1924-03-21

PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 14, to incorporate The Roman Catholic Episcopal Corporation of Prince Rupert.-Mr. Stork.
Bill No. 15, respecting The Canada Southern Railway Company.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 16, respecting The Detroit River Tunnel Company.-Sir Henry Drayton.
Bill No. 17, respecting The Montreal,
35i
Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company.
Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 18, respecting a certain patent of The Fleischmann Company.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 19, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company.-Mr. Jelliff.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved:: That it be resolved by the	[DOT] [DOT][DOT]
House of Commons that it is expedient that parliament do approve of the convention between His Majesty and the President of the United States of America, signed at Washington on the twenty-third day of January, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, for the purpose of avoiding any difficulties which might arise between them in connection with the laws in force in the United States, on the subject of alcoholic beverages, a copy of which has been laid before parliament.
That a message be sent to the Senate informing their honours that this House has adopted the above resolution and requesting that their honours will unite with this House in the approval of the above-mention convention.
And that the clerk do carry the said message to the Senate.
He said: Mr. Speaker, very shortly after the opening of parliament, I laid on the Table a copy of a convention between the United Kingdom and the United States of America, respecting the regulation of the liquor traffic. This subject was one of consideration and of discussion at the Imperial Conference last fall. It is referred to in the summary of proceedings of the conference which has also been tabled. I might quote from the reference, to be found on page 12 of the summary, the paragraph that is pertinent. It reads as follows:
During the session of the conference, the question of the regulation of the liquor traffic off the American coasts and of the measures to be taken to avoid a serious conflict either of public opinion or of official action was seriously debated. The conference arrived at the conclusion that, while affirming and safeguarding as a cardinal feature of British policy the principle of the three mile limit, it was yet both desirable and practicable to meet the American request for an extension of the right of search beyond this limit for the above purpose, and negotiations were at once opened with the United States government for the conclusion of an experimental agreement with this object in view.
I should like to give to the House the essential provisions of the convention, or treaty as it may be called, and will do so, in as brief a form as possible:
The principle that three marine miles from low water mark constitute the proper limits of territorial water is upheld.
Appropriate provision is made for the searching of British vessels under stated con-
Prohibition in United States

ditions; and when there is reasonable cause for belief that the vessel has committed or is committing or is attempting to commit an offence against the laws of the United States prohibiting the importation of alcoholic beverages the vessel may be seized and brought into the United States for adjudication.
It is provided that this right of seizure may be exercised within the distance from the coast that may be traversed in one hour by the vessel suspected of endeavouring to commit the offence. Where a transfer from one vessel to another is contemplated, it is the speed of the latter vessel which is to determine the distance from the coast within which seizure may be made.
The treaty also provides that no penalty or forfeiture under' the laws of the United States shall attach to the carriage of alcoholic liquors by British vessels when listed as sea stores or as cargo destined for a port foreign to the United States, provided that such liquors are kept under seal continuously while the vessel is within the territorial waters and that they shall not at any time or place be unladen within United States territory. Such carriage is to have the same status as now provided by law with respect to the transit of alcoholic liquors through the Panama canal. Provision is made for reference to a joint commission of claims for compensation where a British vessel has suffered loss or injury through any unreasonable or improper exercise of the rights conferred by the treaty. The treaty is subject to ratification in the usual manner, and is to remain in force for one year from the date of the exchange of ratifications. Three months before the expiration of the year modifications may be suggested by j either party, and if no agreement is made with respect to them the treaty is to lapse; otherwise it is to continue from year to year subject to a similar right of proposed modifications. The treaty is also to lapse if either of the parties is prevented by judicial decision or legislative action from giving full effect to its provisions, and in case from any cause the treaty comes to an end, such party is to enjoy all the rights he would have possessed had it not been concluded.
The convention was signed at Washington on January 23 of this year by the British ambassador, Sir Auckland Geddes, representing His Majesty the King, and by the Hon. Mr. Hughes, Secretary of State of the United States, representing the President. It has since been ratified by the Senate of the United States on March 13, by a vote of 61 to 7.
It will be ratified by the King as soon as approval of the treaty has been given by the

parliament of the United Kingdom and the parliaments of the several self-governing dominions. On January 12 of this year the Canadian government was asked if its ministers approved of the terms of the treaty, and also if they were agreeable to having the British ambassador sign the treaty. On the day following a reply was sent to the British government intimating that the terms of the treaty were agreeable to our ministers; also that the government was agreeable to having the British ambassador sign. The reply drew attention to the particular clause in the treaty which refers to vessels which may be illegally seized and brought into port. We fell, that if the vessel seized should happen to be under Canadian registry it was but right that the British representative on the board appointed to adjudicate upon the matter should be a person nominated by the Canadian government ; we also felt that the government should only give its approval subject to the subsequent approval of this parliament. These two intimations were given in our despatch, and in the reply which was received from the British government it was intimated that the wish of Canada in both those particulars would be fully respected.
I will, for purposes of greater accuracy, indicate to the House more or less in the language of the despatch itself, the form in which our approval as a government was given to the terms of the treaty. The despatch, sent on January 12 intimated-that: The government of Canada, subject to acquiescence by the British government in the conditions therein mentioned, approved of the proposed treaty with the United States, and approved of the signature of the treaty by His Majesty's representative at Washington. It had been decided that parliamentary approval should be obtained before concurrence in ratification should be intimated. It was stated that the Canadian parliament would probably meet before the end of February. That the Canadian government's present approval of the proposed treaty was given on condition that it was understood that if a joint board to report upon the claims of compensation by a vessel of Canadian registry is required to be constituted under Article 4, the selection of the person whose name is to be submitted to his Majesty for appointment to the board will be made by it. In conclusion the despatch said it was assumed that an undertaking by the British government on this point would be sufficient and that provision with reference thereto need not therefore be included in the treaty.
The reply sent stated that it was quite understood that the Canadian government

Prohibition in United States
would wish to obtain the approval of the Canadian parliament before ratification, and that a similar course was contemplated in the United Kingdom; that his Majesty's government would readily leave to the Canadian government the nomination of the person to be the member of the joint board referred to in Article 4 in respect of vessels of Canadian registry and agreed that it was not necessary to make provision in the treaty, further that the same procedure was contemplated in case of other dominions.
As I have intimated, the treaty was signed on January 23rd by the British ambassador. In this connection may I point out to the House that the practice followed with respect to the signature of this treaty is the one decided upon at the recent Imperial Conference and set out in the report of the Summary of Proceedings of the Imperial Conference to be found on pages 13, 14 and 15 in the part of the report relating to negotiation, signature and ratification of treaties. With reference to the signature of treaties there are the following provisions:
(a)	Bilateral treaties imposing obligations on one part of the Empire only should be signed by the representative of the government of that part.
The Halibut treaty which has been the subject of discussion in this House is of that character. It is a bilateral treaty which imposed obligations only on Canada, not on other parts of the British Empire, and as such according to the procedure which the Imperial Conference has thought proper in this matter, it should be signed by a representative of the government of Canada. Now I continue to quote from the report of the proceedings:
The full power issued to such representatives should indicate the part of the Empire in respect of which the obligations are to be undertaken, and the preamble and text of the treaty should be so worded as to make its scope clear.
(b)	Where the bilateral treaty imposes obligations on more than one part of the Empire the treaty should be signed by one or more plenipotentiaries on behalf of all the governments concerned.
This treaty between His Majesty and the President of the United States is a bilateral treaty which imposes obligations on more than one part of the Empire. It imposes obligations on all parts, and therefore it is, in the language of the procedure set forth by the *conference, to be signed by one or more plenipotentiaries on behalf of the governments concerned. It would seem quite sufficient that the British Ambassador should be sole plenipotentiary for this purpose. I might say I am informed that the governments of Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Newfoundland, and the Irish Free State have all approved of the terms of the treaty, and have all expressed their acquiescence in having the British Ambassador sign the treaty in so far as their interest in the matter is concerned. The act of ratification is an act of the sovereign. The treaty while it has been ratified by the United States has not yet been ratified by His Majesty the King. That ratification awaits, as I 'have already intimated the concurrence of the governments of the several parts of the Empire before that step is taken.
In regard to the ratification of a treaty, the Imperial Conference has the following to say with respect to procedure:
Ratification of treaties imposing obligations on more than one part of the Empire is effected after consultation between the governments of those parts of the Empire concerned. It is for each government to decide whether parliamentary approval or legislation is required before a desire for or a concurrence in ratification is mtimated by the government.
It will be seen by the statement I have just read that it is not essential to ratification that parliament should approve treaties. Ratification being an executive act may be taken by the executive independent of parliament altogether, should the executive of the country, in other words the government concerned, so desire. We have felt that in these important' matters of treaty the parliament should be asked to approve before the government would concur in the ratification. It is with a view of obtaining the approval of the parliament of Canada that to-day we are asking this House to pass the resolution which I have just presented. In recommending the adoption of the resolution, I do so on the grounds which have been urged in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, namely: First of all, there is the ground of morality, that it is obviously desirable for countries to unite in endeavouring to give effect to the laws of other friendly countries, particularly where those laws have in view serving a great moral purpose. There is next, and closely allied, the ground of international good-will. There	is reason	to believe that	the
United States is most anxious that this course should be taken; that this treaty should be passed, and we in Canada, as a near neighbour, will I think, feel gratified at an opportunity of being able to facilitate in any manner possible the furtherance of friendly relations between Great Britain and other parts of the British Empire and the United States. By giving our approval in a whole-hearted manner to this treaty, I think we shall be helping to serve that end. Finally, it has been represented by British shipping interests that it will be very much to their
' !||	COMMONS
Prohibition in United States
advantage that this treaty should be enacted. While, on the one hand, it gives to the United States government the privilege of the right of search beyond the three-mile limit to a point which, roundly speaking, it has been estimated might be set at somewhere within the vicinity of twelve miles, with a view of assisting the United States government to enforce its legislation restricting the importation of alcoholic beverages, on the other hand, it gives to British shipping interests the right to carry alcoholic beverages under seal into United States ports, provided that those alcoholic beverages are kept under seal when within the three-mile limit. On these grounds, therefore, of commercial interest, moral obligation and international good-will, I recommend the adoption of the resolution by the House.


Right Hon. ARTHUR MEIGHEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Before the Prime Minister closes, I would like to ask first this question:	Does the treaty entirely fail of effect
if it should be that the parliament of any single one of the dominions fails to ratify it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I assume that the British government would reconsider the present wording of the treaty if any of the parliaments of the British Empire should refuse to approve it, possibly exempting the particular country concerned from the provisions of the treaty; but I should expect that in this case a question of that kind would not be apt to aiise.


Arthur Meighen: There are two other
questions on another point which the Prime Minister referred to, namel>
the point of the formality of the execution. First, how is it determined whether a treaty is bilateral, affecting one part or dominion alone? What precautions are taken to make sure of that? Second, in the event of its being found to be a bilateral treaty affecting one part alone, upon whose recommendation does His Majesty act in authorising the execution by the appropriate dominion representative?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With regard
to the first question which my right hon. friend has asked: How is it ascertained that a bilateral treaty applies to one particular part of the Empire or more than one, I would answer that that fact would be ascertained by the terms of the treaty itself, its subject matter and by conference between the different parts of the Empire. The paragraph in the report of the Imperial Conference which deals with the subject of negotiation of treaties, contains, I think, what will answer 
my right hon. friend's question. The paragraph reads:
(a)	It is desirable that no treaty should be negotiated by any of the governments of the Empire without due consideration of its possible effect on other parts of the Empire, or, if circumstances so demand, on the Empire as a whole.
(b)	Before negotiations are opened with the intention of concluding a treaty, steps should be taken to ensure that any of the other governments of the Empire likely to be interested are informed, so that, if any such government considers that its interests would be affected, it may have an opportunity of expressing its views, or, when its interests are immediately involved, of participating in the negotiations.
If that course is pursued, I think it will soon become apparent ro any particular selfgoverning dominion or the government of the United Kingdom, whether the treaty which it proposes to negotiate is one that concerns only one part of the Empire or more than one paH. In these, as in all matters, common sense has to govern in the last degree; hard and fast lines cannot be laid down; but the broad intelligence that is usually applied to matters of this sort would soon, I think make it quite apparent and clear whether a sell-governing dominion or the government of the United Kingdom would be justified in regarding a treaty as imposing obligations only upon itself.
As to the second question which my right hon. friend has asked

on whose advice does His Majesty act in ratifying a treaty, was it?


Arthur Meighen: No, in a case, for example, of a treaty which, after the conference, the other dominions and the United Kingdom should agree affected Canada alone. In that event, some Canadian is authorized by His Majesty to sign. Upon whose advice does His Majesty act in authorizing the execution, thus approving the terms of the treaty?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In this report of the Imperial Conference is mention of the legal adviser of the Foreign Office, who was present when the particular matter to which my right hon. friend refers was discussed at a subsidiary conference. His name is Sir C. J. B. Hurst. Perhaps I can best illustrate the point of view which was expressed at that time, by recalling, as best I can at the moment, an answer made by Sir Cecil Hurst to a question that was asked by one of the dominion prime ministers. It was in the nature of a rhetorical reply. In the event of advice being given to His Majesty which might prove to be not proper advice, and the necessity should arise for impeaching the minister or prime minister who had given it, would it, asked Sir Cecil, be the British Prime Minister or the

Prohibition in United States
Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of Great Britain, or the minister or prime minister of the dominion concerned against whom impeachment proceedings should be properly started? That question was put in that way to elucidate where the responsibility began and where it ended. I gathered, I think rightly, that the interpretation which the Foreign Office placed upon the matter to which my right hon. friend just referred is this, that the government of the Dominion which was tendering the advice in such a case was the government that was responsible; that it was advising His Majesty direct in regard to matters which were of sole concern to the dominion; that in the transmission of that advice the British government was acting as the channel through which that advice was transmitted, but was not the government which was formally tendering the advice.


Arthur Meighen: I understand, then, that the Prime Minister intimates that for the sake of approving of a certain treaty a Canadian should be appointed to execute it and that the British government itself would entail no responsibility; in other words, that His Majesty would act solely on the advice of his Canadian Privy Council.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I take it that the view of the British govenment is that it is prepared to trust the governments of the self-governing dominions "all in all or not at all" in this as in other matters; and that on a matter in regard to which a dominion government has a right to advise His Majesty direct, such as the question of who should be appointed to sign a particular treaty which comes within the group of bilateral treaties, to which I have referred, which impose obligations on only one part of the Empire, the responsibility shall rest with that particular government and not with the British government.


Arthur Meighen: If such is the case, and
if the approval of the British government is not at'all essential, is not indeed obtained, why does the transmission take place through the British government and not through His Majesty direct?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will see that these are all matters of constitutional development. Up to the present time all communications have gone to His Majesty through the British government. It will also be seen that it is obviously desirable to have some central agency or channel through which'
all communications may pass and where they may be noted. I think it would be palpably unwise to have different parts of the British Empire communicating direct with His Majesty, without any knowledge on the part of other parts of the Empire that such advice was being given in that way. I consider it advisable that in the working out of a great constitutional evolution-for that is really what is involved in these matters steps should be taken slowly and with great caution.


