Mr. J. D. REID.

I do not think that I am out of order in giving this as an instance of what is being done in the department. I object in the strongest possible manner to the Public Works Department spending $100,000 to employ architects outside of the department. I claim that the minister should employ a sufficient number of men to do the work in the department and not farm it out in this way to the disadvantage of the public.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

I am sorry that my hon. friend should think it necessary, on this small item of $500 to finish certain work on a public building at Brantford:, to go over matters which have been already discussed again and again in this House. Let me say to my hon. friend, with all respect, that repetitions of this kind are actually costing this country more than would erect a new public building. With regard

Mr. COCKSHUTT.

Mr. TAYLOR.

I find that a namesake of mine, L. H. Taylor-I do not think he is of the same politics, or he would not get it- was paid 2 per cent on $6,173.74 and 5 per cent on $1,014, and $10 for a special report, making $195.42; but I find that the Schultz Bros. Co. were paid for alterations in the post office $3,295, and for sundry repairs $433.12. The money spent does not represent the money on which the architect was paid the commission.

Mr. PUGSLBY.

Part of the expenditure was made in previous years.

Mr. TAYLOR.

' If we Jo.k at Y-61, we will find Mr. Taylor figuring again on the construction of armouries at Brantford, on which he was paid $504.86. When a minister comes here and makes a statement, we ought to be able to put it down as being as true as the gospel ; but the hon. gentleman stated that there was only $10,000 paid to outside architects during the last year whereas we find that Mr. Perrault alone, on the new postal station on St. Catherine Street in Montreal and on the plans for the general post office on St. James Street, drew nearly $10,000.

Mr. PTJGSLEY.

The question was put as to how much we paid out each year for architects, and the chief architect told me he. thought it would not exceed $10,000. taking one year with another.

Mr. TAYLOR.

We find on almost every item we touch that fees are paid to outside architects. I venture to say that if you go through the Auditor General's report you will find that these payments will amount to several hundred thousand dollars.

Mr. PATERSON.

In case I should be considered wanting in courtesy to the hon. gentleman who alluded to me, I wish to say that when I came in I did not know wnat this discussion was about. I understand that it is on an item for a further expenditure of $500 for some improvements in the existing building in Brantford, on which in the last two or three years there has been $13,000 expended. This expenditure manifests, I think, that the convenience of the people there is not being disregarded. Brantford is a city to which in the past I have owed a good deal; my home was there. Therefore, I would be very pleased to see a

fair measure of justice done to it. I cannot myself see that injustice has been done to it. The member for Grenville (Mr. J. I>. Reid), speaking without full knowledge of the fact, alluded to the Conservative government having erected the present building, and suggested that it might have been partly the cause of my temporary defeat there, because I had not accomplished more with the Liberal government. He is a little wrong there, I was at that time a humble member of the House, and I believe that it was on my recommendation that the public building was given to Brantford. It was given before our Conservative friends came into power the last time, so-if there be any credit for that, though I do not claim credit, as the place deserved the building, it was my representations that the building was put there. Subsequently a large armoury was put there in my time. That was under the Conservative government.

Mr. BERGERON.

You were then in opposition?

Mr. PATERSON.

I was in opposition as I was for eighteen years, which the hon. gentlemen will find to be a very long time. The old shed was dilapidated and had lost its roof, and on my representations the building was erected. The city of Brantford contributed one-half the cost, $10,000, doing more in that respect than other municipalities. Since this government came in the armouries have been greatly enlarged, $20,000 or $30,000 have been spent and they are now equal to any in the country. The hon. member for Brantford will admit that this government have not been disposed to slight Brantford simply because it was represented by an opposition member. It is a large and growing city, and we all know that the business has largely increased, possibly to such an extent that at times there may be a little inconvenience. As far as the custom house is concerned, we have room enough to do our business. Of course the climbing of the stairs to the customs house [DOT] and inland revenue office, which, as so often happens, are situated above the post office, is inconvenient, and I think it is right that the! government should ascertain whether the business of Brantford has so increased that the public interest would justify the erection of a new building, perhaps for the post office, giving the whole of the present building to customs and excise. I have no doubt that if representations are made to the minister, he will consider them. My hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Coclcshutt) has been re-elected president of the Bell Memorial Fund, an honour which is only his due. That fund is national in one respect and therefore the government felt that they were justified in meeting the request of that committee and granted $10,000. I think

my hon. friend will be generous enough to say that since he has represented the riding the government have not turned a deaf ear to requests by him to which they felt themselves able to accede.

Mr. BLAIN.

Have any new public building been erected in Brantford since the present administration came into power? -

Mr. PATERSON.

I am not aware of new buildings but there have been great enlargements and improvements, notably in the armouries.

The revenue from custom duties in 1900 was $178,540.10, and by .annual increases it grew to $225,662.86 in 1905, showing a large increase. The complaint is that there has been no corresponding expenditure to provide better accommodation for those paying the duty, and ciizens in general.

Mr. PATERSON.

The hon. gentlemen opposite do not want to have money expended simply because the revenue in a particular line has increased, if the existing accommodation will suffice. From the remarks of hon. gentlemen that is evident. My hon. friend has been in Brantford and I have no doubt that the citizens would show him the very handsome building erected by the Mackenzie government many years ago and improved by the present government.

Mr. J. D. REID.

I think the minister did not understand me and did me an injustice. I was not complaining about Mr. Taylor, my objection was not to the payment of so much to one architect, but to the practice of having so much work done by outside architects that should be done by the architects of the department. I do not believe that the work is done as well in the public interest or as economically as it would be if we had well-qualified and properly paid officials in the department to do this work.

Dominion publio buildings-renewals, improvements, repairs, &c., $20,000.

Mr. PUGSLEY.

This is the usual vote, and about the same amount as usual. In 1906-7 the sum of $12,198.08 was expended. This includes some thirty different buildings. We are asking now to cover about fifty different buildings, the amount being $20,000.

Mr. BENNETT.

On this item of repairs, improvements and so on, i desire to call the attention of the committee to the fact that an enormous bill is creeping up for furniture and fittings for these several public buildings.