[Stage Direction]
On the order for resuming the adjourned debate on the motion of Mr. Parent for the concurrence in the second report of the select standing committee on public accounts:
Mr. SPEAKER:: Shall I say "Stand"?


Mr. ERNST:: Stand.


Mr. POWER:: Question.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the
house to adopt the motion?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It was agreed that the
motion should stand until the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs), the chairman of the committee, who signed the report, was in his place. He is not present to-day.


Hewitt Bostock: Stands, by unanimous
consent.



SPECIAL WAR REVENUE ACT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: May I remind the house and the country that in the budget speech delivered on March 1, notice was given of a proposed change in part seven of the Special War Revenue Act, concerning the sale or transfer of shares of stock. It was provided that this change should go into effect on the 1st of May, next Wednesday. It is now apparent that the necessary amending bill may not be ready to receive royal assent before that date and it is proposed that the revised rates shall not be effectual until July 1. The officers of the National Revenue department have been notified accordingly.
The abolition of the Special War Revenue Act tax on cables, telegrams, railway and other tickets becomes effective on May 1.


Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: Is it proposed that there shall
be no amendments in the rate of the new tax with respect to mines and mining shares, or is that subject to discussion and reconsideration by the ministry when the resolution is before the house?


James Alexander Robb: It is subject to discussion
when the resolution is before the house.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Fort William):: Just in that connection I notice the minister used the words "revised rates." Since he mentions there are going to be revised rates, I was wondering if he should not make them public at this time.


James Alexander Robb: The term "revised rates" is
used because the rates as presented to parliament in the budget are revised rates.



NEWSPAPER VAPAUS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: I desire to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, or the Solicitor General, or whichever power or authority the question should be directed to, in respect of a petition which was presented to the house yesterday by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre), a petition which asked for the suppression of a paper called "Vapaus." I should like to ask whether the officers of the house have examined that petition, and whether they have formally accepted or rejected it. In connection with the question, if I am in order,
I should like to point out that Bourinot, third edition, page 348, says:
AH petitions should be respectfully and temperately worded. The house will refuse to receive them if they contain any reflections on the king or his representative in Canada, or on the action of parliament, or on any of its committees, or on the courts of justice, or affect "the legal and social positions of individuals."
I believe that petition shows disrespect to His Majesty inasmuch as it asks for_ the suppression of liberty, whereas His Majesty stands for liberty to all British people. In the next place it infringes the law.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman, to be in order, should give notice and move that the petition be not received in spite of the report which has been made. The matter is not debatable just now, but if the hon. gentleman will give notice and move that the petition be not received for the reason he alleges, he will be in order.


William Irvine: Has the petition been examined?


Hewitt Bostock: All petitions are examined by the officers of the house.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: After they have been presented?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: So the petition is in the hands of the law officers of the house?


Hewitt Bostock: Certainly. It is not before the house now. I will see what report has been made and will inform the house at
Western Air Mail

the next sitting. The hon. gentleman can give notice and move that the petition be not received.



WESTERN AIR MAIL CONTRACTS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to ask the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) a question, of which I have not given him notice, but I think he will be able to answer it without notice. I have received a telegram regarding the awarding of the air mail contracts for western Canada. It reads:
Understand Western Canada Airways of Winnipeg will be granted entire western air mail contracts. When in Ottawa last month postal minister assured me that our company would be given consideration. You are aware I formed Great Western Airways and pioneered aviation here with board of directors fuliy able to finance air mail service between Winnipeg and Calgary. Disaster to my company not to be considered and grossly unfair especially after minister's promise to me.
That is from Captain McCall, an air man with a very distinguished record during the war. There is an article also in the Edmonton Journal of the 18th of February, complaining that the Commercial Airways, Limited did not have an opportunity to tender. Perhaps the minister will be able to remove the difficulties which these gentlemen are now experiencing by stating what are the facts in connection with the air mail service.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: No contract has been awarded for that service yet. That company is being communicated with for an offer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Thank you.



PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: According to the current issue of the Financial Post very extensive pulp and paper consolidations are likely to take place, as a result of a desire on the part of banking groups to consolidate their positions. I should like to to ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) whether his department has been consulted with reference to this new development in banking policy.


James Alexander Robb: The first I have heard of it is the statement made by my hon. friend (Mr. Woodsworth). I have not yet read the Financial Post.


The CHAIRMAN:: 
Mr. GARDINER:: I did not understand that we had passed the item with regard to a public building in Calgary. I would like the minister to give some explanation of this item of 8300,000 for a public building in Calgary.


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: I do not know whether my hon. friend was present last night when the matter was under discussion. This amount is required towards the erection of a new public building to house all the government offices at Calgary. The proposed building will be an eight storey stone and brick structure situated on Eighth avenue at the corner of First Street east. The building will have a frontage of 158 feet 9 inches on Eighth avenue by a depth of 120 feet on First street east. The new building proposed to be erected at Calgary was advertised in March, 1920, and tenders were received amounting to approximately $1,400,000. Those were the tenders at that time, and that is the 'best estimate that I can give to my hon. friend of what the probable cost will be. The building will contain 2,808,307 cubic feet which, at the price of $1,400,000, will be between 52 and 53 cents per cubic foot.


Mr. SPENOER:: There is nothing in the votes and proceedings or in Hansard to show that Vote 127 was passed last night.

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


John Campbell Elliott: Hansard will show that this particular item was agreed to last night.


Henry Elvins Spencer: It should appear in
Hansard.


John Campbell Elliott: It is in Hansard. My hon. friend will see that the item was agreed to last night.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I suggest the desirability of having that building faced with granite? When this building was discussed in 1914, it will be recalled that there was an item in the estimates of $250,060, but then the war came on. In 1920 tenders were called for a building of stone and brick. There is a very fine quarry of granite in the constituency of the Minister of National Health, and that granite has been found very serviceable. It makes an excellent building material. I was hoping that possibly alternative tenders might be called for the utilization of that granite. The Minister of National Health knows the granite to which I refer.


John Campbell Elliott: It is only fair to my hon. friend to say that the present recommendations do not provide for granite proper. As my hon. friend knows, it is much more expensive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It might not be very
much more expensive.


John Campbell Elliott: However, I shall be very
glad to consider the proposal of having alternative tenders, but I do not think we can make an exception of the city of Calgary in that respect.


Robert James Manion: When must the tenders
be in?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend' will understand that we will begin to prepare the plans now. We have the old plans that were provided in 1920. Tenders were called for then. Of course my hon. friends will readily understand that we are doing nothing by way of preparing new plans or anything else until the estimate is passed in the house.


Robert James Manion: Of course, the plan could
be prepared and tenders called for on the supposition that the item is going through. I say that in justification of my question. The calling for tenders does not necessarily mean the job is going through anyway.


John Campbell Elliott: No, but perhaps my hon. friend knows the difficulties in the architect's branch, and this applies practically throughout Canada. Owing to the fact that during the war years there was no public building going on
here, we are not as flush of architects and draughtsmen as we would have been if our building program had been so extensive as to provide work for them. A great many of our architects at that time went across to the United States. Our requirement is that they must have resided here for three years to qualify for a position. The present staff is fully occupied on buildings with regard to which the estimates have been passed and there is no question of their going on.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: I assume that the usual
fair wage clause will be inserted in the contract and that as much as possible local labour will be employed1?


John Campbell Elliott: We will advertise for
tenders. There will be no doubt about the fair wage clause, but I do not think -it would be fair to the contractor to say that he must take labour from any particular district. He will have to be his own judge to a considerable extent as to that. Naturally labour will come from the district pretty largely.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think that as far as
possible the tradesmen and labourers should be local people, and that outsiders should not be brought in to lower the wages.


William Irvine: I wish to express my appreciation to the government for having listened to those eloquent appeals which I made some years ago for this post office, and for having decided ultimately to take action. I see now the proper way to go about these things, and I shall know better in the future how to proceed.


John Campbell Elliott: In spite of what my hon. friend says, this building is going to be put up shortly.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: The hon. member for
Wetaskiwin says he knows how to proceed to get these things. I think for the benefit of the house he might tell us a little more as to the proper procedure. I should like to know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Coutts-building for immigration and customs purposes, $2,500.
Robert James Manion: What kind of a building
is the minister getting for $2,500?


John Campbell Elliott: It is to provide for the
construction of a shelter over the highway and accommodation for cars on either side, and also two small offices, one for customs and the other for immigration officials.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Alberta
Redcliff-armoury accommodation, $1,200.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the armoury at Redcliff?


John Campbell Elliott: It is to provide for the
purchase from Mr. H. O. Wheeler of a building for which we are now paying an annual rental of S240. It is not a very elaborate building, 'but it was thought better to buy it at SI,200 than to rent it at S240.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the entire purchase price?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And next year the building will have to be rebuilt?


John Campbell Elliott: No; that remark arises
from the suspicious mind of my hon. friend, but it is absolutely unjustified. The building is a two-storey brick structure onie hundred feet by twenty feet with a floor area of 4,452 square feet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Twelve hundred' dollars?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is only because it is a bargain that we are buying it.


Robert James Manion: It must be a bargain.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What repairs are needed
on the building? You do not get gifts of that kind without there being something behind them.


John Campbell Elliott: I must say that at the
price for which we are getting the building the vendor is not doing the repairs.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not wonder at there being a suspicious mind cm a proposition of that kind.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course, I would not
object if it was limited to propositions of this kind.


James Dew Chaplin: We had better get more particulars about it.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
give my hon. friend particulars, because he always asks for them in such a courteous manner that it is a pleasure to give them.


James Dew Chaplin: Thank you.


John Campbell Elliott: The following repairs are required to put the building in first-class condition :
Re-cover roof with standard specification tar and gravel. The present roof covering has deteriorated to such an extent that patching would be poor policy. Owing to water entering the building the upper floor ceiling would require replastering. The heating plant also requires some overhauling and other minor repairs throughout the building. The total 
cost of above items I would estimate at $1,000. I he main work of the structure is in good condition, and if these repairs were executed I would consider the replacement value of entire building would be $12,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Red Deer public alterations, $2,000.
building-addition
and
Mr. SPEAKMAN:: I am glad to see the
item for Red Deer, although it is rather small. Is it possible that part of this vote is to be donated to filling the unsightly excavation which has been the subject of correspondence between the minister and myself for the past two years?


John Campbell Elliott: No. This $2,000 is required for the construction of a small addition at the roar of the Red Deer public building to provide adequate accommodation for the public.


Alfred Speakman: I am very glad to hear it because during busy times the building does not provide proper accommodation for the public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am rather familiar with that section of the country. I lost considerable money in ventures not far from there.


John Campbell Elliott: You are not the only gentleman who enjoys that distinction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are the taxes to be paid out of the $1,200, the price of the Redcliff property?


John Campbell Elliott: We can get a clear title.
When the question of renewing the lease was brought up the owner offered to sell the whole property to the government for $1,200 cash, stating that the revenue did not meet taxes and insurance, and as he could foresee little chance of conditions improving he hesitated to spend more money on it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So that the taxes and
insurance are more than $240 a year?


John Campbell Elliott: I should imagine so. But
my hon. friend knows we do not pay taxes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that.


Hugh Guthrie: What purpose has the
government in buying it?


John Campbell Elliott: We already occupy it as
an armoury.


Hugh Guthrie: Have you a corps there?


John Campbell Elliott: I think so. The Department of National Defence have requested that the building be obtained1.


Mr. GERSHAW:: I did not know that this vote was to be brought down until I saw it

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
in the estimates. This building has been used for a long time 'by the government and as the rent paid is insufficient the owners are anxious to dispose of it. I can assure the committee that the government is not assuming any great responsibility in the matter. There are well established industries in Red-cliff and the government will always require a building for the military unit and for other purposes.


Hugh Guthrie: Who is the owner?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. R. O. Wheeler.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Vegreville-public building, $35,000.
Hugh Guthrie: The minister might explain this item.


John Campbell Elliott: Vegreville is 75 miles east of Edmonton. This amount of $35,000 is required for the erection of a public building on the comer of Main street and Second avenue in the town of Vegreville for postal and customs purposes. The proposed building will be a one and a half storey brick structure, 45 feet long by 34 feet wide, with a one storey annex 11 feet by 18. It will provide accommodation for the postal service and living quarters for the caretaker. Requests for the building have been received, at various times, from Mr. White, M.P. in 1910, the Hon. Mr. Calder in 1919, the Vegreville board of trade in 1919, the Vegreville Liberal Association in 1924, the Vegreville board of trade, transmitted by Mr. W. T. Lucas, M.P. in 1924. Requests have also come from other sources.


Hugh Guthrie: How large is the place?


John Campbell Elliott: The population is 1,852,
according to Heaton's Annual. The postal revenue for 1927-28 amounted to $11,529.36 and the customs revenue for the same period, 811,116.91. The department have asked for the facilities.


James Dew Chaplin: This will be used as a
customs building also.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: The town of Vegreville is a very beautiful place and I am glad to see the item in the estimates this year. The post office building at the present time is a miserable affair, and in view of the importance of this town and the significance of such a building to the community I am pleased that the minister has submitted this
item. The hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Blatchford) knows the town very well; he makes an annual airplane trip there. I am sure the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) also knows a little about about the place. He knows it is an excellent town and needs this accommodation very badly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Waimvright-public building, $28,000.
James Dew Chaplin: There was an item in
1928-29 of $35,000. What is the total cost of the building?


John Campbell Elliott: This 828,000 asked for includes a revote of $18,000. It is to complete the construction of a public building under contract with the Permanent Construction Company Limited of Edmonton for the sum of $37,500; also fittings, lock boxes, sidewalks and so forth. The building will be a two-storey brick structure, 67 feet 4 inches by 33 feet, and will provide accommodation for postal and1 customs services, as well as living quarters for the caretaker.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Dominion public buildings-improvements, repairs, etc.-$40,000.
Esquimalt-general repairs and improvements at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyard- $20,000.
Kimberley-public building-$25,000.
Port Alberni public building-improvements and alterations-$1,500.
Trail-public building-$50,000.
Vancouver-public building-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000-$20,000.
William Head quarantine station-improvements, repairs, etc.-$4,000-Total, $160,500.
Mr. ESLING:: The vote of $50,000 for the Trail building, is one item to which the government has given its serious consideration. The minister has certainly carried out his intention of providing additional postal and customs facilities in a community where he knows the accommodation has not been adequate although the need has been urgent. Trail is the greatest metallurgical centre in the British Empire, as hon. members know, and last year we were honoured with a visit from the Governor General, who officiated at the laying of the cornerstone of perhaps the handsomest city hall in the interior of British Columbia. I only hope that the Minister of Public Works will similarly honour us during the coming summer. I am sure he will be convinced, when he sees the place, that the vote is not quite large enough to meet the needs of the community. I should feel remiss if I did not acknowledge, on behalf
1972	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
of the citizens of Trail, the wisdom of the minister and of the government in providing this much needed accommodation.


Mr. POULIOT:: At least this one is polite.


Charles Gavan Power: And that is very refreshing.


Mr. BARBER:: I agree partially with
what the hon. member has said in regard to the recognition on, the part of the government of the requirements, in the matter of postal facilities, of such places as Trail. But there are other places in, British Columbia which have been brought to the attention of the government in the last two or three years and which so far have not received serious consideration. This again brings up the question of the policy being pursued by the government in the construction of public buildings for postal purposes. Last year I brought to the attention of the house the requirements of a very important point in the Fraser valley; I refer to Mission' City. The board of trade of that district has been continually communicating with members of the government, particularly the Minister of Health and the Minister of Public Works, on this matter, and last year I showed that Mission City is a very important point in a fast growing district in the Fraser valley. At that time I pointed out that a pre-war grant was voted by this house amounting to about $30,000, to provide for the purchase of a site and the construction of a building in that place. Of that amount $4,000 was expended for a site and the balance was re-voted at the next session, but owing to the war the matter was dropped. The revenue of this post office has been increasing continually; in 1927 it amounted to $6,669.21 and last year it increased to $7,323.45. The rented quarters at present occupied by the post office are very inadequate, and I believe something should be done for this district.
I would like to place on Hansard some votes which were passed during last session and this session for public buildings at other points:
Revenue
Rosthern, Saskatchewan.
Dunham, Ontario	
Waterloo, Quebec	
Canora, Saskatchewan.. Wilkie, Saskatchewan.. Transcona, Manitoba.. .
Exeter, Ontario	
Wiarton, Ontario	
Gretna, Manitoba	
1924	1928
$6,429 00	$6,871 00
7,145 00	5,950 00
6,673 00	5,928 00
	6,673 46
	7,265 24
	5,187 60
	5,899 64
	6.250 00
	2,329 00
Each of these places has a lower revenue than that of Mission City, so that I would ask the minister to give serious con-
sideration to this request in his supplementary estimates, because I feel sure he has overlooked this very important centre. In comparison with these other places I think Mission City is entitled to something.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Experimental farms-replacements, repairs, improvements, etc., $100,000.
Robert James Manion: I should like to ask the minister where the Dominion experimental farms in Canada are located.


John Campbell Elliott: The farms are at Charlottetown,, Summerside, Kentville, Nappan, Fredericton, Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, Cap Rouge, St. Joachim, Lennoxville, Farnham, L'Assomption, La Ferme, Kapuskasing, Harrow, Morden, Brandon, Indian Head, Rosthern, Scott, Swift Current, Lethbridge, Lacombe, Windermere, Summerland, Agassiz, and Sidney.


Robert James Manion: The reason I ask is this: I notice there are a number of these farms in the maritime provinces and in Quebec while in Ontario the farm furthest west is at Kapuskasing. The other day I received a resolution from a farmers' organization in my constituency or at least in that section of the country recommending that the government establish an experimental farm on the north shore of lake Superior.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends laugh at that; they laugh at anything which does not affect their own constituencies, but perhaps it is not so easy to laugh when we are dealing with a government that is not very anxious to do anything in our constituencies.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend think that is a fair statement for him to make, representing the constituency of Fort William?


Robert James Manion: I think that is a fair statement. My hon. friend is rather touchy; he thinks I should be content because there is a little dredging being done in the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William this year. As a matter of fact the money being spent there is being expended for the national welfare of this country, to facilitate the handling of the wheat of my hon. friends from the west. I am not unresponsive to that; I am glad it is being done for the good of the whole country, and naturally one does not object to money being spent in his riding, but as a matter of fact this is a national undertaking.

Supply-Public Works-Experimental Farms


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend referred to the expenditure of money in the ridings of hon. gentlemen on this side of the house.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends opposite had a hearty laugh when I mentioned the need for an experimental farm in that thousand miles of territory extending from Kapuskasing on the east to Winnipeg. According to the list read by the minister there are experimental farms every two or three hundred miles or less in the eastern provinces, but here is a long stretch of country without one. The supporters of the minister laughed at my request, and I think I have a right to take exception to that. When I look at these estimates I find that a large proportion of hon. gentlemen opposite are looked after much more carefully than are the members on this side of the house.


John Campbell Elliott: They do not say so.