Arthur Meighen: I take the responsibility
of stating the situation as I understand it. and which I think is a more correct statement of the actual constitutional result. The function of the British government will consist in making a recommendation; the wording of the transmission to His Majesty will be a recommendation. I do not think the Prime Minister would venture to deny that. The British government having been first apprised cf the terms of the treaty and having agreed that the matter is purely one that concerns Canada, the recommendation will in every case be cheerfully given; but it will signify to His Majesty the approval by the British government of the treaty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend is always prone to assert his own views as against the views of everyone else. I have given him my understanding of the situation, arrived at after a conference with the British authorities, and the prime ministers of the other dominions in the presence of Lord Curzon who as Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs presided; at a subsidiary conference of the Imperial Conference held expressly for the purpose of considering these very matters. As I have intimated, when the matter was discussed, the conference had the benefit of advice from the legal adviser to the Foreign Office, Sir C. J. B. Hurst, who is perhaps the greatest authority on international law in the world. I believe I have accurately stated the position; it is certainly the basis upon which this government is proceeding.


Arthur Meighen: As regards the merits
of the treaty itself, I do not propose to take general exception to its terms as generally outlined by the Prime Minister. As respects the last point, whether I am right, or whether the Prime Minister is, will I think wholly depend upon whether a recommendation actually goes from the British government; whether the document that passes from them to His Majesty contains a recommendation or merely transmits one of ours. I shall be interested to know just how the matter de-
. . .	COMMONS
Prohibition in United States
velops and whether such a recommendation passes or not. This arrangement having been arrived at as between the dominions and the United Kingdom on the one hand and the United States on the other, for the settlement of a somewhat vexed matter of controversy between them, I feel that on the part of this parliament there will not be a disposition to refuse ratification. With regard to the necessity for ratification by parliament, I only emphasize that this is no new development; this is no accretion in the evolution of our constitutional relations; it is something that has been meticulously observed, in respect of matters both of great and of little consequence, in at least the last decade of our history.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In order that there may appear correctly in Hansard the references to the persons concerned in the subsidiary conference to which I have referred, I would direct the attention of hon. members to the opening paragraph in the summary of proceedings of the Imperial Conference. I have reference to the section relating to negotiations, signature and ratification of treaties.
The principles governing the relations of the various parts of the Empire in connection with the negotiations, signature and ratification of treaties seemed to the conference to be of the greatest importance. Accordingly it was arranged that the subject should be fully examined by a committee, of which the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs was chairman The Secretary of State for the Colonies, the Prime Ministers of Canada, the Commonwealth of Australia New Zealand, the Union of South Africa and Newfoundland, the Minister of External Affairs, of the Irish Free State, and the Secretary of State for India as head of the Indian Delegation, served on this committee. With the assistance of the legal advisor to the Foreign Office, Sir C. J. B. Hurst, K.C.B., K.C., the following resolution was drawn up and agreed to
Then follow several paragraphs relating to negotiations, the signing of treaties, and their ratification. It was as a member of that conference that I heard stated the position as I have given it to this House; and it was,
I think, quite beyond question in the mind of anyone present that the position wks exactly as I have indicated. Indeed, I might say to my right hon. friend, so important did I consider the matter, that at the conference I asked the particular question to which he himself has referred, and received the reply which I have given to the House.


Hon. J. B. M. BAXTER (St. John. City and Counties of St. John and Albert):: Is this treaty reciprocal? I mean, is there an extension of the old three-mile limit on behalf of the British Empire, or any of its component parts, commensurate with the right which is given to the United States? Or does the treaty

provide only for the protection of the United States against the infraction of its prohibitory law, while leaving certain provinces of Canada, which have equally rigorous laws, subject to the old three-mile limit?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it was considered by the British government that the treaty had distinct reciprocal advantages.
know, as I intimated in the course of my lemarks, that the British shipping interests considered it of the greatest importance that they should have the right to go into American ports with liquor aboard their vessels under seal, whether taken to and fro across the Atlantic or in transit to some other port. Eiom the point of view of commercial interests I believe there was felt to be a distinct advantage to the shipping interests, whether they were in part Canadian or largely' as I believe, confined to the United Kingdom!


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: I Jo not think I have
made myself quite clear to my right hon. friend. I appreciate what the Prime Minister says about the shipping interests,.but let me put a concrete case to him. Take the shores of New Brunswick, fur instance. There we have a prohibitory law as rigorously drafted and as unrigorously observed as any law on the continent. Now, assume what is highly improbable, an attempt to invade the province of New Brunswick with liquor. Have we a twelve-mile protection within which the government of Canaria can seize an American vessel which is seeking to infringe our prohibitory law?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That particular phase of the matter was not considered in the discussion, but I have not the least doubt whatever that if my hon. friend feels the need of such legislation there will be no difficulty in securing it.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: 


Mr. SPEAKER:: Order.
M. BAXTER:	If I may be permitted to
proceed a little further?


Hewitt Bostock: Bv unanimous consent.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: If there is no objection.
I understand the British shipping interests have gained a substantia' advantage as under this convention they are able to take liquor within the confines of the United States, something which they could not have done before. I would ask my right hon. friend whether there has been any attempt on the part of the Dominion government to demand

Prohibition in United States
from the United States the letting down of the same barriers against Canadian interests as a consideration for this concession, which must be of very great value to them morally and on other grounds? In other words, what do we get out of it, from the Canadian standpoint?


Hewitt Bostock: Of course, no objection
has been raised to this cross-examination and as the question is a very important one, affecting vitally the interests of both countries, by unanimous c msent I have allowed these questions and answers, but such procedure is not in accordance with the rules of the House under which each member may speak only once. However, I am in the hands of the House.


Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, although undoubtedly under this treaty the right of Great Britain to send British vessels into American ports with liquor has been finally admitted by the United States, it should never have v been necessary to have such admission, as Great Britain undoubtedly always had that right. In addition to the apparent omission which the hon. member for St. John (Mr. Baxter) has called to the attention of the government, I would mention another Canadian problem which I think might very well have been discussed and settled in connection with this treaty. It concerns the province of British Columbia and the Yukon territory. Because of the geographical situation it is impossible to send anything into the northern part of that province and the Yukon territory except through Alaska. Now, the United States in the interpretation of its prohibition law holds that it is illegal to send liquor across any portion of the United States. In British Columbia and in the Yukon territory liquor is handled solely by the government. Up till 1922 no objection was raised by the United States authorities to the importation of liquor across Alaska for the use of northern British Columbia and the Yukon, but early in that year they announced that no further importation would be permitted. I understand negotiations have taken place between the government of Canada, on behalf of the government of the Yukon territory, and the government of the United States, but that as yet our neighbours are unwilling to concede us-shall I say this privilege? I prefer to call it our right-they are indisposed to revert to the former practice, although tine liquor is sent up the coast in Canadian vessels in bond, unloaded into railway cars at the dock and within a period of two hours transported across
United States territory in bond into Canadian territory. Consequently we are prevented from receiving any further importations there. The attitude of the United States, to my mind, is nothing more nor less than that of the dog in the manger; they will not themselves have liquor in Alaska, and they will not let us have it in the Yukon.
There has been no illicit traffic in liquor from Yukon to Alaska. As a matter of fact the government of the Yukon territory imports only such a moderate quantity as, after careful calculation, they are assured is sufficient to meet the reasonable needs of their population. I submit the same question as that put by the hon. member for St. John in the language of the United States: What do we get out of this? That is the question the United States' asks on every occasion, international or otherwise. I submit there is not enough in this treaty for us, and if by holding up its ratification the government can bring about a restitution of the right of importation by the government of British Columbia across Alaska into the I ukon territory, most certainly this course should be taken. It is a very important matter for the people of that part of Canada. The governments of British Columbia and the Yukon derive quite a large revenue from their control of liquor. There is no intemperance because the government importations are, as I have already stated, strictly limited to local needs, so that naturally there is an absolutely temperate use of liquor. In the old days saloons were just as numerous there as in other parts of the Dominion, but under the present system the use of liquor is not abused.
The action of the United States in this matter is decidedly unfriendly and absolutely unnecessary, and could be reversed quite easily if they wish to convenience us. Although, I understand, correspondence is now proceeding between the government of Canada and the government of the United States in relation to renewal of our right to import liquor across Alaska for government purposes yet the earlier correspondence extending over the past two years has been entirely without avail, and I submit that once this treaty is ratified and the United States get what they want, Canada will never secure what she is entitled to. I would therefore urge that the government should take into consideration this very serious problem of the Yukon territory and northern British Columbia and withhold consent to the treaty until the United States changes its attitude in the matter.
Prohibition in United States


Hewitt Bostock: Before the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) closes the debate, if any other hon. member desires to speak he should do so, now.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, those who are interested in the province of Queb'c were made aware some months ago that there is quite an industry there in the smuggling of liquor into the United States. It may occur also from the United States into that part of Canada, but not to the same extent. I notice the treaty refers to water-borne traffic more especially. I should like to know if any negotiations have taken place with the United States with a view to putting a stop to this illicit traffic from Quebec, and, if so, with what result
Mr. MACKENZIE KING Beginning last fall, negotiations took place, first by correspondence and subsequently by personal conference, between representatives of our government and of the government of the United States with respect tc enforcement of laws to prevent the smuggling of liquor from Canada into the limited States, These negotiations have been cuntinued, and I hope very shortly to be able to report to parliament the reside This, I think, answers what is in the mind of my hon. friend from Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil). -ihe question to which the hon. member for the Yukon has referred has been carefully considered. The view of our Canadian government was that it was not advisable to confuse the two discussions, the one relating to the right of search on the high seas, and the other a matter of negotiations between Canada and the LTnited States respecting amongst other matters the importation of liquor into the Aukon. The subject of which I am speaking this afternoon has relation only to questions affecting the high seas.
I may say to the hon. member for Yukon iMr. Black) that the remarks he has made on this occasion bear out the very strong representations made by the government to the United States authorities in this matter. I would not like to suggest and the House has apparently not thought so-that this treaty should be held up, for the reason that I have m my hand a message from the Right Hon. Ramsay MacDonald asking that if possible the matter be proceeded with with as little delay as possible, as the British government are anxious to have this treaty ratified just as soon as it can be arranged.


George Black: Once this treaty is out of the way, has Canada any leverage on 
the United States by which it can obtain from them the rights she now seeks?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The United
States have made a large number of requests of our government in the matter of assisting them in the enforcement of their laws, and we have the leverage that is afforded' there in helping to solve the problem.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I
would like to ask the government two questions; first, is it the intention of the government this year to introduce the Canadian National Railways branch' lines bill in the Senate before it comes to this House? If not, how soon may this House expect the branch lines bill to be brought down?
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM: (Minister of Railways and Canals): The reply to the first question is. no; the reply to the second, next week.



QUESTIONS AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. R. B. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Before the Orders of the Day are called I have a question to ask of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King), and a request to make. Yesterday at question time the Minister of Public Works asked that question No. 28, standing in my name, should stand as an order for return. The motion carried while I was temporarily out of the chamber, and I wish now to ask him why a short, concise answer should not be given to this question forthwith. If it is desired to supplement the information, that could be done at a later date. I want to protest, against the motion which was passed-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: I think I have already
explained to the House that the Speaker, by Rule 37, subsection 3, and the minister, by section 4 of the same rule, may ask that a question be answered in the form of a return. Here is the rule:
If a question is of such a nature that in the opinion of the minister who is to furnish the reply, such reply should be in the form of a return, arid the minister states that he has no objection to laying such return upon the Table of the House, his statement shall, unless otherwise ordered by the House, be deemed an order of the House to that effect and the same shall be entered in the Votes and Proceedings as such.

Business of the House
. BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


ERROR IN ORDERS-PROCEDURE AS TO DISCUSSION OF MOTION CONCERNING TREATY WITH UNITED STATES.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: Mr. Speaker, I do not
understand the order paper to-day; it is most misleading. On page 3-


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps out of courtesy
to the right hon. gentleman and the House I may say that a mistake has been made by the printer in inserting the first item under "Government Notices of Motions; it should have gone to another page under a different heading. The French edition is correct.


Arthur Meighen: It has misled hon. members on this side; it was the impression that with that kind of heading under Government Notices of Motions, the Prime Ministers motion regarding the treaty on alcoholic beverages would go into committee upon carrying. While I remember quite well that in the case of previous motions there was no committee, it would seem to me most appropriate that there should be. When a motion comes before the House of the significance of this motion, with no facility for general discussion, no privilege of question or of ascertaining the full effect of the proposal -for example, for the pressing of such questions as the hon. member for St. John (Mr Baxter) was prevented from putting-it does 4 p.m. not do justice to the hon. members of the House or to the subject itself.
I do not know that there is any method now of getting the resolution into committee. I would suggest that under the circumstances the government agree either that we go into committee upon the resolution or that the debate be adjourned until Monday, when we can take it up and conclude it. I am sure there are questions which hon. members desire to put and which in justice to the subject should be put and answered.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that the procedure has been entirely regular, and that it is also in accordance with precedents followed by governments with which my right hon. friend has been connected. I have no desire to shut off any discussion. No doubt the questions which have been asked to-day may be asked on some other occasion in reference to some other matter. In fact, I think I have fully answered all questions that have been put. If there are other questions that hon. members desire to ask on the Orders of the Day, I shall be prepared to answer them.


Arthur Meighen: I am not disputing the regularity of the proceedings at all, but I was disputing the regularity of the order paper, which misled us. From the present form of the order paper one might readily conclude that we would go into committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.


Arthur Meighen: Well, here is the way it reads-I know it is a mix-up, but it could quite readily lead to a wrong conclusion:
February 28-The Minister of Marine and Fisheries -In Committee of the Whole-the following proposed
resolution:-	.	, ,
March 6-The Prime Minister-That it be resolved..


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I submit that I am not the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Arthur Meighen: I know that, but the
Prime Minister sees very readily that the resolution immediately following was his own.
It is a mix-up; it is a misprint; it is entirely wrong, and I am not attributing the fault to the government; but it is quite clear that the House could very readily be misled.


Mr. GAUVREAU:: The French version is all right; why do you not go by it? You speak French.


Arthur Meighen: I could read it, I think, but I cannot read both at once. My suggestion is that the debate be considered postponed until Monday. I do not see why that cannot be done, but if not, then let it be resumed this evening so that we may proceed with the discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no desire to do other than meet the wishes of hon. members. My right hon. friend usually reads with a great deal of care whatever is put before him. If the House is agreeable to it, I have no objection to resuming the debate now, and concluding it, but I do object to going on either to-night or on Monday. If it can be made regular to reopen the discussion at the moment, I am quite willing that that be done; otherwise I think the record should stand as it is.


Hewitt Bostock: As stated a moment ago
by the right hon. leader oi the opposition, the resolution is regularly where it should be though there is a misorint immediately before it. I felt myself during the debate a moment ago that the question was of such importance that I should relax the rule and let hon. members speak once, twice and even thrice as if it were in committee of the whole. The resolution was carried by the House and so declared, but of course the
Business of the House

House can always reverse its decision and order the Speaker not to consider the resolution as carried. I might perhaps remind hon. gentlemen that this resolution will come back to the House from the Senate, so there will be another opportunity to discuss it. It must be concurred in by the Senate. That is why the resolution is couched in the form in which it is: "That it be resolved by the	House of Commons."
made application, but they asked that they be given an opportunity to make examination before finally deciding whether they wished to proceed on that application, and that has been granted.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS -ST. JOHN, N.B.
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I am quite agreeable to that if on its return from the Senate the matter can again be debated by this House.


Hewitt Bostock: If it is amended, in
concurrence.


Arthur Meighen: [f the Prime Minister
will agree that we may debate this matter again when it comes from the Senate I am satisfied.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think it can be so irranged that we may continue the discussion now. So far as the government is concerned I am quite prepared to do that.


Mr. BELAND:: The next speaker.


