1928-04-24

[Stage Direction]
First report of select standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Denis (Joliette).


Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have issued my warrant to the chief electoral officer to make out a new writ of election for the electoral district of West York, consequent upon the resignation of Sir Henry Lumley Drayton, sitting member therefor.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 219, respecting the Sisters of Charity of the Northwest Territories-Mr. Marcil.
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the unanimous con-
[Mr. WoodsworthJ
sent of the house for the second reading of this bill now, that it may be sent to the standing committee on private bills. This is a senate bill, and merely authorizes this order to increase its power to hold property, and other powers incidental thereto.


Hewitt Bostock: By unanimous consent.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

[Stage Direction]
On the Orders of the Day:
Mr. MAXIME RAYMOND (Beauharnois) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, before the
orders of the day are proceeded with, I would like to ask the Secretary of State if Canada will be represented at the International copyright convention which is to be held in May next at Rome?


Lion. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am
very pleased, in answer to the hon. member for Beauharnois, to inform him that Canada will be represented at. the International copyright convention which will begin on the 7th of May next, at Rome. In this connection I might add that this will be the first time Canada is represented as a separate and autonomous member of the International Union for the protection of authors' copyrights, which is in keeping with the evolution of our policy of representation abroad in all spheres of activities.
Canada will have as its representatives the Hon. Mr. Philippe Roy, Commissioner for Canada, at Paris, and Mr. Jean Desy, legal adviser of the Department for External affairs, at Ottawa.



CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. G. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I would like to ask the government if they are still negotiating with the Civil Service Commission with regard to the reclassification of technical men in the Department of Agriculture, and if so what progress has been made.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I have no special data with regard to the technical men in the Department of Agriculture, but the whole question of increasing the salaries of the technical men is still under consideration and is before the Civil Service Commission.

Eligibility of Women for Senate



HOME BANK DEPOSITORS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. R. GEARY (South Toronto):: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he has asked for and obtained a report in regard to the payment of claims made by depositors in the Home Bank. If he has received the report will he tell us what action has been decided on by the government?


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: I have received a memorandum from the officers of the exchequer court advising that there were not sufficient funds to pay thirty-five cents on the dollar to the depositors in the Home bank. The government have not yet reached a conclusion as to whether an amount will be placed in the estimates or whether a bill will be submitted to carry out the original intention of the House of Commons in passing that legislation, but I may tell my hon. friend that we are favourably disposed towards meeting them at least in part.



DANGER TO BORDER RESIDENTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: I
would like to direct the attention of the Minister o'f External Affairs to a very serious situation which exists along the Detroit river. Three times within the last month stray bullets fired by American preventive officers in their efforts to enforce the Volstead Act have lodged on the Canadian side. On one occasion a bullet passed through a house in Sandwich within two feet of a four year old child; the bullet was found and shown to be from a high powered rifle such as these preventive officers carry. On Saturday last Mr. Edward Warren of 656 Ouellette Avenue was driving from Walkerville to Windsor on the River Front road; at 7.15 p.m. a bullet went through the windshield of his car and nearly blinded him with broken glass. Apparently some of these officers are not accustomed to carry firearms, and I would ask the minister to draw this matter to the attention of the United States authorities, and to ask that these officers point their guns the other way.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: I think it is fortunate that my hon. friend has brought this matter to the attention of the house. I will immediately draw the attention of our minister at Washington to what my hon. friend has said, and I have no doubt that a conference by him with the Secretary of State will be all that is necessary to have the wishes of my hon. friend complied with.



UNEMPLOYMENT IN WINNIPEG

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: I would like to ask the Minister of Immigration and Colonization if he has any further information with regard to the employment situation in Winnipeg, to which I referred yesterday?


Hon. ROBERT FORKE (Minister of Immigration and Colonization):: I have no information other than I gave my hon. friend yesterday.



ELIGIBILITY OF WOMEN FOR SENATE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Allbemi):: I would ask the Minister of Justice if he has received any report with regard to the reference to the supreme court of the question of whether or not women are eligible to sit in the Senate.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: I have been informed that the judgment of the supreme court was delivered to-day, and their judgment is that under the British North America Act women are not eligible for appointment to the senate. I understand that the basis for the judgment is that the act must be interpreted in the meaning it had when it was adopted in 1867, and that at that time (the expression " fit and qualified persons " as it appears in the act could not apply to women as they were then disqualified for appointment to public offices. The judgment was unanimous. In view of this judgment, and in view of the faict that women in this country now have an equal franchise with men, and in view of the further fact that one of the seats in this house is occupied by a woman, the government have decided that they should have the equal right to sit in the other Chamber, and means will be taken to secure an amendment to the British North America Act in that respect.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 218 to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this
bill is to make provision for certain capital expenditures by the federal district commission to carry out a plan of improvement and
2312	[DOT] COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
beautification in the centre of Ottawa as the capital of Canada, also to extend the period of time of the annual appropriation to be made to the commission for the purpose of maintaining improvements which have already been made. The act proposes an immediate appropriation of $3,000,000 as an amount to serve for capital expenditure in connection with improvements which the commission has in contemplation. Provision is made whereby this amount may be advanced to the commission direct by the Minister of Finance and made a charge upon the consolidated revenue, or advanced upon the issue of securities by the commission, these to extend over a period of thirty years. The principal and interest of such securities are to be guaranteed by the Department of Finance and to be redeemed by a sinking fund to be maintained by the department for that purpose. The annual appropriation for purposes of maintenance is being reduced from $250,000 per annum at which it now stands to $200,000 per annum.
That the bill is being introduced at the present time is due to the fact that last fall the government was advised by the federal district commission and by the city council that the owners of the Russell house property were contemplating the immediate demolition of that property and had applied to the city for the right to erect a new modem hotel on the site. The federal commission pointed out that if that step were taken at the present time it would interfere with what they believed was a development which should be made and made speedily within the central part of the city; and the city council pointed out that unless the government could give some immediate reason why a permit should not be granted to the hotel authorities to go on with the erection of the new hotel, the board of control would be obliged to give the permit for that purpose.
I might say that at the time the government was informed of this proposal on the part of the Russell house owners the work of demolishing the old property had already commenced, and the government was given to understand that plans had been called for and were being prepared for the new hotel which was about to be erected. It was apparent that either a decision had to be reached immediately or in the event of a postponement, and the property being subsequently acquired, that a very much greater outlay would be necessary to indemnify the owners against expenditures which they might be put to in the interval of time between that at which the government might authorize the immediate expropriation of the property and

the time at which parliament might be in a position to grant authority for the expropriation.
In the circumstances, and more particularly because of other circumstances which I shall mention, it seemed to the administration advisable to give to the federal district commission the authority to expropriate immediately the properties in question. The further reasons were the following: to have allowed the owners of the hotel to erect a modern hotel on the old site, having regard to improvements that the government had already made and improvements that were in immediate contemplation, became the equivalent of presenting the finest site in the capital of Canada, to a company which was proposing to build a hotel in no way equal to the Chateau Laurier, but one that While large and serviceable would not, it was thought, in any way approach in architectural beauty the other hotel which is in the near vicinity of the parliament buildings. It would have meanit that going from parliament hill into the heart of the city the new hotel would be the structure immediately f acing all the visitors to parliament hill. It would have meant further that so far as the company was concerned they would have had as a frontage for their hotel the advantage of the expropriation that had already been made between Wellington street and Sparks street west of Elgin street and this side of the post office and an. immediate view of the houses of parliament. They would have had at one side all the improvement which is being made o*n the driveway between the canal and the present Russell house property, and they would virtually be given by the country this exceptional environment, which the government felt ought really to belong to the country as a whole. In the circumstances, conferences were held with the federal district commission and with the members of the board of control and the city council as to whether in some way an arrangement for joint action could not be made between the city and the commission, in the event of the government undertaking to alltow tihe expropriation of the Russell house properties. It Was discovered, after some little conference, that the city was prepared to cooperate with the federal district commission to make the central part of the city all that the members of this house and the citizens of Canada generally could wish the centre of the capital of the Dominion to be.
In order that I may bring to the minds of the members of the house the nature of the proposed improvements and just what was before us as we were considering the matter, I would recall that the government of Canada

Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
owns practically all the land that is on the south shore of the Ottawa river from the old Perley home on the west to beyond the archives building on the east. The parliament buildings stand practically in the centre of that stretch. Opposite the parliament buildings is the property on which the Chateau Laurier is at present situated with Major Hill park immediately behind it, and the Daly building which is property the government of Canada has acquired. That means that a'lll the land which lies immediately to the south of government property along Wellington street between the east block and the Chateau Laurier, and whiioh is intersected by the Rideau canal, is pretty much in t'he centre of property now owned by the government. It is also in the centre of the city, and for the most part to all intents and purposes already a large park area. There are still some buildings on parts of it, but at comparatively little cost to-day the whole can be made quickily and readily into a great central park, facing, as I have said, on property already owned by the government.
There is the open space with which hon. members are familiar, between Wellington and Sparks streets and between Elgin street and the post office, and which has been expropriated. From there to the station except for the city post office it is all open space. The Rideau canal is government property and the property to the right of it also owned by the government, constitutes, at the present time, a driveway in the course of improvement. A large area has been opened up by the commission on the property formerly occupied by the old Dey's rink which fronts on Laurier avenue. Beyond Laurier avenue there is Cartier square which is already a park owned by the Dominion and beyond Cartier square are the grounds of the collegiate institute, the normal school and the model school, all of which are government-owned properties. Those latter properties are owned by the provincial government. Hon. members will therefore see that with the exception of the few buildings that front west on Elgin street and a few buildings fronting on Nicholas street on the far side of the canal which are of an antiquated character, omitting a few principal structures that face on Rideau street beyond the railway station, all the area to the north and south lying between the Ottawa river and Lisgar street and to the east and west between Elgin street and Nicholas street is to-day virtually one large park area.
The commission pointed out to the government that without any very great expenditure, having regard to the significance of the
properties to be acquired, this vast area might be made into a park in the very centre of the capital of Canada. As I have said, the government felt that to allow the most important part of that property to remain in the hands of private owners and be used for a public hotel would, in the light of the circumstances I have mentioned, livery short-sighted and would show a distinct lack of vision on the part of the administration in regard to the future development of the capital of our country. To allow members to see the scheme of development which is proposed I have had a plan prepared by the commission. If I could have copies of these plans distributed, hon. members would be in a position to follow more easily what is proposed with respect to the development that is contemplated.
As bon. members we'll know, the business centre of the city so far as traffic is concerned has come more and more to be that particular part of Ottawa lying between Elgin street on the one side and the central station on the other. It is also the part that is for the most part used as an approach to and as an egress from parliament hill1. Although our grounds of parliament have a main entrance, it is not used to anything like the same extent as the entrance at the head of Elgin street. That means that traffic more and more is concentrated at the very doors of parliament, and already it is evident, I think, to all who have given any thought to the question, that there is need for a better regulation and distribution of traffic in the immediate vicinity of these houses of parliament. The commission therefore proposes as a central feature of the development, if parliament appropriates the money for the purpose, to make a large circular space around which the traffic of the city will have to move in one direction in the area through which Sparks street runs at the present time and which is bounded on the south by the present Ruase'll house and on the north by the square that has already been expropriated. The idea would be to have something corresponding to what in the city of London, England, one sees at Piccadilly circus or Oxford oircus whereby in the centre of the city the traffic would be obliged to move one way around the sides olf a circle and into which particular area the different streets would run. That centre would be virtually the heart of the .capital. In all probability, when the erection of the national war memorial is further under consideration it will be thought advisable that the memorial should 'be placed in the centre of that circle.
2314	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
May I add that at the present time, as hon. members know, there is no single point at which the parliament buildings in their entirety can be viewed from any distance? Beautiful as they are, prominently as they are placed on this hill, there is not in Ottawa any point at which, when one gets beyond Wellington street, these buildings -can be viewed as a whole. If the park project which is proposed is carried through, there will be given from the greater part of the park a commanding view of the parliament buildings. Indeed it is proposed -that there should be constructed from the Laurier avenue bridge a driveway which will run- diagonally through the heart of the park and which will, coming up to the approach at Elgin street entrance, afford to anyone approaching the parliament buildings a complete view of their imposing front. In other words, a visitor to the city standing on Laurier aven-ue bridge, situated as it is at present, would get from that point an unobstructed view of the main entrances of the houses of parliament. The memorial tower in the centre would be practically in the centre of that view and the avenue that would approach the building would be the main avenue to the houses of parliament. All of us, I think, regret only too sincerely that when the buildings were placed where they are, some system of city or town planning was not followed whereby there would have been an adequate and dignified approach to the houses of parliament. But if we feel the lack of that approach to-day; if we feel there has been an omission in that particular in the past, I am inclined to believe that those who come after us will realize the omission even more than we do, an-d will regard us as having been remiss if, seeing the situation as we now see it, we do not endeavour -to improve and rectify it.
If hon. members will look at the plan which the federal district commission have drafted of what they have proposed, they will see that it virtually corresponds with what I have in this brief way sought to outline. Having regard to the properties that lie on the east side of the canal and to the west of Nicholas street, may I say further that for the most part they are already owned by either the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or the Canadian National Railways? I have personally had talks with Mr. Beatty, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, and with Sir Henry Thornton, of the Canadian National Railways, and asked if their companies would be prepared to co-operate with the city and with the commission in improving that particular area in so far as their interest in it is concerned, and I have their assurances that

they will be only too happy to further to whatever extent may be necessary so far as their companies are concerned the work of the improvement and beautification of the heart of the capital of Canada.
May I say that the government naturally was hesitant about adopting this proposal before having an opportunity of submitting the project in its entirety to parliament, but as I have just explained, it was a matter of then deciding or of necessitating later on through delay a very much larger outlay. Moreover, so far as the decision itself is concerned, and that is what I think bears immediately on our consideration of the matter here, it would appear to be a case of deciding now or never whether these particular properties shall be obtained. Naturally a time comes in the development of every city where new buildings take the place of old ones, and unless the government takes steps immediately to acquire the properties I have mentioned, it is altogether probable that new structures of a very costly character will be erected, and that any future government will find it -all but impossible to proceed with a development of the kind.
Had the government been obliged to trust solely to its own judgment in this matter, possibly the decision would have been as it is, but fortunately the government had before it the expressions of view and opinion of hon. members of this house during the last session when the amendment was brought in to the Ottawa Improvement Commission Act, and the name of the commission was changed to that of its present designation as the federal district commission. At that time several hon. members of the house spoke with reference to the appropriation which the government was then asking from parliament, and I think almost without exception-there was exception taken on the part of one or two-but almost without exception the expression of view as given from all parts of the house was that the government's request for the purpose for which the appropriation was intended was far too modest. The then leader of the opposition, the hon. Mr. Guthrie, member for South Wellington, speaking for himself and I judged for his friends in his party, said that he thought the appropriation w-e had asked for should be several times what it was, and he very wisely, I think, drew attention to the importance of making changes without loss of time and of seeking to make Ottawa, as it should be, worthy in all respects as the capital of the Dominion. My hon. friend the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) was in the house at the time and participated in the debate, and if not in express terms, was, I

Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
think on the whole most sympathetic with the views of the then leader of the opposition. My hon. friend from Argenteuil (Sir George Perley) also spoke and expressed approval of what the government was then doing and his belief, I think, that for the capital we could not go too far in planning further developments along right lines. From among the ranks of hon. gentlemen apposite, the hon. member forOarleton (Mr. Garland) also spoke, strongly advocating the appropriation of a much larger sum. Then my friend the leader of the Progressives mentioned, if I recollect aright, or if he himsellf personally did not, some of bis following did express their approval of the course the government was then taking, and I know that one hon. member in particular, the hon. member for Maideod (Mr. Coote), said that he thought there had been great neglect in the approaches to the parliament buildings, and he advocated steps being taken in the near future which would improve the approaches to parliament hill. In these circumstances I think I am correct in Saying that the government was justified at least in feeling that when it came to parliament with the present proposal, hon. members, in. view of what had been said, as well as what was left unsaid, would view with approval the step which is now being taken.
May I add that there are other reasons why I believe the house would be justified in giving its approval to the present bill? The proposal has now been before the country for some little time, and the press in all parts of the country has made observations with respect to it. I have yet to discover from any journal of importance a criticism of what is being proposed. Throughout the Dominion there is a feeling that the capital of the country should be made worthy not only of its present; but of its future. If this is to be done, Something along the lines now being proposed is necessary.
We had in Ottawa last fall an important conference of the premiers of the several provinces with members of the federal government. The subject of the improvement of the capital along the lines indicated was not taken up as a matter of formal discussion at any meeting of the conference, but personally I had a word with the premiers of the provinces as to their opinion, from the point of view of their respective provinces, of what the Dominion was about to undertake in the matter of the improvement of the capital. I do not think that I am' misrepresenting any of them when I say that I gathered from their expressions of opinion very hearty approval of a proposal such as is now being presented to the house.
May I add in particular one further justification for the step which the government is now proposing? In 1913, before the war, the government of Sir Robert Borden appointed a commission known as the "federal plan commission on a general plan for the cities of Ottawa and Hull." The commission was appointed in September, 1913, and its members were:
His Worship, the mayor of Ottawa.
His Worship, the mayor of Hull.
Sir Alexandre Lacoste, K.C., of the city of Montreal.
Herbert S. Holt, Esq., of the city of Montreal.
Frank Darling, Esq., of the city of Toronto.
R. Home Smith, Esq., of the city of Toronto.
The order in council appointing the commission charged it with the duty of-
-taking all necessary steps to draw up and perfect a comprehensive scheme or plan looking to the future growth and development of the city of Ottawa and the city of Hull, and their environs, and particularly providing for the location, laying out and beautification of parks and connecting boulevards, the location and architectural character of public buildings, and adequate and convenient arrangements for traffic and transportation within the area in question.
The commission made its report two years later, in 1915, and I have a copy of that report in my hand. The report is a most valuable one, and undoubtedly it was prepared by the then government for the very purpose which we are now seeking to further in bringing before the house the proposal I am submitting in this bill. Without question the recommendations of the commission would, in part at least, have been acted upon long before this had the war not intervened, and may I say that the proposal now being made parallels in many respects a central feature of the proposals made by the commission appointed by Sir Robert Borden at that time. These gentlemen were of the view that it was all-important that the central part of the city should be reserved as an open space, and that the buildings surrounding it should be of a character to lend dignity and harmony to other important buildings in the capital.
Now, Mr. Speaker, may I say a word with respect to the obligation of parliament towards Ottawa as the capital city of the Dominion. I know it will be said by some hon. gentlemen that the government is doing a great deal for this city. We must however be careful to distinguish between what the government is doing for Ottawa as a city, and what the government is doing for Ottawa as the capital of this Dominion. It is impossible for any municipality to undertake the sort of
£6X03-147
[Stage Direction]
2316	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
planning and development required for the capital of a country. If it is to have a capital, a country must expect to incur obligations and expenditures incidental to its development, whether that capital be in some newly-acquired and undeveloped area, as is the case to-day with respect to the Australian capital about to be developed, or in some existing municipality. No municipality could undertake on purely municipal lines the kind of development which would be necessary to make its city a capital worthy of the country. And so I ask hon. members in considering what the government is proposing to do so from the point of view of the obligation of this parliament to the capital of Canada.
In connection with the Choice of a capital, may I remind hon. members that Ottawa was not chosen originally as the capital of this great Dominion. In 1858, before confederation, this city was chosen as the capital of the two provinces that were united under the Act of Union. It was not until after practical developments had taken place on parliament hill, it was not until after the corner stone of the parliament buildings had been laid and their erection completed-all of which was done in relation to one province as it then existed-that the fathers of confederation, seeing the possibilities of Ottawa as the future capital of the Dominion, decided to have it become the national capital. Up to that time Ottawa had been a community that had but recently emerged from the backwoods. It was for the most part concerned with lumbering operations and manufacturing incidental thereto. Transportation also incidental to those developments had taken shape in different directions, but there was no general plan of the city. It had never been thought of as a capital; it was simply, as I have said, a community that had emerged out of the primitive forest and had taken shape from day to day pretty much as industrial development progressed. Then came confederation, and it was decided to make Ottawa the capital of what at the time was a dominion of but four provinces.
What I wish to bring to the attention of hon. members is this. From that stage the city continued practically as it then was, until the time when the Ottawa improvement commission was organized, and it is owing largely to this fact that to-day we find no adequate approaches to parliament hill or to the houses of parliament. I need not remind hon. members that it was not until 1905, when the prairie provinces came into confederation, that for the first time we had a Dominion extending from sea to sea, linking together

organized provinces in all parts of Canada. That was only twenty-three years ago. So that when in relation to its future we speak of Ottawa as the capital of this Dominion, we have to keep in mind that this capital to-day, as representative of the whole of Canada, is a capital that speaks for but twenty-three years' growth of the Dominion constitutionally organized as it is to-day.
That being the case, what is going to be the position of Ottawa in the next twenty-three years, in the next fifty years, in the next one hundred years to. say nothing of a much longer period? It is our duty to consider that situation, and I submit that if hon. members will consider the future development of the capital from that point of view they will see the wisdom of not losing further time in planning for its proper development. Already the evidences of the lack of foresight are only too manifest. Take the main approach to the front entrance of these buildings already referred to, Metcalfe street. It ought to be a magnificent boulevard and a grand approach to these houses of parliament, but as viewed from the main entrance it is pretty much in the nature of a country lane; it is not very much larger. There is practically no approach to parliament hill from Metcalfe street at the present time. The same is true of O'Connor street at the western end of the grounds; and the same was true of Elgin street until the changes made last year had dome into 'being. These effects of the lack of foresight on the part of those who had to do with the previous development should cause us to have regard for the rapid development that will take place in the near future. We have on the other hand, an example of what can 'be done by a little foresight. Fortunately the Ottawa improvement commission was created some years ago. The commission was granted a limited amount of money, but it has followed a course of development of the city in laying out parks and boulevards which has given to the capital a character of its own, in which not only those who come to attend parliament have a pride, but in which with pride the whole Dominion shares. Having before us, on the one hand, the evidences of neglect and their consequences, and on the other hand, the evidences of what can be done by a little careful planning, with regard to the future, I say we would indeed be remiss in our duty, if now, at a moment when the opportunity is so great and when the omission would be so serious, we did not take full account of the opportunity and make the most of it

Federal District*-Mr. Mackenzie King
In order to illustrate what I am seeking to bring home to hon. members, may I ask them to 'compare for a moment the capital of the Dominion with the respective capitals of the individual provinces, and see whether what the government is asking should be done for our national capital is in any sense extravagant in comparison with what the individual provinces have already done for their respective capitals. In the city of Toronto, the provincial buildings are located in Queen's park-«, magnificent setting, not as fine as that of parliament hill, but rendered much more beautiful and magnificent by the approach to it. If we had an avenue running up to parliament hill comparable to University avenue in Toronto, this city would take on an entirely different complexion. My view is that parliament would not only be justified in taking but really ought to take steps immediately to make an approach to the main entrance of the houses of parliament similar to that which has been made with respect to the legislative buildings in Toronto. I am not, however, going to advocate that at the moment. I simply say that it is ,a step which, if not taken to-day, will be taken by some future government and will then be taken at enormously greater cost than would be involved at the present time. Then take the city of Quebec. There again you have the legislative buildings beautifully situated in a large, open space, and surrounded by improvements on which there have been vast expenditures. But take the western provinces, the newer provinces that could least afford to make large outlays on their public buildings. Look at British Columbia; the legislative buildings in Victoria are situated in surroundings infinitely finer than those of parliament hill in their relationship to the city. Come to Alberta: the grounds surrounding the legislative buildings in the city of Edmonton are, if anything, finer than those of the capital of Canada. Take the city of Regina: at one time Regina was practically a rolling prairie waste, to-day the legislative buildings in that city are situated in the centre of a very lovely park, embracing many acres of beautifully cultivated grounds with an artificial lake and other attractions. The province of Saskatchewan has felt it could make towards the improvement and the dignifying of the capital of that province an expenditure many times greater, comparatively speaking, than what is now being suggested for the capital of the Dominion of Canada. In Manitoba the surroundings of the legislative buildings represent, again, on the part of the public authorities, a much greater regard for their immediate environment and for the appearance of the 56103-147i
city, as a provincial capital, than anything we have in this federal capital at the present time.
With regard to the other provinces, with their legislative buildings at Halifax, Nova Scotia, Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, and Fredericton, New Brunswick, I cannot speak with equal knowledge, although I think that, having regard to the size and the needs of each of these provinces, the immediate environment of the legislative buildings in these maritime provinces represents more in the way of sacrifice on the part of the legislatures and of the people than anything which this Dominion has made towards the improvement of its capital.
I hope I have helped to bring home what I really feel we cannot emphasize too often, namely, the position of this city as the capital of the Dominion of Canada. Ottawa is the focal centre of the Dominion; it is the capital of a dominion which is rapidly growing and which is acknowledged as the first of the dominions of the British Empire. It is the heart of a nation that has grown great not only in its own affairs but in the affairs of the world at large, and the time has come when thought cannot be given too seriously to the future possibilities of this city as a capital city.
I have made comparisons with our own provinces. But there are other comparisons which perhaps should be made when one is discussing Ottawa as the capital of a nation. Take the capitals of other countries-and these, again, I mention more for the purpose of emphasizing the fact that a country is largely known among the nations of the world by its capital. Take the city of London, the capital of Great Britain. I need not emphasize what the city of London means to the world as the capital of Great Britain. But I should like to point out just what it has cost the city of London in some particulars to make a very few changes that have become necessary largely because London is the capital- changes which might have been made a short time ago at comparatively little cost. Within the last couple of years the city of London has been obliged to spend more than $125,000,000 in the purchase of land for the purpose of cutting two new streets through the city; and many other millions have also been spent in tearing down buildings for the construction of thoroughfares. At the time of the great fire in London, Sir Christopher Wren pleaded with the authorities of the day to widen one or two of the main thoroughfares of that city. That plea was met with the same kind of objection often encountered by measures of this character namely that
231S	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
they do not bear all their fruit in the immediate present: it was contended that the expenditure was one that should not then be incurred. And it was not incurred. But to-day the citizens of London have had to pay on the widening of two streets alone- in addition to millions spent in tearing down different structures-the sum of $125,000,000 for the small additional leeway which has been thereby afforded.
I come now to Paris. In the eyes of the world Paris typifies France. What position did the French government take a few years ago with regard to their capital? Paris as a city had not been planned as the capital of France. The French authorities, realizing the importance of creating 'a dignified capital, had plans carefully studied, and an appropriation made for the improvement of the city. In 1853 the city of Paris spent $265,000,000 on Baron Haussmann's plans to open up the French capital to light and air and to create beautiful parks and boulevards. The sum of $265,000,000! Is there anyone who has visited Paris who does not feel that that investment, large as it was, has been a good one for the French people? Every visitor comes away feeling that Paris is one of the most beautiful capitals, if not the most beautiful, in the world. Indeed, one receives the impression that the French nation has had its character moulded and shaped to some considerable extent by the expression given to its capital city.
Then come to the United States. At the time Washington was decided upon as the capital of that republic, George Washington, in conference with Jefferson, the Secretary of State, foresaw that a great nation would arise upon this continent in the territory of the United States. Plans were made accordingly. Hon. members have heard of the work of L'Enfant who at that time, retained by Washington and the Secretary of State, laid out vast plans for the development of parks and driveways in what was to be the future capital of the United States. These plans were laughed at. They were declared to be ridiculous. Nevertheless they were accepted by the government, who retained the areas outlined for parks and driveways, with the result that the United States for over one hundred years has had secured to its capital many of its very beautiful parks and driveways. For an interval of years those plans fell into disuse, but a little later, at considerable expense, a commission for the beautification of Washington was appointed in order to see what further development might be carried out. That commission, including some of the great architects and sculptors of

the United States, having gone very thoroughly into the matter, ultimately came back to the plans of L'Enfant, declaring that there was nothing they could recommend which would constitute an improvement on the suggestions that had been made a century before. Washington is modeled on those plans, and if I may make a comparison in order to indicate in a degree the very little that we are proposing here compared to what is obviously a pressing need of Washington today-and a similar need will suggest itself in this country some day-I would direct the attention of hon. members to the development which is being prosecuted in the heart of Washington, the large Mall that connects the capitol with the residence of the president. There is in Washington a park area that stretches for two miles, the whole of it forming a central park in the heart of the capital of the United States. From that park centre there radiate various driveways which hellp to imipart to Washington the great icharm which it possesses as a capital.
We are asking parliament to vote a sum sufficient to enable us to create a small central park about one-tenth the size I have suggested -or rather, I should say, one-twenty-fifth of that size-in the heart of this Canadian capital. What is Washington spending today towards the upkeep of the United States capital? She is contributing, towards permanent improvements in parks, apart from all that has already been spent, an annual appropriation of $245,000 and a maintenance appropriation of $705,000, or a total of $951,-000-nearly a million dollars annually, just for maintenance and small improvements in the park areas which have already been developed. But in addition to that she is appropriating large sums of money for special improvements. One that is being developed at present is a bridge known as the Arlington memorial bridge, which is being constructed at a cost of $14,500,000. This is simply one approach to this park, or rather one connecting link between it and Arlington cemetery, which is being added as an additional feature of adornment to the capital of the United States. I believe it is correct to say that when one adds to the expenditures made on parks and driveways in Washington the expenditures which are made on public buildings, they total on an average for recent years about $9,000,000 a year. That is how Washington is being developed, and everyone knows that when the world speaks of Washington it gets a vision of the United States.
I shall not take up the time of the house by citing other examples beyond making mention of one which is related to another part of

Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
the British Empire. The Commonwealth of Australia found itself in a position not wholly dissimilar to that of Canada; the capital had been at Melbourne, which was not originally intended as a capital city. It was discovered amongst other things that it would mean an enormous cost properly to develop the heart of what was already a commercial city. At great expense and sacrifice the government decided to acquire an entirely new area and to make of the capital of Australia a model city. The property for the federal capital of Australia was purchased from the state of New South Wales and vested, in the commonwealth on January 1, 1910. The total area is about 900 square miles, or 576,000 acres. The land set aside for the capital site comprises twelve square miles, and 100,000 acres is set apart for public buildings, military colleges, reserves, parks and roads. During the fiscal year of 1925 the federal district commission of Canberra expended £850.000, and during the fiscal year 1926, which is the latest for which I have been able to get particulars, they spent £1,719,000, and as yet the government of Australia have not begun in any measure to erect the permanent structures for that capital. I submit that we in Canada should be and are equally proud of our capital, and we wish to see it second to none so far as the capitals of the dominions comprising the British Empire are concerned.
I would like to conclude with one further reason why I hope the house will not only accept the present proposal with regard to this capital expenditure of $3,000,000, but will accept it in a graceful and unanimous spirit. Last year we celebrated in Canada the sixtieth anniversary of confederation, and if that celebration evidenced anything it disclosed the pride taken by Canadians generally in their Dominion and in the capital of the Dominion. For the first time in the history of this country, every part of the Dominion from the Atlantic to the Pacific was linked immediately with parliament hill; the voices of those who participated in that celebration in Ottawa were heard in all parts of our country. I do not think enough has been said of the work of the diamond jubilee celebration committee, in linking up at that time all parts of Canada with the capital. That phase of the celebration was largely undertaken by Hon. Thomas Aheam, who is the present chairman of the federal district commission. Mr. Aheam not only gave his services gratuitously to the work of that committee, but through his instrumentality that whole vast linking up of the Dominion from coast to coast was carried out, so I am informed, practically without the expenditure of a single dollar by
the committee. He was able to secure, as contributions towards that celebration from transportation companies, telephone companies, radio companies and electrical companies both in Canada and in the United States, all that was needed in the way of equipment and workmanship to make possible that exceptional feature of the celebration. The government feel that this country is fortunate in having Mr. Ahearn as the chairman of the federal district commission, and that we would be furthering the wishes of the people of Canada as a whole if, in connection with the diamond jubilee celebration, we could have through a further development in the beautification of this capital city some feature commemorative of that event, which might also serve as some recognition on the part of this generation of the work of the fathers of confederation. We of to-day have inherited these buildings and their surroundings, and we enjoy everything we have 'by way of their beauty and inspiration because of the work of those who preceded the present generation. II do not think we could more worthily honour the fathers of confederation and the vision which they had as to the future of Canada than by appropriating a sum sufficient to provide in the heart of this city, in connection with the celebration we had last year, a park which will be known to future generations as Confederation Park, and which will! be commemorative of that celebration and of the contribution made by this generation to the work of the fathers of confederation. I would ask hon. members of the house to believe that this was one of the objects which the government had in mind when they gave their sanction to the expropriations to which I have referred.
I should like to put on record one or two thoughts I have in regard to the _ future development of Ottawa as the capital of Canada. I believe no country in the world has been so fortunate as Canada in the natural beauty of its capital city, with its environs, its commanding position, its surrounding mountains and forests, its beautiful rivers. Ottawa is located by the side of a river, as is the case with many other capitals. London, as hon. members know, is situated on the banks of the Thames; Paris on the Seine; Rome on the Tiber; Washington on the Potomac, and other capital cities are similarly situated. None of these however, have in their rivers anything comparable to the Ottawa river into which flow, within the federal district the Rideau and Gatineau rivers. Running through the heart of this city there is also the Rideau canal, which to all intents and purposes is
2320	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
a fine river in itself. I submit that the federal district commission should endeavour to secure both banks of all the river courses. Fortunately up to the present much of the banks of these rivers and the canal have been secured. Nothing could be done which would be more in the future interest of this city than to have the land along both sides of the Ottawa river acquired for public purposes, as far as it can be reasonably acquired, and in so far as that has not already been done. Similarly, there should be secured the land along both sides of the Rideau river and the Rideau canal. I am not saying this can be done, or that it will be done, but I think it should be done, and I think such a step would go far to make this capital what it should be in years to come. I also think, as I have already said, that the approach to parliament hill along Metcalfe street should be made more dignified, as befits this capital; that approach should be made two or three times its present width. I believe all the properties facing parliament Hill should be owned and controlled by this government in order to prevent structures being erected thereon which may destroy the harmony and beauty of the buildings on this hill. More than that-and this does not relate to the immediate present but to the future.-I believe there should be acquired in connection with this capital and the sooner the better a great tract of land, in the nature of a national park, which will be a fitting adjunct to the capital of our country. All this could be done to-day at a comparatively small cost and I believe that no investment the country could make would mean as much to the future of the capital of Canada as these particular developments if they are carried out.
There is one further step which I think will become necessary, namely that the capital of Canada be placed under the control of a federal district commission. When that step is to be taken is not for me to say at the moment. It might involve changes in the representation in parliament and might more appropriately be considered at a time when a redistribution measure is before the house. But I do think that sooner or later, and perhaps, having regard to the future, the sooner the better, this capital of the Dominion should be placed under the control of a federal district commission. The present action may prove a step in that direction.
Let me say in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that as we look upon the countries of the past and the countries bf the present, we find more and more reason to attach great significance to the

proper development of our capital. When we speak of ancient Greece we think of Athens and all that Athens stood for, and we judge of the character of the ancient Greeks largely by the types of buildings and what is left by way of remnants of architecture in that city which in the days of its greatness was the capital of Greece. When we think of the Roman Empire our thoughts turn to Rome and to what is there left of monuments of the past, as the embodiment of the spirit of that day. Similarly when we turn to other countries, to Great Britain, to the United States, to France, to Belgium, we see in what there is in architecture and in art in their capitals something symbolic of the genius of the peoples. So too with our Dominion; the capital is becoming increasingly the focal point of this great country. It is the point to which all eyes of this Dominion are turned; and not only that, but when people think of Canada it is to the capital of Canada that all eyes of the British Empire and of the world are turned. This capital is the seat of the government of the country. It should be and is something more than the seat of government. It is here at the capital of Canada that we have the residence of the representative of His Majesty the King. It is here that we have the official residence of the diplomatic representative of the nation to the south, the legation of the United States. It will be the future home of the diplomatic representatives of other countries as from time to time they come to have their respective representations and legations in Canada. It should be the home not only of government and of diplomacy in Canada, but it should also be and is in large measure already the home of the sciences and of art and of letters. We have in the city archives which are second to none of any country in the world. We have a national art gallery with art treasures of great value to this nation. We have a na- . tional museum which is an important national possession. We are planning at this time the development of important laboratories for scientific research. Our public buildings, as far as their architectural merits are concerned, are with few exceptions worthy of our country. In addition to the houses of parliament there are other public buildings which constitute exceptionally beautiful specimens of architecture, such as the Chateau Laurier, some of the churches, and I am happy also to say, some of the buildings erected by great companies. The Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's building, erected on lines of rare architectural beauty, is a building worthy of the great capital of this Dominion. We may

