1927-03-22

Mr. E. A. PECK (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a resolution-
Mr. SPEAKER; This is not in order; only petitions may be presented in this way.


Edward Armour Peck: This is in the nature of a
petition.


Mr. SPEAKER:: If it is a resolution it
cannot be received.


Edward Armour Peck: I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but several of these resolutions have already been presented to the House, and I would like the opportunity of presenting this resolution.


Hewitt Bostock: When these resolutions
were presented the other day I notified hon. members that they should lie regularly presented in future. However, I think the House would not object if the hon. gentleman tabled his resolution.


Edward Armour Peck: May I be permitted to lay it on the table?


Hewitt Bostock: Yes.



ALLIED INDIAN TRIBES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. HAY (North Perth) presented the first report of the special committee to

C.N.R. Act Amendment
inquite into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia.
Mr. HAY moved:: That the first report of the select standing committee to inquire into the claims of the Allied Indian Tribes of British Columbia be now concurred in.


Hewitt Bostock: Since notice has not been given, this will serve as a notice of motion.



CIVIL SERVICE-SUPERANNUATION

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: Yesterday the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. McQuarrie) asked me a question with regard to an alleged promise made by myself with respect to the Superannuation Act as affecting the civil servants. I have looked up the matter and find that a promise was given. I can assure my hon. friend that it will be carried out this session.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways) moved that the House go into committee to consider the following proposed
amendment:
Resolved, that it is expedient to extend the time for two years for the completion of the joint section of the Canadian National railway branch line from Rosedale southeasterly, in the province of Alberta, authorized by chapter 30 of the statutes of 1924.
Motion agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. GUTHRIE:: Has any work been done on this line as yet?


Mr. DUNNING:: No work has been done. The original arrangement was for the construction of a joint section, dependent of course upon an agreement being reached between both railway companies with regard to * its construction. That agreement has not yet been signed, but I am informed that negotiations .are nearing completion- with respect to the terms of the agreement. If the House would pass the resolution and permit the introduction of the bill it could then be sent to the railway committee with the other branch line bills, where further details could be given if required by any members of the House.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 178, to
amend an act respecting the construction of a Canadian National Railway line being a joint section from Rosedale southeasterly, in the province of Alberta.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first and second time and referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS ACT, 1919, AMENDMENT CONTROL OF STANDARDS OF MAINTENANCE VESTED IN RAILWAY COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 176, to amend the Canadian National Railways Act, 1919.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Application of the Railway Act to Canadian government railways.
Hugh Guthrie: The minister might explain. This particular provision, if I understand it aright, is to place the Canadian government railways on the same plane as the other railways in respect to their employees.


Charles Avery Dunning: Under the present Canadian Government Railways Act control of the standards of maintenance is not vested in the Board of Railway Commissioners but is vested in the minister. With respect to the whde of the rest of the Canadian government railway system, the Board of Railway Commissioners have control over the standards of maintenance. After going into the matter very thoroughly it is thought desirable to give the board jurisdiction over the former government railways as over the rest of the system. That is the whole import of the amendment.


Hugh Guthrie: I suppose there has been no objection on the part -of any of the employees to the proposition?


Charles Avery Dunning: No. The fact is that the employees' organizations have for a number of years been pressing that this be done.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, March 18, consideration in committee of the report
Rules oj the House
[Stage Direction]
of the special committee appointed to revise the rules of the House of Commons- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
The CHAIRMAN:: When the committee
rose on Friday evening we were considering a new rule to be added after rule 21. This will be found at the bottom of page 12. To the proposed new rule the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Bird) had moved an amendment to the following effect:
That the words "the leader of the opposition" in the first and second lines be deleted and the following words substituted therefor: "leaders of opposition groups".
The question is on the amendment.
Amendment (Mr. Bird) negatived.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the new rule be added after rule 21?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Mr. NEILL:: No.


Mr. POULIOT:: There was a su'bamendment which has not been read.


John Frederick Johnston: On Friday evening Mr. Pouliot moved:
That the new rule to be added after rule 21 as amended be replaced by the paragraph:
"No speech delivered in the House of Commons shall be recorded in Hansard."
I do not think this can be accepted as an amendment.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: It has no reference to this rule.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Would it
be proper to suggest as an amendment that the hon. member's speeches be not recorded in Hansard?
New rule 21 agreed to on division: Yeas: 115; Nays: 20.
On amended rule 23-Decorum in the House.


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: Sub-section 2
reads:
When the Speaker is putting a question, no member shall walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.
This does not refer to any member coming into the House, which evidently may be done while the Speaker is putting the question.


Hewitt Bostock: Until the question is fully put by the Speaker, any member may enter the House; until then, he is in time. After the' question has been put by the Speaker no one may come in and claim the right to vote.


Edward Joseph Garland: If that is the case why should it not be permissible for

a member to walk out of the House before the question is fully put? The alternative should be allowable if we are to be perfectly logical.


Ernest Lapointe: We are keeping the old rule in that regard.
Amended rule agreed to.
Amended rules 25, 37, 39, 40, 41, 45, and 64, and repeal of rule 50 agreed to.
On amended rule 65-Duties of Sergeant-at-Arms.


Malcolm McLean: There is a duplication in language, as well as a conflict, as between sub-section 1 and sub-section 3. Subsection 1 reads:
The Sergeant-at-Arms attending this House is responsible for the safe keeping of the mace, furniture and fittings thereof.
This language is ambiguous but I presume that "furniture and fittings thereof" refers to the House. Sub-section 3 then provides that the Seigeant-at-Arms shall be responsible for "the movable property belonging to the House." This is a duplication which may easily be avoided. It should not be difficult to amend the rule.


Hewitt Bostock: I may explain for the
information of the hon. member that the Sergeant-at-Arms officially takes care of the mace. As regards the furniture and fittings of the House, they are tlhe property of the Public Works department and are confided to the charge of the Sergeant-at-Arms for safe keeping. Whenever a member requires a desk or any other article of furniture in his room, he makes application to the Sergeant-at-Arms and the requisition is filled by the Public Works department.


Malcolm McLean: I have no objection to the rule; I am merely pointing out the ambiguity of the language as it stands. In sub-section 1 the wording is not clear and in sub-section 3 there is a duplication of what is already stated in the previous paragraph.


Hewitt Bostock: This was copied from
the rules of the British House of Commons. It specifies the duties of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who is responsible to the Public Works department for the movable property. I do not think that the repetition is necessarily superfluous.


Malcolm McLean: I would take it that the words in the first section of this rule, "furniture and fittings thereof" refer to the mace.


Hewitt Bostock: To the furniture and
fittings of the House, I think.

Rules oj the House


Mr. SPENCE (Parkdale):: Why not change the word "thereof" to "of the House"?


Jean-François Pouliot: Do I understand that the furniture in the members' rooms is entrusted to the care of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and not to the members?


Hewitt Bostock: The Sergeant-at-Arms is
responsible for the safekeeping of the furniture of the chamber and the whole House of Commons. The furniture is ordered upon requisition through the Public Works department, and is supplied by that department.


Mr. MARCIL:: I move to strike out the word "thereof" in the last line of section 1, and to substitute therefor the words "of the House."


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Why not say, "furniture, fittings and movable property of the House"? I think that would meet the objection that has been raised.


Hewitt Bostock: In order not to use the word "House" so many times, I would delete the words in the first line "attending this House."
The CHAIRMAN":	There have been a
number of suggestions made to amend this section. Is it the committee's wish that it should read:
The Sergeant at Arms is responsible for the safe-keeping of the mace, and of the furniture and fittings of the House.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the subsection as I have read it?
Subsection as amended agreed to.
On subsection 2 of amended rule 65- Sergeant-at-Arms.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like some explanation of this. It says:
No stranger who has been committed, by order of the House, to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, shall be released from such custody until he has paid a fee of four dollars to the Sergeant-at-Arms.
What is the sense of that? What happens if he does not pay the four dollars? Has the Sergeant-at-Arms to keep him permanently?


Mr. JACOBS:: Might I suggest that we are building a state tower for the purpose of keeping him there till he pays the four dollars?


Hewitt Bostock: It is an old tradition in England, as old as the bills, that when a stranger is committed to the tower, or as in our case, to the common gaol, he may not be released until he has paid the traditional fee
of four dollars; I suppose in England it would be one pound.


Ernest Lapointe: I think it is cheap.


Hewitt Bostock: I remember we had a case of a man appearing before the bar of the House, Mr. Miller, and refusing to answer. He was committed to the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms and sent to gaol, and he remained there during the remainder of the session.


Samuel William Jacobs: I should like to have Your Honour's view as to what becomes of that four dollars? Does it go to the consolidated revenue fund or into the pocket of the Sergeant-at-Arms ?


Hewitt Bostock: It remains with the
Sergeant-at-Arms, and he deserves it.


Ernest Lapointe: That is why we do not increase his salary.


Samuel William Jacobs: The Speaker says that this rule is as old as the hills, but now that we are changing the rules why not change this one, to make the punishment fit the crime? This reduces the parliament of Canada to the level of a recorder's court. I think the stranger who is committed should pay a substantial fine, or else apologize to the Sergeant-at-Arms. I am not in favour of any four dollar fines in the House of parliament.
Subsection 2 agreed to.
Subsections 3, 4 and 5 agreed to.
Amended rule agreed to.
On amended rule 69.-Withdrawal of members in certain cases.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: It says in the
third line "he shall make a statement." Is a member obliged to make a statement if he does not wish to?


Ernest Lapointe: No. I think it would
be better to say, "he may make a statement and shall then withdraw." I move accordingly, Mr. Chairman.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. BANCROFT:: I would suggest that
you leave out the word "then", seeing that we have already changed "shall" to "may".


Ernest Lapointe: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Rule as amended agreed to.
Rule 75 (Sec. 2) agreed to.
On amended rule 76.-Committees of supply and ways and means.
Mr. COOTE:: Might I ask whether the
committee discussed the matter of referring
Rules of the House

the estimates to a special committee? I remember that two years ago there was a motion introduced into the House asking that the estimates be referred to a select committee, and this resolution was referred to the special committee that was then engaged in revising the rules. I was wondering if this year's committee had discussed that matter at all.


Hewitt Bostock: Personally I am strongly in favour of the reference of the estimates of the various departments to a grand committee, composed of as many members as possible, before which all the experts, engineers, accountants, and other officials whose evidence might be required could be called and examined. When I was sitting on the other side of the House, in 1920 or 1921, I moved a resolution which was discussed for a whole afternoon by this House, and during the debate I referred to the fact that both in Great Britain and in the United States during the war a grand committee had been established for the purpose of sifting to the bottom all the expenditures involved by the participation of those two great countries in the war. It has been proven both in Great Britain and the United States that very large sums of money running up into millions and millions of dollars have been saved by the work of these committees. The committee in Great Britain reports to the House of Commons, which also resolves itself into committee of supply for the consideration of the estimates, but as every detail has previously been threshed out in the grand committee, and perhaps several items condemned, so to speak, the work of the committee of the whole House is very much shortened, in addition to the saving that is made by the careful scrutiny of proposed expenditures in the grand committee. But when I proposed to the committee revising the rules that they might adopt that principle, it was thought that perhaps it was too radical a change and that the House might not be ready to agree to it. I can assure the hon. member from Macleod that the proposal he makes will have my hearty support. Both in the United States and Great Britain during the war they had grand committees to which were referred all heavy expenditures, but it is true that those committees do not exist any more. I remember immediately after the war the United States official, General Dawes now vice-president, enumerated the vast sums of money they had saved to the American republic by that method. But it was thought that here it was too radical a step to take and that perhaps we might wait until

another opportunity presented itself before introducing that new system. If ever adopted we would have before that committee experts, accountants, engineers. Every detail would be explained and the report would be presented to the House. This committee would certainly be in earnest and non-partisan, and if the feeling was against a certain item that item would not be presented to the House.


Mr. ARTHURS:: One point in connection
with the procedure before that committee is that under our present system all debates on ways and means and debates in committee of the whole are reported in Hansard. Under the proposed rules, and under the rules in the United States during the war, or the rule suggested by my hon. friend to my left, there would be no verbatim reports of the proceedings of that committee.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: During the war I
had some experience with the war appropriations. This question was discussed in the House of Commons, and it was decided that these sums would be voted under the title of war appropriations; detailed explanations of every item of the vote were printed and distributed to members of the House. The master was discussed in committee of the whole. I think the suggestion of the Speaker impracticable, because if you are going to submit to a special committee of the House every item of the estimates of every department I do not know when you will end the session.


George Gibson Coote: I think while the rules are
being revised- we should very carefully consider this matter. I think one of the reasons why we are revising the rules is to save time. Surely we could save a great deal of time if the estimates were referred to a committee. I would not suggest that we should have one committee only, but I think the estimates should be sent to four or five select committees of the House. At present we have a special committee to deal with the Canadian National estimates. I think nearly all hon. members will agree that is a great improvement over the old method of dealing with the estimates in committee of the whole House. If we send the estimates of the Canadian National railways to a special committee appointed to consider them, why not send the estimates of the Department of Agriculture to the committee on agriculture, and why not send all the other railway estimates to the special committee dealing with the Canadian National railway estimates? It would be very easy to divide all the other estimates among the different standing committees of

Rules oj the House
the House, allotting the estimates of each department to the committee dealing with that department. The reports of these committees would come before the House and be considered in committee of the whole House, and any hon. member who wanted to say something about them would have a chance. In that way I think we could shorten the session a month. Anybody who will read Hansard for the last four or five years will see that most of the time has been taken up with estimates. Hon. members wish to shorten the session, and I think we could achieve that object by adopting my suggestion more than in any other way. Before this committee which is revising the rules is disbanded, it should be asked to go into that matter and ascertain if we could not adopt that suggestion at the present time, and next session we could have the estimates referred to the select committee.


Edward Joseph Garland: I entirely
support the suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod, and the suggestion of His Honour, the Speaker. I think there is nothing more aggravating or irritating, and nothing causes more delay than the practice of having ministers come into the chamber with a deputy in front of them, endeavouring to make explanations of subjects on which they are not informed and cannot be informed. I am not blaming the ministers. I understand their difficulties. Having to meet every day in council, they have not time to study the estimates or become acquainted with the details in connection with them. They have before them a very brief description of the particular matter that may be under consideration at the moment, and) as to the reason it is necessary, but when we come to the engineering end of it, or the justifiability of it, we have not the information and cannot obtain it because of the method of handling the estimates. It is the most stupid and foolish method of spending the public money, and I think my hon. friend's suggestion one that we might wisely adopt.
I submit that the point brought forward by my hon. friend from Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) was not well taken, because I did not understand the suggestion made by the hon. the Speaker, nor the suggestion made by the hon. member for Mhcleod to be that there should be a printed explanation of the estimates in detail handed to every hon. member. I entirely agree that such a proposition would [DOT]be impracticable and ridiculous. It would involve volumes of printing, but the other suggestion is a practical one. Let us refer the estimates to the several committees, as
we are doing in the case of the Canadian National, or refer them to a special standing committee as suggested by the hon. member for Macleod. It would be a great improvement, and we could go back feeling satisfied with the manner in which we had dealt with this question. I think nobody can go home now feeling that this matter has been dealt with satisfactorily.


Mr. McGIBBON:: I think I will have to
come to the rescue of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: We are not interested any more than other members.


Peter McGibbon: My hon. friends are running the government. I do not see how any self-respecting minister can recommend to this House estimates, previously recommended by the cabinet, and then have them tom to pieces by special committees. The thing is absolutely absurd. I would not remain on the government benches five minutes if some committee of the House, having no responsibility at all, could tell me what I could do or what I could not do. We must have some respect for the minister and he must have some responsibility. It is aibsurd to tell a minister after he has brought down his estimates, and after they have been submitted to the committee, that he cannot spend this money. I do not think you could get any self-respecting government to permit themselves to be placed in that position.


Mr. IRVINE:: I do not think we are discussing this case from the viewpoint of the ministers. I have no doubt that they know all about their departments and what the estimates are for; but we do not. I have observed that the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. MicGibbon) and his associates ask a great many questions in supply-many of them perhaps are not of much consequence. While the estimates are under consideration a good deal of political campaigning takes place, and we ask questions which perhaps should not be answered at all. The time of the House is wasted more in that respect than in connection with any other business. Surely we should now refer this question back to the special committee while we deal with the rest of the rules, so that they may draft a rule that will enable us to handle the estimates more efficiently and save the time of the House. The suggestion of the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Ooote) would certainly have this effect, for if members want information on any items they could secure it before the various committees to which those items had been referred. If we were to adopt the suggestion of the hon. member for

Rules of the House

Muskoka there would be no use in bringing the estimates before the House at all. It is suggested that we let the cabinet deal with the estimates; but if there is to be any inquiry as to the particular items, that inquiry should take place in a small committee. I therefore suggest that His Honour the Speaker place this rule before the committee for amendment.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Irvine: Don't be in such a hurry
to carry things until we know what we are actually carrying.


Ernest Lapointe: May I say to my hon.
friend that this would involve more than a mere change in procedure? It would affect the principle of the discussion of the estimates in the House when every member is present to scrutinize the expenditure of public money. The question was deemed so important by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Kellner) that he has a resolution on the order paper proposing a reference of the estimates to select committees and I think it should be discussed by the House in the usual way.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I think the suggestion of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is a very good one. I would, however, ask him in view of that suggestion if he would assure the hon. member for Athabasca an opportunity for the discussion of his resolution; otherwise the danger is that private member's days may be closed off suddenly and we will find ourselves unable to discuss it. Will the minister give us any assurance so that we may rely upon having such an opportunity?


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is assuming that I have much more authority than I really have. The House is master of its own proceedings.


Edward Joseph Garland: No, I do
not think so. In this case also very often ministerial advice will be accepted, especially when so wisely counselled. I am quite sure the Minister of Justice is too modest,- and I am satisfied that if he consults his colleagues, especially the one to his right (Mr. Elliott) there will be no trouble.


