1928-05-26

[Stage Direction]
Eleventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills-Mr. Brown (for Mr. Parent).


Mr. L. H. JELLIFF (Lethbridge) moved:: That in accordance with the recommendation contained in the eleventh report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, and with the usual practice in such cases, the additional charge paid on the following private bills from the Senate be refunded, viz.:
Bill	No.	317	(letter	G9	of	the	Senate),
intituled: "An act for the relief of Helena Mar-tyniuk."
Bill No. 320 (letter J9 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Robert Anderson Traill."
Bill	No.	332	(letter	U9	of	the	Senate),
intituled: "An act for the relief of Gabrielle Norton."
Bill	No.	334	(letter	W9	of	the	Senate)
intituled: "An act for the relief of Charles St. Clair Parsons."
Bill	No.	337	(letter	Z9	of	the	Senate),
intituled: "An act for the relief of Harold Wilfrid Vivian Vincent Turner."


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Will the hon. gentleman who sponsors this resolution explain on what ground this refund of fees is made?


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: I am not a member of the miscellaneous private bills committee, but I understand that these bills were filed in the Senate, and were heard and passed upon there, after the time limit for the presentation of petitions to this house had expired. I understand that in some of the cases involved the applicants for divorce are very poor people who were unable to pay the deposit.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
"Vfr. Stevens.]

Mr. G. H. PETTIT (Welland) moved:: That, at it appears by the minutes of the proceedings of the Senate, page 438, that the preamble of Bill No. 14, an act to incorporate Niagara Falls Memorial Bridge Company, was reported as "not proven", the fee and charges paid on the said bill be refunded, less the cost of printing and translating the same.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: In view of the statements made in the press to the effect that the report of the special committee on judges' salaries is not to be considered this year, I would like to ask the government whether the report will be considered before parliament prorogues.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I am afraid my hon.. friend will have to wait and see.



PACIFIC CABLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):: I would Hike to ask the Prime Minister what grounds there are for the report which appears in the press that the Pacific cable has been sold to tihe Eastern Telegraph Company, that a meeting was held in London attended by a representative of the Canadian government, and that Canada acquiesced in the sale. Would the Prime Minister tell us if that is true, and if so the extent of this sale and purchase by the Eastern Telegraph Company?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There have been negotiations in London with respect to the Pacific cable, but my understanding is that no final conclusion has been reached. As soon as the government are in a position to intimate to the house any facts with respect to these negotiations I shall have pleasure in seeing that they are made known.



APPLICATION OF DUMPING DUTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. S. F. TOLMIE (Victoria):: I desire to ask the government a question based on the following: On May 15 the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) was reported in Hansard ait page 3054 as having asked the Prime Minister this question:
Are you going to put into effect another order in council to-morrow as you state you have power to do?

Private and Public Bills
To tlhe question the Prime Minister replied:
Yes, the very minute the minister comes to council and gives us reasonable grounds for putting that order into effect the governor in council will act on the advice of the minister.
On M|ay 23, at page 3302 of Hansard, the hon. member for Fraser Valley (Mr. Barber), referring to the condition of the strawberry market in British Columbia, is reported as follows:
I wish to ask the Minister of Agriculture whether he has discussed the matter with the Minister of National Revenue and whether he has complied with the request of these growers. If not, does he intend to do so?
The Minister of Agriculture admitted the receipt of certain telegrams from strawberry growers in British Columbia asking for valuation for duty on imported strawberries, and said:
I understand that under the existing law we have no authority to apply the dumping duty to any products carrying specific duties.
In view of these statements will the government relieve the anxiety of the fruit, vegetable and egg producers in the province of British Columbia and elsewhere by stating why action has not been taken as promised?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend's question is so long that apparently he was unable to present it without referring to his notes. I shall have to ask him to allow me to read it over and give him an answer on Monday.



IMPORTATION OF CATTLE FROM UNITED STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: May I ask the government if the minister in charge of the matter will lay upon the table the order in council dealing with the admission into Canada of cattle in bond for grazing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am informed that the Minister of National Revenue has to do with the matter, and I will direct his attention to this request.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: One day last week the Minister of Railways was good enough to say that he would submit to the government my request that they take over as a government measure Bill No. 63,
which is an act to amend the Railway Act in regard to the investigation of subsidiary companies. I would like to ask the minister if he has submitted this request, as promised, and if so, what action has been taken?
Right Hon, W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister): I understand that my hon. friend's question has reference to a public bill. My hon. friend will remember that during the course of the consideration of public and private bills I intimated that several members of the house had asked that preference be given to their bills, and that to avoid any discrimination I had declined, on behalf of the government, to accede to those requests, and I also stated that the rule of no discrimination would continue to be followed. As far as I am aware it has been followed up to the present time, and it is the procedure which the government will wish to follow. If any public bill can be reached in the regrilar order, of course it will be the desire of the government to have it so reached, but it would not be fair to hon. members of the house generally if the bill of any one member were to receive consideration which is denied the bills of other members similarly situated.


George Reginald Geary: I would like to pursue that a little further, because I think the Prime Minister did not quite catch the drift of my question. 1 do not desire for a moment to secure a place out of turn, but I did suggest to the Minister of Railways that since this bill seeks to amend a public statute, the Railway Act, he might consider recommending to the government that it be taken up as a government measure.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That comes to very much the same thing; there are two or three other measures in the nature of public or private bills and private resolutions which members have asked the government to take over as government measures, and to have so considered. What my hon. friend now suggests is a round about way of attaining what he first had in mind when he made the request.


George Reginald Geary: I do not think I made any request that it be taken out of its turn.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That may be so.	.


George Reginald Geary: There are five proposed
amendments to the Railway Act, and I think the Minister of Railways might consider taking them up as government measures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister
of Railways has had the matter under con-

Private and Public Bills
sideration, but my hon. friend will realize that he is not in a position to state what takes place in council.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Would the Prime Minister consider the advancement, in some way, of the divorce court bill which comes from the Senate, and which is of very great interest to the house and to the country?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is another bill in exactly the same position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that bill has been passed by the Senate.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But it is a public bill; it is not what might be called a government measure. It is quite possible that that measure will be reached this session in the regular course of procedure.
I might say to my hon. friend that I have suggested and would again suggest to the whips of the different parties that they get together with a view to seeing if some agreement cannot be reached between the different groups in the house whereby these public and private bills in which hon. members are interested may be considered without unnecessary blocking in relation to other measures on the part of members of different groups. I do not see that it is possible for the government, by giving extra time for the consideration of private bills or public bills, ever to hope to have these bills reached if, when particular bills are before the house, hon. members are going to make it a point of seeing that they are talked out. Now we have reached a point in the session when I think the whips of the parties should be able to reach some agreement whereby all the measures which hon. members may wish to have considered will be assured of consideration within a limited time, and if that can be done the government will seek in some way to facilitate their consideration.



INQUIRY FOR RETURN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. A. CLARK (Vancouver-Burrard):: I would like to ask the Postmaster General if he would be good enough to see whether a return relating to the post office at Sutton, Quebec, is ready.


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Postmaster General):: I received the papers at my office about one o'clock to-day, and I will endeavour to have them here on Monday. They will have to go from my department to the office of the Secretary of State, and from there to the house.
IMr. Mackenzie King.]



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
British Columbia-harbours and rivers-Old Massett-wharf repairs, $3,800.
Mr. BRADY:: I wish to supplement what
I was saying last night regarding the Public Works department in British Columbia. As a preface to what I have to say I would like to read an article from the Ottawa Citizen of last evening:
If both political parties had political wisdom, they would, in my judgment, come to an agreement by some binding pledge, to put an end forever to patronage, and free themselves as members from all worry and annoyance at the hands of place hunters. Candidates could then stand on their personal merits, on the merits of their party, their interest in their constituencies, in the welfare of the country at large, and the people would vote for them honestly on those considerations only. We would not then witness the painful exhibitions that I have seen of defeated candidates boasting that, though defeated, the patronage is still in their hands, because their party had won the election.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to get this article before the committee. I fail to understand why it is that representatives of constituencies 'have placed upon them the duty of going through the country investigating requests made by the people in the matter of public works. They are put to great expense and have to travel very often in the most inclement weather, as it is frequently during the winter months that the members must travel. They travel through the country and go to great pains to get the facts to present to parliament, and then they come here only to discover that anything they aay has no possible chance of having any attention paid to it, for the simple reason that they are not members or supporters of the government in power.
Last December I visited the northern section of British Columbia, putting in three weeks there under great hardship and incurring considerable expense. I went there to find out just what the people needed, and to satisfy myself that I was working in accord with the government engineer, I took a trip to Victoria, six hundred miles away, and presented to him what the people had given to me. I told him that I did not wish to advocate anything which he did not consider was right and proper. I hold in my hand a letter from the federal engineer, in which he says that the various public works

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
that I asked for .receive his absolute support. He has the following to say in the last paragraph :
If there are any other items which you consider it necessary to include in these estimates I shall be pleased to have a list of them at your convenience.
But what do I find? I find, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, that after going to every possible care and trouble, and presenting to the Minister of Public Works these requests for the northern and central parts of British Columbia, when the estimates are brought down there is only one item for wharf repairs at Old Massett. The federal engineer's report on necessary public works showed an expenditure of $79,365, not counting $30,000 for river improvements and snag boat operations on some of the rivers there. But what do I find? I find that in this constituency of Skeena, which has an immense Pacific seaooast and where is carried on the largest fishing industry in the whole of Canada, their great need for. wharves and roads has been entirely overlooked.
The people of Canada are asking the same question that I am going to ask. Is it right that the most important department in the whole of the government's activities, the Department of Public Works, should be placed under political patronage? Is it possible, because a member happens to come from a constituency once Liberal or Conservative, that the people are to be penalized for that? Surely the Department of Public Works should be outside the realm of politics altogether. If the government realize the importance of building up our young country, I cannot see why they should not take the steps that are necessary.
In reading the report of the Ontario Department of Health for 1928 I find that out of 57,521 official certificates issued last year, 61 per cent were issued for emigration purposes. That means that 34,000 young Canadians left this province to go into the United States. In British Columbia we are faced with great problems. We have the orient right at our door; we find that a seepage is steadily going on there, and the government is doing very little to hold our own people in the country.
A wharf costing only four or five hundred , dollars is denied because the government, to my mind, seemingly lack vision, when they think that intelligent people will be won over and brought to their knees in submission to any party in power who refuse to give them what they are entitled to.
Why should a member of parliament be obligated to come here asking for these things,
when there is a federal engineer appointed by the government to send in reports on necessary public works? We are absolutely like children when we come to the major elements of government. Why should a member of parliament, I say again, have to come here and beg, as if it were a personal favour, for what is of national importance? Surely a government which, by being placed in power, has received the highest gift which a nation can bestow upon it, should be over and above party interests and look for the good of the country from east to west.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hear, hear.


James Charles Brady: I hear an hon. gentleman
from the old province of Quebec saying, "hear, hear." I am proud to have that "hear, hear;" but I would be much prouder and happier if I thought the province of Quebec joined with me in my supplication that the public works department be taken outside of political patronage.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is.


James Charles Brady: It is not, I am sorry. I
do not want to go into personalities, but when the Deputy Minister of Public Works was passing through British Columbia last year, when he came into the town of Prince Rupert -and I was there-to whom did he go? Did he come and ask the representative to consult with him? No, he went to those that I know are not working as they ought to work over and above party interests. I have never yet accused and I shall never accuse a man unless I am on sound principles, but I know that many necessary public works which are for the building up of that young province, which are works supported by Liberals and Conservatives, or, in other words, by the people, have to be recommended by one who no longer sits in this parliamentary assembly. We are handing down a legacy of hate instead of a legacy of peace and of hope. As long as we continue in the mood we are in to-day where we are passing every paltry little public work as a bouquet for the member to go back and say to his constituents: "See what I got for you," we are doing groat injury to the future of Canada. Is there any intelligent man who to-day thinks that this is going to continue? It will not. The hour must come when we shall have to change our ways and take out of the realm of politics what is for the nation's good.
Last winter at the request of three or four people I went sixty miles away over the waters in order that I might discover their needs. I went into a storm, the worst that had struck the Pacific coast for years. I was out on the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
water storm-tossed for two days and nights, never knowing whether the boat would reach land or not. Our boat was swept by the stormy seas; we were there baling out tons of water at midnight. What for? Hon. members may say: you are only posing. I would not be in the house to-day if I were posing. When I arrived at my destination I found a family that had been without supplies for days. I found them, mother and children, cut off from every chance of getting in touch with any of their fellowmen and this at ihe festive season of Christmas.
The day is coming when throughout the length and breadth of Canada truth will prevail. It will come in spite of every material force that ever man put into execution. It is coming because the heart of the people is true and they know the truth when they hear it. No longer can members of the government go through the length and breadth of Canada and tell the people about the misdeeds of their opponents. Why should we talk about what the other party did? Let us get rid of the defects of the past and let us stand upon a common platform. Surely the Liberal party, represented by hon. gentlemen opposite, and the Conservative party, represented by hon. gentlemen on this side of the house, have major platforms, big principles upon which they can go to the country, and we should leave out the trivial things that we hear so much about.
I want to ask the government and particularly the Minister of Public Works this question. I have brought forward not one but several public works that I believe are necessary. Do they honestly believe that those public works which I have presented this year are required? British Columbia will one day be the prid'e of Canada' because her wealth in natural resources is beyond the dreams of human possibility. Do they believe that because British Columbia is separated from the rest of Canada by the great Rocky mountains, it is not to be considered when public works and public development are under consideration? Surely British Columbia, which is now coming forward so strongly and capably, is entitled to consideration. A father is bound to look to the interests of his children; a city is bound to see to the health and welfare of its citizens, and I say that the federal government, which has taken upon its shoulders the Public Works department, should do what is essential. I cannot prove it, but I feel sure that there are in these estimates that we are now passing millions of dollars that it is not essential to expend, and this money should be spent throughout Canada where public works 
are absolutely essential. You know it, Mr. Chairman, and I know it. What is going to be the end of all this? The end is very evident. The people of Canada to-day are becoming educated to this extent, that they recognize merit and truth, and can separate it from falsehood and hypocrisy, and until the government treats this matter of public works differently, and takes each province and each constituency on its merits, regardless of how it may have voted, and gets the federal engineers to give an honest report as to the public works that are essential, we are only blinding ourselves and are guilty of folly. I come to this House of Commons with a motive which I think no man can challenge There is no man who can challenge my love of the people and my regard for their welfare. We all probably feel that way, but I can say this, that I can go back to my constituency feeling assured that I have done my duty faithfully to the people, even though the government may turn deaf ears to my presentations and . the needs of the people who are entitled to be heard.
How can the government answer this question? Why did they remove from the estimates the appropriation put in for a float for the fishermen at Prince Rupert? Why was that taken out of the estimates? First, why was it put in? We see there a dilemma. If the floats were necessary in the first place, they are doubly and trebly necessary now. The port of Prince Rupert is the largest fishing port on the North American continent, and hon. gentlemen know it. We find that of the output of salmon and halibut for the whole of Canada, the port of Prince Rupert exports over sixty per cent. Now I want to know why the government took out of the estimates that appropriation, especially when to-day the fishing fleet at Prince Rupert has increased three-fold. I have photographs here, showing the greatest congestion at that port. I ask again, why was that appropriation taken out of the estimates?
Some of the eastern members have but a vague idea of the port of Prince Rupert. It is unfortunately true that the people of the east cannot travel as much as they should to the west, but that port, I can tell hon. gen. tlemen, is growing rapidly, and despite the treatment which it is getting at the hands of this government to-day I have faith enough to believe that the port of Prince Rupert will become a leading Pacific port. The people of British Columbia are a people brought up among the great mountains that rear their tops to heaven, and if you study the history of the world, you will find that

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the mountaineers have always been the great leaders in every forward move of civilization. So I would say to the government now, please forget this little thing of trying to get even. Just forget it and rise to the height to which you ought to rise, namely, to a broad vision of the welfare of the whole people, and where it is necessary that money be expended on public works, let the expenditures be made for the good of the country at large, regardless of whether the constituency is represented by a Progressive, a Conservative or a Liberal.


Mr. POULIOT:: I have listened with close attention to the strong plea made by my hon. friend from Skeena. I differ from him, however, because I do not believe that the estimates are drafted in such a partisan way as he complains of, because otherwise there would have been no item of 8500,000 for Toronto, which is ' not represented in this house by any Liberal member. There are also other items in the estimates for counties which are represented by members of the opposition in this house. I understood my hon. friend from Skeena to say that the appropriations in the estimates are presented to members on the government side as if they were bouquets for them to present to their electors after the close of the session. Is the hon. member complaining of that?


James Charles Brady: I do not complain about
money being expended where it is necessary, but the money should be expended because the work in question is a work of merit, and no member should look upon an appropriation as a bouquet handed over to him. But many of them do, because I have heard them say, and I have no doubt the hon. gentleman will agree with me, "I got this for you, and I got that for you." Is that true or not?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is asking
for a bouquet for himself perhaps.


James Charles Brady: No, sir, no bouquet for me.


Mr. ROBINSON:: If the hon. member
for Temiscouata is answering for the Minister of Public Works, will he tell the committee why the item that was in the estimates Inst year for the fishermen's float at Prince Rupert has been taken out of the estimates?


Jean-François Pouliot: But my hon. friend from
Skeena spoke of so many things that I forgot his main point.


James Charles Brady: I should like to get squarely from the minister why this item was taken out of the estimates.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I do not imagine the item has been in the estimates while I have been
in charge of the department.


James Charles Brady: Yes, it was.


John Campbell Elliott: If so, I would not have
heard complaints about nothing being in the estimates for Skeena, complaints that are made every session when the British Columbia votes are under consideration. I take it that this must have been some time ago.


James Charles Brady: No, sir.