Federal District-Mr. Bennett
hope and I believe expect that other companies will follow the examples which have already been set.
We may not come to have the largest, the wealthiest, or the most cosmopolitan capital in the world, but I believe that with Ottawa's natural and picturesque setting, given stately proportions and a little careful planning, we can have the most beautiful capital in the worlld. So I would ask my fellow members of this House of Commons to view not only with sympathy but with enthusiasm a project which everyone will recognize as beyond any consideration of party, that has for its object solely and wholly the development and beautification of Ottawa as the capital of this great Dominion, something that will give some expression of all that is highest in the idealism of the nation, and something which those from beyond our gates and those who may follow in future years will come to recognize as an expression in some degree of the soul of the Canada of to-day.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: I do not propose, Mr. Speaker, to follow the right hon. the Prime Minister in his observations. I desire to congratulate him upon his conversion to the desirability of having parks in the city which is the capital city of our country; and his enthusiasm has all the zeal which characterizes the convert.
I recall that the park upon which the Chateau Laurier now stands was not invaded by a commercial enterprise without objection being taken by the Conservative party, and the speech which Sir George Foster made on that occasion will perhaps be recalled by the right hon. the Prime Minister.
We are now asked to spend over $1,500,000 to buy a park in the city of Ottawa to take the place of the park in which there has been built a hotel, and the use of which for commercial purposes was objected to by the opposition of that day. I mention that to the right hon. the Prime Minister in case he may have forgotten it.
The government of Sir Robert Borden, when it came into power in 1913, was fully seized of the desirability of beautifying Ottawa. I take it that there are very few people in Canada who are not desirous of making our capital worthy of the aspirations of the Canadian people. But when the government appointed a commission, known as the Holt commission, it was found that a very considerable sum of money would be necessary to carry out the proposed plans. That commission called to its assistance the very best expert advice which could be obtained, and
as a result plans were formulated, which doubtless have been inspected by nearly every member of this house.
The plan which has been laid before us to-day is a plan which is essentially not different from the plan which was thus prepared; in general outline it contemplates the same sort of development; but it was found that during the progress of the war it was impossible to spend the sums of money that would be involved.
May I say that this country is now suffer- [DOT] ing from a debt of two and a half billions of, dollars, while at that time it had a debt of less than four hundred millions. There is mot a gentleman on this side of the house, and I do not know of anyone in Canada, who is opposed to making this city a capital of great beauty, reflecting as I have already said in every sense the hopes and aspirations of the Canadian people. But there are other matters which must be considered. There is a very ancient saying that you must cut your garment according to your cloth. When the right hon. the Prime Minister referred to my observations last year, or the observations of the gentleman who led this party at that time he cannot have recently read them. I directed my attention to two points. One was that the operations of the commission should be extended, and the other was the desirability of having the commission representative in character; and I am happy to say that the right hon. the Prime Minister quite agreed with the observations made in that regard. Mr. Guthrie, it is perfectly true, urged the desirability of a larger expenditure being made than the annual sum which was contemplated by the bill, but that was all.
Now what are we asked to do? Suppose we get down to earth for a few moments and ask ourselves what we are proposing to do. We are proposing to vote $200,000 a year for thirty years, which is $6,000,000; and another $3,000,000 this year, which is $9,000,000 exclusive of interest and sinking fund. That may not be thought to be a large sum of money. We are so glibly talking of millions these days that I wonder where this country is going to end. I wonder if it is realized whait $3,000,000 means to the people of this country, what $3,000,000 would do in bringing happiness and delight and some measure of creature comforts to men and women on the prairies, what it would do to men and women who find it very difficult to struggle under the conditions under which they now live, what it would do with respect to health and all the matters that are allied to the health of a nation. There is something more than the

Federal District-Mr. Bennett
beauty of the capital and that is the health of its people. When we have seen, as I have, conditions that exist in some parts of this country because of the long distances men and women are from transportation and other facilities, we should reflect carefully as to what the reasons were that made it impossible for us to spend this money in 1913. We had a debt then of less than $400,000,000; we had bouyant revenues, and it is not an easy thing now, when we have a debt of $2,500,000,-JOOO that is not being reduced in my judgment as it should, to ask the country to vote these large sums of money.
I am wholly in accord with the desirability of beautifying Ottawa. Is there any man who is not? It is the capital of Canada and the distinction between the city of Ottawa and the capital of Canada was one well taken by the Prime Minister but we cannot always have the things we should like to have. How many of us can always have what we want? There are in this country men and women who have artistic minds, as mentioned by the Prime Minister, but they cannot gratify their tastes and aspirations. The problem is a simple one. Can the Canadian people at this moment afford to enter upon the venture proposed by the Prime Minister? He has already made commitments of over $1,500,000 for the Russell hotel and other buildings behind it, that will involve total expenditures, according to the resolution, of $3,000,000. The Prime Minister was very frank the other day when he said that there would be required $150,000 per annum for maintenance and $50,000 per annum for general improvements that are made from year to year. So we must pay the interest upon $3,000,000 for a venture which is not intended to be revenue-producing. Therefore it will cost us something like $350,000 a year and at the end of the period we must pay the $3,000,000. I yield to no man in my desire to see this the city beautiful; but if in my older years I have become a bit practical, I think the Prime Minister will excuse me when I say that I am not disposed to enter upon large projects without at least having some idea of what is involved in money expenditures and what it means to the people who have to pay.
It is all very nice to talk about posterity raising monuments to your memory and about the right hon. member's biography being a delightful volume showing his vision and his desire to see this city what it should be; but after all, who has to pay the money? In 1958 the Minister of Finance of that day will have to provide $3,000,000 or somebody must in the meantime provide the money to pay

it. There is just this further word to be said about the details of the measure. It is most unsound as a piece of national financing. It authorizes a commission to issue securities which the country must pay. Why should we hand over to somebody else the power to make expenditures with our money? The resolution states that out of the consolidated revenues these moneys may be paid and further that the Minister of Finance will provide the money to pay the interest and sinking funds. Is he going to include this as part of the national debt? Is this to be part of the obligations of the country? As I say, this is not a revenue-producing venture and if it were not objectionable-I believe it is a proper term-I would say that this is a form of deception practised upon the Canadian people by which a commission issues its securities guaranteed by the people of this country, on which securities the people have to pay out of their own revenues the interest and sinking fund. In other words, the people of Canada are putting their money into this venture to the extent of $3,000,000 capital and $200,000 a year for thirty years for maintenance and improvements, or a total of $9,000,000. That is the story short and simple, and my only difficulty is: Can we afford it?
The Prime Minister no doubt will say: It is a very small sum of money; the gentlemen who prepared this plan, the Holt commission, in their scheme for a central park contemplated in part these expenditures. It is a very desirable thing, but no nation can have all the things it now desires. Great as Great Britain is and rich as the city of London is, they did not at one step expropriate the land fronting on the Strand in order to widen that thoroughfare. Those who have seen the operations that went on there realize that they were carried on from year to year. As buildings grew old and had to be replaced by new buildings, they provided that the street line should be so many feet behind the present line in order that there might be a widening of the thoroughfare. The Kingsway is a new highway that was built from Constitution hill down to the heart of the city, but the city of London has done the work gradually. There is a big jog by the Tivoli; then there is a straight line and another jog, and wherever a new building is put up there is a widening of the thoroughfare.
Cannot we afford to proceed in this way in Canada, having regard to what our position is? I think so. I do not for one moment underestimate the financial position of this country; but when the Prime Minister referred to the men being short-sighted who

Federal District-Mr. Bennett
laid out these buildings, I can only say that possibly they were short-sighted but it must be remembered that at that time they were dealing with a very exceptional and difficult position. If as a result of that we are now to denounce them as short-sighted, what would you say with respect to those who in 1908 took a portion of the park and gave it for an hotel? That only took place in the year 1908 and I have under my hand the debate that occurred on that occasion on the 6th day of July. That was only twenty years ago and of course twenty years make a great difference in one's attitude, especially if one has had greater responsibilities. It is pleasing to know that the government of the day, now led by the Prime Minister, is desirous so far as possible of maintaining parks whereas in those days the desire was to put hotels on them. That is what happened in twenty years and, if that be so, it may well be that those who come after us twenty years hence will say that the Prime Minister was extravagant in his proposal. If these men in 1867 were short-sighted under the circumstances I have mentioned and if in twenty years the Prime Minister has had a change of heart and desires to provide a park for that taken from the people of Canada, to put an hotel upon, against the protest of leading public men of that day-if there has been this change in twenty years and we now are seeking to buy a park at a cost of millions of dollars- it is possible that another change may take place whereby people will say that in this regard we are'grossly extravagant.
I will not offer any further observations except to the Minister of Finance. If he will read the bill I am sure that he will say that it is unsound financing. Why do we not make appropriations as they do in Ontario in regard to parks? The parks commission lays down a five-year plan; it submits its estimates to the. government every year; the government approves them and the appropriations are voted by the legislature. This idea of getting away from the responsibility of parliament is against the whole principle of responsible government about which the Prime Minister used to talk so much. I notice a great change between the Prime Minister in power and in opposition. Orders in council are now the order of the day. In the days of opposition they used to be denounced most roundly and vigorously. Now instead of accepting the responsibility of parliament with respect to expenditures, leaving the house to decide how much money we shall annually put into parks, we are making commitments
for the present and for the future that divest this parliament of responsibility with respect to these expenditures. I say essentially that is unsound. It is not in accordance with the theory of responsible government. It is not in accordance with the theory on which Ontario operates its magnificent park at Niagara Falls. That commission lays out its plans; it makes up its budgets; it determines what money shall be paid over a period of years and the way in which the improvements are to be made; it goes to the legislature asking for appropriations; the government puts the appropriations before the legislature in order that, having regard to the financial condition of the province, they may determine what action they will take, and never yet has that commission been unable to carry out its plans as they should be carried out. I do submit that all this legislation divesting parliament of its responsibility, all this placing of money in the hands of commissions, all this authorizing of commissions to raise money on the credit of the Canadian people, for the Minister of Finance knows it is upon the credit of the Canadian people either directly, or indirectly, with guarantees in some cases and moral obligations in others-all this is a negation of the whole principle of responsible government under which we live. I ask the Minister of Finance-I know his government is sufficiently powerful to put this measure through-to recast these financial provisions to provide that this expenditure shall be a direct payment of the Canadian people to this commission, for we never hope to get the money back. The commission had no money with which to pay the interest except the money we give them; that is clear. We do not expect to get the money back; it is not intended that we should; it is not intended that they should pay interest on the money except in so far as we provide them with the money with which to do it. The bill itself makes that point so clear that there can be no difficulty over it. But I do ask the Minister of Finance to put this matter on a sound financial basis if the thing is to be done at all.
I for one do not object to any reasonable expenditures being made to beautify this capital. I am anxious that we should beautify it, but I am also anxious that the beautification should be made in accordance with our present capacity to pay for it, having regard to the demands that are insistently being made upon us by every branch of the public service. We are doing fairly well by Ottawa, I think, and we have been doing so.
Federal District-Mr. Bennett

We cannot do it all in a single day. We cannot tear down public buildings and turn the area into a beautiful public park just because we feel it is a beautiful thing to do.
The Prime Minister referred to the beauties of Greece and the glories of Rome, but I venture to say to him and to this house that Greece and Rome are not remembered by the buildings they put up. The beauties of Greece and the glories of Rome are remembered by the men they produced, by the laws they made, by the philospohy and the literature they created-not by their buildings. That is not the thing by which these ancient civilizations have been remembered. It is true that the Pyramids and the Sphinx are an enduring monument to Egyptian civilization, that the hanging gardens of Babylon are a monument to Babylonian beauty, that the ruins of the Parthenon and the Colosseum recall the grandeur of Athenian and Roman civilizations, but it is not upon the architectural glories of Greece and Rome, but upon their contributions to the liberty and freedom of mankind, that their great place in history rests. Their laws, their literature, their philosophy, these are the things by which they are remembered, and I say to the Prime Minister that if he thinks by going out and spending money tearing down buildings and laying out a public park, and improving the approaches to this building, we are going to make a permanent contribution to the civilization of Canada, he is very much mistaken. Canada will be judged in the eyes of mankind by the type of men and women we produce, by the laws we enact, by the care we have exercised for those who are dependent upon this country. These are the factors by which our civilization will be judged, and not by material evidence. That at least is my submission.
I have tried to make it abundantly clear on every occasion on which I have spoken of the matter that I yield to no man in my desire to see a beautiful capital in Canada, but I have to regulate my desire for beauty by my financial ability to pay for it, and I ask the ministry to pause before they commit us to this plan of financing, and to all these expenditures, without due regard to our present capacity to pay. I wonder if it is realized by hon. gentlemen opposite-sometimes I think it is not-that in these days when the burden of taxation is so great-why, only this morning I saw a letter from a gentleman who said that he was not going to remain on the Canadian side of the border, but cross over to the other

side, "for on my gross income of 816,000," he said, "I pay over 1700 in taxes in Canada, and on the other side I would have to pay 76 per cent less."


Mr. DUNNING:: A real patriot.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The figure is
not correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Railways says he is not a patriot. His idea is to make money where he can.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not the total taxation he would pay in the United
States.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose he was referring only to the income tax?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he was speaking of the income tax, and he said that the income tax was 76 per cent higher in Canada than in Detroit.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is income tax
alone.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I think that we
should make only such appropriations for the beautification of Ottawa as our present and immediate future financial position permits, having regard to the claims that are urgently made upon us by every branch of the public service. Until we have passed the stage where railway deficits are annually recurrent, until we have reached the point where our railways are earning sufficient money to pay the interest on their obligations, is it quite fair that we should ask this added obligation to be borne by the Canadian people? I am speaking for myself, because this is not a controversial matter in any sense of the term, and my own personal view would be, if I had the responsibility, to expend such sums as my financial position would permit, and to increase them as my financial resources warranted, But having regard to our present financial condition, and in view of the demands that are so insistently made upon us from every part of, this country for public accommodation, for post offices, custom houses, and public buildings of 'every kind, in communities that have been without proper accommodation for years, and whioh are now crying out for public buildings, as well as the need for accommodation in the new communities that are being opened up, can we proceed with this venture and forego these very necessary things merely in order to have the capital beautified?
The Prime Minister used one word-he used it twice-and if he will apply it, then my

Federal District-Mr. Evans
support of this undertaking will be very much more readily given. He used the word sacrifice. He said they were willing to make the sacrifice. When it is explained to me just what sacrifice the government of this country is making in public expenditures to create this park and make these improvements, my mind will be very much more at rest. Has anybody seen any evidence of sacrifice? Where are they? What are the sacrifices? It was that one word that fastened itself upon my attention as the Prime Minister proceeded. He spoke of other cities, of other capitals, of other nations, of other people, and of the money they had spent, and he spoke of what has been done in this country, and of the willingness of the people to make a sacrifice for beauty, a sacrifice for the capital. When I am given some evidence of the sacrifice contemplated by this government, it will be much more easy for me to accommodate myself to the expenditure.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: I shall
not take more than a few minutes, but I wish to say a word on this question. I congratulate the Prime Minister on his presentation of his case, but frankly I am opposed to the whole thing, for reasons which I shall try to make clear. In criticizing the scheme, I would say in the first place that we have no business under any conditions to go across Wellington street. I think it would have been much better had we acquired some of the buildings there, cleared them away and beautified the street, instead of going across to Sparks street. Then some of us might be able to approach this house without taking our lives in our hands. But my main opposition to the scheme is for the reason that it is out of harmony with the crude way in which our people have to make their living and furnish the income of this nation. Take our roads, for example. Thousands of our people to-day, west of the great lakes, are not able to get to the post office for their mail for weeks in the springtime. Then perhaps no country in the world is so crude as to its methods of travel, and every day, particularly every weekend, we have a list of casualties at level crossings. Some of our money might well be spent at this time in removing that menace to highway travel. Then again we need expenditure on branch lines, so necessary throughout certain parts of the country. I am sure that those of our people who are without railway facilities will not become enthusiastic over a scheme of this kind, however much they would like to be. Then I recall many of our soldiers throughout
the Dominion suffering from their war service, but who have never yet been able to get on the pension list. I could name 6ome of them off-hand if required. They should be looked after by the country, having faced death in the battle line for our protection. I know of one man to-day who has been in hospital for two years as a result of his war experience, but he has not yet been able to secure a pension. I am sure hon. members generally will recall that only last year the Minister of Finance himself, when asked if some of our civil servants whose wages were below the living line could not be granted an increase of pay, said, "It is time somebody spoke on 'behalf of the taxpayer." Are we then to spend every year the large sum provided for in this bill, and entrust the money to a body of men who are not even responsible to parliament? And what about the national debt? Surely before making unecessary expenditures in the manner proposed, we should do something to reduce that debt and so make it easier for the national revenue to be raised each year.
Now, I should like to have fallen in with this scheme enthusiastically, for I take second place to no one in my desire for the beautification of our capital, but, as I have already said, this scheme is out of keeping with the crude way in which some of our people have to live. Let me point out that in some of our towns in western Canada to-day-I have in mind particularly a good-sized town of three thousand inhabitants in my own constituency-there is mot a government building in which a cabinet minister would house his motor oar-not one. The whole cabinet is taking a most inconsistent position in asking the country enthusiastically to adopt this scheme.
I come from west of the great lakes, from a part of the country that is not even allowed to own its public resources; and yet we are asked to approve of a scheme like this. I say it is utterly inconsistent. We are not even allowed the property that belongs to us as a province, and yet we are expected to tax ourselves to provide means for the beautification of this city by making a central park and other improvements. I repeat, the Prime Minister and his cabinet under these conditions is occupying a most inconsistent position.
The Prime Minister has spoken of the public buildings of some of the other provinces, but they cannot all be cited as parallel cases. The public buildings in Regina are surrounded by land on which our settlers cannot make a living. And yet every day we

Federal District-Mr. Church
are spending money to encourage immigration, when the conditions created by the concentration of wealth and industry in our cities have driven our people off the land. This scheme to beautify the capital of Canada is in accordance with the policy that has been followed in this country for many yeans past of concentrating everything in the cities at the expense of the rural districts. Until those conditions are changed, I say to the Prime Minister across the floor of this house that he cannot expect the agriculturists of western Canada to accept this scheme enthusiastically.
I have nothing further to say, Mr. Speaker, but I would have been remiss in my duty had I not pointed out some of the conditions under which the government expect to secure the money for this scheme.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the country will support the fair and just stand taken by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett). The principle of the bill is all wrong. When this commission was created in 1899 the Prime Minister said it was for the purpose of making Ottawa the Washington of the north. Well, it has become the Washington of the north. It was intended then to work up to making Ottawa a federal district. In fact this whole country has become the Mexico of the north with our new status and as a happy hunting ground for the millionaires of the United States in possessing themselves of ' our resources. There is no city on the North American continent to-day of anything like the same size and population that has as extensive a park area or as large expenditures on its beautification by the federal government, by the city council and by other public agencies as the city of Ottawa.
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the principle of the bill is all wrong. We all want to see this a beutiful city, we all are favourable to liberal expenditure by the federal authorities ou some definite plan for its beautification, but those expenditures must not be in excess of what the country can afford and a lot of it should wait. The Ottawa improvement commission has been functioning for thirty years or since 1899. With what result? The same old streets covered with snow and ice, the same old water supply, the same old way of doing things that in any business enterprise would spell bankruptcy. Every year the Dominion contributes to the municipality the equivalent of five or six mills of the local taxation, and the financial burden and liability of the taxpayers of Ottawa is distributed over the taxpayers of the whole Dominion. Do not forget that a very large amount of

money is spent here every year. Nearly every large public federal building has a park around it. Take the expenditures on the Victoria musuem, and also the expenditures on the experimental farm, Rideau canal, and, further, the expenditures by the Canadian National Railways, by the Canadian Pacific Railway, by the city itself, by the school board and by this commission, running into many millions of dollars. The other day a return brought down showed that several hundred thousand dollars have been spent by the government over a period of years in renting office space in private buildings throughout the city-buildings that nobody else would rent owing to the economic situation here. It would be a far better plan if the government would improve the salaries of the underpaid people in the Post Office and the other government departments and the civil service in general and so help them to pay their rent and taxes and to get a fair day's pay for a fair day's work in Ottawa.
I am not opposing personally the gentlemen composing the commission. They are all public-spirited gentlemen, but their way of doing business is in my opinion deplorable. As an illustration of this, in 1912 they sent out an illustrated booklet showing a large number of small parks and driveways throughout the city! and the expenditures that had been made on these improvements. I can show you cement walks, roadways, gradings and driveways built by this commission all over Ottawa where there is considerable poor workmanship and the life of the work has been only ten years; and yet they have issued bonds for thirty-five years. The result is that at the end of the thirty-five years you will find that what should cost SI.20 a cubic yard will cost S3 and SI a yard as the case may be.
As a result of criticism the government has marked down the proposed increase in maintenance charges from $2'5O,OO0 to $200,000. Here we have a total expenditure of some $9,000,000- $6,000,000, or $200,000 a year for thirty years, plus $3,000,000 capital expenditure-for the beautifying of Ottawa. And what has been done? They have destroyed the continuity of the Sparks street district, where the bulk of the business assessment in the city exists. Sparks street as a commercial thoroughfare has been destroyed. They have torn down warehouses and commercia' buildings and ruined the street in order to create a park, in what should be an industrial district. There you have warehouses and railways sidings, with a canal at the doors of two railway systems, and I contend that these frontages should not be used for

Federal District-Mr. Church
the purpose now intended but left for a great industrial district. This is not Washington. Washington is the capital of a country with a population of 110,000,000, whereas in this country we have a population of 10,000,000. I believe other municipalities of the country do not approve of this expenditure or of this policy of spending money like water. Originally in 1899 it was proposed to make Ottawa a federal district; if that were done the capital would then have the power to levy taxation for such purposes as this and we would have cleaner streets, a better water supply and lower city taxes. The city of Washington is a federal district which has powers of taxation, but this commission has no such powers; it receives no revenues. The result is that bonds have to be issued for every little bit of work that is done over maintenance. If walks have to be built and a little more gardening done, bonds have to be issued for a period of thirty years or thirty-five years-and this at the high cost of money which has prevailed in the past few years.
I cannot find anything comparable to this federal assistance measure in any city in the world. A subvention here is given to the municipality in exchange for property exemption from taxation and for the use of the police and the fire departments. Many other provincial capitals have asked for subventions from the provinces but have not been able to get them. From Victoria to Halifax the various capitals in this Dominion are contributing to the governments of the provinces. Winnipeg, for instance, maintains a police force and fire department but does not receive a dollar in the way of subvention in exchange for these services directly. Nor is there anything like this in Great Britain. In New South Wales the city of Sydney, the capital of the state, gets a million and a half a year, equal to the cost of maintaining the police force or the fire department. Melbourne has a subvention from the state gov-erment, as has also Wellington, New Zealand, in exchange for civic services. There are no state subventions in the United States in connection with the beautification of the state capital, and I find none in the British Empire. It seems to me that sooner or later, in the interests of efficiency and economy, Ottawa must be taken over and made a federal district.
There is a great deal of criticism of the purchase of the old Russell house site at a cost of more than a million dollars, a fabulous sum, in respect of which no tenders were called for. And only a small part of the property has been taken over. Those
who negotiated the transaction got their heads together and agreed to a price of $1,125,000 for property which should certainly have been the subject of an arbitration. The matter should have been referred to a board of arbitration and the value of the land and buildings proved.
Talk about beautifying the capital! Why, as a result of the recent fire there is a wall in front of the Russell building which may fall down on a street car on Sparks street at any time, and no attempt is being made either by the government or by the city of Ottawa to remove the danger. The city architect has the power by law to send someone in at once to remove that menace, and to charge the cost to the owner of the building, but nothing has been done to safeguard the public. Ottawa is called by some of the newspapers-the Stratford Beacon and Globe among them-the mendicant city, and editorials have contended that the country cannot afford the expenditure of money along the lines here proposed or to build a new museum' or court building to house the supreme court, as the Evening Journal suggests.
This federal district commission seems to be giving away things. About a month or two ago the chairman of this commission, who is also the head of the Ottawa Electric Company, a private concern which gets about two-thirds of the electrical business of the city, at higher rates than those charged by the hydro-electric, the peoples' own system, proposed to give away eleven acres of quasi civic property at Rockliffe. To whom? To Mr. Phillips, the United States ambassador, for a residence. That is not the way we should deal with public property. No member of the commission would give away his own property that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has made an entirely erroneous statement, without knowledge of the facts. He says that the chairman of the commission has given away certain property. The chairman had no property to give away. The property to which the hon. member refers is owned by the city of Ottawa, and only the city of Ottawa and its authorities had power to deal with it.


Thomas Langton Church: I am well aware it was
owned by the city of Ottawa and was leased to the federal district commission.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is not
leased.


Thomas Langton Church: The commission occupied
the property and had power to purchase it

Federal District-Mr. Church
on a lease from the city or an agreement regarding an interest in lands. If the Prime Minister will read the minutes of the board of control and city council of the city of Ottawa he will see that this commission has power to take over that civic leasehold property, which it occupied at a rental under a written civic lease. It was proposed to give that property away and a meeting was held at the city hall of people protesting against any such action. I am not aware of the government of the United States giving away public property in Washington.
In connection with this commission, as I have pointed out, we are faced with an expenditure of 19,000,000, while we have to meet an expenditure of $2,500,000 in London on account of Canada House, with maintenance amounting to $130,000 and half a million for a Washington embassy-all this while the people are groaning under heavy taxation. The government is spending money like water; that is all that can be said of this commission.
I submit that the purchase of this particular Russell house property should be looked ' into by the public accounts committee, and all expenditures of the commission should be similarly investigated. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, the commission should be abolished and its work taken over by the government of Canada. The government does not seem able to clean its own streets on parliament hill any better than Ottawa cleans its streets. The condition of the streets in the immediate vicinity of this building is a disgrace to the city of Ottawa. The Department of Public Works have been so incompetent and have so neglected this condition that one of the most popular members on this side of the house has fallen and seriously injured himself. If the government would only try to provide the citizens. of Ottawa with a proper water supply, and make some effort to have the streets cleaned, it would be far better than spending money on this commission in the way it is doing.
Those are not all the expenditures which are proposed; it has been suggested that we should have a new art gallery and new supreme court building, with extensive grounds surrounding it, and that idea is supported by this wonderful paper, the Evening Journal, which has done so much for my friends on the other side of the house. Every time the Journal supports our party in Ottawa we go under, when the ballot boxes are opened. This paper seems to be the mouthpiece of this federal district commission; in the old

days it supported the suggestion that Ottawa should be the Washington of the north, but when it was proposed that the hydro-electric commission should extend its activities to the Ottawa valley to break up the monopoly which then existed, this paper opposed the suggestion on election day where it is best known. I think it would be far better to beautify this city by bringing in industries which will help to keep our young men here and provide opportunities for jobs in Ottawa by a proper economic policy. I have heard a good deal of complaint from a few of the retail business men of Ottawa because the government propose to spoil the continuity of Sparks street, which should be one of the greatest retail districts in Canada. This commission has been criticized many times because of the way it buys real estate, going out to buy with a brass band; it first announces that it is going to buy some property, and all the real estate agents get busy and get there first. That is not the way to buy real estate to-day; that is not the way private owners or business men buy it and that is not the way the hydroelectric commission buy it.
We are told that we are to have a wonderful park known as Confederation park, but I believe the people of Canada have had enough expenditures of that kind within the last year or so on confederation fads. This government sent 750,000 men out of Canada; they did not celebrate Confederation day in this country on July 1st last, but took part in the fourth of July proceedings in the United States. Charity should begin at home, and Ottawa would be far better off if it had a few industries, together with a proper economic policy with cheap light and power. That would be better than squandering millions of dollars on such a scheme as this, which could well wait for a few years. I venture to say that if a committee of the house were to go over the estimates and public accounts they would find thousands of dollars which should be spent by the taxpayers of Ottawa but which has to be borne by the taxpayers of Canada. The principle of the bill is all wrong; if it is desired to make Ottawa a federal district, well and good. That was what Sir Wilfrid Laurier proposed in 1899; he wanted to take the city over on that basis, collect the taxes and beautify the city, but that idea was never carried into effect. To-day we have a federal district commission, but this is not a district at all; it is still a municipality. Look at the Rideau canal at the end of Sparks street; on one side we have a shipbuilding yard, and when you look over the wall you see a lot of stone hookers, old dilapidated dredges and

Federal District-Mr. Chevrier
scows lying there under repair. I was asked the other day if that was the first unit of Canada's navy, which was supposed to be locked up in some garage in Halifax. I am sure that is a thing of beauty and a joy forever; so on with the good work of beautifying the capital! No doubt this work is very near and very dear to the heart of the Prime Minister, but I cannot agree with the principle of the measure.


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: Mr. Speaker, with the remarks of the right hon. Prime Minister I am heartily in accord, and consequently I will not have very much to say. It is a very great privilege indeed for me, together with my distinguished colleague, to represent in this house the city of Ottawa. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, this is the capital city of the Dominion, so I would rather speak as one of the members representing in this parliament the capital city of Canada. I think I can safely do so because under British parliamentary procedure once a member of parliament has taken his seat he is not so much concerned with parochial or local matters, but is bound to look at questions as they affect the general welfare of the entire country. So, under these conditions, I would speak as one whose privilege it is to represent the capital city of Canada rather than the city of Ottawa.
Ottawa, as is the case with other cities, is administered by a municipal government and is under the jurisdiction of the province of Ontario. I may say that the city council of Ottawa and the provincial government of Ontario have done well by this city. At the same time, this is the capital city of Canada, and just as there are obligations devolving upon the municipal council and the provincial government with respect to this city, so I submit there are obligations devolving upon this national body with regard to this capital city. No one would appreciate it more and no one would be happier than I should this amount of money which I believe we can afford to spend-since the Minister of Finance has seen fit to let the resolution go on the order paper-be distributed for the individual good of those in this country who deserve and need it. Nobody more than myself would like to see that amount of money paid out to those who have returned from overseas and who are now in a painful condition. But the Department of Health is looking after the national health; the Department of Soldiers' Civil Re-establishment is looking after the painful cases, and what other systems, I ask, could be devised whereby this amount of money could be distributed to the
individuals who might benefit therefrom? If such a scheme is feasible; if any hon. gentleman who is opposed to this measure simply because he thinks this amount of money could be spent in a more worthy cause were to devise means to accomplish that end, then, Mr. Speaker, I would vote against this resolution; otherwise I say there that a national obligation devolves upon parliament to look after the capital city of Ottawa as befits this country. This parliament building is but a few years old; many years were spent in its construction. Those who conceived the plans and directed the building of it thought they were looking far into the future, but it has not taken long, Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the foresight of those charged with the construction of this building, to demonstrate that it is even now too small to meet the demands of this growing nation. And what will happen in a few years? So when we come to talk about foresight, we must look further ahead than say twenty-five or fifty years, even fifty or one hundred years, when it comes to matters of national importance.
We have been told, Mr. Speaker, that Rome and Greece are remembered not by the buildings they erected, not by the splendour of their architecture. But just as the literature of a country reflects the sentiments, the hopes, the ambitions and the desires of its people, so the character of the public buildings, the meeting places of the councils of the nation, the places where the destiny of a country is determined, will indicate to the people of the future whether or not these were people of culture. And it ill behooves anyone, sir, to say at this time of our national life that men and women whose names could be put down to-day will not be regarded by future generations as men and women of culture. And if we remember these countries because of their culture, we remember them also for the tangible evidences handed down to us of their contributions to art, whether in the form of sculpture, or of painting, or by their crude manner of erecting pyramids or other monuments of national importance in their day. So that on that score the argument against this resolution cannot stand.
. We will suppose that there are other ways in which we could spend this money, probably in the construction of post offices and in the improvement of other public buildings. Somebody spoke of consistency. Let it be made evident, then, when any proposals for the spending of money on these public buildings or the improvement of other public works come up for consideration, that those who to-day say that there ought to be consistency
2330	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Edwards (Frontenac)
are as consistent as they would like others to be at this time. We have been told that this money could be spent on roads. Roads belong to the provincial governments. In other words, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is not part of this
money to be spent on roads in this city and in the surrounding country?


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: Yes, and that only adds strength to my argument. If the money were spent on roads it would be devoted to the very objects for which the hon. member who spoke before me said it should be spent.


