1928-05-11

[Stage Direction]
Ninth report of the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.

Mr. Parent.

Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to lay
on the table the report of the tobacco commission. This report will not be ready for general distribution from the King's Printer for possibly two or three weeks, owing to the large number c/f similar orders on hand.



CIVIL SERVICE


William Richard Motherwell: That the reports laid on the table of the house on the 9th of May instant in respect of the House of Commons staff be approved.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Toronto Northwest):: In view of the fact that there are only four or live government measures remaining on the order paper, I would like to ask if any more legislation is to be brought down this session by the government, or does the order paper cover all proposed legislation?


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice):: Yes, except what may be necessary
as a result of committee reports.



PRISON REFORM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask the
minister if anything is being done to carry out the resolution of last session, to pay the wives and children of the inmates of penal institutions in Canada, for the work of the inmates.


Hon. J. A. ROBB (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall the resolution of last session, but if my hon. friend will give me a memorandum I will have it looked up and give him a reply early in the week.


Thomas Langton Church: Will there be anything done in a concrete form to give effect to this resolution this session?



INTERNATIONAL PEACE TREATY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. B. ADSHEAD (East Calgary):: As
the Prime Minister is not in his place today, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice a question, based upon a press report this morning which states that the government of Great Britain is awaiting the assent of the dominions to signing the treaty which Mr. Kellogg, the United States Secretary of State, proposed some time ago. I would like to ask the Minister of Justice if he has received such a request from the British government, and if so, if he could give the house information as to the answer?


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry the Prime
Minister could not be present this afternoon. I can only say to my hon. friend that communications are being exchanged between the British government and this government, with regard to the matter he has mentioned. All I am at liberty to say is that any move towards the establishment of peace cannot but be considered favourably by this government.

Supply-Public Works



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. T. MacNUTT (Colchester):: I
would like to direct the attention of the hon. the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Dunning) to a press despatch from Portland, Me., published in the Saint John Telegraph-Journal, which reads as follows:
This city is buzzing with excitement over the present development of plans of the Canadian Pacific Railway to make Portland its winter port by taking over from the Canadian National its subsidiary from Sherbrooke, Que. to the city and the local terminal and docks.
Those interested in the great project for Portland openly declare that plans have been and are being made by the Canadian Pacific Railway to bring a fleet of its ships to Portland as a terminal, at least during the months when the St. Lawrence is frozen, the ports of Montreal and Quebec are closed to shipping and the only other Canadian ports open are Halifax and St. John.
Would the Minister of Railways state if any applications, or representations, have been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway, or others, for the granting of running rights over this foreign system?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): I answered a question on May 9th, bearing upon the matter, and which indicates that there is nothing in the report in question, so far as the Canadian National is concerned. I will look up the answer to the question and let my hon. friend have it.



OUTBREAK OF RABIES IN ONTARIO

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. W. EDWARDS (Frontenac-Adding-ton):: I would like to ask the Minister of
Health if representations have been made to his department by the Department of Health of the province of Ontario, suggesting the advisability of a strict quarantine against dogs coming into Canada from the United States, and if the federal Department of Health has taken or intends to take any steps along the line of strict quarantine against American dogs?
Hon. JAMES H. KING (Minister of Health):	I have no knowledge of any representation having been made. If it is quarantine against animals, I would think the representations would be made to the Department of Agriculture.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public works chargeable to income-Ottawa public buildings and grounds - Dominion Observatory and Geodetic Survey building-* repairs, improvements, maintenance of grounds, etc., $4,000.
Mr. SPENCER:: How much of this was
spent last year?


Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works):: S3,999.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Departments generally-char service including $100 to E. Snowden for firing the noon gun, $385,000.
Henry Elvins Spencer: The item of S100 for firing the noon gun is a small one, but now that we have the clock in the tower which gives the time regularly, I was wondering whether there was any necessity for continuing to fire the gun.


John Campbell Elliott: There are many people
who are able to hear the gun when they cannot see the clock in the tower.


Thomas Langton Church: I should like to see the
charwomen get an increase in pay from $1.25 a day. Many of them are widows with young children dependent upon them and they should have a little better pay.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $650,000.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Is there anything included under this item for improvements at Rideau Hall?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing.


Henry Elvins Spencer: This is a very large item. Would the minister give us some particulars?


John Campbell Elliott: This is the same amount
that has been granted for a number of years past. The expenditure for the last few years
are as follows:	
Year	Amount
1921-22			 $710,335
1922-23			 591.000
1923-24		
1924-25			 612,000
1925-26			 652,000
1926-27			 623,000
1927-28			 651,000
It is required for carrying out the work of repairs, alterations, additions and improvements and for procuring furniture, fittings and other supplies in connection with the maintenance of all the Ottawa public buildings.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Who is responsible for
looking after the ventilation and heating of
<2918
Supply-Public Works

this chamber? After a time it is usually so hot and stuffy that it is not fit for people to live in.


John Campbell Elliott: Employees of the Department of Public Works operate the equipment under the direction of the officials of the house.


Peter McGibbon: That does not give us
very much information. Is anybody responsible in general for looking after this chamber and the other rooms in order that they may be properly ventilated, not overheated, and that the air, at least in this chamber, may be fit to breathe? Surely there is somebody whose duty it is to superintend this work. The matter has been referred to a number of times in the house but we do not seem to get anywhere. Is there someone on whom the minister could place the responsibility?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not see the Sergeant-at-Arms in his seat. There is a thermometer on his desk. He is supposed to keep an eye on the temperature indicated by that thermometer and if it gets too high, to have some fresh air let in or, if it gets too low, to see that the temperature is increased.