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: There seems to have been some misunderstanding-
Mr. MeMASTER:	I rise to a point of
order. It would appear to me that this resolution has been carried and cannot be returned to without tha unanimous consent of the House. It seems to me that a good deal of time is being, I would not like to say wasted, but inadequate'>* distributed.
Mi, SPEAKER: Is it the pleasure of the House that the said resolution be reinstated and be considered es not carried?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Hewitt Bostock: I declare the resolution earned.
BANFF PARK WATER-POWER On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary)- ] should like to ask the Minister of the Interim II an application has been received from the provincial government of Alberta seeking waterpower privileges in the Spray lakes area of the Banff National park, and if so what is the attitude of the government toward that application?


Hon CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: The Alberta government have


John Babington Macaulay Baxter: 
PULPWOOD COMMISSION
[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Arthur Meighen: I want to ask the government if they are aware that some members of the Canadian Royal Pulpwood Commission are reported to have gone to Washington, and if so, what they have gone there for?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I have not heard of it.


Arthur Meighen: Would my hon. friend
make inquiry and find out, and advise us as to the purpose of the visit?


James Alexander Robb: I will but I do not admit
they have gone to Washington.


Arthur Meighen: If they have-?


James Alexander Robb: I will find out.


PUBLIC WORKS
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Public Works-Chargeable to Capital
Public Buildings-
Ottawa Parliament Building	 $	600,000
Ottawa, addition to Dominion Archives
Building	 275.000
London, England, Canadian office	 1,300,000

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ,1. H. KING (Kootenay) (Minister of Public Works): I might advise the committee that the information requested last night has not yet been received. I will be glad to furnish it as soon as I can obtain it. I gave a general statement of the proposal last night..
Mr. STEVENS:: Is the hon. minister asking to have it stand?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: I think there will be further discussion on the item.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Certain information is
asked for, and I understand the minister to say it is not yet ready.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No.	*


Henry Herbert Stevens: I presume the item will
stand until that information is brought down.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the
hon. member have any objection to our going on with other items of Public Works this afternoon, on the understanding, of course, that our taking up estimates to-day will not preclude him from taking advantage of the rule which prevents our going into supply, except under certain conditions.


Arthur Meighen: I do not wish to see
the time of the House wasted, and on condition that the government calls Public Works estimates on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, I am ready to agree. I hope the government will forgive me if I recall that a similar request courteously made was indignantly refused two years ago.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not recall the occasion, but since my hon. friend has been so courteous this afternoon, I will concur in his request.


Mr. GRAHAM:: It was done in my absence.
Item stands.
Ottawa Parliament Building	$600,000


John Warwick King: The vote asked
for is $600,000-a revote of $320,000. This vote is for the completion of the tower, the memorial chamber, and some electric light equipment and fixtures. This should complete the tower as far as the external appearance is concerned. It will also install the electrical
Supply-Public Works

equipment and elevators, make provision for the clock, and also make electrical provision for the chimes which it is proposed to put in later.


Mr. McMASTER:: I would make the suggestion to the government that they defer the building of the tower until we make our financial books balance. The tower does very well as it is for the time being, and I think the fact that it was left in an incomplete condition, abiding the balancing of the budget, would be a constant object lesson as to the desirability of that performance, and might be an object lesson to the whole country, in helping everyone to devote their energies to that end.


John Warwick King: The government
considered the advisability of not continuing it just now, but we found we had a contract with the contractors who have large equipment on the ground, which has been retained here from 1916 to the present time, and we feel.it is better to proceed and complete the external portion of the tower this year, rather than have that equipment go away, to be brought back at a later day.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Has the government
looked into the question whether saving would be effected by doing the work now rather than three or four years from now, when the country's financial position might be better?


John Warwick King: I think it would cost more in the end.


Andrew Ross McMaster: It is pretty hard to
figure, we cannot tell.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the
minister inform the House whether the government, will pay for the removal of the contractor's buildings or not? H it is the contractor's loss and not the loss of the government, we had better leave that matter for the contractor.


John Warwick King: No, I think not. These buildings were erected when the work was first started for the erection-of the parliament buildings; the stonecutting, plant and machinery were brought here under an arrangement with the contractor. That machinery is here now, and if it is removed a new contract would have to be entered into and new machinery placed on the ground. We have considered it very carefully, and I think R is wisdom to complete the masonry and get it finished now. The architect also has a commission to go on.


Mr. WALLACE:: Does this vote cover the external construction?


John Warwick King: No, I will give
you the estimate for the external construction.
It is as follows:
Masonry as per bill of quantities, Memorial
Chamber	 $ 81,820
Main Tower	 293,808
Elevators: push button elevator and tower elevator not including moneys already paid on tower elevator	 15,000
Electric wiring: interior wiring for lighting, power; clocks, illuminating four clock dials, beacon light, wiring for chimes, flood lighting projectors only, wiring for flood lighting; four lamp standards for above lighting fixtures in tower reflectors to illuminate window openings	 28,950
Roofing: Flexicrete rolls-24 oz. copper roof, moulded cresting dormer windows-slate
louvres, etc	 16,500
Ornamental iron: elevator enclosures spiral and straight stairs,	ladders in	tower-flag	pole..	7,640
In addition to that it is proposed to spend some money within the building. The following are some of the items:
Carpentry and doors to Commons and Senate
chambers	 $ 9,000
Stone carving and modelling for interior.. ..	10,000
Electrical work, Library	 8,000
Painting and decorating	 4,000
Special lighting fixtures	 50,000
We have been rather moving very slowly in the matter of these fixtures. Most of the fixtures in the hallways, as hon. members will notice, are temporary in nature and we have not gone as yet to any large expenditures. I notice in the estimate for the expenditure of $600,000 there is an amount of $50,000 for special lighting fixtures, and one of $10,000 for wrought iron work. Those are the principal items.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: How much higher is the
tower to go? What will be the total height of it when completed?


John Warwick King: I have not that
in mind. I will give it to my hon. friend a little later on the estimates.


Hugh Guthrie: I agree that the tower
should be completed. I do not like the outside appearance of the building with an uncompleted tower. There is no doubt some force in the reasons advanced by the minister for going ahead with the tower at the present time; but at the same time the hon. member for Bromp (Mr. McMaster) has urged a question which we should likewise consider, whether or not at this time we feel that we have money enough to expend $600,000 this year in a work of this kind. We would all like to see the building and the tower also completed. I would put that almost foremost amongst public works in the country; but if the condition is such that we are called upon to hesitate in regard to com-

Supply-Public Works
pleting this tower, we should well consider another part of this item, No. 139, which is now before the committee, namely the expenditure of one and a quarter million dollars or more for a building in London. I have a very strong opinion that the acquisition of the building in London described by the minister last night might well wait a year, or tw'o years, or even five years. If there '.s to be any postponement for purposes of economy, that is the item that should be postponed rather than the tower, although at tha. same time good reasons might be shown why the tower also could wait for one, two or perhaps three years. I should, however, like to see the tower completed within some reasonable 'time.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to bring
this to the minister's attention in supporting, in a measure, what my hon. friend has just said. Let us grant for the moment the desirability of completing the tower as regards external appearances. I hurriedly took down a few items, not all by any means, which the minister mentioned of what might be called more or less luxuries in connection with the tower. Someone suggests the term "frills." I do not want to cast any aspersions upon this splendid building, but certain things are not altogether necessary, for instance, reflector lights for windows, $27,000. I appreciate that it is very nice to have these windows beautifully illuminated, but at present $27,000 seems to me a large sum to expend on that particular class of work. There is an item of $16,000 for copper roofing. That is, I take it, merely for the tower. Perhaps that might be necessary if the tower were gone on with, although a less expensive roofing might do for the time being. I do not, however, press that point. Then there is an item for elevators in the tower. I know it is going to be very nice in years to come to provide an elevator in the tower for tourists and sightseers to go up this splendid tower and to have the view. I believe about $30,000 is put in for that purpose. That is an item that could very well stand. We have an item for electric light fixtures through the building. I think hon. members will agree that we are pretty well satisfied for the time being with the light fixtures through this building.


Mr. CARROLL:: What does my hon. friend mean by "for the time being"?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Perhaps for the next five years. At least let the existing fixtures wear out their life of usefulness. It will be necessary, in any case, before very long to replace a certain portion of them. If they are more
or less temporary, they certainly are not very objectionable to the eye; they are not offensive to anyone. Let them remain as they are for a while so that we shall get the full value of their temporary nature, and then put in your permanent fixtures. For that I think $50,000 is put in, a very large sum. There is an item for certain fancy grill work, 810,000. That might very properly be left for a few years. We have been putting up this building for about eight years; the government has brought the building to a fairly good stage of completion and I think there is quite a bit of national pride in the building, which pride I believe, is justified. I have mentioned items -and I have missed some-totalling about $140,000 that might very well stand over for one, two, three, four or five years. Perhaps no particular harm would be done if these items stood over for four or five years. A moment ago the minister mentioned some equipment and I presume he referred to the equipment in a building next to the Connaught building. I am not aware of the exact conditions of the contract; but if I recall it correctly, it is a cost plus contract. If we do not go on with the work, we do not pay for it. If the work stands, there is no outlay, no demurrage, no penalty on the government for delay. I do not think the contractors would lose or suffer anything or be unjustly dealt with if nothing were proceeded with. I will not, however, press that point. The hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) has brought it forward, I think, properly, and it is desirable that it should be considered. Assuming, however, that we go on with the tower, would it not be quite sufficient to finish the substantial portion of it, that is the stone work and the brick lining-the masonry-without finishing the fancy wrork in the interior- elevators, electric light fixtures, grill work and so forth? I would suggest that the minister review the estimate and delete from it those extras, at least, and ask the House for simply a sum necessary to complete the tower as regards external appearance. There are some other suggestions I wish to make regarding the other items before the whole resolution passes, but I should like to have the minister's opinion on this point first.


John Warwick King: The advisability of going on with the tower was given careful consideration, and after the whole situation was reviewed, it was concluded that it would be better for us to continue the work and complete the tower. As regards the electric wiring, anyone accustomed to building knows that that class of work should go on during the time
Supply-Public Works

of construction. It can be properly done then. As regards the elevators, the government has already made a large expenditure on elevators, and this is an additional sum. As to lighting the tower, I do not think anyone would say that we should refrain from expending a certain sum of money which must be expended if we do not want the tower to remain dark. If we put up the tower, it should surely have a light, and the clocks, when they are put in, should be properly lighted. These things are all necessary; they can be better done now than at a later period, and I think we should go on with them. I am not very particular about the carving and electric fixtures in the building; but we have a very fine building with fine corridors, and many people from all parts of the world visit this parliament the year round. It is quite proper that in such a place of interest, a building the beauty of which people visit the Capital to admire, we should have things as nearly as possible in perfect harmony. We have succeeded in cutting this estimate down quite appreciably and I can assure the House that it is not the intention of the government to enter upon extravagant expenditures; but as regards these fixtures I think it is only right that from time to time we should get them installed until gradually we have the whole building completed.


William F. Carroll: Does the estimate provide this year for all electrical fixtures?


John Warwick King: No.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I dislike wearying the House with my economic notions, but there are a few words which I desire to say in addition to the plea that I have made that this unnecessary work be not proceeded with. First of all, it is absolutely unnecessary. There is no more reason for proceeding with the work this year than there was last year, and we were able to d scharge our legislative duties perfectly and in comfort then without this tower. I want to submit these reasons in the hope that the government will be brought to see the matter in the same light as I do. We have a demand from the taxpayers of the country, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, that economy shall be the first order of the day. The government-and I give them credit for it.-have courageously started cutting down; they have cut down the Civil Service in Ottawa. Under these circumstances I would ask them to consider the feelings of some poor man who has lost his position in the Civil Service, who is unable to find other employment and is walking 
the streets of Ottawa, and who would see this tower being erect'd knowing that it is a work that is absolutely unnecessary, however beautiful it may be. So far as the embellishment of the building is concerned, I think the whole strucim e is beautiful as it stands, and if it is to be embellished it must receive the very best works of art. These works of art will be acquired as the years go by, and we ought to see to it that they are the very best that can be obtained. If we get such works, we shall of course have to pay for them accordingly. While the min-' ister was speaking, and particularly when he stated that one expenditure must inevitably lead to another, I could not help thinking of the young couple who were almost ruined because, at the time of their marriage, some rich relation gave *hem a beautiful mantel clock. A rug had to be bought to be in keeping with the clock, something else had to be obtained to be in keeping with the rug, and so on, until finally they had the whole house furnished on a socle very much higher than they could afford I really believe that the government would be meeting the views not only of the vast majority of the members of this House but of the vast majority of the taxpayers if they would abandon the idea of putting up the tower to tne height originally intended. After all, it is not as if the building were an ugly one as it stands. I would remind the minister oc that beautiful building in Paris, Notre Dame cathedral, on which there are two short towers; it is a question among architects whether it was intended to have them built higher or not. The tower on this building undoubtedly is not as beautiful now as t will be when completed, but it is not by any means unsightly; and I cannot imagine many works which would so cast discredit upon the bona fides of the government and their attempt to economise as the continuance of this unnecessary work.


William F. Carroll: I remember that some
years ago criticism was levelled at the then Conservative government for the extravagance with which it was charged in connection with the problem of putting up this new parliament building. I am glad to be able to say that I was one of those who did not criticise the government of that day for the building they proposed erecting on Parliament Hill, and to-day I shall be amongst those who will have no criticism whatever to offer if the present government endeavour in every legitimate way to make this building

Supply-Public Works
a citadel worthy of the Canadian people. I am surprised that a gentleman of the robust Canadianism of the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) should criticise the government at this stage for attempting to place on Parliament Hill such a building as we ought to have here. My hon. friend declares that it would be extravagant to continue this work, and he says that the government should stand for stringent economy. He tells us that in five years' time we might proceed with the work.


Andrew Ross McMaster: I did not mention any specific date.


William F. Carroll: The hon. member did not, that is right; but some other hon gentleman on the other side made the suggestion. Well, I think that in five years' time it will be just as extravagant as it is now to complete the building, and perhaps more so.


Arthur Meighen: There might be a more economical government in power then.


William F. Carroll: I daresay when the Progressives get into power we shall have a more economical government than we have had in either of the old parties.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Just as there was in Ontario.


William F. Carroll: At least that is what they tell us; and of course you cannot challenge the words of gentlemen in parliament. Now, what does the Minister of Public Works propose? He proposes to do exactly what the people of the country proposed in the first instance when Canada was in the throes of war. We were not afraid then to expend millions in erecting a building on Parliament Hill in which the representatives of the Canadian people should deliberate; and if we had no qualms about spending so much money on this building at a time when the fate of the British Empire was in the balance I do not see any reason for compunction now, when, as I think, there is some measure of confidence on the part of the people as to the future of the country. It is only fitting, I think, that we should have something better than the barn which my hon. friend from Brome would like to see us assemble in.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William F. Carroll: The mere fact that we may be comfortable should not be the only consideration. When parliament met in the Museum the hon. member was no doubt comfortable. But, as a sturdy Canadian, would 36
he be satisfied to see a building on Parliament Hill of the kind which we had in London for so long? Would he have us meet in a building of the sort that has been a public disgrace to Canada for half a century? The hon. member for Centre Winnipeg (Mr. Woods-worth) spoke yesterday about Canadian nationhood. Well, if hon. gentlemen have aspirations in that direction let them see to it that we shall have a building in the capital city worthy of the Canadian nation. I know that we are passing through strenuous times, and there are various ways of retrenching; but from my point of view it would be a mistaken economy to retrench in the way suggested in this instance. Millions of United States citizens visit Washington to see the Capitol and the many other architectural features which go to make it the most beautiful city in the Union. And I, for one, Mr. Chairman, stand for making Ottawa the most beautiful city in the. Dominion.


