paid in at the end of twenty years for this building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is a matter of calculation.
Mr. HEAPS': I have calculated it roughly, and it means that we are paying over $300,000 for a building erected at a cost of $190,000. I would ask the minister to answer the question put by the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. Young) as to the amortization rate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, some years ago I opposed this plan of buying public buildings. When we had the responsibility of providing facilities for volunteer military organizations throughout the country in time of great depression it became apparent, when proposals were made by men who had put their own money into these things merely for the purpose of trying to assist their fellow citizens to have a place in which they could gather and train, that we could charge to revenue the ordinary sum that would be payable for rent or upkeep, and a very low rate of interest as things then were-though not low to-day-to complete the purchase of these buildings on a rental basis. No capital obligation was incurred on the part of the country, nothing was added to the debt, and no more money was expended than we would have paid by purchasing outright, except the trifling sum for rental if we had continued to rent them. The Minister of Finance will remember one
instance in which I joined issue with him because I thought it was a wrong principle, but as a matter of fact in connection with armouries it was the only way in which facilities could be provided at all. It will be recalled that it was a Liberal administration which first fixed on this plan of dealing with them, and I must say that I believe it has turned out satisfactorily. I will give an illustration. There has been an extreme depression in the value of real estate in western cities. There was a building in one of our western towns occupied with stores in a military district. The building cost three or four times what it could be bought for today, and the owner said, "Instead of paying rent, take it off our hands. We are not getting anything out of it, and we would like you to have it at this figure," which was to be paid over a period of years and which amounted in reality to less than the rent that was paid a few years ago. The result is that the building at the end of ten years-it was then practically new-will belong to the crown without having added anything to the debt, without incurring any capital charge. The property will have cost just a little more than was being paid for .rentals.
I have in mind another instance, outside of Canada, in which we had a building constructed through the public spirit of the gentleman who represented us in that particular country. Later we were able with improved conditions to pay the cost of the building. The interest rate at that time I think was four and a half or five per cent. I have in mind still another building where conditions were similar. The real fact is that in many parts of this country you can purchase buildings at a price very much less than cost. For instance, many of the banks have closed their branches in western towns, and we found it desirable to purchase for postal facilities, at a cost sometimes only one-third of the original cost, the bank premises in question. In these cases the amounts involved were small and we were able to buy the properties at once. There are other cases where owing to the depressed state of real estate, and the desire to get something out of the wreck, people have been induced to sell their properties at a very low price on a rental basis, capitalized at a very low rate of interest, in some instances lower than the going rate.
I mention these things because I was not at first friendly to this method, but when I came into office I found that it was admirably adapted to the circumstances in connection with many matters, but more notably
204	COMMONS
Supply-Pu blic W orks-Buildings
in connection with the providing of suitable premises for those who are offering volunteer service and who might at any time be called upon to protect life and property in this country. It was largely from the point of view of that consideration that the plan was continued as originated by my friends opposite, without adding anything to the debt, and adding but very little to the annual rental charges. I think it fair to make that statement because the method has been limited largely if not wholly to armouries.
There are one or two cases other than armouries. Some years after I first came to this house I asked some questions about buildings in Ottawa. I think I am not saying too much when I say that there are buildings in this city that we have paid for two or three times over in rents. Had we had just the plan that is now being considered we. would own at least three buildings in the city of Ottawa-I am putting it very low-which to my certain knowledge we have paid for three times over in one instance, two and a half times in another, and once, or more than that, I am told, in another. That is the reason behind this plan which was adopted some years ago by our predecessors. At the time I was not very friendly to it, but, as I told my hon. friend the Minister of Finance, in practice I find that it has worked out very much better


Charles Avery Dunning: As a matter of fact you gave me quite a ride on it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Where was that?