Robert James Manion: The estimates say so.
However, I wish to point out the need of my section of the country as put forward by the farmers who have gone into a bush country, as compared with the farmers who have gone to the prairies where farming is much easier. The last experimental farm in Ontario is at Kapuskasing; I do not know where the first experimental farm is in Manitoba, but I believe it is in the neighbourhood of Winnipeg.


Mr. FORKE:: It is at Morden.


Robert James Manion: That is southwest of Winnipeg, and that leaves an area of perhaps 800 miles without an experimental farm. That is a section of the country where it is very difficult for men to cut out their homes, because it is bush country. We all know they have to meet greater problems than the farmers on the prairies; their problems are those which were met years ago by the farmers in eastern Ontario, in Quebec and in the maritime provinces.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: And in the
prairie provinces also.


Robert James Manion: No, they are not in the same class at all; the men who go into these bush lands in northern Quebec, northern Ontario, the maritime provinces or in British Columbia have a much more difficult time than the men who go to the prairies, where the lands are cleared to a large extent by nature.


Malcolm McLean: They are not
cleared in the northern parts.


Robert James Manion: I differ with my hon.
friend.


Ernest Lapointe: I think you are right
there.


Mr. DUNNING:: I think you are wrong.


Robert James Manion: I am very glad to get the support of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) in this regard.


Charles Avery Dunning: He has never farmed
there so he does not know.


Malcolm McLean: I do not think
the hon. member knows what he is talking about in that particular.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend appears to be the only one who does know what he is talking about in this particular or any other particular.


Malcolm McLean: I know what I
am talking about.


Robert James Manion: The farmers in the northern sections of Ontario should receive some consideration with regard to an experimental farm.


Malcolm McLean: I do not object to that, but I was simply giving some information to the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. M'anion). His comparison was hardly fair because he was dealing with a condition with which he is not familiar.


Robert James Manion: Well, I am not absolutely familiar with the conditions in the prairie provinces, but I do know that people seem to think it is easier to go there than it is to go to northern Ontario and northern Quebec. It is quite obvious that bush lands are much difficult to farm, and I should not have to explain that to the hon. member.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member forgets that there is just as much bush country in the northern prairie provinces as there is in northern Ontario.


Robert James Manion: I am speaking of the prairie
sections.


Charles Avery Dunning: The hon. member for
Melfort (Mr. McLean) is cutting that bush and he knows what he is talking about.


Robert James Manion: I wish he would stay
there and go on cutting the bush.


Malcolm McLean: I will reciprocate by saying that I wish the hon. member for Fort William would take up farming on the rocks north of lake Superior. This point is really out of order because the hon. member knows that it is the Department of Agriculture which conducts these farms.


Robert James Manion: It is the Department of
Public Works which pays for the repairs.


John Campbell Elliott: I was just going to call
the attention of the hon. member to a fact

1974	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Experimental Farms
which he has evidently overlooked, that the Department of Public Works does not have the selection of the localities where these farms are to be placed. As the hon. member for Melfort has said, that is decided by the Department of Agriculture and I think the hon. member, when he thinks it over, will realize that that is quite correct. Requisitions are made to the Department of Public Works for buildings in such sections as the Department of Agriculture has decided' to establish experimental farms in. I would call the hon. member's attention to the fact that there is an experimental farm in northern Ontario, at Kapuskasing. It is quite true that that is some distance from the territory which he mentioned, but that farm is in operation.


Robert James Manion: That is 700 miles away.


John Campbell Elliott: That territory is not so very sparsely settled, so far as farms are concerned.


Robert James Manion: Or as very sparsely
settled.
Mr. Chairman, I will admit that it is the Department of Agriculture which decides to put these experimental farms in certain sections, but I am doing preliminary work for that department with the Department of Public Works. I am not objecting to this item in the least because I am glad to see the farms getting the assistance and the repairs required. But when the Department of Agriculture does approach the minister, as I am endeavouring to have them do, I do ask him to give every consideration to this matter. The territory 1 have mentioned is rather a long overnight's walk from Kapuskasing, and it is a territory where it is very difficult for pioneers to go in and farm at the present time. The minister has been there and he knows it very well.


John Campbell Elliott: I know it quite well.


Robert James Manion: When this matter comes before the minister I am sure that he will give it fair consideration. The hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Lapierre) is sitting right beside him at the present moment and he usually supports me in any request for northern Ontario. I know if the minister will ask the opinion of the hon. member to his right he will back me up in what I am asking for that section of the country.


John Campbell Elliott: I will tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Nipissing always supports any sugestions which are made for that part of Ontario.


Robert James Manion: We always stand together; I help him out too.


John Campbell Elliott: He has been perhaps even more successful than my hon. friend from Fort William, but I think he is rather surprised to hear that he is still a bit dissatisfied.


Robert James Manion: The minister nearly made a slip then.


John Campbell Elliott: The decision as to where an experimental farm is to be located is a matter for the consideration of the Department of Agriculture and I would suggest to my hon. friend that his remarks would have had more weight if the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Motherwell) had been present in the house.


Robert James Manion: I will do it over again when he is present.


John Campbell Elliott: I will be very glad to pass it on to the minister.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid that is a lefthanded compliment which the minister has paid me, and I think he paid me another left-handed compliment when he pointed out to the house that the member for Nipissing is always more successful than I am.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I would like to ask the minister if these are really experimental farms. The minister read a long list to the house and if they are all experimental farms, it is something new to me.


Ernest Lapointe: We are learning something every day.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not an intimate knowledge of all of them, but a list of experimental farms and branch farms was given to me.


Peter McGibbon: If the minister will look into that matter I think he will find that a large number of them are nothing more than demonstration farms. We have not that number of real experimental farms in Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: Probably so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know the one at La-combe is called a demonstration farm.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Did the list which the hon. minister read include demonstration and experimental farms?


John Campbell Elliott: It included what are called branch farms.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton):: 
John Campbell Elliott: The expenditures will be as follows: general repairs, $500; emergency

Supply-Public Works-Flags
repairs, $200; special repairs, painting of buildings, $300; repairs to the ice house, $150; greenhouse repairs, $2,000; repairs to poultry house, $200; and office furniture, $100.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Flags for Dominion public buildings, $5,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: In my movements about the country I have observed flags flying at night, and the result is that the flags are destroyed. With respect to flying flags there are instructions that should have been in force in this country for a very long time. I have noticed, for instance, the flag on the post office building here is frequently put up until it falls to pieces and another one is put in its place.


John Campbell Elliott: What post office does my hon. friend refer to?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have observed this
one at times. The situation has been remedied recently.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend mean in Ottawa?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend say that he has seen the flag flying after sundown?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have certainly seen it
flying after sundown.


John Campbell Elliott: I think he is forgetting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is more, I have noticed the same thing many times in other places in the country. Hon. members will remember passing through communities and seeing flags flapping to pieces against the poles. Last year we spent $5,000 in buying new flags and this year we are going to spend another $5,000. Why should we wear out flags by leaving them up at night? I have gone into communities from the train late at night and seen flags flying, and I made my mind up to speak to the minister about the matter. I forgot about it and I decided that I would speak to the house about it. The deputy minister has, I understand, issued instructions with respect to the matter, and if they are not observed, and flags are permitted to be simply destroyed by the action of the wind, it strikes me that someone should be responsible in dollars and cents for them. To vote $5,000 every year for new flags to be destroyed is not sound economy.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend, or any other hon. member, or any other individual can give me the dates at which any flag on a public building in Ottawa has been left fly-78594-125*
ing after sundown or at a time when it should not be flying, I shall be glad to have the matter looked into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned Ottawa only as one instance.


John Campbell Elliott: The instructions are positive that flags shall fly from sunrise to sundown. I am not out very much at night to be able to say what is being done. I have never seen the flag flying on the post office in the evening. I think my hon. friend is really under a misapprehension. I know he thinks he is right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt I am
right.


John Campbell Elliott: If he can give me the
date, I shall be glad to have the matter looked into.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend from
South Wellington, beside me, says that he recalls the same thing. There is just a tendency on the part of the Minister of Public Works, in the language of the street, to get " a bit too gay." His reply about not being out at night is absurd. Let us get down to business.


John Campbell Elliott: I am listening to what my hon. friend is saying and I will answer him as soon as he has finished.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps an appropriation of $5,000 does not appear to him as being important, although it may be that somebody in London or somewhere else can supply the flags. That is not the question. The question is: Are we to have flags destroyed by flapping against poles and by the action of the elements, and then new ones put in their places. I did not limit my observations to Ottawa, and if I look at my papers I think I can fix dates and places where I have seen flags flying at night last year, not in one province but in several. My hon. friend who sits beside me says that he has frequently noticed instances of this kind in Ontario.


John Campbell Elliott: I am just a little surprised at my hon. friend's attitude. I do not think it adds to the dignity of debate in parliament for the leader of either party or any other hon. member in the house to resort to such expressions as he has done this afternoon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend started it.


John Campbell Elliott: Just wait until I have finished. I intend to answer my hon. friend now. When he refers to an hon. member as " getting a bit too gay," he knows he is on
1976	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works'-Military Buildings
weak ground, and he is on very weak ground when he refers to flags flying in the city of Ottawa after sundown. If he or the hon. gentleman who sits beside him can give me specific instances of flags flying on public buildings in Ottawa after sundown, I shall have the matter looked into.


Hugh Guthrie: I did not mention Ottawa.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I made to the Minister of Public Works an observation that in the common, ordinary, everyday expression he was '" getting a bit too gay." This afternoon he has been regaling the house with cheap witticisms in his answers in regard to public business. In fact, hon. members have remarked it. We think the time has come when he should treat the matter seriously. If he thinks the dignity of parliament is raised by the remarks recorded in Hansard both yesterday and to-day, I am content, but I am directing attention to the fact that last year 85,000 was voted for flags and we are voting another $5,000 this year. If these flags were properly taken care of, the country would not need to be asked to spend $5,000 in renewing them. Incidentally, I said that I had come into this community and seen a flag flying on the post office building on a rainy night. I had come in on the train from Montreal. That is my recollection of what occurred. My memory may be defective, but I have remarked upon the same state of affairs in other places. I know in Alberta there are places where flags have been flying at night and flapping to pieces by the action of the elements. I mentioned the matter in the best of good faith, hoping that it might do something ,to save a little money. Then my hon. friend says: "I am not out at nights," and that is his answer to a serious question propounded in good faith to the hon. gentleman.


John Campbell Elliott: I apologize to my hon. friend if I have interfered with his monopoly of cheap witticisms. I just want to say to him that I do not think he is doing himself justice this afternoon.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I can give the minister some information in regard to flags. I can take him to towns where the flag has not come down for twelve months on end and, indeed, more than twelve months on end. I refer to public buildings. I have seen cases where a flag has been left flying until there is not one-third of it left. That is the situation as to some public buildings, there is no doubt, about the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend give me the name of the town?


Thomas Cantley: I will a little later.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps he might do so now?


Thomas Cantley: I will not do it now. Before I am through, I wilil satisfy the minister .that my statement is quite correct.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: I do not know just how serious the matter is about flags flying for possibly a few moments after sundown. I have not witnessed that myself, but I am more than surprised to hear the leader of the opposition criticize an item of $5,000 in connection with flags on public buildings for the Dominion of Canada, when the same hon. gentleman is trying to get the house to say that we should spend $200,000,000 on a highway.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This exhaustive criticism ends the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Military buildings - repairs, fittings and additions, $50,000.
Mr. QUINN:: Is any of this appropriation of $50,000 for repairs to the citadel at Halifax?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think so.


Felix Patrick Quinn: At this time last year I
drew the attention of the minister to the disgraceful condition of the citadel at Halifax. As hon. members know, Halifax is one of the first British possessions in Canada. Since 1749 it has been the headquarters of the British army and navy in this country until the Imperial forces withdrew from Halifax and were replaced by Canadian forces. During the regime of the Imperial authorities, the forts, barracks and buildings controlled by the army and navy were a source of pride to the people of Halifax and of the whole Dominion, but I regret to say that since they have been taken over by the Dominion authorities, these buildings have gradually sunk into decay. I pointed out to the committee a year ago that the walls of the fort at the citadel had tumbled down, and that they were being braced up with wooden braces. I drew that to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Defence, who is not now in the house, and I asked if they would take into consideration placing an item in the estimates for this year for the reconstruction of the walls of the fort in the ancient citadel of Halifax. Halifax is the eastern gateway to this Dominion, and thousands of people pass through its portals during the year. Nova Scotia has built up an

Supply-Public Work^-Military Buildings
ever-increasing tourist trade, and citadel hill is one of the main points of historical interest that we have to show to visitors. As I pointed out twelve months ago, because of the disgraceful condition of the citadel hill, which has been neglected by this government since it has been under the control of the Department of National Defence, the service clubs of Halifax-the Progressive club, and others -feeling that the condition of the hill was a disgrace to the city have contributed out of their very meagre funds to try and give the slopes of the hill a decent appearance.
I would urge the minister, in view of the historical value of the citadel at Halifax, to provide something in the estimates this year to repair the walls and give a decent appearance to the slopes of the hill.


John Campbell Elliott: That, again, is a matter
that is not under the Department of Public Works; it is under National Defence. I believe, however, that certain consideration is being given to the very matter which my hon. friend mentions, but I will not speak positively as to that. I regret that my colleague the Minister of National Defence is not here at the moment, but I shall be very glad to forward my hon. friend's representations to him.


Mr. FRASER:: How much of the appropriation of $50,000 for repairs to military buildings was expended last year?


John Campbell Elliott: There was expended up
to March 31, $44,356.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: May I ask how
much of this amount of $50,000 was spent on the military buildings in Kingston?


John Campbell Elliott: I am sorry I am not able
to give my hon. friend that information. I have the details of the proposed expenditure for this year.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
supply me later with details of last year's expenditures, showing where it was spent?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to.


Arthur Edward Ross: At the same time
will the minister tell the committee on whose authority the cover was removed from the Martello tower situated in the harbour at Kingston, in front of the old battery section? These old Martello towers are of great historical interest to visitors. I am very pleased to hear that something will be done in Halifax because that will, of course, open the way for consideration of work to be done in what is perhaps the next oldest city after Quebec
and Halifax, namely, Kingston. The removing of the cover from the Martello tower in Kingston last year gave rise to quite a lot of criticism because it afforded some measure of protection to the tower. It has been a matter of criticism as to who ordered the removal of the cover. The minister having promised to give me the details of the expenditure on military buildings in Kingston,
I would ask him if he can state to the committee now what work will be done this year out of this vote of $50,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think there has
been any request for work at Kingston.


Arthur Edward Ross: This is just an
amount placed in the estimates out of which requests that are made from time to time can be met; is that the idea?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it would not be fair
to my hon. friend to say that that was the case. Certain places have been indicated to us where the expenditure should take place.


Arthur Edward Ross: Would the minister give the details?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of $50,000 is to be expended as follows:
Toronto-Old Knox college, $10,200.
Montreal-drill hall, Craig street, painting, $3,000.	.
Montreal-drill hall, Craig street, installing plumbing fixtures, $4,700.
Montreal-accommodation for 3rd Victoria Rifles, $2,000.
Westmount-R.O.O.C. stores, pave land and erect roof over same, $3,100.
Chatham-armoury re-appropriate 2 basement rooms, $1,500.
Red Deer-gun shed-addition to armoury, $7,000.
Amherst-armoury-drainage, $4,000.
Prince Rupert-old immigration building R.C.N.V.R., $1,000.
Yorkton-new gun shed, $7,000.	_
Three Rivers-drill hall gun shed for 79th battery, $14,000.
Brockville-armoury-new floor, $4,500.
Gananoque-armoury-new floor, $2,600.
Napanee-armoury-new floor, $3,750.
Pembroke - armoury - new roof covering, $4,300.
Alterations, etc. to rented premises, $18,551.


Hugh Guthrie: That totals up to a good deal more than $50,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. They have asked
for $91,201, and we are trying to get by with $50,000. With regard to the Martello tower at Kingston, that also is something over which this department has no jurisdiction; it comes under National Defence.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would ask the
minister to give me details of the work to be done out of this vote of $50,000. The work is done by the Public Works department?
1978	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Military Hospitals


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to
get the details of the work to be done.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the repairs
and work in connection with the old Sydenham hospital, which is now the military headquarters, be done under this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: I would not think that
would come under military hospitals.


Arthur Edward Ross: No, it is no longer a hospital, it is military headquarters. A great deal of work has been done there.


John Campbell Elliott: If any request had come it would be in this list- of requests, but apparently there has been no such request.


Arthur Edward Ross: It is rather peculiar because these are very old buildings, and every government has had to repair them year after year.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think they
make repairs to the one building two years in succession. But I shall be very glad to furnish to my hon. friend all the information we have in regard to it.


Arthur Edward Ross: About what time may I expect to get that detailed statement? I should like to have it in time for the National Defence estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I can get it for my hon.
friend' by the next sitting of the house I think.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Military hospitals-repairs and improvements, $80,000.
Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister
give the same details in this case? What military hospitals have been repaired?


John Campbell Elliott: The summary of requirements presented' to this department for 192930 is as follows:
Ste. Anne de Bellevue	$17,500
Halifax, Camp Hill	 9,500
Toronto, Christie street	 6,500
London, Westminster	 15,000
Winnipeg, Deer Lodge	 5,000
Calgary, Colonel Belcher hospital. 1,250
Vancouver, Shaughnessey	 14,500
St. John, N.B., Lancaster	 6,000
Contingencies	 4,750
Total	$80,000


Arthur Edward Ross: These are all
hospitals under the Pensions department?


John Campbell Elliott: They are under Health,
I think.


Arthur Edward Ross: The Department
of Health and Pensions. Then they are not really military hospitals; those come under military buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: This is all we are taking care of.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-generally, $45,000.
John Anderson Fraser: What was spent last year?


John Campbell Elliott: The total vote was spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Purchase of stamp cancelling machines, $55,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think
we should have some explanation of this item. The stamp cancelling machines used in Canada have in some instances been leased; in others, purchased. I dare say the hon. minister has received, as I have, a communication from a firm in the United States that was prepared to manufacture in this country and sell to postmasters stamp cancelling machines. They were not permitted to do so because the postal department would not permit the postmasters to use them. That, of course, is a matter for the Post Office Department, not the Department of Public Works. What stamp cancelling machines are being purchased for $55,000, where are they being used, and by whom are they being manufactured?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to complete the payment on twenty-five stamp cancelling machines purchased by authority of an order in council passed on June 8, 1927, from Mr. G. H. Robert of Montreal at a cost of $2,500 for each machine. Delivery of three machines was made in 1928-29 and the sum of $1,500 was paid on account of the purchase price of same pending a final acceptance by the Post Office Department. The remaining twenty-four machines will not be delivered until 1929-30, and consequently it is necessary to revote the sum of $55,000 for payment of them.


Hugh Guthrie: Where are they made?