Ernest Lapointe: He is so kind hearted.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sure if he will consult his colleagues there will be no difficulty in securing an opportunity for discussion of my hon. friend's resolution. Otherwise the minister may himself be prolonging debate on this question. Frankly, I [Mr. Irvine.)
am perfectly willing to let it drop if he will grant us a day for discussion of the resolution to which I have referred.


Ernest Lapointe: I will submit my hon.
friend's request to the Prime Minister, but I may tell him that there are many private members asking for the same favour for their resolutions, which makes it rather difficult to give a pledge of this kind.


Edward Joseph Garland: It simply
arose out of the minister's own suggestion.


Ernest Lapointe: I will plead my hon.
friend's case the best I can.


William Irvine: The Minister of Justice
intimated that some principle was involved, but he did not specify it.


Ernest Lapointe: Everyone understood, I
think, even my hon. friend.


William Irvine: I beg the minister's pardon?


Ernest Lapointe: The principle involved
is that of having the expenditure of money scrutinized in the House by all the members.


William Irvine: Surely that principle is safeguarded when all the estimates come back to the House eventually.


David Spence: I do not think
a proposal of this kind would shorten sessions. Imagine, if you can, all the estimates going to the different committees, with your experts in attendance. The result will be that we shall have these committees so busy that they will be asking for permission to sit while the House is in session. We want to be familiar with the estimates of every department, and we would not be under this proposal. For instance, I am a member of the agricultural committee and the private bills committee, and I would know nothing about any other departments. I do not propose to be a member of this House without having some knowledge of what is going on in every department.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: That is right.


George Gibson Coote: I think I had ample justification for raising this question because two years ago I introduced a resolution asking that such a change be made. That resolution received some support, and the House decided to refer it to the special committee then revising the rules. The statement made by the hon. member for Muskoka I consider astounding: that estimates having passed the cabinet -and I am a little surprised that he has so much confidence in that body-


Ernest Lapointe: Why should you be?

Rules oj the House


George Gibson Coote: -they should not be questioned by a select committee of this House. Estimates for the National railways, which surely must receive very careful consideration by the cabinet, are now subject to review by a select committee of this House. What difference in principle is there if we do the same thing with all the estimates? I think it is time that the commoners devoted more attention to a scrutiny of the estimates. Anyone who has Studied English history knows that the House of Commons came into existence simply because the king wanted money. That is all the Commons are required for. I am certain if this government did not need us to vote money they would not call us here at all. I think that is the attitude of governments towards members of parliament. Surely we should give very careful consideration before we vote money. I agree with my friend from Bow River and I challenge any member to say that we give the right kind of consideration to public expenditure under the present procedure. When we try to get information from the deputy minister-who after all, is running the department, we have to get that information through the minister. The deputy sits in front of him but is not allowed to say anything. When a question is asked the minister leans over to the deputy, gets his answer in a whisper, and then repeats it to us. When an embarrassing question is put the minister simply waits until another member asks a question and then answers him, and veiy often it is almost impossible to get the information wanted. Surely it is the part of common sense to 'have the estimates considered by a select committee where the deputy minister and, if necessary, some other man in his department could be put on the witness stand and state what the money was needed for.
Amended rule agreed to.
On rule 79-Double elections.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee recommends that rule 79 be struck out.


Ernest Lapointe: It is no longer necessary.
Rule struck out.
New rule-Private members' notices of motions.


Alan Webster Neill: I notice this rule as amended is substantially different from the same rule as amended last year. The object of this amended rule is to do away with the practice of members loading up the order paper with resolutions during the recess. Then when we
come down here we find perhaps thirty or forty resolutions which have been placed on the order paper during the recess; I think in one case I counted as many as fifteen resolutions in the name of one private member. The object of the farmer committee was to try and get away from that; that object was attained in some measure, but subsection 4 of the proposed amendment of last year has been left out. That subsection provided that if notice of certain resolutions were given during the recess, these should not be placed on the order paper in the order in which they were received but that they should be retained by the clerk and on the opening day of the session the right of precedence should be determined by ballot. According to this new rule, a member may only have one resolution on the order paper at one time, and it is suggested that this will do away with this abuse. That will not be the case, because a member may put down a resolution in his own name and then put the other fourteen resolutions in the names of his friends in the House, which will load up the order paper just the same. We are always in the habit of running to the English parliament for precedents, and I might say that in that House 'the ballot system is followed. I do not know why that was left out of the amended rule, because it seems to me it would cover the whole situation.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: There is another portion 'of this new rule to which I would like to refer. Supposing a private member has a motion on the order paper and it is called on a Wednesday close to six o'clock; he would not be given sufficient time for a proper discussion of his motion. It is not proceeded with; it may be called a second time on another Wednesday shortly before six o clock, and if it is not proceeded with then it goes off the order paper altogether, and to a certain extent advantage might be taken of a procedure of that kind. I think there should be some safeguard for the motions of private members in regard to Wednesdays.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: May I call the
hon. gentleman's attention to the fact that under subsection 1 the motion can be reinstated; that would permit it to be called three times, and it is hardly likely that each time would be late on a Wednesday afternoon.


John Gordon Ross: That is true, but it would go to the bottom of the list.


George Halsey Perley: It goes to the
foot of the list, but it may be restored.
Rides oj the House

Mr. MeLEAN (Melfort):	I would point
out to the bon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) that the new rule says "If the notice of motion thus restored . . . That is, thus restored to the foot of the list.


George Halsey Perley: That is quite
true, but as a matter of fact under this rule the list will never be very long.


John Gordon Ross: There could be
244 motions on it.


George Gibson Coote: I think a notice called or
under discussion at six o'clock on Wednesday should take precedence on the following Monday; the rule should be amended to provide for that, this would be fair to everyone. It has happened on Wednesdays that the whole order paper has been gone through because no member was willing to go on and have his- resolution talked out at six o'clock. I think it would greatly improve the rules if they were changed to allow a resolution under discussion at six o'clock on Wednesday to come up first on Monday.


Samuel William Jacobs: What are you going to do with awkward resolutions about which the government do not want to do anything? The government must be protected in some way.


George Gibson Coote: Such resolutions could be
disposed of in the usual way; someone could move the adjournment of the debate.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like an answer to
my suggestion.


Ernest Lapointe: I was not in the committee when this rule was adopted, but as I said before everything was fully considered and weighed and I really think we should adopt the rules as approved by the committee. As the hon. member for Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) pointed out, there will be fewer motions on the order paper when each member will be limited to one at any one time. The hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) suggests that it would be fair to all members if a motion not disposed of on Wednesday evening should take precedence on Monday, but as my hon. friend knows this House has 245 members, and they each have equal rights. I think this suggestion would rather work for the benefit and advantage of all members, in providing that one member should not take up two days with his motion while others are kept waiting until that motion is disposed of.


George Gibson Coote: It is only in an endeavour
to get equal rights for every member that I suggest this amendment. If one member has his motion discussed all day Monday and another member can only get from five to six o'clock on Wednesday surely that is not fair, and it is with a desire to avoid that particular situation that I suggest that any resolution not disposed of at six o'clock on Wednesday should be first on the order paper on Monday.


Alan Webster Neill: The argument that the matter has been considered by a committee and that we should therefore accept it blind, applies equally to the report received .last year, which provided a very different thing. It seems to me we are perpetuating the very evil we seek to dispose of that of members loading up the order paper either personally or vicariously during the recess. Is it reasonable that a member should be allowed to place a motion on the order paper in August which will not be discussed until March to the prejudice of hon. members coming down here with a resolution with which they desire to proceed? The former committee prevented that by establishing the ballot system, which seems to me to be the fair way.


Mr. MANION:: Is not that prevented by the fact that a member can only have one resolution on the order paper at any one time?


Alan Webster Neill: No, because the member will put on a resolution in his own name and will put on other resolutions in the names of his friends.


Mr. POWER:: I am inclined to agree with
the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Ross) with regard to the situation which will be created if this rule is carried. Undoubtedly if the government do not wish a certain resolution to be proceeded with they can so manoeuvre matters that it will be called twice on a Wednesday. If the resolution is of some public importance and if the member sincerely wishes to have an expression of opinion from the different quarters of the House and the different members of the House, in that way he will be prevented from doing so. He will naturally ask that his resolution stand over until Monday, when several hours may be devoted to it. I remember a year or so ago a resolution was placed on the order paper by Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, in which was embodied the entire policy of the Tory party. That resolution was called three or four times on a Wednesday, and Mr. Meighen very properly

Rules of the House
refused to proceed with it. In several other instances the same thing has occurred. This year I have on the order paper what I consider to be a very important resolution, asking for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission, which is a question in which many members of this House are interested. Some are bitterly opposed to the Civil Service Commission. Others think that the Civil Service Commission is probably the greatest institution which has visited earth since Moses received the ten commandments. I should like to hear this matter discussed, and the constituents of a number of hon. gentlemen would also like to hear their views on this question. On the last two or three Mondays-the last three* I think-I have been unable to proceed owing to the debate on this very important matter of the Georgian bay canal. To-morrow probably, or perhaps on another Wednesday, this resolution may be called.


Mr. HEAPS:: Why do you not take it
up on a Wednesday?


Charles Gavan Power: Because I do not wish to
have the resolution discussed on a Wednesday. I should like to have my hon. friend's opinion on this matter. I should like to have the opinions of hon. gentlemen who sit with him, and particularly, I should like to have, if possible, the opinion of some of the members of the government, but if the resolution is brought up on a Wednesday perhaps they will not give me their views on the question.


Mr BTEVENS:: Is this filibustering?


Charles Gavan Power: This is only by way of
illustrating the injustice which will be committed towards the country and to a member. I think the rule ought to be changed to read, "when a private member's notice of motion shall have been called twice on a Monday." I would therefore move, seconded by Mr. St-Pere:
That the words "on a Monday" be added after the word "twice" in the second line of paragraph 1.
Mr. MoLEAN (Melfort):	Before the
amendment is voted on I should like to ask what is the meaning of "on a Monday," whether it means twice on one single Monday or twice on two successive Mondays.


Mr. RINFRET:: It cannot be called twice on the same day.


Malcolm McLean: I am dealing
with the language as it is. It is proposed that a notice of motion shall be called twice on a Monday. I would suggest to the mover
of the amendment that he might make that matter clear, and consider also mentioning the hour on a Monday. Calling the motion after five minutes to eleven on Monday evening would not help very much.


Mr. STEVENS:: The member will have
to take his chances on that.
Amendment (Mr. Power) negatived.
New rule as to private members' notices of motions agreed to.
New rule as to amendments on motion to leave the chair agreed to.
On amended rule 88-Time limited for receiving petitions for private bills.


George Halsey Perley: I may say for
the information of hon. members that these new rules regarding private business, upon the consideration of which we are about to enter, were prepared by the officers of the House after a great deal of care and attention. From their experience in years gone by they should understand very wdll what changes are necessary in order to expedite the business of the House and make matters move more smoothly.


Hewitt Bostock: All these rules which we are about to consider are of a purely technical character. The task of preparing and amending them was confided to an expert officer of the House, Mr. Todd, who has been in the public service for fifty years. Such little changes as he recommends are changes which he thought should have been brought about long ago. As I have already said, they are purely technical in their nature, and' were taken as read when they were brought back to the committee.
Amended rule 88 agreed to.
On amended rule 89 (1)-Time limited for deposit.


Malcolm McLean: It is provided
here that:
Any person desiring to obtain any private bill shall deposit with the Clerk of the House not later than the first day of each session, a copy of such bill in the English and French languages, with a sum sufficient to pay for translating and printing the same.
For information, Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask into what languages these bills are to be translated?


Ernest Lapointe: The wording should be "English or French language." I move that the word "and" be replaced by the word "or" in the fourth line.
Rules of the House


Malcolm McLean: Will there be
any charge for translating if the bill is deposited in both languages?


Henry Herbert Stevens: An official translator attends to that.


Ernest Lapointe: We have to have an
official translator.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Amended rule 89 (1) as further amended, agreed to.
Amended rule 89 (3) (b); amended rule 89 (new subsection 5 (a) ); amended rule 89 (proposed subsection 9); new rule 90; amended rule 91 (1); rule 91 (a) 3; rule 91 (b) 1; amended rule 91 (b) 2; amended rule 91 (c) 1; amended rule 91 (c) 2 agreed to.
Amended role 91 (d)-recommendation that rule be struck out agreed to.
Rule 91 (e)-recommendation that rule bo struck out agreed to.
New role 92; 92 (2); 92 (3); 92 (4); 92 (5) agreed to.
Amended role 93 agreed to.
Amended rule 94 (1) and (a) agreed to.
Amended rule 94 (b) and rule 95-recommendation that rule be struck out agreed to.
Amended rule 96 (1); amended role 96 (2); amended rule 98; amended rule 100; amended role 101 agreed to.
Rule 102-recommendation that role be struck out agreed to.
Rule 103 agreed to.
Rule 104-recommendation that rule be struck out agreed to.
Amended rules 106, 107, 110, 1111, 113, 116 and 117, agreed to.
On amended rule 118-Parliamentary agents.
Abraham Albert Heaps: This rule provides that no
person shall be allowed to be registered as a parliamentary agent unless he has paid a fee of $25 and is actually employed in promoting or opposing some private bill or petition. As it stands, that language would imply that the payment of $25 makes him a permanent agent. I take it that is not intended.


Hewitt Bostock: During each session.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It does not say so.


Hewitt Bostock: That is the fee in
England and in the United States.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member has raised a point worth considering. Undoubtedly the role as it stands makes the agent permanent on payment of $25.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Make it "per session''.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Perhaps we might say,
"an annual fee, $25."


Mr. OAHAN:: I suggest that the role be
amended to read:
No person shall be allowed to be registered as a parliamentary agent during any session unless he has paid a fee of $25 and is actually employed in promoting or opposing some private bill or petition pending in parliament during that session.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That language
is not quite clear. The words "during the session" should come after $25.


George Halsey Perley: Why not say
"for each session"?


Mr. WARD:: I would suggest the word
"sessional" in the second line-"unless he has paid a sessional fee''.


Mr. MALCOLM:: The fee is paid only
for one session and I think the words "for such session" might be sufficient.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: As a new
member, I should like to know what it is all about anyhow. What is a parliamentary agent and why is it necessary for him to pay $25? What does it all mean? Is he a species of lobbyist?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: No; parliamentary agents
are necessary for the ordinary pfogress of bills.


Mr. SPENCER:: With what officials do
parliamentary agents register?


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the amendment
carry?


William John Ward: What is the amendment?


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker might be
good enough to inform the committee whether any recommendation has been made to have a new issue of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules in their present handy form.


Hewitt Bostock: Naturally the roles will
have to be recast and reprinted. As amended they will come into force next session. In the meantime I presume they will be printed and I dare say the Clerk of the House will have a new edition of his book published. That book, of course, is his own property and not ours, but possibly later on parliament may deem it advisable to .pay for the distribution amongst the members of the

Rules of the House
House of copies of the revised edition. The amendments which have been made, though radical in some respects, do not conflict with the general principles of parliamentary government and May and Bourinot will continue to be quoted in this House. At all events the publication of a new edition of Beau-chesne is a matter that concerns the clerk personally.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The committee, I think,
will agree that the rules as issued a few years ago and as we have them now are printed in the handiest possible form. A number of decisions have been rendered in recent years and this of course will necessitate such changes as may warrant a new edition. I suppose it would be out of order for me to make such a motion, but perhaps I can induce the Minister of Justice to move at the proper time that a new edition of the book be printed.


Hewitt Bostock: Perhaps the hon. member will leave it to the common sense of the Speaker.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If we leave it there we
are safe.


Hewitt Bostock: I gave instructions to the Clerk the last time to have the rules printed, and now it will be necessary to have a new edition printed containing the amendments adopted by the committee. The Speaker can then not do otherwise than recommend to parliament that a certain number of copies be distributed1 among the members. In fact, every year we distribute copies to the new members. There need be no fear about that.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I would like to know what is the purpose in making the man pay a fee of twenty-five dollars.


Hewitt Bostock: Every lawyer has to pay
to the bar of his own district an annual fee. I pay to the bar of Montreal every year a fee to have my name kept on the roll as a practising lawyer. When a lawyer appears before a committee of parliament he is paid a very large fee, an enormous fee in some cases, and these lawyers use our officers, our paper and ink and pens and our offices, and the least they can do is to pay a small fee out of consideration for the personnel of the House of Commons. I may say that in England and the United States counsel who appear before committees to argue cases for private interests are obliged to pay a certain fee to the officers of the House, which goes into the treasury, and we are simply following the practice that is followed elsewhere.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: The only
objection I have to the rule is that it should be one thousand1 dollars instead of twenty-five.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.
Mr. CAlSGRAIN: Do not be too hard on the legal profession.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I quite agree
with the hon. member for Frontenao-Adding-ton. I do not think the practice of a lawyer or a medical doctor paying an annual fee to his society is in the same position as this at all. I do not see why these people are allowed to use our offices and our pens and ink, as stated1 by Mr. Speaker. I think the fee is a great deal too low. I would1 like to see it much higher than twenty-five dollars.


George Halsey Perley: Would you read the rule, Mr. Chairman, as it has been amended?


John Frederick Johnston: Rule 118 will now read:
No person shall be allowed to be registered as a parliamentary agent during any session unless he has paid a fee of twenty-five dollars for such session and is actually employed in promoting or opposing some private bill or petition pending in parliament during that session.
Amended rule agreed to.
Conclusion-Recommendation that amended rules be put into force next session agreed to.
Report, with amendments, reported.
On the motion of Mr. Lapointe for concurrence in the amendments:


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Lahelle):: Before concurrence, as I have not taken part in this debate, I wish to make an observation that might be of some use in the future. If the object of the committee engaged upon the revision of the rules was really to expedite the business of the House, it seems to me that it has failed in one important respect. It has been observed during the debate-I read it in Hansard-that much time is consumed during the former part of the session, not to say the most of it, in discussing various estimates in committee of supply, and then when we come towards the end of the session hundreds of millions of dollars are voted almost en bloc. Comment is made on that at almost every session. It seems to me, with all due respect to the committee, that a much more important reform than many of these that have been adopted would have been to study and, if possible, recommend one feature in which I think the French parliament has improved on the English practice, and that is of constituting a
Rules oj the House


John Gordon Ross: The rules
have been framed in an endeavour to expedite the business of the House and to shorten the length of the session. When the report of the special committee was brought in the other day the discussion was started before many hon. members knew what was coming down that day, and very few were here to discuss the first few rules.
The seoond rule, providing for closing of the House at eleven o'clock at night, in my opinion will lengthen the sittings of the House a great deal, and I do not think we should have an ironbound rule with regard to adjourning at eleven o'clock at night, because if that rule were in force the debate could be kept going for an endless time. I think the House expressed an opinion on it, and we should endeavour to close at eleven o'clock at night. But when we pass an ironbound rule to close at eleven o'clock at night in my opinion it will greatly lengthen the session of parliament and I think it should be carefully considered before we finally adopt it.