Mr. STEVENS:: The real difficulty is the
condition of the atmosphere. Some times it is not only the heat but the bad air which i? oppressive. The place is not properly ventilated. We have an expensive set of machinery for ventilating the building. I do not know what type it is but either the machinery is faulty or those who are operating it do not know their business. That is the long and the short of the matter. The situation is serious because while we sit here during the session, we almost invariably get a headache or feel some other depression. With this expensive machinery we ought to have satisfactory ventilation and we are not getting it.


Mr. GEARY:: 
John Campbell Elliott: This is something to
which I have been devoting some thought and time in connection with some of my other duties. The system is called the combination plenum and exhaust system. There are fans that are supposed to suck in the pure air and other fans which are supposed to draw out the impure air.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The impure air fan doe3
not work.


John Campbell Elliott: This building is a good
deal like other buildings which have been erected under the supervision of the best architects procurable; it is well constructed After a number of people have been in all the galleries and in the house from three o'clock in the afternoon until perhaps ten o'clock in the evening and a number of members on all sides of the house have been talking a good deal, the air is not as good at ten o'clock in the evening as it was when the house opened at three o'clock in the afternoon. My hon. friend will notice that now there is nothing to complain about. I see we are all agreed on that.


Henry Herbert Stevens: What would happen if we called the divorce bills?


John Campbell Elliott: Of course, you cannot expect it to remain like this all the time. To be serious, I am told that in practically every building after it has been occupied five or six or seven hours, even under the best regulated system off ventilation known to architectural science, the air becomes not as fresh as it was at the beginning. It is the same with any theatre. I understand that the system here is one to which great consideration was given at the time of the construction of this building, and it is said to be in repair at the present time. Only recently we have adopted the system of gauging the temperature by a thermometer, which is under the supervision of a very careful official of the house, who makes it one of his duties to regulate the temperature.


George Reginald Geary: No plenum system will work if an outside door is open, because that lets the draught in and puts the whole arrangement out of order. The plenum system in a building of this kind will not work, and you might as well make up your mind to that, but we might get some relief from letting in the fresh air.


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose that, like all
questions of a more or less scientific nature, there are differences of opinion about that.


George Reginald Geary: Not much difference of
opinion about that.


John Campbell Elliott: I think so, if I may say so. According to my information, our system is one of the best available, but, of course, if a door is open in very cold weather you will get a draught through any building.


George Reginald Geary: That is not the point.


John Campbell Elliott: It is the point, if I may say so, in connection with this building. Those sitting particularly in the vicinity

Supply-Public Works
where I now stand can feel a draught on the back of their neck practically every time the outside door and the door over here are open at the same time.


George Reginald Geary: The point is that opening
that door disturbs the draught of air that is supposed to ventilate the chamber. If you have a room that is hermetically sealed, you can ventilate it very well by the plenum system, but opening an outside door and letting in a draught disturbs the whole arrangement. I suggest that the minister consider that question with a view to installing a. better system. We shall get no relief otherwise.


John Campbell Elliott: It is a matter in which I am very much interested because I have myself experienced the discomforts which hon. gentlemen complain of, and if I can find any way of improving the system I shall be very glad to do it. Proper ventilation is most essential to the health and comfort of everybody who has to spend any time in this house.


Mr. CHUROH:: Close up the session in two weeks and hon. members will be able to get all the ventilation they want free.


Mr. MARCIL:: Those who sat in the old chamber will remember that the ventilation was not very good, and that it was very often discussed. But so far as the acoustics were concerned, the old chamber was far superior to this. For instance, I have had to content myself with hearing only half the explanation just given by the minister on this question of ventilation; I could not make out half of what he said, and half of what is said from the far corner of the house is not audible at this end, so I hope the minister has not given up entirely the task of improving the acoustics of this chamber. This is a magnificent chamber and a credit to the architect, but I am Sony to say that so far as the acoustics are concerned it is not a success, and we at this end are able to hear only very imperfectly what is said from the other end, and vice versa. That was admitted, and the members of the cabinet had to move more towards the centre of the chamber so that they could be better heard at that far end, but their moving down has been our loss, because we are not able to hear the explanations given by the ministers. So if anything can be done to improve the acoustics of this chamber, I hope it will be done because it is very much needed.


The CHAIRMAN:: I might be permitted
to say a word here. While the acoustic properties of the chamber are not all that may be desired, if hon. gentlemen would keep
better order and less conversation were carried on in the chamber, hon. members would b*. able to hear the ministers and to hear each other when speaking in committee.


John Campbell Elliott: 
John Frederick Johnston: There is no difficulty
in hearing the minister now that we have order in the chamber.


John Campbell Elliott: There is something in
what the chairman says. The acoustic properties are greatly improved when the members of the house are making a reasonable effort to hear what is being said, and when not too many of them are talking at the one time.


Charles Marcil: In the old chamber, at confederation, the Speaker's chair was at the end of the chamber, but with the increased membership it was found necessary to transfer it to the centre of the chamber, and that improved the acoustics very considerably. Have the experts considered the question of moving the Speaker's chair to the centre of the room and arranging the seats in a sort of semi-circle around it, so that everyone would be facing the Speaker and the Speaker would be facing the members?


John Campbell Elliott: That has been considered. Models have been made and a plan was endeavoured to be worked out along that line, but the objection to that is that if the Speaker's chair were opposite to where I am now standing, the voice probably would not carry to that corner. I am told that that plan is not feasible, and the experts consider that the present system is the best they know of at the present time.