Mr. FORKE:: Mr. Chairman, I quite agree with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Brome (Mr. McMaster) in regard to economy. With respect to what the last speaker (Mr. Carroll) has said, I doubt if a sense of the practical nature of things always lessens appreciation of the beautiful. I am sure there is many a farmer working between the handles of a plow who enjoys the beauties of the sunset just as thoroughly as some artists who pride themselves on their artistic perception. I admire this building, but I would inform hon. members that in Winnipeg, there is a legislative building of still greater architectural beauty. The members recline on cushioned chairs in the utmost comfort, while the time of the legislature is wasted by lengthy speeches. But there are not many people in the province of Manitoba who to-day feel very well satisfied with that building.


Mr. CALDWELL:: It was not built by the Farmer government, either.


Arthur Meighen: Three-quarters.


Robert Forke: No, the Norris government was not responsible. My right hon. friend knows that very well.


Arthur Meighen: It was responsible for about three-quarters of the building.


Robert Forke: They were very much in the same position as this government-they had to complete what had already been undertaken by a former government. I do not think we can find fault with the appearance of this building, but we shall be in a better position to deal with the vote after we have received

Supply-Public Works

some further information from the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King). For instance, which would be the more economical course,- to leave the building as it is for a few years or to complete it at once? If I understand correctly, the architect is under a contract to finish the tower, and the contractor is under a somewhat similar obligation. The tower is a very important part of this structure, and it is something that the architect should be held responsible for the completion of. For example, the addition of the final third to its height might develop some latent weakness in the foundations, and therefore it is important that the man who designed the tower should be the man to finish it. Will he be available five years hence? The contractor has a large plant in the city, and I understand the government are paying him a certain sum to hold it here for future use.


John Warwick King: No.


Robert Forke: If the machinery is removed and the architect not available five years from now, can the work be done as economically as if it were undertaken to-day? I should like some more information from the minister in this connection before I commit myself, because I sympathize with what was said by my hon. friend from Brome. At the same time I want to be practical, I want to know whether it would be a waste of money to defer completion for four or five years. I agree with him that there is nothing unsightly about this building. While the addition of the upper part of the tower might result in greater symmetry the structure is one of which we are all proud. I would rather that we did not spend any more money at the present time, but if I am convinced that it would not be economical to postpone completion for five years, I would say, "Go on and do at least what must be done now, but leave undone anything the postponement of which would not hurt in the long run." I do not know whether the minister can give us any more information that will help us in arriving at a decision on this point.


John Warwick King: As I stated before, the government canvassed the situation very carefully, and, as is evident to all hon. members, we have been trying to economize wherever possible. Our technical advisers tell us that it will be more economical to finish the tower now and do the other work I have outlined. We have an arrangement with the architects to complete the designs for the tower. We have also an undertaking with the contractors in regard to their plant now on the ground; it is in these terms:
(Mr. Forke.]
They to furnish the necessary plant for the purpose of such erection without further compensation, provided the plant is held for this work not longer than December 31, 1924. Should it be held later than that date, the contractors are to receive compensation foi the use thereof.
We might cut the estimate now, but in the end I think it will cost us more to complete the work, and certainly the delay will not help the building. I am of opinion that we should proceed and complete the external appearance at least and the electrical wiring, which is part of the early construction and should be installed.


Mr. CLARK:: What is the value of the
plant?


John Warwick King: The contractors'
estimate is $80,000.


John Arthur Clark: Is that for the whole building?


John Warwick King: I understand that is the value of the portion of the plant required to complete this part of the building. A portion of the original plant has been removed.


John Arthur Clark: I suppose it is also a portion of the original plant used in the construction of the main building?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Mr. BOYS:: Is there any liability to the
contractors or architects under the present contract? I understand the contract requires that the machinery shall remain until the 31st December of this year. Supposing the work is not proceeded with are the contractors entitled to anything? Because, if so, that might be a reason for going on with the work now. I notice about the building many smooth face stones; are these to be cut?


John Warwick King: Only a comparatively small portion.


William Alves Boys: What is the liability?


Mr KING (Kootenay):: They have
arranged to keep the plant on the ground up to the 31st December next. More as to any liability I could not say.


John Arthur Clark: Last year the amount of
the vote under this head was $700,000, and this year's appropriation is a revote of $320,000. Can the minister tell us what was done with the $380,000 that was spent last year?


John Warwick King: Expenditure for
1923-24:	Pay list and services, $59,036.25;
materials, $9,526.18; furniture and fittings, $13,200.28; paid to contractors in settlement

Supply-Public Works
of claim, $253,217.79; coal, $1,497.61; freight on stone from battlefields, $10,378.26; memorial to late Colonel Baker, $9,974.08; sundries, $11,549.31; total $368,379.76.


John Arthur Clark: One would be led by the
estimates to believe that the money had been spent on the construction of this building. What was the nature of the claim settled by the government in the amount of $253,000 odd?


John Warwick King: That was by
way of commission paid to the contractors. In the original contract there was a limitation as to the fee to be paid to the contractors as a percentage and also the fee on the total amount. In the case of the architect, after the expenditure had exceeded $5,000,000 *-the limit which had been placed-and was growing larger, the Parliamentary committee in charge of the construction of the building reviewed the situation and made further payments in addition to those due on the $5,000,000 expenditure. In 1921 the architect was demanding more money from the committee, and on the defeat of the late government he resigned, or walked off the job, saying that he could not continue unless he was paid more money. A committee of this House, not appointed by the House but consisting of representative members, conferred with the Minister of Public Works and with the technical officers; the whole situation was reviewed; and it was decided that owing to the alteration in the plans, the extra cost of construction, the changes that followed rapidly after 1916-17, these people were entitled to a reasonable fee. Accordingly a settlement was made and they were paid. The amount of $253,000 was a payment of extra commission earned by the Lyall contracting firm.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about the architect?


John Warwick King: The architect was not paid out of this amount. He was paid out of the 1922-3 appropriation.


Charles Marcil: What has
been the total expenditure on this building up to date, and what was the original estimate?


John Warwick King: The total cost to date has been about $11,000,000. The original estimate was $5,000,000.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Were plans submitted
on which that estimate was based, and if so who was responsible for the changing of the plans to provide for a building that would cost $11,000,000 instead of $5,000,000?


John Warwick King: The architect submitted sketch plans to the minister and to the
m
committee and gave his estimate, I believe, as to the cost. It was supposed that there would be a limitation of $5,000,000 upon which the fees of the architect should be applied, but the architect refused to sign the contract as regards the limitation of fees, and he was allowed to continue and did continue with the construction without a signed contract as to the limitation.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Was there not a signed contract as to the amount of his fees?


John Warwick King: Yes, the amount of his fees was agreed upon but not signed for in the contract. When we dealt with this matter last year a substantial reduction was made in respect of the amount upon which the architect was to be paid fees;
5 p.m. I think $1,600,000 odd was deducted. The total commission paid to the architect, on the estimate we had last year when the settlement was made, was between four and five per cent, Which, all will understand, is a very low commission for work of this character. The contractors' commissions were on a different basis. For the first $4,000,000 they were paid eight per cent and on the other $1,000,000 they were paid seven per cent. In our settlement with them we made a substantial reduction from the total cost and paid them seven per cent on the balance.


Arthur Meighen: The minister did not give the full terms of the contract. Did the commission not extend to a certain maximum, and not beyond?


John Warwick King: I have said that.


Arthur Meighen: I did not hear the minister say it.


John Warwick King: I said the architect refused to sign the contract as to that limitation, but was allowed to continue as architect and to construct these buildings.


James Arthurs: Will the minister say
whether the contractors are satisfied with this payment of $203,000, and whether that relieves the government of all responsibility up to the present date?


John Warwick King: They have released all claims.


William Alves Boys: I have a recollection that when this item was before the House last year I supported the completion of the tower. It seems to me that when it comes to the question of completing a building like this, in which we have eleven million dollars or more invested, it would be a most unfortunate thing that it
Supply-Public Works

should remain an eyesore for five or six more years when the completion of the building now would add very greatly to its appearance. While I say that, I do not want for a moment to be taken as supporting many of the items which appear in this item of $600,000; for some are of such a character they may well stand. At the same time in constructing a tower such as this it goes without saying that other works such as the installation of elevators, putting in conduits for wiring, and so on, to be done economically must be done at this time. Then there is the further point: If the country is to be liable to the contractor or the architect if the work is not proceeded with this year that is perhaps a further reason why the tower should be completed. I presume if the machinery is taken away now it will cost more to bring it back again and complete the structure at a later period. Therefore I want, so far as I have anything to say, to support the exterior completion of the tower, and the completion of all parts of the structure which are more or less essential such as the wiring and so on, having in mind the promotion of economy. I should like very much if the minister could give us an idea of what portion of the $600,000 would be required for the external completion of the tower, and all such portions which should be finished while the external part is under construction.


Mr. KENNEDY (Edmonton):: Is it estimated that this $600,000 will actually complete the tower?


John Warwick King: It will not require $600,000 for the completion of the tower alone. The estimated cost is: Memorial chamber $81,820, and the tower itself $293,808. Then there is the roofing which I think is essential.


William Alves Boys: The roofing of the tower?


John Warwick King: Yes. In this connection there is the copper roof, dormer windows, slate louvres, and so on. I think that will have to be done. Then there are the elevator, enclosures, spiral and straight stairs, and door leading into the tower. These are essential if the work is to be properly attended to. After the tower is completed elevators are necessary. You have nothing to gain by not putting them in when you are at it. The electric wiring, I think, is also essential. This will bring the total to $383,898 for the tower. Adding the other items to which I have referred will bring the amount up to $465,718. As to the height of the tower the present height is 152 feet, and there will be an addition of 128 feet making the. total height 280 feet.


Edward Joseph Garland: The necessity for going on with this work at the present time, having regard to the need for greater economy, has hardly been proven. Three attempts have been made to secure from the minister some definite statement as to the directions in which economy can be effected but without result. Neither he nor any other member of the House can definitely state that it would be more economical to build now than five years hence. We have in power a government that is pledged to economy. If it is going to reduce the cost of living in the country, possibly it may be more economical to complete this work five years from now than at present. I am delighted to support the position taken by the hon. member for Brome; I think he is on solid ground. With all due respect to my hon. friend (Mr. Boys) I do not think this building in its present state is an eyesore. I think it is a magnificent structure and possibly will be even more magnificent when completed. But at the present time, when the government is discharging many hundreds of civil servants, as one hon. gentleman has pointed out, it is going to be a greater eyesore to these people to see this building completed than to leave it uncompleted. I intend to vote against the item.


Mr. MacLAREN:: I have listened carefully to the discussion and I do not find that a case has been made out to warrant the completion of the tower just now. I do not see that there is any urgency for the completion, or that anything will be lost by waiting. It does not seem to me to be an eyesore. While there will of course be an improvement when the building is completed, conditions are not such as to justify us in proceeding with the work at the present time. When one considers the great buildings of the world there is nothing commoner than to find that years and years are occupied in their completion. It is the commonest experience in connection with the great cathedrals of Europe that the towers are not finished until long periods have passed. The precedents of the past are all in favour of taking adequate time to complete a building of this character. I hope the minister will allow this matter to stand for further consideration.


Mr. McBRIDE:: As I view this question
I think it is about time Canada took a step forward, and there is nothing that will give the country greater confidence than action on the part of the government in a matter like this. It is certainly time the government completed this tower; the uncompleted

Supply-Public Works
state of the tower has been, an eyesore ever since I came to parliament. I think the government is using good judgment in undertaking its completion; it is time the work was carried out.


John Warwick King: One aspect of the question has not been mentioned, and that is that the tower is intended to be a memorial to the men who lost their lives in the Great War. There is to be placed in the tower a memorial chamber in which will be recorded the name of every man and woman who served overseas. I believe the architect has received from the government of Belgium and also from the French government, the stone which is to go into that chamber; it comes from the fields of Flanders. Other stone has been received, I understand, from the British government. The material has been brought to Canada, and the governments of these countries have been thanked for their gifts. It is understood this stone is to form part of this memorial. The architect, Mr. Pearson, who has the matter in hand, feels it is imperative that if this work is to be completed it should be done soon. Mr. Pearson, himself as the hon. member for Brandon (Mr. Forke) has intimated, is not a young man; he has given his life to this work; he is anxious to see it completed. The government has considered the question of economy most carefully. I think no one who has looked at the estimates which have been presented to parliament and which show a difference of over $46,000,000 contrasted with the total estimates for last year, will fail to realize that if there had been any other direction in which economy could have been practised the government would have followed it.
We have been trying to save all along the line. We talked with the architect and with the technical officers, as the Minister of Public Works has intimated. It was pointed out to us that these contracts were in existence, that keeping the materials stored, keeping the plant stored, and possibly having to reacquaint all the parties who were interested in the work of construction, would involve longer time and greater expense in the end. Consequently we thought it would be mistaken economy not to complete the tower, to say nothing of the memorial feature which I have just mentioned and which the government regards as an important one.
There have been suggestions about placing in the tower a carillon of bells. Anything of that sort which it seemed possible to postpone
we have postponed. Putting in an elevator has been mentioned this afternoon as something which was not necessary during the process of construction, and that it could be put in at any time. The reason this work appears to be necessary is that if it is not done while the work of construction is in process, some part of the work will have to be torn down when such things are put in later on. We have an obligation to the future as well as to the present, and I submit, as the hon. member for Yale-Cariboo (Mr. McBride) has just stated, that it is somewhat of a reflection upon the faith we have in the future of this Dominion, that all over this world the parliament buildings of Canada should be advertised as an incomplete structure. I think that national pride may be appropriately spoken of in this matter, and that the people of Canada would like to see their parliament buildings-so far at least as their external appearance is concerned

in the final form in which it is hoped they will be for centuries to come.


Mr. BRETHEN:: With all due deference to the experience of the hon. minister who has just spoken, I think the greatest memorial we can offer the people is to make Canada a better place to live in. I believe this is a time for essentials. I believe the viewpoint of the people back home, or out in the country, should be considered. I do not believe that viewpoint is favourable to expenditure that is unnecessary at the present time. I think the .finest example we can show this country is to begin the economy right here where it touches ourselves, and I believe the people outside will accept this as true economy. There are some things that are very good for the country, such as the deep waterways, but which are not always expedient. There are some things that may be good if we had the money, but are not very feasible at the present time, and I believe this is one of them. People outside of this House are not only doing away with extravagance, but are even passing up the essentials of life because of the necessity due to present conditions; and I believe this House would give a good lead to the country if it would postpone this matter, and I therefore move that this item of $600,000,, as far as it relates to the building *of the tower, be struck out.


Mr. WARNER:: As there is a motion
slightly different from the original motion before the committee, I wish to speak to it. It is a little difficult to undertake to discuss all these things in one item. I am not well enough acquainted with the facts to discuss
Supply-Public Works

the London building, or to say whether it should be there or should not be there; but I have some ideas with regard to the tower that are quite clear. I gather from what the minister (Mr. King, Kootenay) has said that there will be practically no deterioration if it is allowed to rest for a while before being completed. From the peddle who are corresponding with roe I have had more urgent requests for economy than in regard to any other matter. I have not had one request from any community asking that money be expended in that community for any such purposes as the completion of this tower. There are to my knowledge a great many places where people are in sore need of the completion of railways, and that is a matter that would go a long way towards keeping people in our country, so that they might earn something to help build this tower. It is not my wish to make it hard for this government or any other government, but it is a matter of considering where it is best to put our money, because we have not enough to do all we want to do. And, that being the case, I will ask the government to seriously consider the matter before they go ahead with the completion of this tower. I have been asked to press for rural mail routes, and people are applying for mail service a long way from the railways and the centres. I have always been told that the government were not supplying mail routes, and could not do it because they did not have the funds. I hope I will be pardoned for bringing up such matters as this in comparison with the question of the completion of the tower, if it is a sin for me to do it. But the people in the West, in many new localities are pleading for economy, and the privilege of living and making a home in that country. We are spending money to bring people into the country, and we db not want these people to see people going away when they are coming in.