John Campbell Elliott: According to the reports
received by the department, there is a difference of opinion among the fishermen as to what is the proper location for the float at Skeena. Probably that is the main reason why further progress has not been made in this connection. I am surprised at my hon. friend, who I know is very serious and would not for the world misrepresent any hon, gentleman, particularly members of the government-I am surprised, I say, at his asking if the government do believe in British Columbia and that western section of Canada. Certainly every member of the government entertains that belief, and they feel that they have done fairly well by that section of the Dominion. He will find that of the $539,000 for British Columbia, not one dollar is being spent in a Liberal riding.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is hard to find any Liberal members from British Columbia.


John Campbell Elliott: According to my hon.
friend's argument, if there were no Liberal members from British Columbia the province would get nothing. I think my hon. friend realizes that British Columbia has fared very well. His suggestion as to political patronage entering into these estimates has, I think, been conclusively answered by my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). There are supplementary estimates coming, but I am not in a position to say whether the ridings that are not represented by government supporters will fare better in those supplementaries than they have in the main estimates. Up to the present, however, the government has done very well for my hon. friend's riding and the other ridings in British Columbia, and it intends to continue to treat the province fairly in spite of the criticisms of my hon. friend.


James Charles Brady: The appropriation of $15,-
000 appeared in the main estimates for 1925. The appropriation for the Stewart wharf was likewise included. Both were taken out. The minister's answer to me is similar to that which he has given to other members, but it is not convincing. It would be far from me

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
to say that as a general rule the Public Works department does not stretch out to embrace all the provinces, but the-fact remains that these absolutely essential appropriations were discontinued. The minister tells me that the reports he received disclose a difference of opinion amongst the fishermen regarding the location of the float. I ask the minister for the source of his information and for the names of the parties.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the report received from the district engineer. I may tell my hon. friend that the proportion of the present votes for British Columbia to the total estimates compares very favourably with the figures of other years. In my opinion this fact alone fully answers my hon. friend's criticism.


James Charles Brady: I want to get this matter
cleared up, Mr. Chairman. The Minister of Public Works says that he has done more for British Columbia than what was done in past years. That may be so. But this does not explain why the appropriation was withdrawn, for to say that his action was based on a report that a few of the fishermen were in doubt about the location of the float is by no means an adequate explanation. The fishing industry is very important to Canada, and should be encouraged. The minister placed the onus on the federal engineer in Victoria. I know a little about the sources of information, I wish the committee to consider this: I am the representative of the people of my riding, Liberal and Conservative, labour and commercial, and they have come to me and requested that the appropriation should be reinstated in the estimates. Do you,_ sir, or does any other member of the committee think that I, who for years taught the sons and daughters of these people, would degrade myself by putting forward something that I had not thoroughly examined? Yet my judgment and my integrity are apparently of no account to the Minister of Public Works or his department in comparison with the other sources of information to which he refers. Surely this is not in accord with the principles of democratic government. Then take another matter, the post office in Prince Rupert. The accommodation is a farce. The people of the city were opposed to renewing the lease of the premises, and yet their views were disregarded. Why? As to the float, the fishermen have requested that it be built, and all the business people of the city, including the board of trade-and they are mostly Liberals-have supported that request. Yet nothing is done. There may be an appropriation for the work in the supplement-aries; I know not; but I do contend that it is

of vital import to the people who are building up this country and adding to its revenue that they should be given proper accommodation, and I cannot see any reason why this float should not be built. Does the minister think that I am speaking merely for the pleasure of doing so? I went to Victoria, travelling 600 miles odd, to interview the federal engineer. I went at my own expense and in my own time so that I might get the engineer to give me an idea of the situation in order that I might come to Ottawa feeling that at least I had gone to the trouble of presenting things rightly. And what did he tell me? The federal engineer told me exactly what I have stated to the minister, namely, that certain works were necessary. I have a list of these works. First, there is Bella Coola: for wharf repairs $6,700 is required. Then Digby island, repairs to approach, $2,600; Hartley bay, wharf, $4,600; New Massett, wharf repairs, $2,050; Old Massett-that is the one that appears in the estimates here; Port Clements, $715; Prince Rupert floats, $16,000; Queen Charlotte city, proposed wharf repairs, $4,000; Queen Charlotte city, proposed repairs, $1,900; and Stewart, extension to the proposed wharf $38,000.
In addition to these I gave to the minister a list of other necessary public works that involved my going hundreds of miles-


John Campbell Elliott: Can my hon. friend give
us any information as to the location-


James Charles Brady: Yes, I shall tell you.


John Campbell Elliott: -on which the people
would be agreed?


James Charles Brady: The people are agreed that the north end of the present drydock is a perfect natural location, easily within reach of the city and sufficiently sheltered to enable a wharf to be put up there. But they object to Seal cove. I went there myself and I know something about the place. There is no road and on dark nights it would be dangerous to pass through the channel to the proposed site. The fishermen object to going so far away from the city.
I do not wish to elaborate this, but I would point out to the minister that I went to Victoria for the purpose of getting from the federal engineer a plan of the proposed work to be built at Seal cove. I agree with the minister that there was a doubt as to which site was preferable. Cow bay or Seal cove, but that was a matter that could have been easily adjusted. The point was that the floats were needed. So long as it was understood by the federal government and the provincial and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
municipal authorities that the work was needed, the site was not at all a question to worry about.
I put in some further estimates: Float at Metlakahtla, an Indian fishing village, where there is no float at all. Last year, two Indians were reported drowned going to get their boat, a storm having arisen. That would cost $1,200. Clearing Whitesail and Ootsa rivers: all that is needed here is $2,000; for removal of five little log jams, that are there and give portage of 238 miles of the finest lake water that Canada possesses. All round these lakes there are farmers, and people are going in to build up the country. Next on the list are floats for Francois lake. If hon. members here realized what a heritage British Columbia is, what a wonderful country is there, what it is going to be, and the increasing numbers of people who are going into that country, they would be astonished; even the people of old Ontario who live by the mighty St. Lawrence would open their eyes in wonder. It is indeed a wonderful country-wonderful in the extent of its fertility, its beauty, and its splendid water transportation. We ask for five little floats, not costing S100 each, to be placed along the Francois lake, so that farmers may come from Nadina which is sixty miles away. Those farmers are obliged to transport their produce sixty miles along a poor road, whereas all they would have to do would be to go down to the water's edge to a little wharf and go sixty miles upstream at no small cost. Then there is needed a float at Allison harbour, as well as repairs to the wharf at Silver City, Alice Arm; a breakwater at Oona river and a warehouse and wharf at Aiyansh.
I have travelled the length and breadth of Canada, visiting Ontario and Quebec last year at personal cost of time and money. I wanted to get in touch with the east in order that I might translate their message to the west. The people of the east and the government, as a whole are not aware of the greatness, the richness and the opportunities afforded for settlement in central British Columbia. Why should a paltry thousand dollars be refused that country? I went through my constituency last winter; I was away from home for weeks: for what purpose? That I might stand here with conviction and tell exactly what the [DOT] country needs. I have stood in the streets of Ottawa and I take a pride in our capital, as every Canadian does. But I say that the greatest monuments, the noblest works of beauty that any government can help to erect are happy homes in these lovely valleys
and fertile fields throughout Canada. That is the monument I wish to see built and it is not the monument that is being put up today. I do not want to press the Minister of Public Works. He has always been courteous to me. He is a gentleman whom everyone can respect, and it is not his fault entirely that something is not done to help that country. I believe that if he had the say he would lend a readier ear to the urgent entreaties and honest desires of the people who are building up that part of Canada. Now, does the minister think that there is a chance to have these floats built at Prince Rupert?


John Campbell Elliott: There is always a chance.


James Charles Brady: I have ever been sport
enough to take a chance.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Alberni-assembly wharf, $132,000.
Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to construct lumber and fish assembly wharves, the lumber wharf 300 feet by 60 feet with standard gauge track at front and back of wharf and the fish meal wharf 160 feet by 40! feet with storage shed 150 feet by 32 feet. This also provides for reconstruction and extension of the existing government wharf to provide trackage connection with the Esquimalt and Nanaimo railway.


Robert Gardiner: Will this complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Powell River-breakwater, the Powell River
_^lmlteii>
to contribute one-half of cost, $.27,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is asked to be provided towards the construction of a breakwater 1,02:5 feet long and 6 feet wide on top, with a batter of 1| to 1 on each side, extending out into the Malaspina strait. The breakwater as designed will consist of a gravel mound up to 12 feet below low water. This gravel mound will be capped with large rocks carried up to elevation 18 feet above low water, or about 4 feet above high water, and the toe of the rock mound will be carried down to 20 feet below water, so that the wave action will not affect the gravel mound down below.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Robert Gardiner: What will be the total
cost?


John Campbell Elliott: The contract was for
$98,400.15, and the government pay half.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Will the minister please
give us some information about this company ?


John Campbell Elliott: The Powell River Company is a very large paper-making concern, and the present mill has a capacity of 250 tons of newsprint per day. The company have recently practically doubled their plant with a view to putting out a further 240 tons of paper per day. This report which I have says that the plant will be in operation in two or three months, but since the report was made some time ago I assume that this new plant is in operation now.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Will the minister please tell us whether this expenditure is only for the benefit of the Powell River Company or whether the public will derive some benefit from it?


John Campbell Elliott: There is a public wharf there as well as the company wharf, but the greatest benefit will be to the Powell River Company and to the people who are working for that company.


Henry Herbert Stevens: There is a heavy traffic in and out.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: If this work is for the benefit of the Powell River Company why should they not pay the whole cost?


John Campbell Elliott: There is a government
wharf there as well.


Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Here we are making an appropriation to assist the Powell River Company; within the last few days we considered a vote for Ellis bay, amounting to $300,000, in order to provide an approach for another private company. In that case there was no provision whatever for the use of this approach by private individuals. How does the minister distinguish between the two? How does he reconcile the attitude of the government in these two cases?


John Campbell Elliott: I might say that the proportion here is much higher than in the case of Ellis bay. We are doing dredging, part of which has to do with the main channel, and part of which provides a harbour of refuge. The company there have expended about $2,500,000 on the wharf, or about five times the amount we are expending. This is by no means an isolated case; we are trying to encourage concerns which are doing an honest and legitimate business and producing

wealth in this country, by providing for them certain facilities or doing dredging in Canadian waters in which they have no jurisdiction and which they could not enter without the permission of the government. They could not do their own dredging. We are trying to meet these various companies; that is the policy of the government. We believe it is good business, and one of the best investments we could make. When we find a company which intends to expand and create wealth in this country by carrying on its business here with Canadian labour, we try to give them what we think is fair encouragement. The Powell River Company are not getting more than we think they should get.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has stated there is a government wharf at this point; can he give us any information, as to the tonnage passing over it? If I am not mistaken there was a similar vote for work of this kind at this place either last year or the year before, and I think it was pointed out then that this was purely a company town.
I should like to know if there is any possibility of the old wharf being used in the public interest.


John Campbell Elliott: Of course it is used by the public; there are other commodities than those of the company passing over the wharf, and my hon. friend will understand that of necessity that is the fact in regard to practically all these wharves. I am sorry I have no information about our government wharf; all the data I have here is in connection with the wharf under consideration. [DOT]


Robert Gardiner: Is this purely a company town where the company controls the whole situation, a town which cannot be entered by anyone without permission of the company?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to say as to that; every town which is built up by a manufacturing concern is more or less a company town, if that is what my hon. friend means. However, I want to say very frankly that these are the towns of which I think we should have more in this country; I think we should encourage them; company towns are what this country needs. I am surprised to find the attitude of any section of this house hostile to fair treatment to companies doing an honest business, producing wealth and turning raw material into finished products in Canada. These places of necessity must be company towns, when the companies enter practically new sections of the country and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
start carrying on their business. This is largely a company town because nothing was there before; the company has developed that section of the country, and I know this is a most deserving concern. The people interested in the company are strangers to me, but they are highly recommended and until now I have never heard any objection to this kind of assistance. There was no objection a year ago when this practice was commenced. I think it is good business, and I believe that from the standpoint of the Minister of Finance, who I know has the same opinion, there is no other business as good as that of assisting and encouraging these companies who carry on business right up to the point of finishing their product in this country.


Robert Gardiner: Similar discussions have taken place every session, and I am rather surprised at the minister taking the attitude that we should encourage these company towns. Surely the minister must know that the people are owned body and soul in these company towns. They are controlled in such a way that it is not good business for this country. I see no reason why we should put our hands into our pockets to assist companies like this, where it would be purely for their own benefit; it does not appeal to me as being good business to do this kind of spending of public moneys. I am very much surprised that the minister should take the attitude he does, in view of the report we get as to conditions in these company towns, in which no one can call his soul his own. If he thinks that is the kind of thing we want in this country, then I must disagree with him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quathiaski cove-wharf repairs, $1,000.
Mr. NEILL:: The amount of this vote is
$1,000, but I want to point out to the minister that this sum is absolutely inadequate to do what is required. While I am on my feet I wiill also mention another item, Savary Island, wharf repairs, $2,000, which is in the same category. A wharf is not like a road; you cannot leave a wharf half finished or make it only half safe, because the public cannot be expected to travel on the unsafe part as they would on an unfinished portion of a road. The amount asked by the engineer in the case of Quathiaski Cove was $2,600. The wharf here is an old one which was built by the provincial government and then taken over some years ago by the Dominion. Last summer an opening occurred between the
wharf and the approach which opened and closed every time a steamer touched the outer part of the wharf. This made a regular death trap, because if any one had been caught in that hole when it 'happened to be open and it had closed upon him, he would have been crushed. Last summer a hurry-up call had to be made and some money rushed out there to relieve the situation of absolute danger. I wish to draw the minister's attention to this matter and to say that it is absolutely necessary to supply an extra sum of $1,500 in the supplementary estimates.
In the case of Savary Island we find the same condition. It would cost about $3,800 really to complete this wharf. This place is a big summer resort; the larger class of steamers call there, and $2,000 is not sufficient to make the wharf safe. I think it is absolutely essential that the extra money be voted in the supplementary estimates to meet this situation. These wharves must be put in condition so that they will be safe.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Squamish-wharf repairs, $10,500.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This work will consist of
putting in four rows of joists 6 inches by 10 inches by 22 feet under 1,980 feet of approach, measured from the shore end. The balance of approach (600 feet) requires to be rebuilt. This work is required for the maintenance of the wharf which is a very important landing. From January 1 to October 1, 1927, 5,000 passengers and 900 tons of freight were transferred over this wharf. This is requested by the district engineer.


Robert Gardiner: Will this complete the
work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Stewart-contribution to provincial government towards surfacing Stewart-Hyder road, $11,100.
Mr. GARDINER. Will the minister explain this item, please?
John Campbell Elliott: The provincial government of British Columbia have applied to this department for assistance towards surfacing the road between Stewart and Stewart wharf. District engineer Forde reported on May 14, 1926, that he had discussed the cost of the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
hard surfacing with the provincial government engineer, and made up the following
estimate of same:
7.000	square yards of road surface to be treated. 700 barrels tarvia at
$17 per barrel in place	$ 11,900
3.000	cubic yards of rock in place at
$2,75	 8,250
10 per cent for contingencies	 2,015
Total	$22,165
Half of the above cost, $11,082.50.


Alan Webster Neill: What constituency is that
in?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the constituency
of my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Brady).


Robert Gardiner: What is the particular
reason for the government changing their policy in this regard?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I should have
told my hon. friend that the district engineer reports that the highway in question is that portion of the Stewart-Hyder road which has been built to take the place of the pile timber trestle which was formerly used as a means of travel between Stewart and Stewart wharf.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tatchi river-improvements, $2,000.
Mr. FRASER:: I would like to point out
that this vote has been asked for the last two or three years, and I am pleased indeed to see it put in the estimates. A request has always accompanied this vote for the reconstruction of the wharf at the lower end, that is, at Stewart lake. The traffic originates there and is then taken up through the river, but so far there has been no provision made for the wharf. I should like to impress upon the minister that while he is doing these improvements on the Tatchi river, it is essential * that the wharf should have a certain amount of consideration. I would ask him to bear this in mind when the supplementary estimates are being considered.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally, $30,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is this to be spent in a particular province, or generally for the country as a whole?


John Campbell Elliott: Generally for the country as a whole. It is the annual vote.


Robert Gardiner: In view of the fact that we have general votes in every province, is it necessary that we should have this extra one?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to cover travelling expenses, telegrams, printing, stationery, instruments, et cetera, which cannot conveniently be charged against one in particular of the general appropriations for construction, improvements, or repairs in each province.
Item agreed 'to.
Dredging-maritime provinces, $540,000.


