February 23, 1909

LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I have not the papers at present, and cannot say.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

George Henry Bradbury

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BRADBURY.

Can the minister inform the House who are the contractors for the fixtures for the north-end post office and the Selkirk post office, or was a contract let? My information leads me to believe that a contract was let for the fixtures of those two post offices, and that a man very high in the service of the post office is a large shareholder in the company furnishing those buildings. I am told in Selkirk that that accounts largely for the delay in opening the Selkirk post office. Although the building has been completed for at least six months, I do not think) it is furnished yet.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

As I am not asking tonight for a vote for either of these buildings, I have not the papers with me regarding them. If my hon. friend will put the question in the House, I will with pleasure get the information in regard to both of them.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

William Henry Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. W. H. SHARPE.

I would like the minister to explain why the appropriations for Manitoba are cut down to such a very large extent this year, while those for other provinces are not cut down nearly so much. The appropriations for Alberta, Saskatchewan and Northwest Territories are cut down by $305,000, while those for Manitoba alone are cut down $346,876.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

My hon. lriend, on reflection, will see that, adopting the rule which I said we had adopted with regard to postponing public buildings, there might be an undue proportion cut off from one province as compared with another. For instance, take my own province of New Brunswick ; the appropriations for public buildings have been cut down from $134,100 last year to $21,500 this year. Those for Nova Scotia have been cut down from $282,300 to $132,600. The appropriations for Quebec have been cut down from $1,571,249 last year to $525,600 this year, only one-third of what they were. The appropriations for Ontario have been cut down from $1,453,175 to $605,367, a reduction of more than fifty per cent. So that" there is no rule in regard to the matter.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Alexander Haggart

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. A. HAGGART.

There may not be the same inducement this year that there was two or three years ago, when it was said that a post office valued at nearly half a million was built as an annex to a large printing establishment on Portage avenue owned by an ex-minister.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Arthur Meighen

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MEIGHEN.

The figures given by the minister in his answer should be taken in conjunction with the figures of the amount unspent in each province. If that is done, they show a marked disparity against the province of Manitoba.

Public Buildings-Saskatchewan, Alberta and Northwest Territories, $352,000.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
L-C

John Herron

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HEBRON.

I wish to bring to the attention of the minister a very urgent case in my constituency. A very small amount was asked for in the estimates of last year to protect the town of Macleod. I have already spoken to the minister personally on the subject, and I would like to impress upon him the importance of that work.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Is that the protection work?

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
L-C

John Herron

Liberal-Conservative

Mr. HEBRON.

Yes, the protection of the banks of the streams.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I would ask the hon. gentleman to leave that until we come to the harbours and rivers. We are now on puijiic works.

Lethbridge-Custom House and Dominion Lands Office, $1,000.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Charles Alexander Magrath

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAGBATH.

In the estimates of last year there was $6,000 for this work. I would like to ask the hon. gentleman why the work did not proceed. I happen to know that there was every reason for it to be gone on with, because the Dominion Lands office, which occupies part of that building, is sorely in need of further office room. The court house in the upper part of that building has been vacant for a year waiting these improvements.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I cannot give the hon. gentleman the reason why it has not been proceeded with more rapidly; but $2,000 has been expended upon it, or will be before the close of the fiscal year.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Charles Alexander Magrath

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAGRATH.

I do not think there has been any money expended at all. Up to the 10th of December, when I left, not a dollar had been spent.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

We expect to expend $2,000 before the 31st of next month, and we are here asking for a revote.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Charles Alexander Magrath

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAGRATH.

Does the minister intend that this work will be proceeded with in the spring?

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Yes.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Charles Alexander Magrath

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAGRATH.

I would like some assurance, because, as I say, better facilities are absolutely required. In the Dominion Lands office there is only a space in front of the counter about the size of the table Mr. A. HAGGART.

before us. People have to stand out in the street.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

The engineers have instructions to push these improvements in the spring.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink
CON

Charles Alexander Magrath

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. MAGRATH.