Charles Avery Dunning: In Regina.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It worked out very much better than I had expected. Because of the depression the cost of the buildings has been so low that in many instances it does not represent anything like the original cost, exclusive of the land.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Do these contracts not
contain a clause that permits the department to pay up the amount in full at any time they desire?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The argument of the leader
of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) does not seem to bo as sound as his arguments usually are. In many cases it was possible to erect these armouries only because it was known that an agreement with the government was to be consummated. In reality these companies had behind them the credit of the government, otherwise the buildings could not have been erected. Many of these buildings are not old, the one we are now dealing 
with having been erected in the past two or three years. I should like some statement from the minister as to whether this practice is to be discontinued. The question has been asked as to the rate of interest at which these amounts are to be amortized over the period of twenty years; I wonder if the minister has that information before him.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In connection with Montreal, the rate is five per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What about the one at
Westmount?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is six per cent.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The one at Westmount was
built in 1931, and at that time I believe the government could have borrowed money at a rate of about four per cent. For twenty years we will be paying at least two per cent per annum more than we should be paying.


Gerald Grattan McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the principle of financing our militia by private means is thoroughly unsound. The militia should be considered as definitely under the control of the national government. I happen to have had the experience of being told by militia officers in Vancouver that a number of men could not turn out for the parade held on the occasion of the celebration of the king's jubilee because they were not equipped with shoes in which to march. I was told that this equipment was being supplied through contributions made by the officers, but the depression had hit the officers and their contributions were no longer available. If Canada has fallen to such a pitiful level that she cannot maintain her militia, then it is nearly time to close out this particular service. If this service is to be maintained by private contributions, the inevitable end will be the establishment of private armies in the dominion, to the disaster of the country. Armouries have been built with funds provided by private enterprise, and we are paying five and six per cent interest on this money. The building of these armouries should be an obligation upon this dominion, and I think the time has arrived when we should recognize the militia as a worthy unit of the institutions that form the fabric of the government of the dominion. Our armouries should be built by the government, and the government should supply the necessary funds to equip the men. The pitiful weakness of our whole scheme of government seems to stand out. We are a nation rich in natural resources; we have no standing army and we have no naval obligations, but in the matter of militia we have probably the lowest standard of any country in the British empire. It is a sorry reflection

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
upon the administration of public affairs when we have to maintain our militia by means of contributions from the officers and other private individuals. I have been informed that the Seaforth cadets in Vancouver receive a contribution from the national government of only one dollar each per year. As one officer told me, this is equivalent to the cost of one belt for each cadet. This is only one of innumerable instances. Whatever militia service we intend to have should be maintained without resort to the unnecessarily costly system of assistance by private enterprise.


Mr. MARSHALL:: Could the minister give the committee the names attached to the agreement in connection with the Montreal armouries?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give the names at the moment. My hon. friend understands, I think, that the deed was signed by someone personally on behalf of the armoury, the other party being the Minister of Public Works.


James Alexander Marshall: Who was the contractor?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Messrs. A. F. Byers & Company, Limited.


James Alexander Marshall: What is the present value of that armoury?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would be very difficult for me to answer that question, but I should think the value would be what it was when the government entered into the arrangement. I fancy it was about S190,000-around $200,000. That was the basis on which the rental was calculated at the time, and as it was only a few years ago, I should not think the value has gone down.


James Alexander Marshall: How long ago was it built?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: About two years ago. We made the first payment in the fiscal year 1933-34.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It may be difficult for the minister to give the committee an assurance on behalf of the government with respect to future constructions of this kind, but to narrow the matter down, may I ask him whether he will, on his own account, assure the committee that he will object to more buildings being purchased by the government on the basis on which similar buildings have been purchased in the last few years.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no hesitation in replying to that question. So far as I am
concerned, I am quite ready to review these contracts, and if it can be established that an appreciable economy can be effected, I purpose taking advantage of the clause permitting the government to pay off the whole amount, thus doing away with rentals.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is not the government at this time obtaining money at three per cent?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The Minister of Finance might enlighten us on that point.