Charles Marcil: The system I suggest has been tried at Washington and at the Palais Bourbon in Paris, and in many other capitals in Europe.
Supply-Public Works

M<r. ELLIOTT: My hon. friend is familiar with what happens in Paris. The speakers go to a certain point in the chamber when they are going to address the house, and they all speak from the same point. It is quite feasible then. The acoustic properties can be improved when the speaking all takes place from the same point and the voice carries reasonably in the same direction, but that plan is quite unworkable when speakers are speaking from all over the chamber.


George Taylor MacNutt: This is an important
matter, Mr. Chairman, I do not think the ventilation can be improved by simply opening the doors. I have a great deal of sympathy for the officers of the house and others whose duties oblige them to remain in the chamber throughout the sitting. I am sure the attendance of hon. members in the house would be much better if the ventilation were improved. In my judgment large air tubes should be installed from the ceiling to the outside through which the vitiated air would be withdrawn by electric fans. As to the acoustics of the chamber, I think two years ago a vote was placed in the estimate to effect an improvement in this respect. I understand that an expert reported that the acoustic properties were all right. I should like that expert to sit here day after day as we do in an effort to hear what is being said. Those whose hearing is normal find it very difficult and at times impossible to distinguish a speaker addressing the chair from either end of the chamber. Undoubtedly something is radically wrong with the acoustics, and it seems to me that the only remedy would be to install radio distributors. Then we should be able to hear any hon. member without effort.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to
endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. MacNutt). It is most important that we should hear what is going on. That is what we are here for.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Alan Webster Neill: In the house of Lords there
is a telephone on each member's desk. Whether that is for the purpose of making audible to each member the debates in the chamber I do not know; but I do not recall seeing a similar system in the House of Commons.


George Reginald Geary: The minister has justified
this item by telling us how much was spent in previous years. Is this $650,000 the total budget for the various buildings showing proposed repairs and what may be required throughout the year?

Mr. ELLIOTT':	This budget is made up
of staff and materials. The staff consists of 252 men at an estimated cost of 8400,340; materials, supplies, extra assistance, 8249.666.


George Reginald Geary: That is by way of estimate
from each department in regard to particular buildings?


John Campbell Elliott: No. There has been no
change for the last couple of years in the staff.


George Reginald Geary: If you have an item for
additions, there must be some idea what those additions are to be; they must be considered before an appropriation is made for them.


John Campbell Elliott: The practice has been to
have a special vote for any additions involving a considerable outlay. The staff looks after all the various buildings, and the materials are used by the staff. No budget is made up by the different departments; the cost is arrived at as a result of experience extending over a number of years.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is an inventory
kept of the furniture and contents of the library?


John Campbell Elliott: A record is kept of all
the purchases of furniture and supplies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Frederick Johnston: The next two items
for Rideau Hall were adopted at a previous sitting of the committee.
Telephone service-$100,000.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is
included in this large expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: This covers the rental
for the fiscal year of the telephone connections throughout the several departments in the city of Ottawa.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are the
telephone costs of Rideau Hall and the governor general's office included in this item?


John Campbell Elliott: That is correct.
Mr. GARLAND (Bow River)- I find in part V-32 of the Auditor General's report for 1927 an item of $378.05 for the governor general's office and Rideau Hall for telephones. I turn to part V

31 of the same report and I find an expenditure of $355.20 for the governor general's office and Rideau Hall for telephones, direct lines, and so on. Then at part G-3 another item, telegrams and telephones amounting to $4,020.32, again for Rideau Hall. The total is $4,753.57, most of which would appear to be for telephone

Supply-Public Works
messages. What is the reason for this extraordinary telephone bill for Rideau Hall? There may be some good reason for it. How much is the estimate for this year?


John Campbell Elliott: That is part of the
expenses of the building from and to which telephone messages are sent. It is not in connection with this building. What my hon. friend refers to I take it, although I have not looked over the details specially, would cover the various telephone calls and telerams from the governor general's office.


Edward Joseph Garland: That
explanation is hardly good enough I find for example in the same item of the Auditor General's report at part V-31 that the total cost of telephones for the Prime Minister in respect of the House of Commons is only $57.96, and he has another small bill in connection with the External Affairs department. Even the Prime Minister's telephone calls do not nearly approximate those of Rideau Hall. I cannot understand why there is such a heavy expenditure. The minister has not yet told the committee how much of this $100,000 will be devoted this year to the Rideau Hall telephones.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Will the minister explain how it is that there are three or four different accounts for telephones? Why should there be so many.


John Campbell Elliott: These subdivisions are
made by the Auditor General. He subdivides them under the different headings and is, I understand, responsible for the classifications that appear here. Of course, they all have to be passed on by him.