I wish to bring another matter to the attention of the minister, although it is not in the estimates, and that is the necessity of a post office building in Lethbridge. I want to enunciate here the position I take in connection with the expenditure of public money. I do not believe that any town is ever going to make headway merely through the expenditure of public money therein. I do not think it means any advancement to a town to have government moneys spent there just for the purpose of getting a large building, and while I am in this House I do not mean ever to advance any such argument. I do not subscribe to the policy that is pursued in this country in reference to the erection of public buildings. Go through the country from one end to the other and you find post offices costing many thousands of dollars in small places where there is no necessity for such costly buildings, due, I suppose we may frankly admit, to political pressure. I hope that I shall not be found advocating expenditures with the hon. gentleman on any such ground. Lethbridge has to-day a population, I have been told, of 7,500, but I will call it 7,000. I have a letter from the Post Office Department which says in reference to a post office:

Practically the only way the difficulty can he overcome is by the erection of a public building.

The post office there is in a rented building and the post office authorities know that the facilities are not at all adequate. As I am interested in the question, I have been looking up statistics, and I find that the Postmaster General last March stated that there were ten post offices built since 1904, and 31 post offices under construction. I made a list of some of these post offices, which I submit to the committee:

List of Some Post Offices Built Since 1904:

Place. Popula- tion. Postal Receipts in 1908. Cost of Building.

$ s

Canso, N.S 2,567 2,195 20,690Hawksbury, Ont... 4,150 3,593 22,230Wingham, Ont 2,392 6,301 31,800Prince Albert, Sask . 6,000 12,875 103,965Sandwich, Ont 1,450 1,392 20,043

List of Some Post Office Buildings under Construction in .1908:

Place. Popu- lation. Postal Receipts in 1908. Contract prices of building.Chicoutimi, Que

Levis, Que.

Knowlton, Que ... Bridgewater, N.S

Kincardine, Ont

Maple Creek, Sask... Fernie, B.C.

Lethbridge, Alta 3,826 7,783 760 2,900 2,077 1,500 6,000 7,000 $ 4,405 3,509 2,156 5,500 4,239 3,911 9,933 14,541 $ 22,472 22,000 26,000 23,500 29.000 32.000 43,750

I want to get these figures before the hon. gentleman so that there will be no question next year about making provision for Lethbridge. I find in the province of Manitoba that there are only three offices yielding a larger revenue than Lethbridge; in Saskatchewan, three; in Quebec, three; in Nova Scotia, four; in New Brunswick, three; in Prince Edward Island, one; in Alberta, two; in British Columbia, four. Between the great lakes and the Pacific ocean there are thirteen offices yielding a larger revenue than the place I refer to. I think these are very strong reasons why there should be some relief given to Lethbridge in the shape of a post office. If there was a building in the town sufficiently large that could be rented and used, then I would say let us have it. But I know of no building in the place that is suitable for that purpose. I sincerely trust that the hon. gentleman will give this matter consideration when he prepares his next estimates. There are two other questions I would like to refer to in connection with Medicine Hat. In the last year's estimates there was a sum of $40,000 for the Strathcona Horse barracks. I have heard the hon. gentleman's statement in reference to cutting off eight million dollars from the public works expenditures contemplated last year, and I appreciate the situation. I understand he is going to have all these various items brought in again, and that he proposes to go on with these works at some future time. I would like the hon. gentleman's assurance in connection with that. I also want his assurance in connection with another matter. I have here an extract from a paper printed in Medicine Hat referring to these barracks: For the first time in the past five years the vote of '$40,000 for Strathcona Horse barracks' does not appear in the Dominion Estimates. For several years we had reason to believe t) at this vote was intended for buildings at Medicine Hat. Probably recent events have something to do with the withdrawal of this

vote from the general estimates. When we have said we don't want these things, it is quite natural to assume that they won't he thrust at us-pressed upon us.

The insinuation being that because those people saw fit to send a representative here who is not a supporter of this government the governmtnt is not going to give them what has been promised for five years past.

I have heard the hon. gentleman refer to similar questions before and he stated that he had not been guided by such influences.

I would be very glad if he will say so with respect to this.

Topic:   SUPPLY-TREATY WITH THE UNITED STATES.
Subtopic:   PRIVATE BILLS.
Sub-subtopic:   $6,000.
Permalink

February 23, 1909