John Campbell Elliott: I think they are manufactured in Montreal by the Robert concern. The information I have is that they are machines of the A type, manufactured by G. H. Robert of Montreal.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There has been a good
deal of discussion about these machines. Have they proved satisfactory? I received a communication stating that only a few of them had been delivered, and that they had not

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
been entirely satisfactory, also that offers had been made from other sources but the department had said no. If these machines were required when the order was given for twenty-five, why is it that two years are allowed to elapse with only three delivered, and the other twenty-two net to be delivered until some time next year? It was also alleged that these machines were oovered by an American patent and were assembled in Canada, not manufactured in the sense in which that term is properly used.


John Campbell Elliott: I think there is something in what my hon. friend says as to these machines being largely in an experimental stage. The latest report I have from the Post Office Department is that for years the practice has been to rent stamp cancelling machines manufactured by the Postage Meter Company of Stamford, Connecticut. At present ninety-two machines are rented at an annual rental of $15,850. This company offered to sell these machines outright to the Post Office Department for the sum of $63,050, but the report on them was not altogether favourable. It was thought that it would be better to purchase these machines. I fancy the reason for the revote is that the department is trying the machines out t-o make absolutely sure that they are satisfactory before the balance of the purchase price is paid. The desire of the department is to buy a Canadian machine if it will fill the requirement, that is, a machine made in Canada, rather than continue the practice that has been followed in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a contract or
there is not. If there is a contract, we should see it. My information is that the machine parts are brought into the country and duty paid upon them and then they are assembled here. That may be inaccurate, but I do know that a firm in New York offered to establish in Canada a factory to produce stamp cancelling machines, which they said they could sell for about $250 apiece. They offered to sell them to postmasters throughout the country, the larger machines to be operated by power and the smaller by hand, but the Post Office Department declined the offer. It seems to me that we should have definite information as to whether or not these machines are being manufactured or assembled in Canada, and whether or not they are covered by an American patent. If the latter is the fact, then of course we are no further ahead than when buying an American machine.


John Campbell Elliott: The Postmaster General
would be able to answer the question. We have only a limited amount of detail but
I shall be glad to give such information as we have, and I think it bears out what the hon. gentleman has said. This order in council was passed authorizing the purchase of 25 stamp cancelling machines of a certain type, manufactured in Montreal, and the conditions of purchase included what he has mentioned. I have not the agreement here, but there was a stipulation that a quantity of parts should be kept in store in case replacements were needed, the services of a mechanic to be at the disposal of the department for one year free of charge. The memorandum I have from the Deputy Postmaster General states:
The proposal of the Postage Meter Company is not favourable for the following reasons: Their products are not manufactured in this country.
The duty, freight, sales tax, etc., are not taken into consideration.
The speed of the Canadian machine is double the American type, and the date and time changes are automatic, eliminating the present handling of loose type and consequent delays in the despatch of mail; further, the centrifugal system of inking insures a gradual flow and precludes the damaging of letters as is
common at the present time	
Will you, therefore, kindly proceed to supply this department with the Canadian machine.
The reason why they have not been paid for during the last year are not here indicated, and the matter is still in a more or less experimental stage; it is being worked out.


Mr. BOYS:: The machines were bought
subject to their giving satisfaction.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I presume also, from the fact of there being two revotes, that there must have been some reason why the money was not actually spent and the machines pur-hased. Perhaps it would indicate that up to that particular time the machines had not been satisfactory, and that it was felt the money should not be spent, but a revote asked for so that the department might be ready to pay when the machines were found to be satisfactory.


John Campbell Elliott: That is about the size of
it. We were asked to secure the revote inasmuch as the machines were still-


William Alves Boys: Under test.


John Campbell Elliott: -being tried out.


William Alves Boys: But surely it does not take
two years to test machines like these. As a layman I should think that a month would do it. It is purely a matter of seeing that they stamp at the rate per minute called for
1980	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous
in the contract and that the work is not blurred but is done efficiently so that it can be easily read. It does not take two years to do that.


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that certain changes have been found to be necessary in the machines and an effort is being made to work this out so as to render the machines entirely satisfactory. There is no question about the speed; they are much speedier than the previous machines. In certain other respects, however, they were not altogether satisfactory and attention is being paid to this aspect of the matter.


William Alves Boys: What has been found to be wrong?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know; all I can say is that we were asked to revote the money. The machines were being tried out and the purchase had not been completed.


Hugh Guthrie: Why is the Department of Public Works concerned with this matter at all? This is a question of supplies for the Post Office Department; why does not that department look after it? Why charge this $55,000 to public works?


William Alves Boys: The Department of Public Works does not buy mail bags.


John Campbell Elliott: This is the type of office equipment which apparently has always been included in supplies furnished by the Department of Public Works to the Post Office Department. It is included among such supplies as lock boxes and office furniture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not mail bags.


John Campbell Elliott: No; but the mail bag is hardly office equipment in the same sense as a cancelling machine. The Department of Public Works, possibly, might very well have contended that the Post Office Department should supply these machines, but apparently equipment of this character has always been included as part of office furniture supplied by this department in connection with its buildings. I suppose that is the connection.


William Alves Boys: What offices will get the benefit of these machines when installed?


John Campbell Elliott: The large offices, the city offices.


Thomas Cantley: Is it not a fact that this item and that of tractors are the only two items provided by the Public Works department for the Post Office Department?


John Campbell Elliott: There are such furnishings as filing systems, cancelling machines, [Mr. Boys.)
conveyers, tractors, pick-up tables and so forth which we supply. I think it may be said generally that the list includes all mechanical equipment that goes into buildings we construct.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the total amount in the estimates for the Post Office Department for the year?


John Campbell Elliott: I can give the total for the purchase of these 25 machines.


John Anderson Fraser: I mean, including all
machines and other equipment such as pickup tables, conveyers and so forth.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give that information.


Hugh Guthrie: Were any tenders called for in connection with the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: I should not imagine it was a contract that could be let by tender, because there is only one manufacturer in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a real complaint to be made in this regard. The Raymond Corporation offered to construct a factory in Canada to supply, not these identical machines but stamp obliterating machines, and the government declined to permit the sale of them to postmasters; at any rate, it declined to permit postmasters to buy them if they wanted to pay for them themselves, in face of the contract which had been made with the Robert Manufacturing Company.
I understand, of course, that the Minister of Public Works in a sense is not responsible for that contract, which was made by the department under the control of the Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). But we should see the contract itself in order to arrive at some conclusion as to why an exclusive right like this should be given to a company-for it amounts to that when you decline to permit anyone else to sell similar machines to postmasters. You refuse to allow others who desire to establish a factory in Canada to sell large and small machines for use by country postmasters, and other equipment as well, such as power machines, hand machines and so forth. In the meantime these experiments are going forward and only three machines have been installed', according to the minister; I thought there were five. One of these machines, I am advised, is in the Ottawa post office. Is that correct?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know. The fact that we have not been requested to pay the money but to revote it is perhaps the reason why we have not scrutinized the present status

Supply-Public Works-Afiscellaneous
of the matter as carefully as we should have done if we were asked to pass an order in council providing the money. Only $1,500 has been paid out of the whole vote-


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, $7,500.


John Campbell Elliott: There are three machines, and $1,500 has been paid on each.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is only $4,500.
Mr. BOY'S:	Is there anything in the contract giving this company the exclusive right to supply these machines and preventing others in Canada from supplying similar equipment?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the contract is exclusive; if any hon. gentleman wants to see the contract, so far as I am concerned all the papers in my department in this connection are available.


William Alves Boys: At the moment I would not
think my leader altogether irilght ion this point; I would think the contract should have been made by the Public Works department at the request of the Post Office Department.


John Campbell Elliott: I think we make all contracts where we have to pay the money.


William Alves Boys: Then the minister might produce the contract, because the exclusive feature strikes me as rather serious. If the contract is to be in force for five or six years it means that the whole thing is in the hands of this one concern.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will understand that this is a very different class from an article for which there is a very general demand all over the country. This is something which never has been manufactured in Canada, something we were unable to obtain here previously. If an industry can be built up in Canada the government are anxious that that be done.


William Alves Boys: I am glad the minister is coming to that point of view; we have 'been advocating that policy for a long time.


John Campbell Elliott: We are agreed upon something, anyway. I think my hon. friend will see the fairness of saying to these people, " Go ahead and try to work it out and if you can get a machine equally satisfactory or almost as satisfactory as this machine you will get the business." In the meantime I think they should have a free hand and should be protected from outsiders, otherwise they would not enter into the contract.


William Alves Boys: Without knowing what is in the contract and without the minister being able to inform us it would be improper and undesirable to offer any criticism, but it does
seem to me that this is a matter which might well engage the attention of the committee. Perhaps before disposing of this item we should see the contract, so I think the minister might let the item stand until the contract is produced.


John Campbell Elliott: I would direct my hon.. friend's attention to the fact that this is a re-vote; the same item has been passed several times.


William Alves Boys: That is one of the reasons for this criticism. If everything were satisfactory a re-vote would not be necessary; the money would have been paid long ago.


John Campbell Elliott: I would rather pass the item now if possible, and I will undertake to supply my hon. friend with all the information.


William Alves Boys: So far as I am personally concerned of course I take the word of the minister at once, but is it really vital that this item should be passed at this time? If all the estimates of the minister were going through I would not try to hold them up because of this, but I do not suppose they are all going through now. However, I will leave it to the judgment of the minister; it seems to me that the request is fair and might be complied with, but if the minister prefers to pass the item and produce the contract later that will be quite all right. When will the contract be produced?


John Campbell Elliott: I will produce it at the next sitting, before my estimates are completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then this item might be passed on the understanding that we can refer back to it if we wish to do so after the production of the contract.


John Campbell Elliott: Very well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: Item 130; rents, repairs, furniture, heating and so on.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-water, $45,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Would the minister give us some information) as to the water supplied to the public buildings in Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $45,000
is required to pay the corporation of Ottawa for water supplied' to the various departmental buildings during the year 1929-30, by agreement between the Dominion government and the corporation of Ottawa as authorized by act of parliament passed June 4, 1925, and assented1 to June 12, 1925.
19S2

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa


Arthur Edward Ross: Is the drinking water in these buildings now supplied by the city of Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: All the water coming
from the taps is supplied by the city. There is a certain amount of bottled water supplied in the House of Commons and in several of the other departmental buildings but that is not provided under this contract.


Arthur Edward Ross: Where does the
bottled water come from?


John Campbell Elliott: It is supplied by the Tally Ho Company.


Arthur Edward Ross: What examination
is made of the water?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend refer to the tap water or the bottled water?


Arthur Edward Ross: The tap water.


John Campbell Elliott: The city bacteriologist
tests the city water.


Arthur Edward Ross: And what about
the bottled water? *


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot tell you anything about that; we do not buy it and we do not pay for it. It is paid for through the estimates of the House of Commons.


William Alves Boys: Can the minister tell us
whether or not it is safe to drink the tap water at present? I am asking that question very seriously.


John Campbell Elliott: The city officials say it
is safe, and I drink it every day.


Arthur Edward Ross: I am given to
understand that the city water is not absolutely safe. What about this Tally Ho water? We should have some information; if that is perfectly safe water we should know by whom the examination is made.


John Campbell Elliott: I want to give all the information I can but that water is paid for out of the estimates of the House of Commons. My good friend the Sergeant-at-Arms tells me that the Tally Ho Company supplies certificates once a month showing the tests of the water which have been made, but the payment for the Tally Ho water is not made under the Public Works estimates.


Peter McGibbon: I think the question
raised by the hon. member for Kingston is very important. This subject has been under consideration year after year and apparently no negotiations have been entered into with the city of Ottawa leading to an adequate supply of pure water. The very fact that 
the water must be chlorinated is sufficient evidence that we are taking a certain amount of risk when we drink it, and I think I am within the bounds of truth when I say there is great danger of this water being contaminated by sewage. Its very appearance suggests that; one almost dislikes to take a bath in it, let alone drink it. I have not drunk city water since I came to Ottawa; I have been afraid to do so, and when the government pays $45,000 a year for water presumably for this and other government buildings I think that should warrant us entering into negotiations with the city. I would ask the minister if anything has been done in that connection.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I think not. The
government has contracted for the best water supply available, and this is the water which is used by the citizens of Ottawa. According to reports which have emanated from the city council I understand that a filtration plant is about to be established, but we must remember that the water supply for this city has been a difficult problem. However, it is a municipal problem and this seems to be the best arrangement we are able to make at present.


Peter McGibbon: I am not criticizing the minister for his arrangement because all municipal governments have to have some pressure put upon them. It is a well known fact that the city of New Orleans, which takes its water from the Mississippi river, has one of the purest supplies of drinking water on the continent, while the city of Ottawa with probably 110,000 people is pumping its water out of the Ottawa river which carries the sewage from the northern country. They have nothing more than a chlorinating system and it is quite patent to anyone that if that system should be defective for twenty-four hours there is the possibility of a typhoid epidemic. The department is probably one of the largest contributors in the form of revenue and some pressure should be brought to bear upon the municipal government to have them supply pure drinking water to the people.


Robert James Manion: In fairness to the oity
authorities, I think it should be mentioned that there has been a commission investigating the problem and I think they have decided upon a filtration plant. What the member for Muskoka (Mr. McGibbon) says is absolutely correct, but we should not forget that the city is considering this problem at the present time and has under consideration the construction of a filtration plant to properly filter the water.

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa


Hugh Guthrie: What is being done now?


Robert James Manion: It is being chlorinated.


Arthur Edward Ross: I do not think the minister should be satisfied with the statement that this water is pathologically examined every day. I am rather surprised that a statement is submitted only once a month for the Tally-Ho water. That is not sufficient and does not give protection to the public. One or two oases of typhoid in the city of Ottawa might very well start an epidemic over the whole Dominion, when we consider that these are the days of quick transportation by automobile and train. I think there should be some statement from the minister that the water has been examined every day, and there should be a certificate of safety. There is no question that chlorination is quite safe, but the mere statement as to chlorination is not satisfactory unless it is regularly done. The minister should be able to furnish some statement of a safe water supply every day, or there should be a statement given on the days when it is not considered safe. The city can look after itself but there should be a statement issued in the house on the days when the water is found to be wrong. When we come to these estimates we can look into the matter of the Tally-Ho water and see that a statement is given more often than once a month.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Elevator attendants, $104,000.
Thomas Cantley: I notice this item is $7,000 more than it was last year. I may be responsible for this because on March 13-six weeks ago-I asked the minister regarding the operation of elevators in the building, especially on Saturdays. I understood the minister to say that these elevators would thereafter 'be operated on that day. The minister's statement was:
However, if it is found that anybody is suffering inconvenience on account of inadequate elevator facilities, either going up or going down, we will endeavour to rectify it.
I would point out to the minister that this condition is not rectified as yet. His deputy minister is beside him and I understand he is the man in charge of the elevators and I expect him to carry out the distinct understanding which I had with the minister on that occasion. I trust that I will not have to bring this matter up again and that these elevators will be operated for the balance of the session.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighting, including roads and bridges,
Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the minister will remember that we discussed last year the possibility of using the electric current from the turbines at New Edinburgh. One hundred thousand dollars represents interest at 5 per cent on $2,000,000, and I would like to know from the minister what progress has been made in connection with the utilization of these turbines.


John Campbell Elliott: The information is that
the requirements for research purposes will take up practically all the power that we have at that site. It is the intention to utilize the power at the Edinburgh mills for supplying all power in connection with the research work, and the information is that there will be no surplus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does it cost per
kilowatt hour for the government's requirements?


John Campbell Elliott: The difference between
the rates charged the government and the ordinary city rates is that the government is allowed 15 per cent and 12 per cent discount against 10 per cent discount in the city rates. The alternating current lighting rate on meter is 5 cents a kilowatt hour for the first 30 hours' monthly use of the installed capacity, 2.2 cents a kilowatt hour for the next 70 hours, and one-half cent a kilowatt hour for monthly consumption in excess of the above. The discount when bills are paid within thirty days is 12 per cent if the transformers serving any building are owned by the company, and 15 per cent where such transformers are owned by the government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The last figure of onehalf cent is a very reasonable one, but the 5 cent figure is very high. Does the minister know the average we pay per kilowatt hour?


John Campbell Elliott: We use enough to get
the half cent rate, and I understand it is the cheapest rate in Canada.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes, the half cent
rate is very cheap.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: I would like to refer
back to the question of elevators, and to ask the minister what salaries the elevator attendants receive. I understand that most of the men are returned soldiers and that their salary is only about S80 per month. If that is so I would ask that that salary should be raised to at least $100 per month.
Supply-Public Works-Ottawa


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is correct in regard to their being returned men. There are twenty-six operators at $105 a month, twenty-three at $100, two at $95 and fifteen at $90.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Why the discrimination if they are all doing the same class of work? Why should there not be a minimum salary of $100 a month?


John Campbell Elliott: We start them at a minimum and they rise to a maximum.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: They can go up to $105? Mr. ELLIOTT: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: And those who have recently entered the service are at $90?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are they mostly married men?


John Campbell Elliott: We do not have information as to that.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: They ought to receive a salary of at least $100 a month, and I should like the minister to consider the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: They will after they are in the service a certain length of time. My hon. friend, I think, will agree with me that a new man who has just been hired, should not receive as much as a man who has been in the service for some time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It does not take long to learn how to run an elevator. After a month's work I think, if they are returned men, they ought to get $100 a month.


Peter McGibbon: What do they do between sessions?


John Campbell Elliott: There are fourteen sessional men who are employed for seven months at $90 a month. All the rest are employed throughout the year.


Peter McGibbon: What do the fourteen do during the rest of the year? Are they off?


John Campbell Elliott: They are off.


Peter McGibbon: What do the others do?


John Campbell Elliott: They are employed all the time.


Peter McGibbon: What are they doing?


John Campbell Elliott: They are running elevators.
Mr. ADSHEM): Is the salary paid once or twice a month?


John Campbell Elliott: Once a month.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think it ought to be paid at least twice a month to workingmen.


John Campbell Elliott: My deputy informs me that it was paid once a month prior to the last payment, but they are now being paid twice a month.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister not think the government might find some work for these men who are off at the end of the session? Could something not be found for them somewhere to give them an all-year-round job?


John Campbell Elliott: I am sure that different
departments, if they have anything on which they can use them, will try to use them, but I would point out that if you are to keep-expenditures within reasonable bounds, you can pay the men only for the time they are actually employed; you cannot undertake to-fumish employment for the balance of the year for what are called temporary employees. Many of them fit into other positions during the rest of the year, but there is no assurance of that.


Peter McGibbon: I quite agree on general principles with the minister, but in my opinion the working man or woman is the last person on whom to start economizing. After all, what would $90 a month for five months for ten or fifteen people amount to?' These people have to live, and if we expect to have them here in the winter time as trained men, the government should endeavour to find some work for them in order to-give them continuity of employment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $420,000.
Robert James Manion: How is the increase of
$20,000 made up?