Milton Neil Campbell: I think the hon-. member will say there is a great difference between spending it on roads in or near Ottawa and spending it on roads throughout the country.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: I am not disputing
that, but the hon. gentleman should put that up to the government of the province from which he comes. Roads, unless they are international highways, are altogether within the jurisdiction of the provincial government.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is very little more for me to say. What I ask is that this subject be viewed with the same broadness with which it has been conceived. There are obligations towards the capital city. We are told we should do as has been done in London, that we should proceed slowly. Since the institution of the Ottawa improvement commission in 1898-it is now the federal district commission-moneys have been voted to it by parliament for the beautification of the capital city.
We are told that in England matters of this kind progress rather slowly; that old buildings are bought and made the basis of future gradual development. There are no old buildings that can- be bought here. The Russell house, which has been destroyed by fire, is the only old building that now stands in the way of this development, and if we are to wait until all the buildings involved are moss covered and so dilapidated that they are apt to tumble down on our heads, there will be no beautification at all.
For the reasons which the right hon. the Prime Minister advanced, as well as for those I have ventured to offer at this time, I intend to support the motion.


Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Ad-dington):: ME -Speaker, there are only one or two observations I would make. I placed myself on record in opposition to this proposal last year, and I desire to do so again. It is all very well to speak o-f our national obligations to Ottawa as the capital of the

Dominion of Canada. It is true that those obligations exist, and we all must give some consideration to them, but there are other obligations besides those that are related to the city of Ottawa. As long as this goes on I do not see much chance of getting that post office that I want in Sydenham. Why should hon. gentlemen smile over a matter as serious as that? Some of those who smile are expecting buildings or public works in their own constituencies. Does the government owe nothing to the parts of the country outside of Ottawa where works were undertaken or promised fourteen or fifteen years ago but held up by the war? Must nearly every dollar you have to spend be sunk in embassies at Washington, Tokyo or Paris, and the remainder, if any, spent in tearing down city blocks in the city of Ottawa? The Prime Minister has indicated that what he has in mind is to tear down all the city between (Metcalfe and O'Connor street from Wellington right down -I do not know how far down. I suppose you would not stop short of Queen street, would you? It is indicated that that is the picture he has in his mind. How beautiful it would be to get rid of those buildings and have an avenue of trees approaching this building! For that matter, how much is to be added to the attractiveness of these buildings by tearing down the city blocks opposite? Get outside of this building, and how much can you see? You would have to have a neck as long as a giraffe to see it. When a park takes the place of the city block, nothing will be added to the beauty of this place. Some years ago, under the federal plan back in 1913, a certain amount of money was spent. As has been said, that was at a time when our national debt was comparatively small, very small as compared with the debt of to-day. Frog ponds were filled up, beautiful drives were made-and some people in Ottawa added considerably to their fortunes when- those projects were being put through. Some became comparatively wealthy men through the changes that were produced in Ottawa by the construction of those drives and the beautifying of that part of the city. I venture to say that there are some who are very directly interested in the tearing down of whole city blocks and who will not be any poorer because of the part they have played in that regard. I protest again against an expenditure of this kind, against the government of the day underbaking to place in the hands of a commission, composed of men who are not responsible to parliament, the expenditure of money over a period of thirty years. It would be bad enough if it were done

Federal District-Mr. Dunning
for a period of four or five years, but to commit those on whose shoulders will rest the responsibility of administering this country thirty years hence by tying up moneys in this way is in my judgment a very wrong principle and one to which I cannot give my support. My hon. friend from Ottawa says in regard to roads: Oh, that is a provincial matter. It is not a provincial matter as regards miles and miles of roads just outside of Ottawa across the river through the city of Hull. That is being taken care of by this government. Roads which run for miles out of the city and which ought to be under provincial control are being constructed and maintained with money advanced by the Dominion of Canada. They are not provincial roads. Where it suits the purpose of those who have the beautification of Ottawa in mind, they can make Dominion roads out of roads which are miles outside the city, and even across the river, under the plea that they are doing this all in order to add to the beauty of the city of Ottawa. The whole principle in my judgment is wrong and I desire to protest as I did last year.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr. Speaker, I think the house is indebted to the leader of the opposition (Mr. Rennett) for bis very plain, straightforward expression of opposition to the project.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That I dlid not say, and the hon. gentleman must know it. It is entirely incorredt.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sorry if I misunderstood my hon. friend. I thought he expressed outspoken opposition to the scheme.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He did not do any such thing.
Mr. MoGIBBON: He said the contrary half a dozen times.


Charles Avery Dunning: In that case I must be incapable of understanding the English language, and we will let it go alt that. At any rate my hon. friend did not deal with the matter quite fairly in his presentation of figures. I admire the dexterity with which he demonstrated that in reality we were proposing by this scheme an expenditure of something like $9,000,000. True, he did not say that the $9,000,000 all represented new expenditure, but the impression conveyed to the country by his remarks undoubtedly would be that the proposal now before tthe house involved an expenditure of $9,000,000 over and above that whiidh is at present being expended. My hon. friend of course well knows 56103-148
that the second amount of $6,000,000 which, by that process of fast financial calculation, he added to the $3,000,000 specifically dealt with in the bill, is made up of annual payments of $200,000, whereas already this parliament is committed by legislation to an expenditure of $250,000 per annum. If I followed my hon. friend's financial method in that regard, I could of course demonstrate that we are now committed to an expenditure of $7,500,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is not thirty years, so that the amount is not $7,500,000.


Charles Avery Dunning: Now I come back to my hon. friend's opposition to the whole projeot. Would he oppose tihe expenditure of $250,000 annually which is now taking place in Ottawa on the work which is being done? I feel quite sure he would not, and he must adopt one position or the other. He is either opposed to the continuance of the work mow being done, or Ihe is not. If hie is not opposed to the continuance of the present work, then he must be committed to the expenditure of the necessary money to carry it on, and there goes 'the $6,000,000.
We merely iwant to look at this matter fairly in order to find out what in fact it means. We are committed at this time to an expenditure of $250,000 a year, and it is proposed to Commit parliament for the future to am expenditure of $200,000 a year, which is a decrease of $50,000 annually, to provide for a program of thirty years in order that the scheme may foe gradually developed. Just whait does that .mean? It means that at the present time the people oif Canada are expending through the federal commission, for tihe purpose of beautifying this city, approximately two and one-haif cents per head per annum, and the proposal now before us, if carried out in its entirety and allowing for the capitalization oif the interest upon the $3,000,000 of the capital sum, will involve how much per head? It will involve less than four cents per head per annum by the people of the whole of Canada for thirty years for carrying on a progressive scheme of beautification of their capital.
As a matter of practical fact what does history teach us with regard to these matters? The history of every national capital wherever located teaches us this, that there are always those who, in the interest of economy and sincerely believing as the hon. member for Frontenac-Addington (Mr. Edwards) does, that the expenditure is not necessary and not wise, oppose such expenditures. But history also teaches us in connection with every national capital that succeeding generations



Federal District-Mr. Dunning
pay many millions more than would have been paid had sufficient foresight been displayed earlier in the history of the capital.
I am pleased to say that Regina, the capital of the province which I have the honour to represent, has not been subject to that handicap because we were fortunate in having as the first premier of Saskatchewan a man of really broad vision with respect to the future of his province and its capital city. The Hon. Walter Scott was for a number of years a member of this house and subsequently he became the first premier of Saskatchewan. He put through, in the face of considerable opposition, the purchase of a large tract of what was then farm land outside of the city of Regina and he proceeded there to erect a provincial capital which is to-day the pride of all the people of Saskatchewan. As a consequence of that vision on the part of the Hon. Walter Scott, expenditures for the purposes of the provincial capital of Saskatchewan are lower than they are in the case of any of the other western provinces. That is due to the fact that vision was displayed at the start and a comprehensive plan arrived at. Let me take by contrast the province of Manitoba, which has a beautiful parliament building, located on a site altogether too small and with no approach. Manitoba and the city of Winnipeg are to-day spending large sums of money to clear the approaches to their parliament buildings. In the city of Toronto constant expenditures are necessary in order to remedy conditions such as exist there. I deprecate very strongly the exaggeration of the cost of this proposal to the individual taxpayer of Canada. The cost is easily ascertainable and, as I have indicated, it is less than four cents per head per annum of the population of Canada for the next thirty years. May I point out that those of us who have to cross these streets that are being dealt with, Wellington street and Sparks street, are becoming more and more interested personally in some improvement in traffic conditions, and the provision of more room for traffic, in order that we may have a chance to cross those streets and continue to live. The plan which is now before parliament, drafted by the federal district commission, is such as to indicate that better traffic conditions and greater public safety were taken into account in its preparation.
My hon. friend from Rosetown (Mr. Evans) referred to the necessity for expenditure on level crossings. I have on the order paper a resolution which I hope to have dealt with to-day, and upon which a bill will be based, which has in view a greater use of the grade

crossing fund. All these matters are related and must be considered together. I look at the question of the improvement and beautification of Ottawa from a business point of view, and having in mind the experience of other capitals in that regard, I say that if we do not undertake this work to-day, substantially on the basis outlined, the people of Canada will in the future have to pay a great deal more for doing the very thing which is now under discussion, and will in all likelihood spend throughout the year, in connection with enterprises of a similar character, much greater sums than are mentioned here. As my hon. friend from Rosetown was speaking I was reminded of the city in which he lives, Saskatoon. If the people of Saskatoon had been moved in their early history and in their subsequent development by the arguments which the hon. member for Rosetown has advanced to-day, there would not be there that beautiful city, there would not be there that great university, there would not be on every hand the expression of a people's pride in the country which they had helped to build up.	That is, after all, what we are doing
here. We are just doing our little bit; it is not a very big bit. Are we justified in committing the people of Canada to spend four cents per head each year for the next thirty years in making this capital a little more like wh'at it ought to be as representative of the Canadian people?


Mr. T. W. BIRD (Nelson):: I am in favour of this bill because of my conviction that the beautification of our public property is a form of national self-expression which we cannot afford to neglect. It is all very well to talk about the mental and moral achievements of the classic nations of days gone by, but however great they may have been, we must understand that what they achieved was not done in a vacuum. It was produced through the interaction between those peoples and their environment, progressively producing around themselves objects of enduring beauty. I feel that no people, especially a people like we are, can very long be denied its instinct for just this form of self-realization. After all, I think that public buildings and public parks, when accomplished along lines of true artistic merit, become the only kind of depository possible to us whereby we can pass on to future generations any mental and moral achievements we may attain. I cannot see how we can build up any bridge between ourselves and the future unless somehow we crystallize our mental gains into objective beauty of some form.

Federal District-Mr. Bird
I happened to read a short while ago a book which very materially corrected my impressions about the wonderful architecture which is scattered throughout the British Isles, and which to-day forms such a strong attraction for the moneyed people of this continent. I was under the impression that these old churches and public buildings which you encounter in England about every three miles along the rural highways were produced out of the superflous wealth of the rich merchants of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries-produced, in other words, by sweated labour. I always imagined that the mortar that binds those blocks of stone together was somehow mingled with the blood of people in a state of semi-slavery, but I learned from this book that these beautiful churches were actually built by the people themselves. The wonderful stone work was done by the village mason; the beautiful wood carving was done by the village carpenter, and even the church bells were foundered at the village smithy. The whole structure from foundation to spire tip was produced locally, and these local artisans were paid by an impost made locally upon the people of the community. It is a beautiful self-expression of the character of a great people in the first stages of its formation, and all the wealth of character that we associate with the English people has been passed on to us by this means, and by no other. We must understand that the achievements of a nation with regard to character and mental acquisitions are cumulative. We cannot produce in one generation all that we aspire to be, but from generation to generation we must seek some artistic form of self-expression whereby we can effectively pass on to future generations that which we have achieved morally and intellectually.
Another thing. After all, these public improvements which we seek to make worthy of ourselves are a matter for the public. That is to say, we can achieve collectively that which we cannot achieve individually. Personally I am very fond of reading that famous essay of Bacon on Gardens, and I never read it without thinking that if I were a man of means that is precisely the kind of garden I would have around my home; but of course one would have to be a millionaire to achieve such an ideal. Here by the simple process of national co-operation we can produce in Ottawa, in Winnipeg, in Saskatoon, or in Calgary this very ideal of which Bacon spoke, and I am very glad to know that we can produce it at the reasonable cost of four cents each a year. That is much more reasonable than I thought. Is not this worth
56103-148J
while at such a small cost to ourselves, compared with what it must have cost those English villagers in centuries gone by to build their churches? Is it not worth while to do collectively these things which bring to us such satisfaction?
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these things are altogether consistent with all kinds of social amelioration. I do not see anything inconsistent between the production of public buildings and gardens and the emancipation of the people at large. I sometimes think the story of the alabaster box of ointment is altogether lost upon us. There were people in those days who said that this box could have been sold for much and given to the poor. That is an age-old argument. But the thing we want to get into our minds is that we ought to do this thing and not leave the other things undone, and I say that if we are true to our artistic and mental and moral ideals, if we seek to give our inward thought and feeling proper expression, the good time will more speedily come when justice and equality will spread from one ocean to the other.
So long as we choose to wallow in what is squalid and unsightly, I do not think we can ever find it in our hearts to make any widespread movement for social amelioration. I would be the last to discourage the spirit running through the Prime Minister's speech. On the contrary, I should like to see that spirit so developed that it would find expression not only in Ottawa but in every town and village throughout the Dominion. I want to see that spirit sustained so that in my little town at home it will find some form of expression. I do not want my children to go on living indefinitely in surroundings that are not worthy of a great country. I should like by co-operative or national methods to see the love of beauty inculcated in our people so that it would be manifested in their surroundings. I think I catch the right spirit in the speech of the Prime Minister, It seems to me that this young nation in the formative period of its history cannot afford to neglect those things which are sometimes stigmatized as impracticable. We, above all people, even at the cost of a little sacrifice, should see that future generations have something of an objective character by which to judge what we were mentally and morally.


Mr. T. E. KAISER (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure we were all thrilled by the address of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), and that we appreciate its sincerity and share his desire to see the capital of Canada so beautified as to attract the attention of the

Federal District-Mr. Kaiser
world. For myself, I share in that sentiment without any qualification. But in the proposal before us and in the addresses of those advocating it what is chiefly dwelt upon is the "beautifying" of the city of Ottawa. I wonder if at this particular moment in our history we can spend a great deal of money on the simple element of "beauty." I have visited every legislative building in the Dominion. When in Halifax I was pleased to view the old door through which Joseph Howe used to slip at certain stages of the ceremonial of opening of the local house; I was glad to visit the old building in Charlottetown and to examine the table around which the fathers of confederation sat in 1865, and I derived a similar pleasure when going through the other legislative buildings throughout the Dominion. I have also visited the capitals of other countries, and I have observed that since 1914 no nation has spent much money on the beautification of its capital. The United States is spending no money in Washington to-day.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; They are spending fourteen million dollars on one bridge at this moment.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: That may look a great deal to us, but what does it amount to in the United States? The government of the United States are turning their attention to something that they deem to be much more important, something that we should take cognizance of-the reduction of the nationaj debt. To-day the United States is almost out of debt; it has reduced its national debt from twenty-six billion to sixteen billion dollars-


Charles Avery Dunning: They are almost out of debt.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: -and eleven billion dollars of that is unloaded upon other countries. In another five or six years the people of the United States wild be absolutely relieved of their national debt. If, as a result of this, some of our people are moving across the line to-day in order to be relieved of some of the taxation incidental to our national debt, what will be the condition in this regard a few years hence when the national debt of the United States is no longer a burden in the shape of taxation?
Now, while I should like to see money spent in Ottawa, I have just one word to say to *he people of this city: There is a fundamental necessity in every community on the face of the earth which should be provided for, but it has not been provided for 'by this city-viz a supply of pure water.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: As a Canadian I protest against the attitude of the city of Ottawa in regard to its water supply. This is an opportune time for parliament to say something in this regard. I know it is usual for men like the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) to smile when a question of this kind is mentioned, simply because they are not acquainted with the fundamental requirements of every progressive community. We should say to the city of Ottawa: Until you supply the city and the capital with .pure water, which is part of your municipal duty, we do not feel disposed to spend any more money in beautifying the city. I take that ground, Mr. Speaker, and I shall urge my views against propositions of this kind until' the city of Ottawa comes to its senses in this regard.
For a number of years we have been endeavouring to induce the city to provide a proper supply of water, but we have always met with obstruction. For one thing, the local newspapers take opposite views and raise all kinds of objections. To-day -the city of Ottawa is charging its people per capita less for water than is charged by any other city of its size on the continent of North America. If it were to charge a price equal to the average price obtaining on this continent, it oould provide a filtered, supply of water that would foe a credit to the city and be satisfactory to .those who have come here to attend to the business of the nation. As a member olf the provincial! board of health it was my duty, some ten or fifteen years ago, to study water conditions in this city. Sometimes we thought we were coming to a satisfactory conclusion, but difficulties would arise and nothing was accomplished. To-day the work of tire provincial board of health has been taken over by the provincial government and its functions are under the control of a member of the provincial cabinet-a circumstance which is weakening the bands of those who are trying to accomplish this improvement, because they are trying to make the question a semi-pdlitical issue. The government is afraid to urge the city of Ottawa to do its duty by itself and by the country for fear that some opposition may be reflected in the ballot box-not the unmarked ballots found on the street, but in, genuine ballots cast in the election of representatives in Ontario. Uniless members of parliament stand up at opportune times and voice their sentiments in this regard, urging the city of Ottawa to do its duty both by itself and by the city as the capital of this Dominion, I fear that

Procedure in Divorce Bills
nothing will be done for some time. I oppose the expenditure of public money in trying to beautify Ottawa, until Ottawa attends to the fundamental element of "beauty" in, any place -pure, drinkable water.
At six o'dlock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 75, for the relief of Adelaide Marie Moore-Mr. Church-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Thomas Langton Church: Mr. Chairman, I move
that this bill be now reported. There can be no debate on that motion.
Motion agreed to on division.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I object to a bill
being railroaded through in this fashion.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



DELIA ELIZABETH DAVIES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) moved that the house go into committee to consider bill No. 76, for the relief of Delia Elizabeth Davies.
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair for this bill to go into committee-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Hewitt Bostock: This motion is not debatable.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I desire to move an amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion which I have .put from the chair is not debatable, any amendment can be made in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.


Mr. McPHEE:: I beg to move that this
bill be now reported.


William Irvine: Is that motion debatable?


The CHAIRMAN:: No.


William Irvine: Perhaps we will be able to discuss it on the third reading.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman-


John Frederick Johnston: This motion is not
debatable.
Upon the yeas and nays being called for:
Motion agreed to: yeas 46; nays 7.
Bill reported.
Mr. McPHEE thereupon moved the third reading of the bill.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Next sitting.


Hewitt Bostock: That can only apply
when a bill has been amended.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, I
humbly submit that a few moments ago I attempted to amend this bill. I was then informed that it was impossible to move an amendment, and now your honour declares that since there is no amendment the third reading of this bill cannot be put over to the next sitting of the house. I submit that this is making the whole performance preposterous. I have some very real reasons for moving an amendment to this bill, and on a point of order I submit that we should be given the opportunity to discuss these bills. Otherwise parliament may as well cease to exist.


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


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Hewitt Bostock: Proceed.


William Irvine: I do not wish the house to think for one moment that I am trying to filibuster; that is not my intention at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Irvine: Just wait till I finish. I
wish to make a few remarks, and then as far as I am concerned I have done all I intend to do in this regard. I would have made this statement the other night had the opportunity arisen, but nine o'clock arrived and I was unable to proceed. I wish to state now that I agree entirely with the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) the last evening private bills were being discussed, and on that occasion I opposed the passage of these bills, for several reasons. I ask for certain details, and I hope no hon. member of the
Procedure in Divorce Bills

house thinks I wanted those details at all.
I asked for them because in the first place I am very well satisfied that the sponsors of these bills do not have them, in the second place that they would not give them to the house if they did have them, and in the third place that parliament would not listen to them if they gave them. Then you may ask why I requested them. I asked for them in order to emphasize the absurdity of this parliament passing bills which cannot be discussed and with regard to which no one has the information which would enable them to be discussed. That is not reasonable.
I wish also to draw the attention of the government-and I am glad to notice that the Prime Minister is now in his seat-to the fact that we have a bill now on the order paper which would place the Ontario cases in the hands of the courts, where they belong, and would dispense with the present absurdity. I desire to ask whether the Prime Minister will give us an opportunity to discuss this bill and, if parliament agrees, to make it law. That is where the divorce jurisdiction belongs; it is a judge's job, not ours. Judges can go into the matter in a proper fashion, and we cannot. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, great tragedies are involved in these cases, and the least possible publicity should be given to them. In the courts is the place for these things to be gone into, and I hope the Prime Minister will promise to give the courts a chance. If he will promise, as far as I am concerned I will undertake to let these bills go through without another word. .


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, the other evening I raised a question as to the manner in which these bills were passed.	I have no
desire to obstruct the business of this house; I would like that to be understood. As I said then, I have no interest in refusing to have these particular bills passed; but I am speaking on a matter of principle, and if I may be permitted I should like to say just a few words here with regard to the general question, rather than give undue publicity to the various cases as they come up.
There is no reference whatever made to the custody of the children. I should like to move, and if necessary I shall do so in the various cases, a resolution in amendment somewhat along this line-I hesitate to do so just at this moment, but I am giving an indication of what I should like to do:	That
the bill be amended by adding at the end of

section 1-which provides for the divorce-the following words:
The said	shall have the custody of
the children, and the said	shall pay
annually to	, for her support and
maintenance, the sum of five hundred dollars so long as she remains unmarried, and the sum of two hundred dollars annually for the support and education of each of their children.
Now, Mr. Chairman, in the divorce courts which are established in the various provinces provision is made for alimony.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Only when it is asked
for.


James Shaver Woodsworth: 'A provision then may be made-shall I alter that?-for alimony. It seems to me that the utmost care ought to be taken in regard to these cases, especially when children are concerned. I take it that the bringing of children into the world and their education is one of the fundamental principles of the family tie; yet we dissolve that tie without making any real protection for the children. I do not think that should any longer be permitted. We should decide definitely which of the two parents should have the custody of the children, and how these children are to be maintained. Even when there are not children, it seems to me that if a man is married to a woman and spends some years with her the least he can do where divorce is granted, especially where he himself is the guilty one, is to make some financial provision for her future. In one of the gases which is before us-I do not wish to enter into the details-there are three children involved. The man apparently has lived a very careless life; as a matter of faot he is at present in an institution and his family are dependent upon the help of friends.
I should like, to call attention to the fact that my suggestion is not an unknown thing or without precedent. I find that in the first divorce bill granted in Canada that was not referred to Great Britain, various provisions for the separation of the parties were made, and further there was provision for alimony, provision for the custody of the one child, and an allowance for the support of the child, with very adequate means for the enforcement of these requirements. There was also provision that in case of reconciliation between the husband and wife that the law should not come into force. It was said at the time that this was a matter that involved civil rights and hence did not come under the jurisdiction of the federal authorities. I anticipate that objection on this ground may be raised to an amendment which I may propose to-night-that this is a matter involving civil rights. But this

Procedure in Divorce Bills
was the ground which was taken when the motion was finally passed in the house. I refer to the Campbell case of 1879, and I shall read just a paragraph from the statement made at that time by Senator Miller, as follows:
Under the British North America Act the legislation in regard to civil rights is given exclusively to the local legislatures, but it cannot be controverted, I think, that when the parliament of Canada has exclusive power to deal with any subject of legislation, that so far as it is_ necessary to deal with civil rights in connection with such legislation, we have the undoubted power to deal with them, where this parliament has the right to legislate on any subject it piust be considered that we have the power to legislate regarding all matters incident to that subject.
And then later on:
_ The whole legislative power, the whole functions of the government of this country have been remodelled anew, and under the British North America Act this question has been given absolutely to the control of this parliament.
And then again he saya:
Is it not, therefore, absurd to say that if we have the power by act of legislation to sweep out of existence the divorce courts of the provinces, and deprive them of all their authority respecting the subject of marriage and divorce, that we have not the power to deal with the whole subject and its incidents under the terms of the British North America Act? I think there cannot be very strong doubts that we have the power. Marriage and divorce, and everything which is incident to marriage and divorce, as a logical sequence and corollary, are within our jurisdiction. What then is alimony? It is maintenance after the separation of the husband and wife. It is an incident of the contract of marriage. So control of children is also a right growing out of the same contract; and. therefore, being incident to the marriage relationship, belongs to the jurisdiction of this parliament.
I may say that the house passed the bill without debate, the first instance of a divorce bill in Canada being passed without being reserved for his majesty. It is quite obvious that it is next to impossible for parliament to have a committee inquire info the details of the circumstances of each of the families concerned, but surely it is highly important that such an inquiry should be made. That is my reason for urging that we should transfer some of the powers originally held by parliament to a more suitable body which can safeguard the interests especially of the women and children.
But there is something more than that. There are a number of cases-and I want to be frank and say that this condition is not by any means universal-that come before the house this year in which the evidence shows that one or both of the people involved
are physically diseased. It seems to me that some day we shall reach the point where we shall insist that every man and' woman before marriage shall be able to give a clean bill of health; That should and must come in this country; but it has not yet come, and I suppose in the majority of cases we may take it for granted, unless something to the contrary arises, that the people are physically in good health. But there is in the hands of the members of this house evidence in printed form that some of these people are diseased. There is evidence in at least one case, and I hold in my hand a pamphlet of more than a hundred pages in which the evidence is given that the man has been addicted to the most horrible unnatural practices. I do not want just at this stage to have to connect the name with this, not only because of the man but particularly because of the; wife and child; but when we have cases in which there are the most horrible and unnatural practices, where the man is physically diseased and1 his wife is also physically diseased) and under treatment from a physician, it is the most absurd thing and it is morally indefensible for this house to grant the right to marry again. I do not think, in the interest of the future of this country that we should permit such a thing to occur. When a ease lake that arises I could hardly feel justified in saying that the man has a right to marry again. I suppose technically in the form in which the clause is worded, it is the woman who has the right to marry again, but I understand in practice the man has also that right. Thus we give him an opportunity of going out and ruining other lives as he has ruined the life of the woman who is now his wife. In such cases I should like to have the bill amended by adding the following words at the end of section 2, that is the section giving the right to marry again:
Provided that this right shall be exercised only upon condition that he shall be previously examined by competent medical authorities and pronounced free of venereal disease.
That seems to be a reasonable thing. I do not like to discuss these things; but if we condemn innocent people outside of this house to lives of misery-and I agree with the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) who said the other day that there is tragedy in every one of these cases-we may well take our responsibilities a little more seriously than we have been doing. I am blaming myself along with the rest. Year after year I know I have protested against this procedure; but we all become absorbed in our business; things go as a matter of course, and we do not stop to consider all the consequences involved in
Procedure in Divorce Bills

our votes. I will confess that I have read more of these cases in the last two or three days than I have read in the previous six or seven years. Most hon. members have hardly realized that there is no provision for the children, no provision for their education; that they are not even assigned to one or other of the parents. I know many hon. members do not realize the physical disabilities under which some of these people labour and the diseases with which they are afflicted, and these are matters that should be considered.
In view of that situation I do not think we are going too far when we urge that the government should offer facilities for the discussion of the bill that is now on the order paper. Last year a similar bill came from the senate and it received no discussion whatever. It came towards the close of parliament; there was no one to father it at that time, and possibly it would not have passed at that late date. This year again a similar bill comes over from the senate. The senators find it simply impossible to keep up with this work. I am informed that we have something like three hundred divorce bills that must be considered this year, or at least applications have been made for something like that number of divorces. I am also informed that altogether the senate cannot get through more than two hundred divorce cases and that something like seventy-five will go by the board this year. If we are anxious that these people should in some way settle down in their lives, surely it is highly desirable that we do not postpone for another twelve months the decision concerning their marital relations. We should decide and either force them to live together, if we can do that, or give them an opportunity of living apart. We should do that at this session.
We are facing this situation. This bill has come over from the senate in the ordinary course of affairs; it is down in the midst of public bills and orders, and it will hardly be reached this session. In the meantime we are carrying on along the old lines because apparently we have not the courage to break precedents and face the situation which ought to have been faced much earlier. In the earlier times we know that only the wealthy people came to parliament to secure divorces, and while I suppose it was as great a social evil in those days as it is to-day, certainly the numbers involved were not so great. I suppose in most cases then there could be arrangements made with regard to allocation of property; but now that large numbers of comparatively poor people are seeking divorces-

and in this province and in Quebec they have no other way of obtaining them than by coming to parliament-our procedure means that they are put to a great deal of unnecessary expense, inconvenience and an enormous amount of publicity that is far from being desirable. After that is all done in no one instance are we satisfactorily settling the case. We are allowing the children to be scattered abroad without making any provision for them. Therefore I would urge the Prime Minister under these circumstances to afford facilities this session for discussing this particular bill. I do not want to threaten as to what we may do; but it is quite obvious that even half a dozen members in this corner could obstruct to such an extent that we would indefinitely delay these bills so that they would not be passed this year and there would be even a greater public scandal; that we would force other bills to be delayed and thus again interfere with the business of parliament and of the country. It is not my desire nor the desire of anyone in this part of the chamber to do anything of that character, and we do not want anyone to think we are going to threaten to do it. But I appeal to the Prime Minister and the government to do what is the reasonable thing under the circumstances, namely, to give us an opportunity of considering the bill which is urged upon us by the senate, if necessary to vote it down, but in any case to consider what is to be done. Then another year, if we are to go forward in this haphazard fashion, some of us will be prepared perhaps to go to greater-extremes than we feel justified in doing at the present time.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discuss the merits of the bill which my hon. friend would like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to give the house an opportunity to discuss. If the bill comes in the regular course before the house, I will say that I am opposed to it. May I say now that I am opposed to divorce in principle as my hon. friend is in favour of it; and I merely desire to direct the attention of the house to the fact that the hon. gentleman who is now preventing the passage of these bills is not among those who are opposed to divorce in principle.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then, Mr. Speaker-


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have an amendment to move.

Procedure in Divorce Bills


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member has
already spoken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that I had
an amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. member cannot move an amendment. Rule 113 reads as follows:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
So the amendment is out of order.


Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I think the request of the hon. member for WetaSkiwin (Mr. Irvine) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), that the Prime Minister state whether he would give the house an opportunity of discussing Bill No. 27, is a reasonable one. Certainly this bill is introduced by a private member, yet it is a public bill that is all important, probably of more importance than anything else on the order paper. If this bill were passed' by the house it would make a very great deal of difference in the transaction of the business of this house in future sessions. This bill passed the senate this year at an early stage of the session. We have sometimes heard very hard things said about hon. members sitting in another chamber. They have rejected bills of ours because they have not had time to consider them towards the end of the session. Here is a case where a bill came from that chamber very early in the session, and has been before us for some time. I think it is only reasonable that the house should be given an opportunity to discuss it.


Milton Neil Campbell: My only reason for rising to say a few words at this time is to emphasize the injustice that is done to private members under the rules as they exist to-day. Here we have under the heading of public bills and orders no less than seventeen different bills and resolutions. All these measures have been introduced and partly discussed, and they are all now buried under public bills and orders, which appears to be simply a graveyard for private members'' bills and resolutions. It does seem to me that if a private member is allowed to introduce a bill or resolution he should also be allowed to bring it before the house in such a way that parliament can make a decision upon it. What I am protesting against is that while all these measures are of importance to the members concerned, and of importance also to their constituents and to many people in the country, yet under the
rules parliament is prevented from coming to a decision upon them. Surely nothing could be fairer than that an opportunity should be afforded for finishing the discussion that has already begun on these questions and having a vote upon them.
It appears to me that under the present rules too much power entirely is centralized in that section of parliament which is called the government. The rest of the house has apparently little or no power; we are hampered in so many different ways. For instance, any bill or resolution involving the expenditure of ihoney cannot be brought before the house by a private member, and any other measure not involving the expenditure of money which a private member does bring forward can very conveniently be buried among -public bills and orders.
I am not prepared to say whether or not I am in favour of bill No. 27. I have not given it very much consideration. I am not demanding that the bill be passed. I am simply asking that parliament in the ordinary course of events be given an opportunity to pass its opinion on that bill. The rules are very remarkable when a few members of the house can obstruct business in this way. I am going to be quite frank and say that, so far as I am concerned, I think the obstructionist tactics are quite justified. These rules seem to have been framed deliberately to prevent discussion and to prevent parliament from coming to a decision on matters brought before this house by a private member. The rules are framed to centralize power in that section of parliament which is called the government-


Mr. McLEAN (Melfort):: I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to rule whether the hon. gentleman is in order.


Hewitt Bostock: I understand that while
the hon. gentleman is not speaking to the bill which is before the house, he complains that another bill does not come up for consideration, and that if an opportunity were given for its discussion we would not have the present impasse in the house whereby the discussion of a long list of bills is prevented. I think the hon. gentleman is in order.


Milton Neil Campbell: I was going on to state, Mr. Speaker, that I consider this principle is involved in every private bill, and I rose to protest against what I consider an injustice to parliament itself-that power that should not by any right be there is centralized in the government. I say that the government should give parliament the right to pass its

Procedure in Divorce Bills
approval or disapproval on every one of these measures that are now in the graveyard that we call public bills and orders, and I would ask the Prime Minister to state whether or not he proposes to give us an opportunity to discuss these measures under public bills and orders.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. member who
has just taken his seat (Mr. Campbell) has said that the rules of the house had been so framed as to give private members no opportunity whatever to discuss bills or resolutions introduced by them, and to put the control of business into the hands of the government. May I remind him that the rules of the house to which he refers are the result of a conference which took place between all parties in this house, including the party of which he himself is a member, and the report which was brought into this house with regard to the new rules was passed unanimously, my hon. friend himself being one of those who concurred in it. So that as far as the rules under which we are working at the moment are concerned, every hon. member of this house was a consenting party to them. The rules were adopted unanimously. If there are difficulties in the working out of those rules, that possibly is to be expected, but I submit that these difficulties will not be solved by adopting methods which really preclude free discussion, but rather by taking full advantage of the opportunities which the rules themselves permit.
Some hon. gentlemen opposite are interested in reaching a particular bill. The rules provide that on Tuesday and Friday evenings for the first hour private bills shall be the first order of business, and that private bills shall be succeeded by public bills. If the private bills are disposed of, we will then reach public bills, and I submit that the quickest way to reach the particular bill in which the hon. member is interested is to get the private bills out of the way so that we can come to order No. 31 for the second reading of the bill in which the hon. member is interested.
An appeal has been made to the government, and to myself in particular, to undertake ^ bo say that a certain public bill shall be given precedence anid preference over all other measures. There are at least a dozen members of the house who have made a similar appeal to me, not publicly, but privately, asking that preference be given to the particular bill in which they were specially interested. I have pointed out to one and all that to give preference to any single

measure was to work an injustice to all other hon. members who had private or public bills in which they were specially interested. For that reason I have refused to comply with their request.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is not a senate bill in a somewhat different class?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All private bills are private bills whether they originate in this or in the other house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend will recall that two or three days ago I made a motion in the house, and I think it was out of that motion that the present discussion has in part arisen, to get certain senate bills out of the way, so that other private bills could be brought on more speedily. Some hon. members took exception to that' motion, and the discussion that has been taking place ever since has really grown out of an endeavour on the part of the government to expedite these senate measures with a view to enabling other private bills to be more speedily reached.