Henry Herbert Stevens: It is not my intention to criticize this item particularly, but I should like the minister to give a brief explanation. In putting that question to him I will take the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the committee the Public Works Act which wias under discussion last night, because under this item will arise an opportunity, if such were contemplated or desired, of abusing the privileges Which is accorded to the minister under this act. I am speaking now in a very general sense and I am not in any way suggesting that such is the intention of the present minister. I want to point out the danger of a rather loose interpretation of the act. The total vote for dredging is $1,715,000, and it gives into the hands of the minister a very large sum of money to be used generally throughout the different provinces of Canada. Section 36 of part II of the Public Works Act, chapter 166 of the revised statutes, volume 3, is the section which controls not only this minister but other ministers in the expenditure of money. I will read the section and then I wish to make one or two brief comments. Section 36 reads:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases
(a)	of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
(b)	in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or
(c)	where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister, in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
I fear that the minister's interpretation o-f paragraph (b) of this section is that he is at liberty, whenever he feels' like it, to do any work of any value under the direct control of the department by day labour and not by tender. I do not concede that to be the intention of the act. Obviously the intention of the act is that the department doing work shall invite tenders by public advertisement. Then it makes these three exceptions. One refers to an emergency such as war, fire or

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
something else that requires immediate work to be done. Paragraph (b) is the controversial one. It reads:
In which from the nature of the -work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department.
In other words the act says that if it can in certain circumstances be deadly demonstrated by engineers' findings and incontrovertible evidence that the work can be done more expeditiously and economically by the officers and servants of the department, the minister is released of the (Obligation of calling for tenders. It never was contemplated that under the section the minister should have the discretionary power of saying whether the work should be done by tender or otherwise. In other words the act imposes upon the minister an obligation always to' call for tenders unless certain very specific reasons can be adduced to the contrary. To digress for a minute, I think the minister said last night that it was the policy of the government to follow certain lines. If it is the minister's intention to take advantage of paragraph (b) to do certain works, no matter what the cost is, by day labour, then the act ought to be changed. Either the act ought to be changed to make it clear that its intent is as I read and understand it, or the section should be modified so as to make it perfectly clear that the minister has the discretion whether he calls for tenders or not.
This is not a new controversy in the house. Long before the minister came into the house the question was discussed time and time again; but never before did I know a minister to take a stand other than the one that I took last night, namely, that where the w-ork was to cost less than $5,000 it was optional with the minister whether he should call for tenders or not. That was always claimed, I think extravagantly anid unreasonably claimed by ministers in the past, but I never before heard a minister assert that paragraph (b) gave him a sort of discretionary power. Even paragraph (c) shows that it is incumbent upon the minister to determine whether, by the nature of the work-that is, where it is to cost under $5,000-it is advisable not to call for tenders. He must even then be certain that it is better to do the work without tender. In other words the section is this, that wherever it is possible to do the work by tender, it must be done by tender. The duty is then imposed upon the minister to be prepared to show parliament that where tenders were not called for he could get the work done better, cheaper, more' economically, more expeditiously, without calling for
tenders. I wish to associate section 36 with the interpretation that I have given of it. I put that forward as my view in connection wdth the expenditure of this very large sum of $1,715,000 for dredging. My submission is that in the expenditure of this sum, as in other cases, it is obligatory for the minister to call for tenders except where he can Show clearly that the work can be done more expeditiously otherwise.


John Campbell Elliott: In the first place this appropriation of $1,715,000 will be taken up to a very large extent by the operation of our various plants.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree with that.


John Campbell Elliott: Therefore the question of letting the work by day labour or contract will enter into a small proportion. I have read the act with some care myself and I think that is the interpretation of it. But the practice not merely under this government but for years has been to do the works which, first of all, the local engineer recommends can be better done by day labour. Sometimes, of course, the chief engineer disagrees with him and says, No, you had better do the work by contract. Then the matter comes to the deputy minister, and then to the minister in charge. There are cases where it is more convenient to do the work by day labour. I want to say very frankly that the duties of the minister are much lighter when it is done by contract. I do not want to say positively, but my information is that the Department of Justice some years ago gave a ruling on the subject which is in accordance with the practice that has been followed for twenty years at any rate.
Mr. STEVENS; There was just one other thought. I know from experience in the past seventeen or eighteen years that there is a pressure brought upon members and upon ministers to have the work done by day labour. Personally I have always resisted that, because I thoroughly believe in the contract system. I think the minister would be relieved of a tremendous amount of trouble if he fixed himself firmly on the obvious intent of this clause, namely, on the principle that the work shall be done by tender, and that the exceptional case shall be done by day labour, when it is well demonstrated from independent sources that it is an exceptional case. I believe that would save the minister and the government a great deal of embarrassment and trouble and anxiety, and I think the country would be

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
saved money, too. What I am trying to do is to induce the minister to fix himself on that principle, rather than on the other, that it is optional.
Mr. GAR-DINER: I presume the minister has some explanation of this item of $540,000 for dredging in the maritime provinces.


John Campbell Elliott: This $540,000 is required
to carry on dredging operations in Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick by contract and day labour, and by departmental plant. The amount spent last year was $494,401, which is practically the amount it runs to annually.


Robert Gardiner: Are there any particulars as to where the work will be done?


John Campbell Elliott: That is decided as the
season progresses. They try to get their plan worked out as early as possible in the season, but frequently it is impossible to tell, even at the close of the session, just what work will have to be done. Perhaps a June freshet may do a good deal of destruction, a wharf may be washed out, and so on. While the money is appropriated as early as possible in the season, there has to be a good deal of discretion left to those in charge in order to provide for emergencies as they arise.


Robert Gardiner: The minister has no
definite information at the present time as to where the work will be carried on?


John Campbell Elliott: I have information as to
all our dredging plants, and what the cost is going to be for each plant, but it is pretty difficult to say at the moment just where the whole season's work will be carried on.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Under this item of
dredging for the maritime provinces, I would like to ask if it is the intention of the department to do any work at Mabou harbour, in the county of Inverness. The minister will remember that last year we discussed this matter and it was stated by him on the floor of the -house, and also in correspondence which passed between him and me, that 118.000 cubic yards would be removed in Mabou harbour. The information that I get now is that that work was not concluded, and that there is additional dredging to be done. I have had some correspondence with the minister on the matter this session, and I would like to ask him if it is the intention of his department to complete the work which they started last year, and also to provide for additional depth ;n the harbour.
rMr. Stevens. 1


John Campbell Elliott: In the program for dredge No. 13, it is intended that they shall do further work at Mabou harbour this year.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Would -the minister
tell me just wha.t work is contemplated?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give definite
information.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: But the minister can give m*e the definite assurance that some work will be done there this year.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the present contemplation, and I think it will be carried cut.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: When that dredge
goes down -to Mabou, I would ask that it stay for a day or two at Port Hood, to do very much needed dredging at the wharf there. At the present time it is impossible for boats of any worth while tonnage to dock at the wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: I see in our list of work
required in tha-t district there is noted 7,800 yards, scow measure, to be done at Port Hood, and I assume that something will be done there.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I thank the minister for the information.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-Ontario and Quebec, $600,000.
Mr. SIMPSON:: Under this item I would
like to bring to the attention of the minister the condition of St. Mary's river at the Soo. I notice by the press that one- of the Canadian Pacific steamers during lithe present week, having passed down through the locks, in turning to get into the government dock had to drop her anchor, as they usually do if there is a north wind blowing, and on pulling it up a large boulder was brought up with the anchor. They had to put a cable around the boulder and take it on down the river to deep water, as it would have been dangerous to other vessels to leave it at that point. The minister was up in that locality last fall, and is quite familiar with the conditions there and with what is required. There is considerable dredging needed to deepen the Canadian side of the river at least to the same depth as the American side. The larger Canadian boats, particularly a couple of years ago when the water was low, found it impossible ito dock in the Canadian side of the river. I think representations have been made to the minister by the board of trade and other organizations there to undertake a comprehensive scheme to deepen the river there at least to the same depth as on the American side.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
I simply want to take advantage of this opportunity to bring the attention of the minister to the conditions there, as demonstrated by the incident in connection with the Canadian Pacific boat this week. The heading in the press dispatch is that 'the Canadian Pacific steamers are likely to have to use the American canal as a result.


John Campbell Elliott: What my hon. friend states as to the meeesity there is according to the information I received from our officials in that district, as well 'as the impression I gained myself when I was there last year. We are trying to do what we think is a reasonable amount of work in view of the importance of that 'particular point. Certain contracts for a part of work have been let within the last few days.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
. Dredging-Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, §90,000.
Robert Gardiner: How much of this item was spent last year?


John Campbell Elliott: $85,220.34 to March 31.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Where do you propose to spend the $90,000?


John Campbell Elliott: A good deal of it represents the cost of running our departmental plant at whatever point it is required. So far the points suggested are Springfield-


Herbert Bealey Adshead: That is Manitoba.


John Campbell Elliott: Selkirk, (Springfield, Nelson, for use on the Red river and in connection with the fisheries.


Robert Gardiner: What Nelson is that?


James Alexander Robb: That is the Nelson river.


Mr. LUCAS:: Those are all in Manitoba.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I think so.


William Thomas Lucas: None of this vote is for the other provinces, Alberta and Saskatchewan?


John Campbell Elliott: There is very little dredging to be done in those provinces.


Robert Gardiner: Have you a plant in Alberta or Saskatchewan?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Why charge them with this vote?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister answers that question, I would suggest he take 56103-216
that portion of the $90,000 to be appropriated to dredging and use it for protection work on the Bow river at Calgary. I do not think the Aurora or Rainbow would like to anchor there this year.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows that I should like to follow his suggestion, but he knows also that there is an absolute rule against switching votes to an absolutely different purpose.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Amend it now.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I pointed out to the minister last night-I do not know whether he caught my point-that facing the Bow river at Calgary the government own a boulevard, which was washed away at that point, together with some adjoining property. Protection work is urgently needed to protect that boulevard.


John Campbell Elliott: The removal of boulders
and blasting of rocks comes under this heading, and part of the money may be used for this purpose. Of course, I think my hon. friends will agree that there is not enough dredging work in Saskatchewan or Alberta to justify keeping a dredge there and transporting it over dry land from one point to another. But a part of this vote is used every year where it is thought work should be done in the provinces in which we 'have not a dredge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But why not strike out
the words Saskatchewan and Alberta"? Don't try to make people think you are using public money there when you are not. Certainly you are not spending any in Alberta.


John Campbell Elliott: We do use part of this
vote.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For dredging? How do you do it, with hand shovels?


John Campbell Elliott: Part of this vote each
year is used for just such work as my hon. friend has mentioned, the removal of boulders and the blasting of rocks, as may be required in those provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the hon. minister be good enough to tell us what dredging work was done in Alberta last year?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say as to last year; but if the work is necessary, part of this vote is available for it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister knows our point. The public is made to believe there is an appropriation from the federal exchequer

Supply-Harbours and Rivers

for dtedging in Alberta, and it is mot so; that is all. Why not let the vote go to Manitoba, if they have dredging to do there? But do not charge Alberta with something that is not done there.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend insist on that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am not insisting. The majority behind my hon. friend is sufficient to prevent my insisting on anything. If I had power to insist, I would certainly relieve him of his office in a very short time. But I am only suggesting that it is quite unfair to make it appear that money is used for dredging in Alberta; it is not. As I say, we have not any harbours there except those which would have to be reached from the Arctic ocean, to which access is denied, but which would be ample to take care of our navy to put down any incipient revolutions in that territory.


John Campbell Elliott: This perhaps is an evil practice that has continued since the days of governments which were not as perfect as this government.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The Lord have mercy on them!


John Campbell Elliott: The practice of putting
the vote under this heading has obtained for many years. I hope my hon. friends will not insist, for we are in a wonderfully amiable mood this afternoon, and I wish to express my appreciation for the various suggestions that have come from all quarters of the house.


Mr. HEAPS:: That is all hon. members
will get.


John Campbell Elliott: But I do not think it
would really be in the interests of Saskatchewan or Alberta to have this vote so worded that if necessity arose in either province there would be no portion of it available. I cannot believe that my hon. friend the leader of the opposition or any other hon. members would like to have those provinces put in that position. But if they insist, we might consider amending the vote next year. There is no question that some of this money will be used in Alberta and some in Saskatchewan.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will you add the words "and protection work?"


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I protest against any suggestion that Saskatchewan should be cut out of this vote. It is well known that in the northern part of the province there

are great waterways-lakes and rivers-and I am surprised that the leader of the opposition should have any doubt at all on that point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But there is no dredge
in the province.


Malcolm McLean: There was a
steam dredge at Cumberland lake the last time I was there. It may have been moved for use elsewhere, but that does not affect the fact that dredging has been done there for a number of years. I do not think the steam dredge I saw did any work last year, but dredging had been done by other means. In other parts of Saskatchewan dredging is becoming more necessary as the waterways in the north are being developed and used in connection with the mining development. I repeat, I should not like to see Saskatchewan cut out of this vote.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Do the terms of this
vote make the money available for clearing a river channel where it has become blocked and the river overflows its banks in high water?


John Campbell Elliott: If it is proper work to be done by the federal government, and it is recommended by the engineer, part of this vote will be available for it.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Would proper work be
the clearing of a river channel where the Dominion government decides that it is justified in doing it?


John Campbell Elliott: Primarily the clearing of
a river channel is limited to clearing it for the purposes of navigation. The expenditures have been made to pay compensation for damages done by federal works. Where flooding was caused by dams or other structures erected by this government it was claimed, and properly, that the damage should be compensated for. In that event part of thi3 money would be available for the purpose. It is difficult to define all the purposes of the vote.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I have a case in my own constituency.	The West and East Prairie
rivers have beoome blocked as a result of trees falling into the water and forming a jam. Every spring these rivers overflow their banks and cause a lot of damage.


John Campbell Elliott: Is it a navigable river?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No, they are not navigable; neither is the Bow river. I do not know of any navigable river there except the Peace.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Campbell Elliott: Prom what causes does
this damage arise? Is it from lumbering operations along the banks?


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: No; it is the result of
fires going through the forest reserves. Some of the timber is killed, and falls into the river.


John Campbell Elliott: Possibly it might be done, but it is hard to lay down any general rule governing every particular case. If such caises arise we will give them the best consideration we can.


Robert Gardiner: How much of the vote was spent in Alberta or Saskatchewan last year*or the year before, and whait was the nature of the work?


John Campbell Elliott: In Saskatchewan last year, out of this vote, there was spent at Cowan lake $330, and on Sturgeon river $2,322.


Robert Gardiner: What was the nature
of the work?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the details.


Robert Gardiner: I wanted to have some information so that we might know what the vote was being used for.


John Campbell Elliott: It was not done by the
government dredge but by day labour. I suppose some emergency had arisen making it necessary to clear the river.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-British Columbia, $485,000.
Lincoln Henry Jelliff: Will the minister explain
the increase?


John Campbell Elliott: This vote is required for
dredging operations in British Columbia by contract and day labour. The department plan to provide for the repair and maintenance of plant as follows: departmental dredging, plant operations, $226,000; maintenance, $109,-000-'that is, $335,000. Works to be done by contract and day labour, $103,500; new plant, $36,500; surveys and inspections, $10,000- $485,000. The additions are largely due to plant.


Mr. ESLING:: How much of this item will be spent in surveying the lower Duncan river, about which there is correspondence between this government and the provincial government? A sum of $2,000 was recommended by the district engineer, covering a survey of the lower Duncan with a view to opening it for navigation purposes.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid there would
have to be a special vote for that; I doubt very much whether it could come out of this item.


William Kemble Esling: The minister mentioned that a portion of this was for survey work, and the department has a recommendation from the government's own district engineer, including an item of $2,000 for the survey of what is known as the lower Duncan river from Howser lake into Kootenay lake.


John Campbell Elliott: The $2,000 for survey
could probably come out of this grant.


William Kemble Esling: Will the $7,500, also recommended by the district engineer,-


John Campbell Elliott: For survey?


William Kemble Esling: No, in connection with the
opening of the upper Duncan river. In lieu of clearing the upper Duncan there is a proposal, with which the minister's department is quite familiar, for a joint contribution, this department to pay $7,500 and the provincial government a similar sum, towards the construction of a trail along the upper Duncan river. While we understand that the construction of trails does not come within the province of the federal government, nevertheless it is incumbent on this government .to clear the river, and the proposal is that the department should contribute $7,500 and be relieved of further charges in connection with the clearing of the river.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid that item
would have to be covered by a special vote, particularly when it includes such work as my hon. friend indicates.


William Kemble Esling: I simply wanted to know
whether it could come out of this vote.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. BELL (St. John-Albert):: Is there any provision, in the item for maritime dredging, with reference to Lomeville, St. John county?


John Campbell Elliott: No; that dredging is in
the category of works for which there must be special votes.


Mr. BELL (St. John-Alberft):: Is there any provision for that work in the present estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I do not think so.
This would not cover an item like dredging at Lomeville.


Thomas Bell: I may be incorrect, but I have an idea that an estimate had been made-


John Campbell Elliott: That is right.


Thomas Bell: -by the resident engineer for that work. There is nothing included in this vote?
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


John Campbell Elliott: An estimate has been
made in regard to Lorneviille; I know that is correct. But it certainly cannot be included in a general vote of this kind; there must be a special item. If that should happen to be in the supplementaries-


Henry Herbert Stevens: We should all fall dead.


John Campbell Elliott: No, I shouldn't want you
to fall dead.
Roads and bridges-Dominion roads and bridges generally, $7,100.


Robert Gardiner: I want to take this
opportunity-probably I should have done so earlier-to ask some questions in regard to the pavement outside the parliament grounds in Ottawa. Were these pavements and sidewalks fouillt by contract or by departmental labour?


John Campbell Elliott: By contract.


Robert Gardiner: Was the cpntract completed to the satisfaction of the department?


John Campbell Elliott: It was passed by the inspectors, 'but I am bound to say it did not .turn out very well.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Why was it passed?


John Campbell Elliott: It appeared to be all right at that time.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Was -there no inspection of the material used in the construction of these sidewalks?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: From their present condition it does not look -like it.


Robert Gardiner: Who was the inspector who had -charge of that work and reported upon it, and- Who were the contractors who did the work?


John Campbell Elliott: The contractors were the Grant Construction Company. I cannot give my hon. friend the name of -the inspector.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Who is now responsible for putting them in good shape?


John Campbell Elliott: The department will have to do it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: And is there no comeback on the contractor at all?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think so.
-Mr. ADSHEAD: Was there not a guarantee for five or ten years?


John Campbell Elliott: Not in regard to concrete sidewalks.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the contractors were the Grant Construction Company I think they should be ashamed to hang out their shingle as contractors any longer after having done a job like that. Whoever the inspector was who passed upon -this work, he should be disciplined, and I would suggest that the minister notify the contractors that they will get no more governmental work unless they put that work in decent shape. It is a disgrace to any contractor and -to the parliament buildings. I cannot conceive of any self respecting contractor leaving a job in that condition.


Robert Gardiner: Since this is the only possible item left in these estimates under which this question may be discussed, I suggest to the minister that the item stand and that he secure the information required by the house. I-t is hardly right that we should be asked to accept the meagre information given by the minister. I think he might le't this item stand -over until he secures the information.