John Campbell Elliott: The increase is due tothe employment of four men at the Sussex street property at a cost of $5,100 per annum, and to an increase in the quantity of coal at a cost of $15,037, due principally to provision for five new buildings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Departments generally-char service, including $150 to E. Snowden for firing the noon-gun.
Henry Elvins Spencer: I should like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that the char service is probably the lowest paid service in the government. I understand, although there is a slight difference between the char service engaged in the House of Commons

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
and that engaged in the public buildings in Ottawa, those in the public buildings in this -city receive about $32.50 a month, or less than $400 a year. Their hours are not long, but they are very awkward. They make it nearly impossible for them to get other work during the day. I understand no allowance is made when they are sick, and they have no holidays. A large percentage of them are widows. Could the minister not see his way to recommend1 an increase in salary for this service?


Peter McGibbon: I think that is a fair
question for the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that the
question is a very live one. It is receiving consideration all the time. We are not allowed to forget about it any month in the year. We are trying to do what is fair, and at the same time keep the expenditure within reasonable bounds. I cannot make any promise with regard to the matter.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I agree with the hon.
member for Muskoka-Ontario that these people are the last ones on whom we should endeavour to economize. Like everybody else, they have to live. If we consider that their day is completely cut up by the work they do in the government service, I think the amount they are allowed is altogether too little to give them even a low standard of living.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How many char people
are there?


John Campbell Elliott: There are over 900 charwomen.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the number
was 847.


John Campbell Elliott: Somewhere around 900. I
have had interviews with them and I know something about their difficulties. Everybody has a good deal of sympathy with what has been said as to the person who has to earn a living cleaning an office and that sort of thing, but I am sure the house will agree with me that women who receive $1.25 for two and a half hours' work and many of whom have other work during the day because they are through at nine, are receiving all that can well be justified for persons in part time employment of that kind.


Mr. PECK:: What difference would it
make to give them $2 a day instead of $1.25?


John Campbell Elliott: The rate of $1.25 a day
is for part time employees and they work only two and a half hours.


Edward Armour Peck: What would it cost to make that payment $2 instead of $1.25?


John Campbell Elliott: It would cost threequarters of $900 or about $675; that is a day. Perhaps this is no answer, but there are very few public services for which the competition is as keen as for this one.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many buildings are covered by these nine hundred? If you could cut down the number, perhaps you could give the rest decent pay. Can the minister give a detailed statement showing where these nine hundred are employed?


John Campbell Elliott: The number of buildings,
as of November, 1928, was 71; the number of men. 101; women, 779, or a total of 880 employees. The area covered is 2,372,429 square feet.


Mr ROSS (Kingston):: The minister has
accounted for 880 of the 900. Where are the other 20?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to find the other 20. I was speaking approximately.


Peter McGibbon: Has the minister any
charwomen employed as all-day employees, and what pay do they receive?


John Campbell Elliott: We have no charwomen
who are all-day employees. We have six full-time men.


Arthur Edward Ross: I would like to find out where the 20 are which the minister has lost.


John Campbell Elliott: I have lost more than
that.


Arthur Edward Ross: Surely the minister
can give us a little more accurate information than that.


John Campbell Elliott: When I said 900, I was
speaking approximately; I was not attempting to give the figure accurately. The figures I gave were for November, 1928, and I fancy that 900 is probably correct or nearly correct for to-day.


Arthur Edward Ross: How many are
employed in this building and how many in the other buildings? This is rather a large number of employees.

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa


John Campbell Elliott: The details are as follows:
List of Buildings
(Kennedy)	
(Trade and Commerce)..
Government owned:
West block	
East block	
Langevin block	
Connaught building.. ..
Hunter building	
Victoria museum	
Daly building	
City post office	
Printing bureau	
Archives	
Royal Mint	
35 Geoi'ge st	
Mines, Sussex and George
Supreme Court	
4 and 6 Cliff st	
21 Cliff st	
25 Cliff st	
27 Cliff st	
114	Vittoria	
115	Vittoria	
117 Vittoria	
239 Wellington st	
259 Wellington st.
265 Wellington st.
279 Wellington st.
299 Wellington st	
389J Wellington st	
Old Perley home	
Comparator building, MacKay st.. 167 Queen St. (Harris Campbell).. Green Island	
Rented:
108 Wellington st	
Norlite building, Wellington st.. ..
Union bank, Sparks st	
Royal bank. Sparks st	
Birks building, Sparks st	
Booth building, Sparks st	
Free Press, Sparks st	
Motor building, Sparks st	
Imperial Garage, Sparks st	
Vi my building, Sparks st	
Bate building, Slater st	
Canadian, Slater st	
Woods, Slater st	
Elgin building, Elgin st.. .. !! .. Elgin annex, Elgin st	'
66	Queen st	 '
Robinson building, Queen st.. .'. .. '
McKenzie building, Queen st	
Regal building, Queen and O'Connor.
Bryson building, Queen st	
Trafalgar building. Bank and Queen.
Stephen building. Queen st	
Lamb building, 317 Queen st	
328 Queen st	
Earlscourt, Lyon st	' ' '' '
Federal Press, 47 Slater st. .	.. .
Reclamation, Slater and Metcalfe.. . Jackson building, Slater and Bank..
Lowe-Martin. Nepean st	
Central station, Rideau st	
Transportation building, Rideau st.. .
Plaza building. Rideau st	
Larocque building. Rideau st	
Labelle building, Dalhousie st	
67	Queen, Steele building	
68	Queen, Steele building	
Arcade building	
122 Wellington	'
Sovereign building	 '*
McDougall building	 *
Total	

and Areas Sq. Ft. 166.296 152,756 122,701 137,882 225,000 136,976 149,300
Cleaned
Charwomen 42 38 28 49 75 41 52
Charmen
11
6
9 2f.t. 5 lf.t.
Foreman
1
1
36.264	2	3
10,000	5	
38,646	13	18.675	2	13,800	2	122,147	11	118,000	8	16,000	1	3,700	1	3.435;	1 0	1,129	f 2	6,900	2	3.790)	8.000]	r 2	8,208	2	10.500	2	21,345	3	3,646	1	7.909	2	2,600	1	7,854	4	11.662	1	two davs26.142	7	170,777	27	25,589	3	42.516	18	266,863	24	117,283	7	10.822	5	119,739	8	212,667	4	21,174	11	1650	1	26,500	7	27,260	13	1100,600	31	467,858	25	447,160	24	314,340	5	14,000	5	22,841	9	127,000	6	124,226	8	19.000	3	18,534	8	9.870	4	16,900	5	2,976	1	14,055	1	7,220	4	11,748	4	166.115	30	310,000	3	23.761	11	241.648	15	210.156	7	14,500	6	157,500	19	114,131	1	3,705	1	22.000	6	11.200	1	15,048	7	111,140	2	-	2,372,429	779	101
f.t.
f.t.
a week
1987

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa


William Alves Boys: How many of these buildings are private residences?


John Campbell Elliott: None.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand the charwomen working in the House of Commons are allowed' sick leave pay up to four days on presentation of a doctor's certificate, but that the charwomen in the outside service, who are doing work which is more regular and of a permanent nature, are not allowed this privilege. It seems unreasonable that they should not be given the same consideration as the smaller number of women working in the House of Commons.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the same applies to both.


Henry Elvins Spencer: But it does not.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid I did not understand my hon. friend as clearly as I should. Is he referring to whole-time employees or to charwomen?


Henry Elvins Spencer: I am referring to charwomen in both cases. I understand that the charwomen employed in the House of Commons are allowed sick leave up to four days on production of a doctor's certificate. Will the same consideration be given to charwomen in the outside buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: The charwomen who are getting sick leave are under another jurisdiction. I am not going to criticize its action one way or another in this respect; but I do not think my hon. friend will say that we should establish the practice of granting sick leave to employees who are working only two and a half hours a day.


James Dew Chaplin: Who makes the regulation as to sick leave with regard to the charwomen employed here


John Campbell Elliott: The Speaker.


James Dew Chaplin: That seems very extraordinary to me.


Edward Armour Peck: Are these people under the Civil Service Commission?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Edward Armour Peck: They are appointed by whom?


John Campbell Elliott: Those in the char service are appointed' by my department; those engaged here are appointed by the Speaker.


Edward Armour Peck: Who determines their remuneration?


John Campbell Elliott: The Department of Public Works.


Edward Armour Peck: Do you not think you are paying them an extremely low rate? What is your opinion?


John Campbell Elliott: Had my hon. friend been listening he would have found my opinion to be that they are pretty well paid. What does he pay to a woman who comes to work at his house for two hours and a half a day?
I think $1.25 is very good pay.


Edward Armour Peck: I just wanted to know your opinion.


John Campbell Elliott: I expressed it before.


Edward Armour Peck: The general opinion throughout the country is that the smaller employees of the government, those who have no professional training, are paid at much too low a rate. I think it is not consistent with the dignity of the government to pay such low wages simply because they can get away with it.


John Campbell Elliott: I know this is a matter in which my hon. friend is interested, and I am sure he wants to be fair about it.


Edward Armour Peck: That is why I spoke.


John Campbell Elliott: The very fact that the crowd of applicants is as great as it is is the best evidence that they can do better here than in any other place in Ottawa.


Thomas Cantley: I think that is simply evidence that there are a lot of unfortunate women in very poor circumstances. They have to get up at five o'clock in the morning throughout the cold winter months and come up here in all sorts of weather, and if they miss a day they lose their job. The amount is not extravagant; in fact I do not think it is enough.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Has the minister forgotten about that prosperity statement?


Henry Elvins Spencer: Mr. Chairman, I cannot let the minister's statement go unchallenged that no consideration is to be given to these charwomen in time of sickness. I think he would do well to copy the example of the Speaker in allowing them sick leave for a certain number of days if they submit a doctor's certificate. Although they work only two and a half hours a day, the minister overlooks the fact that they often have to come a long distance, which means two journeys a day. These people should be given a little consideration in time of sickness.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
[Stage Direction]
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $700,000.
Robert James Manion: This is a large figure. Will the minister give us details?


John Campbell Elliott: This money is required for carrying out works of repairs, alterations, additions and improvements, and procuring furniture, fittings and other supplies in connection with the maintenance of Ottawa public buildings. Also for the removal of snow and ice from sidewalks and roads around the department blocks, parliament house, and repairing, maintaining and cleaning during summer months the pavements and sidewalks on Wellington street and government area, to the north, the plaza, Laurier avenue bridge, St. Patrick street in front of the Printing Bureau, Mackenzie avenue, sidewalks on Laurier avenue west, and Elgin street, fronting Cartier square, and all laneways, yards and areas adjoining properties rented or owned and occupied by the Dominion government. Also for keeping the grounds surrounding the Dominion buildings in Ottawa in proper condition. This is the estimate for 1929-30: Staff of 258 men, compared with 252 men in 1928-29. We require six more men. The estimated cost for these men is $417,466; for materials, supplies and extra assistance, $242,534; for Dominion observatory and Geodetic Survey building, $5,000; for standardizing electric distribution system, $35,000, making a total of $700,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is meant by
"standardizing electric distribution system"?


John Campbell Elliott: It is necessitated through the general standardizing by the Ottawa Electric Company of its distribution system throughout the city.


Robert James Manion: In regard to supplies, what are the large items?


John Campbell Elliott: The $242,534 provides for the purchase of materials, supplies and extra assistance required in the maintenance of the various buildings.


Robert James Manion: That is general. I should like a few particulars. For instance, how much is paid for furniture and for any other large items?


John Campbell Elliott: I think I can give my
hon. friend that information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We make direct appropriations for furniture, filing cabinets and various other matters in the way of general equipment, and now we come to a general vote of $424,000. That is my difficulty.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the details
asked for by my hon. friend (Mr. Manion) but I shall be glad to get them. It will be noticed however that the amount is $r75,000 less than it was last year.


Robert James Manion: I was curious to know
what it worked out at.


James Dew Chaplin: Last year's figures should not count. If the minister looks back a year or two in his estimates he will see that the old figure stood for years at $650,000 and it was suddenly raised to $875,000, being now 8700,000. So that there is really an increase over the vote of former years. I have the old estimates here and the amount in 1927 and 1928 was $650,000.


John Campbell Elliott: You shouldn't keep those old estimates.


James Dew Chaplin: Oh yes, I intend to.


Robert James Manion: The minister will give
later the items I asked for?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hal1-allowance for fuel and light,
Henry Elvins Spencer: How much of this was
spent last year?


John Campbell Elliott: It has been about the
same for years.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telephone service, $105,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to telephone service the inquiry is as to how many telephones are purely public and how many private.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $105,000
is required for the payment during the fiscal year 1929-30 of the rental of the Bell Telephone Company's connections throughout the several departments of government in the city of Ottawa,
fMr. Spencer.]

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
Summary of Requirements for 1929-30
Residence telephones:
Desk sets	
Wall sets	
Desk extensions	
Wall extensions	
Direct connections office:
Desk sets	
Wall sets	
Desk extensions	
Wall extensions	
Private branch exchange telephone connections:
Desk sets	
Wall sets	
Desk extensions	
Wall extensions	
House of Commons for sessional service:
(approximately)
50	118	
40		
8	48	$ 5,167 08
29		
15	44	
12		
1	13	4,271 641,553 86 481 19	2,139	$43,796 52275	4,287 45
This brings the total number of telephones to 2,637, and the expenditures amount approximately to $108,000.


James Dew Chaplin: How many residence telephones are there?


John Campbell Elliott: 118.


James Dew Chaplin: What would they consist
of? Usually, where residences are concerned, the people who have telephones pay for them themselves. In my business or any other business I know of, in connection with which communication is had with residences, the residents pay for the telephones.


John Campbell Elliott: The list includes ministers, deputy ministers and private secretaries.


James Dew Chaplin: Why should private
secretaries or even deputy ministers have telephones given them? Has that been always the custom? Is that one of the perquisites of office?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will recall the discussion in this regard a year ago. For years this has been the system. At one time it was thought that it should be abolished so far as private secretaries were concerned; that was twelve years ago. Some of the private secretaries felt that inasmuch as these telephones were being used largely in communication back and -forth in departmental business, and with the salaries they were receiving, they did not need telephones unless they were supplied. The telephones were consequently taken out and I believe the new order of things lasted about a week, after which they reverted to the present system. That was during the Meighen administration.


James Dew Chaplin: Did they go on strike?


John Campbell Elliott: No, but they just were
not so easily communicated with as before, and it was not advantageous to government business. I do not believe that if my hon. friend were running the office he would do with fewer telephones.


James Dew Chaplin: I run a business and I
do. not do what the government does in this regard.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are long distance tolls
paid for by the crown?


John Campbell Elliott: If on government business.


Peter McGibbon: Surely this is "a vicious principle," to quote the Prime Minister; it is worse than a vicious principle.


Robert James Manion: "A thoroughly vicious
principle."


Peter McGibbon: Here are ministers receiving salaries of $10,000 and deputy ministers receiving the same, and the minister comes to parliament and seriously asks this house and the country to believe that the public business would be held up if these people were not supplied with this perquisite. The thing is ridiculous. If ministers need more money, if -the deputies need more money, it is the duty of the government to come to parliament and say so and have the thing done openly. I think the one thing that is disgusting the public to-day with all people in public life-and we all have to contend with it-is the fact that these things are not done openly. We come here, and the general opinion in the country is that we are getting all kinds of perquisites, which I grant we are not, that are worth a great deal of money to us; in fact, we are looked upon more or less as a species of grafter. It is just things of



Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
this sort, not done openly, that create in the country at large that misconception of our work and duties here. If these people need more money the government should come out boldly and give it to them, but not take the money out of the public treasury for things which after all are not in the public interest. Where is the minister or deputy minister today who would not have a telephone in his house, and where is there a telephone in anyone's house which is not used largely for domestic purposes? Once or twice, or three times in a week there may be a business call, but after all the telephone is largely for the convenience of the family and not at all in the public interest. I for one object to this sort of expenditure.


Edward Armour Peck: Will the minister tell us exactly what perquisites the members of the government get outside their salaries. What advantages do they receive? I might explain, as the previous speaker said, that a good many people talk about the perquisites of the ministers; for instance, I understand that they are all supplied with automobiles and chauffeurs at the public expense. Apparently they are supplied with telephones also, and I would like to know what other perquisites there are.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know that I can think of any others at the moment; I think my hon. friend has covered them pretty well. He has a number of colleagues who are perhaps able to tell him just as well as any member of the government could. His question is quite proper and I do not object to it; there is the car, the chauffeur and the telephone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Gasoline.


John Campbell Elliott: You cannot run a car
without gasoline. As far as I am concerned, if there is anything the ministers are not given which my hon. friend could suggest and which would assist the ministers in carrying out their duties, I will be in favour of it. I will support anything which will increase the efficiency or conserve the time of the ministers, because I think that is necessary.


Edward Armour Peck: I do not want to be understood as saying it is wrong, but I want to point out that a minister would be just as efficient if he paid for his own car and chauffeur.


James Dew Chaplin: That would apply to
telephones also.


John Campbell Elliott: That is quite true, but
probably he would not use them quite so much.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: Supposing I wish to
call up the minister on the telephone tonight and his phone is busy owing to its use by the members of his family in connection with social engagements. Would that be increasing the efficiency of the minister? Are these telephones marked " for business only " or are they available for the social requirements of the entire family?


John Campbell Elliott: As far as my own telephone is concerned it is used for all the social engagements of all the members of the family. If my hon. friend or any of his colleagues wishes to call me up in a social way, so far as I am concerned that telephone will be always at his disposal. I should not think he would want any government to be carried on by ministers who would not allow their telephones to be used for social purposes. So far as I am concerned I shall be very glad to have him use my telephone any time he wishes to invite me out.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: It is very easy to be
gratuitous with the people's money; it is easy to spend it in this way, but the people must work hard for it.


Mr. GEARY:: Is there any relation between the size of the motor cars and the size of the ministers concerned?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I think they depend more on the size of the ministers' hearts.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the size of the car have anything to do with the efficiency of the minister?


John Campbell Elliott: I think so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Do any of the deputy
ministers use government cars free?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I think so.


Henry Elvins Spencer: How many?


John Campbell Elliott: I think they all do, but
if my hon. friend will refer to a return laid on the table a short time ago he will find all the details.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fittings, general supplies and furniture, $175,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is an item which
illustrates the principle which I was asking the minister to elucidate. We have the details of expenditures for fittings in various branches of the public service; why should we vote this amount of $175,000 without details and with no knowledge of what is covered by it? We voted an amount for a pick-up table for Saskatoon, another for Cal-

Private Bills
gary and another for Regina, but now we are asked to vote $175,000 with no details at all-


Robert James Manion: Before the minister answers that question I might point out another similar ease. In this same item we have an amount of $420,000 for heating, salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, and the item following the one now under consideration provides another $405,000 for heating. What is the reason for that?


John Campbell Elliott: One item is for Ottawa and the other is for outside places. With regard to the question of the leader of the opposition I might say that we must supply these fittings to the various offices during the year, and we can only judge the details by what we supplied last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is exactly the point. What does this amount cover? Is it for filing cabinets and that sort of thing?