Alan Webster Neill: It was my intention to move an amendment at this stage. But in view of the vote taken about an hour ago, and the decision of the House in favour of this rule,
I will not waste time in forcing another vote, but I want to go on record once more as entirely opposed to the changes made by which the speeches of private members will be limited to forty minutes on all occasions. One hon. member opposite said that the British House of Commons was originally instituted to vote supply. Yes, but there was a condjition attached to it. Before they voted supplies they made the king listen to the grievances of the common people, and it is the inalienable right of the common people to present their grievances in the House of Commons, but the House has dealt a blow against that principle to-day. While the amendment was carried a little while ago I think that the greater tribunal, the people of Canada will justify us who opposed it in the position we took. I think the most precious political rights the British subject can possess are, first of all, the right to vote, and second, the right of untrammelled free speech, and I believe the House has struck a blow at that right to-day.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The rule limiting speeches
to forty minutes has been agreed to, and I desire to know if, under this rule, a member is to be allowed for the time taken up by interruptions.


Hewitt Bostock: I may be allowed, not
to take part in the debate, but to explain. Whenever closure is invoked the time taken up by any interruptions of a member is credited to his twenty minutes. It is an unwritten rule in congress, for instance, where similar restrictions are in force, to allow a congressman extra time for interruptions.


Ernest Lapointe: That the report of the committee of the whole on the rules of the House be now adopted.



I43S COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
George Halsey Perley: I second the
motion, Mr. Speaker.


Hewitt Bostock: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: On division.


Hewitt Bostock: Carried on division.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-chargeable to income-Prince Edward Island, $189,600.
John Frederick Johnston: Is it the desire of the committee that this vote should be taken item by item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
Charlottetown-reconstruction of railway wharf, $75,000.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: What is this $75,000 for?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: This is a revote of $75,000, to provide for the reconstruction of the railway wharf at Charlottetown.


Hugh Guthrie: There is nothing in the
estimates to show that this is a revote. When was the item voted before?


John Campbell Elliott: Last session, I understand, but it does not appear in the main estimates. Possibly it will be found in the supplement-aries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $10,000.
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to provide anything this year for accommodation at Georgetown or Souris. The question of accommodation at Georgetown has been before the government for a couple of years at least, and it was generally expected that something would certainly be done this year. I brought it up in the House last session, and the then Minister of Public Works stated that the government, having considered the matter, intended to proceed, but that owing to the railway east of Charlottetown being narrow gauge, it was no use constructing a warehouse until the gauge was standardized. This was done last September, and the people of the province have been hoping that this very much needed accommodation would be provided, It is not a local matter affecting merely George-

town or even Kings county, it is a matter for the province as a whole. For at least a month after the harbours of Charlottetown and Summerside are closed in December Georgetown and Souris are open. The growing of seed potatoes is now a very important industry in Prince Edward Island, and their transportation has become an acute problem. As is well known, the car ferry during the past year was taxed to its utmost capacity, and was unable to transport all the produce grown in the province. Although it worked day and night during November last it was unable to carry all the traffic offered. There will be great disappointment if something is not done this year to provide the necessary accommodation, by reason of the fact that a large portion of the seed potatoes is sold in the southern part of the United States, and it is very important that this traffic should be moved by water. In certain parts of the south they will purchase these seed potatoes only about the middle of January when their planting season commences. Transportation by rail is very expensive; it is also risky on account of frost at that time of year, and they will not ship till late in the season because they have no storage facilities there and do not want to hold potatoes for a month or six weeks. Therefore they want transportation by water at the latest possible date. Last year the latest date on which navigation was open at Charlottetown and Summerside was during the first few days of December, while a steamer loaded a cargo of produce in the harbour of Georgetown on January 11. Navigation could have been continued for many days later had any business been offered or had there been accommodation.


John Campbell Elliott: I might ask my friend
a question which he can answer in the course of his remarks. I have received representations with regard to both Souris and Georgetown, and as to the relative amounts of potatoes shipped from both places. There is no doubt that there is quite an extensive traffic in potatoes, which I understand to be largely seed potatoes shipped to the United States from both these places. Would my friend feel disposed, in case the government should not feel able to grant both requests, to state which is the larger? The figures differ somewhat.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I would say to the minister that the local traffic is not considered in the matter as of any consequence, although of course it is important to the people of these different localities. I am not speaking for the county of Kings or for

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the towns of Georgetown or Souris; I am speaking for the province of Prince Edward Island. Queens county is just as much interested as Kings county, because the main features apply equally to both. The harbour of Souris cannot be used as a shipping point during the month of December because it has no storage facilities, and the people in the vicinity of Georgetown cannot use that point either; if either Georgetown or Souris were equipped with the necessary accommodation the whole province would be able to make use of that accommodation. The farmers would then be able to get their produce to the southern states at the time the consumers want it, and the farmers would realize a great deal more than would otherwise be the case. I was proceeding to give the reasons for that statement. If the potatoes are transported by water they can be delivered in the southern United States at a price which will cover both freight and duty if shipped by rail, and when you realize that the duty is thirty cents per hundred pounds and that you can save at least that amount if not more by water transportation, it will be seen that this is a very important item.
I would not like to say to the minister that he should select one point or the other, because either port will serve the great bulk of the province. I think the government officials and engineers should decide on the point where this warehouse should be placed. A meeting of the potato growers was held at Souris about two weeks ago, at which strong representations were made from the local standpoint that this warehouse should be placed at Souris, while I understand that up ' to that time all negotiations by the department were made with the view to having this warehouse at Georgetown. I understand the department has prepared plans for that warehouse, and it was generally accepted in the province that these facilities would be constructed at that point. Beyond that I have not anything to say in the matter; it is entirely up to the government and its officials to decide the proper point at which to place this warehouse. As a matter of fact, if we had nerve enough to ask for it, accommodation should be placed at both these points, but we realize that we must be reasonable and must be satisfied if the Department of Public Works will grant us one warehouse at this time.
There are many reasons which could be given for accommodation at these points other than the local needs of these places. There are a number of places in the eastern and northern parts of the province which have no
railway accommodation whatever but have water accommodation, such as Murray Harbour North, Lower Montague, Gaspereaux, Newport, Bridgetown, Fortune and some points on the north side as far around as New London in Queen's county. These and other points would be served by accommodation at either Souris or Georgetown, because these people would be able at any season of the year to assemble their produce at Georgetown or Souris by means of small schooners, large motor boats or other means of water transportation, without fear of frost. This is a most important matter; while I do not like to take up too much time of the House I would iike to go further into it, but I hardly think it necessary. I think probably the minister has all the information required, and if there is anything further he would like to ask I would be gladl to tell him.
Before closing I would like to say that when this matter was brought up last year the minister practically told us the warehouse would be built after the railway was standardized. The Prime Minister was at Georgetown last year; at that time this matter was put up to him very strongly, and the people at the meeting understood his statement to be a practical promise that a warehouse would be built at Georgetown. I think I am justified in saying that-and I am not speaking politically at all but rather in the interests of the industry in Prince Edward Island because The Patriot newspaper, which is the Liberal prgan in that province, reported Mr. Mackenzie King as follows:
Mr. King spoke of his landing at Georgetown and of the discussion in parliament as to the need of improved facilities at that port.
He was interested in seeing the large warehouse on the railway wharf which had been referred to. He did not wish to be charged with making promises to influence the electors, but as a result of representations made to him, the Liberal government had taken steps to have this shed made frost-proof. The then Minister of Public Works, Hon. Dr. King, had declared that as soon as the standardization of the railway east was completed the work of making the warehouse frost-proof would be undertaken.
"I believe that this would be a right and proper step, and should be undertaken as soon as possible," declared Hon. Mr. King, amid loud applause.
The people of that section of the country took that statement as a definite promise, in conjunction with the statement made by the then Minister of Public Works, that this work would be proceeded with without delay and that the accommodation which is so milch needed would be granted. There is great disappointment in that province to-day because of the fact that no sum has been placed in

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the estimates this year to provide for this work.
It must also be remembered that even during the open season, the harbour of Charlottetown was taxed last year to its utmost capacity, and as a result about 800,000 bushels of potatoes were shipped from that port. About 200,000 bushels passed through the port of Summerside, and an additional 200,000 bushels were handled by schooners and other sailing craft. The car ferry, during the shipping months, handled 2,271 carloads; as I said before, during the month of November the car ferry worked day and night and was taxed to its utmost capacity, handling about 1,165 car loads. These figures are taken from the records of the railway officials. I am satisfied that about the utmost that could be handled, with the rail and water facilities available, was handled last fall. Unless some further accommodation is given so that larger shipments can be made, there is a prospect that we shall be seriously handicapped in the matter of shipping facilities next fall.


John Campbell Elliott: I may say to my hon. friend that representations have been made by at least two delegations on behalf of Georgetown, and one or more on behalf of Souris. They have pointed out that the potato industry in Prince Edward island has doubled in production in the last three or four years, and the exports have more than trebled. There is a great difference of opinion [DOT] between the representatives of these two places as to. which port is best entitled to consideration. I do not think that either of them quite" expected that much could be done for both. However, a survey of the Souris district is now being made, and I shall be very glad to go into the matter further as soon as that report is received.


Mr. JENKINS:: I should like to say for the information of the House that potato growing in Prince Edward island is going ahead at a very rapid rate. The votes included in the estimates we are considering were inserted there for the purpose of making provision for the expansion of this particular industry. In order to show hon. gentlemen just how important the matter is, I shall quote from the issue, dated February 19, last, of the Commercial Intelligence Journal, gotten out by the Department of Trade and Commerce, wherein appears an article by Trade Commissioner Frederick Hudd on Canada's trade with the United States. In the course of this article the Commissioner says:
Undoubtedly a considerable portion of the total exports of potatoes from Canada to the

United States were reexported to other markets, although detailed statistics on this point are not available. It is evident, however, that the reputation of the Canadian potato, as well as its superior quality and size, are finding for it a constantly expanding market, not only in the United States but in foreign countries through United States agencies. Improved methods of cleaning, grading, and packing Canadian potatoes have greatly assisted their marketing in competition with potatoes from the New England states. Under present conditions the heavy movement of potatoes from maritime province points in the months of November and April results in a congestion necessitating the placing of an embargo on potato shipments at such points as Boston and New York. This congestion at two periods results in a lower price for the producer. After having obtained a first hand knowledge of the potato situation, par-icularly in Prince Edward island, the writer is of the opinion that it would be of considerable advantage if there were more frost proof warehouse facilities on railway tracks at Canadian shipping points. Potatoes could then be stored and shipments spread over a period, thereby eliminating the risk of loss due to lack of frost proof storage for potatoes 'which it is impossible to ship when the movement is at peak.
There was included in the estimates of last year the sum of $75,000 for the desired work at Charlottetown, but it was not available in time. The railway authorities therefore, agreed that they would underbake the work with the understanding that they would be reimbursed later on by the Public Works department. To show you what effect this work has had in connection with the industry I beg to put on Hansard a letter written to me on December 7, 1926 by the secretary of the Prince Ediward Island Potato Growers' Association. That letter is as follows:
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
I feel that as an association we should express to you our appreciation of your efforts in securing for us at Charlottetown a better warehouse for the handling of our potatoes.
This season we had in storage during cold weather potatoes in value from seventy-five to one hundred thousand dollars. This was due to the late arrival of steamers over which we have no control, and you can readily understand how great would have been our loss in the old shed. While that is the most important advantage, yet loading as we did such large cargoes we could never have been able to accomplish the moving of upwards of seven hundred thousand bushels in practically six weeks with the old facilities.
We wish to assure you the expenditure has been a benefit to the whole province, and we feel you were of great assistance in bringing the government to see the need for the changes made.
Yours very truly,
J. W. Boultek,
Secretary,
P.E.I. Potato Growers Association.
I may say, Sir, that I happened to be a member of the House last year and we were

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
very ably assisted not only by the members from Prince Edward Island, but also by the Hon. John Sinclair, although not at that time a member of the House, who helped us in every way possible.
I am very much pleased to support the recommendations made by the member for Kings (Mr. Macdonald). It is quite true, as he has stated, that the harbours of Souris and Georgetown remain open quite a while longer than either those of Charlottetown or Summerside, and it is therefore essential that we should have later shipments from ports such as these. I shall be pleased to support anything that will give us better shipping facilities for the island at large. As the member for Kings has stated, it is really a provincial and not a county matter. There seems to be, unfortunately, a little difficulty as to what port should be selected for improvement. I would suggest, however, just as he has suggested, that a representative of the department should be sent down to the island to go over the different ports and recommend to the department the proper steps which ought to be taken. I shall be pleased indeed to support whatever recommendation is made by the officer sent down for that purpose. The wonderful work going on in the province is really marvelous to those who are not acquainted with the situation, and any assistance that will help to place the products of Prince Edward island on the outside markets in good condition is something which merits the utmost consideration of the government.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Queens):: I will delay
the committee only a few moments in a brief expression of opinion with respect to the very important matter now under consideration. I want to say that I agree with the representations that have been made by the member for Kings, and by the member for Queens (Mr. Jenkins) in regard to the necessity of making further provision to aid in the transportation of potatoes from Prince Edward island at a later period in the season. Perhaps, Sir, the two main reasons may be summed up in this way: at present our season for shipping potatoes, after the close of the harvesting period, is forty days. Now, if we can extend that by a month we shall be conferring a great benefit upon the growers of potatoes in the province. Further than that we shall enjoy the advantage of a much larger market in the southern states by shipping potatoes to those people when they require them, which is in the month of January. We can do that if facilities are provided in the eastern or winter ports. With that end in view I say to the minister that
it is necessary that one harbour at least in the eastern end of Prince Edward Island be equipped for winter shipments so as to take care of exportations of seed potatoes to the southern states at the season of the year when such shipments are most advantageous.
I may say further that I agree with the minister that if representations have been made to have developments carried out at two ports he could not do otherwise than have a proper survey undertaken and act on the advice of his representative on the ground.
I think further, as an agriculturist representing an agricultural constituency, that it would be wise for the Minister of Agriculture to have an expert from his department look into the situation also with a view to having the best possible transportation facilities provided for the exportation of potatoes, particularly from the point of view of making shipments in the winter season possible by water.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I am not
quite clear as to the minister's explanation; in fact he has not given any explanation as to why a sum of money was not put in the estimates this year for this purpose. It has been before the government, it has been in the hands of the Department of Public Works for at least two or three years. Last year, according to Hansard, the answer I received from the then Minister of Public Works (Mr. King, Kootenay), was as follows:
I am familiar with the situation at Georgetown. The government have reconditioned and renewed a very good wharf at that point, and have improved the shed accommodation. It is true that we have not made that shed frost proof, as I think it should be, for the accommodation of the farmers in the handling of their potatoes, but I would point out that at the present time the railway is on the narrow gauge. We understand that the railway is changing to the broad gauge, and once that is accomplished I think we will be justified in spending some money on a potato warehouse at Georgetown.
I do not want to be critical at all but, in view of the facts as set out, in view of the promise virtually given by the minister in the House last year, and the Prime Minister's virtual promise at Georgetown, I do not quite understand why something was not included in the estimates this year for either one of these ports. The minister will agree with me, I think, that it is only within the last few weeks, since the estimates were prepared and printed, that any representations were made to him with regard to Souris. I understand that the first step taken was a meeting held at Souris about two weeks ago, not over three weeks at any rate, and after that a delegation came to interview the minister, resolutions having been forwarded to

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
him as adopted at that meeting. Surely the department having had the matter under consideration for at least two years, would have been prepared, if they intended doing so, to put an item in the estimates this year to implement the promises made by the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister. I should like to have the minister's candid explanation as to why this was not done in view of these promises, or at any rate of what we regard in that light.


John Campbell Elliott: The representations on
behalf of Georgetown, made shortly prior to the preparation of the estimates, asked, as I recollect, for a frost proof potato warehouse much larger than called for in the first estimate, and it was necessary to have a resurvey made before any decision could be arrived at. The warehouse which had been discussed before was stated by the representatives from Georgetown to be totally inadequate to the present needs of that port, and consequently a further survey was made. That survey was not completed nor reported upon when the estimates were in preparation, and in the meantime Souris represented that the production there was four times as large as the production at Georgetown. That matter is now being inquired into.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It is not at all a question of production at either Souris or Georgetown ; that is only a minor detail in connection with the scheme. Does the minister intend to put anything in the supplementary estimates this year for this work at either of these places?