John Campbell Elliott: I d-o not wan-t to object arbitrarily to letting the item stand, but before very long the supplementaries will be brought down and perhaps my hon. friend would -be satisfied if I undertook to supply the name of the inspector and whatever additional information is available in regard to this question, when the Supplementary estimates are under consideration.


Robert Gardiner: If the minister will agree to that I think it will be all right. I would like -to see a copy of the contract, also.


John Campbell Elliott: I think this is a very proper matter to be considered.


Mr. YOUNG (Saskatoon):: Coming up on the east side from Wellington street there is one bit of sidewalk which never has been completed. There is some gravel remaining, and I have often wondered why it was left there. On a wet day it is very disagreeable, and I would suggest to the minister that this bit of sidewalk should be finished.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
International bridge over St. Croix river between St. Croix, N.B., and Vanceboro, Maine, the state of Maine to contribute the sum of $2,000, $4,000.
Robert Gardiner: I would like to inquire of the minister the terms of the agreement between the province of New Brunswick and -the state of Maine in connection with this international bridge. As the minister knows, several bills to provide for the construction of

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
bridges over international waters have 'been before this house this session, and it has been claimed that it is impossible to secure agreements in those matters. It will be rather interesting to the committee to know what kind of an. agreement this is, and how it was arrived at.


John Campbell Elliott: The agreement relates only to the construction of the bridge; each government contributes half the total cost. This revote of $4,000 is required for the completion of the international bridge over the St. Croix river, under contract with C. A. Noyes of Orono, Maine, at a contract price of $14,797.65. The work remaining to be performed consists of the completion of the ' contract by the construction of 215 feet of concrete railing on the bridge and the placing of 550 feet of wire cable guard rail on the roadway, and also in the completion by the Department of Public Works of the roadway aproach on the Canadian side, the full length of which was not included in the contract.
'Mr. GARDINER: This is an international waterway?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Has the department no information as to the terms of the agreement between the province of New Brunswick and the state of Maine, or did they contribute tio the work without such an agreement?


John Campbell Elliott: The province is not in it at all; this is an agreement between the federal government and the state of Maine.


Robert Gardiner: Then the minister will be in a position to give the information as to the agreement?


John Campbell Elliott: The only agreement is that each government pays half the cost.


Robert Gardiner: Are there no international complications?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


William Thomas Lucas: Are there any tells charged?


John Campbell Elliott: No; of course, tolls would not be charged on a bridge built by the two countries.


Robert Gardiner: Is this agreement between the federal government and the state of Maine or between the federal government and the United States?
Mr. ELLIOTT': It is between the federal government and the state of Maine.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any reason why an agreement should not be entered into between the government of the United States and the government of Canada in regard to bridges over the St. Lawrence river?


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently the state has the jurisdiction.


Robert Gardiner: I understood that this was an international waterway?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Then how does the state have jurisdiction?


John Campbell Elliott: The system in the United States is different from our system; the state has a larger jurisdiction than our province. The state contributes its portion to an international arrangement of this kind, to which the federal government is a party.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa-maintenance and repairs to bridges and approaches, $14,600.
William Thomas Lucas: What bridges are these?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is to provide for the following works in connection with the maintenance of the Ottawa river and Laurier avenue bridges:
Maintenance of Chaudiere bridges and Hull causeway, $4,000.
To renew 72 steel beams and 10 buckle plates on Hull causeway, including the removal and replacing of /pdveiment blocks, $3,000.
To paint (one coat) part of Laurier avenue [DOT]bridge, spanning the railway tracks, renew rivets in lattice works of hand railing and part of bracing under bridge, $3,000.
To erect a corrugated galvanized iron ceiling under part of Laurier avenue bridge spanning the railway tracks, to prevent loose concrete from falling on tracks, $4,000.
To repair parts of stone block pavement on Hull causeway, $800.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is it the policy of the federal government to assist in the construction of bridges in parts of the Dominion other than Ottawa?


John Campbell Elliott: The Chaudiere bridges, built and maintained by the department, carry interprovincial traffic between Ottawa, Ontario, and Hull, Quebec,


[Stage Direction]
Ttem agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
COMMONS [DOT]
Telegraph and telephone lines-Nova Scotia -Boularderie-Cape Breton telegraph line-general repairs, repoling, etc., $5,000.
Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are these government
lines?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-Quebec-reconstruction of the north shore St. Lawrence telegraph system from Murray Bay to Bersimis, $25,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?
Mr. ELLIOTT. This is to provide for the general reconstruction, repoling, wiring and so on, of the telegraph system on the north shore of the St. Lawrence between Murray Bay and Bersimis, a distance of 153 miles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta and Saskatchewan telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements, $15,000.
Robert Gardiner: Does the minister think it necessary to keep these telegraph and telephone lines in operation?


John Campbell Elliott: As my hon. friend knows, these lines are located in districts where the business is not sufficient to induce commercial companies to carry on. We are conducting these lines as pioneer work, to a large extent, to supply facilities to the settlers in isolated places so they will be in connection with the interior sections of the country. Having constructed them, we think they should be kept up. We are not doing any more than is absolutely necessary, and as soon as we can induce commercial companies to take these lines over, we do so.


Mr. FANSHER (Last Mountain):: Could you tell us just where these lines are situated, and the mileages?


John Campbell Elliott: I can obtain that information for my hon. friend.


Robert Gardiner: Have you any information as to income and expenses?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are these lines linked up with the lines which the governments have all over the provinces?


John Campbell Elliott: We try to connect up with the provincial lines wherever it is physically possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
(Mr. Elliott.]
British Columbia-mainland telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements, $28,000.
John Anderson Fraser: I should like to ask the
minister if the upkeep of the lines south of Kamloops, recently sold by the government, is included in this vote ?


John Campbell Elliott: This would not include
the upkeep of any lines we have sold.


John Anderson Fraser: Would it be included in
last year's vote?
Mr. ELLIOTT. The vote last year would include general repairs for all lines in that district. We have been relieved of certain lines this year by disposing of them, and of course we will no longer be liable for the cost of maintenance.


John Anderson Fraser: The vote this year is for
$28,000, while last year it was only $17,750, and you have sold a thousand miles of lines; what is the explanation of the increase?


John Campbell Elliott: I will give my hon. friend the details of what the divisional superintendent asks for and recommends. The first is the Kamloops section, $5,981.25; resetting poles on the Kamloops-HeiHey creek line at an estimated cost of $356; repoling Kamloops-Fruitlands line, estimated cost $1,635; and repoling between Knutsford and Stump Lake on the Kamloops-Merritt line, $3,900. The latter item is the most important item in this estimate, as the present pole line between Knutsford and Stump Lake is now in a precarious position. The present poles have been reset a number of times and are now quite rotten and will not stand a further reset. When this work is done the Kamloops-Merritt pole line will be in first class physical condition and good for a great many years. The other items are: Barriere section, $1,490; Merritt section, $3,825; Chase-Revelstoke section, $2,100; Vernon section, $5,630; Penticton section, $2,482; Arrow lakes section, $1,767; Golden-Invermere section, $3,133; and Princeton section, $1,905.


John Anderson Fraser: Two or three of the items you have mentioned are included in the lines that have been disposed of. For instance, the line from Knutsford to Merritt is certainly part of the line which you have already disposed of.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite
right about that; that line was disposed of after these estimates were prepared.


John Anderson Fraser: Could you tell me what
amount it will now be necessary to spend on these lines?

Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid I cannot tell
what amounts will be cut out by the sales that have taken place.


John Anderson Fraser: You have sold all the lines south of Kamloops, according to the return which I have here.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Anderson Fraser: From Knutsford to Merritt is one line; the Vernon section is another; and the Penticton and Arrow lakes sections; all these lines are south of Kamloops.


James Alexander Robb: Does my hon. friend desire
me to move that we reduce this vote?


John Anderson Fraser: I do not think the vote
is any indication of what you are going to spend.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If the lines are sold we certainly should not vote money to spend on lines that have passed over to private companies.


John Anderson Fraser: I have requests from other parts of that same district, and in view of the fact that you are relieved of a large amount of expenditure and have actually recovered $50,000 of your capital, I should like to ask for the construction of some lines Which have been denied in that district for the past three or four years. That is the point I wish to make.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is quite right in what he says, as a number of these lines have been disposed of since these estimates were prepared. If my hon. friend will make the motion, I do not think we shall suffer from having the amount deleted.


James Alexander Robb: What is the amount?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Henry Herbert Stevens: That includes some lines that are not comprised in the sale to the private company. The minister ought to be careful to strike out only what is sold and leave the balance.


John Campbell Elliott: If an amount of $10,000 is left, that will be sufficient.


John Anderson Fraser: The minister would be
better advised to wait until he knows what parts of those lines have been sold and what is required for the maintenance of the lines which the government still own and operate. I do not think a motion of that kind would be advisable at present coming from the minister or anyone else.


John Campbell Elliott: Let the item stand.
Item stands.
Telephone line from Rolla to Rolla landing, $2,500.


Robert Gardiner: Is this a new line?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. This is an extension from Rolla to Rolla landing, a distance of approximately seventeen miles.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-engineering branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draughtsmen, clerks, and messengers of outside service, $483,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give a brief explanation of this large item?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for the salaries of the outside staff of the engineering branch, including district engineers, supervising engineers and their staffs, et cetera, for the fiscal year ending April 1928-29.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys in connection therewith, and settlement of land damages, $100,000.
Mr. COOTE:: How much was spent under this large item last year?


John Campbell Elliott: 


George Gibson Coote: Is this all for the Ottawa river and its tributaries?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous-National Gallery of Canada, $135,000.
John Anderson Fraser: What is the reason for the increase?


John Campbell Elliott: The trustees have requested an additional $35,000, and they have been given that larger appropriation.


Robert Gardiner: What explanation ha*
been made to justify the demand for more money?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to provide for operation and maintenance, workshop supplies, upkeep of premises, purchase of works of art. The addition over last year is to enable the board to complete the purchase of some pictures which they have in mind to purchase.


Mr. EDWARDS (Frontenac):: About how much is expended yearly?


John Campbell Elliott: The full vote is spent every year.
Supply-Public Works


John Wesley Edwards: Does the department calculate on a certain appropriation for the national gallery every year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Wesley Edwards: About how much?


John Campbell Elliott: Usually $100,000.


John Anderson Fraser: I have been asked to make a protest in regard to the closing hours of the national gallery. In the first place I should like to ask the minister whether the hours of closing of the national gallery are regulated by early closing in the city of Ottawa; is it correct that the gallery closes at four o'clock in the afternoon, daylight time, or three o'clock standard time?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that it follows the same time that we follow in the house, that is daylight saving time.


John Anderson Fraser: That is exactly the point of protest. The people of the rest of the Dominion of Canada go on standard time. Last year there came to this city a representative from my district who is very much interested in art and after his business was concluded he had just one hour to spare for a visit to the art gallery. Under all ordinary conditions he would have been able to visit the gallery for that one hour, but on account of the early closing he failed to have that opportunity. That man will probably not have an opportunity in the next ten years of making a similar visit and I was asked on his behalf to bring the matter to the attention of the minister. Why should the people of the whole Dominion of Canada be inconvenienced to the extent of that one hour to give the people of the city of Ottawa an hour of extra daylight? The position taken by the gentleman appealed to me as being very fair and reasonable. If this property is being operated for the people of the whole of Canada, it is quite reasonable that they should expect it to be open the same hours as if it were run on standard time which prevails throughout Canada.


John Campbell Elliott: That is just one of the things that apparently happen in every place that is being run on daylight saving time, a time different from that in use in other places. But may I call the attention of the hon. member to the fact that if the visitor had come from Montreal, Toronto, or any other place having daylight saving time, he would not have noticed the difference. It is the rural sections that are perhaps prejudiced.

The same thing would apply to a man who wanted to hear the debates in the house. He might be fortunate if he found himself an hour late.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would depend upon what estimates were under consideration?


John Campbell Elliott: Probably so. He would not fare quite as badly if estimates were under consideration as if some matters were before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That might be true too.


John Campbell Elliott: The matter is worth considering, and I thank my hon. friend for bringing it to the attention of the committee. I do not know that I can make any promise that there will be much in the way of results, but I shall be glad to look into the matter.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Four o'clock is an early
hour for the gallery to close. It could surely remain open as long as the museum.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Suppose it opened an
hour earlier in the morning?


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Is the museum open
on Saturday afternoon?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and on Sunday. I
think my hon. friend is wrong , about the hour of four o'clock; I think it is five o'clock, daylight saving.


John Anderson Fraser: Four o'clock was certainly
the hour that was given to me. This gentleman had business in various departments, and after that was done, he said that it was three o'clock by his time, standard time. He went to an attendant in the House of Commons to be directed to the museum, but was told there was no use going there at that hour as the museum closed at four o'clock.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: The reason I asked
the question was that a lady and gentleman came here on Saturday afternoon and found the museum closed. They were told it closed every Saturday afternoon.
Mr. McQUARRjIE:	It is not everyone,
unfortunately, who can come to Ottawa to see the pictures in the national gallery, and I think that the policy which has been adopted by the directors of loaning some of the pictures to other centres to be placed on exhibition is highly to be commended. I know that in New Westminster, through the kindness of the directors, we have for several years been receiving from the national gallery very fine exhibits of pictures, which have been viewed by many thousands of people, and I think that that kind of thing should be

Supply-Public Works
encouraged. There is some charge in connection with the sending out of these pictures, transportation and insurance charges, and so forth, but it is not generally known that the pictures in the gallery are available for that purpose, and I think it would be well if that fact were more generally known, because ordinarily these wonderful pictures in the gallery. cannot be seen unless one comes to Ottawa.


John Wesley Edwards: I do not
just get the point raised by the minister. He said that there would be no special inconvenience to people coming here from say Montreal or Toronto, where they have daylight saving time. I would remind him that no matter whether they have standard or daylight saving time in these places, they come to Ottawa on trains running on standard time. It is very commendable that there should be a gallery of this kind, and the name "National" indicates that it is for the whole nation, and not solely for the benefit of the citizens of Ottawa. It is a fact that while many cities and towns, including Ottawa, have adopted daylight saving, the great mass of the people in the country districts, are still on God's time, standard time. You are spending another '$35,000 to get some extra fine pictures for the gallery, for whose benefit? Obviously people from outside points will not have the same opportunity that the citizens of Ottawa will have to see these pictures, because of the early closing of the gallery. I think this is a matter in connection wth which the minister ought to get results. He says that he cannot promise anything definite- This is a case where he should promise something definite. He should be definite enough to say that the people outside Ottawa will have a reasonable opportunity to see these pictures and take advantage of the gallery, notwithstanding any difference in time there might be.


John Campbell Elliott: I have a good deal of
sympathy with what my hon. friend says, but I think he did not get my point when I said that while it did not make any difference to the people who came from Montreal or Toronto, 'which were on the same time as Ottawa, daylight saving time, it did make a difference to those who came in from the country, and that point deserves consideration.
What my hon. friend from New Westminster has said is very pertinent. I think that principle of loaning pictures should be extended as far as practicable. This gallery is the national gallery of Canada, and that
is the reason why in their wisdom those in charge have seen fit to allow the pictures to be loaned to different local galleries, so that the people there will have the opportunity of seeing them, which they would not have unless they paid a visit to the national gallery. I shall be glad to look into the matter and do the very best I can.


John Wesley Edwards: When I
referred to people coming in from the country, I did not mean people coming in from Carleton county or from anywhere in the immediate vicinity of Ottawa, who would walk in or come in on a bicycle. I presume that people from the rural districts many miles away from Ottawa would come in on the same trains as people coming from Toronto and Montreal, and they would be inconvenienced so far as Ottawa being on daylight saving time is concerned.


Robert Gardiner: How much was spent
m buying pictures tlast year?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not that information here, but my hon. friend will find a list of the pictures bought in the report of the national gallery.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
National monument on Connaught Place, $35,000.
John Wesley Edwards: Will the minister explain this?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only $10,000 was spent
last year.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a revote of
$25,000. This amount of $35,000 is required towards the erection of a national commemorative war monument on Connaught place, Ottawa city. This work is being performed by Mr. Vernon March of Goddendene, England, at a contract price of $135,000 for the bronze work, the granite pedestal and foundation work to be performed by the department at an estimated cost of $50,000, thereby making the total cost of the monument approximately $185,000. The work done during the year 1927-28 consisted of the modelling of the large clay figures which are to surmount the arch and also considerable preparatory work on the furnaces, etc. The sculptor is now proceeding with the moulding of the figures. The sum of $10,000 was paid the contractor in September, 1927, on account of work performed.
Supply-Public. Works


John Wesley Edwards: Has the minister received the consent to this of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) or the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail)?


John Campbell Elliott: Not in writing.


John Wesley Edwards: From their remarks the other day I should judge they would regard this as a glorification of war and might be expected to oppose it strenuously.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think my hon. friend
might have remained silent in view of the fact that the hon. members to whom he refers are not here to defend themselves. I do not think they would oppose this vote.


John Wesley Edwards: If my hon. friend will turn his head round he will see the member for Winnipeg North Centre sitting behind him.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: He is quite capable of
defending himself. For my part I do not consider this a glorification of war.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
River gauging and metering, $30,000.
Mr. ADSHEAD; Does this cover the metering and gauging of all rivers in Canada?
Richard Bedford Bennett: No, the Department of
the Interior looks after some of this work.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for the investigation and collection of data as to the fluctuations of various rivers, to pay the salaries of gauge readers at various points and travelling expenses, and to purchase recording apparatus.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Should not these matters be all brought under one directing head? My difficulty in times past has been that one department or another is each doing a little gauging work on its own account.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: Is the reading taken at the same time each year?


John Campbell Elliott: A record is kept of the
flow of the stream at regular intervals throughout the whole year.