Mr. ROSS (Kingston):: I want to say a
few words in regard to this item. We all appreciate the minister's seriousness in dealing with these items; he is more serious than any other minister, and he realizes the importance of the matters involved. But he must realize at the same time that there is a rumour abroad that there is great waste in connection with the administration here. In my opinion, if there were put under one item all the automobiles in use by every person connected with the administration, and the same in the matter of telephones, the government could satisfy the demands of nearly all those who are asking for public buildings. Here we have an item of $100,000, and I am sure that if the minister went through it carefully with a view to eliminating unnecessary expenditures he could provide a post office for my hon. friend from Frontenac (Mr. Edwards), in Sydenham, and one for
Camrose as well. I would ask the minister to turn to two pages which have been referred to in the Auditor General's report for 1927. There he will find a long list of office telephones. I have no doubt that if he went through that list he would discover a great many telephones which are absolutely unnecessary; they could be done without, especially when people are unable to obtain proper postal service throughout the country. He will also find, if he consults this book, a list of private telephones in private residences throughout Ottawa. Many of these telephones can be justified, but I will guarantee that a great many of them cannot. There are seventeen ministers who have telephones in their private residences and apartments; there are also twenty-seven deputies and sixty-three sub-deputies who have private telephones in their private residences, paid for by the government of Canada. Take the various departments: Agriculture with nine sub-deputies; Justice with five; the Post Office with seven; the Public Works with six and the Railways with six. If the minister or his deputy would take these two pages and go over them carefully he could eliminate enough of absolutely unnecessary expenditure to provide a post office in Camrose, one in Sydenham and one or two others, about the necessity for which we have heard.


Mr. CANTLEY:: And Pictou.


Arthur Edward Ross: Pictou, if you like. If the minister will take the automobiles used by the officials and deputy officials and those connected with the administration and put them all under one head, I guarantee he will be able to supply a post office in every place where a demand is made for one. With this $100,000 we have here I am sure he could provide three or four post offices. I cannot understand why so many persons need private telephones to be paid for by the government. I grant you that eveiy department should have a certain number; for example, work must be done on Saturdays and on Sundays and at night. But why should we pay for private telephones for six and seven subdeputies and sometimes the secretaries of ministers? I cannot understand it. I repeat, I would refer the minister to these two pages of the Auditor General's report, and I would ask him to go over them carefully with a view to cutting out unnecessary expenditure. If he did so now, and again next year, he would be able to provide a post office for every member who asked for one.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend
is serious in making these suggestions and
Supply-Public Works

perhaps I should devote a minute or two to him; because the matter is important if what he says is correct. In the first place, it is not correct that there is great waste, nor do I think it is correct that there is a general impression throughout the country to that effect. What is the test? Look at the amount of money paid out in the last fiscal year in this department and compare it with what was paid out in other years and you will see whether there is great waste or not. I would call my hon. friend's attention to a statement I made the other day in answer to a somewhat similar criticism: that in this country in 1913, which was a quite normal year, this department, with Canada doing a trade of $1,048,000,000, paid out in cash in this particular department $18,884,000. Last year on the other hand, with wages greatly increased, with cost of materials increased by at least 50 per cent, and with the cost of practically every service also increased, the total expenditure in this department, to provide for a trade of $2,357,000,000, was $17,408,000. Let my hon. friend get this into his head, because I know he believes what he has been saying with reference to these rumors, which perhaps he has been encouraging. He believes that we are spending in this department more money than was spent years ago by his friends whom he has lauded to the skies. But he is wrong. He also believes that the business of the country is not as good to-day as it was years ago. In that particular also he is wrong. Just let me put the matter in figures which my hon. friend and everyone else in this house who is similarly minded can understand. With a business in Canada a little over a third of what it is to-day the government of this country in 1913 spent 50 per cent more in this department than we spent last year-and last year was the highest year but one since this government came into power. Let me give the figures so that we shall have the matter threshed out. In 1912-13-


Henry Herbert Stevens: We must be getting along too quickly.


John Campbell Elliott: You cannot get along too quickly if there are misunderstandings.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Go on.


John Campbell Elliott: We shall get along more
quickly when we appreciate the facts. For the year 1912-13 the total amount paid out in this department was $18,884,000; for the last fiscal year before the war, ended March 31, 1914, for a trade a little over a third of what it was this year, this department spent 827,991,000. Compare the figures: $27,991,000

in 1914 as against $17,408,000 last year. I know my hon. friend is fair enough not to repeat that criticism after he gets the figures, because it is not correct. If I may say so with regard to my predecessor in office, in whose footsteps I have endeavoured to follow, the business of this department has been carried on not only with no great waste but with great economy since this government came into power.


Arthur Edward Ross: When a member does come to this house with a little advice for the minister which may perhaps take him out of those old trails which he has been following, the minister gets a little annoyed and springs up with a lot of figures on trade and so on. I will guarantee that if he takes the two pages to which I have referred he will be saved a lot of trouble. Knowing the trouble and the anxiety which he has endured during the last few days and the attempts he has made to defend these items and to satisfy the different members who come to him with demands, I have tried to show some places where he can save money in order to allow himself something more to spend in other directions. Apparently my endeavours have been wasted; the minister seemed to get angry, and said we had been spreading false rumours. I have not spread false rumours; I have spent a lot of time over this book and I have pointed out two or three ways in which some little expenditures have been stuffed. I am not going to suggest that the minister ask the Auditor General to look into these matters; perhaps when the Auditor General reads this discussion he will include five or six pages covering the automobiles used by the different departments, just as these telephones are now included. Then we can criticize that expenditure.
I hope the minister will get out of these old paths which he has been following; I hope he will go to his department and say, "I cannot understand why private secretaries have their telephones paid for, or why three or four deputies should require their telephones paid for." I will admit that there is need for some of these telephones, but I think it could be cut down a great deal, and I hope when we discuss these estimates next year we will find a reduction. I am sure a company doing business in the commercial world would look at the overhead charge first of all, and that is what we are endeavouring to do; we believe that we could do a great deal more trade with a smaller overhead than we are carrying. I think I made it plain to the minister, and I hope he understands, that by saving in some directions perhaps he could satisfy some of these other