John Campbell Elliott: That will depend; upon
t'he reports received. I am not in a position to answer that question.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Am I to
assume that it is not the intention of the government to do anything this year in regard to this matter?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend should not assume that. I want him to understand clearly that I cannot give an undertaking to include any amount in the estimates for either Souris or Georgetown or any other place.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Summerside-wharf repairs and improve-mets, $63,000.
_ Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):	The minister might explain what this vote is intended for. What construction is contemplated?
John Campbell Elliott: The proposed work will
consist of:
(1)	Rebuilding outer end and outer west side of wharf to original width of 100 feet on a length of 350 feet.
(2)	Construction of two warehouses each 230 feet long, 26 feet wide.
(3)	Provision for two lines of railway track between the sheds above referred to.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I was not
objecting; I just wanted the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
West Point-wharf repairs, $6,800.
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Before this
resolution is reported I have just one remark to make. We have in this total vote $189,600 for the province of Prince Edward Island, and it will be found on analysis that almost every dollar of that money, with the exception of a small item for Naufrage, is to be spent in Queens and Prince counties. There is just $1,000 for Kings county. The department is fully aware, from information submitted by its district engineer, how urgent the needs of Kings county are, and it is surprising to find that of this large sum of money practically every cent is to go to Queens and Prince counties and only $1,000 to Kings county. Naturally I feel, as the people of Kings county feel, that we should not be shut out altogether even though by a small majority they voted me here instead of returning a supporter of the government.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is overlooking the fact that these items are made up largely of work in Charlottetown amounting to $75,000 and the vote for Summerside of $63,000, which are the recommendations of the Duncan report.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: But apart
from that there is $50,000 for the other counties and1 nothing for Kings.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers

New Brunswick, $154.100.
Mr. MacLAREN:: On looking over this
list of places provided for in New Brunswick I fail to see the name of Lomeville. It has been brought to the attention of the department on several occasions by my colleague and myself. Lomeville is an important and thriving fishing village. The catch of fish is quite considerable and valuable, including a large catch of salmon. In the harbour of Lomeville there is a pier which is more useful as a breakwater than for the ordinary purposes of a wharf. Last year the department

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
made some repairs to this structure, but it did not and does not meet the great requirement of the pier as a breakwater. The water is shallow in the harbour and the fishermen are not able to use the pier as a breakwater in rough weather. There is therefore need of some dredging; not a great deal is required but a fair amount will have to be done. If the minister would look into the matter he would be satisfied that some dredging at that point would be a very justifiable expenditure. It would enable the fishermen to bring their boats in for safety in rough weather. I do not know whether the minister has considered this matter or had it brought to his attention; perhaps not; I think he only came into office since last year. But I would ask him, and I have no doubt my colleague will do the same thing, that some work be done at this point. It is an important centre, a thriving, active port composed of fishermen making a valuable catch of fish of all kinds, and it is about twenty miles from St. John. These fishermen cannot carry on with safety because there is no shelter in time of storm.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to consider the representations my hon. friend has made.
I am advised that certain repairs were made last year at this place, but they were of a temporary character, I believe, and did not extend to the dredging. However, the matter will be looked into, and if it is not very extensive there is a possibility that it might be taken care of under the general vote for harbours and rivers.


Mr. GARDINER:: What amount was spent in this province last year in comparison with the amount asked for?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will realize that last year was an unusual year, because we were allowed to proceed only with matters that could be gone ahead with under governor general's warrants. The total expenditure last year was around $200,400. The total asked for this year is $154,100.


Robert Gardiner: Last year's estimate was $292,925.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and $92,525 of that amount was not expended.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers-Quebec-Cap de la Madeleine-wharf extension, $75,000.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister explain this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: The proposed work consists of a close face cribwork extension to the downstream end of the headblock, 200 feet
long by 90 feet wide; stone filled cribwork to be around the outside, and the centre filled with earth and stone, and the whole covered with a bituminous macadam flooring.


Robert Gardiner: Is this the total estimate for the completion of the work?


John Campbell Elliott: No. The total estimated cost was $132,800. We have received tenders varying from $110,000 to $174,000.


Robert Gardiner: Are the tenders let?


John Campbell Elliott: No contract has been let yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St-Louis river-dredging, $46,200.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The proposed work estimated at $46,200 is towards dredging a section of the St. Louis river, 3.35 miles long to a depth of 6i feet and a width of 40 feet, to complete the scheme of improvements commenced in 1905 and running over a period of years up to 1916. This work wild be done by an excavator on caterpillar wheels which will have to be purchased or built, as well as a scow 25 feet by 40 feet.


Robert Gardiner: Is this to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: It will complete the work in that particular section, but this is only part of the general scheme.
Item agreed. to.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $46,100.


Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The details are as follows:
(1)	Reconstruction in concrete of remaining 311.4 feet of high level
wharf along the Richelieu river.. $18,000
(2)	Repairs to breakwater	 2,000
(3)	Reconstruction, Pontbriand wharf, the new structure to consist of a closeface crib structure built on piles,
250 feet long and 14 feet wide, with a 27 feet return wing at each end and concrete anchor blocks 4 feet by 4 feet by 5 feet placed at every
25 feet	 23,000
(4)	To build a reinforced concrete roadway 511 feet long by 20 feet wide connecting the end of Roy street to the high level wharf; and a concrete sidewalk 4 feet wide by approximately 390 feet long around the end
of	the high level wharf	 6,100
Total	$49,100
Less	work authorized 1926-1927.. ..	3,000
Balance for 1927-1928	$46,100


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Valleyfield-dredging, $50,000.
Robert Gardiner: Last year we passed an item of $31,000 for dredging at this point. Was all that money expended, and will the amount asked for here complete this dredging project?


John Campbell Elliott: No. The $31,000 appears as a revote, and we are asking for an additional $19,000 to complete the work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.	.
Harbours and rivers-Ontario, $1,021,150.
Mr. KAISER:: I would like to ask the
minister whether there is under contemplation any expenditure in supplementaries for the harbour at the city of Oshawa.


John Campbell Elliott: Representations have been made by various representatives from that district, including my hon. friend, if I remember correctly, and the matter is under consideration.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: I am very glad to hear the minister is contemplating taking action, but in fairness to the district I represent I would like to make a statement. It surely must appear to everyone that there is something absurd in the harbour situation at Okhawa. Here we have a city which contributes a larger revenue to this government than any other place in the Dominion with the exception of five. Only five ports in Canadh. send more revenue to Ottawa than the city of Oshawa. It must strike hon. members as a marvelous thing that a city of our size should send to Ottawa $30,000 every day from customs receipts. We have never asked very much from the Dominion of Canada; we have not made many requests, but twenty-six years ago a Liberal government undertook to build a harbour at Oshawa. By virtue. of that promise what harbour we had was destroyed1, and after twenty-six years the condition remains the same. There is no politics in this matter; both Liberal and Conservative governments decided years ago that we should have our harbour works completed in that town. The last few years the government voted reasonable supplies and carried on some work which up to to-day has cost $132,000. It will take $112,000 to finish the work. I have recently inspected the works and have taken friends to see it during wintertime, and I say that unless the government completes the work, all that has already been done will be destroyed. It is a necessary work. Our city needs it. There are at the present time men who are quite ready to build coal sheds and do other Work which will assist us in our progress and in our undertakings. The harbour is more than half completed1, but it has taken twenty-

six years to get to this stage. Surely we are not doing anything out of the way in presenting our case to parliament. All we ask is that the work that has been undertaken be finished. It is a small demand in comparison to what we contribute to the revenue of the country. I am glad to hear that the government has the matter under consideration and I hope they will complete it. It will be a benefit to the town, and will more than pay the government of Canada if they complete it. Men in Oshawa have 'built stores and warehouses at Montreal and are prepared1 to ship their goods, but they ,have been standing there several years waiting for the harbour to be completed. I plead with the government to consider this matter and put something in the supplementary estimates of a substantial nature to finish the work which has been dragging along for twenty-six years.


Peter McGibbon: I do not expect the minister to carry everything in his head, but in the supplementary estimates last year there was a vote of, I think, $5,000 for repairs for navigation purposes at what we call the Narrows in Muskoka lakes. It does not appear in the main estimates this year; will it appear in the supplementaries?


John Campbell Elliott: Nobody knows what will
be in the supplementaries until council considers them. Sometimes the minister is disappointed when he asks for certain estimates, but this matter will receive consideration.


Peter McGibbon: Will the minister give " favourable consideration," as Sir Oliver Mowat used to say?


John Campbell Elliott: It will receive grave consideration.


Robert Gardiner: I have been looking
through the estimates for Ontario and I could not realize what was the matter. There seemed to be something missing. What is the matter with Belle river now? Is that completed, or why is it there is no amount in the estimates for Belle river?


John Campbell Elliott: There is very extensive
work at Belle river. It has been completed as far as the government intend to go at the present time.


Robert Gardiner: Does it complete one
pier on one side and one pier on the other side?


John Campbell Elliott: One pier on one side.


Robert Gardiner: Does it accomplish
anything for the purpose required?


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, yes. This government never does anything that does not accomplish something.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Robert Gardiner: With regard to the
grant for a wharf at Ottawa, is it a new project, and where is it?


John Campbell Elliott: That is to take the place
of the wharf at the basin on the Rideau canal.


Robert Gardiner: Where is it-on the
Rideau?


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is on the canal.
Conferences are taking place with the railway department and negotiations are under way to decide upon the exact location.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any use for a
wharf at that point on the canal?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
on the canal basin they do $7,000,000 worth of business a year, and it is very necessary. We are taking the present structure away, and some substitute must be provided for it.


Robert Gardiner: There is only one other vote in this item that I want information about, and that is with regard to the dredging at Toronto. I understood the waterfront was under the harbour commission. Is that under the harbour commission or outside of the commission?


John Campbell Elliott: This is not the waterfront; it is the eastern end, and there has to be additional dredging there every year; there seems to be an annual filling in.
Item agreet" to.
Harbours ant* livers-Manitoba-$22,400.


Robert Gardiner: Last year in the
supplementaries an item was included for the purpose of providing against flood conditions in the southern part of Manitoba because of certain works -that had been constructed to the south of the line. Is that project to be undertaken?


John Campbell Elliott: I believe my hon. friend
is referring to the Roseau river, which is an international stream. I think the control of the water has been referred to the International Joint Commission. The matter is receiving consideration and if we decide to proceed the necessary vote will appear in the supplementaries.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan and Alberta-Fort Resolution -wharf, $18,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $10,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Whereabouts are the
harbours in Alberta?


John Campbell Elliott: They are in the northern part of Alberta, being the points along the river where there is water transportation.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The vote has nothing to do with measuring the current of the river?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: How much was spent
under this vote last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Only $3,195.


Robert Gardiner: Out of the $15,000?


John Campbell Elliott: Out of the $10,000.


Malcolm McLean: Is not Fort
Resolution in the Northwest Territories? I think it should be separated from this vote.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is in the Mackenzie district.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the House took recess.
After Recess
The House resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 67, respecting The Quebec, Montreal and Southern Railway Company.-Mr. Dubuc.

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 21, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chevrier for the second reading of Bill No. 78, respecting the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company, and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Guthrie.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (West Calgary):: Mr. Speaker, probably 1 would not have taken up very much time in respect to this matter had it not been for the rather uncalled-for attacks which were made yesterday by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) and the general terms of insinuation which characterized the major part of his observations. For the benefit of this House I desire to state at once that while I think the personal business of members of parliament should be sacred from the prying eyes of the public, nevertheless when they are dragged into the House of Commons it becomes essential that some observations should be -made by those who are directly affected.



Georgian Bay Canal Company
For a period of upwards of fifteen years I have been associated with the enterprise known as The E. B. Eddy Company, Limited, which company many years ago purchased a limit on the Gatineau river together with the late Senator Edwards; subsequently, after his interest had been sold, the company acquired the whole limit. The other license holder on the river is the Canadian International Paper Company, and in consequence of the develop. ment they are carrying on I found it necessary to speak to the president of that enterprise as to what the effect of their operations might be upon the business of the company with which I was associated. He at once assured me that he had no desire prejudicially to affect those interests, and later suggested that I might join the board of his company. This I did, in common with many others, one at least being the leader of the government in the Senate, and thus I found myself for the first time associated with such a considerable number of distinguished Liberals. You can readily understand what a splendid effect this association has had upon me, and how much it has induced me to believe that the liberality of their views is not confined1 to their politics.
Might I venture further, and assert that I think no very good purpose was served in this House by the attacks made by the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) upon the good faith, the honesty and integrity of either newspapers, newspaper men or men of business carrying on their operations in this Ottawa valley. One hearing that speech or reading it afterwards could not but be struck with the rather violent attacks made against the president, for instance, of the Canadian International Paper Company. There is no young man of my acquaintance in the United States, Mr. Speaker, who has made his way by perseverance, by very great ability and the exercise of his great talents as has Mr. Graustein. He has been honoured in the country in which he lives, and his enterprises have received the slamp of approval of Hon. Mr. Taschereau, Premier of Quebec. Therefore I think it ill becomes any Liberal member of this House of Commons thus to attack him where he has no opportunity to make his defence. So far as his business operations are concerned, they have all been carried out under the law. If one for a moment remembers that after all the observations made by the hon. gentleman have nothing whatever to do with the bill under discussion, one finds it even more difficult to explain them, but when one recalls the genial qualities of heart and mind which characterize the hon. member for Ottawa, one is after all inclined to excuse and forgive him
IMr. Bennett.]
and to remember that the principals whom he represents are capable of nothing better.
After all, there is something rather amusing in it all, when one recalls that at the moment it is openly disclosed that the interests promoting this bill are those interests which a few months ago stood on the platform in Newmarket and decried with all the strength and vigour possible the plutocracy of Montreal; when one recalls the evils of St. James Street as then pictured and the wrongs they have done to this country, one cannot but be amused at the observations made by the hon. gentleman with respect to other people in this country. Then one reflects upon how really embarrassing it must be to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) who, after the toil and effort of a general election, a long Imperial conference and a session of parliament, journeys to Atlantic City there to seek solace and to recuperate his worn and weary frame. One sympathizes with him in all the toil which attaches to the great office which he holds. I see him there on the board walk; there is his faithful senator, the unofficial minister of collections and elections, clothed in all the pomp and panoply of war, wearing the insignia of his office, in his left hand the cancelled Carillon lease, in his right the bill that imposed retroactive income taxes and the act by which it was quietly suppressed. One sees him with all this insignia of his office dividing his time as an unofficial minister between the high portfolio of collection and the duties of minister of elections; and in the distance one observes the senator from Ottawa looking with interest and some suspicion upon these conferences. The scene changes. The right hon. the Prime Minister is engaged in conference with the gentleman who, as a supporter of my right hon. friend in Newmarket, briefly visited Atlantic City, and I assume once more inveighed against the evils of plutocracy. At Newmarket he said: "There is a group of capitalists, mostly in Montreal, who are taking an active part in this election, and that is the principal reason why I have come here to address you to-night." Oh noble patriot! Oh disinterested representative of the humble poor! For that great reason he journeyed to Newmarket, there to instruct the electors how they should vote. Let us listen to the conversation. He recalls to the listening Prime Minister the evils of St. James Street. He recalls to an admiring Prime Minister what evils have been wrought by predatory wealth. He repeats his speech at Newmarket. He recalls the evils that arose in western Canada with respect to the Crowsnest pass coal lands; speaks of the farmers of Brandon;

Georgian Bay Canal Company
of the downtrodden and poor of the west- the farmers of the west, the grain growers of the west-he says a Free Press must be ever at their behest. He speaks of the evils of exploiting the Yukon; he speaks of the exploitation of the timber limits and the coal and grazing lands of the west, and the Prime Minister listens with wonder and amazement. He again recalls the evils of St. James Street, and how these evil agents are endeavouring to filch from the people of this country the power on the Georgian bay canal. The Prime Minister, no longer able to contain himself, exclaims:	"It must not be, it shall
not be. I will hie me to Ottawa, and my Minister of Railways and Canals will save these great resources, not for the plutocrats of St. James but for the squire of Newmarket!"
Now let us see what the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) says. Sir, the Minister of Railways and Canals breaks the silence of this administration, after days of waiting on the part of the people of this country for a statement. Days pass, weeks pass. Nothing is said. Then the Minister of Railways and Canals, reminding us that he is Minister of Canals and speaks as such, makes a statement in which I am bound to observe there is nothing said with respect to the Georgian bay canal bill. He says there is "a bone of contention", and as he finished his speech one could not help but think of the irrelevancy of his observations. It was a speech to which it will be necessary for me to pay some little attention because it contained half truths and many statements which I regret to say were utterly unwarranted by the record. I make that statement deliberately because I have taken the trouble to look at sessional paper No. 154D, which deals with the whole question of the Carillon power, and was filed with the sessional clerk in 1925. It deals with -all the matters that took place in connection with that enterprise, and brings them down to that date, and if you add to that the sessional papers of this year you have the story complete.
Now let us analyze this matter, if we may; for I am sure that after listening to the Minister of Railways and Canals you would have thought indeed that this enterprise came into being from a Tory administration. Everything that is evil, in the mind of the Minister of Railways and Canals, originates with the Tory party. Well, let us look at the facts. The grant of Carillon water-power came into being on the 6th day of August, 1908, under P.C. 950, which will be found at page 10 of sessional paper 154D now under my hand. It was granted to Crawford Ross 32649-92J
and transferred by him to the National Hydro Electric Company. It contemplated a development of only approximately 250 horsepower. and on the 14th day of March, 1911- still under the aegis of a Liberal admin-istratiom-Jby Privy Council order No. 465 a lease was made direct to the National Hydro Electric Company which involved the improvement of the river and the establishment of a hydTO-electric power plant limited in extent. Then in 1913, under Privy Council order No. 1792 dated 14th day of July, to be found at page 24 of the sessional papers to which I have referred, a new lease was made supplanting the old, contemplating an additional power development at that point. Now remember that the origin of this was in 1908, but by successive renewals the matter was brought down to 1913. That contemplated, as I say, a new lease, a larger development of power, and t'he use of more water. On the first day of December, 1921, by Privy Council order No. 4553 the order in council of 1913 was amended; it will be found at page 76 of the sessional papers. That too provided for an enlarged development and for new terms and rentals.
Now, Sir, in view of the statement made by the Minister of Railways and Canals may I remind this House that that order in council was recommended by Mr. Graham Bell, still Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, by. Mr. Fairweather, a solicitor, and by Mr. Bowden, departmental engineer. The late Mr. Stewart was then Minister of Railways and Canals. Negotiations commenced in October, 1921. Then we find a long memorandum on page 110 of this sessional paper in which the extended powers of the 25th of November, 1921, are fully set out. They did not complete their work for reasons which they subsequently gave, and on the 14th day of August, 1923, the government of my right, hon. friend the Prime Minister, by Privy Council order No. 1555, extended until the first day of December, 1924, the time within which the company might begin its operations. That will be found on page 125 of sessional paper No. 154D now under my hand. Then followed a further extension in 1925 and another in 1926. Lastly we have the repeal of the latter order in council by an order in council passed by the present administration. Now the order in council passed in 1926, providing for a new lease, granted extensive powers, but it also contemplated a larger development than had theretofore been provided. It also provided for the provinces of Ontario and Quebec having a contingent interest in the enterprise.