Arthur Edward Ross: How often in
Kingston, for instance, do you take this data?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to say. I know in some places daily readings are taken.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are the readings
taken daily or once a month?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say with regard to Kingston.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and inspections, $120,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is required to provide for any surveys and inspections that may be necessary during the fiscal year 1928-29 in connection with harbour, river, slide, boom and bridge works and other services under the control of the Public Works department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
For erection of memorial tablet to late Dr. Alpheus Todd, former Librarian of Parliament, $1,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Where do you expect to put this tablet?


John Campbell Elliott: It is to be placed in the library, I understand.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It should be put in a
more prominent place, for no man has reflected greater glory on this country in a literary way than Alpheus Todd.


John Campbell Elliott: The resolution passed by
the committee is:
_ That it is desirable and fitting that a memorial tablet should be erected in the library.


[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. PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. J. L. ILSLEY (Hants-Kings):: I wish to direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to order No. S7; for the second reading of Bill No. 304. respecting the Cumberland Railway and Coal Company. I should like very much to have this bill given its second reading so that it may be referred automatically to the railway committee. This would not take up any of the time of the house, and I may say that every other Senate bill in the same situation, with the exception of the one immediately preceding it,

has received first and second readings and been referred to the committee. With the consent of the house I would move that the bill be read the second time.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The motion may be entertained if the house will give unanimous consent.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: No objection.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second
time.



ANCHOR CAP AND CLOSURE CORPORATION OP CANADA, LIMITED

Henry Herbert Stevens: On behalf of the hon. member for Burrand (Mr. Clark), I would ask that the same procedure be adopted in respect of Bill No. 303, respecting a certain patent of Anchor Cap and Closure Corporation of Canada, Limited. I would move the second reading of the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: If there is no objection.
Some hon. MEM1BERS: Carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second
time.



SUN LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY OP CANADA

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 25, consideration of the motion of Sir Eugene Fiset for the third reading of Bill No. 56, respecting the Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada.
Mr. L. J. LADNER (Vanucouver South):: I had occasion to move the adjournment of this debate last evening. The principle of this measure and all its clauses have been thoroughly considered by the banking and commerce committee. Certain of the clauses were dropped, compromises were entered into with respect bo others, and the bill carried almost unanimously in the banking and commerce committee. There were in fact only three audible objections.


Mr. SPENCER:: Was there not a small
attendance that morning?


Leon Johnson Ladner: No, I do not think so.


Mr. IRVINE:: Yes.


Leon Johnson Ladner: At any rate there have been several discussions in the house. We are now drawing to the close of the session and the Views of hon. members on this measure are well understood. Most hon. members are fairly well informed on the merits and demerits of the bill. Some hon. members have shown
Sun Life Company
violent-one might say fanatical-opposition to the bill. So strong are their objections 'that, I submit, they are not inclined to allow other hon. members the right to express by vote their opinion on the question. Intimation has been made to me directly and clearly that certain hon. members intend to block the measure and to talk it out and put it at the foot of the list.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker


Hewitt Bostock: I would ask the hon. member not to use such an expression as "fanatical opposition".


Edward Joseph Garland: It is an
inaccurate statement.


Hewitt Bostock: At all events the expression is not parliamentary.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I withdraw the words, Mr. Speaker; I merely wanted to convey the idea and to submit to the judgment of the house that the opposition to the bill is of an unusual nature and liable to protract the discussion beyond the close of the session.


Edward Joseph Garland: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question? I have no desire to do so unless he permits me.


Leon Johnson Ladner: I should prefer to finish;
I do not say that in any ill-will. The time is short, however, and I have but a few remarks to make. In view of the circumstances which I have stated, Mr. Speaker, and the fact that we are nearing the close of the session, I take this opportunity to move that the question be now put.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Ladner moves,
seconded by Mr. Stevens, that the question be now put. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. J. A. GLEN (Marquette):: In view of the remarks made by the hon. member, implying that sufficient discussion has taken place on this bill, I want to say to him and to the house that there are a number on this side who, while they do not propose either to block the bill or to bluff their way through it, desire an opportunity of discussing it. And in view of the fact that there are a number of bills which ought to be expedited, and which under these circumstances there is no opportunity of considering, I move now that the debate be adjourned.
Sun Life Company


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Glen moves, seconded by Mr. Spencer, that the debate be now adjourned.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I think, Mr. Speaker,
on a point of order, that the motion made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), that the question be now put, has precedence.


Hewitt Bostock: The authorities are quite clear on the point. At page 144 Beauchesne, after Bourinot, says:
The motion for the previous question may be superseded by a motion to adjourn or for reading the orders of the day. But such a motion cannot be made if the house resolves that the question shall now be put under this rule. It is also in order to move the adjournment of the debate on the previous question but not if the house decide that the question be put.
Mark those words:	"It is also in order to
move the adjournment of the debate on the previous question". The previous question has been put and the hon. member now wishes to supersede that question by moving the adjournment of the debate. The motion to adjourn the debate is not debatable; I shall therefore put it forthwith. Mr. Glen moves, seconded by Mr. Spencer, that the debate be now adjourned. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No .


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


James Alexander Robb: Mr. Speaker, it is suggested that I direct your attention to the fact that the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Kennedy) was in the house and did not vote on this motion.


Hewitt Bostock: Generally, under the
practice of the house, an hon. member who has heard the question put must vote. However, lately, since 1906, I know, in the British parliament this time-honoured practice has been ignored; I have seen a standing order to the effect that when a member does not feel justified in voting he need not do so. I decided this point some weeks ago, when the Minister of Immigration and Colonization (Mr. Forke) was in the same position; he declared that because of conscientious reasons he did not tlhink it wise to vote on the question.


Mr. DUNNING:: But he did give an explanation.


Edward Joseph Garland: I must confess that I heard the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) this evening with considerable astonishment. Especially was I surprised at the words with which he prefaced his motion; he charged, or implied, that certain hon. gentlemen were attempting to put up what he called a fanatical opposition to this bill.
Anderson (Toronto-High Park), Anderson (Halton), Arthurs,
Bell (Hamilton West), Bell (St. John-Albert), Bennett,
Bettez,
Blanchard,
Blatehford,
Bourgeois,
Bowen,

NAYS Messrs:
Bradette,
Cannon,
Cardin,
Casgrain,
Denis (Joliette), Dionne,
Donnelly,
Dunning,
Esling,
Fiset (Sir Eugene), Foster,
Fraser,


Hewitt Bostock: In justice to the hon.
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner) I must tell the hon. gentleman that he withdrew that expression. I do not think it is parliamentary; all authorities agree that no one may accuse an hon. member of fanaticism or of adopting a fanatical attitude.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am very glad to learn that the hon. gentleman withdrew that expression, and I trust that Your Honour and the house will realize what he was attempting to do when he used those words.

Sun Life Company
I regard this bill as of vital importance to the country and to tihe members of this house, more so than any measure which has ever come before us with the possible exception of the Georgian bay canal bill of last year. With the exception of that one bill this is the most obnoxious measure I have had to consider in the seven years I have been in this house, and in a moment or two I will give my reasons for that statement.
Speaking directly to the motion of the hon. member for Vancouver South, may I point out to Your Honour and the house that in the votes and proceedings of to-day there is a notice of motion appearing in the name of the bon. member for East Lambton (Mr. Fansher), in the following words:
-that the said bill be not now read a third time, but that it be referred back to the committee of the whole, with instructions to amend section 2 by adding thereto the following:-
"Of the capital stock to be hereafter issued no shares shall be distributed to the stockholders as dividends or bonuses, or shall be issued in any other way than in return for the payment to the company of at least the full par value thereof.
"After the issue of any capital in excess of two million dollars no dividends to shareholders shall be declared by the company in excess of fifteen per cent per annum."
I would direct the attention of the house to the fact that this very amendment to this bill was moved last year by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Spencer), and was carried by the house. The moment the house agreed to the amendment the sponsors for the bill withdrew it, and so defeated the obvious intention of the majority of the members of this house.


Hewitt Bostock: Do I understand that the hon. gentleman intends to move an amendment?


Edward Joseph Garland: No, Your Honour; I am simply calling the attention of the house to the fact that if this motion for the previous question is carried it will preclude the house from declaring itself upon an amendment which the house carried last year.
As I said, the sponsors withdrew the bill, and were unwilling to accede to the majority will of this house. Some hon. members now have the temerity to declare, because it is our wish that the will of the house as expressed last year be sustained on this occasion, that we are deliberately-I cannot repeat the words because I have been instructed not to-talking too constantly and too solemnly on this bill. I do not think there
is a more important bill, from the point of view of public affairs, and I will give my reasons in a few moments.
This company was incorporated in 1865, under 28 Victoria, chapter 43, as the Sun Insurance Company of Montreal. Under the charter it was given the right to carry on fire, marine, accident and guarantee insurance, and also life insurance. The powers granted were never used except in regard to life insurance, and very slightly in regard to accident insurance. The capitalization authorized was $2,000,000 in one hundred dollar shares, $800,000 to be subscribed and $100,000 to be paid up and invested. This capitalization covered the life branch.
In 1870 this act was amended by 33 Victoria, chapter 58, and the life insurance business was separated distinctly from the general business, The amendment of that year authorized a capital for the fife branch of $1,000,000, which might be increased to $2,000,000, solely for this branch. The same capitalization was permitted for the fire, marine and guarantee branch. Separate accounts of the expenses, profits and claims, losses, liabilities and assets were to be kept. The obvious intent of the charter at that time was to limit the capital of the company to $2,000,000 in respect of life, and $2,000,000 in respect of its general business.
In 1871 business was commenced, and the name was changed to The Sun Mutual Life Insurance Company of Montreal. The life and accident operations were united, and at that time everything inconsistent with these new provisions was repealed. In 1882 the name was again changed to the Sun Life Assurance Company and permission was granted to invest funds in foreign countries. In 1897 the investment powers were extended to include real estate in Canada and bonds and debentures of municipalities in the United States.
It will be noted in passing, Mr. Speaker, that shortly after the passing of this act the investment policy of the company was changed. Up to that time it had been doing a good deal of business in the way of mortgages, real estate loans, and so on, but suddenly the policy was switched and the policyholders' money was invested in the most speculative kind of industrial stocks, chiefly the traction stocks.
In 1871, when the business started, the capital subscribed was $500,000, 10 per cent of which was paid up, or $50,000 in cash. In 1876 another $12,000, or per cent, was paid up, making a total of $62,500. From 1876 to
Sun Lije Company


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is that .the Sun Life Assurance Company?
(Mr. GARLAND (Row River): Yes, it refers to no other company.
It is plain to your commissioners that the large interest of the assurance company in these various enterprises is greatly in excess of the limits of reasonable investment. Apart from any question of statutory power, it seems to your commissioners that to engage the funds of an insurance company in enterprises of this character to such an extent as necessarily to involve the directors of the insurance company in promotion, construction and management, is foreign to the purposes of an insurance company and calculated to imperil its funds.
In the opinion of your commissioners, the embarking upon such enterprises is no legitimate function of an insurance company and is a misuse of powers of investment, however wide. It does not seem to your commissioners that the success or failure of any particular undertaking has any bearing upon the question of principle involved, or affords any true standard of propriety. Other enterprises, similar of character, as will be seen in a later part of this report, have ended in serious loss, although the directors were so sanguine in regard to them as their evidence showed them to be in the case under discussion.
I now come to the criticism of the commission with reference to the faulty investment, or the wrongful transfer to the shareholders' account.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Do I understand my hon. friend to state that this money that was wrongfully transferred to the shareholders belonged to the policyholders?


Edward Joseph Garland: Absolutely.
I note the following at page 20 of the commissioner's report:
A shareholders' account has been kept, to which has been credited not only the interest but also the proportion of the profits allotted to them from time to time, and it is out of this account that the dividends have been declared. During 1891, and the first half of 1892, dividends at the rate of twelve per cent, and since and including the latter half of 1892 at fifteen per cent, have been declared, besides a bonus of two and a half per cent upon the old stock in 1897.
This is what the commission state in regard to the matter:
Carrying to the credit of the shareholders' account the ascertained proportion of profits

Sun Life Company
and interests has not, however, enabled the company to pay these dividends, and from time to time the directors have resorted to various devices for the purpose of increasing the shareholders' account, so as to enable it to pay the dividends which have been paid.
The first of these devices was to credit the practically defunct accident branch with considerable sums of money, upon the theory that that branch in years past had been charged more than its proportion of the general expenses of the company. The accident branch being so credited out of the current profits, the sums so credited were brought into the shareholders' account for the purpose of augmenting it and so enabling the dividends to be paid. Three sums were so credited to the accident branch and brought in to the detriment of the policyholders and in the case of the shareholders; $2,000 in 1895; $4,000 in 1900; and $30,000 in 1902; and the evidence is that there are still at the credit of the accident branch considerable sums of money, the intention being to bring these also into the shareholders' account. It is manifest that in revising the charges made in past years to the accident branch, the directors of the present day have undertaken to overrule what may be presumed to have been the well-informed and deliberate decision of the directors of former years as to the proper proportion of expenses to be charged to that branch, and your commissioners think it clear that the revision was undertaken solely as a device for maintaining the shareholders' account.
Note again what your commissioners have said in this regard:
Another improper means by which the shareholders' account has been enabled to provide the dividends paid to shareholders is by similarly revising the rate of interest allowed upon capital in addition to its share of the profits in past years. The method adopted has been to go through the years as far back as 1877 and to allow, instead of the rates which were allowed, a rate of six per cent, which has been improved at six per cent, compound interest, from 1877 down. The result of this has been to bring into the shareholders' account $9,088.34 (in 1901).
A third method of swelling the shareholders' account has been to go back to the year 1897, when the new capital was issued at a premium of $30 per share-
That is the $2,000 to which I have just referred :
-and to bring into the general shareholders' account interest, compounded at six per cent, upon that premium. This revision of the earlier dealing with this premium, to the prejudice of policyholders, was also, in the opinion of your commissioners, improper. In this way the shareholders' account was swollen in 1905 by the sum of $37,930.73.
Is it any wonder that this company has been able to pay admirable dividends to its fortunate shareholders? But what of the policyholders? The commissioners continue:
Still a fourth method of maintaining the shareholders' account was to take out of moneys
realized upon the sale of investments large sums, in addition to the proportion of profits allotted to the shareholders. This is claimed to have been done by way of anticipation of profits-
Anticipation of profits, if you please 1
-to be ascertained and declared in the future, the suggestion being that when the time arrived for the distribution of these profits, the shareholders, upon the principle of distribution which has been adopted, will be entitled to the sums so forestalled, or greater sums.
That gives the house some slight conception of the manner in which the company has been conducted from that time on.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: What is the
date of that report?


Edward Joseph Garland: The commission of 1906. In answer to the implication conveyed in the question I may say that largely the same board of directors exist and the same managing head exists. The single managing head is the dictator of the company. Just as the commission reported at that time that the company had an exceedingly obedient board of directors, so can it be stated to-day that the board of directors is as susceptible to reason by the present general manager and president, Mr. Macaulay, as it was in those days.
A further fact to which attention is called in the commission's report is the extraordinary action of the board of directors or the management with respect to a certain Shawinigan account. The commission states that the management omitted in the government returns accounting for $172,000 worth of bonus stock of the Shawinigan Company. That may be found at page 23 of the report. The company apparently had plenty of money for foreign investment, but I have a serious recollection of not very long ago in western Canada finding the very agents of the company declaring that it was withdrawing from the province. Why? Because it claimed that there were too many prior rights to real estate in the province. But it did not give you any real facts of the case. It did not tell you that in a certain year the whole policy of the company had changed, so that instead of making investments in slow real estate or mortgage loans it preferred more speculative and perhaps more profitable investments in such concerns as the Cornwall Street Railway and many other corporations of that character. The fact of the matter is that this company is coming out to the west, and for that matter, all over Canada,
Sun Life Company

soliciting insurance, and taking the money from those who take out their policies, and then investing that money, which was produced in Canada, largely in other countries.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Does the hon. gentleman really believe that? Is it not a fact that all the money which it raises in Canada must, under the Insurance Act, be invested in this country?


Edward Joseph Garland: Not at all.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I understand
that that is the case.


Edward Joseph Garland: My hon.
friend is misinformed.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: I am not misinformed, either.


Edward Joseph Garland: I trust that the hon. gentleman will make his point very clear when he speaks. Let me tell him that there is no method of segregating the policyholders' money. The only fact brought out in the committee was that more than seventy per cent, I think it was even seventy-five per cent, of the business of this company was done abroad.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: That is true.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure that the hon.
gentleman does not want to mislead the house. The fact is that the investments of the company in Canada more than represent the amount of its premiums collected in Canada. The company's foreign business means its life insurance business, not its investments. The hon. gentleman can see it in the blue book.


Edward Joseph Garland: That brings me to this very nice point. Here we have Mr. Macaulay and the board of directors spreading throughout all Canada in the last year a tremendous volume of propaganda urging that this bill be passed by parliament for one principal reason, that we should save this grand Canadian company from the grasping clutches of American investors, and retain the company within Canada. Would it not have been infinitely better if this company had undertaken to invest all or at least the greater part of its funds, even those secured from its foreign policies, in Canadian enterprises?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: Surely the hon. gentleman knows that that is not possible, that under the laws of the United States the

premiums collected in that country must be invested in the United States. It is the same kind of law as we have in Canada. It is only fair to state that.


Edward Joseph Garland: The hon.
gentleman may have information that I have not got under my hand at the moment. I am not aware that there is such a provision in our act, but in any case it would be far more benefiting this company if its proportion of Canadian investments was greater than it is at the present time. It has gigantic profits, a tremendous surplus, great reserves of many kinds, and I venture to tell the hon. gentleman that only a small fraction of this company's resources is invested in this country.