Mr. McGIVERIN:: If this amendment
carries it seems to me that it will be a case of false economy. We are all agreed that we should practise the greatest economy possible. We had an example of that fact the other day in the reduction made in the Civil Service bonus and in the reductions also made in the Civil Service. Both of these facts I deeply regret and will discuss them at their proper times. But notwithstanding that it seems to me that the postponement of the building of this tower is a serious mistake. Leaving this beautiful building in an unfinished state seems to show a lack of faith in the future of our country. It is all very 
well to go slowly but we have been going altogether too slowly in completing these buildings. For three years they have been in this uncompleted condition and it is time that the memorial chamber in the tower whioh will be considered as Canada's tribute to our war heroes should be completed.
To my mind the reasons given by the Minister of Public Works are sound, namely that there will be a considerable cost in depreciation to the tower and to the machinery but more particularly because the architect who planned the building should be the one to supervise the final work.


John Arthur Clark: The Prime Minister has advanced the only reason that I have heard given that would influence me to support this appropriation, namely, that it is in the nature of a memorial to those who gave their lives in the Great War. But, on reflection, I recall that the official memorial to those who fell is being erected in France and, I think, this year. Personally, I should like to have seen the main memorial erected in Canada. I have seen the plans for the memorial in France; they are magnificent; but if the main memorial had been erected in the vicinity of the parliament buildings, if we have room, and models of it were erected in positions in France and Belgium, that would have been much more appropriate from the point of view of the country. The idea of this tower being a memorial is splendid; I endorse it; but I draw to the attention of hon. members the fact that the Hall of Fame is likewise part of this memorial, and we have made a start. The sentiment exists; we look upon it as a memorial; I for one am quite content to wait, and I feel I voice the sentiments of the majority of the returned men in this country when I say that as regards the completion of this tower as a memorial, the returned men would be content to wait. The hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. McBride) remarked that it is time that this country showed some confidence and took hold and made a start. I likewise endorse that sentiment; I think it is time that we showed confidence in ourselves; but if this building is only a start, where are we going to end?-we have made a pretty fair start. The start that I suggest and that will create confidence in this country to a greater extent than any other start that we can make as members of this House, is to show the people of Canada that we are really sincere in our desire to retrench. The only way in which we can bring that home is to stop spending. A vital principle is involved in this vote in that it is the first

Supply-Public Works
vote coming before this House, and the time is now ripe to put ourselves on record if we are really determined to carry out this policy of retrenchment. Furthermore, following the minister's reasons for completing the tower, 1 am afraid I cannot agree with the soundness of those reasons. He says that it is more economical to go on with the work now. The only reason advanced for that is the fact that some plant and equipment are tied up to the value of $80,000. I think if we wait we shall probably save $80,000 in years to come in cost of construction. Let us remember that that plant and equipment are the remainder of the plant and equipment used in the construction of the entire building, not specially brought here for the purpose of erecting the tower, and any depreciation of that will be infinitesimal as compared with the capital cost that the country is facing in completing the tower. Therefore, I do not think there is any force in that reason. That is the only liability the country is under to the contractor.


Mr. MARTELL:: Who let the contract for this building?	.


John Arthur Clark: I do not care who let the contract for the building. I am not concerned with that. Do not think for one moment that I do not .want to see this building completed. I am heart and soul with the idea of completing this building. All that I am suggesting is that there should be a temporary delay in spending any money that we are not absolutely compelled to spend. The reason was advanced that we have the architect with us now. I hope we shall have him with us in the future; but if unfortunately we do not have him with us in the future, we have his plans. His plans do not go with him, and any other architect can follow those plans. The contractors of to-morrow will, we hope, be better than the contractors of to-day, and we shall get just as much efficiency out of the contractors to-morrow in completing this tower as we shall to-day. Consequently, I do not think it is of vital importance that the contractors who are building this on a cost plus basis should be the contractors who will complete the tower.
I was very much interested in the remarks of the leader of the Progressive party (Mr. Forke), and I am interested in knowing where he stands on this and every other item of expenditure that comes before this House. Is he going to carry out this contract with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and support every item that comes before the House, or is he going to carry out his pledge to the people of Canada to effect economy?


Robert Forke: I will make it plain how I am going to vote before the vote is taken.


John Arthur Clark: Two alternatives are open: First that any unnecessary expenditures should be eliminated this year; second to support the government because they have introduced this estimate. I hope and trust that the leader of the Progressive party is with the majority in this House, who whether they vote with the hon. member who moved this amendment or not, in their hearts I am sure are with him. We are therefore all very much interested in knowing where the leader of the Progressive party stands on the point.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: I have much pleasure in protesting against the amendment, for the simple reason that it will be false economy to leave this tower as it is at the present time. The appropriation is for $600,000. Of that, $320,000 was voted last year and not spent, so that, in other words, we are asking for only $280,000. I am a firm believer that any money that can be spent in this country in an economical way should be spent. It will give an impetus to our country by letting people know that we are advancing. Last night an item was brought up in connection with the colonial building in England to cost $1,250,000, and $750,000, for additions or repairs. When that item comes up again, I will voice my protest against spending that money, because all that we can do by spending that $2,000,000 is to save rent. We could spend that $2,000,000 in Ottawa and save rent, and it would give employment to our own workmen in Canada. I shall have much pleasure when the time comes in voting against the amendment.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: I have great pleasure
in associating myself with other hon. gentlemen in the House who have pleaded that the time has not come for false economy. This building in Ottawa does not belong to the city of Ottawa alone, and it is not purely and .simply a parochial sentiment that causes me to rise at this moment, though I am very happy indeed, with my senior colleague, (Mr. McGiverin) to be fortunate enough to represent in this House the capital city of the Dominion. These parliament buildings symbolize the aspirations of the Canadian people, and all that is best in Canadian life, and I take it that hon. gentlemen who sit across the floor having been sent down here to represent the ideals of their constituents, must feel that they owe a duty to them and therefore to the Dominion at large to see that the construction of this monument wherein those ideals are to be given
Supply-Public Works

expression to be completed. For some years the tower has remained unfinished. It has been my privilege to enter daily for two years the Hall of Fame and I have met there every day tourists from all parts of the world, who in no unmistakable terms have expressed their admiration of this beautiful building, but who could not refrain from observing that it is a pity, and indeed a shame, that an appropriate tower has not yet been completed to crown the building. During the summer, streams of water flowed through the front of the hall, and masons have been engaged in cleaning and cutting the stone to remove the marks that have been left by the water that has drained through the tower. No doubt at this moment the country feels the need of retrenchment more than it ever did before. But it seems to me that the Canadian people would have no objection whatever to the completion of this monumental building wherein the deliberations of this young nation take place. I do not think that anyone, be he in humble circumstances or be he affluent, will seriously object that the work be carried out to completion. My colleague and I have to meet the cry for economy, and very stringent reductions have been made, for instance, in the bonus. I do not agree with those reductions. Dismissals are taking place to-day, and with those I disagree. The time will come when I shall have an opportunity of expressing in this House my views on these subjects. But at the present time, although we all feel the pinch of economy-our own constituents do. and I think the same is true all over the Dominion-I also do think it is advisable that the tower be completed so that we may have a fitting building for the parliament of Canada to meet in, and one worthy of the ideals of this Dominion.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: T have endeavoured
two or three times, Mr. Chairman, to catch your eye, but being small I am not easily discerned. I asked the minister some questions which he did net answer, one of them being, whether the estimate of five million dollars for the parliament buildings was based on plans that were completed at the time the contract was entered into.


John Warwick King: I said no; the
plans were not completed; they were only sketch plans.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Is it possible that the government of a country could enter into an arrangement for the erection of a building of this kind without a definite plan before them? If so, I do not wonder that the work has cost more than double the original estimate.
. 
It is of course futile to lock the door after the horse is gone, but I think the method adopted in the letting of the contract for this building was absolutely wrong. The contract was let on a cost plus basis both to the architect and to the contractor. Obviously, therefore, their whole object was to make every part of the construction as costly as possible in relation to the amount of labour expended; and they leaped a larger reward by building extravagantly than they would otherwise have done. If they built a wall, say, that Was worth only $1,000 and they spent $2,000 upon it, they doubled their reward. That is a principle that is entirely indefensible. Expert ongineere, I understand, were employed to decide hew much of the old walls might safely be retained, and if my memory serves me correctly they reported that there were walls that were safe and sound to the valu;. of some $2,000,000. It might have been more than that, but I think I am safe in slating that figure. As hon. gentlemen know, a committee was appointed by the House to superintend the construction of the work; but I am safe in saying that that committee never functioned as a building committee, and the first thing they knew was that this $2,000,000 worth of walls had been torn down by the contractor without reference to themselves. The contractor got the cost plus for tearing down the $2,000,000 worth of walls although those walls had been declared to be fit for incorporation in the new building. And they also got cost plus for erecting the $2,000,000 worth of new walls that replaced what they had torn down. That made $4,000,000 that was expended at the outset, and they were only where they started at the commencement. There was S per cent paid to the contractor on that $4,000,000, for doing what he should never have done, and 4 per cent paid on the same sum to the architect.


John Warwick King: My hon. friend is wrong. He has given the $2,000,000 twice, but they were not paid $2,000,000 for pulling the wall down, but only on the cost of pulling it down.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I accept the minister's correction; I was wrong in that regard. However, I should like to have the information as to what it did cost to pull the old walls down. Now, one of the reasons advanced for proceeding with the construction is consideration for the architect. If I remember rightly, about a year ago, or possibly before that, this same architect held up the completion of the building because the government would not accede to his

Supply-Public Works
terras for what he had already done. I do not think, therefore that we need worry much about the architect and his feelings in the matter. If I am wrong in regard to any of these points I desire to be corrected as I go along. Another matter to which I would refer is the saving that would be derived from postponing the work. I think the minister should seriously consider accepting the amendment of the hon. member for East Peterborough (Mr. Brethen). Let me show what might be saved if the work were postponed. If we did not proceed with it we should save the $600,000 which would otherwise be spent; and there would be a saving of at least 5 per cent, in the way of interest on that money. Someone behind me suggests 6 per cent., but I am putting it conservatively because I do not want to convey any impression of exaggeration. At 5 per cent., that would mean a saving of $30,000 a year in interest; and if the completion of the tower were postponed for a period of five years we should have a total saving in that time of $150,000. As a matter of fact, it would be more than that, because in all probability we should have to raise the money to pay the interest the first years and the interest would therefore be compounded. Possibly in the five years the amount that might be saved would run to about $175,000. It has been stated that the plant to be retained here is worth $80,000. So if we had to replace it new at the end of five years we would still be $100,000 ahead. I do not think any member believes for a moment that the plant to erect a $400,000 structure would cost $80,000. I imagine all of the $80,000 worth of plant would not be needed in the completion of the tower, and I do not suppose such is contended for a moment. I think the minister stated that there were no plans prepared when construction was entered upon. I should like to know just what the undertaking was. Was an architect turned loose by the government of the day to proceed with the construction of a building, without receiving any instructions from parliament or the government as to its dimensions, architectural features and cost? Did somebody just make a random guess that such a building might be erected for $5,000,000?


John Warwick King: I might again review the early history of the construction of this building. In 1916 the old building was burned down. The government of the day decided on reconstruction and arrangements were entered into with Mr. Pearson and Mr. Marchand, two eminent Canadian architects, to submit plans to a joint committee of both Houses. Sketched plans were submitted showing the character of the building, with an
estimate based thereon as to the total cost. They suggested that $5,000,000 would be the cost.


Mr. HALBERT:: Were those the same
plans which were used later on for the construction of a $5,000,000 building?


John Warwick King: I will come to
that. The sketched plans originally submitted showed the type and character of the building at an estimated cost of $5,000,000. The plans and estimate were apparently accepted by the committee, and the work proceeded. From time to time changes were made in the plans, with the concurrence of the committee, indeed with the concurrence of parliament, because the vote for the building was discussed each and every year in this House, and as changes were made naturally they involved increased cost. In addition to that, it is not necessary for me to remind the committee, there was a gradual increase in building costs from 1916 onward, and this also accounted for a very considerable portion of the excess over and above the original estimate. I am rather surprised that those who are really anxious to practise economy now suggest that after we have expended some $11,000,000, we are to leave the building uncompleted for the sake of an additional $600,000.


Andrew Ross McMaster: No, we are only urging a postponement of the expenditure.


John Warwick King: You are going to
delay completion of the job for five or six years. There is no occasion for this. Besides, every delay so far has cost the people of Canada very considerable sums of money.


Andrew Ross McMaster: Will the minister tell
us in dollars and cents what it would cost approximately to postpone this work?


John Warwick King: It is impossible
to furnish such an estimate; it would depend on conditions five years from now, and no one can tell what they will be then. I am informed by our technical advisers that it is better to proceed with the completion of the building now, and that each delay in the past has meant extravagance and increased expenditure. I am satisfied that if this building had been proceeded with right along without delay many thousands of dollars would have been saved to the country.


Arthur Meighen: I want to express my
gratitude and appreciation of the attitude of the minister in answering the aspersions of the hon. member for Victoria and Carleton (Mr. Caldwell). I have observed many a time that when a subject comes up as respects which
Supply-Public Works

there is an attitude of fairness on the part of the Liberal party to the right of the chair, there always arise among those ultra-Grits to my left hon. members who cannot possibly lose an opportunity-which they only imagine exists-of casting some slur, arising wholly out of the basest and most ignorant of partisan prejudice, against the late administration in the construction of this magnificent building. What the minister says as to the plan adopted is precisely correct. The Public Works department could not possibly disrobe itself of responsibility with respect to the construction, but it did disrobe itself of every possible attribute that could be considered partisan, and parliament on the recommendation of the government placed in the hands of a committee of this House and the Senate, composed of members from both parties, all questions connected with the selection of architects, the .adoption of plans, and the method of construction, whether on a cost plus basis or by contract. Everything connected with the undertaking was disposed of and decided by that committee, without any qualification, without any exception. All this I think has been known to ordinarily informed members of this House for many years.
It is true a difficulty arose, having to do with the question of whether a portion of the old building could be used or not. I remember that for some time the committee felt it would be an economy, and wise, to utilize a considerable portion of the old structure. But subsequently they decided otherwise. The wisdom of their decision time has vindicated, and more than vindicated, and I am sure hon. gentlemen by the score can be found on either side of the House to affirm what I now say. It is true-I speak now from memory alone and subject to correction, that one member of the committee, who, I think, was not present at the time the decision was arrived at, afterwards took exception to the course pursued and resigned, but Liberal members of the committee, more thqn one, were present and affirmed the conduct of the committee and stood by the committee to the last. And now their judgment has proven to be correct. I do not think anyone to-day would seriously argue that that portion of the building could have been used, and I do not think anyone would like to have his argument remembered against him in the future who would suggest that $2,000,000 was wasted by not using the old walls, and $2,000,000 more thrown away because they were torn down. The whole history of the structure is a history

honourable to Canada in every way. This is the most magnificent edifice in the Dominion, and in respect of the entire enterprise, from its inception to the present day, there has not been a breath of aspiration as to the honesty of the whole execution.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the right hon.
gentleman allow me a question?


Arthur Meighen: I hope it is better than his speech.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Will the right hon.
gentleman deny that two competent engineers have stated that $2,000,000 worth of the old walls were structurally sound and could have been built upon?