Milton Neil Campbell: Could the Prime Minister not have just as reasonably and just as readily included this bill No. 27 in his motion, or made a similar motion referring to that bill only?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I again
point out to my hon. friend that, assuming the government wished to take a particular bill and have it considered, the final decision as to whether or not the bill can be dealt with out of the order prescribed by the rules of the house rests with the house itself, not with the government. I submit that unless there is an obvious disposition on the part of members in all parts of the house to endeavour to facilitate and expedite the business with respect to private bills, any appeal on the part of the government to give preference to a particular bill just because one section of the house is interested in it would not meet with the approval which those most interested wish to have. I suggest that we make an effort to take up these private bills in as expeditious a manner as possible. The government recognizes there are some important measures that hon. members will wish to have considered, and it may be that a little later on in the session the government will find it advisable to grant a special time for further consideration of private bills, but it must be a consideration that applies equally to all bills and not to any one bill in particular.

Procedure in Divorce Bills


Richard Bedford Bennett: The observations of the Prime
Minister seem to me to entirely meet the situation, Mr. Speaker. This house is to blame for the present situation, and not the government, because when the house was asked to dispense with private members' days the motion was adopted without dissent. Had any of us asked the Prime Minister to give another Monday or another Wednesday for private members, I am certain he would have done so from what I have seen in the conduct of business this session. But none of us was aware of the fact that there was a much larger number of private bills to be considered than in recent sessions, with the result that we gave up those days without dissent. No voice was raised against the motion so far as my memory serves me.	,


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Correct.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, I would
suggest to the Prime Minister that, having regard to the very large number of private bills on the order paper, he might agree to give one more day for their consideration, taking them just as they stand on the order paper and as if the motion to discontinue private members' days was subject to one more day being given. If that is done, I think the situation will be fairly met; and perhaps all of us will be a little more astute in the future, and when the government makes the usual motion to take private members' days, as all governments do, we will remember the number of private bills on the order paper and take the means to protect ourselves in the manner provided by the rules.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think my
hon. friend will recall what I have just said. It was equivalent to meeting the request he has now made-not in its exact terms as to the matter of time, but I did intimate that later in the session after we make further progress with public business, if we have not then cleared the slate so far as private and public bills are concerned, the government will be prepared to give hon. members an opportunity for further discussion of those measures.


George Reginald Geary: May I ask the right hon.
Prime Minister if what he has said-I will not call it an undertaking-covers public bills and orders as well as private bills?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The orders of
the house provide that when private bills are disposed of public bills follow in their natural sequence, and my undertaking is that the order of procedure which the rules lay down for Mondays will be followed on the day that may be set apart.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: This discussion, Mr. Speaker, seems to be a little out of order, but there are a couple of observations made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice to which I cannot assent. To say, for example, that in order to reach public bills we should let pass as quickly as possible and without consideration all private bills preceding them is to my mind a rather strange proposition.


Ernest Lapointe: I never said that.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Well, it practically
amounts to this: In order to reach certain public bills no member should discuss the private bills that stand in front of those public bills. But that is not the material point to which I wish to speak. Far more serious to my mind is the point raised by the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth), with the short observations thereon by the Minister of Justice. I think I am just as much opposed to divorce on principle as is the Minister of Justice. I think the manner in which parliament is voting divorces by the bushel is getting to be a scandal and a social evil, threatening the future of this country,-


An hon, MEMBER:: Change it.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: -and I think it is time for it to be considered quite seriously. It would not have been my purpose to take up the large issue upon one single private bill, but since it has been raised I want to make this observation now,-that the bill adopted in the other chamber and presented in this house by the member for Stormont (Mr. Smith), which	has	been referred	to	thisevening, does not mean	the adoption	by	thisparliament of the principle of divorce. Unfortunately that principle was adopted at confederation, and I think it is one of the great mistakes that was then made. So it is not a question of adopting or putting aside the principle of divorce. The question is, in what manner shall the power to grant divorce be exercised with the least evil to society and with	the	preservation	of	thefamily spirit and	the	maintenance	of	the
social fabric. I do not think the manner in which divorces are granted by this parliament makes for a lesser number of divorces, or for the granting of them with the greatest impartiality, or with the greatest care for the welfare of families and society generally, and I believe everybody is convinced that it is largely haphazard whether a divorce is granted or refused by parliament under the present procedure. For my part, I must say
Procedure in Divorce Bills

that during the two years since I came back to this house it 'has been a question in my mind whether we are doing the right thing when we let these divorce bills pass. Simply because they are inscribed on the votes and proceedings as being "carried on division" is not sufficient to my mind to justify us in voting for their passage as we do. I am prepared to support any measure to render the granting of divorces by this parliament as difficult as possible; I am prepared to support any amendment such as that submitted by the member for Winnipeg North Centre to make people who ask for divorce understand that some responsibility must follow their "relief"; but more especially I am prepared to support every measure that will do away with the present procedure of voting divorces through this house-not to speak of the manner in which they are granted by the senate, as to which I have no desire and probably no right to pass judgment. As far as I am * concerned, I propose to vote in favour of every amendment that is moved against the passing of any of these divorce bills. If the measure . I have referred to is submitted by the member for Stormont, I think it will have to be considered very seriously, and not be discarded simply because we are opposed to the principle of divorce, because, as I have said, in my view the principle has already been wrongly introduced.
Motion agreed to on division, and bill read the third time and passed.


Hewitt Bostock: Mr. Thorson moves,
seconded by Mr. Goodison:
That bills Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, S3, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107,	108,	109,	110,	111,	112,	113,	114,	115i116, 117,	118,	119,	120,	121,	122,	123,	124,	125126, 127,	128,	129,	130,	131,	132,	133,	134,	135,136, 137,	138.	139,	140,	141,	142,	143,	144,	145,
146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, being unopposed divorce bills which have been reported by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills be now read a third time, and that standing order 21 be suspended in relation thereto.


John Gordon Ross: I move that the bill be reported.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Frederick Johnston: The ayes have it; I declare the motion carried.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



KATHLEEN MARION BALDWIN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 78, for the relief of Kathleen Marion Baldwin-Mr. Ryckman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Mr. RYCKMAN:: I move that the bill be reported.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?


Henry Elvins Spencer: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: The ayes have it; I declare the motion carried.


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

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 79, for the relief of Frederick James Lee-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Edmond Baird Ryckman: I move that the bill be reported.
Bill reported.


Hewitt Bostock: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Next sitting of the house.
The motion must have unanimous consent, Mr. IRVINE: I object.


Hewitt Bostock: The motion stands.



EDITH DUFF MCCOO

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 77, for the relief of Edith Duff McCoo-Mr. McPhee -Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Frederick Johnston: Section 1-Marriage dissolved. Shall section 1 carry?


Hewitt Bostock: A bill must be read forthwith when there is no amendment, and there is no amendment in the present case.
Bill read the third time and passed.



FEDERAL DISTRICT COMMISSION ACT, 1927, AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mackenzie King for the second reading of Bill No. 218, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.

Federal District-Mr. McGibbon
Mr. PETER McGIBBON (Muskoka, Ontario):: Before this bill passes there are one or two observations I wish to make. I listened this afternoon with considerable interest to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and that of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning), and I fancy that nearly every hon. member in this house and everyone in the country will agree that this capital should be beautified. We are all interested in this matter, just as we are interested in our individual municipalities and in our own homes and everything appertaining thereto. But, Mr. Speaker, there is something else that must be considered, and that is the advisability of this parliament voting so much money at the present time for an object of this character. The first essential which this parliament should consider is that the government that raises money by taxation must be held responsible for spending it. That principle has been violated by this government on many occasions this session. Of course, we have always been given reasons. The Prime Minister this afternoon addressed the house for an hour explaining why this expenditure should be made at the present time. In all my public or private career I have never known of a government, a municipality or a person spending money belonging to someone else who could not find excuses for so doing, but I have found it much more difficult to find people who practise economy and handle public funds as they should be handled. Here we are voting $3,000,000 to put so many buildings into the scrap heap- I was going to say it would be squandered, but possibly that is too strong. At any rate we are spending $3,000,000 and in addition we are voting $200,000 a year for thirty years, making $6,000,000 more.
This afternoon the Prime Minister cited the United States as an example, but I should like to ask him Whether the financial condition of this country to-day is comparable to that of the United States. Does he think this country has made such progress financially since the war as would enable it to imitate the United States? This afternoon the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Kaiser) drew attention to a fact of which I do not think sufficient notice has been taken by parliament and the country. He told us that the government of the United States have reduced the national debt of that country from twenty-six billion to about sixteen billion dollars, and have reduced taxes from $50 to $25 per head. In addition to that, of the sixteen billion dollars remaining of their national debt, they have unloaded between
eleven and twelve billion dollars on Great Britain and other countries. If they continue their present rate of progress, paying a billion dollars a year, in five years they will be free of war taxation. Consequently we see that they are in a much better position than the Dominion of Canada to undertake obligations of this kind.
I object to this expenditure for another reason; the people in the rural municipalities of the province of Ontario get practically nothing from this government. For example, in my riding there are many localities which receive only two deliveries of mail a week, and when we ask the department for something more they tdll us the business will not warrant it. I would also point out that the mail service is practically the only thing given by the government to the ordinary resident in a rural municipality.


Mr. VENIOT:: I should like to say just a word on the question of mail service. No request has been received within the last eighteen months from any part of Canada asking for more than two mails a week which has not been granted. I wish to have that statement corrected.


Peter McGibbon: Then I would ask the Postmaster General a further question. If such requests come in will he grant them?


Peter John Veniot: I will, because generally
speaking, I do not consider two mails a week sufficient for any part of this country where post offices are established.


Peter McGibbon: I am very glad I rose to-night, if for no other reason than that I have secured this promise from the Postmaster General. I have gone to his department, although not to him personally, to ask for this service, and have been told that the business would not warrant it. I am very grateful, therefore, to the Postmaster General for this promise, and I can assure him that before many days pass he will receive such a request from at least one riding.
There is another point to which I would like to direct the attention of the Prime Minister and the government, a point which I am glad to say was touched upon by the Prime Minister this afternoon. I refer to the creation of Ottawa as a federal district. While we are tearing down the Russell house at a cost of $1,250,000 in order to beautify this city, a structure is going up on Wellington street right in front of the parliament buildings which at this stage appears to have no architectural beauty at all. I suggest to the Prime Minister and the government that this should be created a federal district in the near future in order that the government may have some
2344	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. McGibbon
control over all buildings erected within a certain distance of the parliament buildings. As things now stand, I can see no sense in tearing down a building such as the Russell house because it is an eyesore situated near the parliament buildings, white another building is going up much closer which probably will not be so beautiful.
There are many things which I believe are needed by the country more than what this expenditure is being made for. The Postmaster General has promised a better mail service, and now I would ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) if he will carry out the intention of parliament as expressed a few years ago in regard to relief for Home bank depositors. A number of people lost their money in that institution. I am not going to discuss the question whether the government were right or wrong in granting them 35 per cent of their losses, but I do say that since that principle was adopted everyone should be treated alike. Up to the present some have received 35 per cent, but because the money ran out others whose claims were admitted received only 25 per cent, 20 per cent, 15 per cent, and in some cases only 10 per cent. As I have said, there might have been some justification for parliament not giving anything, but I can see no justice in a discrimination of this kind. I ask the Minister of Finance if he will not treat all alike and do justice to everyone. I hope he will be as frank as the Postmaster General, so I will pause for a reply.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will look
at Hansard to-morrow morning he will find that I made a statement on the orders of the day this afternoon with regard to the Home bank.


Peter McGibbon: I heard the statement
made by the minister, but it does not cover what I am asking now. He said then he would grant their claims at least in part, but I do not see how the government can discriminate between these people. I agree that at that time the government had a good argument for not doing anything. I was not in the house then so I do not take any responsibility one way or the other, but there were two sides to the question and Hansard of that time shows that a very good case was presented on the floor of this house for both sides. However, parliament having decided that the government should grant 35 per cent, first to all depositors having under 1500 in that bank and then to all those who had over $500 in the bank and could prove that they were in need of it, and the Exchequer Court having 
decided who were in need of it, I cannot see why there should be any discrimination and why some should be paid 35 per cent while others receive as little as 10 per cent.


James Alexander Robb: If my hon. friend will allow
me to say a word just to keep the record straight, the measure which was passed by this chamber at the instance of the government provided for something over $5,000,000, which would have taken care of everyone on the basis just outlined by my hon. friend. That bill was amended in the other chamber, however, and the amendment was accepted by this house.


Peter McGibbon: I am quite familiar with that fact. I believe an estimate was called for as to how much money would be required to care for these people, but after all it was only an estimate and because it was below actual requirements I do not see that that is any occasion for doing an injustice. However, I believe the minister is honest enough to see that this is not working out fairly and I believe he will yet remedy the situation, because I do not believe any honest man can justify a discrimination of that kind. If we have millions to spend: if we can hand over seven millions as we did the other night to the Quebec harbour commission and $700,000 to Toronto, and if we can vote millions here for the destruction of buildings in Ottawa, surely we can do justice to those who have lost their all and have got beyond the stage in life where they can earn a living and are depending upon this money. My last appeal to the Prime Minister and the government is to equalize the task which they have undertaken and to do justice to all these people.


Mr. J. C. BRADY (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express the pleasure I experienced in hearing the right hon. the Prime Minister this evening give reasons why the national capital should be placed under some definite scheme of improvement. I was very much impressed with the pictures that were drawn of the various capitals in Europe and on the North American continent, and I felt mysel'f in accord with all that the Prime Minister said. But when he had finished I thought this an opportune moment to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister and the government a different aspect of the question, a different picture, so that a due sense of proportion might be brought into action with regard to Canada as a whole.
Centralization of investment and improvement was never a part of the confederation scheme, and much, sir, as I appreciate and realize the necessity of the beautification of

Federal District-Mr. Brady
our capital city; much as I admire what has been done here in respect to the victory tower and the perpetuation therein for future generations of the story of the brave deeds of our 50,000 Canadians, still I feel that I should not be doing right if, as the representative of a courageous and hardworking people,
I did not present their view in the hope that the same spirit of generosity with which we are now going to vote $6,000,000 covering a period of thirty years and $3,000,000 for immediate use, may be accorded them, I am sure the ministers of every department of the government must be tired reading the letters of hon. members pleading for a little wharf here, a little marine light there, a telephone line to some community for women and children removed from the centres of civilization. But when I find, sir, that sometimes we cannot get even a hundred dollars, -a small amount, but it means a big thing to the people affected-I ask the Prime Minister and his government, not perhaps that they should go out of their way, but that they at least be actuated by the same spirit of generosity in relation to the people who need a little help, who are far removed from the parks and the squares and the boulevards but who are toiling hard to build up by their industry our great seaports and our cities; that they should give at any rate some consideration to the demands of these people.
I do not wish to dwell at length, Mr. Speaker, upon the side of our Canadian life which is often overlooked in this House of Commons. I have travelled not hundreds but thousands of miles through my constituency since last year; I have toiled and walked where roads do not exist, and I now plead for better care and a more sympathetic hearing for the people who are not capable of coming to the House of Commons to plead their own case. There are districts where women and children live with no doctors within often thirty miles, and no telephone communication. That is not confined merely to one part of western Canada; it- is a condition which is very general. I have pleaded in this house, sir, for twelve months for fishermen's floats, which are necessary to the safeguarding of the whole of their interests, their capital, their homes, because all these are centred in their boats; but a. deaf ear has been turned to the plea of the people.
I wish to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a grave duty incumbent upon a government. They are placed in power for a limited period, to do, not for a section but for the good of the whole, that which ought to be done. I assure the hon. Prime Minister that members on this side of the house
are not chronic in their opposition to government measures; they give the deepest consideration to them, and they are ever ready to support measures which are in the national interest. But I say that in the matter of public works, in the matter of the assistance to the people who are building up this country, the government are not carrying out that duty which they should take upon themselves as a sacred pledge to perform. After this matter has been thoroughly threshed out, therefore, I trust that if the representatives of the people of Canada are in accord with the beautification of their capital city, rural interests will not suffer and a response will be made to our requests in this house for the very things which will enable Canada at a crucial moment of her existence to keep her people on the land, to keep them in the vocations for which they are best fitted, and not cause them to be driven daily into our cities with resulting unemployment and such scenes as have been witnessed in Winnipeg in the last few days. The greatest scheme of immigration, sir, that Canada can put into force is the taking of such action as may be necessary to assist our people who are now on the land and who are willing to stay there and whose children would live with them and build up the country if they were given the little help for which they ask. I have placed before the ministers here communications not from one person but boards of trade, representing whole communities, some of them large districts, begging for a few hundred dollars for a wharf upon a lakeside which would enable those people to avoid a journey of thirty or forty miles along very poor roads. And what has been the answer? The answer has very often been a polite little note, very often of three lines, that the matter will be looked into. That is all we get and we have to go back with that to our constituents. The hour is coming when the people of Canada will realize that it is not politics they want, but men who are pledged, irrespective of localitiy or of political feelings, to do what is right for the people as a whole.
I am in sympathy with the scheme of beautifying Ottawa. In my young days I was favoured with the opportunity of travelling throughout Europe and I know the heritage that a great country can store up for future generations in its buildings, museums, libraries and art galleries. All these are necessary for the life, spirit and growth.of a nation; but the large sums of money spent in certain localities in Canada are out of all due proportion to their needs, while large parts of this country are left outside in the cold, pleading in vain for trade facilities. That is exactly why I

Federal District-Mr. Coote
stand here to-night representing those people I am doing it not as a politician but with a heart as pure, with motives as sincere and with aspirations as great as those of any member on the government side.
When the Prime Minister this afternnon displayed that eloquence of his in support of his measure, I thought for a moment perhaps he was ignorant of another picture on a bigger and broader scale, a picture not of a city but of a vast stretch of country awaiting a little help. It is only a little-a bagatelle when you consider the expenditure of $250,000 a year for thirty years. I thought if only the Department of Public Works, the Department of Marine and Fisheries and the other departments would give even an amount equivalent to a small fraction of that, we would be helping to make a contented, happy people. Canadians love their land. They would like to live there always. We have a great fertile country, millions of acres yet unsettled, and what is happening? People who have spent the best part of their lives in trying to make a living in the country by farming, give up in despair. Who would not under similar conditions? Therefore I appeal this evening to the representatives of Quebec, the oldest and most prosperous province in Canada, that they should treat matters such as we are discussing here to-night on the big, broad basis that what is good for British Columbia, must be good for Canada; for the development of western Canada will, benefit eastern Canada as well. I am not an expert in financial matters; I am not an expert in the business world; but at least I have a knowledge of the history of the past and the present trend of modern life, and, I aver the day will come when Canada will regret that she did not in the golden opportunity of her youth do more to keep our people on the land and build up healthy prosperous rural communities. We are sadly neglecting this important duty today. So far as I have been able I have done my duty. I care a great deal about the future of young Canadian people; I feel deeply for the thousands who are now struggling against difficulties which the government have it in their power to remedy.
In conclusion, let me say that this session of parliament has been an anxious one to many of our members. We found that it was not safe during the winter months for any member leaving the parliament buildings alone to proceed on any of the walks other than that leading directly to the main entrance. Why? He might slip, as many have slipped, on one of the sidewalks and, if hurt, be left lying there the whole night long and probably

lose his life. The way the walks to and about the parliament buildings have been kept this winter was a disgrace, and a bounden duty rests upon the government to see that in future the place is at least made safe for pedestrians.
Another matter I should like to speak of is in reference to the water used for drinking purposes, but I am not going to blame the government for it. I have travelled a good deal in my life I have never tasted worse water than that of the city of Ottawa. The other day in my private home where I live the landlady placed water on my table for luncheon and she said:	"Do not worry about
the water, I have placed something in it."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Charles Brady: It was nothing except some purifying agent. Why was that done? It was done because the water was so muddy that no one could drink it. I should like the Prime Minister now that he is sponsoring a special scheme providing for the beautification of the city of Ottawa, to exert his power and influence to see to it that the other part, namely, a better water supply and the cleaning up of the city so as to keep pace with the beautification scheme proposed by the Prime Minister, be given the necessary attention.


Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod):: I wish to take just a few minutes of the time of the house before this bill goes into the committee stage on account of remarks which were made by the Prime Minister this afternoon in reference to the statement that I had made a year ago. I have taken the trouble to look up Hansard of last year, and it may be recalled that I pointed out then that one thing which in my opinion should be done by the Ottawa improvement commisison, with the assistance of the government, was to secure the property on Wellington street between Metcalfe and O'Connor-that is the section immediately facing the parliament buildings 

that an open space should be provided there extending at least from the grounds of the parliament buildings down to Sparks street, and that on the remainder of the block buildings be erected which would harmonize with the architectural design of the parliament buildings. Since that time a new building has been started on the corner of O'Connor and Wellington streets, so that we are a year too late in regard to that project. I can only express my regret that the government did not first of all secure this property immediately facing the parliament buildings and proceed to beautify it.

Federal District-M r. Geary
The capital of Canada centres on what we call parliament hill. This is the spot from which we should start to beautify the capital. I am afraid the proposal which is contained in this bill to add one more park to the city of Ottawa, while that is very desirable if we can afford it, is not the step which should have been taken first. If this is all the money we can afford to spend-and I take it from the discussion here to-day that that is the way parliament feels about it- I regret that the money was not used in securing the property on Wellington street directly in front of the parliament buildings, and then starting from the very centre of the capital to beautify it. Any further suggestions or criticisms that I may have to make, Mr. Speaker, I shall postpone until the bill is in committee.


George Reginald Geary: Before the Prime Minister replies would he allow me to ask him a question? When the plans were adopted and parliament voted 8250,000 a year for sixteen years, it seems to me that the commission must have had in view at that time the plaza or open space which is shown on the chart that has been distributed to-day. If so, the commission must have had also in its mind that something should be done with the Russell house block. Whether they contemplated leaving the Russell house standing or acquiring it and doing something with it, may be a matter of question, but in either case one would think they must have had the situation in mind when they were asking for $250,000 for sixteen years. If, on the other hand, the purchase of the Russell house block is a new development, I should like the Prime Minister to indicate that to the house when he is replying.


Mr. A. M. CARMICHAEL (Kindersley):: I would like to point out just one or two features in connection with this important bill. I believe when the Prime Minister introduced the bill he made mention of the fact that we should look forward to Ottawa becoming a federal district, and that that ideal would be nearer of attainment after another redistribution measure was before the house. I think our last census was taken in 1921, so the next will be in 1931. A redistribution measure will be due shortly after the census which is to be taken in 1931, and in view of that fact I was wondering if there is any real need at this time for this legislation which is now proposed. Last session we had brought before us a bill providing for an appropriation of a quarter of a million dollars for each of the next succeeding sixteen years for the federal 56103-149
district commission. It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that that provision would amply take care of the needs of the commission for such time as will elapse between now and the next redistribution bill, and would it perhaps not be tJhe part of wisdom on the part of this house to go gently along as we are doing, and then make a thorough j ob of the business after the next redistribution?
It seems to me that we are starting in even on this measure a quarter of a century too late. I think there is more in this city that needs renovating than just the driveways and parks. It is true that it is very pleasant to take a drive over a splendid driveway and to refresh yourself in a most beautiful park, but you forget all that pleasantness if you take a walk along Bank street about five in the afternoon. You are badgered from pillar to post, you trip over water hydrants, and are jostled by pedestrians, so that at times it is certainly not pleasant travelling along Bank street. If this city were under the administration of a commission and the territory turned into a federal district, such a thing as the widening of Bank street and making it more fit for pedestrians might be attended to.
It has also been mentioned here that Wellington street is hardly safe to cross. I am of the opinion, Mr. Speaker, that we are going to continue as we are in that respect until there is a casualty on Wellington street, and then we will seriously consider the situation. Every day, on crossing that street, those of us who are so unfortunate as to have to cross it on foot have to dodge cars coming and going not at any fifteen or twenty miles an hour, but from thirty to fifty miles an hour, and the marvel is to me that we have not had casualties ere this. I do not know who has authority to supervise that situation. I believe that a part of Wellington street is under the control of the federal government, and that another part is under the control of the city, but if the whole street were under a federal commission, and the whole city were turned into a federal district, that situation could easily be taken care of.
Another matter that might be beneficial would be taking care of the civil service. If the city were turned into a federal district, I presume that the civil service would be disfranchised. Possibly that might not necessarily be entailed in such a procedure, but it would seem to me a very wise step to take. Then there would not be a continual bombardment not only of the members representing the city of Ottawa, but of other hon. members with a view to positions in the civil service, the reviewing of salaries, and such like.

2348	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Carmichael
The Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) mentioned that this expenditure was so trivial that it amounted to only four cents per capita per year. That may be true in regard to this particular expenditure, but the trouble is we have so many of these trivial expenditures. We have $8,500,000 for Quebec harbour, $5,000,000 for St. John harbour, and $500,000 for another harbour, etcetera, etcetera,_ and we have hanging over our head a national debt of almost two and a half billion dollars, which amounts to almost $300 per capita. So it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we are going rather extravagantly, to put it mildly, and that we can well afford to let at least this measure of extravagance ride over for a. few years. If we have another census in 1031, that is only a matter of three years, and a redistribution bill will be brought down shortly after that. In from three to five years we could perhaps have a federal district created here, and the commissioners in charge could build from the ground up and create a capital city which would be of real beauty and of which the nation might well be proud.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express on behalf of the government, my appreciation of the manner in which the proposal that I made has on the whole been received by hon. members. It was perhaps too much to expect that an opportunity would not be taken to point out wherein an equivalent expenditure might serve an infinite variety of needs in different parts of the country and particularly in the constituencies of hon. members. But I would say in respect of any requests that have been made to the government for consideration, if any can be found which promise to be an equally good investment on the part of the nation, I think the government will be ready favourably to consider them. What has possibly escaped the attention of some who have been critical is the fact that the government is not giving away this money. We are purchasing property which will be owned by the Dominion of Canada, and which will enhance in value very greatly as the years go by. A parallel case may be suggested. When parliament hill and the properties in the immediate vicinity were purchased some years ago, no doubt there were many who felt that the money then being expended on this wide-open space might more properly be devoted to a variety of other purposes. But who would say to-day that the investment had not in the course of the years multiplied itself many times over?
I Mr. Carmichael.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I interrupt the
right hon. gentleman to remark that as I understand it this land is to become the property of the federal district commission?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The federal
district commission is created by the government for the purpose of administering the-property, but the property will belong to the people of Canada. I venture to say that in the course of the thirty years which has been mentioned as the time over which expenditures might be made, this property will have paid for itself time and time over in the mere appreciation of value that will have taken place. On a cash basis therefore, if we are to measure it in terms of money pure and simple, the government is really making an investment of very considerable value to the nation, and if one were seeking further justification; it might well be looked for from that point of view.
May I say a word in regard to what has been expressed by hon. gentlemen opposite as to there being in this particular measure some evasion of the principle of responsible government? There is no such evasion in what the government is proposing. There is no seeking to get away in any particular from the control of parliament. At this very moment parliament is giving all the powers that can possibly be given under this legislation. No power will be given to any commission or to any executive or to any body-other than what this parliament gives at this particular time. Every dollar to foe expended will be a dollar that this parliament has voted and is appropriating by assenting to this legislation. That is responsible government in the fullest meaning of the term.
Further, I may add that all expenditures by the commission in the nature of capital expenditures have to be submitted to the Minister of Finance in the first instance and then approved by the government. The commission is the body entrusted with giving special thought and -attention as to what should be done, but every step has to be approved in the first instance by the government as a whole. So we are not turning over to parties who are in no way responsible to parliament sums of money to be expended as they may think fit. Moreover, the commission makes its report to parliament every year. One hon. member this afternoon had in his hand -a re' port made some years ago, and he said it was the last he was able to obtain. I might say to him that I have a report dealing with the proceedings of the commission fox the past

Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
year. It was tabled here only a short time ago by the Minister of Finance. Every year these reports are tabled.
With respect to expenditures, I would point out that the accounts of the commission may be examined by a committee of this parliament at any time. Some hon. member suggested that possibly the expenditures should come before the public accounts committee. Most decidedly they will come before the public accounts committee if there is the slightest reason to suspect that every dollar cannot-be accounted for in the fullest measure. The expenditures are audited by the Auditor General. This officer in that particular exercises the same control over the expenditures of the commission as over other expenditures by departments of government.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am thoroughly familiar with the Audit Act, and I think the Prime Minister will find that unless special provision is made for the purpose neither the Auditor General nor a committee of the house has any control over the commission's expenditures.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The act provides as follows:
The commission shall from time to time before making expenditures under this act, submit to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General detailed estimates of the expenditures proposed to be made by it, which estimates shall be accompanied by such full information as is sufficient to enable the governor in council to determine as to the necessity or advisability of such proposed expenditures, or of any portion thereof; and no expenditure shall be made by the commission under this act until it has been approved by the governor in council.
The commission shall send to the Minister of Finance and Receiver General on or before the first day of September in each year a detailed statement of all its receipts and expenditures up to the last day of March in such year; and copies of such statements shall be laid before parliament by the minister within the first fourteen days of the next following session thereof.
The commission shall, whenever required by the Minister of Finance and Receiver General, render detailed accounts of its receipts and expenditures for such period or to such day as he designates; and all books of account, records, bank books and papers of the commission shall at all times be open to the inspection of the minister or of such person as the minister names to inspect them.
All expenditures by the commission shall be subject to the audit of the Auditor General in the same manner as other public moneys.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The point I desire to
make is that while the reports have to be made to the Minister of Finance and laid on the table, they are not subject to reference to the public accounts committee as are the reports of the Auditor General. If the Prime Minister makes that clear I shall be 56103-149^
abundantly satisfied with respect to it. Parliament should have this jurisdiction. In the one case it depends on the Minister of Finance whether the report goes to the public accounts committee; in the other it goes there as a matter of right.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The public
accounts are laid on the table each year and referred by the Minister of Finance to the public accounts committee. With respect to these accounts, if any hon. member at any time wishes to have them so referred, the government will see that this is done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is very satisfactory.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
makes it clear that so far as the public money which we are voting is concerned, it is in every particular safeguarded by every means that parliament has devised for safeguarding the expenditure of public funds.
A good deal has been said about what the government is doing for the city. I was glad that the hon. leader of the opposition agreed with me that the distinction between Ottawa as the capital and Ottawa as a municipality should be kept in mind. From the city's point of view I may say that the argument is not all on the side of the government. The government has a large amount of . property in the city, and that property is exempt from taxation. I have been given *he following figures, which I assume may be taken as reliable. They are to the effect that in 1923-that is the latest year for which I could get them-the value of Dominion government property in Ottawa exempt from municipal taxation was $33,413,025. The present tax rate of the city is 31.70 mills. That is the annual rate that would be paid to the city on government property were it taxed like other property.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is unnecessary to say
to the Prime Minister that the tax rate would go down at least half, because a million dollars bears such a proportion to the total revenue that the rate would at once decline.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am prepared to admit that this statement must be read in the light of economic considerations which would govern, but I am pointing out a truth which has more or less escaped attention during discussion, namely, that the city of Ottawa does not receive on government property any taxation, and that all it receives in lieu of taxation is an annual grant of $100,000. In 1924, in a memorandum submitted by the city of Ottawa, it was con-
2350	COMMONS
Federal District-Mr. Mackenzie King
tended that the government should pay annually certain sums which I shall state. 1 am giving the city's contention; I am not saying that if it were examined, it would be upheld to the degree to which the city alleges it should be. These are the amounts: a grant of say, $100,000, towards the maintenance of a fire brigade, and of $40,000, towards the maintenance of the police department; towards pavements, streets and sewer maintenance, $50,000; towards street lighting, $5,000. These amounts total $105,000 and, if the government were in the same position in respect of its properties as the owners of other property in the city, these it is alleged would be the grants we would have to consider making, to some extent at least, to the city. In addition to the $100,000 in lieu of taxation, we pay, I understand, some $40,000 for a water supply, and that is all the city gets. When we consider the relations between the government and the city, I submit that the extra amount being given by the government to the city for improvement and park purposes may be regarded as certainly not in excess of an equivalent.
Now what is the exact extent of the present proposed outlay? A good deal has been said about the expenditure of millions. I have asked the Finance department to prepare a careful statement showing what an annual allowance of $200,000 over a period of thirty ' years, plus this capital investment of $3,000,000 extended over thirty years, would amount to per annum, and I am advised that, with borrowing powers at four and a half per cent on a thirty year basis, the capital outlay of $3,000,000, with an annual grant of $200,000, would represent an annual outlay of $384,200. That is the extent of what parliament is being asked at the moment to grant for the purpose of further improvements and maintaining the work that has already been undertaken. I believe the house will feel that this amount, taking all the circumstances into consideration, is a reasonable grant to the federal district commission.
Further, in speaking of the city and its obligations, I may say that I agree heartily with hon. members who have criticized the city for the water supply and the manner in which snow has been cleared. In discussing these matters with the city, I told the mayor very frankly that I should hesitate to come to parliament and ask for this appropriation unless I could get from him a direct assurance that the city intended to improve its water supply and its method of street cleaning. The mayor advises me that with respect to the water supply the board of control is at the

present time giving very serious consideration to this important question with a view to seeing what can best be done to improve matters and provide a purer supply of water.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: Are they any more serious now than they were twenty years ago?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is something which my hon, friend will have to find out for himself. I cannot speak on behalf of the city council beyond expressing the belief that they are more serious. I imagine that, for one thing, public opinion in this city compels them to 'be more serious; and I believe that the many expressions of opinion that have come from parliament hill are not without their influence. Certainly unless the city in the matter of a pure water supply does waken up to its responsibilities to the citizens generally as well as to hon. members of this parliament, it will wait a long time before meeting with any sort of reception to a request for further co-operation on the part of the government. Not only must the city take the question of its water supply very seriously into consideration, but it must within a short time show us that it has found a means of providing such a supply of pure water as this city should have. With regard to the manner in which the streets have been cleaned, I am advised that the city has already undertaken to purchase equipment which, in another winter, will facilitate the plowing of 100 miles instead of 25 miles as has been the case up to the present time. They expect to have a much more effective means of dealing with the streets as respects the removal of snow.
As regards Wellington street in front of the parliament buildings, the government has directed attention repeatedly to what 'has appeared to be an abuse in permitting motors to be parked before the grounds of these buildings. We have also discussed the practice of rapid driving to and fro to the risk of pedestrians crossing Wellington street. Wellington street is controlled by the city and not by the government, and I am informed that the city7- council 'has passed an ordinance prohibiting parking on Wellington street in front of the parliament buildings. This regulation will be carried into force. The mayor, as recently as yesterday, assured me that this would be done, and asked for the co-operation of our own Department of Public Works in the matter. This I consider all-important: Wellington street should be kept free from parking, at least in front of these buildings and grounds.