Supply-Public Works
demands which are made upon him. If the minister will break away from the policy of tu quoque, "Thou also", and never mind what other ministers have done-they have made a great many mistakes and it is only from mistakes made in the past that we can learn to do things better in the future-he will be much 'better off, and that is my only reason for bringing up this matter.
iMr. ELLIOTT: With regard to this matter of supplying telephones to secretaries I understand from the deputy, who has been here much longer than I, that the practice was in vogue when he first entered the department and has been maintained ever since. My hon. friend will agree with me that with the salaries that are being paid and with the cost of living as it is at present, perhaps no official in the public service has such a difficult task as the secretary to a minister. Demands are made upon these secretaries at all hours of the day and night; urgent business of the department necessitates that they be on call all the time, and I hardly think my hon. friend from Kingston, whom I know very well would not want to work an injustice on any official, would suggest that the old practice of supplying these telephones should be done away with. I do not believe that would be in the interests of the public service.


Mr. DUNNING:: Any business concern
would do it for similar officials.


James Dew Chaplin: That is not so.


Arthur Edward Ross: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Suposing we should say to the secretary, "We have decided not to pay for your telephone any longer." I believe that was done by one of my predecessors some years ago, and it lasted just a week. He was not a minister of this government but was a member of the previous administration; he had the idea that this could be dispensed with, and maintained that position for just a week. The secretaries' said, "Very well, if you do not want us to have telephones it is quite all right; we will have them taken out." My hon. friend can readily understand the situation which resulted. I do not want my hon. friend to misunderstand me, 'because1 I think perhaps no member of the house presents his criticisms with a greater desire to be helpful to the government, and I appreciate that fact. I want to get it into his head, if I can, that we have stepped out of the old trails, and because of that fact we have been able to effect the immense economies both in this and other government departments which have occurred since this government took office.


James Dew Chaplin: I just rise to correct a remark interjected by the Minister of Railways, who said that ordinary business concerns did the same thing, or words to that effect. I absolutely deny that such is the case. The employees of industrial corporations pay for their own telephones just as they pay for their own breakfasts.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am sure my hon. friend will allow me to state that just as he personally knows of business concerns which adopt that principle with respect to this class of officials, so do I personally know of corporations which, with respect to the class of officials whose telephones are used far more for the business of the concern than for the business of the individual, pay for these telephones as a matter of business.


James Dew Chaplin: That might be done by the national railways, but not in general business practice.


Charles Avery Dunning: I am not speaking of the national railways but of business concerns with which I am personally familiar. I can speak of them just as my hon. friend can only speak of those with which he is familiar. On the question of principle, I would say that the secretary of any minister must 'be and is in receipt of telephone calls all the time affecting the business of the department and of the minister's office, and in the service of the members. I do not mind confessing that my own practice is to direct that all telegrams coming addressed to me out of office hours shall be telephoned to my secretary. I do not suppose that my hon. friend would desire a minister to 'be answering the phone for hundreds of telegrams which may come in, particularly when there is an agitation in some part of the country during which the people are encouraged to send telegrams' en masse to a minister to influence his course in one direction or another. Really I think it is a pretty small thing to pay for a business telephone which is available for an official out of business hours. That is really what it amounts to; as the Minister of Public Works has said, the experiment of cutting out the practice was once tried and did not succeed very well.


James Dew Chaplin: The minister limits the
telephone matter to secretaries. No one, as far as I have heard, has objected to that. The objection is made-I am not making it, but I am only illustrating the objection- to having a whole raft of telephones.


Charles Avery Dunning: I understood the reference was to secretaries.
Supply-Public Works


Arthur Edward Ross: Some of them must be justified, but why should three commissioners have telephones? Possibly the secretary should have a telephone, but not the three commissioners. Every little sub-deputy of a department has a telephone while one or two only may be absolutely necessary. My point was that this list should be gone over to find what is necessary to be granted, and what is not necessary. I believe there is one-third of it not necessary. I have brought the matter up to show how economy can be practised and it is apparent that economy could be practised by cutting out some of these telephones. You will find that every member of a commission that comes here has a private telephone. There are several departments in connection with which a great amount of telephoning would not be necessary although that of the minister may be an exception.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the minister give me the 'information I asked for at the outset; what proportion of this $100,000 would be allocated to the Rideau Hall telephones?


John Campbell Elliott: The figures that I have
do not segregate that. The same system is followed, I take it, as was referred to before. I think the classifications are largely auditors' classifications. I find that Rideau Hall is provided for as part of one item. The Rideau Hall operator is one of the em ployees whose salary, amounting to $900, is paid out of this vote. I do not think there is any place, in the data I have before me, in which the operations of the Rideau Hall telephones are collected together. I suppose I could obtain that information, and I would be very glad to obtain it for my hon. friend and hand it to him, if he desires it.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Chairman, I am a little puzzled about this matter, and I am quite frankly interested in calling the minister's attention to this extraordinary telephone bill. I have already given him the figures from part V, page 32. We find $37805, which covers the governor generals office and Rideau Hall. Then turning to part V page 31, we find a total of $355.20 more. Then, turning to part G page 3, we find a total amount for telegrams and telephones of $4,020.32. This makes a grand total of $4,753.57 for telegrams and telephones. A great proportion of that would appear to be for telephone use. I am afraid the minister will find that a lot of the little buildings, like