Charles Avery Dunning: A good deal depends upon the conditions under which money is obtained. If the money is borrowed for a very short period, the government can borrow at 1-05 per cent, but it would be rather absurd to borrow for a short period where the expenditure is to run on for a considerable time. If my hon. friend is thinking of a period of, say seven years, I may say that yesterday government guaranteed debentures were sold to yield about 2i per cent. If he has in mind a longer period, for instance, seventeen years, yesterday we disposed of an amount of seventeen-year Canadian National debentures guaranteed by the government, yielding 3-19 per cent. My hon. friend will understand how difficult it is to say offhand what the government can borrow money at; this depends upon the length of the - term and the conditions.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Assuming that these agreements have to run for seventeen years or so, and seventeen more payments have to be made, the government can obtain money at a little over 3 per cent; and if we are paying six per cent now, would it not pay the government to obtain an issue of bonds equivalent to the amount outstanding, so that instead of six per cent a fraction over three per cent would have to be paid?


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. gentleman has just heard the minister say that he intends to examine, from the point of view of ascertaining whether appreciable savings can be effected, all contracts similar to the one under discussion. I know the minister well enough to be assured that if he finds such a condition to exist he will come to the treasury board and probably ask the Minister of Finance to raise the necessary money to bring about repayment and effect the economy to which reference has been made. I have no knowledge of this particular contract. One cannot in the course of a few months become fully acquainted with all the various ramifications of contracts and so forth which are in existence. I think my
205	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
hon. friend might be content with the minister's answer, that he intends to review all such cases and bring about economy wherever that can be done.


Mr. HAYHURST:: What is the reason
for the words "Appropriations not required for 1936-37" at the bottom of these votes, with amounts indicated in the 1935-36 column?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I explained some time ago that the $215,200 appropriation not required for 1936-37, under this particular vote, represented for the most part sums of money which had been voted last year and are not being expended this year. For example, some amounts were voted for public buildings that are not being built.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Ontario-
Belleville-building for entomological branch, $36,500.
Belleville-new gun shed, $1,500.
Campbellford-public building, $6,000.
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $125,000.
Dunnville-public building, $17,000.
Fenelon Falls-public building, $5,000.
Fort Erie-public building, $72,000.
Hamilton-addition to armoury, $30,000.
Kingston - R.S.A. and brigade building, $55,000.
Kingsville-public building, $14,500.
Kirkland Lake-public building, $75,500.
London-Royal School building, $15,500.
Meaford-public building, $5,500.	.
Ottawa central heating plant - improvements, $6,900.
Ottawa departmental buildings-fittings, etc., $55,000.
Ottawa-to provide for the acquisition of the Hope property at the corner of Sparks and Elgin streets, $155,000.
Powassan-public building, $16,000.
Richmond Hill-public building, $29,500.
Toronto-instalment on purchase of armoury, $29,400.
Watford-(public building, $14,060.
Herbert Earl Wilton: I was recently informed
by the Department of National Defence that the question of providing rifle ranges for militia units in Hamilton and the surrounding district was being taken under serious advisement. This is a matter of considerable importance in connection with militia movements in that city and the surounding territory. I do not see any provision made for it in these estimates. Is there a possibility of the supplementary estimates taking care of it?	[DOT]


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid I cannot give
my hon. friend any promise, nor can I make any statement in that regard, for the very 
good reason that work of that kind comes not under my department but under the Department of National Defence. My hon. friend can make his request when the committee is considering the estimates of that department.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: The
hon. gentleman's observations will be carefully considered by the Department of National Defence.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The item of $36,500 is
required to complete the erection of an entomological laboratory at Belleville, the construction of which is being carried out under contract by Ross-Meagher Limited, of Ottawa, for the sum of $82,832; and also for fittings, grading, roadways and supervision.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is for the Department of Agriculture, is it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the amounts under
the column headed "1936-37" the original contract prices of the buildings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The estimated costs of the buildings.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The appropriation in the estimates.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation in the
estimates; yes, that is right. But generally the appropriation is based on the estimated cost of the building.


John Ritchie MacNicol: In reference to the building at Fort Erie, apparently last year it was considered that $50,000 would be sufficient. Now I note that the government is asking for an additional $28,000. Has the size of the building been changed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This amount of $72,000
is required to complete the erection of a public building for postal and customs purposes in the town of Fort Erie.