Federal District Commission
I think I have touched upon most of the points that involve any possible controversy.
I may add further, with respect to this particular project of Confederation park, that the board of control of last year undertook to see if the project went through, if parliament voted what is now being proposed, that Elgin street on one side of the park, and Nicholas street on the other side, would each be widened to about twice its present width; and they also undertook to see that at any time in the future no buildings would be permitted to be erected within that park area. As a matter of fact, they have, I am informed, obtained from the Ontario government an act, or promise of an act, authorizing t'he federal district commission to control the character of buildings, as respects architecture, style and so forth, fronting on the new park along Elgin street. In this way, I believe, character and dignity will immediately be given to the central portion of the city, and such improvements as are effected in that section will undoubtedly be reflected in other parts.
Again I thank hon. members for the manner in which they have received this proposal, and I congratulate my hon. friend opposite (Mr.. Bennett) on the skill with which, in at least a portion of his address, he strove to ride two horses, although I am happy to add that the burden of his weight appeared for the most part to be on the right one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am learning from the Prime Minister, although the process is slow.


Mr. SPOTTON:: For the Russell house
site, I understand, the Prime Minister has paid $1,125,000. After deducting from this amount the sum that he will receive for the wreckage, will he be in a position to say to the people, "Yes, I paid this much money for the site, but I have so much land as a real asset, which in a few years will be worth two or three times the amount paid out"? Perhaps the Prime Minister will tell us how much was paid per foot. If he expects Ottawa to become a New York, will he be able to tell the people of Canada that he has a real commercial asset if he wished to resell it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I can answer that question better when we are in committee. I do regret, however, that I omitted to answer a question asked by the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), as to whether or not the commission had in mind the purchase of the Russell house last year when parliament was asked to make an appropriation of $250,000 a year. I do not
lliink the commission had that purchase in mind at that time; what they had in mind was the sum needed to complete the driveways and in particular a large bridge being constructed across the Ottawa river connecting the Ontario and Quebec shores near Remic rapids. They also intended to widen the driveways, because many of them are much narrower than they should have been made. However, they did not have in mind the purchase of the Russell house; if they had thought of it this measure would have been brought in last year. As I explained before, this proposal is now before the house for the reason that during the fall of last year the government and the commission were informed by the city council that the owners of the Russell house were about to demolish that building and erect a new hotel there. That was, so far as I recollect, the first intimation received by the government and by the commission of any intention to tear down the Russell block.


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


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is without prejudice to the rights of members to discuss the whole matter in committee?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Power to sell or lease real property.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is nothing in this section which is new; it is simply reinserting a clause which was left out of the last bill but which was in a previous one.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Period for payment of annual grants extended.	*
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This section
simply extends to thirty years the period for which the appropriation of $200,000 shall be made instead of $250,000 for sixteen years as was the case under the act of last session.


Archibald M. Carmichael: I should like to
ask the Prime Minister the reason for extending these payments over a thirty year period in view of his statement that following another redistribution he might seriously consider making Ottawa a federal district.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I might say
to my hon. friend that a redistribution could not aifect the method of financing a project

Federal District Commission
such as the construction of driveways, park improvements and so on. That would have to be carried on under a federal district commission just as it is carried on now. The reason we are asking for a longer period of time is that it provides a guarantee of permanency and maintenance with respect to improvements which are to be made. It does give to the commission for a few years some small margin to work on in the matter of local improvements, although it is contemplated that by the end of thirty years the full amount of $200,000 will be required solely for purposes of maintenance. At present I understand that half of the original grant, which would be something like $125,000 a year, is required for the actual upkeep of the parks and the overhead expenses of what had been previously provided for.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suggest to the government the desirability of substituting the word "five" for the word "thirty". Five years is the life of a parliament, and I cannot think it quite consonant with the ideas of the right hon. gentleman as heretofore expressed that this parlianient should bind the hands of future parliaments. I am quite aware of the fact that it would be quite competent for succeeding parliaments to change that figure to forty or to ten; they would have that power, but a vested interest is acquired when a statute of this kind is passed by parliament; the commission naturally expects that that is the end of it. I suggest that instead of making provision for thirty years we endeavour to deal with this matter during the lifetime of a parliament. It is true that one or two sessions of this parliament will have passed, but I think the right hon. gentleman would be quite within the general constitutional practice if he said, "I desire that a given sum shall be available for this commission during the lifetime of the parliament over which I am the directing head." But when you ask parliament to bind its hands for thirty years I cannot help but think that is going too far, and that it is not quite consistent with the general principles under which we conduct our government.
I made inquiries to-day of my hon. friend from Welland as to the practice followed by the Ontario commission, and the house has already heard me state the facts as they apply there. -Every year they bring up their estimates; although frequently they have made provision for five year periods or even longer, each year the legislature votes the sum of money which may be required to give effect to the projected plans of the commission. Having regard to the fact that this legislation is
'Mr. Mackenzie King.]
practically but an amendment to the Federal District Commission Act which was passed last year, and having regard to the fact that the Minister of Finance must review the expenditures and the governor in council must pass upon them, I cannot but think this mere declaration that $200,000 should be made available should not be binding for more than the life of a parliament as established by statute, which is five years. Assuming there was an election at the end of four years resulting in the defeat of the administration, as has happened in this country, the estimates for the fifth year might be fairly thought to be within the competence of the outgoing administration as far as the commission is concerned.
In order that the matter may be considered by the committee in a concrete way, I move that the word "thirty" be struck out and the word " five " substituted therefor, for the reasons I have indicated.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If I thought
there was the slightest possibility that this amount would not be required, perhaps for all time to come, for the upkeep of parks, driveways and improvements, I would see a great deal of force in what my hon. friend says, but it is quite evident that a sum of money will be required for maintenance purposes for a number of years. We are reducing the amount which apart from capital expenditure is given to the commission to spend; it is reduced from $250,000 to $200,000, and it was in that connection and at the request of the commission, for reasons which I have already mentioned, that the time was extended. However, if it would help my hon. friend and myself to come a little closer together I would have no objection if we left the period for which the appropriation of $200,000 is to run at the original period which parliament agreed to in the act of last year; that is to say, sixteen years. I think we could leave this act as it is with respect to the length of time, and simply reduce the amount of $250,000 to $200,000. -


Richard Bedford Bennett: I apprehend that this
bill will not leave the committee to-night?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I hope so.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is doubtful; I believe some of the members wish to speak in detail about the expenditures. As the Prime Minister has been good enough to say he would agree to reducing the term from thirty to sixteen years, with the consent of the committee, 1 will withdraw my amendment until I can discuss the matter further with some of those who are interested.

Federal District Commission


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Very well, that section will stand. Let the amendment be withdrawn and section 8, which amends section 2 of the act, stands.
Section stands.
On section 9-$3,000,000 for purposes of commission.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to that,
some hon. members did not expect we were going into committee immediately on this bill, and they are interested in knowing the details of the proposed expenditures. Perhaps the Prime Minister will give a statement as to how the $3,000,000 is to be expended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes. For the acquisition of the Russell house block, property, leases, etcetera, and the construction of the park, including the remodelling of the intersection of Sparks and Elgin streets, an outlay of $1,600,000 will be required. To complete the Remic rapids bridge, to which I made reference a moment ago, $423,200 will be required. For new driveways and parks, that is the enlarging of some of the areas already planned, $144,400. For the widening and improving of existing driveways and parks, $116.600-a total program for this year of $2,281,200. That is the total capital expenditure. My hon. friend knows that the bill requires either that that amount should be met immediately and directly out of the consolidated revenue, or that securities for that amount should be issued in the name of the commission, the interest and principal of which would be guaranteed by the Minister of Finance. I gather from what hon. gentlemen opposite have said that it would meet with their approval more completely were the government to meet these capital expenditures in large part immediately, rather than issue securities running over a term of years. If that is the case, I do not mind saying to my hon. friend that the Minister of Finance is quite prepared favourably to consider making the expenditure in that way.
In addition to what I have quoted, it is estimated that during future years, expenditures on new driveways and parks will be $600,000. and the remodelling of the existing driveways will amount to $130,000, or a total of $730,000; this together with the outlay in 1928 makes a total outlay of $3,011,200. I think that gives my hon. friend the particulars for which he asked.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Can the Prime Minister gi'/e some information as to how the value of the Russell house property was arrived at?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I understand
that in arriving at the valuation the commission retained the services of leading valuators who gave the commission the benefit of their advice. After consulting counsel and taking into account what had been paid by other interests for properties in localities not far distant, an amount was agreed upon which in the opinion of the commission and of the valuators was a fair amount to pay for the property. The commission were of the opinion that to have instituted court proceedings in the matter would have involved in all probability a still larger expenditure. I understand the sum that has been agreed upon for the Russell house property is $1,125,000, or a valuation per square foot of $22.75. To complete the entire square between Sparks street and the city hall and between Elgin street and the canal there remains some property of Mitchell and McDougall, which it is estimated, will bring the total cost to $1,235,000, or an estimated total cost of all three properties per square foot of $22.18.


Mr. GARDINER:: What was the balance made up of in that first item of $1,600,000? We have not the full details.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are some smaller properties in the square. The figures which I have just given relate to the Russell house block, but the total confederation park area includes some other small properties which will have to be acquired, and a considerable amount of work will have to be done in levelling the park and making the driveways through it.
" Mr. BOYS:	Is it the intention to pull
down the post office building?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not contemplated at the present time, no.


Mr. BOYS:: Then has the government considered whether there is any necessity for acquiring the Russell house property, as long as the post office stands? Looking at this plan, it would seem as if it was a wild scheme, with the post office standing in the way. Personally I could support the proposal more willingly if the post office also were taken down, because there would be a more or less unobscured view of the parliament buildings from that open front; but as long as the present post office stands I cannot see the wisdom of spending a million and a half for the Russell house block-for I am given to understand that the value of the Russell house property is placed at $1,250,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: $1,125,000, the total value of the properties is placed at $1235,000.

Federal District Commission


William Alves Boys: Does that include the building at the southwest corner of that block?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It takes all
the properties between Sparks street and the street which is between the city hall and the Russell house.


William Alves Boys: My judgment would be that there are about 225 feet on Sparks street, with a depth perhaps net quite so great. It seems to me that it would be the simplest thing in the worfd to gelt a driveway leading to the parliament grounds without acquiring the Russell house property at all. I repeat that so long as that post office stands it seems to me to be an incomplete and undesirable scheme. If the Prime Minister is prepared to go so far as to say that while it is not part of the present scheme it is in contemplation and will certainly result, in perhaps three or four years, in the removal of the post office, perhaps we would support that part of the proposition. But that does not appear to be part of the scheme; it is not in contemplation, and therefore I think the proposed expenditure is an extravagance. A driveway which would complete the drive from the experimental farm to Rockliffe, is, I think, very necessary. I have seen many driveways but I have never seen any city which has a more beautiful driveway than has Ottawa. As far as spending money upon that is concerned,
I am in favour of ilt; and there should be a connection between that, driveway from where it now enters under Laurier Avenue to a point near the Chateau. I can quite understand that it might be thought necessary to have a driveway starting from somewhere near the drill hall and gradually rising to reach the square in front of the buildings, and this plan of course contemplates that, but it contemplates such a driveway going through the land on which the Russell block now stands. Whalt is the necessity for that? I do not think it is any compliment to the edity of Ottawa, with a population of 125,000 or 130,000 people, that from a commercial, industrial and business standpoint you can pull down one of the best blocks on the most important corner in the heart of the city at- a cost of SI,250,000, merely to make a park. I do not know whether or not the citizens of Ottawa are in favour of such a scheme; I Can hardly imagine they would be, Where can you find on the continent of America a city that would want to have one of its 'best blocks in the very heart of it pulled down merely to make a park about two hundred feet square? If you could not get an entrance to the parliament grounds without doing this there might be some justification for it.
fMr. Mackenzie King.]
I agree with the Prime Minister that if a large sum of money is to be spent, the proper place to spend it would be in widening Metcalfe street perhaps as far as Laurier avenue so as to have an approach leading up to the front of this building. But to have an entrance to one side and to spend a large sum in pulling down a building like the Russell block does not appeal to me in the slightest degree. It is quite evident that the Prime Minister has in mind for the future the widen* ing of Metcalfe street, but he does not say how far south of Wellington street the proposed widening o-f Metcalfe street is going to go; and I understand it is suggested that it is to be widened to from two or three times its present width. As I said before, if that is going to be done, the widening should go *t. least to Laurier avenue. If it does not go that far, how far is it intended that it should go?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To Lisgar
street, which is much further south.


William Alves Boys: That would make a much
more imposing entrance. That would be about seven blocks down Metcalfe street, and it can be figured out how much it would cost to widen Metcalfe street from two to three times its present width over that distance. Are there to be two entrances to the parliament buildings, one of them from where the Russell house is? Because that 'would not be a suitable entrance unless the post office is to be pulled down. Is the government going to pull down the post office and make that site into a park two or three hundred feet square? Then perhaps in four or five years are they going to undertake to widen Metcalfe street down to Lisgar street at a cost of goodness knows how many million dollars? We ought to make up our minds now what we are going to do. If it is the intention to miake an approach by 'widening Metcalfe street, we ought to save our money for that purpose. I want to register as firm and definite a protest as possible against the expenditure of this money to pull down a block in the heart of Ottawa, a block which is not essential to the improvement under contemplation, because the scheme will not be complete when the block is pulled down and the country will still be face to face with the Metcalfe street improvement outlined by the Prime Minister in his address this afternoon. I think we should go slow in the matter. I am quite in favour of making an annual expenditure in connection with improvements! in Ottawa on account of its being the capital city, but I do not think we should commit ourselves for a period of

Federal District Commission
thirty years. It might be all right to provide for a scheme covering a period of five years, but I want to register my protest against wild extravagance in connection with pulling down the Russell block and getting such a little return when we know that a great deal more has to be done in the future.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Could the Prime Minister inform the committee as to the cost of acquiring the property between Wellington street, Sparks street, Elgin street and the post office where the buildings have been demolished?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am afraid I have not the figures under my hand. I could give my hon. friend the price per square foot for that property, buildings and land, as purchased by the Department of Public Works. It amounts to $23.75.


George Gibson Coote: I should like to say a word or two in support of the proposal made by the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys). It is right in line with the suggestion I made last year that any further money we spend in beautifying Ottawa as the capital city of Canada should be spent directly in front of the main entrance of the parliament buildings. I should not like to state categorically how far south the widening of Metcalfe street should be carried out, but it would be much better for us to spend whatever money we can afford in widening Metcalfe street than in purchasing the old Russell block. My idea is that the government should expropriate the property on the west side of Metcalfe street so far as it is necessary to widen that street and as many blocks south as we can afford to go. Those buildings need not be demolished at the present time; they could be allowed to stand for the -next ten years if necessary, and in that time the rents coming from those buildings might largely cover the capital outlay we would incur. The view which the people are going to get of the parliament buildings from this area we are now purchasing will be largely a view of the east block, and many people coming to Ottawa will see the east -block from that angle and will think that is the parliament building. We should have a wide avenue leading directly from the main entrance of the parliament buildings into the heart of the city, and I can only regret that the government have not spent this money in purchasing the properties necessary to carry out that improvement instead of purchasing the Russell block. The -city of Ottawa is so badly in need of another hotel that it is rather a pity the government did not permit the former owners
of the Russell house property to put up a good hotel on that site and spend the money we are now using to acquire the Russell block in purchasing property which would enable us to provide a wide thoroughfare directly opposite the parliament buildings and leading down into the heart of the city.


Peter McGibbon: Is it the intention of the government ultimately to expropriate the property between Slater street and Laurier avenue and Elgin street to extend the scheme up to Cartier square?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is not in contemplation at the present time. I understand that within the area to which my hon. friend has just referred there is a block of buildings to the east of Elgin street between Laurier avenue and Queen street. A number of houses, a store and also a church come within the possibility of the enlargement of Elgin street which the city council have undertaken to carry out themselves and I understand they are doing that by a plan of deferred widening of the street.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the financial position I did not quite follow what the Prime Minister said. Clause 9 as it now stands is hardly the sort of clause we should enact. We admit that we have not the money with which to pay the interest. The $3,000,000 expenditure will cost roughly $135,000 a year when guaranteed by the Dominion, and there will be no provision for sinking fund, which for the sake of argument we will place at one per cent- That would make a total of roughly $165,000 or $170,000. Now of the $200,000 a year, it takes $150,000 for maintenance, and the rest for general work. I gathered from what the Prime Minister said that the government had no particular preference for any scheme of financing, but I am sure the minister will realize that if we guarantee $3,000,000, and the commission is to get the money and issue its securities, it is really, to use a word that was very much in vogue in this country at one time, camouflage, because the commission has no revenue with which to meet the interest, and, as provided by section 10 of the bill, the interest will be paid out of consolidated revenue. Why not make a direct appropriation for this purpose and provide that we will advance for the purpose of this work the sum of $3,000,000 out of consolidated revenue, instead of taking the securities of a commission which we have ourselves created, knowing that it will not meet any interest obligations, and that we ourselves must meet them, together with the sinking fund, as well as in the end pay the principal itself.

Federal District Commission


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What I wanted to say to my hon. friend was this. I understood that he had a preference for the principal sum being paid directly out of consolidated revenue. I hoped it might help to bring us all into agreement were I to give him the assurance that with respect to capital expenditures made immediately on the Russell house block, they would be made chargeable to consolidated revenue and be paid direct by the Minister of Finance. That would reduce considerably the total amount on capital expenditure to be met by securities to be issued by the commission. I think that might well remain optional with the [DOT]Minister of Finance. I am not sure that the minister might not conclude, when asked for the money for the purpose which these capital expenditures are intended to serve, that it would be better for him to meet that capital expenditure directly out of consolidated revenue. On the other hand, it might serve a useful purpose for the country to have the securities issued by the commission and guaranteed by the Minister of Finance, and distribute the payments over a series of years, seeing that those who will come after us will be benefiting by the expenditures in equal if not larger measure than we are, I think my hon. friend can rest assured that the government, if it is allowed that amount of latitude, will be most careful to take the course which is obviously in the public interest.


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if the commission have
any other driveway scheme in mind outside of the one mentioned past the Russell house to Cartier square?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The commission has a plan that involves driveways through all parts of the city, and that scheme is being projected little by little. I think the greater part of it is now nearing completion, but I understand from the commission that the driveways were originally constructed, at a time prior to the U9e of the motor to anything like the extent it is being used to-day, and that most of the driveways will have to be widened and enlarged. A good deal of the expenditure will be in enlarging existing diveways.


William Foster Garland: The government own considerable property to the west of these buildings on Wellington street, and I was wondering if the commission had ever thought of running a driveway through that property, connecting with the Sherwood driveway, running around the rear of this building, then connecting up with the driveway to

Rockliffe. Such a driveway would avoid the tearing down of very valuable property; it would follow the river and get away from the traffic on the other streets, and would really make more of a scenic driveway than the other. I do not know whether it has been thought of at all, but it could be done for far less money, and would serve the purpose just as well.


Henry Elvins Spencer: In discussing this bill,
which is to vote funds for the beautification of this capital, I agree entirely with the hon. member for West Calgary that it would be in the interests of this country if the necessary moneys were to be provided out of consolidated revenue. First there is the $6,000,000, payable iat the rate of $200,000 a year, which is to be paid out of consolidated revenue. Then there is a further $3,000,000 for which the commission is to issue its own bonds or securities. They would issue bonds, say, at 5 per cent. They may get them for less, but we must reckon on a fair margin, and at 5 per cent we should actually be paying in principal and interest $7,500,000 for the use of $3,000,000 to beautify this city. I would like to see the capital beautified; I think it should be, but at the same time I do not want to impose unnecessary taxation on the people of this country. If you spread the $3,000,000 over the thirty years it would amount to $100,000 a year. Would it not be better to pass a statute to take this amount of $100,000 a year out of consolidated revenue fund for the thirty years so that we would get rid of paying the annual interest? I do not think sufficient consideration is paid in this house to the question of interest. It is the biggest tax we have to bear. It is the heaviest burden on the Minister of Finance in connection with the national debt and in the present case I think it would be much better to take $100,000 a year from the consolidated revenue fund, rather than to issue bonds for $3,000,000 on which we would be paying interest for thirty years, and which would eventually cost the people of this country $7,500,000 for the use of that $3,000,000.


George Spotton: Perhaps this is an appropriate point at which to repeat the question I put to the Prime Minister. It is the first question I have asked the Prime Minister or any member of the government since coming into this house, and as a matter of courtesy to the constituency which I represent I should like him to give me an answer. I understood the Prime Minister to say to this house, "Yes, we have spent so many millions,

Federal District Commission
but we have a real asset to show for it. We bought some town lots for you, and these town lots, as time goes by, will increase many times in value." The Prime Minister has said that this land cost $22 to $23 per square foot. At $23 per square foot it means, in the language of my county, over $1,000,000 per acre. Does the Prime Minister mean to say to the people of my county, "Yes, I have bought some town lots, but they are yours. They belong to the people of Canada. It is true I paid $1,000,000 an acre for -them, but if at any future time we decide to sell them for commercial purpose I will guarantee that you will get three or four or five or many more times the amount we paid for them." I would just like the Prime Minister to let me know if I misunderstood him, and if not, would he give me his reasons for thinking that this property is going to -become very valuable for commercial purposes in the years to come. If he can give me any good reason for thinking so, I would feel more like voting for this bill. If this is a foolish question, all right, say so, and let it go by, but I do not propose to have my first question in this house sidestepped.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to my hon. friend that I have every desire to be courteous to him, and particularly to his constituency. I had no thought of evading any question of his, and indeed if I had assumed for a moment that he was asking me a concrete question I would have been very quick to reply to him. What I did say was that the amount of money which the government is expending at the present time is in the nature of an investment in land in the city of Ottawa. Personally I cannot imagine from the point of view of investment pure and simple a better investment that the government could make in real estate than to secure the best property in the city of Ottawa and hold it for the future of the nation. None of us knows what the demands on the city of Ottawa through the course of years are going to be. The day may come when an area in the centre of this city will be required by the government for a variety of purposes. The government of Canada will own that area. What will be its value then in relation to the small figure we are paying to-day? Not a small figure, it is true, when comparison is made with town lots in a small community, but relatively small with regard to the future. The parallel I drew was that at the time parliament hill was purchased there were undoubtedly many like my hon. friend who made comparisons between the
amount of money that was t-hen being paid for parliament hill and what was paid for town lots in the small communities from which they came.


George Spotton: But take Toronto, New
York and other cities.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But those who purchased parliament hill made for Canada the best possible investment that could be made by that purchase. The government has no thought of selling town lots out of the area that it proposes to buy in this connection, but it is endeavouring to secure-


George Spotton: How is it a commercial
asset? It brings in no revenue in the meantime, it is simply a park for the unemployed to sleep in, and in the event of its being sold it must be disposed of for building purposes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not speak of the government speculating in real estate. I spoke about this as an investment-and an investment in more senses than one. I think if my hon. friend studies what has taken place in several large cities he will find that they have been saved from total destruction solely because of some open space or spaces which have prevented fire from extending further. Frequently I have thought of what the possibilities might be if this capital were to take fire, as the city opposite did on one occasion, and the fire should sweep through say from lower town to where the proposed park will be located. Such an open space in ' the heart of the city, from the point of view of insurance against a great disaster of that kind, is a factor which, having regard to its properties, the government might well take into account in connection with this proposal. I was regarding it solely as a national investment in speaking as I did.


Mr. MANION:: I do not wish to be hypercritical; in fact I have not yet spoken of the proposal before the house, but is it not incorrect to suggest that the purchase of this property is an investment in any shape or form? An investment in the ordinary term is something upon which we get an immediate return, or, if not, we expect later on to have an opportunity of selling what we have purchased at an enhanced price. Of course the space outside these buildings forms a very fine setting, but, unless you use the w-ord in a sentimental sense, it was certainly never acquired as an investment. As the right hon. gentleman has suggested, it might be considered as an investment in the sense of affording fire protection, but it is decidedly

Federal District Commission 

not an investment from the standpoint of bringing any financial return, because we cannot imagine any circumstances under which we would sell that open space. Nor can I imagine any circumstances under which anyone could purchase from the government the area covered by this scheme. If we go through with the scheme it will be solely for the purpose of beautifying Ottawa, and not for any distinctly monetary return that it may bring us in the future. It has a sentimental value, if you will, or an open air or health value, anything of that sort, but certainly it has not any investment value, because by no stretch of the imagination will we ever think of selling it in town lots. The Prime Minister spoke of the open spaces in some of the European capitals. I well remember an open space to which he did not refer-Princes street in Edinburgh, one of the most beautiful streets in Europe. I think the open space between the Castle and Princes street has been preserved in that condition for centuries, and under no circumstances would Edinburgh think of selling that beautiful park, yet on the opposite side land is of the highest value because it is on the principal street of the city. So in this case I think it is wrong to create the impression that we are buying this property as an investment; it can be regarded as an investment only from a sentimental standpoint.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not wish to delay matters but I would say to my hon. friend that the authority I had in mind in using the term seemed to me to be fairly, good. I have in my hand the report of the federal plan commission on a general plan for the cities of Ottawa and Hull, a commission appointed by the government of Sir Robert Borden. One of the phrases as I recollect, the commission somewhere uses with respect to the purchase of areas for parks and the like is that no better investment could be made. I cannot put my hand upon the passage, but the president of the commission was Sir Herbert Holt, and I think Sir Herbert knows a little about investments.


Robert James Manion: No one has more respect
for Sir Robert Borden than I have, but I should not like to accept every word that has been said by every commission appointed by him or by any other prime minister. Even if Sir Herbert Holt made use of the term, with all deference to his financial ability I would say that it does not properly express the idea that he probably had in his mind. Anyway, I am quite sure that all the investments of Sir Herbert Holt bring a much better

return in money than this investment will ever return to the Dominion.


Mr. STEVENS:: I would point out to the Prime Minister that it is obvious, if you figure the outlay on an investment basis that the property will have to double' in value about every twelve or fourteen years in order to keep pace with the annual interest on the capital expenditure. Therefore I think it is a mistake to suggest that this is in any way an investment that will bring in any monetary return. The only justification for the outlay is from the standpoint of beautifying Ottawa. I should like to take this opportunity to say that unless the city council can find some better way of dealing with the filthy condition of the streets every spring-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Henry Herbert Stevens: -for a period of two months, they will have very little right to ask for further grants from this parliament. I know of no city possessing such remarkable natural beauty where the streets are allowed to get into such a filthy condition in the springtime as are the streeets of this city. I have observed this every year for the last eighteen years, and to my mind, and I say it advisedly, no reasonable effort is made to clean the streets. Their condition is not only inconvenient, it is exceedingly unhealthy. Inquire among your friends, and you find many of them are suffering from serious colds. They call it an epidemic of grippe, but it is nothing more than the result of the offscourings of winter's accumulation of filth.
I concur in the remarks of my hon. friend from Oshawa (Mr. Kaiser) that it is about time the capital city of the Dominion endeavoured to find a fairly decent water supply. The water in the city is not fit to bathe in, to say nothing of its use for drinking purposes. I have been looking for an opportunity to say this and I have said it in two minutes. And I mean it all. I could speak for half an hour just as strongly on the subject if it would do any good.


Mr. HARRIS:: I want to make one or two observations in view of what the Prime Minister has said regarding driveways in the larger centres of population. It is true that in the larger centres there is a tendency to build driveways, but as a rule they are found on water frontages, such as lakes, to which they may be adjacent. In the suburban areas where residences and educational institutions are situated it is customary to

Federal District Commission
construct boulevards from eighty-six to 100 feet in width. I am opposed to this particular scheme because you are coming into the heart of the city and putting in a wedge, dividing upper town from lower town. It seems to me that business men and visitors who come to the city, desiring to do business in either section, will find it quite inconvenient traversing this area from Elgin street down to Sussex street below the Chateau every time they want to carry on a transaction; it will cause delay, and it will constitute a handicap. If you must have a driveway why not confine yourself to the outskirts of the city, as is done in Toronto? In Kingston the situation is very much the same as it is here. Going along King street, Kingston, if a driver wants to go to Queen's university he has to traverse almost a mile from the centre of the city through a park before he can reach that educational institution. This may be a means of beautifying the city, but from the point of view of the visitor who has business to transact it will be a great handicap when he discovers that the city fathers have seen fit to open in the heart of the city a park area, shutting-off one business section from another and one centre of educational institutions from some other. In my opinion we are making a mistake in dividing the city in this way, thus putting a wedge between two sections. It would be better business to build a boulevard of reasonable width up to Elgin street. Certainly I would not take this hotel away from the centre of the city. It would be more advisable in the interests of Ottawa to leave this commercial investment which the Prime Minister speaks about-and he did use the word "commercial"-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not use
that word.


Joseph Henry Harris: He said "commercial investment."


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I venture to say that if my hon. friend looks through Hansard he will not find the word "commercial". I used the word "investment" and possibly it was open to the broader construction given it by some hon. members; but I did not use the word "commercial".


Joseph Henry Harris: I accept the Prime Minister's correction and I hope Hansard will do the same. I repeat, it would be better in the interests of those who visit the city on business if we had another first-class hotel on the site of the Russell house.


Thomas Erlin Kaiser: We have read in the press
that $1,125,000 has been paid for some property. Can anyone on the government side tell us from whom it has been bought, and what steps were taken to see that this is a fair price?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 3-Acquisition of property.
Robert James Manion: In subsection 2 of section
13 it is provided:
Any plan and description deposited under the provisions of the Expropriation Act may be signed by the chairman of the commission or by the secretary thereof.	.
Why not have it signed by the chairman or by one of the commissioners?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to the change. I move that the subsection be amended by inserting the words "one of the commissioners" in place of "the secretary thereof".


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that in answering a question I gave a figure which I understood was the amount paid for the property between Elgin street and the post office, and Wellington street and Sparks street. I am advised that this is the figure at which the property was valued by the Public Works department, but the actual figure has not yet been finally determined, because there are still proceedings before the court in the matter of the expropriation of the properties.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In connection
with the whole of the property, or parcels of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot say, but I am inclined to think it is the whole.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The right hon.
gentleman cannot give any information as to what that area will cost?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will give
further particulars when the bill comes up again. I move that the committe rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



RAILWAY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I have a resolution which I should like to dispose of before eleven o'clock. I do not know whether my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) objects.
Railway Act Amendment
Richard Bedford Bennett: I shall be glad to have	Wednesday, April 25, 1928
it moved, so far as I am concerned.	The house met at {hree 0'c]ock.


Charles Avery Dunning: I move that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that the provisions of the Railway Act in regard to the railway grade crossing fund be amended to provide for the application of the moneys by the board towards the cost of actual construction work in respect of crossings at rail level in existence on the first day of April, 1909, and in respect of existing crossings constructed after that date where in any case an agreement, approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners, has been entered into between the railway company and a municipal or other corporation or person by which the municipal or other corporation or person agrees to bear a portion of the cost of the construction; and the total amount applied out of the fund in respect of any one crossing, where the cost of construction does not exceed $100,000 shall not exceed 40 per cent of such cost; and where the cost of construction exceeds $100,000 shall not exceed 40 per cent of such cost with a maximum of $100,000.	.
The grants or the unexpended portions thereof made under the statutes of 1909, c. 32, 1914, c. 50, 1919, c. 30 of $200,000 each year for twenty consecutive years from the first day of April, 1909, may be expended to aid construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public in respect ofcrossings in existence on the first day of April, 1909, and in respect of existing crossings constructed after that date where agreements have been entered into as aforesaid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is without prejudice to our right to discuss the matter.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. KELLNER:: 1.	What is the total number of employees in the inside civil service?
2.	How many of these employees were born in
Canada?	_
3.	How many were born outside of Canada?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	The total number of employees at departmental headquarters on March 31, 1927, 10,317.
2.	Information not available.
3.	Information not available.


RADIO-WEATHER BROADCASTING
Mr. ERNST:: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to have station C.1I.A.S. continue broadcasting for weather conditions?
2.	Will the government extend this broadcasting to include not only weather, but also bait and ice conditions ?


Mr. CARDIN:: The Department of Marine and Fisheries intends to continue broadcasting weather conditions and it is the intention in the near future to broadcast also time signals, bait and ice conditions and other useful fisheries information.


SERGEANT KEMPTON
Charles Avery Dunning: It will be very much
Easier for hon. members to discuss the matter with the actual bill before them, and with the comparison between the amendments proposed and the existing sections, than it would be to discuss it on the resolution. Of course, this is understood to be entirely without prejudice to the right of any hon. member to discuss any phase of the subject.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Dunning thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 220, to amend the Railway Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Between what dates was Sergeant Kempton employed at Yorkton, by the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Did he hold an excise writ during that period?
3.	What position does he now occupy?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Sergeant Kempton was a non-commissioned officer of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, authorized without pay to effect seizures under the excise law as from 4th June, 1921 to 15th June, 1927. This authority to act under the excise law was only incidental to his position as a federal police officer.
2.	Yes.
3.	Divisional chief, customs-excise preventive service-western district (Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta).


MARITIME COMMISSIONS
Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	When did the Duncan commission investigating maritime rights commence its work?

Questions
2.	How many commissioners and assistants were engaged on the Duncan commission?
3.	When did the Duncan commission hand in its report?
4.	When did the Maclean commission investigating the fisheries of the maritime provinces commence its work?
5.	How many were employed, both as commissioners and assistants on the Maclean commission?
6.	What is the cost to be of the Maclean commission?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	July 5, 1926.
2.	Three comissioners, a secretary, and an assistant; also stenographic staff.
3.	September 23, 1926,
4.	13 October, 1927.
5.	Five commissioners, one chief counsel, one assistant counsel and one secretary.
6.	Not known, as commission has not yet finished its work.


LIQUOR STATISTICS
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	What was the quantity of wines and spirit^ imported and which went into consumption, during the vears ended March 31, 1912-1913-19231924-1925-1926, and 1927?
2.	What was the duty collected on such -wines, and spirits during above years?
3.	What was the per capita consumption of liquors in each of the several provinces of Can-, ada during the years 1912-1913-1923-1924-1925-. 1926, and 1927?
4.	What was the amount of excise paid on, ivines and spirits during the fiscal years 1912-. 1913-1923-1924-1925-1926, and 1927?