janitor's house, and so on, have telephones although they are right on the grounds. Most of them really do not need telephones but they are using them, and the bills are being sent to the department and charged up to Rideau Hall. After all, the government is the guardian of the public nurse, and when we examine the estimates and find that it is costing us in the neighbourhood of a million dollars in two years to maintain Rideau Hall, then, surely, the closest examination of the estimates should be made. I find, for example, $10,000 for the printing of menus and invitations, for social engagements. When you talk to the man outside in terms of $10,000 for social invitations, just for the printing alone, he wants to know what it is all about. We find $250,000 for two railway cars; $250,000 for the Citadel as a summer home; $150,590 for office expenses over here in the east block; $48,666 for salary; $3,064 for a secretary; and $3,500 for a personal secretary, and innumerable other expenses. For example, on page 31 of part V, we find enumerated an item for plants and seed, $1,145.20, and bulbs and plants, $1,488.70. That will make a pretty nice garden. Then we find sewing and button machines-I wonder whose buttons are being sewed-$121.19. Somebody has just interjected a remark, but I am not going to repeat it.
I am going to call the attention of the house to the fact that the Prime Minister's favourite daily newspaper was so unchivalrous as to go back to the time of Adam and Eve, and blame it on the woman. I do not know whether it is true oi not, but I do say that there is more expenditure this year, more wild expenditure at Rideau Hall, than I can remember in the eight years I have been here. It is time that sort of thing was checked up.
I want to know, for example, if they are still winding the clocks up there. We find an item "winding and regulating clocks", $260. It seems a large item for winding clocks, but there may be an awful lot of them.
The principal objection I have in this connection is to the enormous amount that has been spent on telephones. I find various telephones under this item; the Department of Agriculture, $73.92; Customs and Excise, minister, $57.96; Hull customs house, $57.96; External Affairs, Prime Minister, $65.52; Speaker, $57.96; Immigration and Colonization, minister, $57.96; and deputy, $57.96 They all seem to be pretty much on a level. The Department of Justice, minister, Decern-

Supply-Public Works
ber 10 to March 31, $22.92; Minister of Labour, $72.84; all relatively. I am not going to read the whole list, but we come down to Rideau Hall, $355.20. These things require explanation. I am not going to conduct a very long discussion on it, but I do ask that the minister take this matter into consideration, and find out why we are spending such enormous amounts on telephones and telegraphs; a total of $4,753.57.
If the minister is not able to give us the information with regard to this item of $100, 000, and how much of it would be apportioned to this particular classification, I do urge upon him that he take it into consideration and look into the matter, and see if he cannot cut down some of the expenses in connection therewith. I am afraid he may find it is part of a general policy of increased extravagance. The place is one of beauty; we are entitled to it and they who occupy it are entitled to it, but within reasonable limitations. We must carefully govern out expenditures in connection with this matter if we do not want ourselves in this democratic country to throw the whole office into disrepute. The Prime Minister and the minister concerned owe it to themselves, to the very office which is under discussion at the moment and to the people of this country to see to it that this thing does not go too far.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance and repairs, $15,000.
Peter McGibbon: How many people have
been in them during the year?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid my hon. friend has asked me something concerning which I shall have to get the information from the immigration department. We are only supplying the facilities.	[DOT]


Peter McGibbon: If the minister can bring it down some other time, that will be all right.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to do that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fittings, general supplies and furniture, $135,000.
Mr. McQUARRIE:: Will the minister give details of this item?


John Campbell Elliott: This is for fittings, supplies, furniture, file cabinets, adjustable roller bookshelves, steel doors and so forth required in the various government offices throughout the Dominion outside of Ottawa. It is $10,000 in advance of the appropriation for last year;
but we find that during the last fiscal year we spent $124,895, and it was thought, to meet the requirements this year, we would need a little extra.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is there going to be an
annual expenditure of this amount?


John Campbell Elliott: There has been for many years and some years the amount is much more than that.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is the expenditure as
great as that every year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. In 1921-22, $172,000 was expended under this item.


William Garland McQuarrie: Is an estimate not
made up every year of what is required based upon reports made by the various departments?


John Campbell Elliott: This is like a number of
other items about which questions have been asked. The estimate is based largely on the experience of the department in previous years.


William Garland McQuarrie: That does not seem
to be a businesslike proceeding. In connection with municipalities, for instance, it is customary at the beginning of each year, when the estimates are being prepared, for the various departments to bring in their budgets giving details of what they expect will have to be purchased during the year, with the reasons therefor. In due course the council goes over the estimates and endeavours to pare them down by cutting out unnecessary items. Surely in the government there must be something of a similar nature. It is a mistake simply to base the expenditures for the coming year on what has been spent in the past, particularly in regard to furniture, fittings, and so on. Surely a time will come when you are fully furnished and, outside of exceptional cases, you will not have to buy anything for a few years.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no year in which some of the old furnishings are not wearing out. I want to assure my hon. friend that the department endeavours to keep down the expenditures to the lowest possible point and not to grant anything unless it is shown to be absolutely necessary. I appreciate his suggestion, but I should like to ask my hon. friend, with his knowledge of public affairs and of human nature, whether he seriously suggests we should send around to the various departments asking them: How much will you require for new fittings this year?


William Garland McQuarrie: I should think so.
Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: If my knowledge of human nature and services of this kind assist me at all, I think he would find they would immediately mention an amount much bigger than they get from us during the year.


William Garland McQuarrie: That is ridiculous, because that kind of thing could not go on.


John Campbell Elliott: We do not send out
invitations.