Alexander MacGillivray Young: A great deal
of the money which this company gets in premiums from countries other than the United States is invested in Canada, in addition to the premiums collected in Canada. Those are the real facts of the case.


Edward Joseph Garland: Can the
hon. gentleman tell me how much there is invested in Canada?


Alexander MacGillivray Young: About $146,-
000,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: Does the
hon. gentleman know that the total assets alone amount to about $500,000,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The assets are nearly


Edward Joseph Garland: And the
amount for loaning about $500,000,000. As a matter of fact the policy of the company at the time of which I speak was to use the policyholders' funds to help themselves and their friends to speculate in favoured positions. Let me support that rather startling statement by a reference to page 24 and 25 of this report-I will come to that later. At the time the company engaged in these highly speculative endeavours, they just happened to be lucky; that is all. Their losses in several of their investments wbre tremendously heavy, and had it not been for a fortunate turn of events as regards their investments in Canada and other countries, the company would have no doubt sustained heavy losses at the expense of the policyholders. For instance, the appleyard enterprise spelled almost disaster for the company for a time, also its investment in Levis County Railway bonds. If you turn to page 29 of the report of the Royal Commission on Life Insurance you will find

Sun IAfe Company
there set out at length the method of the company in investing the policyholders' money.
I now come to the question of the need for the capital increase asked for in this bill. It would be well if those who, like my hon. friend from Vancouver South (Mr. Ladner), are anxious to give this company another $2,000,000 capital, with which to cut melons and distribute stock bonuses, would study the report of the Royal Commission on Life Insurance of 1906. The principles laid down by that commission with respect to insurance are as valid to-day as on the day they were written.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I wonder if the hon.
gentleman realizes that in consequence of that report a new Insurance Act was passed, and that under that legislation the character of the investments of the company are fixed by law, and all the company's investments now comply with the Insurance Act.


Edward Joseph Garland: I had no
intention of suggesting for a moment that the company to-day was carrying on exactly the same type of investments that it carried on then. My purpose was to indicate the temperament and type of management of the company, which management still exists, and which is of a peculiar type that sees the possibilities of making and accumulating gigantic profits, possibly more than anything else in connection with the company. The mere fact that they come to this house and ask for an increase in capital When they do not need it is an indication of their type. Life insurance companies need but little capital once they get started. Let me ask hon. gentlemen to listen to this statement of the commissioners :
It seems reasonably plain that if an insurance business possesses the elements of success, the capital stock soon cease to play any important part in its operation. It is difficult to deny, however, to the capital actually adventured the position of security and profit which its adventure has earned. In cases like that of the Canada Life, where $875,000 was put into an established and flourishing business, for the sole purpose, so far as the commission has been able to ascertain, that it might earn at the expense of the policyholders a larger rate of interest than it inherently commanded, no such considerations apply.
There, in the words of the royal commission, is a principle which should be applied to the consideration of this particular measure before the house. The company has a capital to-day of $2,000,000, fully paid up last year, paid up, I am sorry to say, not in cash; only a very small portion of it was paid up in cash, the rest of it being paid up in stock bonuses, transferred profits and dividends. That the company needs no more capital for
continuing and expanding its business is made very clear by the faJc.t that the company in Canada with the smallest capital at the present moment is charging the lowest rate on its life insurance policies, and yet is expanding at a faster rate than any other insurance company in Canada. Let me turn to page 166 of the report of the commission. We will find, dealing with the whole principle of the policyholders trust, that is, the funds of the policyholders-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What company does my ban. friend refer to in relation to lower rates?


Edward Joseph Garland: The Canada Life, with a million dollar capital, $125,000 of which is paid up, one-half paid out of profits.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is fully paid up now.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is the company to which I have reference.
It seems to the commission of importance to define the nature and position of the funds resulting from the operation of insurance companies.
I would ask horn, members to note this point:
Save in so far as capital stock plays a part, these funds are either a reserve kept in hand to discharge the insurance obligation, or a surplus resulting from a charge upon the persons insured in excess of what it has cost to insure their lives.
Here you have a company which last year made a profit of $38,000,000. Is it not dear, Mr. Speaker, to the shallowest thinker on this question that a company doing a business returning $38,000,000 in one year is certainly in no need of capital for expansion, irrespective even of the commission's report? The fact of the matter is, this company is making such gigantic profits that it is afraid of the public clamour that will arise when it continues paying annually 25 per cent or more in dividends, so it wants to have some method of covering up those gigantic profits, which must be disbursed as dividends some time or other, and rather than let the policyholders share in the profits by reducing the rates or mutualizing the company, the management prefer, by increasing the capital, to make possible further watering of the stock. There is a pretty tale in regard to that. Let us run over it for a moment. It might be well to bring up to date the record of the capitalization and dividends to shareholders since the discussion took place on this bill only a year ago.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I interrupt my hon. friend-I did not hear distinctly-to say that the company has approximately half a billion assets, not a billion?

Supply-Public Works


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills being exhausted, the house will now revert to supply.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-chargeable to collection of revenue-collection of public works revenue, $4,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of this?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required to cover expenditure in connection with the collection of slide and boom dues and commission to agents for collection of rents, and so on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In any community where the department has rents to collect why should it not use its permanent officials for the purpose, rather than pay agents commissions? That is a question I was asked some time ago, and I could not answer it.


John Campbell Elliott: The practice has obtained for some time of giving to regular rental agents the collection of rents of this kind.


Richard Bedford Bennett: For instance, do you pay commission on the collection of rents from the brewery buildings to the west of us?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, we do.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an illustration of what was brought to my attention. Why should the department with the number of officials they hiave here, who are not overworked, collect these rentals rather than pay somebody outside to do so?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend has taken what is perhaps the best paying collection from the standpoint of the agent; but the department owns these residences and certain other property, and on the whole it is considered that the commission we pay-


Richard Bedford Bennett: What commission do we pay?


John Campbell Elliott: Five per cent.


Robert Gardiner: What is the amount of the rentals?


John Campbell Elliott: 

Item agreed to.
Graving docks-Champlain graving dock, $89,200.


Robert Gardiner: Is this dock being used for government purposes?


John Campbell Elliott: For general public purposes.


Robert Gardiner: Is it under the control of the government?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is owned by the government, I take it?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Is this for repairs or extensions?


John Campbell Elliott: It is for the operation and maintenance of the Champlain graving dock for the year 1928-29.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any revenue?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, there is revenue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How is this chargeable to collection of revenue? I must confess that I have found it difficult to understand this without some explanation, but probably the explanation is forthcoming. You have over $200,000 chargeable to collection of revenue, while it is really money spent on maintenance and repairs in connection with three graving docks.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the way in which the books are kept. The expenses in connection with those docks which give revenue to the government are charged under the heading " collection of revenue ".


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is the revenue equal to the expenditure in any one year?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbour and river works-Burlington channel bridge, $7,500.
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: Is there any revenue from this bridge?


John Campbell Elliott: No, no revenue. This
amount is required for staff, maintenance and repairs for the Burlington bridge which affords a crossing over a ship channel for vehicular and other traffic.


Robert King Anderson: Why is it in this category if there is no revenue? Is there any revenue from the channel?


John Campbell Elliott: No; it has been kept in this class as a matter of bookkeeping. The works that we operate are all in here; those that return a revenue are here included. It is a matter partially of cost of collection of revenue and cost of keeping up the docks.

Supply-Public Works


Robert King Anderson: I presume
there are expenditures in connection with attendants who look after the bridge. Is that item included in the vote?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert King Anderson: Who are the persons looking after the bridge, and what are
their wages?


John Campbell Elliott: Carey, Morley

bridge tender, $1,260.
Brown, Edward-assistant bridge tender, $1,140.
Duckett, Frank-assistant bridge tender, $1,140.
Irving, Harve-assistant bridge tender,

Morrisson, J. A.-assistant bridge tender, $1,110.-Total, $5,760.
Item agreed to.
Kingston-wharfs and bridges, $12,000.


Arthur Edward Ross: Are there any repairs being done at La Salle?


John Campbell Elliott: There are certain repairs to the guide pieTS, as well as replacement of timbers and splicing piles, $1,300'; improvements to grounds, $50; renewing floor of the east span of sidewalks, $2,050. These are included in the amount.
Mr. RObS (Kingston): That highway will require very much more in the way of repairs in order to be in condition for next fall. About eighty large grain boats winter there, and a good deal of damage has been done to the anchorage. The minister would be well advised to have it looked after before next fall.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to look into it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot understand what difference there is between the items we are just now discussing and those with which we dealt this afternoon. What is the difference between constructing a wharf and bridge at Kingston, putting a dam at Latchford and a lock and dam at Riviere du Lievre, and repairing a slip at Selkirk, on the one hand, and on the other the works which were under discussion this afternoon? There must be some explanation.


John Campbell Elliott: The distinction is this: the works which we operate are kept in this category, whereas the other wharves we build and turn over to the Marine department.


Arthur Edward Ross: Moreover, you are getting a large revenue from these.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that goes into the consolidated fund at once.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Andrew's rapids-lock and dam, $21,500.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


John Campbell Elliott: This is to provide for
staff, repairs and so forth for the fiscal year 1928-29 in connection with St. Andrew's rapids lock and dam on the Red river, Manitoba.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Selkirk-repair slip, $3,400.
Robert King Anderson: How much
revenue is returned to the department from all the items included in this vote of $55,660?


John Campbell Elliott: Of all those mentioned in this vote we get revenue from the last item alone, and that is $2,490.


Arthur Edward Ross: Surely the minister is mistaken, because those boats pay a toll at the La Salle bridge. Why, you must have had revenue from one boat that was seized and was lying there for some time.


John Campbell Elliott: That goes to the Marine department; we do not get it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had occasion the other day to ask the minister this question: Why is it that the Department of National Revenue is inviting tenders for the construction of a new building, when the Department of Public W orks has always dealt with such matters? A building is being put up in Phil-lipsburg, in regard to which I wrote the minister. There was no record of it in his department, and subsequently he was good enough to advise me that the Department of National Revenue was in fact putting up a public building there. Why should that department put up a building there? It is a small matter, but I should like to know the reason.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot state the reason, but from time to time that department has put up small buildings. It has not done so very often, only occasionally.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Here is a public building to which my attention was directed. I inquired of the minister and he said that the Public Works department had no record of it. I was able to give him further information on the matter, and he subsequently informed me that the Department of National Revenue was constructing a public building. What architect is doing the work, for instance, and what services are rendered?


John Campbell Elliott: Not any of the Public
Works architects.
Supply-Public Works


Richard Bedford Bennett: We shall have another opportunity to inquire into the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Telegraph and telephone lines-1 and and cable telegraph lines, lower St. Lawrence and mari* time provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service, $218,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister give us some particulars of this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
during the fiscal year 1928-29 for the working expenses of the land and cable telegraph lines of the sea coasts and island of the lower river and gulf of St. Lawrence and the maritime provinces, including working expenses of vessels required for cable service. The amount called for includes 17,500, possibly required for submarine cable renewals; $75,000 for maintenance and working expense of Ithe cable-ship Tyrian; $70,270 for telegraph staff salaries and commissions and $65,230 for repairs and supplies, making a total of $218,000.
Mr. ADSHEAD. How far north on the Labrador coast do these lines go?


John Campbell Elliott: They go as far as Belle
Isle.


Robert Gardiner: What is the revenue
from this service?


John Campbell Elliott: The revenue earned in
1928-29 was $39,305.92, and in 1927-28 it was $33,150.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta and Saskatchewan, $114,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: What are these telephone lines for and where are they?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is to provide for the working expenses of the telegraph and telephone lines in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan for the year 192829. Prior to the year 1927-28 separate appropriations, one for Alberta and one for Saskatchewan, were always provided for the maintenance of these lines. For administrative purposes the lines in these two provinces were united into one division, known as the Alberta-Saskatchewan division. The mileage is made up as follows:
In Alberta:	Miles
Edmonton-Hudson Hope	 739J
Athabasca-Fort McMurray	 245
Athabasca-Lac La Biche	 78
Mooswa-Onion lake	 37
J unor	 8
l,107i
In Saskatchewan:
Battleford-Isle la Crosse	 335
Lloydminster-Onion lake	 42
Assiniboia-Willow Branch	 84
Grouard-High Prairie	 38J
Dawson Creek	 8
Kilkerran	 6
513J


Richard Bedford Bennett: Can the minister tell
me the revenue from the Alberta mileage?


John Campbell Elliott: They are combined for
1928-29; up to 1925-26 they were separate. In 1925-26 the Alberta lines brought in a revenue of $17,110.08, and the Saskatchewan lines $3,616.14. In 1926-27 the combined lines brought in a revenue of $19,299.62, and last year the combined revenue was $20,726.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia mainland, $92,000.
Robert Gardiner: Is this also a telephone service?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, telephone and telegraph, the mainland telegraph and telephone lines in the province of British Columbia.


John Anderson Fraser: Would not the same question which I asked this afternoon apply to this item?
Mr. ELLIOTT. I am advised that none of these offices have been sold.


John Anderson Fraser: I do not want to contradict the minister, but I think he is mistaken. I think that is the same vote we had this afternoon, or that it includes the same district, in which 145 offices have been eliminated.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps this might be
an opportune time to say which of these lines have been sold. The Kamloops section is still in our possession; we still have the Barriere section, the Chase-Revelstoke section and the Golden-Inverness section.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The best paying sections
have been sold.


John Campbell Elliott: They are all south of
Kamloops, and when we revert to that vote I will move that the amount be reduced to $12,705, for the repair of the lines we have not sold.


John Anderson Fraser: Will not the same principle apply to this item? The item this afternoon was for repairs and this is for maintenance of the lines in exactly the same section. You have eliminated 145 of those offices, but this vote covers the whole section.

Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: We will only need whatever amount is required for maintenance; we will not need anything for those lines which have been sold. I think probably my hon. friend is correct in saying that this item does cover some of the lines which were sold.


Henry Herbert Stevens: In comparing this item
with the amount voted last year this would appear to include them all.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, I think that is correct.


John Anderson Fraser: As a matter of fact, these lines were sold after the estimates were made up and the estimates have not been altered?


John Campbell Elliott: That is it exactly.


Mr. McQUARRIE:: To whom were the
lines sold?


John Campbell Elliott: To the British Columbia Telephone Company.
Mr. McQUARRIE. In competition with other companies?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I think not.


Robert Gardiner: What price was received for them?


John Campbell Elliott: We received $50,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: There is another
telephone company operating in that section, the Okanagan Telephone Company.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but apparently it
was not in a position to buy these lines; the British Columbia Company was able to take them over, and we received $50,000.


William Garland McQuarrie: The Okanagan Telephone Company intimated that they were not in a position to buy these lines?


John Campbell Elliott: No, I do not believe I
can say that; I understood that the only negotiations carried on were with the British Columbia Telephone Company.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Do I understand the minister to say that only $50,000 was received for these lines?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Does the minister consider that a satisfactory amount for these lines? That included the lines running from Kamloops to Merritt, the Penticton section, the Vernon section and the portion belonging to the government in the Okanagan, part of it using the British Columbia Telephone Company lines.


John Campbell Elliott: I would say to my hon. friend that we got rid of a very big deficit; they were all running behind.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I recall rightly, that
portion of the line pretty nearly balanced up its cost; that was a very good section of the line. I think there was a section taken out some years ago for the British Columbia Telephone Company.


John Campbell Elliott: Some parts were not as bad as others, but we had an annual deficit of over $30,000 for a number of years on the lines we sold. We were pleased to get rid of them.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the company which took them over making them pay now?


John Campbell Elliott: We hope that they will not have the deficit that we had.


William Garland McQuarrie: Some of these lines
were in competition with the Okanagan Telephone Company, and, if I remember correctly, that company made an offer at one time to purchase some of these lines. I am surprised they were not communicated with and asked to make a bid on the purchase.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not understand that
they were.


William Garland McQuarrie: That seems surprising to me. I understand they were anxious at one time to take the government lines over, and they may have given a better price than the British Columbia Telephone Company.


John Campbell Elliott: That matter of telephone service was fully discussed in New Westminster in 1923, when the department officials met the board of the Okanagan Telephone Company. The secretary-treasurer of this company, in a letter dated September 26, 1923, said:
The Okanagan Telephone Company does not feel that at the present time it is in a position to maintain and operate all government lines within territory now occupied by us.
The words "occupied by us" cover only a very small portion of the lines disposed of, 79 miles, and the object of the government was to dispose of the lines in toto, so as to effect a saving of $30,000 a year, and not sell the lines in pieces and disrupt a serviceable system by disposing of the valuable portion and retaining the non-productive portion. This precluded any chance of dealing with the Okanagan Telephone Company. The present transaction has meant that we have disposed of the revenue producing lines along
Supply-Public Works

with the non-producing lines, at the same time guaranteeing to all localities and individuals now being served by the government lines the continuation of such service by the British Columbia Telephone Company.


John Anderson Fraser: What amount of money
was spent last year on substantial improvements on the lines which have been sold?


John Campbell Elliott: We have salaries, contingencies and upkeep all together, and I cannot give the upkeep separately.


John Anderson Fraser: I am interested in the cost of the new equipment put into the lines which have been sold.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to get that information.


Edward Joseph Garland: Has the minister any information as to the amount of capital invested?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that the original cost for construction and everything else was about $200,000.


John Anderson Fraser: Do I understand that this vote is to be allowed to stand, the same as the other one?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give the information in the supplementaries, and have the discussion there.


John Anderson Fraser: All right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia northern district, $88,000.
James Charles Brady: Will the minister give us an idea of the extent of the lines covered by this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The total mileage is 1,575.


James Charles Brady: Could the minister give me the points and locations covered?
Mr.ELLIOTT: The mileages are as follows: Oregon-Jack creek, 13; Highland valley, 29; Savona, 32; Lilooet, Pioneer Lytton, 160; Clinton-Gang Ranch, 70; Canim Lake system, 271; Williams Lake-Alkali Lake, 32. Are there any particular localities that my hon. friend would like?