John Ritchie MacNicol: A difference of $28,000.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide for the
erection of a new building sufficiently large to accommodate both customs and postal services on the site of the existing buildings. For that purpose additional land immediately west of the present site was purchased.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The new building is to
consist of a customs building and a postal building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


John Ritchie MacNicol: And that is why the
additional cost is in. I would like to ask about the public building at Kingsville. While Kingsville is a very beautiful town, it is not very large. I notice this item calls for an additional $9,000. Will the minister please explain that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The amount of $14,500 is
required to complete the erection of a public building for postal and customs purposes. The building is being erected on a site at the corner of Division and Main streets. The total cost of the building will be approximately $9,700 greater than was originally intended, due to the lowest tender being $26,000 for a building which was first estimated at $17,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These were public tenders, were they not.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, public tenders.


Angus MacInnis: Would the chairman explain what is meant under the heading, "Royal school building, London"? What sort of school building is it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is a military school.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is an increase there which perhaps the minister might give us some light upon.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The appropriation of 193536 was increased as it developed that the sum of $25,000 was too small adequately to provide for the necessary fittings.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: Will the minister explain the purpose of buying the Hope property at Ottawa for $155,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It has not been decided what use the government will make of this building, but it was decided that we should secure the property because it is in the centre of the city; it is one of the city's best sites; it is next to the park where the war memorial is going to be built, and it was thought undesirable that the property should get into the hands of some people who might put up a building which would not be in accordance with the general surroundings, nor accord with the plan for the development of that area in the centre of Ottawa.


Ernest Edward Perley: I understand from what the minister says that he does not know yet what this property will- be used for, whether for the post office or for the Bank of Canada?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; that has not been decided yet.


Ernest Edward Perley: There was some rumour that the purpose of buying this property was to remove the building and not have another one there. I hope very much that there is no intention of doing anything of that sort. I like the park and the way it was arranged, but at the present time we have enough open land in the centre of this city.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Many suggestions have been made in regard to the use of the Hope property. It has been suggested among other things that the old building be taken down and that the Langevin block be extended along Elgin street, because we are receiving complaints from the department of the Postmaster General that they have not enough accommodation in the present Langevin block. Others have suggested that when the present post office is taken down it might be rebuilt on the Hope property. At all events nothing has been decided, and the government will welcome suggestions in regard to the use of the property.


Ernest Edward Perley: Was this property bought directly from Hope & Sons, or was it bought from someone else who had purchased it from them?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it was expropriated.


Ernest Edward Perley: It has not yet been determined how much the government is to pay for it?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the minister tell me the frontage on Sparks street which the government proposes to expropriate?


Charles Avery Dunning: It is almost three-cornered.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: On Sparks street, 61 feet 2 inches, and on Elgin street, 104 feet.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the assessed value at the present time?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is $153,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of course the amount at which it is expropriated would be paid out of the consolidated revenue fund-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -rather than by an estimate such as this. I assume the minister is familiar with the modern practice with regard to postal service in cities. Long ago the department abandoned the idea of constructing large central post offices, and for the greater convenience of the public adopted the plan of having the mails distributed to outlying postal stations in different parts of the city. In
208	COMMONS
Supply-Public W orks-Buildings
order to place the new war memorial, I believe it is contemplated that the old post office should come down and the memorial be placed somewhere in that vicinity. Does the minister think in view of the policy I have mentioned and the construction of a postal terminal behind the union station where the mails will be sorted and distributed instead of dragging them to a central post office and back again, thus congesting traffic, that a large building is desirable for a central post office? I think the plan that the postal authorities had in mind when the policy I mentioned was adopted was to put small postal stations in different parts of the city. In fact there will be one in the new postal terminal. I suggest that a large post office on the corner under discussion is not necessary and not in keeping with modern practice. So it seems to me that if additional accommodation is required for postal administration which is carried on in the Langevin block, this site might be very suitable for that, and at the same time, as the minister says, protect that area from the construction of an unsightly building on the edge of what will be a very beautiful area in the city. I think that would be sound, but I do not think the construction of a post office there would be sound.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I quite agree with the
former Minister of Public Works in that regard. In the conversation I have had already with my colleagues we are all in accord with the view that a big post office is not necessary in view of the building of the postal terminal at the rear of the union station, and I assure my hon. friends that even if I wanted a big building I am afraid I should be checked by the Minister of Finance, who is very severe.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Ministers of Finance are
always very severe with Ministers of Public Works.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was heartily in accord
with the acquisition of this property; in fact I think it might well have been acquired before. But I do not think a large post office building should, under any circumstances, be erected there. I had thought myself it would be an admirable location for the Bank of Canada and for the additional finance department staff that has become now necessary, and is in rented premises. The site lends itself admirably to that form of development, and certainly I had in mind that it should be acquired without delay so as to prevent it from falling into the hands of those who would erect on it a building out of harmony with the general development of that square.