Georgian Bay Canal Company
Before I conclude I propose to direct the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Justice to what I conceive to be legal reasons why this bill should not pass, and I shall refer him to certain authorities and judicial decisions. But at this point I desire particularly to point out that in 1926 the Hydro Electric Commission of Ontario, speaking through Mr. Magrath, entered into negotiations with the Acting Minister of Railways who was also the Acting Prime Minister at the time, Sir Henry Drayton, and as a result the order in council to which I referred was passed. The Minister of Railways and Canals invests this matter with secrecy. He suggests that Sir Henry Drayton hid the documents in his desk, or adopted some other furtive course; that he did not tell Mr. Graham Bell about it-although he would be forgiven for that-and did not tell somebody else. All I can say in that regard is that I have no information respecting the conduct of affairs by Sir Henry Drayton. But those of us who know Sir Henry well realize that his allegiance to public ownership has never been questioned and that in the province of Ontario, in which he has so long resided, his record regarding that matter is quite unblemished. If any hon. gentlemen in this House are interested enough to make inquiries they will find in Sir Henry Drayton's dealings with reference to the Welland canal and the utilization of a portion of the Welland river, the development and use of that stream for the purpose of carrying water for the Chippawa development, an illuminating indication of his attitude of mind towards the principle of public ownership. For the reasons I have stated I cannot give any further information as to the manner in which Sir Henry Drayton may have dealt with the matter except to observe that I know of my own knowledge, inasmuch as I happened to be here between the months of July and September, that Mr. Magrath, the chairman of the Ontario Hydro Electric Commission, came here and entered into negotiations with Sir Henry Drayton. I cannot say what was the extent of those negotiations, but I do know that he was negotiating with Sir Henry with relation to the Carillon power. Further, I also know that Sir Henry, Acting Prime Minister at that time, was in negotiation with the province of Quebec.
Let it be observed now 'beyond all cavil that the first order in council was passed in 1908, was extended by a Liberal government in 1911, then extended by a Conservative government in 1913 and after 1921 by a Liberal administration again. It was further extended thereafter by a Conservative govern-

ment and latterly, on the recommendation of the Minister of Railways, an order was passed repealing the authorization for the lease of 1926. There was no secrecy about the matter. If one might quote the language of a great apostle, the business was not done in a corner, for everyone knew about it. The matter was discussed in the public press extensively and every opportunity was afforded to consider it. Certainly, speaking for myself, knowing my former colleague as I do and as hon. gentlemen on this side of the House know him, I resent the covert insinuation of the Minister of Railways that in Sir Henry's dealing with the matter there was any secrecy.


Charles Avery Dunning: I rise to a point of
order. I made no covert insinuation of any character whatever.


An hon. MEMBER:: What?


Charles Avery Dunning: I stated a simple fact
which the records of the Privy Council and evidence which can be adduced before the committee will amply prove.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just why hon. gentlemen should cheer a statement so wide of the fact as the one just made I find it difficult to understand. As regards the minister's denial that he had made any insinuation, I accept his word without question and I am glad that he has made that denial. I regret, however, to say that in the course of his speech he was careful to point out that he was saying something he would not say unless certain statements had been made, and that there was such secrecy about the matter as rather marked it as a thing to be avoided in discussion. This reference to the subject should not, I submit, have been made in the absence of the hon. gentleman who was in charge of these matters at that time and who could speak with a measure of authority on the subject.
Now comes a very interesting matter. I again refer hon. members to sessional paper 154D wherein there is an indication of the time at which the situation first became acute -the differences to which the Minister of Railways refers. I find that on June 13, 1923, Sir Robert Perks wrote a letter to the Right Hon. George P. Graham, then Minister of Railways, in which he pointed out that certain difficulties had been experienced by his company in relation to grants of power on the Carillon river to other interests. That correspondence will be found on pages 118-120 of the papers to which I have referred. Then

Georgian Bay Canal Company
*you have the reply from the Right Hon. George P. Graham dated June 28, 1923:
This morning I received your interesting letter of June 13th.
As a matter of fact, the lease to which you refer was granted to a company for the development of power at the Grenville canal some years ago, and the only application that is in now is to allow an increase in the amount of power to be developed.
That is what the Right Hon. George P. Graham wrote at' that time in June, 1923, to Sir Robert Perks who represented the Georgian Bay Canal Company. The only application in 1923 was therefore for an increase in the amount of power to be developed. He continues:
I was always friendly to the Georgian bay when revenue was buoyant and surpluses large and people were coming to Canada by the thousands. However, since the war the position has been reversed, and I do not expect, much to my regret, anything in the way of construction along the Georgian bay canal, at least in my time.
And the Hon. George P. still lives. That is the position so far as that phase of the question is concerned. Now I come to another letter written to Major Graham Bell by Mr. H. A. Lovitt, acting for the National Hydro, in which the following statement is made:
Mr. Fairweather informs me that he left the draft of the proposed new lease with you. Some alterations were made on the suggestion of Mr. Fairweather and I understood from him that the draft as so altered would meet the legal requirements as to form.
So that in 1928 there comes a protest for the first time from Sir Robert Perks, representing the Georgian bay canal interests, as to the granting of power rights at Carillon upon the Ottawa river, and we have the Right. 'Hon. George Graham assuring him that this is nothing new, that all that is involved1 is an increase in the amount of power; the only application is for an increase in the amount df power that may be developed. Let me point out this significant fact. Any one of us who was in London in 1923 and 1924 will recall that one of the present promoters of the bill was then boasting in that city that he had control of the Georgian bay canal charter which would wipe out of existence other power interests on the Ottawa river. I shall presently give day and date with respect to that matter. In 1923 therefore Sir Robert Perks first comes into the picture in connection with power rights granted the National Hydro Company. That is of some importance in view of what has transpired since that time and to which I shall direct the attention of the House before I conclude. That is the position so far.
What then happened? The hon. gentleman concluded, for reasons best known to himself, and to which I made some allusion, in my opening remarks, that it would be well to cancel this lease and later on extend it to the first day of May, 1927. And listen to the reason he gives for doing this. I regard this as one of the most difficult statements to understand of any that I have ever heard or read in this House. At page 1199 the Minister of Railways says:
What did we do? We cancelled the contract and cancelled the order in council, but we renewed the 1921 lease which was still in existence until May 1, 1927, the date upon which the Georgian bay charter will expire. Why did we do that? With the deliberate objective of putting this -whole matter before parliament, this matter which hon. gentlemen opposite had done secretly, ostensibly in the interests of the provinces, as they say. The people of the Dominion were not to know about it. No, this is not a conflict between private and public interests.
I do submit that when a minister of the crown, speaking for the Department of Railways and for the government of which he is a member, says that, the government had a deliberate objective with respect to a given matter, no private bill in relation thereto can by any stretch of the imagination represent the policy of the administration. And when I read that statement I have answered every observation the hon. gentleman made with respect to this question. For he says that he renewed until May 1, 1927, the lease of 1921, and the only difference between the lease of 1921 and the lease of 1926 is that apart from rentals there is recognized the contingent right of the provinces to contest the jurisdiction of the Dominion to grant the company the right to develop and sell power under any circumstances whatever; and I think I can convince my friend the Minister of Justice before I conclude that this bill should not !be read a second time because it is beyond the competence of this parliament to grant the essential part that is sought, namely, the power rights, for if you eliminate the power and regard this bill as dealing only with a canal, then, obviously there can be only one objection to that, and that is the objection of the public interest with respect to a matter of this kind.
Let us go a stqp further. It was bis deliberate objective, the Minister of Railways says, to precipitate a discussion of public business of the utmost, and as the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) said last night, of the greatest public importance, through the medium of a private bill.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did not say that.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Richard Bedford Bennett: The language of the hon. gentleman was this, Hansard, p 1199:
With the deliberate objective of putting this whole matter before parliament, this matter which hon. gentlemen opposite had done secretly ostensibly in the interest of the provinces, as they say.
He goes further, and then the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) interrupted to ask:
Mr. Edwards (Frontenac): I understood my hon. friend to say that this action was taken with the deliberate intention of bringing this matter before the House.
Mr. Dunning: Yes.
Mr. Edwards (Frontenac) : Was it at the instance of the government that the hon. member for Ottawa introduced this bill?
Mr. Dunning: Not at all.
Mr. Bennett: What does it mean?
Mr. Dunning: This matter would have been brought before the House in any case, and my hon. friend well knows that.
Mr. Bennett: Deliberate intention of the government!
Mr. Dunning: Yes, the deliberate intention of the government.
Mr. Edwards (Frontenac): Acting through a private member.
Mr. Bennett: For Sifton.
Mr. Dunning: Well, Mr. Speaker, we certainly were not acting for the ^National Hydro or any other private interest in what we did in regard to this matter. It is before parliament. and we knew it was inevitable it should be before parliament.
By a private bill; that is the position with respect to that, and the hon. gentleman repeals that by saying that this bill Should go to a committee for the purpose of enabling the House to ascertain the whole story. He says:
I speak as a member representing a constituency, free to do as I wish in connection with this matter.
Now to what committee will this bill go If it passes to-night? To the committee on [DOT]private bills.


Charles Avery Dunning: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Private bills is the only committee it can go to. It is a private bill; it goes to the private bills committee. If jt is a canal bill it may, by a direction of this House, go to the committee on railways and canals.


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Assume it does-and here is where some of my friends opposite have, I submit with deference, fallen into a very grave error with respect to sending a bill to committee-I am going to venture even although it may be tiresome, to read some of the authorities dealing with a measure of this

kind. That brings me at once to what I conceive to be the essential feature to keep in mind with respect to this matter. It is usual with respect to private bills to give them their second reading as a matter of form. That is usual; I desire to make that perfectly clear, and usually there are very few speeches made with respect to the second reading, unless there be some matter of public interest involved which overshadows the private right. Indeed, it is the almost universal custom for the bill to go to committee. The authorities make that abundantly clear. Let us for a moment look at what the authorities say. At pages 709 and 710 of May the position is stated in these words- I shall not read too many authorities, but I desire to make this point perfectly clear:
The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the House affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons: but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the House, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the House will not consent to the second reading: but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
Now I desire to say once more that this House in accepting the principle of a private bill on its second reading may be said usually only to do so conditionally, because the proceedings with respect to a private bill are partly legislative and partly judicial; before the House, they are legislative; before the committee, they are judicial. It becomes necessary and essential for the promoters of the bill to prove their facts before the committee; otherwise, they fail to get their legislation. But it must be observed further that where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable, the House will not consent to the second reading.
Now my contention to this House, Sir, is that this is a bill where, irrespective of the facts, the principle is objectionable.


Mr. CHEVRIER:: Will the hon. member
tell us since when the principle of this bill has been altered so that it has now become objectionable? It has been before the House thirteen times.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am very grateful to
my hon. friend for interrupting at this

Georgian Bay Canal Company
moment, because it enables me to say something here which I proposed to say later.
Since this bill was first placed on the statute books the development of our jurisprudence by the decisions of the Privy Council has altered the legal status of the provinces with respect to the water and the river bed of navigable streams in the provinces, and_ I shall presently refer to the decisions which support that contention-shall I say?- because my friend being a lawyer will realize that there are two sides to every case.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; we all know
that judgment is rarely given for both plaintiff and defendant. Under these circumstances I am merely going to discharge what I conceive to be my duty to the House by placing before it, as best I may, the considerations that influence me to conclude that this is a matter of grave public importance rather than a matter of private interest.
Let us proceed a step further. My hon. friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Guthrie) has moved an amendment in that sense. He has kept clearly before him the distinction between a private bill and a public measure, and in that he is supported by the authorities in England. I desire to point out the principle upon which they proceed. I cite only a few authorities. I will point out to you that in England this bill could not possibly receive consideration or attention as a private bill, and I am going to show you the authorities, if I may, Sir, because I conceive it to be somewhat important that we should in this parliament recognize that a bill which at its inception thirty years ago may have been purely a private bill, may by reason cf changed conditions, by the alterations of the law, by the development of the country, by industrial demands, by all the conditions that go to make a progressing civilization, become a public measure, and thereby lose its status as a private bill. Let me point out what is said in May. Commenting at page 657 upon private and public bills, he says:
Bills for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons, are treated, in parliament, as private bills. Whether they be for the interest of an individual, of a public company or corporation, or of a parish, city, county, or other locality, they are equally distinguished from measures of public policy; and this _decision is marked in the very manner of their introduction. Every private bill is solicited by the parties themselves wlio are interested in promoting it, being founded upon a imtition which must be duly deposited in accordance with standing order.
Then, after reviewing a number of cases, the learned author proceeds to indicate the real difficulties that are encountered when you come to a bill of this character. He says:
In passing private bills, parliament still exercises its legislative functions, but its proceedings partake also of a judicial character. The persons whose private interests are to be promoted appear as suitors for the bill; while those who apprehend injury are admitted as adverse parties in the suit. Many of the formalities of a court of justice are maintained; various conditions are required to be observed, and their observance to be strictly proved; and if the parties do not sustain the bill in its progress, by following every regulation and form prescribed, it is not forwarded by the House in which it is pending. If they abandon it, and no other parties undertake its support the bill is lost, however sensible the House may be of its value.
He proceeds further to point out that in England a number of bills that were introduced as private bills had to be withdrawn. Then at page 667 there is a review of a number of cases. He says, for instance:
In 1900, on the second reading of a private bill promoted by the Metropolitan Water Companies, the Speaker called the attention of the House to the large and important powers which were propoed to be conferred by it upon a pubic department (the Local Government Board), and which, according to the practice of the House, ought to be secured by a public rather than by a private bill; and the bill was accordingly withdrawn.
In 1910, on the second reading of the Society of Apothecaries of London Bill which had been introduced as a private bill, the Speaker drew attention to the fact that the bill sought to empower the society to grant diplomas in sanitary science and public health, and for dentistry and dental surgery, and ruled that it should proceed as a public bill, as it dealt with public interests; and the bill was accordingly withdrawn.
And the same with another bill, and still another. I need not go into details. All the authorities go to show that where it appears from the statement of the powers sought or the principle which the House is asked to support that any measure affects public interests of large and wide character, it ceases to be a private bill and must be dealt with as a public measure. That is the summary of the position. It is for that reason that the leader of the opposition has moved, not that this bill should be given the six months' hoist or read three months hence, but an amendment declaring that a bill which confers upon a private corporation powers so large, over two hundred miles of river and lake waters, is a public bill, not a private bill, and cannot be dealt with by the House as a private measure.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Will the hon. member
tell us wherein lies the change, if any change there be, in the principle of this act since its inception in 1894?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should like to ask my hon. friend this question: wherein lies the difference between the tallow dip age and the age of electricity?


Mr. PARENT:: If the principle has been wrong since the beginning, the repetition of wrong should produce no good.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is answering the query put by his colleague: If the principle is wrong, the fact that this parliament has acted upon a wrong principle with respect to this bill does not make it right.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Then we must assume that in the previous parliaments they were all wrong and that the hon. gentleman is the Daniel come to judgment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is hardly the question, I have not understood that the name of the promoter was Daniel. It was something more euphonious; and I have never yet heard that he was thrust into a den of lions for his convictions.
Let me conclude what I was going to say with regard to the committee. I very much respect the observations of some of my hon. friends opposite who have given the matter -careful consideration. Many of them see no reason why the usual practice with respect to private bills should be departed1 from; they say that we have been accustomed to let such bills go to committee, and why should we not do so in this case? That is the way we deal with other private bills. The only observation I would make about other private bills is that usually we have a non-contentious bill up for second reading. When the bill affects the public interest the case is different and there is not an hon. member present who has not said that it does not affect public interests. The Minister of Railways, who is the spokesman for the administration, says that "the bone of contention" is power in the Ottawa river. Do hon. members realize that if this bill passes you hand two hundred miles of river and lake waters, with all the latent possibilities for electrical development, extending to upwards of a million horsepower, according to reports I have in my hand, to a private enterprise, without one dollar of revenue coming to the state? The leases about which the hon. member complains all provide for the payment of rentals. This measure carries none. This bill does not
[Mr. Bennett. 3
give Canada one dollar for rental, and it takes two hundred miles of water away from the people and gives it to a private enterprise. Under the original lease of the Carillon power alone there was to be developed only 250 morse-power. This was increased to
250,000	or 300,000 horse-power, which would have given this country $600,000 to be divided between the Dominion and the provinces. Since when was there a public enterprise that took from the revenue of this country the sum of $150,000 a year? Since when did it cease to be a public matter, in the view of the Minister of Finance, to take from the treasury $150,000 a year?
Mark you, in this bill, to the principle of which you are now asked to give your approval, not one dollar comes to the Dominion for revenue, not a sou-that under the leases about which complaint was made $600,000 was to be paid in, and the annual rental was to be fixed ultimately by the Exchequer court. That is the position. Let us not blink the facts. Let me proceed further. We have been asked to send this bill to committee. What may we do in committee? Do you realize that in the committee you cannot change the principle of that bill? Do hon. members realize that they cannot add to it a provision with respect to rental?