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: See attached sheets:
Imports for Consumption, into Canada, of Alcoholic Beverages
				Wines, Sparkling, in		bottles, containing-	
Fiscal Years ended March 31	Alcoholic Beverages Brewed	Alcoholic Beverages, Distilled	Wines, Non-Spark- ling	Not more than 1 quart but more than 1 pint, each	Not more than 1 pint but more than i pint, each	i pint each or less	Over 1 quart eachGallons	Gallons	Gallons	Dozens	Dozens	Dozens	Dozens1912	1,459,747	3,059,262	771,704	15,709	51,659	2,592	126,1913	2,033,692	3,575,231	942,521	18,641	57,984	3,080	372-1923	54,241	1,210,413 1,291,847	278,471 515,847	14,874 12,658	12,407 8,908	280, 136.1924	96,647	534	1925	91,928	1,194,500	604,655	15,839	13,557	730	: 3321926	152,255	1,449,361	560,945	32,431	25,526	956	358:1927	153,105	1,633,254	684,132	40,985	30,849	1,498	1,595.2. Customs Duties Collected on Imports Under Above Headings	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.	$ cts.1912	332,382 00	7,283,909 60	325,751 84	54,784 50	88,035 75	2,152 74	210 00.1913	
1923	468,771 60 22,819 88 40,571 18	8,498,867 30 11,739,540 80 12,288,812 90	425,096 14 309,116 84 579,784 77	65,550 30 151,394 40 118,436 97	99,384 90 64,062 15 42,692 53	2,59i 90	572 40, 1,260 00 562 50,1924	1,117 08	1925	38,668 80	11,237,093 20	587,722 23	142,065 69	60,775 80	1,524 24	1,385 70.1926	63,962 64	13,679,152 60	466,624 37	282,901 71	110,307 60	1,996 13	1,449 901927	64,304 10	15,365,434 60	495,356 30	354,283 41	133,637 73	3,127 85	6,464 25.3.	Information not available.4.	Excise revenues collected on spirits and wines during the fiscal years specified.Fiscal year	Excise duty	Excise taxended	on spirits	on winesMarch,	1912.	.. $ 8,667,665 82	-March,	1913..	.. 9,474,142 12	-March,	1923..	.. 7,985,808 57	$159,370 05March,	1924..	.. 9,367,680 13	151,580 05March,	1925..	.. 9,389,535 98	66,839 54March,	1926..	.. 10,928,078 03	95,458 51March,	1927..	.. 13,899,584 19	118,080 13


TABLE OF PRECEDENCE
Mr. CHURCH:: 1.	Has Canada at present a table of precedence? If so, what is it?
2.	Has the table at page 661, 1928 Parliamentary Guide, not been abolished in view of
Canada's new status, and will, a new table be. issued?
3.	Why is the United Church of Canada, excluded from existing table, also the Jewish church, under clause 13, page 662, Parliamentary Guide, 1928?
4.	Are not such tables contrary to resolution, of the House of Commons, 1919, abolishing titles in Canada, and in view of the fact that, the existing table was adopted in a despatch, from Downing street, dated December 29, 1893; are members of the House of Commons and: Senate placed at the foot of the list because of the principle in such table that the church, takes precedence ahead of the state?
5.	Who is the corresponding head of the Baptist church in item 13 of table?- Is it Reverend Dr. Shields or the modernist Reverend Dr. Marshall?
6.	Will a new table bp brought down this, session, and by whom?;
Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Since confederation Canada lias had a table of precedence, which when last formally revised was as follows:
(December 3, 1923)
1.	The Governor General or officer administering the government.
2.	The Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario.
3.	The Lieutenant-Governor of Quebec,
4.	The Lieutenant-Governor of Nova Scotia.
5.	The Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick.
6.	The Lieutenant-Governor of Manitoba.
7.	The Lieutenant-Governor of British
Columbia.	_
S.	The Lieuteniant-Governor of Prince Edward Island.
9.	The Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan.
10.	The Lieutenant-Governor o>f Alberta.
11.	The Prime Minister of Canada.
12.	Archbishops and bishops according to seniority.
13.	The moderator of the Presbyterian Church in Canada, the general superintendent of the Methodist Church in Canada, and the corresponding head of the Baptist Church in Canada.
14.	Members of the cabinet according to seniority.
15.	The Chief Justice of Canada.
16.	Members of the privy council not of the cabinet according to seniority.
17.	The Speaker of the Senate.
18.	The Speaker of the House of Commons.
19.	The Prime Ministers of the provinces of Canada.
20.	The chief judges of the courts of law and equity according to seniority and the judge appointed to perform the duties of chief justice at Quebec and Montreal.
21.	The puisne judges of the Supreme Court of Canada according to seniority.
22.	Judges of the Exchequer Court of Canada.
23.	The Solicitor General of Canada.
24.	Members of the Senate.
25.	Puisne judges of the courts of law and equity according to seniority.
26.	Members of the House of Commons.
27.	The chief of staff, National Defence, the director of naval services and the director of the air force provided they are of the rank of major-general or its equivalent or higher rank.
28.	Members of the executive council, provincial, within their province.
29.	The Speaker of the legislative council within his province.

30.	Members of the legislative council within their province.
31.	The Speaker of the legislative assembly within his province.
32.	Members of the legislative assembly within their province.
Note.-Judges at present on the retired list and judges at present holding office but who shall retire after the date of the new table shall not be affected as to precedence given to them by the old table.
Retired judges were given precedence next after the present judges of their respective courts by the old table.
2.	No.
3.	Since the United Church of Canada has come into existence recognition has in practice been given to its head. There has been no dhange in practice affecting representation of any other denominations or faiths.
4.	The answer to both questions is: No.
5.	There is no corresponding head of the Baptist Church in Canada. The Baptist church is divided into three separate groups- the Maritime convention, the Ontario and Quebec convention, and the Baptist Union of Western Canada. These bodies function independently of each other, and consequently there is no general head.
6.	No.


CUSTOMS PREVENTIVE OFFICERS
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton) :: 1.	When was James Crowdis of Louisburg, Cape Breton, appointed special preventive officer ?
2.	What is the amount of his annual salary?
3.	What are his duties?
4.	Is he assigned to any special territory? If so, what territory?
5.	How many seizures has he made, and what was the quantity and value of liquor seized in each instance?
6.	What is the total amount of fines collected through his seizures?
7.	Is he regarded by the department as an active, zealous, and energetic officer?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	June 1, 1927.
2.	$100 per month.
3.	To enforce the customs and excise laws.
4.	Appointed for the province of Nova Scotia, headquarters Louisburg, N.S. His duties require him to patrol around Louisburg and immediate vicinity, and on special occasions he is required to patrol other districts under the direction of his superior officer.
5 and 6. Three customs seizures,
(1) One 5-gallon keg of rum; duty paid value $55-liquor forfeited-destroyed.

Questions
(2)	Twelve 10-gallon kegs of rum; duty paid value $1,330-liquor forfeited-held.
(3)	One automobile-automobile sold for

7.	Yes.


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond-West Cape Breton) :: 1.	How many preventive officers are there employed in the constituency of Cape Breton West and Richmond?
2.	What is the name and address of each
officer?	_
3.	To what territory is each officer assigned?
4.	What are the duties of each of these officers?
5.	What salary was paid, and what expenses were incurrred by each officer during 1927?
6.	On whose recommendation was each of these officers appointed?
7.	What qualifications were required for these positions?
8.	What seizures have been made by each of these officers?
9.	On whose suggestion or recommendation was each of these seizures made?
10.	What was quantity, value, and character of goods included in each seizure?
11.	W'hat disposition, in each instance, was made of the seized goods?
12.	Have any investigations been conducted by the Department of National Revenue, or any officer thereof, pursuant to complaints against officials in Cape Breton West and Richmond ?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Four.
2.	J. H. Crowdis, Loui.sburg, N.S.; J. E. Spray, Gabarouse, N.S.; M. F. Egan, L'Ar-doise, N.S.; J. E. Nickerson, St. Peters, N.S.
3.	All officers are appointed for the province of Nova Scotia. Their duties require them to patrol in the immediate vicinity where they are stationed, except on special instructions from their superior officers, which may require them at times to patrol in other districts.
4.	To enforce the customs and excise laws, particularly in the prevention of smuggling and the apprehension of persons engaged in the illicit manufacture of spirits.
2.	Salary	ExpensesJ. H. Crowdis.. ..	.. $700	$184 10J. E. Spray	. .. 700	12 00M. F. Egan	. .. 700	35 15J. E. Nickerson.. .	. .. 700	Nil6.	Chief, Customs-Excise preventive service.7.	Between the ages of 21 and 45, height not less than 5 feet 9 inches, a fair education, physically fit and a clean previous record.8.	J. H. Crowdis, 3 customs seizures; J. E. Spray, 1 excise seizure; M. F. Egan, Nil; J. E. Nickerson, 2 customs seizures.9.	No information. (Officers not obliged to furnish name of informant.)
10.
1.	Five-gallon keg of rum, duty paid value
$55.	_
2.	12 ten-gallon kegs of rum, duty paid value $1,330.
3.	One automobile, duty paid value $360.
4.	235 bottles of liquor, duty paid value $504.
5.	One automobile, duty paid value $100.
6.	One bottle of liquor, duty paid value $3.
11.
1.	Five-gallon keg of rum destroyed.
2.	12 ten-gallon kegs of rum are still on hand pending prosecution.
3.	The automobile has been sold.
4.	235 bottles of liquor have been destroyed.
5.	The automobile is still on hand.
6.	The bottle of liquor has been destroyed.
12. Yes. Complaint was made against
special officer Nickerson, of St. Peters, which complaint was fully investigated by the district chief in charge of Cape Breton, who reported that the complaint was not founded on facts.


GREAT LAKES OPENING OF NAVIGATION
Mr. COWAN:: 1.	What provision has been made for the early opening of navigation at Port Arthur and Fort William?
2.	Has any contract been made for ice breaking at the above mentioned ports?
3.	If so, when was it made, and by what department of the government?
4.	What is the duration and terms of the contract?
5.	Were tenders asked for before making the contract, and what other persons or corporations put in a tender?


Mr. CARDIN:: 1.	Provision has been made for opening up from open water in lake Superior, and keeping open until all obstruction from ice is over, suitable free passage for all vessels to the docks, wharves and elevators within the limits of the harbours of Port Arthur and Fort William in time to admit the general upward bound lake traffic after Sault Ste. Marie canal is opened.
2.	Yes.
3.	1st October, 1923, by the Department of Marine and Fisheries.
4.	Five years from 2nd July, 1923; $30,000 per annum.
5.	Yes; Great Lakes Transportation Company, Ltd.


CAP ST. IGNACE POSTMASTER
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Cap St. Ignace?
2.	When, and on whose recommendation was he appointed?
3.	Is he a returned soldier?
4.	IIow long did he serve overseas?
5.	What are his educational qualifications'

Questions


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Joseph Mathieu.
2.	15th August 1927-by Civil Service Commission. September 19, 1927, as a result of local competition.
3.	Yes.
4.	Eleven months.
5.	Primary school education.


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Did Joseph Henri Bernier apply for position of postmaster at Cap St. Ignace? .
2.	If so, when?
3.	Is he a returned soldier?
4.	When did he enlist, and how long did he serve overseas ?
5.	What are his educational qualifications?
6.	Why did he not receive the appointment?


Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Between February 27 and March 14, 1927.
3.	Yes.
4.	(a) June 1, 1918;	(b) 12 months.
5.	Commercial course at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere.
6.	A choice had to be made among three returned soldiers, Mr. Mathieu was selected for appointment.


NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS COMMISSION
Mr. SHORT:: 1.	Do the activities of the National Battlefields Commission extend to the maritime provinces ?
2.	If not, what body has charge of marking historic sites and erecting monuments in the maritime provinces?
3.	Have monuments been erected at Louis-burg, Fort Cumberland, Fort Lawrence, and Fort Moncton?
4.	Of what material are these monuments constructed and what is the cost in each case?
5.	At what other places in the maritime provinces have monuments been erected and cost in each case ?
6.	Has any educational or historical organization or authority in the maritime provinces supported or approved of the character of such monuments ?


Mr. STEWART:: 1.	No.
2.	The Department of the Interior, on the recommendation of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. Sites of national importance only are dealt with.
3.	Yes.
4.	Fort Louisburg, N.S.:	Two (2) cairns,
built of field stones, each bearing a standard bronze tablet. Two (2) additional tablets are affixed to the lighthouse across the harbour. Total cost, SI,383.79.
Fort Cumberland, near Sackville, N.B.: A field stone cairn, bearing two (2) bronze tablets (French and English). Total cost, $723.15.
fMr. Cahan.l
Fort Lawrence, near Amherst, N.S.: A field stone cairn bearing a bronze tablet. Total cost, $427,95.
Fort Moncton, near Port Elgin, N.B.: A field stone cairn bearing a bronze tablet. Total cost, $322.40.
5.	Site-Monument-Cost.
U.E.L. Landing, Shelbourne, N.S., boulder, tablet, $289.05.
U.E.L. Landing, St. John, N.B., boulder, tablet, $453.63.
Fort Charnisay, St. John, N.B., boulder, tablet, $394.20.
Champlain's Habitation, Lower Granville,, N.S., cairn, tablet, $363.21.
First Printing Press, Halifax, N.S., tablet, $186.88.
First Royal Dockyard, Halifax, N.S., tablet, $178.45.
Fort Latour, St. John, N.B., tablet, plate $212.20.
Fort Meductic, near Woodstock, N.B., Cairn, tablet, $437.85.
Battle of the Restigouche, Campbellton, N.B., cairn, tablet, $447.64.
Fort Edward, Windsor, N.S., cairn, tablet, $348.15.
Charlottetown, P.E.I., tablet, $205.75.
Fort Nashwaak, Devon, N.B., cairn, tablet, $412.
Nicolas Denys, Bathurst, N.B., cairn, tablet, $416.99.
Yorkshire Settlement, placed in Fort Beau-sejour Park, N.B. (Fort Cumberland.) cut stone memorial, tablet, $443.28.
Tonge's Island, erected in Fort Beausejour Park, N.B. (Fort Cumberland.) cut stone memorial, tablet, $468.59.
Sir Howard Douglas, Fredericton, N.B., tablet, $202.80.
Joseph Wallet des Barres, Sydney, N.S., tablet, $192.12.
Battle of the Shannon and Chesapeake, Halifax, N.S., cut stone memorial, tablet, $727.59.
6.	The character of the monuments has the approval of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada which includes in its membership two representatives from the maritime provinces.


SUPERANNUATION FUND NO. 5
Mr. CHEVRIER:: 1.	Is an actuarial examination being made of superannuation fund No. 5?
2.	If not, when is it proposed to have such examination commenced?
3.	What is the estimated period of time that would be required by actuaries to examine and report on fund No. 5?
4.	Is the government prepared to furnish data to enable an independent examination of this fund to be made by actuaries engaged by organizations of contributors?

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
5.	Is the government aware that many civil servants have been unable to take full advantage of the provisions of the Superannuation Act of 1924, owing to the imposition of the 4 per cent interest on payments covering noncontributory periods?
6.	In the event of amendments to the act being made, will civil servants be given an opportunity of electing to take all the benefits allowable under the act?


Mr. ROBB:: 1.	No.
2.	As soon as data is available.
3.	No information.
4.	No such request has been received or considered.
5.	No record of the number affected.
6.	This is a matter for consideration having regard to whatever amendments should be proposed.


LIQUOR SEIZURE
Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: 1.	Was a cargo of liquor, purporting to be owned by one Clovis Bujold, seized by the ss. Margaret in the year 1927?
2.	If so (a) at what place, (b) where was the liquor stored?
3.	Has the liquor been released?
4.	If so, why?


Mr. EULER:: 1.	Yes. I
2.	(a) Eight miles off St. Anne des Monts on the Gaspe coast, (b) At Dalhousie, N.B.
3.	No.
4.	Answered by No. 3.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: 1.	How many appointments were made by the Minister of National Revenue (formerly Minister of Customs) to the preventive service, from April 1, 1925, to November 1, 1926, under authority of the exemption from the provisions of the Civil Service Act, as provided in the estimates for the fiscal years 1925-26, 1926-27?
2.	What are the names of those who were subsequently dismissed and what was the reason for dismissal in each case?
3.	How many of those appointed during the said period are still in the employ of the Department of National Revenue?



IMPORTS FROM GREAT BRITAIN

Mr. CAHAN:: <
1.	During the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1927, what percentage of Canada's imports from Great Britain entered Canada under preferential tariff rates?
2.	What was the difference between the amount of customs duties actually paid on Buch imports under preferential rates and the amount which would have been paid on the same goods if they had entered Canada under the general tariff then in force upon similar imports from the United States of America?
56103-150*



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of the complete file as prepared by officers of the Customs department for submission to the royal commission investigating the Customs department under the chairmanship of Judge Brown, and which file has reference to the ss. Frank H., which landed a cargo of smuggled goods at or near Grimsby, Ont.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-LAPOINTE PIER

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of a copy of all correspondence, contracts, engineers' reports, other reports and all other documents relating to the construction of the Lapointe pier in the harbour of Vancouver, together with a copy of the decision of the exchequer court in regard to the expropriation of the land upon which the said pier is located. Also a copy of the decision of the court of appeal in regard to the appeal of the original owners from the decision of the exchequer court; and a copy of all correspondence relating thereto, together with a copy of all the evidence submitted to the exchequer court in the said expropriation proceedings and the argument of counsel, and a copy of all the proceedings, argument of counsel or additional evidence submitted to the court of appeal in connection with the said appeal thereto.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-BALLANTYNE PIER

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of copy of all correspondence relating to the construction and operation of the Ballantyne pier, Vancouver, together with a copy of all advertising for tenders, tenders and contracts awarded for the construction of the said pier, together with a copy of all contracts, correspondence and documents relating to the construction of No. 2 elevator. And a statement showing the cost of operation of the said elevator, its earnings, and the amount of grain passing through the said elevator year by year from time of construction to date.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-ADMINISTRATION

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all reports relating to the port of Vancouver and the administration of the port by the board_ of harbour commissioners of the port of Vancouver made to the Minister of Marine by Mr. A. R. Tibbits during the years 1913 to April 20, 1928, inclusive.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-ENGINEERING

Henry Herbert Stevens: * For a return of copy of all reports, engineering data, plans, specifications and recommendations made by Mr. A. D. Swan, engineer, in regard to the port of Vancouver between the years 1911 and 1928, inclusive.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-ELEVATOR NO. 1

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of copy of all correspondence relating to the construction of No. 1 elevator

Unopposed Motions jor Papers
at the foot of Salisbury drive, Vancouver, B.C., together with a copy of all evidence taken by the board of grain commissioners at the Pacific coast or at Winnipeg or Fort William or elsewhere regarding the advisability or otherwise of the construction of the said elevator, Also a copy of calls for tenders, tenders and contracts awarded in connection with the construction of the said No. 1 elevator, together with all correspondence relating thereto. And a copy of the revenue and expenses of the operation of the said elevator in yearly statements, showing the amount of grain passing through each year, together with all correspondence in connection with the retirement of Colin MaeLean, superintendent of the said elevator in the year 1924.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-CORRESPONDENCE

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all correspondence, letters, telegrams and annual reports passing between the board of harbour commissioners, Vancouver, or any member thereof, and the Minister of Marine and/or the Deputy Minister of Marine or any official of the Department of Marine and Fisheries during the years 1911 to 1928, inclusive.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-INSURANCE ON PROPERTY

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all insurance placed upon property of the Vancouver harbour commission from the year 1913 to the 20th April, 1928, with a statement showing the agent through whom such insurance was placed and the distribution by such agent to sub-agents and insurance companies, and the amount of premium paid on each policy, and the amount of commission accruing to the said agent in relation to the placing of the said insurance.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-ELEVATOR NO. 3

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all correspondence relating to the acquiring, leasing, purchasing, construction and operation of No. 3 elevator formerly known as Woodwards elevator, together with a copy of all calls for tenders, fenders, contracts, engineers' plans, specifications and other data relating thereto, and copies of resolutions of public bodies submitted to the Marine department in connection with the original acquiring of the said elevator. Also a copy of all correspondence relating to the claim of K. A. Blatchford, of Edmonton, and associates in connection with No. 3 elevator or shipping barge associated therewith. And a statement showing the amount paid in settlement of the said claim, and a copy of the legal advice secured by the government as to the merits of the said claim and all other documents relating thereto.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-TERMINAL RAILWAY

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all correspondence relating to the purchase of lands for right-of-way of the terminal railway in the port of Vancouver, together w-ith a copy of all documents, title papers, leases or claims for damage relating thereto, with a statement showing in the ease of each parcel of property acquired the method

by which it was acquired, the amount paid in cash or in bonds, and to whom paid. Also a statement of all commissions paid to agents in acquiring said property.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-PURCHASE OF PROPERTY

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all correspondence relating to the purchase by the board of harbour commissioners of Vancouver of all property for the U3e of the harbour commissioners other than terminal railway property between the years 1913 and to date, together with a copy of all leases, agreements to purchase, deeds or other documents relating thereto.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-HARBOUR FACILITIES

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all correspondence, reports, plans, specifications and other documents presented to the Minister of Marine during the last six months by the board of harbour commissioners, and having relation to the extension and facilities at the port of Vancouver.



PORT OF VANCOUVER-BALLANTYNE PIER

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of correspondence relating to the purchase of all equipment of whatsoever kind installed on Ballantyne pier, together with a copy of all calls for tenders, tenders, contracts and engineers' reports, plans and specifications relating thereto.



AERIAL MAIL SERVICE

Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, tenders, and all other documents regarding the selection and appointment of a commercial aviation company to transport mails, etc., between Montreal and Ottawa.



CIVIL SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

Henry Elvins Spencer: For a return showing the amount of arrears for temporary service paid into superannuation fund No. 5 by the several departments of the government, or branches of the public service functioning under the authority of the parliament of Canada, for the fiscal vears 1925-26, 1926-27, and 1927-28.



RADIO-CKCX STATION AT TORONTO

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest) moved:
For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, and all other documents for and against a license to CKCX radio station at Toronto.
He said: I do not want to put the government to a great deal of trouble. I do not desire all the correspondence; all I wish is the material on which the order for the refusal of the license was acted upon. An order similar to that passed on the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) will do.
Motion agreed to.

Unopposed Motions for Papers

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a copy of the report of the advisory committee appointed by the Minister of Customs in 1926, which committee acted in conjunction with Clarkson, Gordon and Dilworth, and which report was signed by the various members of the said advisory committee.


Hon. W. D. EULER (Minister of National Revenue):: I will merely say that there is
no such report signed by the various members of the committee but there is a report signed by the chairman. If that is what the hon. member desires, I shall be glad to have it brought down.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Thomas Langton Church: For a copy of an order in council and all letters and correspondence and other documents on which the same was based, relating to the cancellation of that portion of the Dumping Act applicable to the fruit and vegetable industries, and copy of all protests, if any, received against such action.


William Daum Euler: This motion asks for the production of an order in council cancelling a portion of the Dumping Act. No such order in council was passed and no portion of the Dumping Act has been cancelled. I think I know what the hon. member wishes to obtain, but the motion should be worded in a different manner.


John Frederick Johnston: It is understood that the correction will be made.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Henry Herbert Stevens: For a return of all correspondence of whatsoever kind passing between Mr. R. H. Gale of Vancouver and the Hon. Dr. King and/or the Minister of Marine or any officer of his department and relating to the purchase or leasing or dealing with the jetty connected with the Spillers elevator and immediately east of the Lapointe pier, together with all agreements, contracts, leases, resolutions of the harbour commission, recommendations or objections from public bodies in Vancouver or private citizens in relation thereto. And also a statement showing in detail the cost of the construction of the said jetty and the quantity of grain passing over the said jetty since its construction to date, and the revenue therefrom year by year. And a statement showing the cost of operation, the carrying charges, interest, sinking fund, insurance and all other charges.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I rise to draw attention
to the nature of the request. The motion reads:
For a return of all correspondence of whatsoever kind passing between Mr. R. H. Gale of Vancouver and the Hon. Dr. King.
I do not think the government can undertake to bring down correspondence of whatsoever kind between a private citizen and a minister of the crown in regard to their affairs.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The motion does not say so. It continues:
And relating to-


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It does.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Pardon me. I do not
wish to appear rude to my right hon. friend but the resolution is clear. It reads:
All correspondence of whatsoever kind passing between Mr. R. H. Gale of Vancouver and the Hon. Dr. King and/or the Minister of Marine or any officer of his department and relating to the purchase or leasing-
And so on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon.
friend ought at least to specify the subject, but I would say that he should in the case of a minister specify the minister by the office which he holds, as the hon. member has done in the case of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries. I do not think it is proper, in asking for returns from parliament, to ask them in the name of individuals.


Henry Herbert Stevens: If I might explain, the
only difficulty in that regard is this, that the department of my hon. friend the minister is the Department of Health and it is not the Department of Health that is affected but the minister representing British Columbia, 'who happens to be in the cabinet, that is affected, and I could not think of any other way to make it clear and limit the matter to the object of the resolution than by inserting the name. I did not do this with any idea of discourtesy. At that time I think my hon. friend was Minister of Public Works That caused the difficulty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The government of course should undertake to bring down any correspondence that is public and I would not for a moment in that regard try to quibble on the question of the form. If that is what my hon. friend wants he can have it, but when a motion refers to correspondence of whatever kind passing between individuals, the line will have to be drawn somewhere.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Unopposed Motions for Papers

Mr. C. H. CAHAN (St. Lawrence-St. George) moved:: 1.	For a copy of the address to His Majesty the King, which was adopted by this house, in or about the month of May, 1919, dealing with the conferring of titles of honour or titular distinctions, decorations or orders, upon His Majesty's subjects domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, in the form in which said address was transmitted to His Majesty;
2.	For copies of all correspondence between the government of Canada and His Majesty's government at Westminster, or any member thereof, relating to the said address;
3.	For a copy of the King's regulations prescribed by or in the name of His Majesty, dealing with or referring to the acceptance by His Majesty's subjects of titles of honour, titular distinctions, decorations or orders, which may be conferred or proposed to be conferred by any foreign government, governmental authority, state, power or potentate;
4.	For a list of persons domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada, who, since May 1, 1919, have been the recipients of any foreign title, titular distinction, decoration or order from any foreign government, govermental authority, state, power or potentate; stating the nature of the title, distinction, decoration, or order so conferred in each case; also stating whether approval of the acceptance of such title, distinction, decoration or order by such recipient was signified by or in the name of His Majesty; and also stating whether and in what cases such approval as aforesaid was refused by or in the name of His Majesty to any such recipient; and also stating specifically the names of those domiciled or ordinarily resident in Canada who, since May, 1919, have accepted any such foreign title, distinction, decoration or order, without approval thereof signified by or in the name of His Majesty.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, in so far as
it is possible to supply my hon. friend with the information for which he has moved, the government will be glad to do so. But I would draw attention to the fact that some persons may have been the recipients of titular distinctions, honours, decorations or orders conferred by foreign governments or authorities or powers without any communication of that knowledge to the government, and it might unfortunately be the case that their names might be omitted from the return. We shall gather together for my hon. friend the names of as many as we are able to obtain, but lest some of those who have received honours should be sensitive in the matter it must be understood that any omission from the return will in no way be intentional on the part of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. GEORGE BLACK (Yukon) moved:: For a copy of the agreement between the Dominion government and the gold commis-

sioner of Yukon territory on behalf of said territory covering old age pensions.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, there is no objection to the resolution carrying, but I might say that the agreement has not as yet been completed. The new commissioner has taken the agreement back to the Yukon for the carrying out of certain procedure incidental thereto. He had not the seal of the Yukon with him, and several things have to be done.


George Black: If the minister will produce the agreement without the seal, we will not quibble about that.


Peter Heenan: That is all right.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GOTT (South Essex):: Following the interjection of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler) in regard to the notice of motion for the production of papers relative to the dumping duty on fruit and vegetables, I would ask him a very definite question. Has the authority given to the Minister of National Revenue to determine the value of fruits and vegetables for the purpose of applying the special or dumping duty been cancelled? By this I do not mean has order in council 1088 been rescinded, but has section 47A of the Customs Act been so amended as to take away this authority from the minister?


William Daum Euler: There has been no amendment to the act whatever. The order in council authorizing the minister to fix values has been cancelled.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I would ask the Prime Minister if he has fixed upon a day for private members' legislation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I intimated last night, but no doubt my hon. friend did not hear me, that the government did intend later on in the session to give additional time for the consideration of private bills.



ALBERTA RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Edward Joseph Garland: I desire to ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. APRIL 25, 1928
Privilege-Mr. Neill
Dunning) whether he has any knowledge of an offer now being made by the Canadian National Railways for the purchase of railways in the province of Alberta.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I know of no recent new developments1 in that connection. My hon. friend is, of course, aware that negotiations have been going on for some considerable time, but I have no knowledge ol any new developments.	[DOT]
OLYMPIC GAMES On the orders of the day:


Mr. W. G. McQUARRIE (New Westminster) :: In reference to the grant made by the government to the Olympic games committee, I would ask if there is any control by the government over the expenditure of that money. In this connection I might say that last fall the finals for the amateur lacrosse championship of Canada were played at New Westminster between the Westons of Toronto and the New Westminster team, and the championship was won by New Westminster. Previous to those games, it was announced by the committee that the winners would be sent to the Olympic games, but now they say, " That is all right; you can go to the Olympic games, but you must pay your own expenses." That does not seem to be fair, and I suggest that if the government is contributing to the expenses, they should see that Canada's national game of lacrosse is properly represented at the Olympic games.


James Alexander Robb: I am not sure whether the question of my hon. friend was intended to advertise the excellent lacrosse team of New Westminster, or to seek information. I shall note his question, however, and give him a reply later.


Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if these various Olympic grants have been an accountable or non-accountable expenditure during the past twelve years, and to whom the money was paid, and whether the accounts will come before the public accounts committee. It seems to me there are too many officials going over there. They are nearly all non-contestants.
PRIVILEGE-MR. NEILL On the orders of the day:


Alan Webster Neill: I
desire to rise to what I think is a question of privilege, and to correct a slight error. At page 2455 of yesterday's Hansard I find it recorded that the right hon. the Prime Minister, speaking in answer to an hon. gentleman opposite, said:
May I remind him that the rules of the house to which he refers are the result of a conference which took place between all parties in this house, including the party of which he himself is a member, and the report which was brought into this house with regard to the new rules was passed unanimously, my hon. friend himself being one of those who concurred in it. So that as far as the rules under which we are working at the moment are concerned, every hon. member of this house was a consenting party to them. The rules were adopted unanimously.
I do not wish it to be recorded that, even inferentially, I was an assenting party to the perpetration on this house of that weird conglomeration of inconsistencies that we now call our rules, and I would refer for corroboration to page 1437 of Hansard of last year. There, at the conclusion of a long debate covering thirty-three pages, during which there were two or three divisions, I read the following:
Hon. Ernest Lapointe (Minister of Justice) moved:
"That the report of the committee of the whole on the rules of the house be now adopted".
Sir George Perley: I second the motion, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Carried.
Mr. Neill: On division.
Mr. Speaker: Carried, on division.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is quite evident that
I was in error in making the statement I did, but I thought at the time I was stating the situation accurately, and that there had been no division. If I made a slip on that occasion, I hope my hon. friend will forgive me.


Alan Webster Neill: I thank the Prime Minister
for reinstating my self-respect.



QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of Bill No. 214, to provide for a loan to the Quebec harbour commissioners.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume that we .shall not discuss the bill on the second reading? There are some amendments we desire to offer, and I assume that that may be done in committee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have not heard a single word which the leader of the

Quebec Harbour Commission
opposition has said. I do not like to ask him to repeat his remarks, but possibly, if they were of sufficient importance, he will have the courtesy to do so. May I ask you to see, Mr. Speaker, that order is preserved in the house?


