Mr. ELLIOTT:

I figure it at about $223,000.

Mr. JELLIFF:

I would like the minister, at his convenience, to let me have the entire amount expended on these lines.

Mr. BROWN:

Would it not be well to

let the item stand until we get that information? There has been a good deal of discussion in regard to the matter on the part of those who are immediately interested, and it is time that some of the rest of us took an interest in it.

Mr. DONNELLY:

How many applications has the minister had for extensions? We have in this case only twenty-five applications for extensions, as one hon. member says, and this is a service established at no cost to them, because all they pay for is the service. In some of the districts of which I know there would be 2,500 instead of twenty-five applications.

Mr. NEILL:

That is due to the modesty

of British Columbia.

Mr. BRADY:

Only legitimate extensions

are asked for.

Mr. MILLAR:

I think we ought to have

this information. We should let the item stand until we receive it.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I thought I made the

matter reasonably clear before, and when it has been stated at least half a dozen times during the discussion that they do pay for the service, I am rather surprised that my hon. friends should speak as if we had all the time been discussing the matter on the basis of a free service.

Mr. DONNELLY:

It is a free line. They do not build the line; all they pay for is the service.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

What else would they

pay for?

Mr. DONNELLY:

In our district we build the line and pay for the service as well.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

If my hon. friends will

look at page 69 they will find under telegraph and telephone lines what has been the cost

1482 COMMONS

Supply-Public Works-Miscellaneous

for 1929-30 and 1930-31. I should be glad to supply them with the information and with the tariff. I have no objection to further discussion if it serves any reasonable purpose; I am entirely in the hands of the committee, but I think we should make some progress in passing these items.

Mr. KAISER:

Do I understand that items under the heading of "miscellaneous" have reference to the entire work on harbours and rivers and telegraph lines, or do they refer only to British Columbia?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

The items under "miscellaneous" have reference to the whole Dominion.

Mr. KAISER:

When the items for harbours were going through I understood that an opportunity would be presented to any member unable to be present at that time to revert to any particular matter he might desire to discuss. Is that the understanding?

Mr. ELLIOTT:

Is it the suggestion of

my hon. friend that at any time we can go back to items we have passed?

Mr. KAISER:

I am informed that when

the items for the harbours of Ontario, for instance, were being passed, it was agreed that any member not then present might revert to some of those items under the general discussion which might take place on this item.

Mr. ELLIOTT:

I have never heard of

such an understanding and my hon. friend surely realizes how impossible it would be ever to get through the estimates if we were likely to have them reopened at any time so that any hon. member could revert to them.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY:

I do not think that is quite fair. When we are passing Ontario and Quebec items it has often been the custom to hold a general item in order that members who do not happen to be present may have an opportunity to ask for information about matters in which they are interested.

I do not remember whether or not that was distinctly understood on this occasion, but it has been done many times and it is the custom of the house that it should be done, not for the purpose of blocking the estimates or of taking up again those that 'have been passed, but in order that a member who was not present at the time the estimates were going

through-and the minister knows we allowed them to go through quite quickly-may have an opportunity of asking reasonable questions about items in his constituency. I am sure the minister will not prevent my hon. friend from doing so.