Mr. CHAPLIN:

How many other greenhouses are there in separate locations like this; how long are they expected to last; what shape are they in? It seems to me that this is an opportunity for co-ordination. A small greenhouse cannot be run profitably.

[Mr. Chaplin.)

The major cost of this greenhouse will be the fuel necessary to heat it and the wages of special men to run it, because unskilled men around the building cannot run this or any other greenhouse. I have one of my own and I know what I am talking about. It seems to me foolish for the minister to ask for a vote of $27,000 for a greenhouse of which he cannot tell us the size. I think with his usual courtesy he will allow this item to stand until he had secured the necessary information.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Perhaps my hon. friend

was not present when I read the statement as to the necessity of replacing the old greens house.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

Yes. That was the reason for my questions.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I would not have thought so. My hon. friend of course realizes that the cost of heating will not be more than for the old greenhouse.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

That is admitted.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

This is to replace the

worn-out structure.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

I agree with the minister that it will cost no more to run this greenhouse where he proposes to put it than it did to run the old one last year. But I want an improvement. If he is going to build a new greenhouse let him put it where it can be run with the surplus heat generated for the other greenhouse. That is the point the minister misses.

Mr. SPENCE:

When this vote was up

last session I opposed it vigorously. The minister was then asked as to the size of the proposed structure, and he said it would be about 25 by 60 feet. A greenhouse of this size should not cost $27,000. I know something about the cost of construction, for unfortunately I have a greenhouse myself. The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) has made a good suggestion, that these units should be co-ordinated. The old greenhouse should be remodelled and placed in a more convenient location so that delicate plants could be distributed from it without too much cost. There is no need of a greenhouse in Major Hill park. It is a bleak place and it will always be difficult to maintain the temperature of the greenhouse at the right point. As the minister has not the plans and cannot give the committee any information, I move:

That this item be reduced by $10,000, and that the old greenhouse be remodelled and used until the minister makes up his mind what he will do with it.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario

This will reduce the vote to $15,000, a sum sufficient to build two greenhouses of the dimensions that he speaks of.

Mr. ADSHEAD:

Was this money voted

last year and not spent?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Yes.

Mr. SPENCE:

I do not see how any minister can expect to get this vote through, knowing as little as he does about the business. A year ago he had no plan to submit to the committee, and now he comes back as per usual without any information.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I think my hon. friend

has not yet clearly understood what is intended by this vote. True, we have not the plans and specifications. Certain changes in the local buildings at the present time are partly responsible for the location not having yet been settled, but this will be considered, and my hon. friend may rest assured that this greenhouse will be located in the most desirable spot. No doubt both my hon. friends have a great deal of experience with regard to the construction of greenhouses, but I can assure them that a larger greenhouse than has been suggested by either of them will be necessary to meet the requirements of the parliament buildings. All we are aiming at is the substitution of a new building for an old and worn out one. The new building will provide better facilities and it has been urgently demanded. We are not proceeding precipitately in this matter. For a number of years this demand has been made, the building being absolutely required. I do not know that there is any further information that I can give. My hon. friends know that for less money a suitable building to replace the present one could not be constructed.

Mr. CHAPLIN:

If the minister could

give us some idea of the size of the greenhouse we could tell whether it could be constructed for less or not; but he does not give us any information.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

When the plans are completed public tenders will be called for, and the lowest tender will be accepted. That is a safeguard against the payment of any undue price. My hon. friends may have no worry on that score.

Amendment (Mr. Spence) negatived: yeas, 31; nays, 52.

Ottawa-improvement of square west of post office, $30,000.

Mr. STEVENS:

Is this the first vote for the improvement of the square west of the post office?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

It is the first vote, but

my hon. friend understands that it is for the improvement of the square after the removal of the buildings, including cleaning up and putting the square into proper shape.

Mr. STEVENS:

I do not want to inconvenience the minister, but I will ask two questions: First, out of what vote is the cleaning up of the present work being paid? Secondly, will the minister explain what this vote is to be used for?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

The cleaning up going

on at present is to be paid for out of the proceeds of the removal of the building. We are receiving something over 88,000 by way of salvage from the removal of the buildings, and what is now being done in the way of cleaning up is being provided for out of that.

Mr. STEVENS:

The minister has not

answered the second question; I will add a third to it. How is this going to be spent, and why is the money not spent out of the grant to the Federal District Commission?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

This is not part of the

Federal District Commission's work; the section west of the post office is not under the jurisdiction of the commission.