Hewitt Bostock: Order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was suggesting to the
Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) that there were some amendments we desired to offer to this legislation, and that by going into committee at once, without discussing them at the moment, we would preserve our rights, and he said that was satisfactory.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Section 1 agreed to.
On section 2-$8,500,000 may be loaned to harbour commissioners for terminal facilities.
Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this
bill and two similar bills that deal with the appropriation of public moneys to be expended through a harbour commission, I think it is quite apparent now from what we have heard during the last few days that the case made Iby the Minister of Justice with respect to Quebec harbour has been entirely unanswered. It is quite clear that if we are to treat that port as a national port, and it is the only deep-water national harbour that we have in Canada, this money should be directly voted to Quebec harbour, and be spent under the control and supervision of the government of Canada, and not otherwise. The Minister of Finance instructed the audit board to make a report with respect to the harbour commission at Quebec. That report was made and is now upon the pages of Hansard. Rightly or wrongly, the audit board was of the opinion that the harbour could not hope to earn interest upon this large expenditure, which is to be utilized in the manner indicated by the minister. That is now a matter of record.
Under those circumstances should this country play at financing and take securities that are promises by itself to pay to itself?- for that is all it means. The harbour commission securities are promises to pay by a body created by parliament, and those moneys are to be paid to the people of Canada; but the people of Canada are to find the money and the audit board has reported that the interest will not be earned. So what we are doing is taking promises to pay to ourselves that which we ourselves must pay. Therefore once more I appeal to the minister to make

this a direct appropriation to the harbour of Quebec. The harbour of Quebec has established its right to the money. The auditor's report establishes the fadt that the harbour commission has been expensively administering the affairs of the port, and that it cannot pay the interest. How then can we with any sense of financial consistency pass an act to authorize a body to borrow money which we know it can pay only iby money it gets from ourselves? I submit that the case made out by the Minister of Justice last week abundantly and clearly establishes that this harbour is entitled as of right to the expenditure of these moneys for the purpose of equipping it as the deep water port of this country over a period of seven months each year and perhaps longer.
I cannot possibly bring myself to vote to place in the hands of a commission, without the control df parliament over its operations and expenditures, the large sum of eight million dollars when we know that we ourselves must pay the money and the interest on it; and we will not pay 5 per cent interest, because if we borrow -the money ourselves, or pay it out of borrowed money, we will pay probably 4J per cent. If the minister persists in dealing with public moneys in that way, I can only say that there must be some reason to ibe given for it other than the necessities of the port; for certainly considerations of economy in financial operations and everything that makes for the proper conduct of public business will favour this being done by a direct appropriation of parliament. The harbour of Quebec has just as much right to the expenditure of these moneys as have other ports in various parts of the country to the moneys that are being expended on them. Having established that fact, we know that the harbour commission has been operating at a ratio of expense out df relation to that of any other harbour Commission in Canada; coupling that with the audit board's report that 'the harbour "will not earn interest on the advances, we should deal with this as a direct obligation by the people of Canada, and this year make an appropriation of whatever sum is necessary to discharge the initial obligations in connection with the undertaking. It may be that next year and the year after larger sums may be necessary to complete the work at Wolfe's cove and elsewhere in order to make .the harbour what it should be.
Once more I repeat, In respect of this and other harbours it is quite apparent that there should be a complete survey made by competent authorities to enable us to understand the situation in its entirety. On previous oe-
237}

Quebec Harbour Commission
casions the right hon. Prime Minister has referred to the importance of securing expert advice on our public undertakings, such as the beautification of the capital and the estuarial conditions at Fort Churchill and Port Nelson. Consequently when we come to deal with what so vitally affects the cost of moving grain, providing passenger 'facilities, and all that is involved in these harbour works, we should not lightly proceed without having the best advice obtainable. As we have not dealt with these matters on so large a scale as they have been undertaken by other countries, surely we are warranted in having that expert assistance and advice1 so essential to making this undertaking a success. If the minister is still of 'the opinion that, although he knows the situation is as reported' by the audit board', and persists in making advances to a commission, which amounts to nothing more than a promise tio pay ourselves certain money with interest, then I feel that he must surround his measures with safeguards which are not now provided.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I agree with the opinion
expressed by the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) at the conclusion of his observations, that a survey of our ports should be made. I realize that the time has come when such a survey must be made and certain changes effected in the whole system of our harbour commissions.
As to making a direct advance to the port of Quebec, I would hestitate to ask for such a thing at the present time. It is true that the harbour of Quebec has not been in a position to meet its interest, but, as I explained and as the Minister of Justice and other hon. members who spoke on the matter explained, it is due, to a great extent at all events, to the fact that the port was not properly equipped and capable of giving to the harbour commissioners sufficient revenue to meet their obligations. They have always contended, as we ourselves contend, that when the port is provided with adequate equipment they will be in a position within a few years to pay, if not the whole, at least a part of the interest on the advance that we are making. Suppose we were to start with a direct advance to the ports of Quebec, St. John and Halifax; thereupon I am quite sure that Vancouver and Montreal would feel they were unfairly treated in that they were forced to collect dues sufficient to meet their obligations. In fact it would be unfair to place those ports in such a position, while the ports of Quebec, Halifax and St. John-which will be great ports before very long-were placed in the favourable position of not having to
pay any interest on moneys advanced. Af. present I cannot agree to act on my hon. friend's suggestion.
As to the payment of interest by the port of Quebec, I think it is important to remember that the major part of the eight million dollars which is to-day charged as interest in arrear is on loans that were made to the harbour long ago. In fact I think that the interest accruing on expenditures previous to. 1913, carried to January 1, 1928, amounts to. over six million dollars, while the interest accruing on expenditures since the organization of the commission in 1913 to January 1, 1928, is only three million dollars. By far the larger amount of the advances has been, made since 1913. Up to 1913 the expenditures totalled $5,307,106. On these expenditures we. are claiming from the harbour commission six million dollars interest; that is, we are claiming more in interest than the capital expenditures made up to 1913. These expenditures were made a long time ago to meet the requirements at that time, and I submit that it is not fair to charge to the present organization at Quebec an amount of $6,000,-. 000 of arrears in interest on an advance of $5,000,000 expended up to 1913. The real responsibility of the present harbour commission would be for the expenditures which have, been made since 1913. If we take into consideration the amounts loaned and the expenditures made the arrears and interest will be only $3,280,000. Against that there is, aa we have indicated already, the claim which the harbour commissioners are making against the Department of Immigration for the use of 40 per cent of the present facilities in the port of Quebec, and I think it is only fair that the commission's claim to a substantial; amount should be recognized and entertained by the government. If that claim were entertained it would wipe out the amount the. commission is supposed to owe to the government as arrears in interest.
I think the situation in the port of Quebec-has been to a large extent misunderstood. We have always spoken of that large amount of $8,000,000' of arrears in interest, but we have never taken into consideration the fact that these arrears have accumulated on expenditures amounting to $5,000,000 up to 1913. I repeat that the position of the harbour of Quebec which we should consider is the position as it has existed- since 1913. That is, only fair-
Mr. OAHAN; Why since 1913?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because the harbour com-, mission of Quebec, as it exists at the present time, was so constituted in 1913. The body-

Quebec Harbour Commission
having charge of the harbour of Quebec before 1913 was not similar to the present organization. One might argue very properly, I think, that the expenditures which had been made in the port of Quebec up to 1913 ought to be considered in the same manner as the expenditures made by the Department of Public Works in all other harbours which are not controlled by any harbour commission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: "W hy should not the present expenditures be dealt with in the same way?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I see no objection to considering the present expenditures in the same light, but I contend that it would not be fair to single out two or three of our ports in Canada and allow them to go scot free in respect of interest on advances, while we make other ports which are just as important, from the standpoint of Canada as a whole-Montreal and Vancouver-earn money to reimburse the government for the advances they have received.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But there is no unfairness so long as there is no competition.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Even if there is no competition the situation is the same. You cannot compare Montreal with Vancouver. Vancouver can be compared with Halifax and St. John because it is an open port the year round; and it would have a good claim if it urged that in respect of expenditures which have been made in that port interest should not be paid. My hon. friend, with all his experience, realizes that once we open the door to an exception in reference to any one of these ports it will be a serious matter for the minister. He can readily understand what the life of a minister as well as of the government would be in view of the representations and requests that would come not only from the different harbour commissions but from all commercial and financial institutions; because we must remember that when a vote is before parliament, or when a request is made to the minister or to the government for an advance for St. John, Halifax, Montreal, Quebec or Vancouver, we not only have to deal with the particular harbour commission but we must face the representations and the very strong requests that come from these financial and commercial organizations in the localities affected. Boards of trade are always supporting representations made by commissions everywhere. I do not say that it would be wrong in principle for us to suggest that they should not be bound to pay interest, but it is unfair to single out and make an exception of three ports. I have promised to look into the affairs of these harbour com-[Mr. Cardin.3
missions during the recess and I propose, possibly at the next session, to introduce a new scheme to deal with the various harbour commissions in Canada. Then will be the proper time to place them on an equal footing, giving them the same powers and privileges. But, I submit, we should not impose upon one a handicap which will operate to the benefit of others.
In the circumstances I consider it only fair to the ports, and quite logical on the part of the government, to proceed this year along the same lines we have followed in the past. Of course it will be only a matter of procedure. Suppose we make an advance and have an amount placed in the estimates: so far as the money itself is concerned there will be no difference. Whether the money is advanced through the Department of Public Works or through my department by means of a special vote in the estimates, or whether it is advanced through the medium of particular legislation, there is no difference at all as regards the money. There is a difference in the mode of procedure; that may be true; but, I repeat, there is no difference whatever so far as the advance itself is concerned.
I think I had better take this opportunity of answering a few questions which were put to me by hon. gentlemen when we were dealing with the resolution. My hon. friend from Acadia (Mr. Gardiner) drew my attention to a certain figure I had given in 1925 when we discussed the advance of $5,000,000. He asked me what tonnage had passed through the port of Quebec and I replied, 594,614 tons. I am not sure whether I gave the exact amount, but at any rate I gave the figure 594,000. Possibly I was mistaken; according to the information which has been supplied me since, this represents only the imports. The exports for the year 1924 amounted to 206,285 tons. So far as the last year 1927, is concerned, the figures are not available; they have not yet been compiled. I can however give the figures for 1926. In 1926 the imports amounted to 865,611 tons and the exports 356,239 tons. If you compare the tonnage going through the port of Quebec in 1926 and 1922 respectively, you will find that the traffic has practically doubled. In 1922 the imports amounted to 499,620 tons while the exports only totalled 150,781 tons, and I may add that these figures do not include the lumber and timber exported through the port of Quebec. From year to year these figures show very conclusively that even with the incomplete facilities existing at that port the traffic has been growing very rapidly. As we have been told already, very serious complaints have been made by the people interested in shipping;

Quebec Harbour Commission
even this year representations were made by the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited asking that greater facilities be provided. They requested an interview with the harbour commissioners to discuss the situation, and stated that if nothing could be done, if they could not get more than they have been able to obtain up to the present, they would have to refuse certain cargoes for the port of Quebec. I am informed that at present there are about twenty vessels in that port without accommodation, so that I believe we are absolutely justified in asking for this advance.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it not a
fact that the condition which the minister states now exists at Quebec, where a large number of vessels cannot be accommodated at once, is quite common in all Canadian ports? I have a distinct recollection of a similar situation which existed at Vancouver in spite of the excellent facilities to be found there, so that does not prove anything. Now, to go back to the other point the minister raised a moment ago, I would ask what facilities are lacking to have caused these complaints to come to him- in respect of the small volume of business now going through that port?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I have already indicated
the complaints; some of them have been received from the shipping federation. In 1925 they sent a long memorandum to the Prime Minister asking that the developments for which we are providing be proceeded with, stating that they were absolutely necessary. In addition to that we have had representations from the grain trade.


Edward Joseph Garland: Were not
the complaints of the shipping federation particularly directed to the lack of berthing facilities? On the other hand, the minister has been discussing the lack of facilities for warehousing and taking care of the volume of goods going through that port.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think it would be
profitable to build wharves with no sheds to take care of the cargoes; an ordinary wharf is not of much value without sheds and trackage facilities to handle the goods coming from the ships. To be complete, the port must have not only the proper docks but the sheds, the trackage and the other appliances necessary for the movement of cargoes over the wharves.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the
minister mind giving the committee any facts in his possession with regard to the unnecessary delay of ships through lack of facilities for loading goods?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I cannot give any particular
details in that regard; I must take the advice of those who know something about these things. I cannot discuss it with the shipping federation or the grain people, who are asking for an extension of the present elevator; they are supposed to know more than I do about these things; they are the experts dealing with the matter, and when they make representations to the department or to myself we must accept them. Surely I should not be expected to follow my own views or to adopt that spirit of opposition which may be in the minds of certain people.


Edward Joseph Garland: I would not suggest, that the minister take that attitude, but I do think it would be common sense to accept the principle that in the case of any representations of that kind the minister should acquaint himself with the facts in connection therewith, thus placing himself in a position to supply the very moderate amount of information sought by the committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The representations we
have received appear to be reasonable, in the light of the information given us.


Edward Joseph Garland: Just on that one important point, how many boats, if any, have been delayed while waiting to load goods as a result of the lack of facilities, and for how long have they been delayed?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Does my hon. friend refer to the past, or to the present year?


Edward Joseph Garland: To the
present year.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I repeat that I cannot give any specific details with regard to any particular boat being delayed one day or two days. But I will place on record the letter from the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited to the chairman of the Quebec harbour commission:
Dear Sir:-
It would appear that the berthage situation at Quebec this season is likely to he so acute as to probably result in our having to refuse to accept cargo for Quebec discharge and loading by our new fast freight boats, and as we are extremely loath to do this if the difficulties can be overcome, I would be very glad if you could make it convenient to grant an interview at an early date to Mr. W. M. Kirkpatrick, foreign freight traffic manager, and to the writer, in order that this question may be discussed.
Yours truly,
W. A. Wainwbight, Assistant to the Chairman.
I think I am bound to attach some degree of importance to representations of that character.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister quite properly does so; no one will blame him in the least, but he might also acquaint himself with the particular situation complained of. For example, I would like to ask him now what were the special cases referred to by the Canadian Pacific Steamships Limited? When did they anticipate the difficulties, and for what reason? Surely since the minister has had this interview with them he has acquainted himself with the details of the complaint.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No; they addressed themselves to the chairman of the Quebec harbour commission, who sent me these documents to support the requests of the commission. We desire this money to provide for four additional berths for vessels of the Canadian Pacific express type; two additional berths for large size ocean freight steamers and two berths for canal size steamers. So the money for which 'we are asking is to cover the expenditures necessary to provide for eight new berths which, according to representations made to me by persons who know something about it, are absolutely necessary. All the berths at present completed are occupied; the commission cannot provide any new berths if a company desires to increase its traffic, nor can they meet a situation such as that indicated by Mr. Wainwright. According to the representations made by the shipping companies and by the grain people, eight additional berths are required to place the port in a position to meet the present situation as well as conditions which probably will prevail within a very short time. I can hardly be requested to go into all the expert or technical details in regard to these matters. Suppose the expenditure were made through the Department of Public Works; the Minister of Public Works would have to rely on the reports he would receive from his resident engineers, supervised by the engineer in the department. We have to rely on somebody.


Edward Joseph Garland: Well, it
may be gratifying to the taxpayers of Canada -it is not to me-to know that all that is required for the expenditure of amounts such as these are general statements by some shipping company or railway. The minister is not able to give us any details as to what losses have been sustained by the holding up of cargoes or vessels, but he says in general terms: I have had complaints from the railway and shipping companies, and therefore I am doing this.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I might give my hon.
friend a little of my own experience in the port of Quebec; which is the converging point of traffic on the river, both from the east and the west, as regards the Canada Steamship Lines. I travel extensively over that route every summer. I have seen boats coming up the river and down from Montreal to Quebec delayed an hour or an hour and a half and compelled to stay in the river until the day boat had sailed or until the Saguenay boat to Quebec had landed-all because the accommodation is so limited. Under present conditions it is impossible to provide accommodation for all the boats proceeding to or passing through that port during most of the summer. Some barge from the great lakes loaded with grain will occupy part of the berth ordinarily used by these boats; a boat will be coaling at another wharf, and as a result there is no room for either the ordinary passenger boats or the freight boats to dock. I have made inquiries of officials of the company in regard to the matter, and they have said: "We have been asking for the last five years for proper wharf accommodation, but we cannot get it. We are crowded and cramped; on the one side there is the pilot wharf"-I do not know what they call it- "and on the other side the accommodation is required by some other company. We need about three times the wharfage capacity we have at present, but we cannot get it because there is no room for it." So that I have personally had to experience the discomfort and inconvenience occasioned by this lack of proper accommodation in respect to freight as well as passenger traffic at the port of Quebec.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I endorse every word the leader of the opposition said this afternoon about dealing with these appropriations for Quebec. I think the time has come when it is necessary to inaugurate a policy in respect to these national ports. In respect to all large capital expenditures necessary for the development of these national ports, the appropriations should be made directly from the federal treasury and the expenditures made under the direction of or through a commission, but subject every year to review by this house. It is opportune at this time to consider a new policy, because my personal opinion is that in respect of the ports of St. John and Halifax, which are also national in their Character, the government, by making advances which are to be repaid by means of sinking funds, is placing upon them financial burdens which will actually in practice strangle their import and export trade. If we are to

Quebec Harbour Commission
develop a national policy of transportation we should make ingress and egress for passengers and freight at our Atlantic and Pacific ports, which come in competition with the ports of the United States on the eastern and western coasts, as inexpensive as possible. So far as we are dealing, therefore, with a national policy, we should consider the fact that the extension of these ports involves an expenditure wthieh is a burden for all of Canada. The government have recognized that principle in respect of ports on the Hudson bay. They must recognize it in respect of such a port as Quebec. We all know there is absolutely no possibility of taxing the trade of the port of Quebec sufficiently to repay to the government the capital expenditures by way of sinking fund while at the same time the port is paying annually the interest upon the debentures issued therefor. Hailbour commissions should be bodies authorized, under the supervision of the department, to supervise and manage the business of the port. A commission of business men could do much to bring to the ports of Quebec, St. John, or Halifax a larger measure of business than they now have. And the business of the port should be taxed to the extent necessary, and only to that extent, to carry on the operations of the port, and provide for the maintenance of such permanent harbour works as are constructed by direct appropriations from the treasury of Canada.
I do not wish to digress, but I think this is an appropriate occasion to lay emphasis on the importance of a change in respeict to harbour administration, a matter to which the leader of the opposition made some reference. The government are adopting a vicious policy in respect to the ports of St. John and Halifax. I do not pretend to know so much about the port of St. John, but I do look writh the greatest apprehension upon the application of that policy to the port of Halifax, which has been and I hope will contiue to be more in the future than in the past one of Canada's national ports. If the business of that port can be conducted so as to pay the operating expenses of the commission and a certain reasonable expenditure for maintenance from year to year, that is all that should be expected of that port. Otherwise the tax which you place upon the export and import trade will be so great as to make it impossible for Halifax or impracticable for St. John to compete with Boston, Portland, or New York. We must make them national ports; we must make them cheap ports for vessels to enter and clear, and we must conduct the business of those ports in as economical a manner as possible consistent with their efficient operation and sure development. Therefore I endorse most sincerely and heartily the suggestions made by the leader of the opposition. If we are to have national ports maintained in this country, the government must adopt that policy.
With respect to being unfair to other ports, the only two other ports to which such a policy might be deemed unfair, are the ports of Vancouver and Montreal. First, as regards Vancouver, I was sent some years ago by a large banking institution to make an investigation of the trade of the Pacific coast and I spent a considerable time upon that work. I came back with the profound conviction that, so far as Canada is concerned, a great volume of our trade, a volume that in a few years will, I believe, exceed the volume of our Atlantic trade, will certainly be going through the port of Vancouver. Vancouver may be doing very well at the present time and with the limited appropriations which have been made for the extension of that port it may offer a fair prospect of paying from year to year the interest on the capital expenditures which have so far been made. But if you are to make the port of Vancouver and the port of Prince Rupert further north, great national ports, this country must be prepared to make annually appropriations from the public treasury for the large capital expenditures which are necessary for their development, without looking for any return of interest thereon to the federal treasury. It will be quite sufficient if you leave to the commission of each port the exacting of the lessened port taxation to defray the ordinary expenses of operation and the expenses of maintaining in good repair the structures which have been built by direct appropriations from the treasury.
In regard to the port of Montreal I am not at the present time going into the larger aspect of the matter, namely, the development of the port in connection with the possible development of the St. Lawrence river. But the United States ports on the great lakes are the competitors of Montreal; the Hudson river will, I am sure, in the near future also become a competitor for Montreal's export trade, and if we are to develop Montreal's export trade in competition with United States ports, certainly large expenditures which are made in the port of Montreal must be made in the national interest, and justified from the point of view of the national interest, and this countiy must expect no return to its treasury of those principal sums appropriated but must be satisfied with a revenue from that port which will maintain its struc-

Quebec Harbour Commission
tures in good and efficient repair and ensure the operations of the port at such a low cost as will enable it to obtain and keep its business in competition with all rival ports lying to the south of the United States boundary. Therefore I think now is the opportune time, as the leader of the opposition has suggested, to inaugurate a new policy before you place upon the ports of St. John and Halifax a burden which cannot be borne by any prospective trade of those ports and which must prevent them from being developed as they should be in the national interest of the whole country.


Milton Neil Campbell: On Wednesday last the minister quoted a letter which the harbour commissioners of Quebec had received from the central selling agency of the wheat pool. In case there might be any misunderstanding about that, I should like to read a telegram which I have just received from the man in charge of the central board representing the wheat pool. The telegram reads:
Smith's letter personal reply to General Tremblay. Quebec harbour improvements never discussed by provincial or central boards. Speaking personally believe pools in sympathy with general policy of harbour improvements that will increase shipments of Canadian grain through Canadian ports but naturally not in position to make definite recommendations to government.
(Signed) Geo. McIvor.


Robert Gardiner: According to the statement of the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a few minutes ago, exports and imports of freight through the port of Quebec in 1924 amounted to approximately 800.899 tons and in the year 1926 this had increased to 1,221,850 tons, or an increase of practically 50 per cent in two years. That is quite an increase in tonnage in a port the size of Quebec. Has the' minister any information as to the revenues in 1924 representing the tonnage of that year and also the revenues in 1926 representing the tonnage of that year?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: According to the figures I have, the revenues of the harbour for 1924 were $568,727.77 and in 1926, $678,882.06.


Robert Gardiner: That is an increase of about $110,000 for an increase of tonnage of 50 per cent. Can the minister explain why the revenues in 1926 have not increased in proportion to the increase in tonnage?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I must confess that I cannot give the details.


Robert Gardiner: I take it that those are the gross revenues?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.
TMr. Cahan.]


Robert Gardiner: I should like to bring up again the question of the facilities handed over to' the commission in 1913 and also the liabilities with which the commission was charged. This afternoon the minister informed the committee that the facilities turned over to the commission in 1913 cost this country $5,307,106. He also stated at the same time that the interest charges on those facilities prior to the time that they were handed over to the commission amounted to approximately $6,000,000. Is that the exact statement the minister wished to convey to the committee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: It is apparent to me that the Quebec harbour with this tremendous interest charge on the initial cost of the facilities has not had a fair show. I will admit that, and it seems to me that some remedy is required in that direction. I would like to see the government clear this situation up before we proceed much further with this bill, because if the commission remains with the same liabilities, in the event of it requiring a further appropriation as time goes on for the extension of the harbour facilities, the present situation will be only accentuated, and we shall be in no better position then to remedy that situation than we are to-day. So I would impress upon the minister the necessity of cleaning this matter up before we go much further. I am sure the committee would view such action on the part of the minister with sympathy, in order that we might give the commission the opportunity of starting from a sound basis; and once put on an efficient basis, if they are not successful, we shall know where to lay the blame. But as it is at the present time, we can hardly charge the harbour commission with any incompetency in view of the figures placed before the committee by the minister.
There is another point that I would bring to the attention of the committee, and which was discussed last week, and that is the question of the claims of the Quebec harbour commission against the various departments. I do not know whether the government have had the oportunity of going into this matter since the bill was last before the house, but I would ask the minister if he has had that opportunity. It appears to me that this matter also should be settled before we go any further. I do not like this method of delaying important decisions. Important questions like this should be decided at the earliest possible opportunity, so that the harbour board will be given a reasonable opportunity of showing what it can do. I

Quebec Harbour Commission
would ask the minister if there is any possibility of these matters being settled in a reasonable and amicable way that will be fair to the country and to the harbour board at the same time.
I would also like to support the statement of the leader of the opposition with regard to different treatment of our various harbours. I think the time has come when we shall have to make them national in scope. We are competing with the country to the south of us, which is much richer than we are, and if we are to maintain Canadian trade in Canadian channels, I can see the necessity for a policy different from that pursued in the past in regard to these harbours.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the minister answers, in order to save time, may I say that there are three matters at least on which we are agreed. One is that Quebec should be treated as a national port. The second is that improvements are urgently required. The third is that we are to vote the money to make those improvements. We differ as to whether this should be done directly by the administration or through the commission, and the reason why I urged the minister to reconsider the matter was not because of anything that was in my mind on the day the discussion opened, but because the report of the audit board, laid upon the table of the house by the government itself before the discussion commenced, contained three paragraphs reading as follows:
Examination of the published reports clearly shows the expenses to have increased steadily and out of proportion to the earnings during the three years; this fact is set out in the following percentages:
1924	1925	1926per cent per cent per cent Gross earnings.. .. 100	100	100Gross expenses. .. 69.83	85.25	87.68
The accounts examined by us provided no explanation for these variations, due largely to the suspension some years ago of cost accounts.
The figures submitted above clearly demonstrate that, even allowing for a reasonable increase in traffic at the port of Quebec, the gross earnings will not be sufficient in any year to pay the operating expenses and interest on government loans; and as no provision has been made for depreciation, it may be forecasted that the annual cost of repairs and renewals will increase considerably in the future.
Then this is the final paragraph:
It will be noticed that the annual deficit for three years, excluding claims against departments of the government and interest thereon- neither of which have been paid by any of the departments-but including interest on government allowances, averaged $600,000.
That is the report of the audit board, and it is because of that report, which is not the report of this house, but the report of the
official body appointed by statute to consider these matters, that we now make to the government, through the minister, the suggestion -we have made it as strongly as we can, and I am content to leave it at that-that in the light of those facts he should not treat this matter other than as a direct appropriation of moneys for the purpose intended under the supervision and control of the government, and with an audit of the accounts. In order to save time, I am suggesting to the minister that we should add these sections to the bill, if he still persists in putting the bill through as it stands. These are the four sections that we added to the Federal District Commission Act last year, and in adopting them I suggested to the Prime Minister then, and I still think, that he was pursuing the proper course:
15.	The commission shall send to the minister on or before the first day of September in each year a detailed statement of all its receipts and expenditures up to the last day of March in such year; and copies of such statements shall be laid before parliament by the minister within the first fourteen days of the next following session thereof.
16.	The commission shall on or before the first day of December in each year make to the minister an annual report for the information of parliament, setting forth a description of the nature and extent of the works and undertakings of the commission for the year ended on the thirty-first day of March in that year, and such other matters as appear to it to be of public interest in relation to the said commission. Copies of such annual reports shall be laid before parliament by the minister within the first fourteen days of the next following session thereof.
The section mentions December; that date could be changed. Then section 17 reads:
17.	The commission shall, whenever required by the minister, render detailed accounts of its receipts and expenditures for such period or to such day as he designates; and all books of account, records, bank books and papers of the commission shall at all times be open to the inspection of the minister or of such person as the minister names to inspect them.
That is not necessary with respect to the harbour commission, having regard to the provisions of the audit board, but it is very desirable as giving the minister power that is not in terms given in the Audit Act itself. The minister in the statute I am reading from is the Minister of Finance. The minister in the case to which I am directing attention might be either the Minister of Marine and Fisheries or the Minister of Finance. Then section 18 reads:
18.	All expenditures by the commission shall be subject to the audit of the Auditor General in the same manner as other public moneys.
I made the suggestion to the Prime Minister last evening, and I gathered from what

Quebec Harbour Commission
he said that he thought the suggestion was Wholly in the public interest, that the expenditures by the commission should be subject to investigation from year to year by the public accounts committee, the same as other public accounts certified by the Auditor General. I was dealing last evening with the federal district commission, and if the minister is determined to pursue the course that is now indicated with respect to the bill before us, I desire to make the same suggestion with respect to this bill.


Mr. CANNON:: From what act was my
hon. friend quoting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: From the Federal District Commission Act, 1927.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Under the law the Minister of Finance has the power to send the audit board to make an audit of the accounts of any of these harbour commissions. As I Understand the contention of the leader of the opposition and some of his followers, it is that the report of the audit board is not necessarily brought before the public accounts committee. I think last night the right hon. Prime Minister agreed in regard to the federal district commission to refer its reports to the public accounts committee if so required by any hon. member.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will assist the minister if I may do so without disturbing the sequence of his remarks. The statute that we passed last session incorporating the federal district commission provided for the audit of the accounts of the commission by the Auditor General and their being laid before parliament. I suggested to the right hon. Prime Minister that there was some little doubt as to whether those accounts would be treated in the same way as the public accounts certified by the Auditor General, and that we might remove any doubts. He was good enough to say that in his opinion the act as it now stood was ample to enable that to be accomplished, if I followed him correctly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Correct.


Lucien Cannon: Does my hon. friend refer to sections 16, 17, 18 and 19 of the Federal District Commission Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think those are the
sections I read.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not see any great
objection, Mr. Chairman, to the incorporation of those sections in this bill, but I do not think it is necessary. This bill provides that the harbour commissioners must make monthly reports to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries and supply the department with all the information that may be required from them. At present the audit board has the necessary authority to audit the accounts, and their report has been placed on Hansard. Apparently the only difficulty that may arise and cause apprehension to the leader of the opposition is that the report of the audit board is not of itself submitted to the public accounts committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What we want is a
report of the harbour operations Iby the harbour board. We do not want it to be left to the minister to say that the audit board shall do something; we want it provided for as in the case of the federal district commission, and there the Prime Minister agreed with us that it was in the public interest. The reports of the federal district commission are certified by the Auditor General. The audit board may never report. The minister asked them to in this instance and laid their report on the table, as he was bound to do. That is how we know the condition of affairs in Quebec harbour.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Every year our harbour
commissions are issuing reports of their operations, and those reports are made to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Those reports are public
documents. I am not sure whether they are laid on the table of the house every year, but they could be, and I see no objection to their being referred to the public accounts committee. Instead of complicating the bill by adding new sections which may conflict with other sections, I may tell my hon. friend that I am prepared to make a declaration that the report of the Quebec harbour commission shall be tabled and referred, if required, to the public accounts committee. I would remind the hon. leader of the opposition that probably we are dealing with this in a temporary manner, because I propose to do something to correct the evils which are said to exist in these harbour commissions. The recommendation in the audit board's report is worthy of consideration:
The scope of this investigation has not permitted us to formulate any practical suggestion for the improvement of the financial control over the affairs at this port, but we would suggest that the question of consolidating the management of all the contiguous ports should receive your consideration.
This is the suggestion made by the audit board. I am not prepared to say that I will carry it out in its entirety, but I frankly admit that we have to do something. At the pre-

Quebec Harbour Commission
sent time, however, we are not in a position to deal with the problem because we have not been able to give it sufficient thought. I am asking parliament to treat the Quebec, St. John and Halifax harbour commissions in the same way as the other harbours have been treated up to the present time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: None of them is in the
same position, because in this case we have the audit board's report.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I appreciate that point,
but I am giving this undertaking, that in a very short time I shall look over all these harbours, secure expert advipe, and bring before parliament legislation which will cover the objections that have been made while this bill has been before the committee. I have no time, as was suggested by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner), to look into the accounts of the commission extending over a number of years and make a settlement right away. I need time to ascertain what charges would be reasonable. I admit that up to the present time they have not been very seriously considered by the department, so we are not in a position to consider how much of the claim would be entertained. I think the government should be empowered to advance the money to the Quebec harbour commission, with the understanding that the commission must observe the law and make to the Minister of Marine and Fisheries a detailed report, which will be tabled and refered to the public accounts committee whenever required. The same remarks apply to any reports of the audit board which may be called for by the Minister of Finance; every such report will be tabled and, when required, referred to the public accounts committee.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Are you prepared to make
such audit annually?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Now the making of the
report is optional.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: No, the act incorporating
the commission requires them to make their report annually to the minister.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: But my hon. friend will
admit that the report which the harbour commissioners make to the minister is not a detailed accounting of their expenses.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I beg my hon. friend's
pardon. This is a very complete report covering all the operations in the harbour and giving all the details that we have, for example, in the annual report of the Canadian National Railways.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: The report that I have seen from the Montreal harbour commission is printed in a book. True, possibly, it gives as much information as that contained in the report of the Canadian National Railways, but it is simply a balance sheet. That does not meet the complaint made this session and every session since I have been in the house. There should be nothing private or secret or confidential with regard to expenditures made by the Quebec harbour commission, especially expenditures of moneys which are advanced on the credit of the Dominion. And the report which they make to the minister, and which should be laid before this house, should be as complete a report as those of other departments which are audited by the Auditor General and submitted to the public accounts committee and made subject to inquiry from year to year so far as necessary.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I believe the reports which are made by the harbour commissions are meeting absolutely the requiremlents indicated by my hon. friend. They give the details of all their operations and report upon all expenditures. I am sure these reports are quite complete and there is nothing secret about them-absolutely nothing. Everything is indicated in them. I have in my hand the report of the Quebec harbour commission for the year 1926, showing the financial condition, the trade passing through the port, expenditures, operations and certificate of audit. Everything is included in the report.
I cannot see, therefore, any objection to tabling the report and having it submitted to a committee of the house for the securing of further details on the items indicated.
I see no objection to this, and I am sure the commissioners would not either.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That would meet the objection in part.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The conditions in connection with this harbour are exceptional. The board have an unfortunate report in that they have been unable to pay interest. They are now asking for a large sum of money-eight and a half millions- and, as I understand it, their expenditures are not audited by the Auditor General of Canada unless there is a special request from the minister to have this done.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Not even then.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is stated in
the report, if I remember rightly, that there is an absence of cost records of operations in that harbour. The minister says he is anxious to effect some improvement. Why not begin right now in this bill and provide

23S0

Quebec Harbour Commission
that these expenditures shall be subject to the Auditor General, and have inserted the clauses which have been suggested by the leader of the opposition? That would not prevent the voting of this money, nor would it prevent the expenditure of it; but it would surround it with safeguards which I think we are entitled to urge in view of the unfortunate record with regard to the repayment of money, and in consideration of the very large sum now asked.
On section 3-Interest on debentures during construction to be charged to capital account.


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to the
additional clauses suggested, which appear in the Ottawa bill, do I understand the minister to say that he does not desire to insert these sections in this bill? It is not very difficult for him to maintain his position. He has a majority behind him who can say that they shall not be inserted in the bill, but I ask him whether he does not think it desirable in the public interest that they should be enacted. I should like to have his views in the matter.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The observation I made
in this regard was to the effect that everything which is covered by the clauses to which my hon. friend refers already exists.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes. In the law incorporating the harbour commission these provisions exist, and they appear even in the present bill. This bill provides that a monthly report shall be made by the commission to the minister, and that the commission shall submit any other report which may be required by the minister at any other time in relation to their affairs. The law constituting the harbour commission stipulates that the commissioners shall make a report annually to the minister. This provision exists in the legislation. The only provision that does not exist is that the report shall be submitted to the public accounts committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No-submitted to the house.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes; they are not submitted to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the point.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I am ready to undertake that these reports which the commissioners make me shall be tabled, and I will undertake also, at any request, to have them referred to a committee of the house. I agree to that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Are these accounts subject to audit by the Auditor General?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: They are subject to audit by the audit board, which was the body especially created to go over certain branches of the administration not conducted in the same manner as are the departments. When the audit board was created it was given the power to go over the accounts of the Canadian Nationals Railways, of the harbour commissions, of the then Ottawa improvement commission and of . all other organizations through which we spend public money or through which we administer public affairs. These bodies were not covered by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, but in order to have the affairs of these commissions audited the audit board was organized. That board, the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) says, has the right to act at the discretion of the Minister of Finance. That is quite right. But if any member should ask the Minister of Finance to have the audit board investigate the Quebec or the Montreal harbour commission, no one would imagine any objection coming from that minister; he would agree to such an investigation. As a matter of fact, the audit board has audited the affairs of practically all the harbours in Canada. It has audited the affairs of the harbour of Vancouver and of Montreal, and the Montreal audit was tabled two years ago. This year it has audited the affairs of the port of Quebec and that report also has been tabled. What remains to be done is to provide some facilities for investigation by a committee, as in the case of any other branch of public administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The difficulty is this:
The audit board's report itself states in terms that the board was not asked to make a report on methods of improving management and administration. Perhaps the minister remembers what he read just a moment ago. In one instance the executive power has control while in the other instance the control is with this house. And there is a great distinction between the executive and this house, because the minority in the house are able to do something when the matter is with the house, whereas, when it is with the executive, they have no such power.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: On the other hand, my hon. friend knows that the Auditor General audits all expenses after they have been incurred, in accordance with the direction of the audit board. A continuous or a post audit may be ordered: that was the reason for the creation of the board.

Quebec Harbour Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) has touched the point we are endeavouring to make, that the accounts are not audited by the Auditor General; and the audit board can function, so far as these accounts are concerned, only at the instance of the Minister of Finance. The Minister of Finance asks them in terms to do only what he wants done, and they themselves have reported here that, owing to the fact that the reference to them was not broad enough, they are not able to report on improved methods of administration or management, for want of which, they say, this condition has been brought about.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not think my hon.
friend is quite correct; that is not exactly the position taken by the audit board.