Charles Avery Dunning: Do I understand the
hon. member to say that the rentals provided for under the lease were $600,000 a year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That $600,000 might come to this Dominion ultimately at the end of the lease. On the figures as given, estimating it on the same basis as at present, the Exchequer court, applying the principles of the present lease, would award a much larger sum; it would be more than a quarter of a million if fixed by the Exchequer court on the same principles as the present revenue is fixed. It is only an estimate with respect to the production of horse-power, but my argument is that under the present bill we are asked to affirm the principle that not one sou goes into the exchequer for the use of two hundred miles of waterway, Which under the lease would bring us a large sum of money, and under the lease the revenue comes to the Dominion and the provinces.
What are the powers of the committee?
The committee cannot report back a bill different in principle from that under consideration.
That is Number 1. Number 2 reads:
Though a committee has full power to amend even to the extent of nullifying the provisions of the bill, they cannot insert a clause reversing the principle affirmed by the second reading

Georgian Bay Canal Company
That is parliamentary law at any rate. Why this talk about letting the bill go to committee? Do my hon. friends realize what it really means? The committee may not amend the bill in sudh a way that it will reverse the principle affirmed by the second reading. What is the authority for that statement? I find a case in the House of Commons in England. In the year 1880 they were dealing with a bill in the same position as this one, and in volume 251 of the third series of the debates in the House of Commons this is the way it was put by the chairman:
It certainly appeared to him that so far as the committee were concerned, they were required by the House to consider any bill sent to them in accordance with the objects with which it had been sent to them by the House. It was open for them to modify the propositions contained in a bill, or to annul them: but it was not open for them to introduce an amendment which would enact something in an entirely opposite sense to the obect of the hill sent to them.
Again the chairman said:
That was not at all the question before the committee. The hill proposed to repeal the 36th section of the Representation of the People Act of 1867. The effect of that section of the act of 1867 was to declare a certain practice to be illegal. The object of the present clause was to make that practice legal. The proposal of the hon. member for Swansea (Mr. Hillwyn) was not only to leave the practice illegal, but, by amending the clause, to attach a penalty to the illegality, and to affirm the opposite of the principle; in point of fact, to reverse the principle which it was sought by the bill to affirm. That being so, it appeared to him that it was not within the functions of the committee to take such a course without the sanction of the House.


Mr. CANNON:: Under the principle just
laid down by the hon. gentleman is it not a fact that it would be impossible for any committee to change this canal bill into a power bill?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am so glad the hon.
Solicitor General (Mr. Cannon) made that observation, for the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) the other evening declared it was a power bill.


Lucien Cannon: That is a very poor answer to my question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, excellent.


Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Speaker, my hon.
friend has just put words into my mouth which I never uttered. I stated what is well known tc this House, that the bone of contention is the Carillon power. That is the truth, and everyone knows it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let us see what the hon.
Minister of Railways did say. At page 1194 of Hansard, I find the following:
Because of the connection of any matter of canalization with the department over which I have the honour to preside, and especially because numerous references have been made from both sides of the House to leases, past or present, which have a bearing upon the subject matter of this debate, I deem it necessary to give to the House, if possible some accurate information respecting the history of what I might call "The bone of contention",-*


Charles Avery Dunning: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: (reading):
-because beyond any question that bone of contention is the Carillon power.
I thought he did not say anything about power.
There is not a member of the House who is not aware of that fact.
Now, the Solicitor General says, under that principle how could the House of Commons deal with the question of power in what was a canal bill?


Lucien Cannon: The committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. The hon. Minister of Railways has in anticipation answered the question. But I will go further: I will show in this bill-as the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) did yesterday-that it does deal with power. That is the legal phase of the submission that I am going to make to this House, and I hope my hon. friend the Solicitor Generali will do me the honour of listening because I think he will not seriously differ with me in the conclusions at which I shall arrive. If that be so, I ask my friends who propose to vote for the second reading of this bill merely as a matter of form in order to let it go to the committee, where they are in respect to the measure. They must go on record as affirming the principle of the bill, and no committee can change its principle, because of the limitations imposed upon them in the manner that I have indicated.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Just at this point, Mr. Speaker, so there may be no misunderstanding, will the hon. member just say what the principle is of the bill? I have stated definitely that it is a charter for the construction of a canal with authority to develop the surplus power resulting from the construction. Those are the words of the charter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friend from Ottawa- and I quite appreciate his position-has asked me, what is the principle of the bill. A distinguished American poet once said:
I don't believe in princerple,
But, 0, I du in interest.
He was interested in principal.

Georgian Bay Canal Company


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, I would
appreciate very much if the hon. gentleman would speak in such a way that I might be able to understand him in this corner of the chamber.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I regret, Mr. Speaker,
that my hon. friend is not able to hear me. I shall endeavour to speak a little louder, although it is somewhat difficult for me to do so. I know my friend has equal facility in the English as in the French language. I regret that I have not the facility in French that I have in English. My friend has asked me, what is the principle of the bill. Its principle is determined from reading the bill itself. The bill divides itself into two parts: (a) canal, (b) power. If necessary I shall read the sections later. The first bill sought authority ffom parliament to create an entity called the Montreal, Ottawa and Georgian Bay Canal Company for the purpose of constructing a canal through a series of lakes and rivers to Georgian bay. There was subsequently a change in the authority thus granted, and the company now has authority, up till the first of May next, subject to filing its plans, to construct a canal from Montreal to Georgian bay through various rivers and river-ways and lakes, a distance of about 200 miles. It also has authority to construct and operate power plants in the first instance as incidental to its business. But as the hon. gentleman last evening pointed out, that provision of the statute was repealed and a new section substituted, and it is that section which answers the question of the hon. Solicitor General, of the Minister of Railways and of my friend. That section provides for the construction and operation of power plants with authority to sell power to consumers. That is the principle of the bill.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: May I ask my hon.
friend: Does not that section say that they can only produce, lease, supply or dispose of the surplus power?


Richard Bedford Bennett: T shall read the section.
In the year 1912, under a Conservative government, paragraph (a), section 5 was repealed, and the following substituted:
Produce, lease and supply, or otherwise dispose of surplus hydraulic, electric and other kinds of power developed in coneetion with and for the purposes of the works hereby authorized, the rates or prices at or for which such hydraulic and electric power may be disposed of by the company to be fixed and determined by the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada in accordance with the provisions of section 360A of the Railway Act.

That confers upon this company the authority to operate as a power company and tc sell electric energy. What is more, the promoters of this bill have seen fit to put in black and white a statement to that effect, and in the prospectus referred to by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) last evening, circulated by the promoters and not by the hon. gentleman, he read a statement that this was not per se a canal bill, but a power bill, and that the revenue derived from the sale of the power would pay interest on $250,000,000 of the cost and the interest on the balance of the capital would b.e met by the canal tolls, the major part of the cost being borne by the power system, and the main object being the development of power. That is what is stated by the promoters themselves. Let there be no misapprehension on that score.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, may I interject-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Mr. Speaker, yesterday
for two and a half hours I laboured-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: -and I made no objection to the numerous questions that were put to me.


David Spence: You had lots of time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My friend may ask a
question.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I thank the hon. gentleman for his courtesy, but not his followers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I want to refer to the
prospectus which was issued by the parties who are promoting this bill. My hon. friend from Bow River described it as a "brief", but he would have been nearer the fact had he termed it a prospectus. It is a statement of what might be expected from this enterprise in the event of the promoters being able to develop power.


Georges Parent: Nine o'clock.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the debate was adjourned.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The House in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-harbours and rivers-British Columbia-$299,500.
Mr. BRADY:: Mr. Chairman, I would like
to call the attention of the government and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
of the Minister of Public Works to some grave omissions with regard to the constituency of Skeena which I trust will be included in the supplementary estimates of this year. I have already brought some of these things to the notice of the minister and there are others to follow, but I would now ask that the minister give his careful consideration to some very pressing needs of that constituency. Port Simpson, which lies near Prince Rupert, is a federal port, and possesses a wharf which at this moment is in a serious state of disrepair; its state is precarious, and the residents of that town have urged me to present their case to the government for immediate consideration. I can say without exaggeration that there is a moral obligation on the government to safeguard the lives of the people who are using that wharf; the whole structure is decayed; there is danger of its collapse, and as it is used by all the incoming vessels, the Union boats as well as the large fishing boats, there is danger that at any moment loss of life may occur. I understand that the federal district engineer brought this pressing case to the attention of the government and urged that that wharf be reconstructed. I would tell the minister that he would be throwing money away if he spent it on the reconstruction of that wharf; a new wharf should be built.
The next case I would bring to his attention is that of Stewart wharf which, next to Vancouver and Prince Rupert, is the one wharf in British Columbia sadly in need of extension. Probably the minister knows more about its condition that I can hope to tell him, but I do say that I have seen hundreds of tons of ore on that wharf together with all kinds of material for the five or six large producing mines of that district. I have seen the Canadian National boats, the Canadian Pacific boats, the Union boats and the ore carriers from Anyox lying there, and at times it is almost impossible for anyone to even cross that wharf without being in danger. This matter I particularly refer to the minister.
Another place for which I desire to say a word is Bella Coola. On that wharf there is a little warehouse which is supposed to meet the needs of that valley which is an agricultural, mining and fishing centre. In this connection I want to say that I stood on the wharf a few months ago and opened the door of that little zinc or corrugated iron warehouse, which is sixteen feet by twenty-four feet in size, and found it full of a heterogeneous mass of commodities. I saw there gasoline, coal oil, flour, grain, groceries,
potatoes, vegetables and fruit, and on the wharf outside were tons of commodities destined for that valley. It is not in reason that I should have to ask something of which the government itself will be the beneficiary; it is likewise in the interest of the government to facilitate the growth and development of trade in these places. The people of Skeena are not beggars; they are as big as the mountains, and they are not pleading for some little petty gift from the government. Whatever the government gives them they will give back ten-fold, yes a hundred fold, in the revenue which will be derived by this government.
I do not wish to take up too much time; we are anxious to get through these estimates, but I do wish to say one word about Atlin, which is in the northern part of my constituency. I wish hon. members of this House were able to look over that country and realize the greatness of the struggle and the vastness of the problems which beset those splendid people. All that I ask the government is to place in the supplementary estimates a paltry sum of not more than $5,000 and not less than $3,000, in order that the boulders in the Atlinto river, which drains the great Atlin lake, may be removed, giving an opportunity to small craft to ply from Atlin along Atlin lake, down the Atlinto river and into lake Taku, where the great Engineer mine is situated along with other wonderful mining properties.
Now, Sir, I do not even ask the government to send an engineer at great expense from Victoria up to Atlin. It is a big journey. Travelling by up-to-date Canadian boats, and passing through Alaska, it would take him from twelve to fourteen days even to reach the district. I have got here, Sir, the data of a resident engineer in Atlin, a man who is very well up in the matter of river improvements, and he authorizes me to assure the government that there is no need to send a federal engineer to Atlin; that if the government grant not less than three thousand and not more than five thousand for this work, facilities will be offered that will ameliorate to a great extent the character of transportation in Atlin. You may say I am too optimistic. I may be optimistic, but I maintain that neither the government nor anyone else can play with the lives of men and women- they are not pawns, they are pledges. I appeal with confidence to the Minister of Public Works and I know that he will see to it that these needs are carefully examined into. Then if my claims are based, as I think they are, on concrete facts, they will meet with the
1456	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
approbation of the Minister of Pubic Works. I therefore urge the minister to give the utmost consideration to the district of the Skeena. It is to a great extent a maritime district. It is vast in extent, and wharves and other accommodation are an absolute necessity. If they are not provided there will be retrogression, there will be disappointment, there will be failure, and the government themselves will be the losers. Without saying any more on the subject, I leave the needs of the district with confidence in the hands of the minister, believing that the welfare of that country and the good of the people are far more important than the expenditure of a small amount of money.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to ask the minister to state the nature of the improvements on the Fraser river.


John Campbell Elliott: These are but a continuation of works that have been going on along the Fraser river for some considerable time. The amount of $150,000 is asked to be provided towards the following improvements on the Fraser river:
Extension of Steveston north jetty..	$34,000
Construction of Steveston north dykes
Nos. 2 and 3	 16,000
Annieville bar dyke	'..	62,000
Bank protection, Woodward's channel.	66,000
I may say for my hon. friend's information that during the season of 1926-27 the sum of $6,122 was expended on the completion of the dam at Woodward's slough. This dam was constructed during 1925-26 at a cost of $46,346.73. The reinforcement of the dam at Woodward's slough is being proceeded with during 1926-27 under contract with the Fraser Pile Driving Company, the amount of the contract being $35,998.72. The order in council, authorizing the acceptance of their tender, was passed on 1st December last. The district engineer reports in estimates for the current year that this extension to the north jetty forms part of the scheme of jetty control of the channel through the sandheads at the mouth of the Fraser river, and is wholly of a public nature, benefiting the whole of the Fraser river and Delta district. There has been quite a large expenditure for years along the Fraser river, and this is just a continuation of that work. I am told that we will not get the benefit of the expenditure that has already been made unless the work is completed. I may also say that the total expenditure on that jetty up to the present time since the year 1914 is $787,000.


Robert Gardiner: I take it the reason of this work is to control the current.


John Campbell Elliott: To direct the current.


Robert Gardiner: After the work is completed will it be necessary to carry on any dredging in order to give the necessary depth to the channel?


John Campbell Elliott: It is to be hoped the channel will pretty well scour itself after this work is done, but that is something as to which one cannot be positive.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: It is proposed to complete the jetty right out to deep water?


John Campbell Elliott: We intend to go out to
such a point as will give the necessary facilities.


William Garland McQuarrie: Does that mean the
completion of the Le Baron scheme? The Minister has no doubt heard about the Le Baron scheme for the development of a channel at the mouth of the river. If the minister has not heard about it, I may tell him that some years ago the city of New Westminster retained the services of Mr. Le Baron, one of the greatest river engineers in the world.


John Campbell Elliott: I may say to my hon.
friend that we are working along the lines of his suggestions, with such variations as are suggested from time to time by the engineers in charge, as the work proceeds.


William Garland McQuarrie: The trouble is the work is not completed; it has been going on for a number of years. The scheme was placed before Sir Wilfrid Laurier in his time. It was adopted by him and he promised that it should be completed. In short the scheme was that a jetty should be constructed across the sandheads out to deep water. I think the distance was something like five miles. Although the scheme was adopted by Sir Wilfrid Laurier the principal part of the work was done under the Conservative administrations-notably when Sir Robert Borden was Prime Minister, and Hon. Robert Rogers Minister of Public Works-but up to date only about two and a half miles, or about one half of the distance, has been covered. I understand that under the present program it is the intention of the government to continue that jetty for another thousand yards or so. If I am not right on that point I should like to be corrected.


John Campbell Elliott: It is not thought that it. will be necessary to go the whole distance, but apparently the work will have to be carried quite a piece farther before the results will be satisfactory.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is where the
trouble comes in. As I see it, and as all the authorities who have studied the question admit-that is to say, the engineers and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
the men engaged in river work and who have been operating on the Fraser river for many years-it will be necessary, as Mr. Le Baron said, to complete the north jetty out to deep water. If that is not done your work cannot of course attain the object intended. If you go only two and a half or three miles, instead of five miles across the sandheads, the work will not be completed. Mr. Le Baron pointed out that it was necessary to complete the north jetty right out to deep water, and, he added, if this were done we should then have a channel which would be stationary, so to speak, and which would more or less scour itself. We should also obviate the necessity for further dredging of any consequence. If that did not prove to be the case, he went on to say, a jetty could be built on the other side of the channel and beyond question there would then be a channel which would be satisfactory for all purposes. The minister is no doubt aware that shipping on the Fraser river has increased very materially in the last few years. If he has not the figures I can give them to him.


John Campbell Elliott: I have them here.


William Garland McQuarrie: They show that in
1914 the estimated registered net tonnage was 6,000, whereas in 1926 it had increased to 579,167 tons. I need not labour that point because no doubt the minister has been well informed regarding the enormous increase which has taken place in shipping. There are certain advantages which the Fraser river possesses as against salt water harbours. I suppose the minister is aware that the effect on deep sea ships coming into fresh water is very beneficial inasmuch as the fresh water removes the barnacles and other sea growths which attach themselves to the ships. The minister also knows, I am sure, that the Fraser river route offers many advantages in comparison with other harbours on the Pacific coast, particularly in the shipment of grain. In this my good friends from the prairies who a few years ago visited the Fraser river will bear me out.
The Fraser river is the most desirable route for the shipment of grain from Pacific ports. Our difficulty is that we have not a deep enough channel. It is true that the channel has been improved but it is not possible for ships to come in and load to full capacity. What does that mean? It means that those ships coming into the Fraser river must take partial cargoes instead of being fully loaded and they must go elsewhere to complete their cargoes. It is pretty well admitted that we must have a deeper channel than was at first contemplated. Our objective originally
was thirty feet from New Westminster to the gulf, but it is now unquestioned that a depth of thirty-five feet is necessary for the reason that the depth of vessels has been increasing; and, if we are to handle the business offering, this increased depth must be made. We simply must have a thirty-five foot channel from New Westminster to the gulf. This has a bearing on the trade of the Canadian merchant marine, because it is not possible at the present time for the ships of the Canadian merchant marine to come into New Westminster and load to full capacity. There is considerable business at this point for the Canadian merchant marine.
There are other advantages to be considered. For instance, in the erection of elevators and so on, the cost of construction on the Fraser river is much less than it is in salt water harbours because it is not necessary to have the same protection against marine growths, so destructive to timber, such as are found in salt water. Then there is the question of the value of sites. Altogether there are a number of advantages with which I presume the minister is familiar, having no doubt studied the subject.
We have had to educate so many different ministers of public works, even during my time, because of the many changes there have been. I must say, however, that all ministers who have gone before the present incumbent of the office have shown a great interest in the Fraser river, and have always been willing to be shown. I am hopeful that the present minister will find it possible this year to visit the river and go over the situation himself. A personal visit from him would serve a better purpose than anything else. The Fraser river is fast 'becoming a very important avenue of shipping and one upon which I think we are justified in asking that an adequate expenditure be made. I have always objected to our doing the work more or less piecemeal. I have advocated from time to time that a contract or contracts be let for the construction of the work. Let us have at least a contract that will complete the work and give us a start with a proper channel from New Westminster to the gulf. I do not believe in the way in which this matter has been gone about. I have constantly placed before the department my views, which are backed up by practical men resident on the Fraser river. I have no doubt the minister sees the advisability of doing this work by contract. There are a good many works to look after on the river, and particularly is that the case in connection with the north arm, which has been neglected for years. I do not say that
1458	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
this neglect has been at all intentiona/l, because the dredges have been urgently required in the main channel and consequently have not been able to do the work required on the north arm. The works which were put in on the north arm at the cost of large sums have gone out of repair. There is plenty of work for the government dredges to do and I would suggest that the minister consider the advisability of letting this work by contract and cleaning up the job, so as to give the people out there a chance to conduct their business in a satisfactory way. The late Minister of Public Works, now Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay), is quite familiar with the situation, and I am sure he will give his counsel and advice to the present minister. He is no doubt convinced that the work ought to be completed and done properly. The fate minister did contend that it. should be done gradually and in that regard there was a difference between him and myself. My opinion is that it should be done rapidly and that we should make a good job of it and clean up the whole thing. It is worth while, because the business is there to warrant it. There is no reason at all why the work should be done piecemeal. We used to be told that we must first show that we had the business before the work could be done. We have now shown that the business is there; it is knocking at our door and the time has come when the government should take up the Fraser river channel work energetically and carry it to completion in order to give the people there, who are trying to carry on under adverse circumstances, the opportunity to which they are entitled. We are not trying to compete with Vancouver harbour at all. They are two entirely different and distinct classes of harbour. Vancouver harbour, of course, is one of the most wonderful in the world for the purposes for which it is used, but so far as the industrial end is concerned, there is a reason why the Fraser river channel should be improved, and improved in an expeditious manner. I hope in addition to speaking to-night to have the opportunity of discussing this subject with the minister personally, and I am sure that he will give me an attentive hearing. I think he has already received a deputation from New Westminster during this session, who have urged upon him the claims of the Fraser river. This is not a political matter at all; there is no politics about it. It is a matter of business pure and simple. We should have that jetty completed right out to deep water without delay, and I would urge upon the minister as strongly as I can the necessity for 
getting away from this piecemeal program and for taking hold of this matter vigorously and finishing it up in accordance with Le Baron's report. He is still watching the works on the Fraser river. I had a letter from him, from Mississippi, a short time ago, in which he regretted very much that this jetty had not been completed, and he stated that he was confident that if the jetty was completed right out to deep water it would be satisfactory. The work, so far as it has gone, has been satisfactory. It has stood up well, and we have no complaints to make on that score. The only thing we do complain about is that the job has not been finished, and I urge upon the minister to get right down to business now and finish up that work, and then we shall have a good channel.