Charles Avery Dunning: I appreciate what the
leader of the opposition has said in that regard. Among the suggestions which have come to the government is the one to which he refers, namely, that the comer would be suitable for the Bank of Canada. In speaking quite informally to the governor of the bank about the matter, I know he mentioned two objections. One was that the corner is in the nature of things rather noisy for office purposes, and the other, which does him credit [DOT]as governor of the bank, was that a less expensive .property would be quite suitable for central bank premises. However, that suggestion among others, is still under consideration.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As regards the Powassan public building, 816,000, what is the reason for the extra cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The building will cost
about 83,000 more than was provided: in the appropriation, due to the lowest tender received, 810,640, being 82.640 more than the estimated cost, and we desire to add supervision and contingencies, 81,360.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Are the plans and specifications of the building the same?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The same question applies to the Richmond; Hill public building, 829,500; that building is now to cost 87,500 more than the original estimate.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The site has cost 88,000
instead of 85,000 as estimated at first.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When was the site purchased?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Last fall.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was bought on August 14, 1935.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And the purchase cost was 83,000 more than the original estimate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: That leaves another
difference of 84,500. Is the building being changed, too?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; the building is not being changed. I believe in my former observation I made a mistake in stating that 85,000 was to be the cost of the site. I have a note indicating that the site is going to cost 88,000, as against an estimated cost of 8500. I said that the estimated cost was 85,000, but I find it was S500.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not the same site.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; it is not the same.

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


John Ritchie MacNicol: That is an amazing circumstance. We find it was to be erected upon a site costing $500, 'but it is now changed to a much more expensive site.


Mr. BAKER:: In last year's estimates there was an item respecting station K of the postal service in the northern part of Toronto. Why was it not left in the estimates for the present year?
Mr. CARDIN': The hon. member has shown keen interest in the postal station in question, but due to pressure by the Minister of Finance it was not included in preparing the main estimates. The minister wanted to economize as much as possible. As he has already explained we have tried to leave out all amounts which could not properly be spent during the present year. The construction of station K in Toronto has not been abandoned, I may assure the hon. member that the matter is still under advisement, which infor* mation may leave a little ray of hope in the mind of the hon. member. As the Minister of Finance has intimated, supplementary estimates will be presented and no doubt the hon. member will be interested in reading them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is encouraging.


Richard Langton Baker: Is the minister prepared to state definitely that the department will proceed with the work on station K this year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, of course not, but my hon. friend may rely on my good will.


Richard Langton Baker: I assume the minister is aware that the Post Office Department has declared definitely that the station is required.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Richard Langton Baker: If it is being dropped from the estimates I should like to know why.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give a better reason than I have already given.
Mr. BAKER- That is very indefinite.