Arthur Meighen: I do not deny it, but I know they have been found to be wrong.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: By whom?


Arthur Meighen: By the committee and
by the majority of engineers.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I should like you to
prove that.


Arthur Meighen: You can get an engineer, as you can get a member of parliament apparently, if you are careful enough in your selection, to say almost anything.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Were not those engineers selected by the government of which you *were a member?


Arthur Meighen: Quite so, but there is a
difference of opinion there as elsewhere. But we now know, we are not now engaged in any speculation. We know which was right and which was wrong; experience has proven it.


Robert Henry Halbert: Were those two engineers discharged, or were they retained until the completion of the building?


Arthur Meighen: 
John Warwick King: As I have already explained, arrangements have been made for completion this year. In fact, the drawings are already being made and within a few days after this item is passed the contractor will be cutting stone, if he is not already doing so. Now, let us just look over this whole situation again.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 8, to change the name of The Travellers Life Assurance Company of Canada to "Montreal Life Insurance Company."-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 9, respecting The T. Eaton General Insurance Company.-Mr. Sheard.
Bill No. 10, to confirm an Agreement between The Ottawa Electric Railway Company and the City of Ottawa.-M. Chevrier.
[Stage Direction]
The House in Committee of Supply, Mr. Gordon in the chair.
Ottawa parliament building, $600,000.
John Warwick King: Just before six
o'clock I was going to make a further statement regarding this expenditure. I am rather surprised at the attitude of some hon. members as to the expenditure this year. The government did not originate this expenditure, it was necessitated by a fire which destroyed the parliament buildings. The government of that day saw fit to undertake this obligation and, I think, properly so; the work of -reconstruction was concurred in and agreed to I believe by all. At the end of the year 1921 when there was a disagreement the architect retired. After his retirement the present government came into power, and had certain adjustments to make. Those adjustments have been carried out properly and fairly, I think, and to the satisfaction of all members of this House. In 1922 this parliament voted sufficient money to complete the tower and to finish these buildings. During 1923 it was the feeling of parliament that this work should be done. That being the case, and such having been the attitude of parliament during those two years when adjustments were being made between the government and the architect, and the contractors, the government naturally assumed that they could come before parliament this year and ask for a reduced vote, an amount not as large as the vote of last year. We asked $700,000 last year. We have cut down the expenditure, and we come to parliament and ask for $600,000 now, in order that we may complete the undertaking of the late government and the people of Canada. It has been suggested by the hon. member for Burrard (Mr. Clark) that he will oppose this expenditure and he suggested that $80,000 worth of machinery was a mere bagatelle. Well, it means that if that machinery goes out of the buildings, and if five years from now the government of the day have to enter into a new contract, they will not get a contractor to put the machinery in those buildings and do the work for seven per cent. The architects are eminent in their profession, and I think it is desirable that they should continue the work; and as far as I am personally concerned, as Minister of Public Works, I have gone a long way in order that the construction of this building might be continued, and that those men might complete the construction. I think it is only reasonable and fair, and in the interests of this construction, that those who designed and carried on the work should have an opportunity of completing the building. We have an arrangement with the architects whereby they will design and construct oi supervise the construction of this tower at five and a half per cent commission. When we came to deal with Mr. Pearson last year, after we closed out the old arrangement with
Supply-Public Works

him, did Mr. Pearson offer to do it for five and a half per cent? He said: "No, ten per cent, and fifteen per cent on some features."


An hon. MEMBER:: There are other architects.


John Warwick King: We insisted that the architect should cany it on at five and a half per cent. If this work is not continued at the present time, and if it becomes necessary for the government-I do not say this government, but any government-to enter into a contract at this time for this work, you would not get it done for five and a half per cent, because that is not in accordance with the architectural fees charged in this country. In addition to the plant that is already there and will be available for the completion of this project until December of this year, the government, in the original expenditure, constructed very large sheds or workshops in order that they might satisfy the requirements during a period of four years, because it was intended that this building should be completed in that time. It is now nearly eight years since this work was undertaken, and I am advised that an examination last year of the foundations of these workshops, which cost a considerable sum of money, shows that if we had started the machinery in those shops there would probably have been a catastrophe. They have been deteriorating during the last five years,, and if 3rou leave them there for five years more they will be an eyesore, and you will have to renew them, or spend a large sum of money to put them in shape for this work. Is it desirable for the people of Canada or the members of this House that we should have this hill littered with construction material for five years? Is it the desire of the members of this House that we should destroy the organization built up for the construction of the buildings and delay the work for five years? I think not. I think, in the interests of economy, in view of the fact that this parliament has on two occasions voted money for this work, that it should not be stalled at this time, and that we should proceed with the construction of the tower, the electrical equipment, the installation of elevators, and do the things necessary to complete the work.
I do not believe it would be wise, in fact I think it is absolutely unwise, that we should delay at this time. It is very easy for one to say "The construction of this tower means nothing to me or to my constituents. It is better for me to ask for something for my constituents." But we are dealing with a matter that is national, and I am satisfied that my constituents in British Columbia have suffi-

cient pride in the central parliament buildings .of Canada to desire that that tower shall b? constructed, and to take the advice of the men who were employed, in whom we have confidence, and complete the construction this year.


Hugh Guthrie: What is the estimate for
brick and stonework on the tower?


John Warwick King: The amount is $383,898. That would be for the Memorial tower and the Main tower. I am satisfied that if hon. members will give this matter a little more consideration they will change their attitude on this question, and I am hoping that the hon. member who moved the amendment that we should not construct the tower but should reduce our estimate by that amount, will see fit to withdraw that amendment, and accept the appropriation. I am satisfied it will be absolutely false economy for us not to continue at this time. If it is left over it will cost a good deal more in the end and we will have the disadvantage of having an uncompleted building in the Dominion of Canada, and this building is one of the first buildings, surely, that should be completed. If our hon. friends would go down to Sussex street to-morrow morning and see that shop, then come up to Parliament Hill and look at the lumbered-up condition there, and then say that they desire to have that remain in its present condition for five years,- that we should stop construction, and at the end of five years build new workshops and bring in new machinery, get a new contract and a new architect-then, so far as I am concerned I do not agree with that, and I think it would be a great mistake.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Might I bring to the hon. minister's attention the suggestion I made before recess? I cannot see for the life of me how you are going to construct or install your elevators this year in any case. I do not think it is physically possible. Why vote some $30,000 for that? Then there is no possibility of installing that very fine and elaborate electrical plant, the reflector, for which $27,000 is to be voted. Why bother about that this year? As I said before, in so far as the lighting system in the building where it is not finished is concerned, I remember looking over some of it at dinner time and it struck me that it was at least not repulsive; and while we would like to see everything finished up in tiptop shape, and all the carving and so forth finished -and I notice the minister provided a very substantial sum for carving-yet these are things that could wait for a while. I would suggest the minister could very well do with

Supply-Public Works
$400,000 at the outside, and have ample to save his investment in equipment and machinery, which seems to be impressing him very much, finish the masonry work on the tower and leave the extras for another year, in view of the fact that very little of it, if any, can be finished during this year. One reason why this appeals to me as reasonable is this-and there are other items in the resolution in the same position-that the government has been making veiy considerable capital, shall I say, out of the reductions in the Civil Service. For instance, as near as I can see, there are about three or four hundred thousand dollars' worth of reductions in the Civil Service in Ottawa. Here we are providing for an expenditure of at least $200,000, in this one item, which apparently is unnecessary and almost impossible to use this year. At the same time we are reducing the staff in Ottawa and discharging employees. I am not complaining about that for a moment; but there is something in connection with this that offends one's sense of justice and decency, and I would suggest to the minister that he drop from the item these extra charges and costs and reduce it to the bare necessity for finishing the masonry work.


John Warwick King: As regards the
electrical wiring and the elevator, I think those who have knowledgs of building will agree with me that wiring should be done during the period of construction.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The conduits, but not
the finished reflectors.


John Warwick King: The elevator was bought for this tower prior to 1921-2 it is now in the basement or in storage, and it is not being improved but is deteriorating by being there. I think that installation should go on. I think the lighting or the arrangements for lighting should go on. I do not think there should be large expenditures in carving, and that is not intended at all. Last year parliament voted $700,000. We have not carved those stones; we did not expend that money. I think there is certain work that should be done at certain points in this building in order that we may get the benefit ot the expenditure that has been made. Parliament during two years in succession passed this vote when we were not able to go on because we had certain matters to settle, and personally I was not prepared to go on until they were settled and this thing was cleared up. This thing has been cleared up; we are prepared to go on, and I think we should proceed. I am not desirous of having any great carving done; I am satisfied as regards the lighting, but I think we should proceed, and
we shall have to proceed gradually in order to take care of this building and bring it into the position into which it was intended to be brought. I do not think the opposition to this appropriation can be serious because, after all it must be the desire of every Canadian that this building should be completed and not left as it is to-day. I would appeal to hon. members to reconsider the matter and to let us have the money necssary to complete the tower and to do what we find it is economical to do in the matter of wiring, elevators, lights and such things.


Mr. GOULD:: When the minister speaks
of the item of $700,000 which was voted last year, it may be that we are right in our conclusion that the government had not the same vision of the need for economy as they have this year and as is expressed by the smaller amount of money asked for. Yet, I must confess, when I read this item, I received the first shock to my sensibilities, in that it seemed to prove to me that the minister or perhaps even the deputy, had not yet fully felt the real need for economy which obtains and has obtained throughout this country for many years now. After leaving the chamber last year and spending about seven months amongst the people who are everlastingly approaching their representatives to demand economy, I find this thought arising in my mind quite naturally: If I could lay this item before the 30,000 odd people who live in my district and ask them what they would do with it. I am quite sure, contrary to the sentiment expressed by the minister to-day, they would say: "Leave it alone; you do not need it at the present time; look at the hundreds, yes, thousands of things left in abeyance in this country longer than the completion of this tower". That is the way in which they would look at the matter. I do not agree with the attitude taken by the minister that we are going to lose so much money because plant, construction machinery, is left here. It seems to me that Peter Lyall & Company are having quite a nice time in receiving from this government certain sums of money for the protection of their implements here and there. I notice in the next item, No. 140, another item where money is to be paid to Peter Lyall & Company for expenses incurred in protection of works during a shut down. Therefore, possibly we may not pay so much attention to this amount of money which is going to be lost in taking care of those implements.
I can quite well understand the attitude of hon. members who represent this city. Naturally enough, as representatives of Ottawa, they would like to see the tower completed;
Supply-Public Works

but, perhaps, their interest and influence might better be exerted, if the money has to be expended, in trying to have the federal area here commenced. In my opinion, in this city, that is a need far greater than the completion of the tower. If the money has to be expended, why not take the full 1600,000 and commence a federal area, so that we can have consolidation and co-ordination of our offices throughout the city? I am sincerely of the opinion that we should practise economy, and this item, the first item we have discussed, brings us to the point that we feel like opposing it. I should like the minister to take the initiative in this and, at least, to reduce the item by a considerable amount.


George Perry Graham: Perhaps hon. gentlemen are magnifying some of the details. I think the minister would have no objection to letting the item stand until he could look further into the particular items that are mentioned. There is, however, one particular aspect that we must not forget. There was a war a few years ago largely because one party to a contract did not keep it. In the present case there were certain difficulties, as every member, but particularly the Minister of Public Works (Mr. King) knows, that had to be settled with both the contractor and the architect. This House voted money two years ago for the purpose of finishing this tower, the minister in the meantime endeavouring to settle these difficulties, because the prospect of settlement was the only weapon the minister had before he would proceed; he would not proceed with the work until he had this settlement made. This House approved that two years in succession and voted the money to go on with this tower. Had this settlement been accomplished a year ago, the tower would have been at least partially completed now, because parliament told the minister to go on and complete it. The settlements were made -and this is the point I want to bring out- with the contractor and the architect on the distinct understanding that the completion of the tower was to proceed. After the settlement has been made on that understanding, is it just what one would like to approve, for parliament to come along and say: "We have the settlement out of you; now we are not going to carry out our part and complete that tower?" It is, of course, an embarrassing position for the minister, but not nearly so embarrassing for him as for parliament, not to keep its share of an implied contract with both the contractor and the architect. Those are the plain facts of business. There is not a man in this House who would do such a

thing in his own business. If he had given a contractor a contract for the construction of a residence and had an architect, and had made an agreement with the contractor and the architect to settle differences on the understanding that they would go on and complete the residence, there is not in this House a man who would say then: "Now I have this settlement; I am not going to build the house now; take away your plant."


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: Does the minister realise that this information was not given to the House before? I think it is unfortunate that the minister did not give us before the information that the settlement with the contractor and the architect was made on the basis that the work was to proceed.


John Warwick King: I gave that this
afternoon.


Thomas Wakem Caldwell: I did not hear it.


William Alves Boys: That is the very question I
myself asked, and what I understood the minister to say was that it had application only to December 31, the understanding being that the machinery was to remain there until then. That is a very vital point. The contract, I presume, is before the minister and if any agreement has been entered into that requires the department to proceed with the work we should certainly be responsible for a heavy item of damages if that work is not gone on with. Aside, however, from that, I have expressed my views in regard to the item; I am in favour of the tower being completed. Before the committee rose at six o'clock I took down some figures but I do not know whether I got them correctly. I understood the minister to say that the masonry work on the tower amounts to $293,000.


John Warwick King: That is right.


William Alves Boys: And the completion of the
tower, with elevators, wiring, and so forth, make a total of $383,000.


John Warwick King: The total is


William Alves Boys: There is no question, then,
that $100,000 would cover everything in connection with the tower.


John Warwick King: Without the
memorial chamber.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING [DOT] I might mention, in connection with this matter, that only last night Mr. Pearson the architect saw me at my office with reference to the

Supply-Public Works
amount which the government is proposing to pay him for this work. He showed me letters that had passed between himself and the Public Works department, the last of which, I think, was an intimation that in view of the settlement that had been made with him he was to receive five per cent or thereabouts for the work in connection with the completion of ihe tower. He complained that this wa- an outrageous figure for the government io offer him, and he represented that so unfair was it that the Architects' Association would doubtless protest very strongly against any such fee being paid for that class of work However, the correspondence revealed the fact that it had been pointed out to him that he was being given 5 per cent for the completion of the tower in virtue of his having received a certain sum for all the work that had been done up to that point in the settlement, and that it was part cl the settlement. He accepted it for that reason, but he intimated in a communication that, he did so only because of his love of the work and of the interest that he had taken in it, and because of his desire to have an opportunity of himself seeing it completed. He intimated to me that the government was not treating him fairly or properly and that nothing would induce him to accept the arrangement except the circumstance that he realized that, unless he gave his time immediately to the work and saw to its completion, he might never have an opportunity of completing it. The one phase of the work to which he has given more attention than anything else is the memorial chamber, to which reference has been made to-night. Now, we can dispense with that undertaking; if hon. members insist that this be done I am quite prepared to recommend to my colleagues in the government that we dispense with that feature of the work. But it is the one feature that relates to the men who have been overseas; it is the one feature lo which the architect has given more thought ''hah to any other;- as I mentioned this afternoon, he secured from the governments of France, Belgium and Great Britain the stone which is to be used in that chamber, and that stone is now in the city lying packed up in a building waiting to be put into place. I say, we can dispense with this work;


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Warwick King: -but I venture to say-and I am prepared to test the feeling of the House upon the question-that the
people of the countiy will not approve of the action of this government in trying to economise on that particular item merely because it is not absolutely necessary to the completion of the tower.