John Campbell Elliott: I might point out to my hon. friend that that is exactly the thing that the hon. member for Skeena and members from other parts of the country think should be done in their particular localities. I quite agree with my hon. friend that this is an important point. If it were not, the government would not have felt justified in expending, as they have done, nearly $900,000 on this particular project; that is, on the channel and the north arm together. While my hon. friend was speaking I checked up the figures of the expenditure on the Fraser river in the last five years, and it amounts to $899,831, so I think in view of that expenditure my hon. friend will agree with me that this work has proceeded very well during those years.
Of course, we would all like to be able to do all these things in one year, but it cannot be done. The demands upon the department are so great on account of the necessities in various parts of the country that it is quite impossible to proceed any more rapidly than we are doing. However, I appreciate the suggestions that my hon. friend has made, and I shall be glad to give the matter the most careful attention that it is capable of receiving. I may also say that I have had the benefit of the advice of my colleague the former Minister of Public Works, who quite agrees with what the hon. member for New Westminster has said with regard to the necessity of doing work upon the Fraser river, and just as rapidly as the funds can be obtained the work will be proceeded with to completion both here and at other points, taking first those that seem the most necessitous. I think that is all I can say. Opportunity seems to be knocking at the door in all these places to-day, and we

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.
are all pleased that it is so. I can assure my hon. friend that the work in these various harbours will be proceeded with just as expeditiously as funds can be obtained.
Mr. IMcQUARRIE:	Might I add one
word? It is not a matter of spending money that appeals to us at all. It is a matter of obtaining results.


John Campbell Elliott: You have obtained results, judging by your trade.


William Garland McQuarrie: We have to a certain
extent, but just let me mention this to the minister as an illustration. The Grain Growers, the Saskatchewan Cooperative, and I think the pool too, had options on properties on the Fraser river for the purpose of constructing grain elevators, but they had to give them up because they were not satisfied that the work of deepening the channel was going to be done quickly enough for their purposes. Therefore they had to go into Vancouver, and what was the result? As the minister knows, Vancouver was unable to handle, all the grain it could have had this last season, and an embargo had to be placed against grain going through western ports. If our channel on the Fraser river had been sufficiently deep, these large and influential concerns would have taken advantage of their options. As the minister knows, the grain that goes over the Canadian National to Vancouver goes first to New Westminster. The government already owns several satisfactory sites on the Fraser river suitable for the construction of grain elevators.
The minister has mentioned Skeena: I suppose he was referring to Prince Rupert. We have always contended that an elevator should have been built at Port Mann on property which the government already owned and still own to-day, but instead it was built at Prince Rupert. We hope it will be successful, but as a matter of fact that elevator was leased to the pool for $100 a year. That is the way the matter stands now. If a grain elevator had been built at Port Mann on the Fraser river it would have been used to its fullest capacity right from the start, and I think that statement will be backed up by hon. members to my left who have been out there and studied .the situation. There is a great saving to be made by the Canadian National in shipping grain from the Fraser river. It amounts to something like $13 a car; that is the cost of taking a car from the Fraser river over to Vancouver. That amounts to about one cent a bushel extra freight, and that cent a bushel would be made by the Canadian National railway.
The only difficulty in establishing private elevators on the Fraser river is a question of the depth of the channel. There are no engineering difficulties involved, for the engineers have reported that it is quite feasible to construct a proper channel from New Westminster to the gulf. It is simply a matter of spending the money, and of taking hold and doing the work as expeditiously as possible. If you do that, you will save a lot of money. I am free to admit that many hundreds of thousands of dollars have been wasted on the Fraser river. I think the predecessor of the minister will agree with me in that. We want that waste stopped. We want the money which is expended on the Fraser river to count, and in my opinion it is not going to count if the work is to be continued in the same old way in which it has gone on for some years under various administrations. They have dredges there. One dredge in particular-the deputy minister will perhaps not agree with me in this-is simply throwing money away every day it operates. I refer to the dredge 303, formerly known as the Fruhling, a dredge that outlived its usefulness if it ever was useful. It cannot dredge and never could dredge in a satisfactory way. The King Edward is the right style of dredge, but is getting pretty old. I think the government should at least put on a new modern dredge of the King Edward type to help out with that work and do away with the 303. Junk it, if you like, if you cannot get anything for it, give it away and you will be ahead. I do not know that the department will entertain the suggestion in regard to getting rid of the dredge, because according to the records it does a lot of work. All I see is that it digs a hole and sucks the sand into its hold. It goes out into deep water dumps the sand and comes back and digs another hole, and the first hole does not fit in with the second hole. You have a series of holes but you have no channel. I have tried to impress upon various ministers that they should get rid of the 303 and give us a modem up-to-date dredge of the King Edward type.


Mr. LADNER:: Does that item of $150,000 provide for necessary dredging on the north arm? There are certain conditions there, sandbars and fills, that will require attention very soon.


John Campbell Elliott: The figures that 1 have given make up the amount, and they do not provide for dredging on the north arm.


Leon Johnson Ladner: Is there any general estimate that covers necessary dredging on the north arm?
1460	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-B.C.


John Campbell Elliott: There are the general estimates out of which probably the north arm will receive a share, but there is no special estimate for it.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I urge very strongly the minister's attention to this. Many representations have been made to myself and I believe to the department. It is not a new enterprise, but it is taking care of existing needs for a very large industrial centre.


Mr. BARBER:: How far up the Fraser river
does that snagboat operate?


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it goes to the head of navigation, about Chilliwack, I fancy.
Harbours and rivers generally, $30,000.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I desire to draw the attention of the minister to a certain matter, but I do not know whether it should come under this item or under item 155. I refer to the condition of La Salle causeway, crossing the junction of the Rideau and Cataraqui rivers and lake Ontario. I think the deputy minister and the engineers will tell you this causeway is in a most disgraceful condition. It is almost impassable, although it forms a link in the highway between Montreal and Toronto. Is it proposed to have work done on this causeway so as to put it in proper condition? Any work done in the last number of years was done through patronage and has been a failure. If the minister would examine the few feet done at the entrance by the city of Kingston he would see that the work can be properly done, and if this causeway is to be repaired it should be taken in hand by the department, a proper amount of money expended and the proper method adopted to put it in a condition for passenger travel. If the minister would take his car up there he would be in great danger of smashing it or losing it. There will be a good deal of complaint this year if it gets in any worse condition than it was last fall.


John Campbell Elliott: I am advised that the condition as my hon. friend describes it does exist to a certain extent. I believe last year a small section was improved by the plant of the city of Kingston, but there is no question that, in common with many other places, it requires attention.


Arthur Edward Ross: I think the minister or deputy will agree that the work should be done early if he is going to avoid accidents; because it is not a matter that affects one constituency, it is a part of the highway and is very important.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Dredging, $1,605,000.
Mr. ESLING:: What portion of this vote for British Columbia will go to the West Kootenay district for dredging? We have dredgers constantly in operation after the high water, two of them in fact, one on the Columbia river and one on Kootenay lake. There is nothing here to indicate where the dredging is going to take place. I would not like to suggest that it might be owing to the indifference of the Minister of Health (Mr. King, Kootenay), but surely something should be done. It is a serious matter. In the vote that we passed the whole contribution to West Kootenay was something like $8,000. In the administration of that sum alone you have $10,000 in salaries, according to last year's estimates. Is any portion of this item for dredging to be expended on the Columbia river or has the Minister of Health failed to recommend it?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite in error if he thinks there is any part of British Columbia which the Minister of Health would desire to neglect. It is only a question of getting money enough to do the most urgent part of the work. This vote for dredging in British Columbia is faii-ly substantial, but is not too much in view of the number and importance of the harbours there. It is expended largely in operating the dredges and on such work as during the season appears to be most urgent.


William Kemble Esling: Our resident district engineer is as courteous and efficient as any member of the engineering staff in the Dominion. Repeatedly I have presented to him and to the Department of Public Works the complaints of people along the Columbia river of the constant erosion of the river bank and the loss of their land. They say it is by reason of insufficient dredging. One settler claims that during the last two years he has lost actually an acre of land from this cause. As I say, in the previous votes our total expenditures are only $8,000 and yet the salaries alone to administer that sum amount to $10,000. Are any of the expenses of the district engineer's office to be included in this vote for dredging? That may be one reason for the engineer's staff. Certainly it cannot be attributed to any repairs to wharves, for the simple reason that we have but three in all these estimates that are to receive attention along the Columbia river.	*

Supply-Public Works-Dredging


John Campbell Elliott: None of this vote goes towards keeping up the district engineer's office. The authorities are not unanimous as to what causes the erosion complained of, but usually the erosion is greater where dredging takes place.


William Kemble Esling: Precisely for the very reason that the authorities do not seem to be unanimous as to the cause of the erosion I would ask the minister to have particular attention paid to that portion of the Columbia river indicated in this vote as being below Burton, where there is a jetty. I know there is a difference of opinion between our district engineer and the department at Ottawa, but while this continues the man's land is being washed away.


John Campbell Elliott: A lot of land throughout the country is being eroded in the same way.


William Kemble Esling: I am not making any particular complaint against the department, but it is not very pleasant for a member to be continually in receipt of complaint from settlers. Naturally they look to their member to have these things remedied. I have brought their complaints to the attention of the department on more than one occasion. In view of the difference of opinion as to the cause of the erosion I would ask the minister to see if the real cause cannot be determined and the proper remedy applied so that there will be no further complaints.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to have the matter looked into further with a view to finding the best possible solution for the trouble.


Murray MacLaren: Mr. Chairman, I notice that there is a vote of $547,000 for dredging in the maritime provinces. I hope the minister will be good enough to make a note of what I brought to his attention this afternoon so that some small portion of this money may be devoted to the harbour of-	*


John Campbell Elliott: Lorneville.


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Will the minister specify where the $500,000 is to be spent in the maritime provinces?


Mr ELLIOTT:: There have been many suggestions >as to how the money should be expended, and a number of places have been mentioned whose claims are imperative, for instance, Miramichi bay, Mabou harbour, Mabou bridge, Antigonish, Bathurst, Newport. Of course, as the season progresses the necessity for repairs will become apparent. It is impossible to say now where all the money will be expended.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: I am very pleased to hear from my hon. friend the minister that it is the intention of the government to do some very urgent dredging at Mabou harbour in my county. I refrained from discussing this when the estimates were under consideration because I had taken it up with him personally and also had sent some very strong recommendations to the department. May I ask, however, how much dredging will be done and to what depth? I understand that the present depth is about ten feet. The Mabou Coal and Gypsum Company that is operating there require a depth of about twenty feet to enable them to use boats of 5,000 tons capacity.


John Campbell Elliott: The intention is to take out about 114,000 yards scow measure, I understand that that will give a depth of about eighteen feet.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It would be, then
substantially the program outlined in the minister's letter to me?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt that that will be followed fairly closely.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Where is the dredging to be done in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for the operation and maintenance of the dredging plants in Manitoba, SaskaL chewan and Alberta and for dredging to be performed by day labour or private agreement. Dredge No. 202 and the dredge Win-nipegosis will operate on the Red river along with the tug Mossy River and the Vaughan; most of the dredging will be done on the Red river in Manitoba. There is not much dredging being done in Saskatchewan this year.


Mr. ROBINSON:: In the absence of the hon. member for East Essex (Mr. Odette) I would ask the minister if any portion of this appropriation for dredging in Quebec and Ontario will be spent on that most important harbour on the south shore of lake St. Clair, namely Belle river, which I may say is filled up with silt at present?


John Campbell Elliott: That important harbour was under discussion this afternoon; I do not know whether my hon. friend was in the House. So far as I am aware there is no decision at present to do any work at Belle river this year.


Mr. ROWE:: Could the minister tell us approximately what portion of that amount will be given to each of the two provinces?

1462	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-Dredging


Mr. SHORT:: I would ask the minister if this item for dredging in the maritime provinces is to be expended entirely on work to be done by government dredges, or whether private contracts may be let?


John Campbell Elliott: The work will be done mostly by government dredges.


Harry Bernard Short: Then I presume it will be allotted as the district engineers send in their reports?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but the decisions will be made here as to which places they shall operate in, having regard to the reports we receive.


Harry Bernard Short: I 'hope the minister will not lose sight of the fact that there are a number of places where dredging is urgently required. They include Anderson's cove, Battery point in Annapolis county, the Racquette at Digby harbour, and Westport in Digby county. I trust that when the reports of the engineers are received, these matters will receive consideration. I find that they are overlooked if we do not call the attention of the department to them quite often.


John Campbell Elliott: I am obliged to my friend for mentioning these places, although I do not recall that the present reports name these particular points. I shall be glad to give them careful consideration.


Harry Bernard Short: Is the list from the district engineers already complete?


John Campbell Elliott: There are reports in from the engineers, but I do not recall any immediate requests having been received from the places mentioned.


Harry Bernard Short: I can quite understand that these things could not all be kept in the minister's mind. [DOT]


Mr. KELLNER:: I would like to ask the minister if it is intended the dredging will be carried on at Lamont, Alberta, where I believe $20,000 has already been spent, and where there is a dredge at the moment. Estimates covering this work have been included in previous years, and I would like to know if it is proposed to finish the dredging?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing definite has been decided about that matter; the dredge there is laid up at present, of course, and whether it will proceed with further dredging this year has not yet been settled.


Robert Gardiner: Would the minister say if this vote for Ontario and Quebec, or any portion of it, is to be used in deepening the channel between Quebec and Montreal, and if so what amount will be so used?


John Campbell Elliott: No, this amount does not apply to that at all. My friend will notice that this is exactly the same amount as was voted last year for this purpose. The amounts nearly correspond, and this is the annual vote for this purpose.


Robert Gardiner: The work of deepening that channel would come under the Department of Marine and Fisheries?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Earl Rowe: I would like the minister to tell us at what points in Ontario the chief expenditures of this vote are to be made?


John Campbell Elliott: The places mentioned
particularly are Amherst harbour, Amherst, Grindstone, Pointe Basse, Saguenay River, Port Burwell, St. Ours, Colonie des Greves, St. Sulpice, St. Jeanne, Beauharnois, Caughna-waga, Grosse lie, Barachois de Malbaie. Anse a Beaufils, Ste. Adelaide de Pabos, Thames River, Harricana River, Trois Pistoles, Pembroke, Point Edward, Port Hope, Stokes Bay, Sydenham River, Wilson Channel, Cabano, Kinojevis River, Riviere du Loup, River Yamaska, Baie La Valliere, Vercheres, Petite Riviere St. Francois.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: How
much of this $540,000 is to be expended in the constituency of Richmond-West Cape Breton during the coming year, and at what points?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not set out by constituencies, but perhaps I can give my friend something which will serve. There is North Sydney, C.N.R. Wharf, Birks Head, McLean cove, and Glace Bay.


Finlay MacDonald: I notice that one of the items mentioned is in the constituency of Richmond-West Cape Breton. I should like to bring to the attention of the minister, as I have done on a former occasion, that contracts have been let for dredging in the constituency within the last year and a half and the work has not been completed. After expending a thousand, or two or three thousand dollars, the contract was dropped, and the vote has been allowed to lapse. I wish to ascertain definitely if it is the intention of the government to complete the work commenced at Petite de Gnat one of the most important fishing centres probably in the whole province of Nova Scotia.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand the place to
which my hon. friend refers is the place where the contractors lost a dredge. I am informed the work there is difficult work. Nothing has been definitely decided as to the expenditure at that point for the coming season.