James Charles Brady: I want to know if any new lines are being constructed in northern British Columbia.


John Campbell Elliott: This does not refer to new lines; it covers the lines already constructed


George Reginald Geary: Were the figures given stations or miles?


John Campbell Elliott: Miles.


George Reginald Geary: Where could we get the
amount of receipts for these various lines? Is it printed anywhere?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the Public Works report.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Outside service - salaries and allowances, including amount required to provide for salaries, reclassification, revision, promotions and increases which may be authorized by the Civil Service Commission, $16,955,934.40.
Mr. MANION:: Would the Postmaster
General give us some of the details as to this item?


Peter John Veniot: There are four principal items included in this appropriation. The item for salaries shows an increase of $428,940, of which $187,620 is due to statutory increases approved by the Civil Service Commission and the balance of $241,320 is due to additional assistance, chiefly letter carriers and postal clerks, required to handle the increased volume of mail and to provide for improved postal facilities for the public. The increased vote will be offset by a corresponding increase in the postal revenue. The item for mail service shows an increase of $425,000 of which $100,000 is for mail service by railway and $325,000 for mail service by air and land conveyance including rural mail delivery. The third item, miscellaneous, is the same as last year. The item for the Yukon is the same as last year.


Robert Gardiner: Does the first item include salaries for postmasters in what are called non-staff post offices-that is, where they get a lump sum for running the post office without any provision for staff?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give the committee give some information as to how those salaries are arrived at? I have had
several complaints regarding their being inadequate for the service performed,


Peter John Veniot: The minimum salary for
rural postmasters at the present time is $60 per annum. When the revenue of the post office from the sale of stamps, commissions on money orders and postal notes, et cetera, increases from $120 up to $1,000 the increase in salary is fifty per cent of the increased revenue

Supply-Post Office
I wish to take advantage of the question asked by the hon. gentleman to say that the question having arisen last winter and again this session as to an increase in salary for rural postmasters, it has been decided to increase those salaries. As I say, the minimum now paid is $60, and the minimum in future, beginning 1st April, 1928, will be $100 per annum. The percentage increase of salary on the revenue from $100 up to $1000 will be seventy per cent instead of fifty; on the revenue from $1,000 up to $10,000, it will be thirty per cent, and on the revenue from $10,000 up to $15,000 it will be twenty per cent. This will give an increase without any discrimination whatever to more than 9,000 rural postmasters.


Richard Bedford Bennett: An increase of $40 a year.


Peter John Veniot: That is a minimum, but some will receive increases of $100, $124 up to $200, according to the revenue ranging from $150 up to $15,000.


Robert James Manion: In round figures what does the total increase amount to?


Peter John Veniot: In consequence of the reduction in the postage from three to two cents the postmaster's salary, if I can call it such, that is, accumulated from the minimum salary and from commissions, would naturally have been reduced, because, salaries being paid on revenue, as the revenue diminishes the salary diminishes. But an order in council was passed in 1927, retroactive for the year 1926, that no salary would be less than it was at the end of the year prior to the reduction in the postage. That entailed an extra expenditure of some $600,000. This increase which we are now giving will maintain that and add to it somewhere in the vicinity of $250,000, making a total of about $900,000.


Robert James Manion: What is the $900,000?


Peter John Veniot: This amount of $900,000 includes about $600,000 to make up the reduction that would have taken place had we continued to pay the postmaster on the revenue after the reduction in the postage, and we are adding to that some $250,000 which will make up somewhere between $850,000 and $900,000.


Robert James Manion: I notice the minister was speaking of the three items together, so we might put our questions in regard to them in the same way. As regards the second item "mail service, including mail service by air"
I think ' the committee would like to know what services are being carried on by air at the present time. I know of some in northern Ontario.


Henry Elvins Spencer: While the minister is
giving that, he might also give the future program.


Peter John Veniot: I will find the information in a minute, but I may say from memory that last winter we had an air mail service from Moncton to the Magdalen islands at a cost of about $6,000, and an air mail service from La Malbaie in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay to Anticosti, costing about $26,000. Yes. It covers the Seven Islands and Anticosti, accommodating six or seven points along that route. We had, in addition to that, an air mail service from Sioux Lookout to Red Lake, serving Gold Pines, Jack-son-Manion (Woman Lake), Narrow Lake, Grace or Rainbow Lake, and Clearwater Lake. The name of the company running that service was the Patricia Airways, Limited. The service was at the rate of ten cents per ounce. The company was allowed to carry the mail under what is known as the sticker system; that is, we were not charging anything extra, but in the case of any person who wished to send his mail by that air service, the company was allowed to attach a sticker to the mail at the rate of ten cents per ounce. We had also a service from Rolling Portage to Red lake, serving Gold Pines, Jackson-Manion and Narrow Lake. This service was at the same rate. We had an air mail service from Leamington to Pelee island at $32 a trip. The London Air Transport, Limited, carried on that service, under an arrangement made between Pelee township, Leamington, and the Post Office department.


Robert James Manion: I happen to have received some letters via air mail service, and I note that there is a stamp called "Airways stamp" put on them. Is that a private stamp of their own, or is it a departmental stamp?


Peter John Veniot: It is a private stamp at
the present time.


Robert James Manion: So the revenue goes to
the airways company?


Peter John Veniot: Yes. The reason for that
is that the whole system is as yet in the experimental stage, but just as soon as we are in a position to know that we can give the public a regular service, we shall have an air mail stamp, and charge accordingly. We are now arranging for an air mail service, as we had last year, from Rimouski to Montreal, Montreal to Toronto,
Supply-Post Office

and Montreal to Ottawa. We are also negotiating for an air mail service from Montreal to Schenectady, and another one from Toronto to Buffalo. It will be some time before these two latter services will be inaugurated, because we have to enter into special arrangements, a sort of air mail treaty, with the United States.


Robert James Manion: Is this air mail service
for special mail, just in case the individual wants to have his mail sent that way?


Peter John Veniot: The Montreal-New York
and the Toronto-Buffalo service will be a regular mail service, and rates will be charged in accordance with the service. At the present time there is no extra charge being made for the service from Rimouski to Montreal, Montreal to Toronto, and Montreal to Ottawa, because it is not yet a regular air mail service, but is given only twice a week. The object of that service is to connect with the transatlantic boats at Rimouski, and hasten the mail across the continent to the Pacific coast. We have found that by taking the mail by aeroplane from Rimouski we can land it in Toronto twenty-four hours ahead of the usual delivery.


Robert James Manion: Is all first class mail taken that way?


Peter John Veniot: All first class mail matter
from across the ocean will be taken in that way for these points. The planes carry from 750 to 1,000 pounds, and they have been pretty well loaded every time. Then when the planes are returning, they gather the transatlantic mail at Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal and Quebec and catch the steamer after she has left port and before she reaches Rimouski. In that way, Canadian mail reaches Great Britain one week ahead of the usual time.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the Postmaster General considering establishing an air mail service on the prairies from Winnipeg to Calgary? It would certainly increase the speed of the mail service from the prairies to the coast, and I believe that Calgary is making a special air landing with that object in view.


Peter John Veniot: In connection with all the
air mail services we have established, I may say that so far as the air routes are concerned, they are subject to the air board, under the Department of National Defence. They are working in absolute co-operation with the Post Office department, and it is the intention this summer to have the air board make a survey west of Toronto as far as we can go
[Mr. Veniot.l
with the survey this summer, taking in Winnipeg, Edmonton and Calgary, and any other points that we designate. They will make the survey, and then give us a report on the possibilities of establishing an air mail service in those sections. While I will not eay that it is a fixed policy, yet if Canada is to follow the movement for air service which is spreading on the continent of America, eventually we will have to have an air service to the coast.


Mr. ODETTE:: Will a survey be made of southwestern Ontario with a view to establishing an air mail route between Toronto and Windsor?


Peter John Veniot: I am not in a position to
promise that to my hon. friend, but I think it is included in this survey program.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: How frequent is the air
mail service between Victoria and Seattle, and what are the arrangements there?


Peter John Veniot: I do not know what the
arrangement is. It is a private company.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does any of these three
votes include the payment of the mail carriers who are carrying mail by stage?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it the intention of the
department to establish an emergency station for aeroplanes at Riviere du Loup on the route from Montreal and Quebec to Rimouski?


Peter John Veniot: The Post Office department has nothing whatever to do with establishing airfields or landing ports. That matter belongs entirely to the Department of National Defence. We point out to them where they may be required, and they look into the matter, and if it is decided to establish such an airfield they take the matter in hand and do the work.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How are these rural mail couriers paid? Is there a minimum payment? Is the work awarded by contract?


Peter John Veniot: The rural mail service is
awarded under contract.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: By tender?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Mr. ARTHURS:: Mr. Chairman, some days ago a question arose on the estimates of the hon. minister regarding the carriage of the mails by boats in northern Ontario. I think

Supply-Post Office
the hon. member for Muskoka (Mr. Mc-Gibbon) brought the matter up. The minister at that time stated that he intended not to open the service until the 15th of May. I took some part in the discussion, but I did not hear the minister say whether he intended to discontinue the service on the 15th of October. Does he?


Peter John Veniot: I will ask permission to
explain the situation.


James Arthurs: I will tell the minister
first what I want. This year navigation on all these lakes opened exceptionally late, on the first day of May. It usually closes from the 12th to the 15th of December-not October-because the boats are running during the whole of the hunting season and for some time afterwards, and if the mail is not carried by boat it involves considerable hardship on the men who have the contract for carrying the mail during the other part of the year. Their contracts are usually made on the supposition that they will be drawing the mail on sleighs, and if the mail service by boat is discontinued as early as the 15th of October and is not resumed until the 15th of May, those contractors have to carry the mail over the worst possible roads, a condition which was not contemplated by them at the time they took the contracts. I would ask the hon. minister to reconsider this and continue the mail service in those parts of the country where there is an ordinary resident population until the close of navigation.


Peter John Veniot: After the matter wa3
brought up about two weeks ago by the hon. member for Muskoka and my hon. friend who has just taken his seat, I stated that the season would not begin this year until the 15th of May, but in the meantime I would have the matter looked into thoroughly. The same week instructions were issued to our superintendent of mail transportation by mail and steamer to visit this district and go into the whole situation. He did so, meeting the steamship company that carries the mail and other mail contractors, as well as a large number of residents of the district. He reports that he has reached a decision which he feels sure will be favourable to all those with whom he discussed the matter. Arrangements will be made with the steamship company for a better and earlier service next spring. We felt we should not allow a steamship company or any other company transporting our mails to impose upon us whatever prices they thought fit.


James Arthurs: Just there, Mr. Chairman-in the past the price has been relative to the number of boats employed in the spring and fall. I know that was the case in regard to one navigation company some years ago.


Peter John Veniot: They were asking S50 a day for fifteen days. I did not consider it worth while.


James Arthurs: During the season ten
or twelve boats are in commission, but during the spring and fall the number is reduced to one-third, or at the outside one-half.


Peter John Veniot: My object is to give them a good and efficient service, and I think we are in a fair way to do it after what took place the other day.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is a maximum price per mile set for the rural mail carriers beyond which you will not go, or do you leave it open to tender?


Peter John Veniot: It is all by tender. There is no maximum price set, but we have a scale to guide us in determining whether tenders are too high or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not quite correct
to say they are all by tender, because frequently the contracts are renewed by the department without calling for tenders.


Peter John Veniot: That is true. Now I wish to take up a little of the time of the committee on this question. For the last two years an agitation has been started by a person purporting to represent what he calls the Postal Mail Carriers Association. All mail contractors have been asked to contribute from two to five dollars each. Those supposed to be at the head of the association claim that they can influence the Post Office department to such an extent as to have increased allowances made to these mail carriers. Now I want to say right here on behalf of the department that the day has come when, with the knowledge in my possession of the way in which this agitation is being carried on, it is necessary for me to declare that the Post Office department in no way recognizes such an association, and that the gentleman who pretends to be its secretary has no authority to speak on behalf of the department.


Milton Neil Campbell: May I ask if he has
any authority to speak on behalf of the mail carriers? I do not think he suggests that he has any authority to speak on behalf of the Post Office department.
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: I have been informed by
mail contractors that representations have been made to them that this gentleman is in such close touch with the Post Office department that he can almost guarantee what he is seeking for them. That is why I am making this statement to-night.


James Arthurs: He must be a Liberal.


Peter John Veniot: I do not know whether he is or not, and I do not care.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Hear hear; that looks
like daylight.


Peter John Veniot: I do not care what his
politics may be, but I want to stop this agitation among our mail carriers. I find propaganda is being put forward by this gentleman encouraging our mail carriers to ask for $70 a mile; that they be placed upon the same footing as the mail carriers in the United States. This is not practicable in Canada, owing to our sparsely settled country and the different climatic conditions in various parts of the Dominion. For these reasons it is impossible to fix a uniform rate of so much per mile, and it would not be doing justice to the mail contractors to attempt it. But if a uniform rate of $70 per mile were fixed, it would mean an extra expense to the Post Office department of $7,000,000. If we were to make the rate retroactive to the date this gentleman advocates-and he is leading some of the mail contractors to believe it may come to that-it would mean an additional $18,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be well to be
a letter carrier then.


Peter John Veniot: It would be better to buy
them all out. As to the number of renewals, this gives me an opportunity to present a comparison as an answer to the statement that our mail carriers are being paid too little. I am not going to say that they are not being paid too little, but it is their own fault. When the tenders are put out we always find someone tendering below the contract of the year before; and, taking 400 contracts renewed, I find that not 4 per cent of those to whom we have offered renewals refuse. Apparently they are glad to obtain the renewals and to continue their contract at the figure they were receiving before. On the other hand, in many oases-80 out of 100 at least-where the contract was let anew the new contractor obtained it at a figure lower than the previous one.


Arthur Edward Ross: If that keeps on
you will ultimately get it done for nothing.


Peter John Veniot: No, it is not so very much lower. But I maintain that it is the fault of the mail carriers themselves.


Arthur Edward Ross: Is that a fair way to put it? It is a matter of competition and I know that- many of these people are absolutely out of pocket.


Peter John Veniot: Why do they carry on?
Mr. ROSS. (Kingston):	The government
under this system is encouraging dishonesty. These fellows are pretty honest, but when you pare them down it makes for dishonesty.


Peter John Veniot: I have been nearly two
years at the head of the department and I have yet to discover one dishonest mail carrier under contract.


Arthur Edward Ross: That is exactly
what I say; if they were not honest fellows this would only encourage them to be dishonest. You are paring them down so that they cannot make a living.


Peter John Veniot: The department is not paring them down. It calls for tenders, just as in the case of public works, and if they bid down, that is their own business.


Robert James Manion: Are there not many contracts that are renewed without tender?


Peter John Veniot: Certainly.


James Arthurs: Is it not a fact that in a great many cases, probably the majority of cases, where there is the slightest advance asked in the price for the carrying of mails by contract, the local inspector peddles the job around trying to get the lowest price he can obtain among the various tenderers?


Peter John Veniot: I want to know the inspector that does that.


James Arthurs: It is done right along.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend is talking
from hearsay; I will ask him to specify a case, and if he does so I will go into it.


James Arthurs: I will give the minister
many instances if he requires them.


Peter John Veniot: Give them; I want them.


James Arthurs: You will get them.


Peter John Veniot: In the case of opening up a post office in a new district, when the inspector goes in to make his report, he informs us whether or not it is advisable to open that new office. If he reports in favour of it, while he is there he gets, from this one and that one, estimates as to what it will cost to carry the mail, giving the number of miles. That information is submitted to the depart-

Supply-Post Office
ment. The inspector in that case does not try to pare them down, but he gets the prices. We know what the ordinary prevailing prices are on a rural route, and where the tender is anywhere from 15 to 20 or 25 per cent above that rate-where by our scale it is too high a price-then overtures are made; if there are three or four tenderers each one is given another opportunity to submit a price upon the receipt of information from the department that we consider all the prices too high.


Arthur Edward Ross: Can the minister tell us what the average annual payment is to one of these rural carriers?


Peter John Veniot: That is determined by distance and frequency of service. TheTe are rural routes in the Dominion which have a service only twice a week; there are others with three services, four services and six services weekly. Others are more frequent. And the mileage varies in all these routes; it is very seldom that we have two routes with about the same mileage. It would be impossible to give any average.


Robert King Anderson: With regard to the rural mail carriers, particularly in Ontario and in the section from which I come, I can say very definitely that they are the poorest paid members of the civil service of this country. And they are the hardest worked; they work six days a week and almost every day in the year with the exception of four holidays. These men are not paid anything like the remuneration paid the city carriers. Moreover, they have to supply horse and rig, pay large expenses for upkeep of that equipment, and every day, in all conditions of weather, in all seasons of the year, very often on bad roads, they have to be on the job. Frequently it takes them almost the whole day to make the rounds of their route. Let me cite one specific instance which will typify all the rest. In one rural route the mail carrier covers fifteen miles every day and he receives S750 per annum, which amounts to about $2.40 per trip. He has only four holidays in the year.


Peter John Veniot: Six.


Robert King Anderson: He has to keep his horse and buggy, has to shoe the horse whenever necessary, and must meet all expenses in connection with his outfit. Hay at the present time costs almost $30 a ton and oats from seventy cents to a dofliliar per bushel. A budhel of oats will keep a horse about three days, and he requires from six to seven tons of hay a year. It costs $250 to shoe a horse, and if the carrier has to buy
new shoea that means between $5 and $6. Altogether, they estimate that the cost of shoeing a horse and keeping up a rig is about $70 a year. This man has to keep a family the same as the man in the city, although he gets very much less. The minimum wage for the city letter carrier is $1,080, with a maximum of $1,500, and he gets two suits per annum. He has no equipment whatever to keep up. So that the rural route men do not get enough for the work they do, notwithstanding that it is very much harder work than the city carriers perform.
The minister says the work is done by contract; we know it is. But there are circumstances in which the inspector does try to pare them down, and in order to keep their position they will reduce the price to less than cost of service. One reason why they do this is that many of these men have no money whatever. They have their horse and rig and if they lose their contract they can hardly sell that outfit. Many of these men have been in the service quite a number of years, and hardly know what else to do. I know one or two men who could not do anything else, so they will submit to having their tenders reduced in order to retain their positions.