John Ritchie MacNicol: With reference to the Watford public building, $14,000, I should like to ask a question respecting the difference in cost. As we are reaching the end of the item possibly I might be permitted to make some general observations. I note that work is 'being done at Fort Erie in the constituency of Welland, Kingsville in the constituency of South Essex, Kirkland Lake in the constituency of Timiskaming, Meaford in the constituency of North Grey, Powassan in the constituency of Parry Sound, Richmond Hill in the constituency of North York, and Watford in the constituency of Lambton-Kent.
In connection with each of these items there have been increases to amounts greater than the estimated costs. As a business man I find it amazing to see costs of that kind mounting from year to year. On the other hand, of course I know politics has nothing to do with the matter. I might say that apparently fortunately for those ridings they returned Liberals to the House of Commons -fortunately, so far as the items are concerned, but I do not say fortunately in any other respect. I am wondering whether, if these respective ridings had returned Conservatives as they did in 1930, would they have been fortunate enough to have received these increases in costs.


Richard Langton Baker: Perhaps the items would have been crossed out.


Mr. MULOCK:: Is the hon. member in favour of having the votes to Ontario reduced?


John Ritchie MacNicol: That question does not fit in with the political end of the discussion.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In this instance the increase arises because the lowest tender was $1,600 higher than the estimated cost of the building. It has been established by the officers of the department that it will cost $1,500 more for fittings than had been previously expected. Then there is a further increase of $900 in the estimated cost of supervision and contingencies, the amount having risen from $500 to $1,400. These three items account for the increased amount.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Is the minister referring to the public building at Watford?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Watford is a very small village, and I find it very difficult to understand why fittings in village post offices should cost $1,500 more than the original estimate. I should like to know why the amount is being voted.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The technical men in the department state that the fittings will cost $2,500.


John Ritchie MacNicol: And that is $1,500 more than the original estimate?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The original estimate was


John Ritchie MacNicol: In my time I have had a lot to do with building, involving millions and millions of dollars, and I am surprised to find that in a small village building the item of fittings would be increased $1,500 beyond

210	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Buildings
the original estimate. I am convinced that requires further explanation. I want to know why the fittings in a small village building are so expensive?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The fittings include postal boxes, locks, and so on. At all events public tenders are going to be called for when the fittings are required, and that would be the proper time to ascertain whether the prices asked by the contractors are reasonable. This is the estimate given to me by the officers of the department; I have to rely on their technical knowledge. When the tenders are opened we may get the fittings at a lower price, but it often happens that contractors ask a price higher than that estimated by departmental officers.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The fact that Lambton-Kent returned a Liberal to parliament has nothing to do with the increased cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, not a thing.


Mr. HANSON:: We have had no consideration in the last five years.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You are getting it now.


Angus MacInnis: Possibly the fittings would be more liberal, under the present administration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Manitoba-
Elkhorn-public building, $6,500.
Abraham Albert Heaps: Is that the total cost of the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: That is to complete.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What will be the total cost
of the building, and what was the estimated cost?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The total cost will be
830,644, and the preliminary estimate was $24,000.


Mr. BEAIJBIER:: What was the contract
price for the building? Is it now completed and taken off the contractors' hands?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract was for


David Wilson Beaubier: Were there extras, fittings and so forth that sent the cost above the contract price?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am informed that there
were additions: a septic tank, $1,700; $3,500 for fittings; $1,000 for grading; $1,000 for contingencies and supervision.


David Wilson Beaubier: Is the building now completed and taken off the contractor's hands?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Not yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rivers-public building, $5,000.
David Wilson Beaubier: How far advanced is
the construction of this building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I could not say exactly,
but the work is going on in the regular way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Russell-'public building, $23,500.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Have tenders been invited and the contract awarded for this building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What is the name of the contractor and when was the contract let?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The contract was awarded
to S. Brown of Winnipeg for $20,224 on September 26, 1935.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-Saskatchewan-
Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, $25,000.
Mr. McNIVEN:: Would the minister be
good enough to indicate wdiat is included in this $25,000?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is to provide for ordinary repairs and maintenance of the buildings.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Of all the public buildings in Saskatchewan?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Kindersley-public building, $32,000.
Ernest Edward Perley: What is the
reason for the increase in this vote?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The note I have before
me is that the building will cost $12,000 more than was provided in the appropriation of $20,000 for the year 1935-36, because the lowest tender was $8,500 more than the estimated cost of $16,000; the fittings will cost $3,500 instead of $1,000, and supervision and contingencies will cost $3,000 instead of $1,000.