Richard Bedford Bennett: See the terms of their statement.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: " The scope o'f this investigation has not permitted us to formulate-"


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Because they are venturing on a new program; tlhey are suggesting a complete change in the management of the affairs of the port. They are not speaking about any limitation in the scope of their investigation as regards ascertaining the real financial situation. They say, " We hesitate-"


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not say that.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: The scope of this investigation has not permitted us to formulate any practical suggestion for the improvement of the financial control over the affairs at this port, but we would suggest that the question of consolidating the management of all contiguous ports receive your consideration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I take it that means Chicoutimi; that is the contiguous port.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not know why my hon. friend should particularly refer to the port of Chicoutimi, for which we voted the sum of $500,000 last year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister lay on the tabl^the papers with respect to that port?
Mr. MftRDIN: I will have no objection at all, beMuse I am afraid that before very long-I give my hon. friend warning-we will have to come to parliament and ask for a larger grant to the port of Chicoutimi. I think the circumstances and conditions will absolutely justify the request which we will make. Under the circumstances, I think I have gone far in promising what I have promised, and I -think this bill should be allowed
to go through without complicating it with new sections as suggested by my hon-. friend.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Do I understand that the minister will be quite satisfied to have the accounts of the various boards come before the public accounts -committee?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Certainly, or before any other committee the house may appoint.


George Reginald Geary: I would ask the minister to supplement some information which he gave us a short -time ago. The money now requested will construct eight new berths, as he has indicated. How many will have been constructed with the sum of $5,000,000 voted by this house in 1925, and what will be the total number of berths when the two plans are completed.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: When the commission came to the government in 1925 they presented a program for -the construction of eight berths, but at that time we represented that the amount was rather too large for that year, and suggested that they reduce -it to $5,000,000. That only represented half the total, so in 1925 they had a $10,000,000 scheme in hand. They had prepared all their data on that basis, and they said that with $5,000,000 they could only execute half the work they contemplated when the whole program was prepared, So the $5,000,000 voted -in 1925 and the $5,000,000 included in this present vote is to complete th-e program which they prepared with expert advice in 1925, and this whole program will provide the eight berths which I mentioned a moment ago.


George Reginald Geary: Then will the minister tell me this: Would the money voted in 1925 provide for -the construction of four complete berths from the bottom up, or would it not?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It would, and it wiE.


George Reginald Geary: And that is what has been begun?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


George Reginald Geary: Then the work was divided laterally in half?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes, it is practically half.


George Reginald Geary: These are four new berths as distinct from the four which weTe begun under the vote of 1925?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This provides for the completion of the program of 1925.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the undertaking of -the -minister meets the situation, although there is no reason why he should not add to the statute the sections which were proposed. However, in view of the fact that he will

Federal District Commission
investigate the whole situation during the recess, and in view of his undertaking to lay these accounts upon the table of the house to be dealt with in the manner indicated, so far as I am concerned, and speaking for those associated with me, I regard that as satisfactory and thank him for his undertaking.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 4 to 7 inclusive agreed to.
Bill reported.

[Stage Direction]
IMPROVEMENT AND BEAUTIFICATION OF v	OTTAWA
The house resumed, from April 24, consideration in committee of Bill No. 218, to amend the Federal District Commission Act, 1927- Mr. Mackenzie King-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I promised that I would verify a certain statement which I made to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Stewart) with respect to the price per square foot of the land expropriated between the post office and Elgin street. I find that the statement as I gave it to him was correct. The price I quoted was the price offered by the Public Works department. This was regarded by the owners of the properties as too low, and the adjustment of the amount is before the court at the present time. The actual price has not yet been fixed.
Then in conversation with my hon. friend opposite (Mr. Bennett) I indicated that if it were agreeable to him I would change from thirty years to sixteen years, as it was in the act passed last session, the period for which the $200,000 per annum is to be paid to the commission for purposes of maintenance and small improvements. I think my hon. friend will agree that this is a reasonable change when I mention to him this fact, namely, that possibly the commission may have acted already upon the assumption that the $250,000 which we voted last year was to be paid for a period of sixteen years. Now we are cutting it down to $200,000, and I hope my hon. friend will agree that we are doing the right and safe thing in limiting the period to sixteen years.


James Dew Chaplin: Surely in one year they
have not made any commitments so far ahead.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They were
planning a program which would take sixteen years to complete, when the amendment was put through last year.


James Dew Chaplin: That period covers the
probable life of about three parliaments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would move that the word "thirty" in line eighteen of section 2, subsection 8, be struck out, and that the word "sixteen" be substituted therefor.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Under the previous act the
sixteen years ran from April 1, 1927, so if we are to confine it to the same period, under the amending act it would be for fifteen years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend thinks it material to make the period fifteen rather than sixteen years, and if that will h<fip to harmonize the views of all, I will not be captious about it, but sixteen years is a short time.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Perhaps it would not make
very much difference, but the objection I have heard stated is that this parliament should not attempt to bind parliaments too far ahead; that this whole matter of the improvement of the federal district must come up from time to time, at least once in each new parliament, and that each new parliament must decide for itself as to the future. It is not wise, therefore, to fix by statute these annual appropriations for too many years ahead, and to reduce the term one-half might to that slight extent meet the pressing criticism in respect of this measure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The action of the Prime Minister in respect to this matter is certainly not what we might call a provocative one, but I cannot bring myself to believe that we should go beyond the life of any one parliament. I should like to be able to do so, but there comes a time when you must dissent from a suggestion not because of any political difference but because a fair principle is involved. The question of the responsibility of parliament to the country in respect to the matter is one thing, but to bind the hands of future parliaments in connection with improvements, as I regard it, is a serious matter, and reluctantly I think we shall have to stand by the position we have taken and ask the committee to say whether or not five years is a sufficient period within which^to let a commission created by this parliain*^; know that they may rely upon a given*um of money per annum. That is as far I can go with my hon. friend.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
the hon. leader of the opposition that I agree with him about not binding parliament for.a period of any undue length. I believe it is wise in these matters, as has been suggested, to arrange that the proceedings of any of the

Federal District Commission
bodies which are spending public moneys should come before parliament periodically for review, especially before every new parliament. If I felt that in consequence of what we are now doing, the proceedings of the commission in any way would not be subject to review, I would not for a moment suggest that the period be changed from thirty to sixteeen years. I would point out to my hon. friend, however, that to urge that the period stand at sixteen, or at fifteen years, if that will meet the situation, is one thing, but that to reduce it to five years is to undo what parliament did last session in permitting the appropriation to be made for sixteen yearn; I think that is rather different from making the appropriation now for the first time. I would ask the committee, seeing that what I propose is to reduce from $250,000 to $200,000, the amount which last year was voted for sixteen years, to accept my suggestion that "thirty years," as in the bill before the committee, be changed to "sixteen years."


Edward Joseph Garland: The Prime Minister means that the maturity of the bonds would be after a period of sixteen years, and the amount would be the same?
Mr. MACKENZIE KING; No, I do not think any bonds will be issued for this purpose. Practically all this money will go for maintaining the improvements which have been made already, and the making of some slight further improvements and alterations. There is no doubt that as long as this commission continues to operate this amount of money will be asked for every vear.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then this has nothing to do with the bill?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, it is the part of the bill which relates to the annual appropriation.


James Dew Chaplin: It does not deal with the specific amount to be contributed from the consolidated revenue or the $6,000,000 of bonds.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: TheTe is no mention of $6,000,000, as far as I am aware. The part which referred to the bonds was dealt with by the committee yesterday. I have intimated that the Minister of Finance intends to meet at least, half that amount out of the consolidated revenue fund, possibly the whole of it, and not to issue bonds at all.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I might have the attention also of the leader of the opposition for a moment, it seems to me that the suggestion made by the Prime Minister is not unfair. This parliament has already committed itself
to a larger amount annually. In dealing now with section 2 of this bill the Prime Minister has agreed that he will not increase the term beyond that fixed by parliament last session, but he reduces the annual appropriation by $50,000 a year. In view of the decision of parliament at its last session, and of this permissive period is now reduced to fifteen years so as to adhere to the same term as before, I think it might be fairly considered by the house as a reasonable compromise.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not a compromise at all.


James Dew Chaplin: We made a certain arrangement under the act of last year, and now we are now making a cash appropriation of some $3,000,000, which takes up some of the commitments previously made. If we can alter last year's bill to that extent, we can surely alter this one. Do we have to admit that if we made an error last year we have to continue it? This parliament has no right, in my opinion, to go beyond its own lifetime in making commitments; each parliament, if it is worth anything at all, has the right to deal with the expenditures made during its existence. That is the objection I have to that particular clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I move in amendment to the amendment that the period be five years. I did not say five years without mature consideration. All I can say to the hon. member for St. Lawren'ce-St. George is that the fact that we did it last year is no reason why we should not undo it now. This is the first opportunity we have had of undoing it; therefore I desire to offer this amendment.


William Irvine: I think the bill as it now stands would be improved by the amendment suggested by the hon. the leader of the opposition. But I am not so much interested in the actual number of years fixed as I am in what the hon. the Prime Minister suggested in his last remark. The bonds for the $3,000,000 were dealt with, I believe, by the committee last night. As I did not happen to be in the house at that moment I should like to make a remark on that point now and perhaps move an amendment on the third reading. I should like the assurance of the Prime Minister that no bonds will be issued in this connection. If he will look at the situation for a moment he will discover that if the bonds are issued it will mean that the people themselves give their own securities to be handled by bond dealers, and the people themselves will have to pay. I notice in another clause that they guarantee the interest on bonds issued on their own security, which is absurd. I know of no better example of
23S4	COMMONS
Federal District Commission
the effects of our present financial system than the one we have right here. It will mean that they will pay over thirty years one and a half times the actual amount expended during the life of the bonds. I should be glad if the Prime Minister would assure the committee that the financing in this case will not be done in that way. If we cannot afford to finance it directly or immediately out of the consolidated revenue fund I suggest that the government issue its own bonds, non-interest bearing; that is that they use the Finance Act in exalctly the way the banks use it, namely by the issue of notes on the strength of their own bonds, financing this directly and then taking back so much per annum over a period of as many years as the Prime Minister desires. In that case fifty years would be better than sixteen.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In connection
with the capital expenditure, as I explained on the second reading of the bill, this is primarily for the purpose of the construction of a confederation park, something commemorative of the diamond jubilee of confederation and a sort of recognition by the present generation of the work of the fathers of confederation. I should not like to have a purpose of that kind frustrated by disagreement amongst the members of the house if I can bring about unanimity. I am prepared to say to my hon. friend, after conference with the Minister of Finance, that he is quite prepared, so far as the capital expenditure is required to be provided for in this bill, to have it advanced out of the consolidated revenue fund. I intimated yesterday that that was the intention with regard to any immediate outlays, and it might be and in all probability would be what the Minister of Finance would do eventually. I still have the feeling that where a great public improvement is to be enjoyed in future years by those who come after us they might well share in meeting the cost of it, and it was for that purpose alone that a longer period of time was suggested. But I would say to my hon. friend and to the committee, with respect to the capital expenditure, that all moneys paid to the commission will be taken out of the consolidated revenue fund.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have
given this whole question some considerable thought over a period of two years. I should like to see Ottawa beautified; I should like to think we are now in the position to undertake that beautification; but in the course of my examination of my viewpoint in the matter, I find it difficult to come to the

conclusion that we are yet in a position where we may be able to afford the expenditure. I frankly do not think we are in a position to-day to do so. Had the Minister of Finance not been so gracious to the millionaires of Canada in his reductions in the income tax, there would have been a great deal stronger ground for the position now taken by the Prime Minister. I am going to find it very difficult to explain to my people and to the people throughout the country whom it is stated I represent, why I supported the expenditure of millions of money for the beautification of Ottawa while there are still thousands of people who in many cases are unable to maintain for themselves what is the ordinary standard of living in Canada. How am I to justify voting millions for beautifying Ottawa-and in the final analysis it is for vainglorious purposes; it is the beautifying of something for the satisfaction of our vanity-in the face of 8 per cent money for the farmers, and a wretched $20 a month pension for the aged and infirm who have toiled all their lives in an effort to build up the country? How am I to justify such a vote in the face of the fact that men are being jailed because they are unemployed? How am I to justify it in the face of the attitude of the government towards the Home Bank depositors, when all they hand the depositors is merely regrets? If I go to the fishermen of the maritime provinces and tell themj that I voted millions to beautify Ottawa, how can I justify my vote -when all they get is a royal commission to examine into their wretched condition? No other member can appreciate things of beauty more than I can or is more desirous of satisfying his desires for beauty and charm of surroundings. If I could bring down to Ottawa the tens of thousands of people scattered throughout this country who, because of social and commercial conditions that exist, are condemned to drab, drear lives of great toil and struggle with no hope of rising above a certain level of living and a certain environment; if I could take them down here for a holiday to enjoy this beautiful city and these things with which we propose to increase its beauty, I would feel easier in mind on the matter and a good deal freer to support the legislation.
In passing may I say that this prating about monuments to our wisdom, about the gratitude of posterity and the foresight and vision of statesmen, does not appeal to me, and the erection of monuments and parks utterly fails to satisfy my conception of the things that are really needed in the country at this mo-

Federal District Commission
ment. The time may come when all that may be justified, but it is certainly not now especially whilst thousands are struggling through life in Canada at wages which are below the standard of living. I undertook in connection with this matter to make an examination into some statistics, and I find that in spite of the fact that the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, a committee of this very house, in 1926 declared that the minimum standard of living in Canada would require an annual wage of 82,400, the great majority of the wage earners are receiving not much more than $1,000 a year. Here we have the situation where the great mass of toilers in Canada are living on one-half or less than half the wages which a committee of this house says is the minimum upon which a reasonable standard of existence can be maintained. Yet I am expected to go back to them and to justify a vote of millions for beautification while they struggle along through their unfortunate and frequently miserable lives in a condition relative to poverty.
I submit to the Prime Minister that it would be a far more worthy thing, a far more statesmanlike thing, if not all this sum but the larger portion of it were turned over to the relieving of poverty and misery and to a real attempt to solve the problem of unemployment, a problem which is growing more and more acute every year with the introduction of greater and more efficient machinery. The beautifying of Ottawa may be all very well for those whose salaries are now sufficient to guarantee them all the beauties -in life which they desire. It may be all very fine for the right hon. gentleman himself, and even for myself at the moment in a much humbler sphere of life, to satiate our appetites for beauty. But we have opportunities that other people in Canada will never have. If the Prime Minister would make an annual excursion for the people of Canada to come and see this city, there might be some reasonable excuse for this work. Let me say to him and to the leader of the opposition that while they were both in a measure correct with respect to the historical remembrance we have of Rome, Greece and even Babylon, my boyhood memory rather carries me to the achievements of the great generals, such as Hannibal, Alexander the Great and so on. If I read history in a less superficial manner than so many do. I find that with all that great display of military splendour, of wonderful monuments, architectural designs, parks and so forth, the most appalling slavery and destitution was the lot of the great masses of the people whether they were of Rome or Imperial Greece or Babylon, or of the unfortunate races who came under the sway of these empires. I think in doing what we are asked to do now we are simply preparing a vision for the eyes of those who are already wealthy enough to live in the Chateau Laurier, men who come here as lobbyists, as persuaders of government for the granting of special privileges. We are going to gratify their senses.
I want to say that in great measure our efforts may be wasted, because I can imagine many of these gentlemen who now reside in the Chateau Laurier would get a far greater thrill from the sight of a tax-free bond than from the sight of dawn on the bay of Naples or of a sunset in the Rocky Mountains, and yet we propose to spend millions in order that those who reside in the Chateau Laurier may gaze with admiration at about eleven in the forenoon on this beautiful park which the Prime Minister is asking us to establish-I will not say as a monument to has own memory particularly, but as a monument to our alleged statesmanship in this house. May I say in closing that he would have more worthily served the object he has in view if, instead of embalming in the industrial records of librairies those flowers of idealism that sprang to his mind in the past with reference to justice and humanity, and to which he gave utterance in his book Industry and Humanity, he had taken those flowers, now lying desiccated and flattened between the leaves of his book, out into the open and watered them by the application of practice. That would have been a far finer monument to his memory than ever this public park will be. If we turn our attention to solving the economic difficulties of our people we shall give posterity much greater occasion,to remember us than we shall by erecting a park to be gazed upon from the Chateau Laurier.
I am not opposing any attempt to beautify Ottawa, but I think that at this stage, in view of the condition of our finances, so long as we have over two billions of national debt and no reasonable method proposed for paying it off; so long as unemployment continues, with seventeen hundred men jailed in Winnipeg-not because they were not willing to work, but because there was no work for them to do last winter; and the chief of police of Winnipeg stated that in his opinion these men were, with one exception, of types as fine as had ever come to his notice-so long as these conditions continue there is no justification apparent to me at least for the voting of all these millions that are now being asked for. I submit that the Prime Minister would be well advised to reconsider the bill and to reduce the amount from $3,000,000 to $1,000-

Federal District Commission
000; or let us vote this thing year by year, if we are to vote it at all, instead of voting one lump sum at the present time. Let us proceed cautiously and reasonably, and not plunge into it as if we were as wealthy as Rome, Greece and Babylon together.
In passing, I agree entirely with the position taken by the hon. member for Macleod last night, that you are going to have a ridiculous left-handed view here under the plan proposed. Anyone walking out from the main entrance of the parliament building will not be able to gaze on a beautiful park. The view he will see will be the drab and miserable picture he sees to-day. There is no change contemplated along Wellington street, fronting the house. Only across to the left will there be a glimpse of the green sward and the flowers, as the proposal now stands.
Now that the Minister of Railways is in his seat, may I refer to the chief argument which he used. He said that this is such a small matter per capita that surely no reasonable excuse could be given for not voting the money. Identically the same argument could be applied to every vote that we have ever been asked to pass in this house. Taken by itself, the per capita taxation would be a very small item, as the result of any particular vote, but to use that as an argument why we should agree, with the condition in which our finances are, to vote this money is not good enough for me, and I intend to oppose this bill unless the Prime Minister can see his way to reduce the amount. I think he is asking for altogether too large a sum at this stage.
I hope that I have not hurt anyone's feelings. Let me simply reiterate before I take my seat that I would far rather support the Prime Minister in carrying into immediate practice those great ideals on behalf of humanity that he set forth in his book, Industry and Humanity, than fall in with this plan for the gratification of the vanity of those who expect posterity's gratitude-gratitude which can foe more justly anticipated if we seriously attack our great social and economic problems and by solving them bring charm, beauty and happiness to the people who toil.


William Irvine: I would like to get clear
in my mind what the difference is going to be if this project is going to be financed from the consolidated revenue fund. I would ask the mover of the amendment to the amendment kindly to explain to us what it is about, because we could not hear a word in this part of the chamber.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As the proposal stands
in section 2 of the bill, there was to be an annuity [DOT] of $200,000 payable for a period not 
exceeding thirty years from the 1st of April, 1928. That is the annuity; it has nothing to do with the $3,000,000, and that annuity is payable out of the consolidated revenue fund. The amendment of the right hon. the Prime Minister was to substitute fifteen for thirty years, and to that I moved an amendment that we do not bind the hands of parliament beyond the term of parliament, namely, five years.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I would ask the Prime Minister what is the interpretation which the government place upon this amended section 8. It says:
The minister is hereby authorized to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada to the commission the sum of two hundred thousand dollars a year for a period not exceeding . . . years.
Does that bind each succeeding Finance minister to pay that amount for the full term, or does it leave it to the discretion of each succeeding Finance minister whether he will pay it or not? It is "may," not "shall." What interpretation does the government place on this section?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If in the next
fifteen years there should be another Prime Minister he will be free to propose whatever he may think this house should give to the federal district commission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That is not, I think, a
pertinent answer. I am dealing with the construction of the statute and with the practice. Where a Finance minister is authorized to pay for a term not exceeding, say, thirty years, does that bind the Finance minister to pay the amount each year? Is it not merely a permissive, and not an imperative, statute?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
purpose of it is to give the commission the assurance that it will have, from year to year for the period of fifteen years, the money that will be required to maintain the improvements which it is making at the present time, and which it would not make unless it had that assurance. The commission is constructing driveways and parks now, and if it felt that it was not going to have the necessary sum to maintain these driveways and parks when completed, I do not think it would incur the original expenditure. This simply gives the assurance which will permit of a continuity and permanency of policy on the part of the commission.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I must confess that I read
the statute as permissive, and not as absolutely binding.

St. John Harbour Commission


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think the
expectation would be that the Finance minister would give that amount to the commission for the period of time mentioned.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The suggestion has been
made that if bonds are going to be issued for this work, we should issue interest-free bonds. I would just like to remind the house that this is not an entirely new suggestion. It has been made not only by many eminent men in Great Britain, but by those who were associated with Heniry Ford in the large undertaking of the development of Mussle Shoals. It went so far there that a bill was introduced into congress and and secured considerable support. If we want this money in even amounts per year we could take it out of the consolidated revenue fund, but if we want more than $100,000 per year for the first few years, and at the same time want to extend the capitalization over a number of years, this is the way it could be done. Therefore I take pleasure in supporting the suggestion of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine).
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Bennett) negatived.
Amendment (Mr. Mackenzie King) agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Bill reported.



ST. JOHN HARBOUR COMMISSION I.OAN OF $5,000,000 FOB TERMINAL FACILITIES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Minister of Marine and Fisheries) moved the second reading of bill No. 216 to provide for a loan to the St. John harbour commissioners.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Will the minister give the same undertaking with respect to St. John harbour that he has given with respect to Quebec harbour?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Absolutely.


Richard Bedford Bennett: May I point out, Mr. Chairman, in order that there may be no misapprehension, that we think these moneys should not be raised by loan through harbour commissioners. In support of this view -I did not have it beside me the other day -I read from the Duncan report these words:
We are satisfied that neither at Halifax nor at St. John-although developments at St. John have been more extensive than at Halifax-is it possible, in present circumstances, to secure
adequate port development. We recommend that, in respect of each of these two harbours, the federal government should establish a statutory harbour commission, whose business it would be to see that the port facilities are developed on such a scale as will gradually-* but by no means slowly-create channels through which trade can expand both winter and summer. The development of a port is as much a matter of mechanical and technical equipment, business organization and practical administration, as is the development of any extensive manufacturing or industrial business.
We believe it is in the public interest of Canada, and in the interest of the future growth and expansion of its activities, that its Atlantic ports should be developed, just as it has been that its railways and canals should be developed-though development of these has naturally come first. We believe also from the evidence we have had that, under existing conditions of proprietorship at these ports, there will neither be inducement enough, nor impetus enough, to create really great ports, since for some time, at all events, it will be necessary to create facilities even ahead of expansion of trade. All that the Fathers of Confederation said about the importance to Canada of outlets and inlets on the Atlantic ocean open all the year round is as true to-day as it was then (and is indeed, from a commercial point of view, more immediately true now than then), and. in respect to ports-as well as in respect to the railways-the experience of the late war is fresh enough in mind to illustrate one phase of the national viewpoint and national necessity.
The words I particularly direct attention to are those that make it clear, as I submitted the other day, that the purpose and intention of the report was that the ports of Halifax and St. John should be developed by public moneys as national ports, because it is stated that they "should be developed, just as it has been that its-Canada's-railways and canals should be developed," namely, by the direct expenditure of public moneys. There is not a canal in Canada thus otherwise developed.


Charles Avery Dunning: Our railways.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Our railways, publicly
owned, have been built largely by public moneys or guarantees of public moneys.


Charles Avery Dunning: Guarantees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Sir Andrew Rae Duncan said they should be treated as our railways and canals were treated, using those words in their generic sense. Evidently the Intercolonial railway was in his mind-a railway built by the people of Canada through the direct appropriation of their moneys for that purpose. This port will never be a national port in the sense in which the maritime commission meant it if you are merely to borrow money' through commissions for the purpose of extending it in the manner indicated. For let me point out that we have three illustra-

St. John Harbour Commission
tions here of what we may expect. Quebec wants eight million dollars for its harbour. The audit board said that the harbour commission cannot possibly make that profit annually on their operations. Halifax wants only $500,(XX); the interest on which is $25,000 per annum. The interest on the St. John loan will be $250,000 per annum.
Now, Halifax is a magnificent terminal. That terminal was bought by the direct application of public moneys to the harbour without any harbour commission, so that Halifax now requires only half a million dollars. St. John requires $5,000,000, which will place its harbour at a very great disadvantage with respect to the other ports on the Atlantic seaboard if tolls are to be imposed to meet the annual interest. Therefore it is my submission that the Duncan report contemplated with respect to the development of national ports at St. John and Halifax that public moneys should be directly applied for that purpose through the statutory commission operating in the administration and management of the port. The maritime commission were very careful to add one word more in respect to that:
We had. at our request, a private session with the Montreal harbour commission and, by hearing from them the steps they took to survey and stimulate production in their immediate territory as well as wider afield, we are confirmed in our view as to what harbour commissions (constituted of business and experienced persons) at Halifax and St. John could do in stimulating the trade of the maritime provinces.
It is those observations which I had in mind the other day, but not having the report under my hand I was not able to refer to them beyond my memory. I cannot think that we are doing our duty by the ports of Halifax and St. John if we merely create harbour commissions under the conditions of the existing Harbour Commissions Act, and ask those bodies to issue securities at 5 per cent per annum and expect them to pay either the principal or the interest. We should make an appropriation of such money' from year to year as is required for the purpose of developing those harbours, and it should be a charge upon the revenues of the Canadian people. We should not leave it to the defaults of the local body as happened in Quebec, because low tolls will have to be imopsed to make St. John harbour a success. For instance, how can St. John compete with Halifax if Halifax requires only $500,000 and St. John $5,000,000? How can you ask Halifax to impose tolls to raise $25,000 a year only and ask St. John to impose tolls to raise $250,000 a year?


Mr. RALSTON:: The $500,000 is for one year, and the $5,000,000 for three.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so, and that is all asked for at the moment. The interest required in one instance is $25,000-


James Layton Ralston: The $250,000 is spread
over three years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The interest taken out of the $5,000,000 leaves that much less to be spent in the harbour of St. John.


James Layton Ralston: It is a three-year program.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and they have asked for $10,000,000. Now, if we are to Start in this way with these harbours we are mot doing our duty by the provinces, as indicated by that report, which sets out just what was contemplated. In ports such as Hamburg and London the tolls are kept down to the lowest possible level by reason of competition with other ports. But we are now imposing on these ports by this legislation the necessity of charging, for the use of the harbours, tolls that will have to be high enough to pay the interest on these moneys. The result will be that the port will lose the traffic, which will go through Portland, Boston and other ports. These moneys should be an expenditure by the Canadian people in consequence of estimates brought in and submitted to the house by the minister in order that we may be able from year to year to make our contribution to -the development of our ports until they shall have mat, in every possible sense, the requirements of the trade of Canada. It was for that reason t-hit I suggested to the minister that an- expert report be made with respect to Quebec. At any rate I desire to go on record, as positively -and distinctly as I -can, as being convinced that this proposal is not what is contemplated by the report, and never can make for the development of national ports. The ports must not be obliged to pay interest on the money we put into their development, and it ought not to be through harbour commissions that moneys are made available for the purpose.


James Alexander Robb: I am sure that the citizens of the different -cities whose harbours we are now proposing to improve will look with some favour on- the attitude, which my hon. friend takes to-day. I may have misinterpreted the sentiment of hon. gentlemen opposite as expressed a few days ago when we were discussing the port -of Quebec. As I recall it, we spent the greater part of two days on that debate, every bon. member saying that Quebec was a fine port. But every hon. gentleman apposite made speeches and came out straight against any money being voted to the port of Quebec.

St. John Harbour Commission


Richard Bedford Bennett: Name anyone who did so.


James Alexander Robb: No, I will not name anyone.
I am in the judgment of tlhe house, and I may have misinterpreted hon. gentlemen opposite. It occurred to me early to-day, particularly when my hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) was speaking, that hon. gentlemen opposite had developed a new policy in this regard. From the economy which they advocated last week they have jumped to the extravagance which we notice this week. They all want to dip into the public treasury, saying, at least by implication, that they are in favour of contributing money to the development of these ports without charging interest. That is a very popular policy with the people in the places where you are spending the money, but it is not so popular with the taxpayers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who will pay the interest in Quebec?


James Alexander Robb: This is not a new policy my hon. friends are introducing to-day; it is a policy that has prevailed in this country for some time. We have spent millions, through the Public Works and other departments, in the port of St. John, and millions in the port of Halifax; and we gather from the information now before us that the work is not yet perfect and that they are coming back for more money. With that part of my hon. friend's observations-I am not sure that I understood him rightly-


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I take exception
to the remark that the government has spent millions in Halifax.


James Alexander Robb: Yes.


William Anderson Black: I take most decided exception to that statement. The expenditure was made as part and parcel of the railway system of the country and not specifically for the development of the port.


James Alexander Robb: My reading-


William Anderson Black: I may add this:
In my judgment you might just as well say that the money spent in Moncton in connection with the railway, or the money spent in Truro or anywhere else on the railways, is spent by the government for the development of those places. The money spent in Halifax was spent in order to enable the railways to handle the traffic of their, roads. You might just as well argue that a clock without a pendulum is complete. A railway without terminals is not complete.


James Alexander Robb: I am not quarrelling with
the statement that harbour development is necessary, but I say that we have spent that money under departments of government and it has not been very satisfactory. In the first place the location of the harbour at Halifax has not been satisfactory, according to shippers and the citizens themselves. And I am told that the same thing applies to St. John. Now, coming back to the observations of my hon. friend, as to having a commission to look after all ports: I am inclined to that point of view. I should be willing perhaps to go even further than my hon. friend and further than my colleague the Minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin). I think that all ports on the Atlantic-and maybe on the Pacific-should be put under one management and that they should all share in the receipts as well as the expenditures *with a view to developing good ports. I may say that I am not quite satisfied even with this legislation. But my hon. friend wants to dip into the public treasury and take out the whole amount. Now, my experience has been that if you have a commission responsible for the interest on the money that goes into the port, you will get a better administration, because they will take care of the interest. But when the money is spent at Ottawa the interest charges are forgotten; no one worries about the interest except the Department of Finance who have to provide it. I say to my hon. friend therefore that his party has made a wide jump from last week, when it preached economy, to this week, when it is preaching a doctrine which looks to me like extravagance.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry the minister
should have made that last observation. It is in the interests of economy that we have been tiying all afternoon to strengthen the Quebec act. It is because the audit board, named by him, went there and made a report, which I read to the house this afternoon, that we have been endeavouring to prevent a recurrence of the condition that has prevailed in that port. It is our desire to have the spread between gross expenditures and revenues reduced from the amount reported by the board, and to have the accounts, the contracts and the expenditures sent to the public accounts committee for investigation. And the minister has been good enough to say that this will be done. It is because we believe in national economy rather than national extravagance that we urge that the ports of St. John and Halifax be nationalized by the expenditure of public money under proper control.

St. John Harbour Commission


James Alexander Robb: We have had -that all these
years.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The people of St. John owned their own port without a commission, and it is only since 1913 that there has been a commission in Quebec. In Halifax there has never been a commission, and the Dominion government built there, in connection with the railway terminals, wharves Which are a part of the railway expenditures, as the Minister of Finance knows. The minister urges economy:	that was the very point I endeavoured to make when I said that we should vote a given sum per annum instead of $8,000,000 to the port of Quebec in the first instance, $5,000,000 to St. John, and some other sum to Halifax. Let this parliament vote the sums of money required for this year, that the accounts may be in the hands of the Receiver General, that the Auditor General may review them and that we may have a parliamentary inquiry to ascertain whether or not for each dollar of the money spent we have received one hundred cents in value. We urged this last week; we have urged it this week and we will urge it next week. We protest against the extravagance with which public moneys are being squandered in 'this country, and in the light of the expenditures which are being sanctioned it ill becomes the minister to say that because we are endeavouring to tighten up the safeguards and to protect the public exchequer we are therefore endeavouring to be extravagant with the public money. He had to admit the other day that there was no likelihood of interest being paid on the money lent to the Quebec harbour commission; I read the words of the audit board this afternoon, and if you impose tolls and charges for dock services in Halifax and St. John for the purpose of making a return on the money invested at from one-half per cent to one per cent more than it costs this country for money, you cannot hope to have those ports compete with other Atlantic seaboard ports. It is because of the Duncan report which has been adopted by this house and because of the desirability of making these ports free as far as it is possible to make ports free by reducing port and dock charges to a minimum that we urge that the government, which means the people of this country, should take over directly the administration of the ports through a statutory commission. The Duncan report did not specify a commission such as then existed at any given port. The Minister of Marine and Fisheries referred to what was said with respect to Montreal. The Duncan commission studied the operations of the port of Montreal, but as the minister has said, Montreal and Vancouver are exceptional

ports. The commission urged the appointment of a statutory commission composed of experienced men. After investigating the situation, the commission recommended that these harbour boards be composed of experienced business men. It was because of ' that very recommendation that I directed attention the other day to that question in regard to these two ports.
Extravagance as against economy is what the minister is now embarking upon, and since the government now are voting a three-year program here, a sixteen-year program there and a five-year program somewhere else, the Minister of Finance cannot hope to have that economy of control which comes from voting money from year to year to meet the necessities of a given situation, after he had received the report of an expert to ascertain what should be done to make out a rounded program. Parliament exists for that purpose, and when we hand money over to another body parliament divests itself of its control unless it is specifically preserved. If we spend two or three days or two or three weeks on this matter and at the end secure recognition of the fact that this house shall have control over expenditure of public money, then the two or three days or weeks will be well spent. That is all I have to say to the Minister of Finance, and in our efforts to assist him in the conduct of his affairs in an economical and inextravagant manner we should receive his assistance and support instead of being misrepresented as to what we have said.
Progress reported.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. W. McPHEE (Yorkton) moved that the following bills from the senate be now read a first and second time and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills:
Bill No. 221, for the relief of Edward Bennett.
Bill No. 222, for the relief of Annie Amelia Eliza Ferguson.
Bill No. 223, for the relief of Laura Lang-staff Dent Kemp.
Bill No. 224, for the relief of Helen McLean. Bill No. 225, for the relief of Robert Pius Nageleisen.
Bill No. 226, for the relief of Elsie Irene O'Meara.
Bill No. 227, for the relief of Doris Read.
Bill No. 228, for the relief of Thomas Zeamond Toll.

Questions
Bill No. 229, for the relief of Katie Louise Turner.
Bill No. 230, for the relief of Samuel Rad-cliffe Weaver.
Bill No. 231, for the relief of Florence Elizabeth Mousley Monarque Westover.
John Frederick Johnston: This is pursuant to the motion made by the Prime Minister the other day.
Motion agreed to and bills read the first and second time.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, April 26, 1928