John Campbell Elliott: Furniture and fittings for
offices generally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not the requisitions be available before the estimates are submitted, in order that the government might know exactly what is required? That has been done in connection with the other items I have mentioned.


John Campbell Elliott: A great many of these requisitions come in from month to month.


James Dew Chaplin: Are there any new buildings to fit out? What is the reason for the increase? There is a very substantial increase over last year's estimate, and that was an increase over previous years.


John Campbell Elliott: I might answer that question by stating that the chief architect's memorandum, which was submitted some time before the estimates were prepared, suggested a vote of $200,000 for this year. We must rely very largely upon the requisitions of the chief architect, who has had a great deal of experience in connection with these matters. He recommended that the appropriation for 1929-30 be increased to $200,000, but we decided that we would try to keep it down to a minimum of $175,000. The vote for furniture and fittings for buildings was $135,000 for 1928-29.


James Dew Chaplin: And what amount was
spent?


John Campbell Elliott: We spent $134,909. According to the memorandum submitted by the chief architect, as far back as June 30 the vote was over-engaged by $3,662, to meet the demands. Since that date the over-engagement has been steadily going up until on the 14th instant the very best we were
able to do was something around $19,000. In addition to this over-engagement the chief architect says he is holding requisitions which are estimated to cost approximately 823,000 to fill, and there are further orders which have been placed on condition that the parties wait for payment until the next fiscal year, which amount to approximately $4,000. There are accounts outstanding amounting to $3,700.


James Dew Chaplin: I would point out to the minister that this item was only $125,000 in 1926-27 and $125,000 in 1925-26; the further this government goes along the more extravagant it seems to get.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Heating, $405,000.
Robert James Manion: That is for the outside buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, outside of Ottawa.


Robert James Manion: Are tenders called for the supplying of this coal?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, by public advertisement.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Power for running elevators, stamp cancelling machines, etc., $85,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: There was an item covering a cancelling machine in vote No. 129, and I see it again in this vote. Is there any connection between them?


James Dew Chaplin: This is for power to run the machines.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it the intention to use the power in the new Sussex street project?


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to the hon. member that this matter was discussed when he was absent from the house. It is hoped that this power will be utilized for the research building which is now being constructed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63, respecting The Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 70, respecting Joliette and Northern Railway Company.-Mr. Ferland.
Procedure in Divorce
[Stage Direction]
NIAGARA FALLS MEMORIAL BRIDGE COMPANY On the order.
House in committee on Bill No. 22, to incorporate Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company.-Mr. Pettit.
Robert James Manion: I notice that neither the mover of the bill nor the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), both of whom are very much interested, is in the house. I think the bill should stand.
Order stands.



EFFIE MARGARET HILL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 86, for the relief of Effie Margaret Hill.-Mr. Clark -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. MARCIL:: Is the sponsor of this bill present?


John Frederick Johnston: Stand.



WILLIAM HENRY BLACKWELL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 99, for the relief of William Henry Blackwell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).-Mr. Johnston in tho chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Marcil: When these bills were read a second time, I understood that we would take up the evidence when the bills were reported to the house and we went into committee. I notice the hon. member for Carle-ton is present. I should like to know what evidence there is in support of this bill.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: The evidence in this case is that William Henry Blackwell was married to Blanche Gregory. I am not quite sure of the year, but some six or seven years after they were married a child was born to this couple. They lived together for some months after that. The wife deserted the husband, who is maintaining the child, and she took upon herself to live with another man from which union a child was born. She is still living with this man and this child.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask whether there is in the recommendation from the Senate anything about giving the child into the custody of the father?


William Foster Garland: The child is in the custody of the father, who is quite satsified to let it remain there.


Charles Marcil: Has the private bills committee of the House of Commons heard any evidence in connection with this bill, or has it merely accepted the evidence given before the senate committee?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not intend any
criticism of those members of the private bills committee who are supposed to attend the sittings of the senate committee, but I asked some of them if they had attended any of the sittings of that committee and heard the evidence given before it. They acknowledged that none of them had attended the sittings of that committee or had heard any evidence. They said they had had no time to do so, and I am not censuring them on that account This show's what an utter farce it is for members of the House of Commons to be appointed on the senate committee when they have no time to attend, and yet we are led to believe that because they have attended the House of Commons is represented and therefore members of the House of Commons know something about the evidence. I take this opportunity to urge the government to implement their promise next session or as soon as possible to ensure that the granting of divorce will not be the farce it is at present.


Charles Marcil: I would ask the hon. member if the members of the commons who were asked to attend the meetings of the senate committee go there merely as spectators to witness what was going on, or do they take part in the deliberations of the committee?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not think they have any vote, but they listen to the evidence so as to be able to report back to the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: When we consented to have these bills given their first and second reading it was understood that there would be the fullest consideration in committee, but I am informed by members of the House of Commons committee on miscellaneous private bills that these bills passed the committee en bloc; so that so far as the House of Commons is concerned, not one tittle of evidence lias been given to any member of the house other than is contained in the evidence as sent over from the senate.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I might say that the question was asked, "Is there any objection to this bill going through?" If there was no objection, the bill passed. That is all there was.


James Shaver Woodsworth: These bills were passed through the committee without the evidence being brought up in any manner what-

Procedure in Divorce
soever. Therefore we have the curious situation that we are asked now, not on the second reading, but in committee, to pass 'these bills without their having 'been considered by any committee of this house. I would simply point out again that that is a very slipshod way of doing the business of the house. The sponsor of this bill has given us practically no information as to the reasons for this divorce other than that it has been recommended by the senate committee. There is one other question I would ask: Has the hon. member information as to whether the mother is satisfied that the father should have the custody of the child?


William Foster Garland: I would hardly expect that the child would want to live with the mother.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not think that would settle the matter in any court.
Section 1 agreed to.


John Frederick Johnston: On division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.



JOHN WILLIAM TELFER

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 107, for the relief of John William Telfer-Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-marriage dissolved.
Charles Marcil: May we have some explanation of this bill?


William Foster Garland: As soon as I get the evidence I will send it over to my hon. friend.


Charles Marcil: I do not think that is the way to proceed in this house. The promoter of the bill ought to give an explanation and reasons why the bill should be adopted. Otherwise, I would ask that the bill stand.
Section 1 agreed to.


John Frederick Johnston: On division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.


Robert Gardiner: You might explain, Mr. Chairman, what you mean by calling "on division." I do not see any opposition at all.


Ernest Lapointe: I am opposing all these bills, even if I do not say so every time.


Robert Gardiner: If there is any opposition, it is all right to call "on division," but if there is not, I object to it.



JAMES ROSS CURRY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 109, for the relief of James Ross Curry-Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Charles Marcil: May we have an explanation of this bill?


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?


Charles Marcil: The public expect that
when thiis house passes legislation relating to any matter it shall be done in the ordinary way. It has been a time-honoured custom in this house to give an explanation why the bill under consideration should be adopted.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall section 1 carry?


Charles Marcil: I am waiting for an explanation, Mr. Chairman. Is it to be published throughout the whole of Canada that we pass these bills blindly without any explanation whatsoever I wish to register my protest against proceeding in this way. If the hon. member in charge of this bill wishes it to pass, he should at least give us some explanation.


John Frederick Johnston: If there is no debate
on the section, I shall have to call it carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, we
are not going to allow matters to go through that way. The hon. member for Bonaventure has asked for an explanation of this bill, and I think we have a right to have the details. We are not prepared to adopt this legislation until the sponsor of the bill gives us something on which to base a judgment. The evidence has not been before a committee of this house, and we have right to have it here.


John Frederick Johnston: If there is no debate
it is the duty of the Chair to call the clause carried.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In the case of any other bill, Mr. Chairman, when an hon. member asks for an explanation it is forthcoming. That is all that has been asked for here.


John Frederick Johnston: I might point out that the Chair cannot force the sponsor of the bill to give an explanation.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then we shall have to vote down the bill.


William Foster Garland: On the 9th of May, 1910, the petitioner, James Ross Curry, was lawfully married to Cora Lorine Curry. The license was duly obtained, and the marriage celebrated in the city of Buffalo, in the
Procedure in Divorce

United States. At the time of the marriage the petitioner and the said Cora Lorine Curry were domiciled in Canada. In 1927, the said Cora Lorine Curry deserted her husband, and Obtained on December 30, 1927, in the state of New York, a decree purporting to be a dissolution of her marriage. On July 28, 1928, she went through a form of marriage with one Gordon W. Loney, and has since lived with the said Gordon W. Loney. On February 13, 1928, in the city of Buffalo, the said Cora Lorine Curry committed adultery with one Gordon W. Loney, and the petitioner ever since he discovered that fact has lived separate and apart from the said Cora Lorine Curry. He is now applying for a divorce, which has been recommended by the senate committee.


Charles Marcil: Was this evidence brought before a committee of this house or a committee of another house?


William Foster Garland: This evidence was brought before the senate committee. I am not a member of the private bills committee of this house, so I do not know whether the evidence was brought before it or not.
Section 1 agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.



JANET GEE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 120, for the relief of Janet Gee-Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1.
Charles Marcil: May we have some information in respect to this bill?


William Foster Garland: The petitioner in this case Florence Velma Strachan, was married on May 2, 1921, to Alexander Swinton Strachan at Toronto. At the time of the marriage the parties were domiciled in Canada. In 1926 or 1927 in the state of Florida the said Alexander Swinton Strachan committed adultery. His wife is now applying for a divorce, to which she is entitled. This evidence was taken before the senate committee.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, what bill are we dealing with?


John Frederick Johnston: Bill No. 120, letter N1 of the senate.


Robert Gardiner: I understood the hon.
member was giving evidence relative to the next bill, No. 123.


William Foster Garland: This petitioner is Janet Gee.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, we
cannot hear at this end of the chamber.


William Foster Garland: In this case
Janet Gee was married to Sidney Walter Gee in April, 1922. In October, 1928, in the city of Toronto, the said Sidney Walter Gee committed adultery and has since then on divers occasions committed adultery. The petitioner, Janet Gee, is now applying for divorce from her husband.
Section 1 agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.



FLORENCE VELMA STRACHAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 123, for the relief of Florence Velma Strachan- Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Sections 1 and 2 agreed to on division.
On the preamble.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, before the preamble carries I want to know if there are any children involved in this case.


William Foster Garland: Yes, one
child. The information will be found on page 7 of the evidence.
Mr. EVANS': In this case, Mr. Chairman, I beg to move the following amendment:
That the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole for the purpose of amending it as follows:
1. That section one of the bill be amended by adding the following words thereto:-
"and the said Florence Velma Strachan shall have the custody of their child, and the said Alexander Strachan shall pay annually to the said Florence Velma Strachan for her support and maintenance, the sum of five hundred dollars, so long as she remains unmarried; and the sum of two hundred dollars annually for the support and education of their child."


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. gentleman's amendment is not in order according to standing order 113:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one days' notice of the same has been given.
Therefore I rule the amendment out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, under the circumstances I would ask that the bill be held over. Under the present method
APRIL 26, 1929	l"5
Procedure in Divorce
of handling these bills there is no possible way of knowing what particular bills will come up on any particular day. I suppose a hundred of these bills have come to us in this way. I spent some little time during the dinner hour going over a certain number of the bills that appear earlier in this list, but the sponsors not being in their places the bills were allowed to stand. Consequently we are skipping down the list to other bills which we have not had an oportunity of considering, and we did not know whether or not they would be called. Under these circumstances I think we should be given the right to move an amendment in committee of the whole, especially as the bills have not been considered in detail in the private bills committee.


John Frederick Johnston: Is my hon. friend
making a motion?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am making a suggestion that under these circumstances this bill be held over until we have a chance to deal with it.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the committee that the bill should stand?


Charles Marcil: Mr. Chairman, it is only fair that this amendment should serve as a notice of motion. The custody of the child is the question raised now. It is too important to be set aside without consideration. I think the motion intended to 'be moved by the member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans), in faJrness to the parties concerned, should be considered as a notice of motion.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Does the private bills committee print its proceedings? It is not the privilege of every member of the house to be on that committee, and so there is no way in which they can follow its proceedings. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is a member of the private bills committee. I would judge that he is derelict in his duty if he does not know what has taken place there.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The hon. member is assuming a good deal when he assumes that I am a member of that committee. I am not.


John Vallance: I said, if you were.


James Shaver Woodsworth: But the whole point is in the "if." I am not a member of the committee, and therefore have no opportunity to attend its meetings.


John Vallance: I still ask the question, Mr. Chairman, if the proceedings of the
private bills committee are printed. If not, there is no way whereby this house can have the evidence in this case other than as it was adduced before the senate committee.


Charles Marcil: These bills were taken en bloc by the private bills committee and there is no evidence submitted to this house from that committee; we are going on the assumption of evidence heard in another chamber.


John Vallance: If the bills are passed
en bloc by that committee the responsibility is theirs; it is not the responsibility of this house.


Charles Marcil: The responsibility of this
house consists in endorsing that procedure.


John Vallance: It is endorsing the procedure of a responsible committee of the house appointed for the purpose. The hon. member (Mr. Woodsworth) has been objecting to all these bills and his whole complaint has been in regard to the evidence, which he has been neglecting to read. The evidence has been placed in his box and he has not read it. We have no other evidence to go on than that submitted by the senate committee.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: As a member of the
private bills committee, I told the house a little while ago that as each bill was taken up the question was asked by the chairman of the committee whether there was any objection to it.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: A short time
ago I was one of those appointed by this house to attend the divorce committee in the senate. So far this session I have not had much opportunity to attend, but in other sessions I have attended on several occasions, and I can say that they have done their work, in my judgment, very satisfactorily. A short while ago when some of these divoroe bills were before the house I protested against the procedure we had been following, and I am still of the opinion I then expressed. In my humble judgment the proper course to follow is foT this house to pass a bill granting Ontario the right to have a divorce court. Practically every member of this house, I fancy, believes that this is the only way in which these divorce cases can be satisfactorily heard. As every member knows perfectly well, the private bills committee of the House of Commons does not hear any evidence at all; we accept the printed evidence submitted by the divorce committee of the senate. I have no doubt whatever that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others who have raised objections in the course of
Procedure in Divorce

the consideration of these bills have objected only to the procedure which we follow, and which is not thorough. We cannot deal satisfactorily with these cases in this way. As I pointed out the other night, when a marriage is dissolved the question arises as to how the wife is to be provided for and how the children are to be taken care of. The amendment moved to-night is at least evidence of a desire on the part of some hon. members to provide some protection for the women and children involved in divorce suits. At the same time, although I do not agree that this house and the senate should be devoting their time to the consideration of divorce cases, instead of passing a bill to establish a divorce court in Ontario, from which province most of the divorces come, I am of the opinion that now that we have served notice on the house and to the country at large that the present procedure is unsatisfactory, we can do nothing better this session than grant the divorces that have come 'before us, disposing of the cases in the best manner we can. In my view that would be the best course to follow. On a previous occasion I objected to this procedure because I felt that there should be an expression of opinion on the part of the house that in its judgment, after several years' experience, the present practice had proved unsatisfactory. In many provinces, including the province in which I live, there are divorce courts, and I can say to every hon. member that divorces are very much better disposed of in those courts than they are by the method which we are obliged to follow in this house. I cannot see that we are going to gain very much by simply blocking the passage of these bills, although I do not suggest for a moment that anyone is blocking intentionally. As I see it, the motive is to bring more forcibly to the attention of the house and of the country the undesirable character of the present procedure which we are obliged to follow in passing divorce bills. I think it would be better for us to allow these divorce bills to go through this year. There are some hon. members who are strongly opposed to the principle of divorce, but I do not think the principle is at all at stake in the discussion of these bills.


William Foster Garland: There seems to ibe some doubt in regard to the children in this case and as I do not want to do any injustice I would ask that the bill stand.
Preamble stands.
Progress reported.
'Mr. A. MacG. Young.)



WILLIAM HENRY LAVERTY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 126, for the relief of William Henry Laverty.-Mr. Bothwelil-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: In this case the petitioner and respondent were married in the year 1911 and subsequently lived in Fort William, Ontario, until 1921, when the respondent left home. In 1925 she was found living in Vancouver under the name of Mrs. Edgar D. Casseday. Evidence was given before the divorce committee of the senate by an independent witness, a former resident of Fort William, who happened to be residing at Vancouver, as to the circumstances under which the respondent was living there. She had apparently obtained a divorce in Minnesota and had married this man, and they were living together as man and wife.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I must thank the
hon. member for such a clear statement; it is one of the best we have had. I am satisfied except on one point. I understand this woman obtained a divorce in the United States. Are not United States divorces recognized in such cases?


Charles Edward Bothwell: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to have the legal point explained.


Charles Edward Bothwell: American divorces are not recognized in this country. The petitioner and respondent were domiciled in Fort William at the time the wife left home. Apparently she went to Minnesota and there acquired domicile which enabled her to obtain a divorce according to the laws of that state. But that divorce is not recognized in Canada, and, so far as our laws are concerned, she has in fact committed bigamy in remarrying.


Charles Marcil: A judgment to that effect was rendered in Montreal in the past month, in which it was held by Judge Lacroix that Canadians securing divorces in the United States remained, in the eyes of Canadian law, married to the first partner.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We ought to have some statement of the case from the Minister of Justice. There are literally thousands of Canadians who have obtained divorces in the United States. In the phrase used in these bills, are they all to-day, "living in adultery"? Is the second marriage unrecognized and are their children by such marriage illegitimate? There are far-reaching consequences involved in the question.

Procedure in Divorce


Ernest Lapointe: They are taking their
chance.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I should like to have a statement from the Minister of Justice, who is an authority on matters of this kind, as to the position of these people according to our Canadian law.


Ernest Lapointe: I would not like to say what position these people are in to-day, but I may tell my hon. friend that under the law a British subject desiring a divorce must secure it in the jurisdiction of his own domicile.


Milton Neil Campbell: Does that necessarily
invalidate a marriage which has taken place in the United States after a divorce has been secured in that country?


Ernest Lapointe: It is not recognized here.


John Vallance: It seems to me after the explanation given by the sponsor of the bill that this is the only place where this man may secure redress, the only court to which he can appeal as a resident of his province. The evidence as submitted by the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) is conclusive; the only ground for divorce in this country is adultery and that adultery has been conclusively proved by the bigamous marriage of the other party.
Section 1 agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Preamble agreed to on division.
On the title:


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I ask again
whether, as a matter of law, that will mean that the other party will have the right to marry again?


John Vallance: She is married now. You have no jurisdiction over her; she is married and in the United States.


James Shaver Woodsworth: She is not married according to Canadian law.


John Vallance: She is not here.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I understand she obtained a divorce which is not recognized in Canada, and subsequently she contracted marriage with another man. Just what her legal status may be at this time I am not prepared to say, but as far as the petitioner is concerned he is seeking the only redress he may obtain.
Title agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.