Ernest Edward Perley: Has the estimate been changed because of the fittings?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Whitewood-public building, $3,500.
Ernest Edward Perley: What is the
reason for the increase there?

Supply-Public Works-Buildings


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is due to an increase in the cost of the site to $600 as against $500, and for supervision and contingencies, $1,400 instead of $500.


Ernest Edward Perley: The minister says that there has been an increase in the cost of the site, but the site was purchased before the building was started.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It was estimated that it
would cost $500.


Mr. GARDINER:: When was the site purchased ?


Ernest Edward Perley: The site was not changed and I do not see how there could be an increase in the cost.


James Garfield Gardiner: There should not have been, but you people bought it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I think that is another question for the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart).


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The site was not changed
but the sum of $500 was only the estimated cost.


Charles Avery Dunning: You paid $600 for it.


Ernest Edward Perley: I think the
minister is mistaken. I do not believe there has been any increase in the cost of the site. A possible explanation is that a well was dug. Can the minister confirm that?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have no information.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Will provision be made
in the supplementary estimates for the federal building now under construction at Regina, and also for the extension of and additions to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks at Regina?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The public building would be constructed under the Public Works Construction Act and would not appear in these estimates.


Donald Alexander McNiven: Does that apply to the
mounted police barracks also?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They will be constructed
under the provisions of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.


Mr. COLD WELL:: I have been looking
over these estimates and the amount provided for Saskatchewan seems to be very small for such a large province. Will amounts be provided under other acts, such as those mentioned just now by the minister? I have in mind certain bridges which I cannot find here and which are under construction.
12739-X4J


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certain provisions are
made in the Public Works Construction Act.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will those amounts
appear in the supplementary estimates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-British Columbia-
Hollyburn.-public building, $37,000.
Mr. MacNEIL:: Will the contract in connection with this building contain a fair wage clause?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Will the minister be in
a position to exercise such supervision as will ensure local labour being used as far as possible? I ask this question because of a communication I have received to-day.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As far as we can, we try
to enforce that clause. If I am not mistaken this applies more to the Department of Labour, but as far as we can exercise our authority, we do so. If my hon. friend has any complaints to make I shall be glad to make the necessary representations to see that the clause is enforced.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I notice that there is an
item, "To meet one year's interest at five per cent on mortgage of $400,000."


Frederick George Sanderson: We have not reached that item.


Grote Stirling: I should like to make an inquiry in connection with the public building at Kelowna. Is it being proceeded with?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It is not being proceeded with at the present 'time, but it is under consideration.


Grote Stirling: Tenders for a public building at Kelowna and for a public building at Penticton were returnable either on the same day or within a few days of each other. It is significant that Kelowna is where I reside while Penticton is the home of my Liberal opponent. I do not think it is possible that any political colour has tinged the minister's decision in this matter, but I am extremely interested to hear why the public building at Penticton is being proceeded with when my Liberal opponent stated that he thought the erection of such a building would be an unwise action considering the state of affairs with which we were faced. I supported the erection of a public building at Kelowna because I did not agree with my opponent's statement that this was not the proper time to erect a public building at Penticton. In a way these two communities are twin cities; they are located

Supply-Public Works-Buildings
in the same valley and are both centres of a very considerable expansion. The progress made by Kelowna is the largest of that made by any community in the valley. I should like an explanation why the building at Penticton is being proceeded with at this time while the building at Kelowna is not being proceeded with.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. friend a reason satisfactory to him. The government has endeavoured to reduce the estimates of the Department of Public Works as well as those of other departments, and it was necessary to leave certain items out of our program. The public building at Kelowna has been put to one side, but I can assure my hon. friend that no politics entered into that decision. The question is still being seriously considered, and I think I can say to my hon. friend that he should not despair.