William Garland McQuarrie: My information is that in business the regular practice is to find out from the various departments in the business what is really required. The whole trouble with the running of the government is that it is not done on a business basis. You say: Well, so much money was spent the year before and during previous years; it is all right to spend the same money now. Nobody seems to attempt to make any improvement or to effect any economy. I remember two or three years ago having quite a discussion with the Minister of the Interior about this particular matter. He told me that he was endeavouring to get his department down to a business basis, the idea being that there were too many employees; that there was a lot of dead wood, if you like-and according to common rumour there are cases of that kind in all departments-and that that sort of thing should be eliminated; not that anyone who is employed now and doing his work should be dismissed, but that where there were persons who were not really useful, they should be retired.
The same thing would surely apply in regard to purchases. There has to be some system, and I 'believe if we could get the business of the country down to some systematic basis, millions of dollars would be saved every year. All the ministers seem to have the same idea; they do not care very much as long as they can come to the house and get their estimates through. Their job is apparently to get their estimates through. This particular minister is very nice about all the questions we ask him and so on, but his system seems to be to sidestep. He says: Well, I have not the information, and in fact and truth he has not the information. His deputy minister sits in front of him and I know what his deputy minister is like. The deputy minister is a man of long experience in that office, and apparently is a very capable and competent man. If there is anything he does not know about the department I would be very much surprised indeed. I believe that we would be able to get right down to details if we had a chance to cro^s-examine the deputy ministers instead of the ministers

themselves, and that we would in that way make a great deal more progress. But unfortunately that is not the system. I think a change might be made in that respect and that when the estimates of a department are before the house the deputy minister might be allowed to sit down in a seat beside the minister, instead of in front of him, and be subjected to questioning. Of course, it might be 'better if all the estimates were referred to a committee, and in that respect I agree with the Minister of Finance. We would then have the opportunity of getting direct information from the men who know. It is not to be expected that the minister can know all the details of his department, and I am not so unreasonable as to expect that, because his duties are many and very complicated and take up a lot of his time, particularly when he has to see so many people, and has to go so many places, and has so many things to do, council meetings every day, and so on and so forth. I quite realize that the present minister is in no different position from any other minister who has occupied that portfolio. He simply has not the time to become familiar with all the details of his department, and we have found here time after time that the minister has not the information we desire. I suggest that something is wrong with the whole administration of affairs if we are simply going to base the estimates for the coming year on the expenditures which have been made in previous years. We should get down to business'. We should have budgets in every department, and the minister when he comes to the committee with his estimates, should be able to give information on all essential details.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings-rents, $1,565,000.
William Garland McQuarrie: Would the minister
please' give details?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for the payment of rents for the year 1928-29 on buildings leased for the various departments of the Dominion government, including the London, England, Canadian 'building, and to pay for the rental of 'buildings used exclusively by the Militia department, and also for the payment of taxes 'both in and outside Ottawa, and the payment of telephones outside Ottawa. There are many pages of detail, and I would be glad to give my hon. friend any information he wants if he would just indicate what he desires.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What do the Ottawa rentals amount to?

Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: They amount to $650,377 for 1927-28.


Mr. GARDINER:: There is an increase here. What is the explanation? What extra buildings do you contemplate renting in Ottawa?


Peter McGibbon: Is it the intention of the government, as is reported, to rent a large amount of space in this architectural monstrosity that is going up in front of the parliament buildings on Wellington street?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no decision to thjt effect.


Peter McGibbon: It is under consideration, I believe.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not go that far even.


Robert Gardiner: I would like to inquire as to the nature of the taxes paid in and outside Ottawa. Are these municipal taxes?


John Campbell Elliott: The taxes that the department pays are paid largely as a matter of grace. We nearly always pay local improvement taxes, for local improvements in front of our buildings, also taxes on any buildings which are owned by the government and leased to an individual or company.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the department pay taxes on buildings that are leased exclusively for their own use?


John Campbell Elliott: The lessor pays the taxes, but he charges them up in the rent; we do not pay the taxes direct ourselves. Some of the buildings down on Wellington street that were obtained by the government some years ago are occupied by individuals, and we are responsible for the taxes.


Robert Gardiner: But no taxes are paid
on property that is wholly owned by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: And used for government purposes.


Robert Gardiner: In that case you only pay local improvement taxes?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Are the buildings on Wellington street which are occupied by the Department of Militia and the Department of Agriculture owned or rented by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: They are owned by the government and occupied by various departments. Some of those buildings are occupied by private individuals.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The doors and windows of many of these buildings are all weatherbeaten and look as if they belonged to a person who had not a friend in the world.


George Reginald Geary: They do.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I think the department
should spend some money painting and renovating these buildings.


John Campbell Elliott: The scheme at the present time is that as the various units of the Confederation buildings that are under contemplation are constructed, the buildings my hon. friend has in mind will be torn down. For that reason I think my hon. friend will agree with me that it is not advisable to make expensive repairs.


Mr. HEAPS:: I do not think Wellington
street is a desirable location for new government buildings. Now that the government has decided to have a park, to be known as Confederation park, in the centre of the city, it would be more logical to group government buildings around this space. It might be a saving in the long run to sell the Wellington street property and rearrange the buildings as I have suggested. Wellington street will never be a suitable location for government buildings; they will have to be stretched out in one continuous row.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Is the large building
now in course of erection a block east of the main entrance on Wellington street being built to-lease to the government for offices?


John Campbell Elliott: I answered a similar question a moment ago. The government has no connection with that building at the present time.


Robert Gardiner: Have any communications passed between the owners of the building and the government with respect to future renting of space?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Gardiner: Of what nature?


John Campbell Elliott: They inquired whether
the government was desirous of renting space, and quoted a price.


Robert Gardiner: What was the price per square foot?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Robert Gardiner: The same as the others?