JAMES CLAYTON POWELL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 145, for the relief of James Clayton Powell-Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Explain.


William Foster Garland: The explanation for this bill is found at page 5 of the senate evidence. Bernice Law was married on June 13, 1923, to James Clayton Powell by Reverend H. Caldwell in the city of Toronto. They lived together for some time in the city of St. Catharines; then they moved to the village of Drayton, in the county of Wellington, after which they moved to the village of Markham, and from there they moved back to Toronto. Three children were born of this marriage. The petitioner follows the vocation of a preacher and teacher, and the conduct of his wife made it impossible for him to continue in that work. She finally took it upon herself to live with one Kenneth Koehler of the city of Toronto; she lived with him for some time, and the petitioner is applying for this divorce.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children involved?


William Foster Garland: Three.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What provision is
being made for these children?


William Foster Garland: The petitioner, being a preacher would very likely look after these children.


James Shaver Woodsworth: So far as this bill is concerned there is absolutely no provision for their custody.


Robert Forke: I would like to ask the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre if he would be prepared to grant a divorce on the evidence to which he has listened to-night. Is he satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify the granting of a divorce?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not granting
these divorces; I am simply asking for some little explanation, as I think I have the right to do.


Robert Forke: But my hon. friend wants
the house to sit in judgment and say whether or not these people should get divorces.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am simply asking that we have at least an outline of the details as we have them in connection with every other bill presented in this house. I think I am quite within my rights in asking that.
Procedure in Divorce


Robert Forke: Perhaps I do not get the
point, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants this house to sit in judgment and to decide whether or not these bills should be passed. I would like to ask him nowT, after he has heard the evidence, whether he is satisfied that it is sufficient.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have said repeatedly that I do not think we are a proper court. I have said that approximately one-third of the members of this house on their own confession, are absolutely disqualified as jurors because they say that whatever the merits of the 'case they will not vote in favour of divorce. They are not considering these cases on their merits, and I cannot be satisfied with such a court. So far as I am concerned I am asking only for an outline of the case, and I should like to be sure that when a bill is under consideration we shall not have read the evidence pertaining to another bill, as happened once to-night. That instance alone reveals clearly the slipshod method we have been following in these matters.


Robert Forke: I quite agree with what the hon. gentleman has said, but I want to know what is the use of going through all this farce of making a pretence of examining these bills. We are not gaining anything by it; we are not obtaining sufficient evidence. If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to get sufficient evidence in this house would he like to have all these bills discussed in detail? Then all this evidence would be published and scattered all over the land from Halifax to Vancouver. If we are to adopt that course the evidence will be printed in Hansard and will find its way into every corner of the country. Would that make for morality and good living?
I have been with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre up to a certain point;
I admit that the whole thing is a farce and that it is ridiculous that this house should be called upon to make these decisions. But the hon. member has made his protest; he has made it clear that we have come to a place beyond which we cannot go and that before another session comes round something must be done to meet the situation. He has gained his point; I think the country and this house realize that he is right, so why continue this thing? As the hon. member for Saskatoon has suggested, why not let these bills go through for this year, because they will go through anyway; then next year perhaps we will get something to meet the situation in the right way. I cannot see the use of wasting all this time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Minister of
Immigration has admitted frankly what we have been contending for a considerable time, that this whole procedure is a farce. The minister has made that statement to-night, and I think it is no small advance toward reform when a minister of the crown will openly make that confession. Now what are we to do about it; shall we continue the farce indefinitely? The other day we were urged to permit these bills to be given second reading without details being demanded. We agreed to that, but at that time I said I thought the least we could do in order to maintain any semblance of dignity and decorum in this house was first, to abandon the custom which has prevailed in this house of passing these bills en bloc; second, that the member who is sponsor of the bill should be in his place; third, that we should have at least an intelligible outline of the main facts connected with the bill. I suggested that the other day when a number of bills were before us for second reading. 1 am not trying to block these bills to-night, but I am simply carrying out the procedure suggested at that time. I am not going back at all on our understanding. I simply ask that when these bills are called there should be given, as was given by the member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell), a clean-cut, succinct statement of the case. In that particular instance I felt that the senate committee had done its work well and personally I felt that I was justified in voting for the bill. I raised no objection after I had heard the statement; I do not see how we can get along on very much less.


John Vallance: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) will agree that the member for Swift Current was merely citing the case from the evidence. The hon. member pointed out that one-third of the members of this house were opposed to the principle of divorce, and until over fifty per cent of the members of the house are opposed to this procedure there is no other method of relief offered to these people. The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) has raised a point which is very well taken, that in spite of the opposition raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre these bills are going through. This procedure is giving a lot of publicity to something which the press of this country chooses not to make public, but apparently the hon. member desires to give publicity to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, Mr. Chairman,
I cannot let that pass. As I said some time ago, if we were to discuss these matters we

would have to ask that the galleries be cleared; we would have to hold secret sessions because Hansard could not print the evidence. The evidence which is placed before us could not go through the public mails; it would be stopped as obscene literature. I do not desire to have all the details brought before the house, but. I do think that we should have a short statement as was given by the member for Swift Current.


John Vallance: He gave it out of the
evidence as submitted before the senate committee.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 147, for the relief of Clare Doutre Walters Bertram __Mr. McPhee-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. McPHEE:: The evidence proves that
the petitioner was married to Harry Alexander Bertram in 1916. There were two children by the marriage, now in the custody of the applicant. The evidence shows that on July 1,	1928, the husband, Harry Alexander
Bertram, went to Val Morin, near St. Agathe, in the province of Quebec. He went to the home of one Bernard Adolphe Pfister, accompanied by Marcelle Morin, a young lady who was not his wife. They lived at this place for two days and they occupied the same bedroom at night. This evidence is substantiated by Charlotte Bigras who assigned them the room, as well as by two other parties who were living at the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If that is the evidence as given before the committee it seems to me that we should grant the divorce. But I should like to ask what provision is being made for the two children.


George Washington McPhee: None whatever.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The father is not
being required to support the children?


George Washington McPhee: The applicant does not ask for that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no provision whatever?


George Washington McPhee: The applicant does not ask for that.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me
that we ought not to allow a divorce of this character without making some provision for
Procedure in Divorce
the children. The father is responsible for bringing these children into the world and the least he can do is to support them until they are able to maintain themselves. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we allow this bill to stand until we can bring in an amendment which would make provision for the support of these children.


John Vallance: Even in a common law
court unless the applicant asks for what is suggested by the member for Winnipeg North Centre it is never granted. The applicant makes no such suggestion here, so why hold the bill up?
Section 1 agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.



MARGARET DUFFIELD

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 148, for the relief of Margaret Duffield-Mr. McPhee-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What is this?


George Washington McPhee: The applicant in this case
is Margaret Duffield. She was married to William A. Duffield on October 10, 1913. The evidence proves that on September 19, 1928, the said William A. Duffield was living in adultery with one Mrs. Yapp, in the city of Hamilton.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported on division.
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $1,800,000. Mr. MANION: I should like to have the minister give us a list of these rents. This may take a few minutes, but we are continually asking about them in the house and it would help if the list were placed in Hansard.
John Campbell Elliott: The item is a large one and I think my hon. friend's request is reasonable. This amount of $1,800,000 is required for the payment of rents for the year 1929-30 of buildings leased for the various departments of the Dominion government, including the London, England, Canadian building, and to pay for the rental of buildings used exclusively by the militia department, also for the payment of taxes both at

Supply-Public Works-Rentals
and outside Ottawa and the payment of telephones outside Ottawa. The requirements are made up as follows:
Rents	$1,691,972	66Taxes	
45,000	00Telephones	outside Ottawa.. .	5,500	00Contingencies	
57,527	34Total	$1,800,000 00
This is an increase over last year of $148,500. The increase is due to fifty-five new leases entered into during the year 1928-29, the principal ones of which are as follows:
1.	Queen building at Halifax for the
archives	^ j QgQ
2.	Mutual Realty building" at'Halifax '
_ for the Public Works	 10,600
3.	Aluminum Company building at
Arvida, Quebec, for the post offiee	 1,440


Robert James Manion: Are those the increases
that are being given or the total number of rented buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: I am giving the increases over last year.
4.	Williams Machine Company
building at Montreal for Post Office garage	
5.	Building at 182 Shearer street,
Montreal, for Pensions and Health	
6.	Accommodation at McGill Uni'-
versity for Forest Products laboratory	
7.	Accommodation from Messrs
Doran at Niagara Falls for Post Office	
8.	Accommodation from Messrs.
Doran at Niagara Falls for Customs	
9.	Knox college at Toronto for
Militia	
10.	Accommodation from Canadian
R. & H. terminals at Toronto for National Revenue.. ..
11.	Duffield building at Hamilton,
for Post Office, National Revenue and Health Departments	
12.	Farr building at Weston, _ 0otario, for Post Office.. ..
13.	Bank of Toronto at Le Pas,
Manitoba, for Interior Department	
14.	Canadian Pacific Railway at
Regina for postal accommo-__ datum	
15.	Gibson premises at Drumheller, Alberta, for Post Office	
16.	Canadian National Railway
at Edmonton for postal accommodation	
17.	Canadian Pacific Railway at
Vancouver for postal station A	
18.	Canadian Pacific Railway at
Vancouver for Post Office storage

4.800	00
3,600 00
25.000	00
18,837 50
20.000	00
1.800	00
1,500 00 6,750 00 1,100 00 5,200 00 2,100 00 2,805 00
Total	 $124,547 Ml

The leases are, in all, 455, placed as follows:
Number of leases
London, England	 1
Nova Scotia	 25
Prince Edward Island	 6
New Brunswick	 22
Quebec	 72
Ontario	106
Ottawa	 49
Manitoba	 33
Saskatchewan	 47
Alberta	 48
British Columbia	 44
Yukon	 2
Total	455


Robert James Manion: I had intended to ask the minister to read the whole list, but as it is such a large one I do not wish to do that. Perhaps the minister could table the list and, if it does not take up too much space, if it could be placed on Hansard it would be of interest to the whole house to have that done.


John Campbell Elliott: I would be glad to table
the whole list. It comprises many pages, but I think we have absolute details of everything.


James Dew Chaplin: Why is there an item for taxes? I was under the impression that government buildings did not pay taxes. Is this for street taxes, local improvements and things of that k:ind?


John Campbell Elliott: My idea offhand is that
while we do not pay taxes ordinarily for a building we occupy-


Richard Bedford Bennett: A building you own.


John Campbell Elliott: -if any building or any part of a building belonging to the government is leased to somebody who is not in the government sedvice, we must pay taxes, but certain of our leases provide for the department paying the taxes, and this amount of $45,000 includes both of these items.


Hugh Guthrie: I assume that this building and also the frontage of this property on Wellington street are under the control of the Minister of Public Works. There has recently been installed on Wellington street a red light signal system for motor traffic, but I am sorry to say that, so far as I have observed, motorists pay little attention to the signals.
I have had one or two very narrow escapes myself, and perhaps for that reason I look more carefully than other people. To-day on three ocoasions I noticed cars running through at a pretty good clip, absolutely regardless of the stop signal. I notice also there are two representatives of the mounted police stationed at the gates I use. Why do these police officers not take the license numbers and

Supply-Public Works-Rentals
institute prosecutions? One or two prosecutions would settle the matter. At the present time many motorists pay no attention to the signals. We have had accidents at this crossing, and members of the House of Commons have suffered. I just want to direct the minister's attention to the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with my
lion, friend and I hesitate either to join with him or to differ from him in the criticism of the city police. I think there is a good deal in what he says about the matter.


Hugh Guthrie: I was refering to the
mounted police.


John Campbell Elliott: But we have no jurisdiction over Wellington street.


Hugh Guthrie: They could easily take
the license numbers of motorists who break the law, and hand them over so that prosecutions might be instituted.


John Campbell Elliott: That was what I was
going to suggest. Any citizen has a perfect right, if he notices the law being violated, to take the license number and lay an information.


Hugh Guthrie: But citizens, as a rule,
do not go to that trouble. I could have done that, too, but I do not want to pursue a prosecution in a police court.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend says is quite true, and the police who are not specially charged with that duty and whose jurisdiction does not extend to the street in
question also hesitate to lay information in regard to a matter that is outside their jurisdiction. That is the difficulty.


Hugh Guthrie: As there are no city
police on Wellington stret, so far as my
observation goes-


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, there are.


Hugh Guthrie: Well, very rarely are they on duty on Wellington street. If the mounted police, who have the custody of these grounds and this building and who, I suppose, are interested in the safety of members of the House of Commons when they cross that street, would give the license numbers to the city police, I think the traffic could be regulated.


John Campbell Elliott: I agree with my hon.
friend except for just this one thing: I think it is desirable that the best possible relations should be maintained between the federal and the municipal authorities.


Hugh Guthrie: Even if you kill off a few members in the meantime.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not objecting to our police laying the information. My hon. friends laugh. I do not want to be misunderstood. I did not say, "I am not objecting to killing off a few members," but that I do not object to our police laying the information.
Mr. FORlvE: What law governs the traffic lights on Wellington street?	.


John Campbell Elliott: The municipal law.


Robert Forke: Is there a municipal by-law or regulation in regard to those traffic lights?
I have been told that there is not.


John Campbell Elliott: It was passed recently, I understand.


Robert Forke: I have heard several times that there is no such by-law, but I may be wrong.


Mr. MALONEY:: The sum of $1,800,000 is a fabulous amount to pay for rents. Capitalized at the ordinary bank rate, that would mean an investment of almost fifty million dollars, and fifty million dollars to be paid out by the government of this country for office accommodation seems ridiculous, particularly when we are spending millions and millions on the construction of buildings in this city and millions more for the construction of buildings in other parts of the country. This vote should he held over for very careful consideration, because the people of this country will find it hard to believe that we need to spend almost two million dollars in renting buildings throughout Canada, in small places as well as large.


Mr. BIRD:: How much rent is paid for the government offices at The Pas, Manitoba?


John Campbell Elliott: The government pays
$3,600 per annum to T. Creighton for the Post Office Department; $900 to the Royal bank for the lands and mines branch, and $1,500 to the Bank of Toronto for the Interior department.


Peter McGibbon: What is the government's policy going to be in regard to renting buildings in the future? Year after year we have been voting large sums for rent, and pointing out the folly of it, but apparently we do not get anywhere.


John Campbell Elliott: How does my hon. friend mean? With regard to getting buildings of our own so as to get rid of paying rent?


Peter McGibbon: Certainly.
Supply-Public Works-Rentals


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will see from these estimates that a considerable number of buildings are being constructed by the government.


Peter McGibbon: But the rent is not depreciating to any extent.


John Campbell Elliott: The number of people required to carry on the service and the accommodation required is increasing. We are trying to put up buildings as fast as seems reasonable.


Peter McGibbon: Last years vote was $1,651,000, and this year we are paying $1,800,000. The vote is not decreasing at all.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend was present when I read details as to the additional services and the additional accommodation asked for by the various departments in order to enable them to carry on their business, which accounts for the difference.


Peter McGibbon: Cannot the government expand its building capacity to keep pace with the growth of the service?


John Campbell Elliott: We are endeavouring to,
and that is the idea of these new buildings. But my hon. friend will find that the cost for buildings owned by the government throughout the country will on the whole be greater than the cost of renting buildings.


Peter McGibbon: Then how does the
minister account for private individuals erecting buildings and renting them to the government? They must do it at a loss, according to the minister's argument. It is ridiculous.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister surely does not intend us to believe that owning the buildings would be worse than renting them. Here we are paying $1,800,000 in rent, which represents a capital of $30,000,000 for interest and sinking fund. With $30,000,000 you could construct a great many buildings in Canada. If by saying that the cost of upkeep of new buildings would be more than we pay in rent the minister means that in some cases we pay larger rents than we should, I can understand it. But in this city there has been in recent years a new building occupied in its entirety by one department, and the company putting up that building have circularized the Canadian public stating that they expect from the rents received to pay off the bonds in a limited number of years and own the building free of encumbrance.


John Campbell Elliott: What building is that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Norlite building.
What about the Confederation building? What is it going to cost? It seems to me that it will not accommodate so very many offices. It may go up in the air quite a distance, but it is not very long in street frontage. How many tenders were received for the construction of that building?


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
will not expect me to carry all the details in my head, but I think I can give him nearly all the details in regard to the Confederation building, which is a building of more than ordinary interest. My recollection is that it will be from seven to nine stories high, with the tower a little higher. The frontage on Wellington street will be 200 feet, and on Bank street, 150 feet. The actual space that we will have for offices, after providing for corridors, rest rooms, elevators and that sort of thing, will be 175,000 square feet. There is in addition 7,500 feet of storage space.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the basement?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I think if my hon. friend looked at the figures he would be satisfied that that building, although it will give better space I hope than we have anywhere else in Canada, and although we do not pay any taxes, will not be a great saving. There were, I think, five or six tenders received, the lowest being from Lyall and Company, amounting to $2,460,000 odd, which was substantially below the next tender.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Was it the usual form
of contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: When do you expect to
occupy it, and when it is occupied, will that decrease the vote for rentals the next year?


John Campbell Elliott: The vote for rentals
should decrease when we get into the building. It is not definitely settled by whom it will be occupied. We have a number of applicants for the new space. The contract calls for the building being completed on April 8, 1930. That is making a reduction of six months in the time originally estimated by the architect. According to the progress report we had a week or ten days ago, the contractors were up to schedule, and if that rate of progress continues the building itself ought to be completed by April 8, 1930. Of course the offices will have to be installed after that date, before the building can be occupied.


Hugh Guthrie: How many tenders did you receive?

Supply-Public IForlrs-Rentals


John Campbell Elliott: I think five or six. I would refer my hon. friend to the vote in connection with it, when the whole matter can be discussed. We have not reached that yet.


Hugh Guthrie: What vote will it be under?


John Campbell Elliott: Vote 117 at page 30, new departmental building, $1,500,000.


Peter McGibbon: Does the minister realize the significance of the statement he has just made to the house?	.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope he does.


Peter McGibbon: Then it is a travesty on the intelligence of the government. In effect it is this: Private individuals can erect buildings and rent them to the government cheaper than the government itself can do so for its own use. What greater condemnation could we want of the inefficiency of any government than the statement just made by the minister?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend want to be taken seriously? Let us consider for a moment what I have said and what he has said. I said you will get no space in the city of Ottawa like the space we will 'have in the Confederation building. For one reason it is more valuable. But the cost I expect will be higher than we are paying for the kind of space we are occupying now. My statement with regard to being able to rent buildings cheaper than build them does not apply nearly as much to a building like the Confederation block, which is a large building, as it does to the small buildings such as those contained in the list I was reading to my hon. friend a few moments ago. Of course, in that case we require quite a number of feet of space, but in a great many places where our requirements are more limited it is to our advantage to rent rather than build.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It certainly will be a paying investment to build in Calgary.


John Campbell Elliott: That is an example showing that where a large amount of space is required to house all the departments it justifies the erection of a large buildings; but my statement that it was cheaper to rent than to build applies, I suppose to two-thirds at any rate of our buildings.