John Arthur Clark: I was one of those who opposed the vote this afternoon, and I said then that what presented the greatest difficulty to me in opposing it was what the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) had said. I think the Prime Minister is appealing to the House on entirely wrong grounds at this moment. Personally, I do not know where he gathered the impression that any member in this House was opposed to a memorial chamber. I think the suggestion is absolutely misleading to the country that any member in this House objects to having a memorial chamber in the tower.


John Warwick King: That is the very matter provided for in this item.


John Arthur Clark: I stated this afternoon that I wanted to see the tower completed with a memorial chamber; and I am quite satisfied that there is not a member in this House who does not want to see the work done. But what we do suggest is that the tower can be completed and the memorial chamber built in it later on under the plans which now exist.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is there now, unfinished.


John Arthur Clark: We all hope that this particular architect will be spared to carry out these plans, but if he is not, there will be other architects available, and we can follow the plans some time in the future when we can afford to have the work completed. Let me repeat that the people of Canada expect us to retrench and do away with capital expenditures where possible, for the present, until the country can afford it. We will readily vote the money that is necessary for the tower when the country is able.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I might point out to the Prime Minister that the memorial chamber is already constructed in the tower, with the exception, of course, that the interior is not finished. The very argument I made a moment ago will apply equally well to the memorial chamber: I do not think it would be advisable to finish that chamber until the upper structure of the tower is completed, and that is not likely to be done within the coming fiscal year. Now, there are included in this vote items for extra finishing which is unnecessary and which, as I have pointed
Supply-Public Works

out, cannot possibly be installed this year. That being the case, why include that work now? If it is necessary to do certain work in order to save $80,000 in equipment-and I think there is an argument there that might be considered-if it is absolutely essential, in order to save that money, to go on with the masonry work, to which alone this equipment applies, then perhaps it might be desirable to do so. I should like to get the information definitely from the minister, because I do not think that the committee fully understands the situation, and certainly I do not. Does the masonry work cost $383,000 or $293,000?


John Warwick King: The masonry costs $293,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I understood the minister to say a while ago $383,000.


John Warwick King: I gave the figures for electrical equipment, masonry and so forth, but the masonry is $293,808.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister must have misunderstood the question. The masonry work will cost $293,000 or possibly $300,000. Does that include the finishing of the memorial chamber?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It does not include the
finishing of the memorial chamber?


John Warwick King: No.


Henry Herbert Stevens: But it includes the completion of the masonry work of the tower. The suggestion I made a moment ago to reduce the vote by $200,000 is very well within the mark. By so doing we would demonstrate to the country that we are quite sincere in paring public expenditures to the utmost.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: It seems to me that the minister and the government do not at all realize the situation which tens of thousands of our people are in at the present time.


George Perry Graham: It would give some of
them work.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I quite recognize
that resuming construction on the tower will give a certain amount of work to a few people here. I also recognize the fact that under a decent system of finance and a proper system of taxation we would have enough money to go ahead with this and a great many other expenditures. But we are dealing with the present financial system, under which, it seems, the government finds it necessary to cut down the most essential 
expenditures. We have had a substantial cut of the grant for agricultural education and of expenditures respecting public health. We must not forget that a great many people throughout the Dominion are struggling to hang on a bit longer while thousands are migrating to the United States to earn a living. I think of many agricultural communities to which I go where there are no proper roads, where men and women are living far from the ordinary social opportunities which they and their families ought to have; I think of hundreds of closed schools on the prairies where another generation is growing up without a chance of even learning to read and write; I think of men and women in my own city of Winnipeg who, not having the ordinary opportunities of acquiring a living, are pinching and scraping to exist,-and I know that this $600,000 must come out of the pockets of the ordinary people. There is no question but that we all feel the need for maintaining the dignity of Canada; there is no doubt wThatever that we would all be pleased to have tourists look up with admiration at a completed tower; and I think there is no hon. member but values fully the aesthetic side of things. But until the government can see its way to make a great many other expenditures and to lighten the load which the people now have to carry, I cannot see that we are justified in voting for such an item as this,


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman,
the discussion has been fairly prolonged, and I think by this time members ought to realize what I have tried to make plain, that the government did not initiate this expenditure. It was initiated by the government of the day when it was decided to reconstruct the parliament buildings, it was endorsed by parliament at that time, and it has been reendorsed from year to year, the committee of parliament being in close association with the work and reporting to parliament from time to time. I think there can be no question that if the government had failed to put this item in the current estimates they would have been severely criticized by hon. members.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, no.


John Warwick King: It is a matter for parliament to decide. In order that we may have a further opportunity to consider this vote-and it may be viewed from several angles-I would suggest that my hon. friend withdraw his amendment and that we let the item stand for the present.

Supply-Public Works


Andrew Ross McMaster: Might I request that
before we take this item up again, the minister supply to the committee a calculation prepared by the officers of the Public Works department as to just what the expense of postponement would involve?


John Warwick King: I think we can
arrange to have such an estimate prepared.


Mr. SHAW:: Might I ask the minister
to also place on the Table of the House a copy of the contract, so members may have an opportunity of determining the responsibilities of the government in this connection?


John Warwick King: Yes, we will do
that.


George Arthur Brethen: I think it is the desire
of every member to get the fullest information respecting this vote. Very little has been said to cause me to change my view in the matter, but I am perfectly willing to withdraw my amendment on the announcement of the minister that this item shall stand for fuller information.


John Warwick King: Thank you.


Henry Herbert Stevens: When the minister is laying the contract on the Table, will he also furnish the documents setting forth the settlement with the architects?


John Warwick King: I shall be very glad to do so.


Lewis Herbert Martell: And will the minister also lay on the Table the full contract and all other documents concerning everything that was done under the late government?
Item stands.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $626,750.


The CHAIRMAN:: Is it the pleasure of the committee that the vote be taken item by item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Belle River-Harbour Improvements, $30,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is that the wharf we heard so much about during the Essex by-election as having been built for the accommodation of rum runners?


John Warwick King: This is a re-vote of $30,000 to provide for the contract that has been let for the following harbour improvements at Belle River:
For the construction of 1,400 lineal feet double close-faced sheet pile wall, consisting of double 3" sheeting for length of 1,100 ft and double 4" sheeting for length of 300 feet. Sheeting to be from 18' to 20' in length,


REVISED
[Stage Direction]
securely waled to round piles on each side of sheeting placed at 5' centres; also round-pile stone-filled cribs triangular shaped 18' on each side.
The successful tenderers were the Detroit River Construction Company.
In addition to the above work, it is proposed in 1924-25 to dredge the 50 foot channel at Belle River to a depth of 10 feet at an estimated cost of $11,000.
The contract has been let and the work is under way. This is a re-vote in order that the work may be continued. In reply to my lion, friends' inquiries in regard to the much talked-of contract, I was not present when the item was before the House last session. There have been suggestions that this is a political item. That is not true. The man who initiated this expenditure is not to-day in this House, but he represented that district and was also a member of this government. He represented to the Department of Public Works and to myself as minister that this was a necessary and proper work, and so far as I am concerned the amount was placed in the estimates on his assurance to that effect.
James Arthurs: What is the population
of Belle River?


John Warwick King: It is a prosperous village on the Grand Trunk railway, an important point on the Canadian side of the lake, seventeen miles east of Windsor. It is at present a harbour of refuge only for shallow draft vessels and gasoline launches, but it is expected that water borne traffic will develop to a considerable extent on the completion of the pier. The population is 008.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Was the contract by tender?


John Warwick King: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: What is the tonnage that
it is anticipated will go over this pier?


Mr. HEALY:: Mr. Chairman, may I be
permitted to give the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) some information- he seems to be in need of it-with regard to this work? The work is not a dock, it is not a wharf, but it is a breakwater, to protect the entrance to the harbour of Belle River, on which previous governments have spent $28,000. The hon. member asks what connection this has with rum running. Let me tell him that 'the people of my constituency are not quite so familiar with rum running as those of New Brunswick, the province that he represents. There has been a great deal of misrepresentation with regard to this vote, and that misrepresentation has been carried up and down the highways and byways of this country since last year. Last


EDITION
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works
year I came into this House a new member and I was warned that the leader of the opposition had something on me that would put me out of public life. I was at a loss to know what it was, but when the vote for Belle River came up last year I was almost terrified by the accusations that fell from his bps. Let me say now, as I said then, that never before that afternoon, and never since, except in the possession of the right hon.' leader of the opposition and of a former Minister of Finance of this country, did I see the pamphlet that had been laid at my door. Upon my return to my constituency last year I inquired thoroughly as to where it came from, and not a member of my executive had seen it; not a member of the Conservative executive in the north riding of Essex will say to-night that I have any knowledge of it. The leader of the opposition is about to pay another visit to the constituency that I have the honour to represent. X will leave it to him to ask his own agents there whether or not I am telling the truth. Now, it is easy to attempt to ruin the reputation of a public man by muck-raking. The pamphlet that was held up with such unholy glee by the leader of the opposition and a former Minister of Finance last year has been made the subject of reference' all over the country. The right hon. gentleman carried it from Halifax to British Columbia - and after all what was it? A question of a vote for $30,000 to take care of a harbour that had been recognized by every government for twenty years. On the recommendation of the former Conservative member of the constituency, a customs officer was appointed there. Belle River has a population of some eight hundred French Canadians Last year, out of $2,900,000 ap-9 p.m. preprinted for Ontario, there was only one little vote of $30,000 for [DOT]he French-Canadian population of Belle River, and that was the only vote that the leader of the opposition had the nerve to attack out of that amount of $2,900,000. Well, he has been accused of preaching the doctrine of hate up and down this country; if I had one or two of his speeches here- which I have not, because I did not know this vote was coming on-I would be glad to read from them. But in my constituency actions speak louder than words. As the hon. minister has said, I did not initiate that poor little vote of $30,000, but I was proud to support it, and I made the statement at Belle River and in the city of Windsor, a statement which I am prepared to make tonight, that any vote that was initiated by the former Minister of Railways, whom we

were proud to honour in my constituency and whom this House was proud to honour, is good enough for me to support either in my constituency or in this House.
Arthur Meighen: The hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) has treated us to quite a disquisition. He seemed to come loaded this session and bound to attack me whether I said anything or not. I do not think I have referred to this miserable transaction more than a couple of times since last session, but I want to say to him that its aroma has not been the least improved by the experience meanwhile,- and is not a whit better in point of morals or in point of business since it was initiated last session. The government, as the hon. member, tried to hide behind the skirts of the late lamented Minister of Railways; they said he initiated this vote. Well, it took a long while to appear after the initiation. It was not in the Main Estimates last year; it awaited the result of the election in North Essex, then on the hon. member appearing it came, toward the end of the session, in the Supple-mentaries. I, of course, can say nothing as to what the Minister of Railways did. There is always great pressure on a member to press for anything and everything in his constituency, and possibly the minister yielded; I know nothing of that. But I know from a visit to the riding and I know from correspondence since, that this vote is ' nothing more or less than an outrage, a r6b-bery of the treasury of Canada; that there is no business in Belle River, it does not matter who inhabits the place. There is no business for the breakwater, or the dock or the wharf, or whatever it is. It is simply a waste of the money of Canada, as a reward-


Albert Frederick Healy: When the vote was up last
year did the right hon. gentleman not admit that some dredging was required in this very harbour?


Arthur Meighen: I do not recall admitting anything of the sort, but I know there is no business there. It may be a place used by gasoline launches-what was it the minister said-as a harbour of refuge? There may possibly be the like of that, but there is no need in the world for a dock or a wharf or a breakwater, and the people of Belle River know it as well as the people of the rest of the riding. Yes, I am going up there, and when I reach Windsor I will express myself as I express myself here in the House of Commons to-night. A pamphlet was published- who published it I think the hon. member

knows as well as I, and who got it printed and circulated. Everybody knows it was printed, and circulated, whoever did it, to help elect the hon. member himself. This was promised; other things were promised, and illegally the pamphlet was scattered through Windsor

several have reached me since. I do not suppose it would be put at the door of the hon. member; he would likely vote right without it, but it was scattered in those quarters where it would be likely to affect the vote, by reason of this promise, by reason of this bribe, and by reason of others that were embraced within it. The government is carrying it out, and on the government's head is the responsibility.


John Warwick King: There seems to be an impression that this is a new work. Now, for many years the government have been spending money at Belle River. The engineers have suggested that by building these retaining walls it would be possible to prevent the sedimentation that has been taking place and the necessity for the continued dredging that has hitherto been required. That is, by building this retaining wall iand confining the waters within a certain area the debris will be flushed out, and we will not be called upon each and every year to do this dredging. There is nothing new in this proposition. It is recommended by the engineering department as a proper expenditure, and it is hoped that by constructing these retaining walls we will be able to save money in the end. Representations on the subject have been made by various people. Take the Northern Navigation Company. They represent that this construction, and the deepening of the channel, will permit their boats to ply into that harbour. The item is not a new one. It is one that has come properly before the government, and received proper consideration after being reported on by the engineering department. A vote was properly placed in the estimates last year, the contract has been properly let, and we are now only asking for a revote.


Mr. HOCKEN:: Will the minister tell us what depth of water there is at Belle River?


John Warwick King: We hope to secure a depth of ten feet.


An hon. MEMBER:: Would the minister
tell us how much money has been spent to date at Belle River?


John Warwick King: The sum of $28,211 has been spent to date.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In what period, since when?
37i
Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: I have not the date.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I should like to suggest to the-minister that the $28,000, in round figures, of expenditure is since confederation, and represents practically nothing. Now the minister has intimated that this $30,000 is for certain revetment work, and he hopes to get a depth of ten feet. A moment ago he said the depth was not ten feet, so we presume there will be another vote for dredging. What I should like to ask the minister is this: In view of this expenditure, and the peculiar manner in which it was launched-and by the way I noticed the minister rather offered an apology-


John Warwick King: No apology at all,
I am only stating facts.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Who are the Northern Navigation Company, where do they ply their steamship line?


John Warwick King: They operate between Windsor, Detroit, Michigan and Chatham, Ontario.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Have they got any boats that can be sailed in ten feet of water?
Mr! HEALY: They have-


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I was asking the minister.


Albert Frederick Healy: And I am giving the information.


John Warwick King: Here is what the company say in one of their communications:
Our company, who operate a steamer line between Windsor, Ont. Detroit, Michigan and Chatham, Ont. will take advantage of the opportunity which the building of this pier and the dredging of an entrance thereto gives us, by having our steamer use same daily on the vessel's trip, and we believe that the opening of this harbour will materially add to the convenience of the people in the neighbourhood besides very much increasing the value of the property, inasmuch as a large picnic park would be built at this location and there would be thousands of people carried there that formerly did not have the opportunity of visiting the locality.
The manager of the Northern Navigation Company says:
I have personally inspected the location and feel that if the harbour is to be made permanently useful another pier on the west side of the river should be built so as to prevent the bank from falling into the dredged channel, and we hope that the work will be fully completed by the first of June next.
Engineer Craig says:
I am recommending for next year the provision of a sufficient amount to. build a similar extension on the west side of entrance channel and to dredge a channel to a depth of ten feet between the two walls on their completion.

Supply-Public Works


Robert Forke: I want to make a statement, now we are at the beginning of a consideration of the estimates. I sit here, in company with a great many other members, and we hear a wrangle when a vote comes up, the leader of the opposition making the statement that the appropriation is of no use, that it is simply a sop to the electors, and a member for the constituency telling us that it is an absolute necessity. Most of us here do not know anything about it. Now, what sort of position is it where two reputable members of the House make statements that are diametrically opposed to each other?


Albert Frederick Healy: May I point out that one member knows what he is talking about.