Peter John Veniot: I want to say to the hon. gentleman that they are not reduced in their tenders.


Robert King Anderson: I can say
definitely to the minister that they are reduced, and I know one man in my own town who was reduced almost half less than a year ago.


Peter John Veniot: Name him.


Robert King Anderson: He was reduced almost half because he was afraid he would not be able to retain his position. I will give the minister his name afterwards.


Peter John Veniot: I thought my hon. friend had given the name.


Mr.   LETELLIER@: Do the rural mail carriers in the constituency represented by my hon. friend carry parcels and passengers?


Robert King Anderson: No, they do not carry passengers, although they do carry parcels and manage to increase their income to some extent in that way. They some times carry bread into the country districts, and of course they carry some parcels. I have known of instances, although I cannot give the names, where inspectors have come out from the city and had each man tender against the other. The inspector would go to one man
Supply-Post Office

and say, " Mr. So-and-So has tendered for so much; can you beat it?" Then he would go to the other man and say, " Can you beat this tender?" I know one occasion at least when the man who had the contract had to reduce his tender considerably. That Bort of thing has happened several times; these particular instances I mentioned happened some years ago. I know the minister does not know all about these matters; he is giving the facts as he knows them, but he is not on the job to see how these men work. Many times these mail carriers must wait for hours when a train is late; they are late getting out and late getting home, and unless some of them rent a little field where they grow oats and hay, they cannot carry on.


Mr.   LETELLIER@: As I have quite a number of mail carriers in my constituency I should like to inform this committee of the satisfaction which they seem to have with the way they are treated by the department. A number of mail contracts were recently renewed in my constituency and I have not heard one of the contractors complain that he is not receiving sufficient remuneration for his services. I believe the tender principle is the most practical method which could be adopted by the department. As members of this committee know, these mail carriers cannot be given a great deal more than they are receiving because this rural mail service is maintained to encourage the rural people to remain on their farms, and it is maintained by the department at a great loss. If the contract prices seem to be low we must not forget that that is the fault of those who tender. Not long ago I had a new mail delivery established in my constituency in the St. Romain district, and I must congratulate the minister for giving us this delivery. He called for tenders; the opinion of the people in that district was that 8600 would have been a reasonable compensation, but the contract was awarded on a tender of S520, and the man carrying on the work claims that he is doing well.


Robert King Anderson: Does the hon. gentleman think that man is receiving enough for his services? What mileage does he cover?


Mr.   LETELLIER@: In the winter time these men use horses and in the summer time most of them use automobiles. Some of them not only carry the mail but also operate private boarding houses or hotels. In the latter cases they must meet the trains in order to meet travellers, and at the same time they carry the mails. This works to their benefit and to

the benefit of the country at large. So I believe it is rather unfair for hon. members of this house to try to introduce the idea that this system of calling for tenders should be changed; I think such a change would be prejudicial to the country at large.


Mr. THOMPSON:: May I ask the minister a question? If I understood him correctly he said he had succeeded in having a number of contracts renewed without calling for tenders? Is that correct?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Mr.   LETELLIER@: If no change is to be
made in the contract there is no need to call for tenders, but if a mail carrier asks for an increase in his remuneration, the department is obliged to call for tenders.


Alfred Burke Thompson: Then the treatment accorded the mail carriers in my hon. friend's constituency is different from that accorded mail carriers elsewhere.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I wish to ask the Postmaster General a question with regard to the rural mail delivery routes. As he well knows, in the prairie provinces, and particularly in the province from which I come, there are many rural mail deliveries made only twice a week. That is a very poor service. As one of my hon. friends has said, the rural mail carriers sometimes cover great distances; I believe they go up to thirty miles and over on a round trip.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, thirty-five and forty miles.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister knows perfectly well that a very poor service is being given in many of these districts. I admit the expense, but the expense is necessary, in my opinion, if we are going to give satisfaction to the hundreds of thousands of newcomers settling on the prairie. I should be glad if the minister would give the committee an outline of the policy of the department with regard to opening up new rural mail routes.


Peter John Veniot: At the last session the
house voted an amount for the purchase of about 40,000 rural mail boxes. Upon investigation we found we might require more than that in order to meet the requirements of the next three or four years. Renewal of boxes takes about 3,000 per year, and adding to that number the applications we expected to receive we therefore ordered in the vicinity of 50,000 boxes. For the information of the committee I have a compilation here of the number of applications received during part

Supply-Post Office
of last summer, and the fall and winter, divided up into postal districts. For Charlottetown there were two applications received; tenders were invited for both, a contract has been awarded in one case, and the other is under consideration. For Halifax district, which includes all of the province of Nova Scotia, there were 32 applications received, 14 tenders invited, 11 contracts awarded, and 3 are still under consideration. In the St. John district, which includes the province of New Brunswick, 42 applications were received, 20 tenders invited, 14 contracts authorized, and 5 are still under consideration. In the district of Quebec, which covers the lower section of the province of Quebec, 49 applications were received, 21 tenders invited, 19 contracts awarded, and 10 still under consideration. In the Montreal district of the province of Quebec, 37 applications were received, 16 tenders invited, 12 contracts awarded, and 9 are under consideration. In the Ottawa district, Ontario, 49 applications were received, 20 tenders invited, 14 contracts awarded, and 9 are under consideration. In the North Bay district, Ontario, 22 applications were received, 8 tenders invited, 4 contracts authorized, and 4 are still under consideration. In the Toronto section, 14 applications were received, 10 tenders invited, 5 contracts awarded, and 5 are under consideration. In the London section, Ontario, no applications were received, 3 tenders wTere invited, one contract awarded, and one is under consideration. In this case the matter was one that came under the special supervision of the inspector of the district, and he made the report without applications being received. In the Winnipeg district, 28 applications were received,	16	tenders	invited,	9	contractsauthorized, and 7 are still under consideration. In the Moose Jaw district, 39 applications were received, 8 tenders invited, 4 contracts awarded, and 5 where the date of operation is not yet fixed. In the Saskatoon district, 51 applications were received, 36 tenders invited, 22 contracts awarded, and 10 where the date of operation is not yet fixed. In the Calgary district, 30 applications were received,	11	tenders	invited,	7	contracts
awarded, and 4 where the date of operation is not yet fixed: In the Edmonton district, 20 applications were received, 9 tenders invited,
3	contracts awarded, and one where the date of operation is not yet fixed. In the district of Vancouver, 20 applications were received, 14 tenders invited, 10 contracts awarded, and
4	where the date of operation is not yet fixed. The totals show 435 applications received, 208 tenders invited, 136 contracts awarded, and
78 where the date of operation is not yet fixed. The total number of eligible residents on the 136 routes authorized is 8,568. The total number of eligible residents on the proposed routes, for which tenders are invited but not completed, is 2,150. The total of these two figures is 10,718, which is the increase in the number of people to whom service will be given this year as compared with 1927.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In what way are the
new routes being decided? Is there any limit to the number of rural routes being opened up in each constituency, or is it regulated by the nature of the route?
Mr. VEN.IOT:	When an application is
received1 for a rural route, instructions are immediately sent to the district superintendent. He then authorizes one of his inspectors to go and examine this route, and he in turn gives a report on it, favourable or unfavourable as the case may be. We generally require that fifty per cent of the people on the route should purchase boxes before the route will be established. When we receive a favourable report from the inspector tenders are immediately invited so that we may know what it will cost.
Mr, BRADY:	There must be some basis
upon which a rural route is established. You mentioned that fifty per cent of the people would be required to take these boxes, but there must be a certain number that you decide as being necessary before a mail route is established. I should like to know what that number is upon which you base your ruling.


Peter John Veniot: There is no real minimum
fixed; it depends a great deal upon the location and the proximity to already existing post offices. We have to decide whether we can give better service by leaving a post office in a small district, where there is only a small number demanding rural delivery, or to establish a mail route and abolish the post office, or we may decide to open another office to accommodate the people. There is really no minimum that I know of, but you must understand that it would never do to open a route for from six to ten families. Anything from fifteen to twenty families has been the figure that we have been generally working on.


Robert Gardiner: The Postmaster General had a scale or schedule, to which he referred, and which he used as a guide in granting rural mail contracts. Could we have some details of that?
Supply-Post Office


Peter John Veniot: We consider that anything ranging from $40 to $50 per mile is a reasonable price.


Robert Gardiner: That is per annum.


Peter John Veniot: Yes, $40 to $50 per mile per annum.


John Anderson Fraser: The Postmaster General
mentioned a moment ago ithait he had purchased 50,000 letter boxes. Would he be good enough to tell the committee if he called for tenders for those boxes, whom he bought them from, and what price was paid?


Peter John Veniot: Tenders were called for. I think we received about 50 tenders. I know there were at one time in the cellar of the department 52 models. That would not represent 52 tenders, but it would represent around 40 tenders. The contract was awarded to a sheet metal firm in Montreal who were the lowest tenderers.


John Anderson Fraser: What price was paid?


Peter John Veniot: I have not that information here and I would not want to guess at it. We endeavoured to get a box at a cost that would make the price to the boxholder no more than he had been paying previously, which would be around $4.50, and we succeeded in doing that.


John Anderson Fraser: Do you charge the boxholder exactly what you pay for the boxes?


Peter John Veniot: We charge the boxholder
exactly what the box costs us; that is the contract price, plus freight and storage charges. That comes to about $4.50.


John Anderson Fraser: How long does the minister suppose the supply he has will last at the rate they are going now?


Peter John Veniot: At that rate it will, I think, last for four years, perhaps more.


Arthur Edward Ross: In regard to rural
mail contracts, is there still in the contract form a clause which gives the department the right to impose upon the contractor for the same contract price additional work to what he is already doing?


Peter John Veniot: If that refers to additional
mileage, his contract allows him to be paid pro rata. But if it refers to quantity of mail to be carried the same distance, there is a clause under which he must carry the mail. A limited quantity is not mentioned in the contract, but we have had cases where the quantity has grown so large that an adjustment has had to be made through the officers of the department.


Arthur Edward Ross: In some cases I
know a section has been added which has 
proved a serious burden to the rural mail carrier and no consideration has been given although he has requested it. This is a matter in which postmasters would have to be careful because unless they were acquainted with what was added, it might mean a serious burden to them.


Peter John Veniot: If any case like that came up I would certainly try to adjust it.


Robert James Manion: I notice that the cost of stationery and printing has been increased by $75,000. I have the estimates from 1924 on, and for 1924-25, 1925-26, 1926-27 and 1927-28, the cost was $350,000. I have not the figures further back. This year the estimate is $425,000, or an increase of $75,000. Will the minister explain this?


Peter John Veniot: My information is that a
few years ago the vote was decreased by $50,-
000.


Robert James Manion: That must be quite a few years ago because I have the figures for 192425.


Peter John Veniot: A few years ago the vote
was reduced by $50,000, but due to the growth in all phases of the postal work it is necessary at this time to increase it.


Robert James Manion: In what year was it reduced?


Peter John Veniot: I have not the year. The
explanation given to me by my officials is that the increased business has brought about the necessity for the increased amount for supplies, et cetera.


Robert James Manion: If the minister cannot give me that, I wish to go a little further in regard to general costs. I was looking up the same figures in regard to the general cost of the department. I notice that in 1924-25, the year I went back to in regard to stationery and printing, the total estimates amounted to $29,586,118. This year the total estimates amount to $33,312,109, or an increase of $3,725,991, or almost $4,000,000. Will the minister explain why there is such a large increase in that period of time? Of course I can understand that there has been a gradual increase from 1924 on.


Peter John Veniot: The only information I have before me is regarding the difference between last year and this year, and if I can judge by that, the increase can easily be explained. The item for salaries shows an increase of $428,940, of which $187,620 is due to statutory increases approved by the Civil Service Commission and the balance of $241,320 is due to additional assistance, chiefly letter carriers and

Supply-Post Office
postal clerks, required to handle the increased volume of mail and to provide for improved postal facilities for the public. The item for mail service shows an increase of $425,000, of which $100,000 is for mail service by railway and $325,000 for mail service by air and land conveyance, including rural mail delivery. You will find that the increase in these two items between last year and this year is roughly a million dollars.
'Mir. MANION: I have now in my hand the estimates going back to 1920-21 and they show an increase of practically $1,000,000 a year. I will give the round figures:
Year	Estimates
1920-	21	$24,000,0001921-	22	
25,000,0001928-29	
33,000,000
From 1920-21 to this year there is an increase from $24,000,000 to $33,000,000, or an increase in eight years of $9,000,000, so that we are increasing the estimates for the Post Office department a little better than a million dollars a year. I can quite well understand that there would be an increase because we are extending our rural mail delivery and so forth, but this seems to be rather a heavy increase. At the rate of about a million dollars a year, if we go on for another ten years, the estimates for the Post Office department will amount to between $40,000,000 and $45,000,000. I think in some way we should cut down the ratio. I admit that some increase is necessary, but such an increase seems rather heavy.


Peter John Veniot: May I draw the attention of the hon. gentleman to the fact that the opinion was expressed very freely on the floor of the house last winter that the Post Office depart-fnent should not be a surplus department; that is, that we should if possible endeavour to live within the revenue, but not look for large surpluses.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Balance your budget.


Peter John Veniot: Yes. That is, we should
spend the revenue from the postal service in giving the people a better service. It will be noticed that when there is an increase in expenditure there is also an increase in revenue. I think it was in 1926 that we reduced the postage from three to two cents, and I think it will be found by looking carefully into the records that the house was then told that there would be a deficit of between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 owing to that decrease in the postage rate, provided that the business did not increase. The business has increased to
such an extent in Canada in the last three years that that $6,000,000 has practically disappeared. The difference in revenue to-day as oompared with what it was in 1926. when the postage was three cents on letters and first-class mail matter is under $1,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the total revenue to-day?


Peter John Veniot: Roughly, it is $33,000,000.
What 'has brought about the increases this last year? I have given a few items amounting to $850,000, practically $1,000,000, due to the extra mail service that we have been called upon to give by train and water and air. That all mounts up very rapidly. In expending this extra money for the purpose of giving extra service to the public I feel that we are doing a good thing. The people are asking for it, the service is required, and the only regret I have, as the head of the department is that I cannot meet all the demands made on the department, many of which I know are honestly made for service that is really needed. But we cannot meet all these demands at one time. We can only go as fast as our revenues will permit.
I made a statement the other night, just to give an idea to the committee how I feel about giving service to the country in the proper distribution of the mails. I said that in the sparsely settled districts, in some cases isolated districts, where people receive but one mail a week, they might as well receive none, and that that kind of service should no longer be tolerated in Canada. I have attempted, and I am attempting in all cases of that kind, to give a better service. We have instances where our mailmen have travelled from twenty to twenty-five miles to get to isolated points where the revenue is only forty or fifty dollars a year, and yet to get there has cost the country the sum of $500 or $600 to give the service to these people. Naturally, therefore, it must be expected that the expenditure of the department will increase year by year. Outside of one item alone, stationery and post office orders, the demand for which is very largely increasing in Canada to-day, the other increases in the expenditure have been due to the additional service rendered.
Mr. MANION. The item of stationery is the one I was speaking of a few moments ago. I notice that in the estimates of 192122 that item was down as "stationery, printing and advertising," and the amount was $375,-
000.	There was apparently a reduction between that year and 1924-
Supply-Post Office


Mr. YENIOT:: A reduction of $50,000, I
think.


Robert James Manion: What I am coming at is
this, that advertising was included in the item for stationery and printing in 1921-22 and in 1920-21, but it is not included in the item for stationery this year. Is advertising included in any other item in these estimates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that for the government annuities, which went to the Labour department?


Peter John Veniot: To show you how the increase runs up, in one item alone, money orders, there has been an increase in the number of orders issued of 5,700,000.


Robert James Manion: The minister did not
answer my question as to advertising. Is advertising included in a different item in these estimates? In 1920-21 and 1921-22 it was included in the stationery item.


Peter John Veniot: I will have that looked up.


James Charles Brady: In the matter of establishing new rural mail routes, is there a condition requiring a definite number of boxes per mile before the route can be established?


Peter John Veniot: For long distances, yes. I think it requires at least five boxes to the mile. For shorter distances, it is different.


George Reginald Geary: Would the minister say to what extent the adverse balance, if I may call it so, has been due to the reduction made a year ago in the rates for the carriage of newspapers?


Peter John Veniot: The estimated deficit on
the reduction from 1| to 1 cent a pound on newspapers was $500,000. Hon. gentlemen will remember that when the bill was before the house I claimed that the increased volume of business which I hoped would follow the reduction would work off that deficit in two or three years. It has disappeared already down to $169,000. That is the deficit now.


George Reginald Geary: That is what it cost to carry that class of mail?


Peter John Veniot: No. Following the reduction we got an increased volume of business, so that instead of having a defiicit of $500,000, which we would have had following the reduction if there had been no increase of business, the deficit is only $169,000.
Mr. BENNETT. What was the total deficit?


Peter John Veniot: On the whole newspaper
business? I think it was $1,750,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it was more
than that.


Peter John Veniot: I can look it up. I will
take a note of it.
Progress reported.



SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES FOR 1928-29

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General, transmitting supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1929, was presented by Hon. Charles A. Dunning (for the Minister of Finance), read by Mr. Speaker to the house, and referred to the committee of supply.

Hewitt Bostock: By leave of the house, I beg to lay on the table a memorandum addressed to the House of Commons by the Canadian Fisheries Association.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, May 28, 1928