George Reginald Geary: On the southeast comer of Wellington and O'Connor streets is a factory building. It is called an office building, but is built to factory specifications and looks no better than a factory in the industrial section of any city. The factory building to which I have referred has been erected very little more
than a year, and I suppose the need for further accommodation was present to the mind of the government when the permit was allowed to go through for the Edwards building on the corner of Wellington and O'Connor.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is a former city solicitor and, I hope, has not forgotten that completely. Does he think we could have controlled the utilization of that comer?


George Reginald Geary: If this government in their desire to beautify Ottawa had even ordinary common sense they would not have allowed the Edwards building to go up. They were told before it was commenced that they might have the property. It is a reproach to the government that while trying to improve the immediate surroundings of this Confederation building they should allow the erection of the eyesore to which I have referred.


John Campbell Elliott: What does my hon. friend mean by saying that we could have had the property?


George Reginald Geary: Surely the minister knows what I mean.


John Campbell Elliott: You mean we could have bought it?


George Reginald Geary: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: We could have bought anything down the whole street.


George Reginald Geary: Then I say if the government desired to beautify the surroundings of this building they wasted their money in tearing down buildings on the south side of Sparks street and allowing an eyesore like this Edwards building to go up immediately next the parliamentary grounds. I am quite sure the minister will find out that long before the Edwards building was put up the government might have had the site as vacant land. As soon as the Victoria chambers were destroyed by fire the government should have seen to the acquisition of the site.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend think the Victoria chambers were destroyed by fire? They were tom down to provide a place for this building.


George Reginald Geary: Whatever happened to them.


Peter McGibbon: They were antiquated
and useless.


George Reginald Geary: If I understand the Minister of Public Works correctly, he is saying now that the government had no option but to

Supply-Public Works-Rentals
allow the Edwards building to go up. That is not sense. If the government had desired to get that property, I wager it could have been acquired before a dollar had been expended in the way of new plans.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


George Reginald Geary: Across from these grounds, on the south side of Wellington street, from the Rideau Club westerly the buildings are of very decent appearance; from Metcalf street easterly the government building is of very good appearance; but until that factory building on the comer of O'Connor street and Wellington is acquired at an expense, I suppose, of a million and a half-because the building is occupied and there is a growing value-until that building is acquired the surroundings of parliament hill cannot be improved. How much better the Confederation building would have been on the corner where the Victoria Chambers used to be. I cannot claim that I know as a fact that the government was offered the site, but I say the site could have been acquired before a dollar was spent on the new building. I think the minister has made a mistake that will not be repaired in the next fifty years, and in the meantime he has destroyed all opportunity of beautifying these surroundings by allowing that eyesore to go up.


John Campbell Elliott: The question of the land on which to place government buildings was not decided last year or the year before. I think back in 1912 it was considered advisable to construct government buildings under some definite scheme and to obtain quite a substantial amount of land for this purpose. The building on the corner to which my hon friend referred could have been purchased, of course, much more cheaply at that time than within the last year or two. I think all the buildings down to and including what is called the old Perley home were purchased in the year 1912 or thereabouts at a cost of about three million dollars. I will not quarrel with my hon. friend as to whether or not the wise thing at that time would have been to buy the property opposite the parliament buildings and grounds, but the government in ita wisdom, in acquiring a site for a general scheme of government buildings, made a selection which included the property on which the Confederation building is now being constructed. I quite agree with my hon. friend that probably it would have been good business to have prevented the erection of any unsightly building in the vicinity of the property on which we intended to put up any 
of the buildings which we should construct; because the Confederation building is only one of a series. The same thing applies to all buildings on the other side of Wellington street right down as far as our property goes. There are many buildings down there which probably will be opposite very respectable government buildings to be constructed in the life of this government, within the next few years. The hon. gentleman suggests now that this government should go out and obtain all the property facing the buildings which it is intended to construct. I really do not think my hon. friend considered his argument before delivering it.


George Reginald Geary: You have not considered it since.


John Campbell Elliott: I always consider any
argument which my hon. friend presents because I have the greatest respect for his views, but I must say that this respect has not increased with his last argument. As regards the purchase of this property cornering our present building, does my hon. friend suggest that, first of all, this government had a right to say what kind of building should be put up? He has already admitted that we could not. In the second place, does he suggest that we should have been justified in assuming that a bad building would be put up-a building that would not be a credit to that part of the city?


Peter McGibbon: You should not let any building be put up there.


John Campbell Elliott: Who should not?


Peter McGibbon: The government.


John Campbell Elliott: It could have been prevented by the purchase of the property.


James Dew Chaplin: There is a better w'ay.


John Campbell Elliott: How?


James Dew Chaplin: By arranging with the
city so that unsightly buildings would not be put there. They are always ready to concede that.


John Campbell Elliott: I am glad my hon. friend takes so generous a view of what the city is always ready to do. The city, I presume; has passed upon that particular building.


Hugh Guthrie: Without protest.


George Reginald Geary: I have listened to the
minister's speech, frequently interspersed with "I agree". Of course he does not agree with anything. The whole object of the minister's speech is to try to get rid of the difficulty that has arisen because of a mistake the gov-

Supply-Public Worlcs-Rentals
eminent has made in the last two or three years, and he does so by referring to purchases made in 1912. I have no doubt the purchases made in 1912 were fairly reasonable, but no one will say that because the government bought property in 1912 it is tied to that property in respect to the structures it erects in 1928. The minister during the last day or two has cited to the committee case after case where sites were purchased for post offices away back before the war, and there are still vacant sites upon which post offices have never been built. I do not say that the city would have listened to the government, but I have every reason to expect that it would have done so, and the city architect would have held his plans over, as is the usual course in connection with structures of this sort, until such by-laws had been passed as would provide for some control over buildings to be erected. But that is not the point. The point is this: the Victoria chambers were coming down. At the moment none of the other structures along there are coming down. But, as I say, the Victoria chambers were coming down, and I venture to say that the minister will find, if he does not know now, that before one dollar was spent on the present building the government had an opportunity to buy that land. That is the common report. The minister may deny it, because he has declined to get the information. But the government or the Prime Minister must know. It is known to some member of the government that that property, in a vacant state, was available to the government for purchase, and the government passed it up and allowed this other building to go on the premises. The minister talks about buying properties when the buildings fall down. The government did not wait for the buildings to fall down when they bought other property. They bought other buildings which were going concerns. There was for instance a theatre which they acquired, being obsessed with the idea of a memorial square. I fancy that the people of Ottawa or anyone who visits the city will say that the appearance of parliament hill will be much more seriously impaired by the Edwards building now on the corner of O'Connor street than it will ever be improved by the purchase of the property on Sparks street. I will not go over that argument because the money has been appropriated and the property bought. But no one will say that the property south of Sparks street was a good purchase; it was an extravagance that cannot be justified. And here is a property, costing probably less than half a million, 78594-127
which the government needed and on which there could have been erected a building in keeping with those that lie opposite parliament hill, instead of which the whole of parliament hill is ruined for the next half century despite the obsession of the government for beautifying the city. The fact is, they have not used common sense. .


Malcolm McLean: There is one danger that suggests itself in connection with the argument of my hon. friend. The hon. member says that the government could have bought that land before building took place on it. Of course they could have bought the property if they had paid the price, but what would that entail? Other people with old properties along that street and desirous of turning them over would be in a position to go to the government and say, "You bought the Victoria Chambers and paid the price. We intend to build on our land and we think you had better buy our property also". It might be a very serious matter; it would be the beginning of a campaign to induce the government to spend a great deal of money along that street. It might be deemed desirable in the long run', but until the government and the house decide that it is, it would not be wise to follow the course my hon. friend suggests when so much land has been already bought and paid for. It i3 much more desirable to use land already owned than to buy more. At any rate, there would be that factor to consider in the case, that if a good price were paid for certain property the owners of other property would seek to justify the purchase by the government of such property on similar terms. They might even threaten to put up undesirable buildings in order to induce the government to purchase their land. I have heard violent attacks on this particular building in the last two years and I do not think they are altogether warranted. The building may not be covered with marble and sandstone outside, but it is apparently a high class office building. I noticed an item in the press to the effect that hon. gentlemen opposite had rented an entire floor, and I must say that I think they used good judgment in doing so. The building seems splendidly fitted for office purposes.


George Reginald Geary: It is a most excellent building for office purposes.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend (Mr. Geary) is referring to a building which we shall reach eventually in the estimates. But I would point out that that building appears at page 30 and we are now at page 35, which



Supply-Public Works-Rentals
has to do with an altogether different matter. I have no objection however because I realize that the Confederation building is one of interest to every hon. member of this house, and I do not know that anyone should object to the discussion of this matter whenever any hon. member feels disposed to bring it up.	.


George Reginald Geary: I was not discussing the Confederation building; I was discussing the piece of property across the road from it.


John Campbell Elliott: That piece of property is not in the estimates at all.


James Dew Chaplin: I do not know whether it is in order to discuss this monstrosity down here in front of the parliament buildings, because I do not know whether it comes under this item of rents, and I do not care.


John Campbell Elliott: It certainly does not come under this item.


James Dew Chaplin: Very well, I will say nothing more about it now but I will have occasion to say something at another time. In respect to the item of rents, a few minutes ago the minister was kind enough to tell the house that these rents have gradually increased despite the fact that we are providing new buildings all the time, and he also told us that probably they would continue to increase. I can say to the minister that both he and other ministers who have occupied that position have told us that as new public buildings were constructed the rents would decrease. What is the history? Let us go back to 1926-27. In that year the rents amounted to $1,410,000. In 1927-28 the item had increased to $1,440,000; in 1928-29 it increased to $1,651,000 and this year it is SI,- 800,000. I do not know when the decrease is to take place, but I think it should come soon with all the buildings we are putting up.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: What buildings have we put up in Ottawa?


Hugh Guthrie: We are talking of the whole of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: For that matter, how many new buildings have been put up throughout Canada?


James Dew Chaplin: We have been buying them.


Charles A. Stewart: Not very many.


James Dew Chaplin: There was the Daly building.
[Mr. EHiott.)


Charles A. Stewart: That was purchased long before this government came into office.


James Dew Chaplin: What about these other buildings?


Charles A. Stewart: Very few buildings have been bought or erected by the government since we came into office.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps this whole question is out of order-


John Campbell Elliott: I do not object to the
discussion,


Robert James Manion: Since the hon. member for South Toronto has brought up the matter I have a couple of suggestions to make. I well remember, when the building was being erected a couple of years ago, bringing up the whole question in this house, and I have since not changed my opinion about its appearance. I remember I was rather severe about it at the time and termed it a ghastly architectural monstrosity, which perhaps was rather strong language. However, as one stands in this beautiful square and looks around only to find the whole effect ruined largely by the colour of that building, one metaphorically weeps. Again and again I have walked down the square and have felt sorry to see the whole effect ruined in this way. My hon. friend from Melfort has brought up the point of the high prices which might be charged the government, but the government has the right to expropriate; and if at any time the erection of a building is threatened which will ruin the beauty of this city the government would be quite justified in expropriating the land for its own purposes. But I have another suggestion to make, and perhaps this is something which should have been done before this; I believe I suggested it when I brought up the question a year or two ago. My suggestion, which I think should receive the attention of the minister and of the government, is that the city council of Ottawa should be approached by the government on behalf of the people of Canada, and asked to make such regulations as will prevent the erection of any building such as the one under discussion which would spoil the beauty of this city. I do not know whether any action has been taken in this regard; if this has been done I know nothing of it, and the minister has not referred to it. This government, representing the people of Canada, is spending vast amounts of money to beautify the city of Ottawa; with that we on this side have quarrelled on a number of occasions, because we have thought that the purchase and the pulling down of a number of fairly good

Supply-Public Works-Rentals
buildings was an unnecessary extravagance. At any rate, that has been done, and since it was done for the purpose of beautifying the city-and to Ottawa's beautification no one on this side of the house objects, so long as it is not done at too great an expense-it should be the duty of the city council to cooperate with the government and put in force building regulations which would not permit buildings of this kind to be erected and so ruin the beauty of this city. To-day no doubt the city of Ottawa has fire regulations, and other forms of buildings regulations, but certainly the city never should have permitted that building to be erected in its present form. It is an eyesore to all who appreciate the beautification of the city, and it is an eyesore to every visitor ,to Ottawa. This is the second time I have brought up this matter and I sincerely hope that the minister will be able to tell next session that some action of this kind has been taken by the government. I do not know whether or not that has been done already; if it has I offer them praise for it, but if that action has not been taken I think the government should approach the city council of Ottawa to see :f some regulation cannot be put into effect so that in future another building such as thi3 may not be erected.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know that I am
at liberty to say what has taken place with regard to certain interviews between the aivic authorities and representatives of the government and of the federal commission, but interviews such as my hon. friend has suggested have taken place. The two parties are working together very cordially, I believe, and in the best interests of both. I know my hon. friend wants to be fair to the city council who permitted this building to be erected and to the corporation which built it. He has already stated that his objection is largely based on the colouring of the upper part of the building, and I think he will be one of the first to agree that that is something which the plan submitted to the city council would not indicate. I think the trouble is only temporary; probably the mixing of the mortar has something to do with the colour which my hon. friend finds objectionable.


James Dew Chaplin: Does the minister say that the city architect would not be able to appreciate what the specifications called for?


John Campbell Elliott: I did not catch my hon.
friend's question; I was trying to answer another question and it is rather difficult to answer one and appreciate another at the same time.
78594-127J


Robert James Manion: I have no desire to be unfair to the city council of Ottawa; I knew nothing of any approach having been made by the government. I compliment the government for making these efforts, but I believe the government is in a position of authority, spending as it does millions of dollars to make this oity one of the most beautiful on this continent. I think the government would be absolutely justified if they insisted on these regulations. I have no desire, as I have already said, to be unfair to this city, and certainly I do not wish to be unfair to that hon. member of this house who is one of the owners of this building. He is a personal friend of mine and I regret to say anything concerning a building in which he is interested, but I have my duty to perform also, and my duty, as I see it, is to endeavour to assist the government and the city council in beautifying this city. Much as I regret hurting his feelings, or perhaps impugning the methods of the city council, I think it is time the government took a pretty strong position, if necessary, in order to bring about that result which the minister and the government profess to be anxious to obtain.


John Campbell Elliott: There is another point
which I might mention, and perhaps this is another matter which should not be stressed unduly. This question of jurisdiction should be avoided as far as possible. The government has jurisdiction to authorize the city of Ottawa to place building restrictions upon any particular street.


George Reginald Geary: Not this government.


John Campbell Elliott: No, the provincial government. I think the hon. member for South Toronto knows that the city of Ottawa did approach the government at Toronto. A bill was presented there asking for the very authority and the very control which was required, but that bill did not pass the Ontario house. I am not finding fault with the provincial legislature for that, because objections were raised by property owners in the city of Ottawa.


Peter McGibbon: May I ask the minister a question?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the hon. member will wait until I have answered the last question. They were not able to get legislation through the Ontario legislature which would give them the control which would have enabled them to prevent the very thing to which my hon. friend objects.


George Reginald Geary: It was a very poor bill.
200S

Supply-Public Works-Rentals


John Campbell Elliott: Will the hon. member say that it did not provide for this very safeguard which he now says should have been taken?


George Reginald Geary: Yes, it did, but the area dealt with by the 'bill which was proposed by the city of Ottawa, and which I suppose was backed by the government, went all the way down to government house; it stretched across Connaught place and up Sparks and Wellington streets and tied up many properties which would never be used for beautification purposes. I think you will find also that the chairman of the beautifying commission at Ottawa was very heavily interested in a good many properties, and many owners thought that the bill should not pass.


John Campbell Elliott: The bill did not pass.


George Reginald Geary: There is no trouble in
getting ordinary building restrictions passed by the Ontario legislature. We have such restrictions in the city of Toronto, perhaps to a greater extent than we need them, and the city of Ottawa, with streets immediately adjacent to parliament hill, should have no trouble at all in getting the legislature to provide safeguarding measures. But the important point is that the government had a chance to stop the erection of that building and did not do it. The government and the city of Ottawa prevented the sale of the Russell house because they were willing to go in and spend money on that site. The crux of the matter is that the government deliberately neglected the opportunity to acquire that property at a cost of probably a quarter of a million dollar's or a little more.


John Campbell Elliott: I certainly do not want to prolong this discussion, and I am ready to drop it any time anyone suggests that it should be dropped. The hon. member who has just spoken has had a great deal of experience before the private bills committee of the Ontario legislature.


George Reginald Geary: You did not help me any.


John Campbell Elliott: I helped you a lot at
times, much more than you are helping me to-night. I always admired the way in which the hon. member got legislation through, some of which I approved of and some of which I could not entirely agree with. He knows that there were objectionable features in nearly every bill which was presented to that committee. The committee was directed by officials who had been doing that work for many years and they nearly always pointed out objectionable features which they 
asked the promoters of the bills to have deleted so that the measures could pass in a reasonable way. I do not think his statement that the bill contained unreasonable features is any answer at all.
As to the other question, that we should have purchased all the property adjoining that which we now own, I am not saying that it would not have been a good thing, but I do say that it is much easier to defend our action to-night than it would have been had we purchased that property at the time it was available and given as our explanation that we intended to build on it so that a poor building could not be erected there. We would be leaving vacant that property which after a great many years of study all governments have been agreed should be the site for the erection of a series of buildings.


Thomas William Bird: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: I desire to make just
two observations with respect to the acquisition of the site west of the supreme court building. When the Borden administration came into power in 1911, one of the first difficulties that confronted them was with relation to the acquisition of office space in this city. The minister has doubtless seen in his own department the plans which were prepared many years ago looking to the construction of a very fine series of buildings on the far side of Wellington street from the Rideau club down to the Bank of Montreal corner. I am not quite certain who prepared those plans, but my memory is that it was a very distinguished architect, and the late Mr. Ewart used to exhibit them with some degree of pride. After they had carefully considered the situation it was found that that site on Wellington street from the Rideau club to

Supply-Public Works-Rentals
the Victoria chambers would cost a great deal of money, because banks, the club building and other buildings were in occupation, and the space would be somewhat less than what was available on the land west of the supreme court building. Those buildings were acquired partly by agreement and partly by expropriation, if my memory serves me aright. For the moment I am speaking only from memory. It gave the government a great deal of concern as to whether they should endeavour to take the property in front of the parliament buildings or the property west of the supreme court building. But if I remember correctly, in view of the fact that there was nearly twice as much property west of the supreme court building as there was from the Rideau club to the Victoria chambers, it was thought desirable to acquire the former property having regard to future requirements and the fact that you could not carry the Wellington street property out to Sparks street without expending too much money, whereas the property west of the supreme court building was between the river and the street. Accordingly that land was acquired, extending west of the supreme court building a considerable distance-I do not know how many feet it is- and a complete scheme worked out for a series of buildings. I presume the Confederation block, so-called, is the first unit in that building scheme.