Robert Forke: The trouble is we are not very sure of* it yet. The statement I want to make, and I want to make it to the government, is this:	That henceforth we shall
require some fair warning of what estimates are going to come up before the House, so that we may have proper time to make an investigation and obtain the necessary information on which to base intelligent criticism of the different items. We go back to our constituents and we are asked about these items, and all the information we have is what is brought out by the stock questions that are put from year to year. That was the case in almost every item that came up last year; there were a few stock questions put that did not amount to anything. What I want is that the government should give fair warning before estimates are brought up for consideration, the night before if they possibly can, so that we may have some opportunity during the next forenoon to make inquiries regarding the nature of the estimate that is to be passed. I want to make a protest against this method of putting estimates through when we have no knowledge whatever of what they really mean.


John Warwick King: I want to say to my hon. friend that there is no intention at all on the part of the government-


Robert Forke: Excuse me, I do not want to make any insinuations against the government. I offer this suggestion because I believe it to be a good one.
Mr. MACKENZIE KINjp: I was just going to say to my hon. friend that I do not think there has ever been an occasion that notice has not been given the night before of the estimates to be taken up next day. To-day it so happened that there was an understanding 
last night that one of the items in the Public Works department would be proceeded with. I asked the leader of the opposition this afternoon in the presence of the House, whether there would be any objection to going on with the estimates inasmuch as that notice had not been given. Any member, I think, might have objected at the moment,but the House being consulted in the matter did not object and we proceeded. Let me say that if there is the least objection at the moment to going on with these estimates I will ask to have them discontinued. The government has no desire to press the matter. This particular item was discussed last year, and a sum was voted, and all we are asking the House to-night is to revote the amount that parliament then considered and approved of and that was not used. Let me repeat, if any hon. member of the House does not wish to have a discussion of these estimates at the moment I would ask the minister concerned to move that the committee do rise and report progress.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I should like to make the suggestion to the leader of the Progressive group (Mr. Forke), that if there is a conflict of opinion or statement about this wharf or breakwater he should select one of his members to go up and look at the work at Belle River. In the meantime the item could stand, and before it is again considered he could have a report from the member in question as to the character of the place, and the amount of the traffic or tonnage that enters it.


Albert Frederick Healy: I would be glad to take the hon. member up myself.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I should like to ask the minister if he has any record as to the kind of tonnage that goes in and out of Belle River? How many gasoline launches, and how many steamboats, go in?


Albert Frederick Healy: May I be permitted to make a statement?


John Warwick King: Certainly.


Albert Frederick Healy: The hon. member (Mr. Hocken) chooses to be a little facetious this evening. If he wants to know anything about Belle River I would be very glad, as I said before, to accompany him there, show him the work, and satisfy him that it is absolutely necessary. As to the tonnage, the Northern Navigation Company is identified with the Canada Steamships Company, that runs large freighters from Sarnia up the lakes. They

Supply-Public 11 orks
also run a line of boats from Detroit to Chatham, drawing ten feet. They have offered to carry passengers daily from Detroit to Belle River and establish a park there just as they have done in other places. The tonnage that has been going in and out of Belle River for the past ten years-and that is the period the $27,000 covers-has been sugar beets from that district to Wallaceburg; and up to the time the channel closed up two years ago, gravel has been carried to build a highway in that district. I make the statement without fear of contradiction, that had that channel been open three years ago, on the gravel used for highways in that district, provincial and county highways, they would have saved $1.50 a yard in freight Under the contract between the Dominion government and the provincial government the local municipalities all get a preference rate on the delivery of gravel. The contract is on file. The local points, such as Belle River, Dresden, Chatham and different points along the river taking advantage of this contract of the provincial government with the Dominion government, are able to buy their gravel and have it delivered at a dollar and a half a yard cheaper than it could be done elsewhere. Had the work been done when it should have been done, as far back as 1919 or 1920, the whole cost of $60,000 which is proposed would have been saved in the past four years to the people of that locality, and now it may eventually cost another $30,000 to protect it on both sides. The engineer is satisfied to try it on one side first. That is a definite statement of fact which is absolutely true.
The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Meighen), has seen fit on several occasions to twit me on the size of the majority that was given me in my election. It was only a little over a thousand, I admit, but I want to point out that in the whole history of that constituency there was only one larger majority given, and that was given to the late Minister of Railways; and we did not call it an election, we called it a landslide, because the people of that locality had decided to give the late Minister of Railways the election by acclamation, but at the last moment the hon. leader of the opposition insisted on election and handpicked a candidate. The gentleman was the handpicked candidate of the right hon. leader of the opposition, and he lost his deposit because half the Conservatives resented the tactics
adopted, and voted for the late Minister of Railways. [DOT] The leader of the opposition speaks of reducing the majority from 7,000 to 1,000. Outside of that one election no candidate in the riding of North Essex received as large a majority as the one given me in my election.


Robert Forke: What about the breakwater? That is what we want to hear about.


Albert Frederick Healy: This is the first opportunity that I have had to resent the slurs cast on me by hon. gentlemen. I think I pointed out the need of the breakwater. These people are entitled to have that channel kept open just as much as the people in any other locality in this country are entitled to have a channel kept open. They have had it kept open for twenty years. The most of the money has been spent in the last ten or twelve years. This is a business proposition, to get away from the continual annual waste of money by putting this small entrance-that is all it is-to this harbour in a condition so that the government will not be called upon from year to year to spend from two to five to ten thousand dollars for dredging. It is a straight business proposition. The files will show that it was not initiated by myself. But I came here as a representative of the people, and the first opportunity I had to take a hand in the matter was when the Supplementary Estimates came up, and, as representing that locality, I asked the government to include it in the vote. That is a simple statement of the fact. It is a very small vote, but it is just as necessary for these people as the millions voted for the harbour of Toronto are for the people there, and just as important as the millions being asked for by British Columbia and placed in the vote of this year. It is just as important as the amount asked for by Fort William and Port Arthur. These are larger places, but the smaller community has some rights in this country, and I am going to represent the small community just as much as the great city of Windsor, whenever I believe they have rights, and I am not ashamed to stand up and fight for their rights at any time either at home or here.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Can the minister give me the information I ask for? There is a customs officer there and there should be a record.	[DOT]


John Warwick King: I have not the
customs returns, but we are advised there is a quantity of sugar beets transported from that point. The sand and gravel business

Supply-Public Works
which has been mentioned is of interest to the municipality; in fact the municipality themselves have recommended that this work shall be done. This work would also permit of their bringing in coal, lumber and building material, and would help in the developing of the fishing industry. There was a suggestion that there would be a brick and tile works established there. I do not know whether that is the case or not.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I understand the minister cannot give me the information I ask for.


John Warwick King: I have not the customs return.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: I think it would be interesting to this House if we knew how many gasoline launches or how many boats used those waters.


John Warwick King: We have not the
customs returns in regard to the traffic in and out. I do not suppose it can be very big, because I understand the channel is blocked at the present time. It has been closed for two years. It is like many channels that have been allowed to fill up; and I should say, from what I can learn, that it should be opened up, and that these people should have access to the water to carry on their business.
I would not exclude them by any means because of the fact that they are a small community. Parliament authorized an expenditure of $30,000 last year and a contract has been entered into. It is a revote.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: Do I understand that
there has been no traffic there at all? Why not let the item stand until we get the customs return?-because we ought to have this information.


William Alves Boys: I think we ought to have some description of this place. Has there been dredging done in the past?
Mr, KING (Kootenay):	No.


William Alves Boys: What is the depth of water
at the present time, and how far out from the shore do you have to go to get the necessary depth of water? From what I have heard it appears to me a channel will have to be dug, and there is a bay inside, or something of that kind. I think we should have some proper description of the locality, and let us understand what it is. Is it simply an effort being made to make a harbour, or is there to some extent a natural harbour there which merely requires improvement?
Is this place on the shore of lake St. Clair?


John Warwick King: Yes.


William Alves Boys: From the little I know of that locality, it is very shallow and you would have to go out a very long way to get ten feet of water. Can the minister tell me what number of feet the largest boat ever entering up to date would draw? Would it be anything like ten feet, or would it be three or four feet? If I know anything about it, I imagine you would have to. go out six or seven hundred feet to get five feet of water. If this is an effort to make a harbour at a place where there is not a natural harbour, there is nothing to warrant it. I live on the shores of lake Simcoe and I could name any number of municipalities where they would be only too glad to get an appropriation for a breakwater, where they have a great depth of water. But that is no reason for such construction. If the department would listen to all the municipalities who would like to have something of this nature done, we could smother them with requests. The point is, is this needed? Is there any traffic there? Are there any boats of any size which come in and out, or is it merely a question of some pleasure launches that are used there for amusement? If the minister cannot furnish me with that information, perhaps the hon. member for North Essex (Mr. Healy) would be able to do so.


John Warwick King: We are desirous
of giving all information possible regarding this or any other item. This is an old harbour that has been used for many years. During the war, I think there was not much doing, and the harbour was allowed to silt up. Boats have been using the harbour from time to time, and suggestions have been made that it should be opened up again for the advantage of the people there. I would be glad to get for my hon. friend further information in regard to the customs returns and any other information desired. I would say: Let the item stand for the present until we get that information. There is no hurry.
The next item is Blind river, wharf construction, $10,000. I would move that that be struck out. I am advised that the contract will be completed and the money paid from this year's appropriation. It is not necessary to revote it.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What do we understand
about the item under consideration? We agreed to take the items seriatim.

Supply-Public Works


John Warwick King: It was the desire of the hon. member to have the item stand over.
Item stands.
Blind river-wharf reconstruction, $10,000.


Arthur Meighen: What constituency is
Blind river in?


John Warwick King: Algoma East.


William Alves Boys: Why is this item being struck out? Is it needed?


John Warwick King: The work is undertaken and it will be completed in time to be paid from this year's estimates in which we have an appropriation for it. We will not, therefore, require the revote. I move that the item be struck out.


Horatio Clarence Hocken: It is not a saving at all.
Item dropped.


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I would suggest that we leave this order and go on to some other order.
I know a number of members have been taken by surprise in the matter, and more progress would be made if, after investigation, these matters were taken up.


George Perry Graham: Does my hon. friend want to go to the next order so as to say something on his resolution?


Joseph Tweed Shaw: I am prepared to do so, but
I make the suggestion in connection with the estimates.


George Perry Graham: I want to make it quite clear that every night before the House adjourns-and perhaps hon. gentlemen do not pay close attention to this, because some hon. gentlemen are out of doors before adjournment, and I suppose four per cent read Hansard if their own speeches are not there- the question is asked by the leader of the opposition or by whatever hon. gentleman is leading the opposition, if the leader is not in his place, what is the business for tomorrow? And the government, so far as it possibly can, gives the information that we shall have certain business and then go into Supply, naming the department or departments. To-day was a little different, of course; but I want to make it clear that if hon. members will look at the end of Hansard of the day before all through the session, they will find the very items and departments the government intends to take up.


Robert Forke: That is true with some modifications, because I have seen a number of items come up that were not mentioned the night before. We have jumped from one end
of the estimates to the other on many occasions. I do not blame the government altogether, but we want all the information we can possibly get.


Arthur Meighen: I know the minister will be grateful for the help I am giving him in relation to the Belle River item. I have the trade and navigation returns indicating the value of this port and the importance of expenditures of money on it at this time, of course, aside entirely from electoral necessities. In order that the House may have some comparison, I will read the	returns for	Windsor
which comes right above		
	Windsor	Belle River
Import duties	$3,292,942 39	$1,235 51Excise taxes	1,687,741 48	610 17Excise duties	138,032 13	nilSundry collections	27,653 94	nilTotal revenue.. 	5,146,369 94	1,845 68Entries inwards	29,528 00	97 00That will be customs entries, I presume.	Windsor	Belle RiverEntries outwards	$ 55,129 00	nilRailway reports inwards.. ..	207,792 00	109 00Railway reports outwards..	376,764 00	nilSeagoing vessels arrived.. ..	nil	nilSeagoing vessels, departed. .. Coasting and inland vessels,	nil	nilarrived	
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT] [DOT] Coasting and inland vessels,	441	nildeparted	328	nil


John Warwick King: I do not think that confirms what my hon. friend has said. There has been an implication that Belle River was a flourishing point with a fleet of rum runners and so on. Apparently the customs returns do not show that; and to make a comparison between Belle River and Windsor is absolutely absurd.


Arthur Meighen: What would the minister compare Belle River with?


John Warwick King: I would not compare them.


Arthur Meighen: There is not a vessel inland or seagoing that comes in or goes out. As to rum running vessels, they are "ships that pass in the night." They do not register.
Progress reported.



YUKON QUARTZ MINING BILL

[Stage Direction]
On the Order.
Second reading of Bill No. 8, respecting Quarti Mining in the Yukon Territory.-Mr. Black (Yukon).
Hewitt Bostock: Objection is taken to the fact that the bill is not printed in French, and, of course, I shall have to enforce the rule. I hear no objection.
Divorce


Mr. STEWART (Argenteuil):: If the hon gentleman will allow this bill to stand until Monday, I shall be very glad. I want to get some information in respect to it.


Arthur Meighen: I should not think that there would be any chance of its being reached on Monday. The Speaker's ruling is correct, and if there is any objection taken the hon. member cannot go on. In the case of public bills and orders, if an hon. member loses his chance during the first few weeks of the session it is practically hopeless for him to get an opportunity of proceeding. I hope the House will not insist on the rule.


Charles A. Stewart: If the bill is gone on with it will involve some opposition, and I desire to have an opportunity of looking into it.


John Warwick King: The bill was not handed in until the last moment, and as it has not yet been translated objection was taken yesterday by some hon. members to its being proceeded with. I think it should stand.
Motion stands.



DIVORCE


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 19, the debate on the motion of Mr.' Shaw:
That, in the opinion of this House, legislation should be introduced in order to place the wife on an equality with the husband as regards the grounds upon which divorce may be obtained.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (East Calgary: The resolution is so reasonable that I think the House should pass it without very much more discussion. I was very much surprised the other day to find that a considerable number of hon. gentlemen objected to it on the ground that divorce would be much more easily obtainable if the resolution were passed and legislation were introduced in harmony with it. Those who listened to the argument as advanced by the mover of the resolution (Mr. Shaw) will be convinced, I think, that there is no reason for anxiety in that regard.
All that is asked is simply that women be placed exactly on an equality with men with respect to the granting of divorces. There seems to be no real room for argument against the motion. There is one point I wish to mention. In this regard the province

of Alberta, and I think the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well, are in a position of considerable difficulty; they have not the same rights as the provinces of Quebec amd Ontario. I do hope that the House will pass the resolution without further discussion.
Hon. GEORGE P. GRAHAM (Ministe^ of Railways and Canals): When this matter was last under consideration some fear was expressed that if it were introduced in the form of a bill and put among the public bills and orders it might not be reached. But in order that there might be an opportunity for full discussion I suggested-and I think the suggestion was accepted-that. the resolution be dropped on the assurance of the government that if a bill were introduced it would be reached in due course.
Mr. JOS. T. SHAW (West Calgary): The arrangement which I had with the Minister of Railways was substantially as has just been stated by him. We both contemplated that the resolution would not be reached, and in view of the fact that some suggestion had been made that the matter should be put in the form of a public bill and so introduced,
I then proposed to the minister that if he would give me an assurance that it would receive consideration in that form, despite the fact that it woud be among Public Bills and Orders, I would have no objection to presenting it as a bill. In view of the fact that the minister gives such an assurance I have no objection to withdrawing the resolution. I want it understood, however, that the motion is withdrawn on the understanding that when the bill which I shall introduce comes up for second reading I shall have an opportunity, before the end of the session, of pressing that reading.
Resolution withdrawn.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 9.40 p.m.
Monday, March 24, 1924