Grote Stirling: No doubt the minister will permit me to give whatever assistance I can?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, I shall be glad to have it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mission City-public building, $6,000.
Mr. BARBER:: Could the minister give the particulars of the extra ependiture in connection with this item?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This building will cost approximately $2,500 more than is provided in the appropriation of $30,000 in 1935-36, owing to the fact that the lowest tender for the building was $990 greater than the estimated cost of $23,500. There was also the installation of a clock at a cost of $1,000, for which provision had not been made in the appropriation, and there is an increase in contingencies. These increases total $2,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Penticton-public building, $65,000.
Grote Stirling: What was the date of the order in council covering the contract for the Kelowna building and the Penticton building as well? The two have always been taken together.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As regards the Penticton building, the date is October 23, 1935. I cannot at the moment give the date for the Kelowna building.
Mr.-STIRLING: So that the minister cannot tell me the amount of the contract?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In regard to Kelowna?


Grote Stirling: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Grote Stirling: The Kelowna building not having been proceeded with, was it necessary to pass another order in council cancelling the previous one?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No.


Grote Stirling: It just lapsed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Has the minister taken under consideration the erection of a public building at Powell River? I understand he has had an application from the local board of trade explaining the great need of a building in that town.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have not in mind at the moment the representations referred to by my hon. friend. I can assure him that when considering further expenditures for the Department of Public Works I shall be pleased to look into the matter. I invite my hon friend to come to my office and explain the situation fully. He will be welcome.


Charles Grant MacNeil: Would it be possible to consider the matter in the preparation of the supplementary estimates?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will consider it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sidney-public building, $24,000.
Mr. TAYLOR (Nanaimo):: What is the position of this transaction at the moment? Is it intended to proceed with the building?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The order in council accepting the tender was passed only on January 16. Construction will foe proceeded with in the ordinary way.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vancouver - instalment on purchase of armoury, $14,000.	.
Abraham Albert Heaps: I assume the minister will treat this item as he has promised to treat the others. The next item would come almost under the same category. I observe that the government is paying five per cent interest [DOT] on a mortgage of $400,000. I do not know the circumstances, but it appears to me that if the government is able to obtain money at a fraction over three per cent, it would be good business to amortize the cost of the building, and the difference between three per cent and five per cent, over a period of years, would allow the government to obtain complete ownership of the building within a reasonable time. I would suggest, with regard to the last item in the British Columbia estimates, that the Minister of Finance look into all these mortgages or near mortgages out-

Canada-US. Trade Agreement
standing at five and six per cent and see whether the government cannot save money in that direction.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: How many armouries were purchased on the instalment basis in the last five years?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give that information offhand, but I will inform the hon. member as soon as I am advised by the officers of the department.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: How many other public buildings in Canada were purchased on a similar basis?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I will give that information.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Is the government paying interest only?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The building was purchased subject to mortgage.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We are paying interest.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Only?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: 
Frederick George Sanderson: What item is the hon. gentleman discussing?


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I am referring to the elimination of the $451,000, and I think this is an opportunity to lay the matter before the minister. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police were also to occupy the building, as were the farm loan board, the Department of National Revenue, and one or two others. The old buildings are not fireproof, and they contain the records of the Indian Affairs department for all British Columbia. Any day they may be destroyed. The head office for Indian Affairs is in this building in Victoria. It is also the head office in connection with the radio service. I wish to bring this matter to the attention of the Minister of Finance and also of the minister representing British Columbia, because there is a very real necessity for this building. I will take the opportunity, if I can be given no guarantee of progress in this regard, of writing to the three ministers concerned-the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of National Defence, and the Minister of Finance-in the hope that the construction of that building will not be held up. Plans have been prepared, I know. I do not want to press upon the government anything that I think is wrong or that I think is unnecessary. The construction of that building would give workmen and mechanics in Victoria a large quantity of work. I am going to leave the matter at this stage. I purpose bringing it up later, and I would ask earnest consideration of my representations.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 5.55 p.m.
Monday, February 17, 1936