John Campbell Elliott: I think I have in mind the scheme to which my hon. friend refers. After several contests by different planners and architects, the scheme of which the Confederation building is the beginning was finally decided upon, but it is not exactly the same as that referred to by my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but the general terms are much the same. It will be recalled that a commission was appointed headed by Sir Herbert Holt to make a report upon the city improvement generally. It will be recalled what the government did. This is the point of the criticism. The government undertook improvements and the beautification of Ottawa, and to carry out those improvements and that beautification spent something like $3,000,000 acquiring the property comprising the square near the post office, the Russell hotel building, and other buildings in that locality. But if the object is to beautify and improve, the government did just the exact opposite of what it had in mind when it let the structure on the corner opposite the Bank of Montreal, on the site of the old Victoria chambers building, be erected. When this vast scheme of building west of the supreme court buildings 
was undertaken, the government then had in mind the provision of office accommodation for all the public service in Ottawa, looking forward for half a century. That was the general conception of the undertaking. Then when the town planning commission made their report-it will be remembered that an engineer came from Chicago to Ottawa-the commission at the head of which was Sir Herbert Holt made certain recommendations, and in a broad and general way this park that you now have in front of the post office follows the report of the commission, though not in detail. The difficulty-I confess I have never been able to solve it-is how you can talk of the beautification and improvement of Ottawa when in front of this magnificent ten million dollar structure you permit that building to be placed on the comer. The minister says that it could not be prevented, but the hon. member for South Toronto has made it perfectly clear that there was an opportunity, and that opportunity should have been grasped instead of spending three million dollars on the acquisition of the properties to which I have referred.
May I say this further? I think it is abundantly clear that the property between the Rideau Club and the Victoria chambers would not be sufficient to give effect to the plans that were in mind at that time for the accommodation of the public service of this country, and the location of the build'-ings on the site west of the supreme court buildings became a necessity because there was no other site to which you could easily go, unless you did as was done in Australia, move the capital entirely away from the city.
While on the subject of the Confederation building, and to obviate the necessity of speaking again, may I say, although the matter is perhaps not strictly relevant to the item under discussion, that something should be done with respect to the building in which the Supreme Court of Canada is housed. The Minister of Public Works is a member of the legal profession, and is no doubt aware that there are very valuable books in that library that cannot be replaced with money. The building was an old carpenter shop in 1878, and it is now the home of the highest court in Canada. I cannot but think that, finding money as we have done for many other purposes, we should not permit this condition to continue. The present structure is finished inside with highly inflammable wood-white pine-much of it hand-carved and covered with shellac which will burn practically if you put a match against it. The greatest possible care must be exer-

Supply-Public Works-Victoria
cised on the part of everybody about the premises to prevent the building being burned down. Such a loss-I am speaking merely as a member of the legal profession-would be very hard to contemplate; for there are books there that cannot be replaced. It is also very unpleasant to reflect on the fact that the home of the highest court in Canada, what we speak of as being the court of last resort in this country, should be housed in an old carpenter shop, to which some improvements, very few, have been made since 1878. If I were asked to-day to say what public service in Ottawa I regard as being most in need of a new public building, I would say that it is the Supreme Court of Canada. That is my profound conviction. I have been over most of that building. It is neither fire proof nor commodious. The minister this afternoon said that it took eight charwomen and one foreman daily to look after it, just keeping it in shape. Look at the floors and everything connected with it! If governments are trustees alike for this generation and the next, I would say that no greater trusteeship rests upon them than that of providing decent facilities for the Supreme Court of Canada. I was surprised to find in the estimates no appropriation for this purpose. I would strongly impress upon the minister and through him upon the administration, the necessity of taking action in this matter. After all, in the ultimate analysis law and the maintenance of the rule and reign of law is what all governments must have in mind, and if you do not house 'in decent premises, an institution such as the Supreme Court of Canada, you are going to have an unfavourable reaction in the matter of the general conduct of litigation and the maintenance of law and order in this country.


Martin James Maloney: I really think that this
item should stand, Mr. Chairman. We are asked to vote 31,800,000 a stupendous sum, for rentals. Further, we are asked to vote that amount without being furnished with any information worth mentioning. For my part I would like to have a list of all the properties leased, with the amount of the rentals, the ownership of the properties, and so on, before this vote carries and for that reason I object very strongly to this item going through tonight.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-water, $83,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That is outside Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Victoria, B.C. - astrophysical observatory (Little Saanich mountain) - maintenance, repairs and improvements, $3,000.
D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: Leading up to the
observatory at Saanich is a winding road, I should judge about a mile long. At intervals there are wide places where cars can pass, but for the most part the road is very narrow and anyone driving up there in a motor car is in great danger of an accident. It would take only a small amount to widen the road, and it is a work that should certainly be done, because many people who would visit the observatory are deterred by the fear of an accident. With the coming of the stage coaches and tourists from the United States, traffic has become very heavy, and it is absolutely necessary that this road should be widened. I would ask the minister if any work of that kind is contemplated under this item.


John Campbell Elliott: The details do not show
anything for a road. The $3,000 is made up as follows: Painting the exterior of the dome of the building, painting the interior floor, repairs to the engineer's residence, painting and decorating of the director's residence, electric light and water supply, painting exterior posts, gates, and so forth, and contingencies.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: The condition of this
road endangers public life. There are very bad spots at intervals of from 200 to 400 feet, and as the road winds it is impossible to see an approaching car. Should a driver lose control of his car coming down this mountain road there is certain to be serious loss of life. The people in the vicinity are expecting an accident any day. I would ask the minister to consider this and make the necessary provision in the supplementary estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia, $750,200.
Richard Bedford Bennett: A number of Nova
Scotia members did not think this item would be reached this evening and they are not in their seats. Perhaps the minister would take some other province.


John Campbell Elliott: I would suggest that W"
take up public buildings at page 30, item 117. This vote deals with the new departmental building in Ottawa, which has been pretty well discussed to-night. I am entirely in the hands of the committee.
Item stands.

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
Ottawa - new departmental building, $1,500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the minister anything to say about the supreme court building?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think anyone feels the necessity of a new supreme court building more than I do. I can hardly agree with all my hon. friend has said about the disgracefulness of the present building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not use the word "disgracefulness".


John Campbell Elliott: I take it back; but his
general description pretty well got to that point. It was built originally in 1878,-


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was built prior to that date and taken over in 1878 for the use of the supreme court.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. It was used as a
carpenter shop while the parliament buildings were being erected. The exterior of the building is in fairly good shape. But I am not going to defend it. It is not the proper kind of building for the* housing of the supreme court of Canada. I quite agree with that. But I do not believe the supreme court is as badly housed as some of the other services.


Thomas Cantley: The post office at New Glasgow, for instance.


John Campbell Elliott: I think my hon. friend and other hon. gentlemen will say that there are many places where the services at any rate are not any better housed. I think an expenditure of twelve million dollars on public buildings could be fairly defended; that is, an expenditure in addition to what is already being expended; biut the necessary funds are not available at the present time. My hon. friend referred to this as the greatest court in Canada. I would call his attention to another court which is the greatest court in the empire, the privy council. It is housed in a very humble building.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A fireproof building,
though.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. There is no question that when you have a lot of books and other inflammable material a fire would be very disastrous. Every possible precaution is being taken along this line. The question of a new building has been brought up from time to time, and I do not think a month goes by that somebody does not draw it to the attention of the Minister of Public Works.


Charles Avery Dunning: It has been drawn to my attention oftener than that.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think I can say anything further.


Robert James Manion: What special precautions are being taken against fire in the parliamentary library? It is a very beautiful building and contains a very fine collection of books and manuscripts. A fire would be very difficult to control in that building with its inflammable contents.


John Campbell Elliott: It is equipped with automatic fire protectors and hose. Every possible precaution is taken to guard against fire. In addition to the equipment a man is on duty there all the time.


Robert James Manion: Twenty-four hours a day?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, day and night. Only the other day I went over the library with some of the officials of my department with regard to the very question that my hon. friend has raised. The old floors are very inflammable.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand that smoking is not allowed there.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Has a sprinkler system been introduced?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Murray MacLaren: I think that might be well worth considering. A sprinkler system is the main source of protection in the records office. Still more, I think, would it be of advantage in the library.


John Campbell Elliott: I am obliged for the suggestion and I shall be very glad to have it. looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-parliament building, $90,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister be good enough to explain to us exactly what this means?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: This item refers to the parliament buildings that we are in?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the minister taken into consideration the desirability of improving the acoustic properties of the chamber? Many times we do not know what is going on, especially when exchanges are taking place between the Prime Minister and the leader of the opposition. We do not want to sit here and be dummies, we want to know what-

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
is going on. It is rather annoying to any hon. member who has the floor to be told to speak louder, and it is still more annoying to us to have to cry " louder."


John Campbell Elliott: If we all had as good voices as some of my hon. friends opposite there would not be as much difficulty about the acoustics of this chamber. And if those members who talk almost continuously when discussion is going on would desist it would obviate a lot of our difficulty. The matter has received a good deal of attention. In 1922 a report was submitted regarding the acoustics of the chamber by Professor F. A. Saunders, of Harvard university, Cambridge, Massachusetts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought it was Cambridge, England.


John Campbell Elliott: Before reading his memorandum I might observe, having been in another legislative chamber for some time, that this difficulty occurs periodically in every such chamber in the country. I know of none where complaints of this kind are not made, arising from the fact that the speakers are not arranged as they are in the ordinary auditorium. The arrangement in any of these legislative chambers is particularly difficult, but it has never been considered advisable to adopt the auditorium style. The statements which I shall read to the committee were made by the man who is considered the highest authority on the subject. He submitted his report in 1922 and again on June 26, 1926. He suggested that heavy curtains be hung in front of gallery openings and the openings under the side galleries, and that a heavy carpet be placed on the floor. This was done. Heavy insulating paper was also put under the carpet. The suggestions Professor Saunders made at that time were carried out. Complaints again arose regarding the acoustics, and Professor Saunders further reported after examination that he did not see how the acoustics could be further improved. Writing to the architect, he states:
As I have just returned from a visit to the houses of parliament at your suggestion^ to consider the acoustical properties of the Commons chamber especially, I desire to send in a report of my investigation.
Four years ago you asked me to look over these same chambers, and I found at that time that they were not quite satisfactory. The acoustical treatment which had been recommended for them eight years ago by Mr. C. M. Swan, of New York, to Mr. Pearson had not been completely carried out. . . .
My conclusion is that both of these chambers are now entirely satisfactory and I strongly recommend that no further changes be made.
The acoustical requirements of such a chamber are particularly exacting. The room must be large, and the speakers placed in all possible positions with respect to the hearers; yet it is expected that a man speaking often only in a conversational tone will be audible from any point on the floor, or perhaps in the whole chamber.
It is a well known fact that sound produced in a room reaches the ear of a hearer by many paths. The direct line from the speaker is the ceiling, etc, and if these surfaces are hard, and reflect a large proportion of the sound energy falling upon them, the listener hears a much louder sound than otherwise. It is obvious, however, that this loudness is due to sound arriving late	
He goes on with a scientific dissertation on sound which is not very intelligible to me. Then he continues:
In my opinion this process has been carried out to just the right extent in both chambers. . . .
As a result of the tests, I feel sure that the house chamber is unusual in the clarity with which speech of very moderate volume can be heard and understood in it. When the house is not in session, an ordinary conversational tone is loud enough to be audible if one listens, and if one is not disturbed by extraneous sounds.
I submit that the greatest disturbance in this chamber comes from those who are talking while someone is trying to make himself heard, and no arrangement anyone can make will overcome that difficulty.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Perhaps it might be overcome if those in control would keep better order.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and we are all in
control more or less.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mostly less.


John Campbell Elliott: He continues:
It would hardly be wise, however, to count on so small a volume of sound being satisfactory when the house is in session. Yet, it was obvious when 1 was there that many of the members do not raise their voices materially above the ordinary conversational level in addressing the house. It may 'be an effect of the extraordinarily good acoustical qualities of the room that the members may sometimes think a low tone is sufficient, but when the press representatives and the public in the gallery are to hear, it seems to be absolutely necessary that the speakers should use as loud a tone as they would in any other hall, addressing an equal number of persons.
At your suggestion, I have also considered the question of supplying the house chamber with microphones and loud speakers. On the whole, my recommendation is decidedly adverse.
The report is quite lengthy and he refers later on to the curtain arrangements. The curtains of course should be kept as nearly as possible closed in order to facilitate hearing. And they are usually left partly open at any

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
rate. On the whole the best information we can get on the subject from the highest authority rather indicates that for the size of the building the acoustic properties are fairly satisfactory.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In connection with the
forty minute rule the suggestion was made last year, as a means of obviating a member's being cut short in his speech by reason of his being unaware of the time, that some device might be placed on the table whereby the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker could notify the member on his feet, say ten minutes beforehand. What has been done in that respect?


John Campbell Elliott: That question was considered and it was decided that while it might be advantageous to install some such system we had not yet reached the time here when it was necessary to resort to a device of that kind. It was felt that it would 'be better for the member to depend upon the clock in front of him and the clock to his right and to endeavour to follow the time as nearly as he could. In certain cases, of course, the forty minutes do seem to go very quickly and possibly if there were a bell which could be rung shortly before the expiry of his time it might help the member. I doubt it, however; perhaps it would disconcert more than it would help him. Moreover, it was thought that it would not add to the dignity of debate in the chamber to have anyone calling time five minutes before the end of the period.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Does it make for satisfactory debate to have a large percentage of tht members cut short in their speeches?


John Campbell Elliott: It depends on the kind of
speech that is being made.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Probably ninety per cent of the ministers have been accidentally cut short.


Malcolm McLean: The minister
might try to equalise the time; the time goes so much more quickly when one is speaking than when one is listening.


Robert James Manion: This discussion only shows the difference of opinion that exists, because I have never regretted seeing any of the minister? cut short in their speeches.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa - National Research Council laboratories, $750,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister explain this item.


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote from last year, and there has not been any great change 
in conditions since then except that Messrs. Rolph and Sproatt of Toronto have been engaged to prepare plans and work out a scheme not only for the first building but for the research buildings in general.


Richard Bedford Bennett: On the New Edinburgh
site?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but the plans have
not been presented yet.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about the statistical department; has that been completely removed to the new location?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-addition to central heating plant,
Robert James Manion: Might I ask for an explanation?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to extend the heating plant in order to provide the additional facilities required for the new Confederation block.


Thomas Cantley: May I ask the minister
what type of heating plant it is proposed to install?


John Campbell Elliott: This is just to connect
with the present heating plant, and I assume that my hon. friend is familiar with that plant.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, I understand that.


John Campbell Elliott: The proposal is to tap
in on the present heating plant for the new building. The cost will not be nearly so much in proportion to the additional heating accommodation since we already have this central heating plant in operation. I do not know whether my Iron, friend has ever visited the central plant from which these various buildings are heated, but I would recommend that every member of the house do so. The work proposed under this item is an addition 45 by 56 feet and the installation of two 500 horse-power boilers with mechanical stokers. This is estimated to cost 8200,000, made up as follows:
Addition to building	 $90,000
Boilers and mechanical equipment. 90,000 Contingencies	 20,000
Perhaps for the benefit of the house I might read the chief architect's report which was received on December 18, 1928, and which I found particularly interesting. The present heating plant consists of four 500 horse-power boilers capable of developing 650 horse-power

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
per boiler without forcing. One of the four boilers is always kept as a spare boiler in case of a breakdown or for use when one of the other boilers is being cleaned. The three available boilers are therefore capable of supplying 1,950 horse-power under normal working conditions. The present working load on these boilers is 1,600 horse-power, so that 350 horse-power are still available for other uses. The new Confederation building, which will be heated from the central heating plant, wili require 600 horse-power, with the result that additional boiler capacity will be required.
Then the chief architect goes on to recommend that two 500 horse-power boilers with mechanical stokers be provided. Though only one of these would be of use at present, the other boiler would be required when the next building is erected, and one boiler could be used as a spare in the meantime. It is considered economically advisable to provide two boilers at present, however. If my hon. friend thinks it desirable I should be very glad to read the whole report in order to show the manner in which the present boilers are fed. The coal is dropped from above, and I believe the designers of the present heating system deserve very great credit; I think it is one of the most efficient and economical heating systems to be found anywhere. At present the parliament buildings, the west block, the east block, the Langevin building and the post office are all heated from the one heating plant, and this stoking is done with a comparatively small amount of help.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Due	to the overhead
automatic feed, I presume.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and of course that
reduces the cost. I have no doubt the day will come when some scheme of that kind, on a much larger scale, will be put into operation to heat practically all the large buildings in this district.


Thomas Cantley: The	information	given
by the minister is about what I desired. I thoroughly agree with him in the advantages of a central heating plant; there can be no question of that, and the system we now have was quite up-to-date when it was installed. Now, however, the minister tells us that it is proposed to install two additional boilers of 500 horse-power each with mechanical stokers, and that is where I part company with him. Mechanical stokers firing boilers of that character in my judgment are a thing of the past. I would strongly urge upon him that he put in equipment which will use
pulverized fuel. I would point out the great advance which has been made in that direction in the old country within the last two years, and particularly within the last year, during which very large installations of that character have been made with the very best results. I do not need to go into my reasons for advocating this system, but I would urge the minister to take the matter into very serious consideration before committing himself to another installation such as we have to-day, good though it may be. Its day ha3 gone by; a much better and more economical system can be put in, and I think it should be considered.


John Campbell Elliott: If an entirely new system were being installed now I think my hon. friend's argument would be very good, but the serious objection to heating with pulverized fuel is that the whole plant we have at present would have to be changed.


Thomas Cantley: I am not advocating the change of the existing plant; I am advocating the adoption of powdered fuel in the two new units which are to be installed. There is no reason why the two systems should conflict at all; it will not be necessary to disturb one single unit of the existing plant if you equip the new plant to burn powdered fuel.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, much as I value
my hon. friend's opinion in the matter, the advice of my engineers hardly corresponds with his suggestion. Then there is the objection with regard to the smoke or soot being greater if pulverized fuel is used.


Thomas Cantley: If the minister will pardon my saying so, the smoke or dust will be very much less. To begin with, there will be practically no smoke and I doubt if there will be 5 per cent of the ashes and cinders which must be handled to-day. Those are known, proven and demonstrated facts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We have a heating plant in the city of Winnipeg which uses pulverized fuel and we do not have any difficulty with regard to smoke.


Thomas Cantley: You can get complete combustion, which is not possible with bituminous coal used by any other system.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Last year the house
passed a resolution asking the government to test out pulverized fuel in one of the public buildings at Vancouver. I would like to ask the minister if that was done.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that was done
by the Mines department. I know some-
Juvenile Delinquents

thing about the results but not enough to justify my taking up the time of the committee with an explanation.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I think we have accomplished a very good day's work.


John Campbell Elliott: I would move, Mr. Chairman, that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the third reading of Bill No. 130, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, April 29, 1929.