April 4, 1910 (11th Parliament, 2nd Session)

CON

Mr. MACDONELL:

Conservative (1867-1942)

1. Did the Public WTorks or any other department of the government institute a plan competition for the erection of the proposed departmental and justice buildings in Ottawa ?
2. Did the government accept any plan or design? If so, who was the successful architect, and how many plans or designs were put in, and by whom?
3. WTas any premium or award paid to the successful architect?
4. Has the government set aside such successful design, and is the planning and carrying out of the work now to be done by the architectural staff of the Department of Public Works? .
5. If the successful design has been set aside, what is the reason for such change, and does not the government consider this change a breach of good faith with the architects who tendered ?
Hon. \VM. PUGSLEY:
1 Y es.
2. (a) No. The competition called for competitive designs for a justice and a departmental building, and four prizes were to be awarded to the four best designs submitted, 'the four successful designs to become the absolute property of the government'.
(b) Twenty-nine designs submitted:
1. Bella Campbell, Fenelon, Manitoba;
2. A. G. McAdam, Halifax, Nova Scotia;
3. John Gemmill, Toronto, Ontario; 4 and 5. Finley & Spence, Montreal; 6. Sproatt & Rolpli, Toronto; 7. M. Perrault, Montreal; 8. J. A. Ewart, Ottawa, Ontario; 9. J. B. McRae, Ottawa; 10. Canon Bouillon, Ottawa; *11. Darling & Pearson, Toronto; 12. Geo. W. Gowinlock, Toronto; 13. P. S. Gregory, Ottawa; 14. J. S. McLaren, Vancouver,* British Columbia; 15. Horwood & Taylor, Ottawa; 16. H. R. Barber, Toronto; 17. A. H. Chapman, Toronto; *18. Saxe & Archibald, Montreal, province of Quebec; 19. S. F. and IV. A. Peters, Winnipeg; 20. M. McKean, Moncton, New Brunswick; 21. John M. Lyle, Toronto; 22. J. A. Thompson, Ottawa; *23. E. and W. S. Maxwell, Montreal; 24'. Hutchison & Wood, Montreal; 25. Routhier & Lefort, Ottawa; 26. Jas. Fou-lis, Ottawa; 27. Gordon & Helliwell, Toronto; *28. Brown & Vallance, Montreal; 29. No name.
*Design recommended for prizes.
3. Yes, to the first four designs recommended by the assessors.
4. (a) Not one of the four designs for which prizes were awarded was adopted, (b) Yes.

5. (a) Not one of the designs submitted was considered suitable, (b) No.

Topic:   QUESTIONS.
Subtopic:   DESIGNS FOR PUBLIC BUILDINGS.
Full View