Supply-Public Works


Finlay MacDonald: I might point out to the minister that the dredging was being done inside the harbour and the dredge could not have been lost at that point. I know the dredge was removed from the vicinity shortly after the election. I should like to know why the dredge was taken away from that particular point. An item of some $30,000 was in the estimates in 1925, but the vote has been allowed to (lapse. I would remind the minister that this is a very important fishing section, and it is imperative that the work there should be completed.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the resolution
carry?


Finlay MacDonald: Before
the resolution carries I should like to get a more definite answer from the minister, because the people of that district were led to believe that the government had voted the sum of $30,000 of public money to assist the local fishermen. It is a fine fishing district, and it was understood that this money was to be expended in opening one of the entrances to the harbour. The people at that point supported this government on the strength of the benefits they were to derive from this expenditure. I wish to get some definite statement from the minister as to what his intentions are in that regard.


John Campbell Elliott: The information I have
indicates that a contract was awarded but the contractor gave up the contract; he was unable to complete it. Attempts have since been made to let contracts for the work there but they have not been successful. There is nothing definite as to what the program is to be for this year. That is all the information I can give my hon. friend.


Finlay MacDonald: Is it intended' to complete the dredging at L'Arche-veque, which was begun about the same time but has since been dropped? A large sum of money was voted for this purpose, but it remains unexpended. A certain amount of work was done there, and the people of the neighbourhood were led to believe that the harbour was to be dredged so that the fishermen might be in a position to carry on fishing operations in the fall. Will the minister be good enough to inform me what the government's intentions are with respect to L'Arche-veque harbour?


John Campbell Elliott: I am told the last named place is in the same category as the place which my hon. friend mentioned previously. The same company had the contract. First of all government dredges were worked there
32649-93$	,	,
for a season or two, but they did not make progress that was at all satisfactory in the estimation of the residents of the district, or of the government. Then the suggestion was made that a contract should be awarded, and a contract was given to the company in question. The work was completed in neither place, and there is no decision at present as to what will be done during the coming season.


Finlay MacDonald: Is it the
intention of the government to again call for tenders previous to the next election, say two or three years hence?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines- Nova Scotia-Cape Breton Telegraph and Telephone lines-general repairs and
improvements	 $9,800
Telegraph line from Little Narrows to
Ottawa Brook	 515
Finlay MacDonald: I understand that a petition was sent in asking that a certain line be built from the town of Louisburg into Little Lorraine. Is it the intention of the government to carry out that extension?


John Campbell Elliott: There has been no decision in that matter. It is still under investigation.


Finlay MacDonald: May I
say that this district is one of the most important sections along that line? The people down there are three or four miles away from a telephone or any convenience of that nature, and if this extension were made it would be of great benefit to them. I would urge upon the government to have this extension built at the earliest possible moment.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-
Mainland telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements	 $16,800
British Columbia northern district- general	repairs	and	improvements.. 8,100Vancouver island district-general repairs and	improvements	
5,500
I ancouver island district-purchase of
cable	 10,000
William Kemble Esling: On Kootenay lake we have a mining operation which provides a very large payroll and a community of perhaps two hundred people. It has been conducting operations for several years and the property is successful. It is proposed to extend these operations. The community is situated on the banks of the Kootenay lake and there is not a road nor even a trail from it in any direction. The only means of access to the outside world is by rowboat or launch if you
Supply-Public Works

happen to have one. For two years I have been asking the department to provide telephone connection with that section. As was indicated in my communication to the department, such connection could be made at a cost of $4,000 or $5,000 covering a distance of not more than five miles. So keen have been the operators of the mine to secure that connection that they were even willing to contribute towards the cost of erecting the poles. Just imagine a case of sickness or accident calling for the services of a physician: before a doctor could be reached somebody would have to row three or four miles across the lake and then telephone to the nearest town or city where a physician could be had. Certainly it is unreasonable. The estimates this year provide for a total expenditure of $354,000,000. Now the government is anxious to have the mineral areas of British Columbia developed and is inviting people to come to the country and settle on the land, yet it does not seem disposed to provide them with the ordinary necessities of life so far as accommodation is concerned. I do not blame the present minister, because these estimates were passed on to him and he has not had time to review the situation. In connection with the Nova Scotia vote, I noticed the other evening that the Minister of Finance gave an hon. member from that province the assurance that if the minister from his province recommended a certain vote of $60,000, omitted from the estimates, he, the Mlinister of Finance, would see that it was included. Here I have had this application before the department for two years and nothing has been done. It is evident that our minister from British Columbia does not recommend it. He cannot get away from the fact that a request is on file in the office. This might be a life or death matter for somebody working in the mine, and only between $4,00(1 and $5,000 is involved. A dozen miners might suddenly require the services of a physician, and yet for the sake of a few thousand dollars the government neglects to give us the accommodation asked for. I repeat, it is altogether unreasonable, and I do not blame anyone but the minister from British Columbia who has neglected to make the necessary recommendation. I appeal to the justice of the present Minister of Public Works to see that this $4,000 or $5,000 out of a total of $354,000,000 is devoted to this telephone connection so urgently needed at Riondel. The minister could very well apply to telephone lines the policy of the department in relation to public buildings. He said the other night that it was the policy to erect public buildings where the accommodation was inadequate

or where the necessity was urgent. Here there is no accommodation at all and certainly it must be admitted that the necessity is urgent. That being so, I again appeal to the minister to see that the line is constructed this year.


Mr. FRASER:: Does this vote for mainland telegraph and telephone lines include the Yukon system?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


John Anderson Fraser: Where are the principal
lines that are maintained by this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: In the following sections: Kamloops; Barriere; Merritt; Chase-Revel-stoke; Vernon; Penticton; Princeton; Arrow Lakes; Creston; Golden-Invermere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous, $1,002,200.
Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of the $100,000 vote for the maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount of $100,000 is required for the maintenance and operation of dams and sluiceways at points on the Ottawa river and its tributaries. The object is to store the spring floods and augment the low water flow, thus equalizing the run-off of the Ottawa valley throughout the year. This also necessitates the purchase of lands damaged by maintaining reservoir surfaces at high stage during summer and autumn.
1.	Maintenance and operation of Temiskaming dam	$	8,800
2.	Maintenance and operation of
Quinze dam	 9,000
3.	Towards construction of stone fill for repairs to apron, etc., on the Ontario side of Temiskaming dam, to
offset erosion	 267,010
4.	To repair concrete piers in Quinze
dam	 4,000
5.	To renew glance boom above Quinze
dam	 4,900
6.	To pay land damages and other claims in connection with storage,
Ottawa river	 4,000
7.	Bank protection at Young's creek..	2,250


Robert Gardiner: There is an item in this vote for the national monument on Connaught Place. What progress is being made with this monument?


John Campbell Elliott: The artist is still working on it, and I understand it will be a couple of years yet before it is completed.


Robert Gardiner: This is a progress estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.

Supply-Public WorTcs


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: A year ago I protested against such a monument. There is no need for monuments of this character, seeing that we have a memorial tower that might be considered sufficient. We have already, I think, quite sufficient monuments in commemoration of the war. We are shouldered with a huge national debt which absorbs half our revenues and there are a large number of soldiers who are not being adequately cared for. There are any number of reminders of the war and of its futility and I cannot see any necessity for spending money on still another. If we must have a monument of this character it should be one bringing out very distinctly the horrors and the uselessness of war rather than in any way glorifying war. I take this opportunity of voicing this protest and I know that similar protests are in the minds of people throughout the country, at least in western Canadh.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Collection of public works revenue, $4,000.
Robert Gardiner: I have a question to
ask regarding these statutory items. Is this an annual contribution made by the Dominion government?


John Campbell Elliott: These are provided for by the Dry Dock Subsidies Act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Champlain graving dock	$ 82,000
Lome graving dock	 46,000
Esquimalt graving dock	 19,000
Esquimalt, Songhees graving dock.. .	58,100
Robert Gardiner: Are these all Dominion
government dry docks?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.	.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Andrew's rapids-lock and dam, $20,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Would the minister state what work is being carried on there?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for the annual operating costs of the lock and dam at St. Andrew's rapids.	-


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines, $803,200.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister
explain this vote? [DOT]


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
for the operation of the telegraph and telephone lines operated by the government.


Robert Gardiner: Have you any record
of the income from these properties?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. Has my hon. friend
any particular one in mind?


Robert Gardiner: You have not the figures lumped?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Perhaps the minister
could give an estimate.


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue from the
British Columbia mainland line is as follows: 1922-23, $69,000; 1923-24, $73,731; 1924-25, $74,888;	1925-26, $77,934; and the estimated
revenue for this year is $77,934.


John Anderson Fraser: What is the revenue from
the Yukon line?


John Campbell Elliott: It is as follows:	1920-
21, $133,276; 1921-22, $108,254; 1922-23, $99,943; 1923-24, $94,776; 1924-25, $99,642; 192526, $89,563.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-new departmental building, $500,000.
Robert Gardiner: Would the minister
give an explanation of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of $500,000
is required to make a start on the departmental building to house the various departments of the public service in the city of Ottawa.


Robert Gardiner: How far will $500,000
go?


John Campbell Elliott: It is estimated that the
building will take four or five years to complete, and this amount will probably provide one-fifth of the total cost of the building.


Robert Gardiner: Has any contract been let?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: It is only an estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-parliament building, $175,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is required to be done here?


John Campbell Elliott: There is an annual expenditure on that part of the building that is not completed. This is mostly for the tower and the carillon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa-expropriation of properties between Sparks and Wellington streets, east of Elgin street, $600,000.
Robert Gardiner: Are expropriation proceedings being taken at the present time, or is there any arbitration going on in connection with these properties?


John Campbell Elliott: Notice of expropriation
was served on April 24th of last year. Since that time there have been negotiations with the owners, but no proceedings have been instituted in the Exchequer court as yet.


Robert Gardiner: Will it finally go before the Exchequer court?


John Campbell Elliott: In all probability, unless
satisfactory prices can be obtained from the owners.


Robert Gardiner: Has the government
placed any valuation on these properties?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sorel-harbour improvements, $200,000.
Robert Gardiner: In connection with this and the other items in vote No. 131, this afternoon we passed several items for harbour and river improvements. How is it they are not all included in one vote?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required towards
the development of the port of Sorel, in order to provide for ocean going vessels. It is to make Sorel an ocean port for the eastern townships.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John harbour-improvements, $185,000.
Mr. BELL (St. John):: What does this
represent?


John Campbell Elliott: The memorandum with
regard to this work reads:
Courtenay bay-to complete the contract with the St. John Dry Dock
and Shipbuilding Company	
General maintenance of harbour works, renewing shed roofs, floors and so on, renewing decayed timbers in wharves, grain conveyors, and so on.
West St. John-maintenance dredging
of deep water berth	
Partridge island-wharf repairs..	..
Fort Dufferin-repairs to breastworks Staff inspection and so on	
Making a total of $185,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public Works-salaries; $637,385; contingencies, $75,000.
Robert Gardiner: How much of the contingent account was spent last year?


John Campbell Elliott: It appears from page 100 of the Estimates that it was all spent. The amounts asked are the same as last year, and I am advised it is all spent.


Robert Gardiner: What is due to contingencies under this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: Printing and stationery,
travelling expenses, clerical and other services, and temporary services.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Agriculture-dairying, including grant of $5,000 to the National Dairy Council, $242,000.
Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Health-the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, honey, maple products, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines, $120,800.
Hon. J. H. KING (Minister of Health):: There is an increase of $2.5,000 over the vote

Supply-Health
of last year. This vote is understood to provide for the administration of the acts respecting food and drugs, honey, maple products, opium and narcotic drugs and proprietary or patent medicines. The $15,000 of the increase, or part of it is for investigation in connection with the international traffic in narcotic drugs between Canada and United States under the terms of the international treaty. It was found last year that we required to ask for a governor general's warrant and a supplementary vote of $10,000. The additional increase of $10,000 is to make provision for establishing and equipping a sub-laboratory at Toronto, in addition to our laboratories at Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Halifax and Montreal.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pollution of inland waters, $9,000.
Robert Gardiner: What sort of organization could be put into existence for $9,000?


Mr. KING (Kootenay):: We have a chief sanitary inspector whom we are making permanent this year at $3,600, a part time assistant at $1,000, the traveling expenses represent $1,800 and our cooperation with the provincial department of health in collecting water samples from the steamships for analysis requires $2,600, making a total of $9,000. This work is carried on in conjunction with the provincial authorities, and also under an international agreement between the United States and Canada, which relates more particularly to work on the great lakes and the St. Lawrence river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine hospitals, including burial expenses of destitute deceased mariners and grants to institutions assisting sailors, $190,000.
Robert Gardiner: What was the expense of this department last year?


John Warwick King: It amounted to $139,998.


Robert Gardiner: Why the increase?


Mr. SIMPSON:: Is the increase due to higher funeral expenses?


John Warwick King: It ' is estimated that the amount required this year will be $190,000. There is $25,000 needed to cover payments made last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Immigration medical inspection, $160,000.
Robert James Manion: I would suggest that the minister let this item stand for the moment.


John Warwick King: I have no objection.


Robert James Manion: It is something that we will wish to discuss.
Item stands.
Venereal diseases, $100,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very unfortunate indeed that this grant should be cut down. Last year a deputation representing all sections of the House waited upon the Prime Minister and asked for a larger sum. I cannot see why such an important item should receive this scant attention at the hands of the government. I notice that the total to be spent for the health of the people is only $600,000. On the preceding page the vote for health of animals is over $2,000,000. It is absurd to spend $2,000,000 for that purpose and only half a million dollars in caring for the health of the people. 1 think the minister ought to explain the reason for the reduction.


John Warwick King: Mr. Chairman, this expenditure was undertaken some years ago by way of annual grants to the provinces in order to develop clinics to take care of the conditions indicated by this item. A number of clinics have been established throughout Canada, fifty in all. I am informed that if this grant is stabilized at $100,000 it will probably be sufficient to meet the requirements of the provinces.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to the minister, in order to save time, that as some members wish to discuss this and the other item that I referred to, he might let this stand
also?


John Warwick King: Yes.
Item stands.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Do I understand that this
vote is held over?


John Warwick King: It stands.
Health-salaries, $174,425; Contingencies, including members of the Dominion Council of Health, or substitutes for the chief provincial health officers and $179.90 incurred by Dr. H. Orr of Edmonton. Alta., in coming to Ottawa as substitute in July, 1926, $60,000.


Robert Gardiner: Mr. Chairman, are the new rules in operation? It is eleven o'clock.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Not yet.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Government-Railways and Canals- salaries, including E. E. Pelletier, messenger to minister, at $1,600 per annum, who shall be entitled to all the benefits and privileges under The Civil Service Superannuation Act, 1924, as
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Railways and Canals
if he had been a civil servant who had elected pursuant to the provisions of part IV of the act, to become a contributor under the act, $248,490; contingencies, $38,000.
Mr. GUTHRIE; We will have to have some explanation of this item?
Charles Avery Dunning: This is all the permanent civil service, of course. The one exception, Mr. Pelletier, is a very difficult case. He has served for thirty or forty years in the capacity of messenger to every succeeding minister of railways and due to a succession of awkward circumstances he is not under the Superannuation Act. This is designed to give him the opportunity of coming under that act. He is not yet at the supperannuation age and will contribute from this time onward. I feel sure that every minister of railways and anyone else who had anything to do with this particular man will realize the justice of giving him this opportunity. He was in the employ of the Intercolonial Railway for a lcng time and consequently is not under the provisions of the ordinary act.


Hugh Guthrie: Would the minister explain the thirteen increases in his department?


Charles Avery Dunning: I have not the documents here, but I may say no actual increases are involved. Salaries which were carried under other votes previously are now put into their proper place under civil government. In other votes my hon. friends will notice decreases which are accounted for by this increase.


Robert James Manion: Will the minister promise tc tell us of those decreases when we come to them?


Charles Avery Dunning: I will.


Hugh Guthrie: If the minister will turn
to page 101 of the estimates he will find that last year the salaries in his department amounted to $222,155, while this year they amount to $248,490; the number of employees last year was 93 and this year it is 106, so apparently there is an increase of 13 in the number of employees and of $26,000 in the salaries, part of which I suppose is statutory. What are these additional thirteen employees?


Charles Avery Dunning: I am afraid I did not make myself clear. Other votes already covered salaries which should be under civil government, and these salaries are now transferred to civil government where they properly belong.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Then there is no actual
increase?


Charles Avery Dunning: There may be an increase of one or two; I am sorry I have not my

documents with me, but there is nothing like an increase of thirteen. The real reason for the increase is the transfer of salaries from other votes to civil government. But if there is any objection I shall be glad to let the vote stand until I have the information available or I will give the detailed explanation on the other votes as the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. Manion) suggests. I really was not prepared to go on to-night, as I think everyone will recognize; I have not the documents before me, but I remember checking up when the estimates were submitted to me and this is really a transfer of salaries from other votes to civil government, where it is considered they properly belong.


Hugh Guthrie: I remember last year and the year before we had from other ministers the same explanation, but you can take the estimates year by year and take the number of civil servants drawing their salaries from the government and find an increase every year. There is nothing in the estimates to show these decreases of which the minister has spoken. That statement would apply to every one of the last five years; there has been a gradual increase in the civil service, and I doubt if there is any new business to warrant it. The invariable explanation given by the government is that these increases are apparent rather than real and that in some other branch of the service there have been some changing or switching or rearrangement of some kind, which has not involved any more money. Every year, however, the salary list shows an increase and the number of officials increases as well.


Charles Avery Dunning: I can only repeat what I said previously, but I have found one vote, item 127 on page 30 of the estimates, "Surveys and inspections-canals, including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily." Last year that item amounted to $20,000 while this year only $13,000 is asked, and I know the reason is because of the transfer of some salaries formerly chargeable to that vote to the civil government, where they properly belong. There are other votes in connection with which the same thing applies, but I do not have them at hand at the moment. As I said before, I am willing to allow the vote to stand over if it is so desired, because I appreciate the committee is entitled to all the information it is possible to give.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the House adjourned at 11.10 p.m.
Private Bills
Wednesday, March 23, 1927.