January 17, 1911

LIB

Roch Lanctôt

Liberal

Mr. ROCH LANCTOT (Laprairie and Napierville).

(Translation). Mr. Speaker, I have some reason to be surprised at the stand taken by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Taylor) and at the statements he proferred. The hon. member has occupied a seat in this House since 1882, I believe; at any rate he was surely here in 1894, when the county of Laprairie, which I have the honour of representing to-day, had for its representative in this House Mr. Conrad Pelletier. The then Minister of Public Works came down with^ an item towards the construction of a public building at Laprairie, and if I had the time, I would like to go through Mr. ARTHURS.

the report of Hansard to ascertain what was the position taken by the member for Leeds and whether it differed from that he took to-day.

I am glad that there should have been so much discussion in connection with the vote required for the erection of a public building at Napierville. It goes to show the importance of that locality. If, in 1894, it was found necessary to erect a public building at Laprairie, whose population at the time was not any larger than that of Napierville to-day, I fail to see why any objection should be raised against the voting of this amount for Napierville. Napierville is the county town for the county of Napierville, in the same way that Laprairie is the county town for Laprairie. They are both in exactly the same position in that respect. If the member for Leeds opposes to-day the proposal of such a vote in favour of Napierville. after taking in 1894 a favourable view of the proposal on behalf of Laprairie, it is owing to the fact that he was a friend of Mr. Pelletier, while he is not on the same terms with the present representative of the county. I wish to point out that hon. members occupying seats on the opposition side, and who were then sitting on the government side, supported Mr. Pelletier's proposal and granted his request.

I may add that the post office built by the Conservatives cost twice too much, and I trust that the building we are to put up at a cost of $15,000 will be worth the money.

Mr. Speaker, I may be allowed to refer to a statement made by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Cro'thers). He spoke in regard to bribery. Let me tell him that bribery is out of the question in the county of Napierville, the electors in that constituency being above such temptations.

What is it that prompts the opposition to thus work against the interests of the farming community whenever there is a proposal on hand for the erection of some small public building in the country? Are there not sufficient numbers of these great public buildings put up in large centres at the expense of the government? The farming community is worthy of every consideration on the part of the government, and I am glad to see that the latter are willing to do justice to that class, which I have the honour of representing here.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

James Arthurs

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. ARTHURS.

The answers given me to-night are on a par with those which the hon. minister gave me on other occasions last year, and the year before regarding the situation at Parry Sound. He then told us that the difficultv was. not of lack of willingness on the part of the government, but. the lack of a sufficiency of funds. In that connection I would call attention to a vote for the town of Port Perry. If my recollec-

tion serves me right, this vote was not in the estimates, neither the new vote nor the revote, at the time I called the minister's attention to the necessity which existed for erecting a public building in Parry Sound. Port Perry is not a county town, and it is in a district which has a public building already-the building at Whitby. Yet we find $5,000 voted last year and $15,000 asked this year for a building there. How does that accord with the statement of the hon. minister that the reason why he did not grant a public building to an important town such as Parry Sound, where one is badly needed, was because of the insufficiency of funds. Yet in spite of that insufficiency he can give a building to a much smaller place such as Port Perry where it is much less needed.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

So far as Port Perry is concerned, there was a vote for a building there of $5,000 last year, and I expect to spend some $3,200 during the present fiscal year. The $1,800 is a revote. Therefore it comes entirely within the statement I made to the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Henderson) that nearly all of these are revotes.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).

PoTt Perry was a new item last year.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

Of course, but I am speaking of this year. I think it was in the supplementaries oi last year. My hon. friend, I suppose, would not be greatly surprised or disappointed if there should be some provision-I am not making any promise-for a building at Parry Sound in the supplementary estimates. All I say is that these main estimates contain nearly all amounts for which there already have been votes. With regard to Port Perry, I am told it is a very thriving town though it does not come within the condition of being a shire town.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR.

What is its population and postal revenue?

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

We will come to that when we come to the Ontario estimates. I said there were exceptions here as there are to all rules.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Francis Ramsey Lalor

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. LALOR.

1,200 is the population.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

It is a very progressive town.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Samuel Simpson Sharpe

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. SHARPE (Ontario).

What my hon. friend from Parry Sound says is that the excuse the minister gave for not voting money for a building in a place like Parry Sound with a population of four or five thousand was that there was not money enough to go around, and my hon. friend asked why not pick out those places where the public interest demands public expenditure and not spend the public money in places where it is much less needed. Why

pick out two or three places in South Ontario to be especially favoured and then give no buildings at all where the public interest requires them?

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

How does the minister advertise for tenders?

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

In the newspapers.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

What newspapers?

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I cannot say at present but in a sufficient number to give ample publicity.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

All supporters of the government?

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

If we can secure ample publicity, I think I am safe in saying they would be all on one side in politics.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

My hon. friend is more frank this year than last. We have his statement now that if he can find a sufficient number of newspapers in that district supporting his government, they will have his advertisements.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

A sufficient number to give ample publicity.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
CON

Richard Blain

Conservative (1867-1942)

Mr. BLAIN.

But that no Conservative need apply. That is a frank statement, but it savours a little of that partisanship which the minister rather suggested should not be imported into public works or discussions of this kind.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink
LIB

William Pugsley (Minister of Public Works)

Liberal

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I hope my hon. friend will not suggest that I learned that years ago.

Topic:   SUPPLY.-THE CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY.
Subtopic:   BUILDING PUBLIC WORKS.
Permalink

January 17, 1911