John Campbell Elliott: Higher than other buildings that we are renting at the present time.


Mr. KENNEDY:: Who is the owner of the building?
Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: The Rideau Realty Company.


Milton Neil Campbell: I hope that at no future time will the government change its mind and lease space from this or any other company. I think the time is past when the government should rent buildings. Certainly if it pays a private company to invest money in a building to lease to the government, it should be well worth while for the government itself to provide the necesary aecommjodation.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: At the far end of Wellington street there is a good sized dwelling house occupied by the livestock branch of the Department of Agriculture. Did the government buy the property for the use of the Department of Agriculture, or is it rented?


John Campbell Elliott: That is part of the property that was purchased by the government some yeare ago.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: What was it purchased
' for?


John Campbell Elliott: It was the intention of the government at the time to utilize the building for the accommodation of those engaged in some department of the public service, and eventually to erect a building on the site.


Charles Marcil: When the government rents a building are the taxes paid by the owners or by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: The owners pay the taxes, and of course this is one of the elements they consider in fixing the rent. I know of no case in which this element has been forgotten in arriving at the amount of rent to be charged the government.


Charles Marcil: The government makes no change in the system of paying taxes?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Charles Marcil: I asked the question because I have read frequently in the Ottawa papers complaints that the taxes were not divided between the two school boards, and the separate school board did not get its share.


John Campbell Elliott: The fact that the government leases a building makes no change whatever in the manner in which the owner pays his taxes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $1,080,000.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Do these employees come under the Civil Service Commission?


John Campbell Elliott: With the exception of the firemen.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The charwomen?


John Campbell Elliott: The charwomen are not included in this item.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Are these considered permanent or temporary employees?


John Campbell Elliott: This item includes both
classes.


William Garland McQuarrie: What is the reason
for the increase?


Mr. SPENCE:: An increase of $42,000.


John Campbell Elliott: As the service increases,
the amount of space occupied is greater, and we have to increase the number of caretakers accordingly.


William Garland McQuarrie: Any increases in
salaries?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Representations
have been made that the charwomen are employed steadily, and yet are not allowed holidays and are not under the some conditions as others who work in this building. Will the minister give us some information about this class of employees?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no difference between the conditions applying to those employed in the house and to those engaged in corresponding services. The charwomen are on a day basis. They start at seven o'clock in the morning and work until half past nine, at $1.25 per day.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Representations
have been made that there is really no allowance for sickness nor for holidays. It seems to me that these women ought to be placed on as good a basis as other government employees.


John Campbell Elliott: They are paid so much a day. They get no pay for any days they do not work. The hon. gentleman is quite right, there is no allowance for holidays. On the basis of a daily hiring we think they are paid what the service is worth.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How many hours a day
do they work?


John Campbell Elliott: Two hours and a half.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As they are
employed steadily month after month, ought they not to be on other than a day basis? Simply because they are lowest in the scale of pay, I do not see why they should not be given as fair treatment as other classes of employees in the government service.

Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
those who reorganized the civil service in 1919 did not consider that employees on a daily basis, such as charwomen, should 'be allowed holidays.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then the statements of the Civil Service Commission should be reconsidered, because it seems to me that when any of us employ day labourers, as a good many of us employ charwomen in our homes, in case of sickness we gladly allow for that misfortune. In the case of women steadily employed day after day I submit they ought to be placed on something of a permanent basis and given holidays like other people. I urge this on their behalf.


John Campbell Elliott: I doubt very much
whether in many homes, even where the highest'wages are paid, this class of workpeople are paid at the rate of fifty cents an hour. That, I think, is the answer.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes; but the minister will recognize that though these people are paid at the rate of fifty cents an hour they work only two and a half hours, which is a very short time in the whole day. And it really spoils the day for any other type of work, at least in most instances. I simply suggest in the name of humanity, as well as on the ground of good business, that if a woman is ill, when she is employed week after week, the least we can do is to make some allowance for such illness and pay her for the time she is away. I also suggest that these women be given a holiday. It is not as though they were employed one day in six weeks; they are employed day after day throughout the year.


Charles Marcil: I might remind the hon.
member that this state of affairs exists with a certain class of employees in the Public Works department, among the men as well as the women. The labourers employed by the department are paid only for the days they work; they are not paid for the days on which they do not work. The women are placed on the same basis.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I wjould not say
that the women are the only^onps who should be given consideration, although'perhaps their case makes a stronger appeal inasmuch as many of them are under the absolute necessity of going out and supplementing their husbands' income. I should say that the same rule ought to apply in the case of men, whether or not they come strictly within the classification of permanent employees. The fact is, they are virtually permanent. They 50103-186
are not engaged for an odd day occasionally but work steadily for 365 days in the year, minus, I suppose, Sundays. I do not know whether they are supposed to work on Sundays. I contend that they should be regarded as permanent.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with my
hon. friend that no class of employees earn their wages with greater difficulty than do the charwomen. But we think we are paying them a fair wage. It is a matter to which I personally have given some consideration, because I felt that they of all classes were entitled to consideration. I do not however feel, in the interests of the public service, that we could either increase their wages or pay them for days on which they are not actually working. They do not work on Sundays or holidays and they are not paid for those days. The argument for holidays does not perhaps apply to them to the same extent as it does to others. I think we are getting excellent service; I have considered the matter, and I want to make that statement. I believe we have in Ottawa about 800 of an excellent type of workwomen, but this is a class of work for which there are a good many applicants for whom we canot find room. I do not of course advance that as a reason for not treating them with absolute fairness, but in my opinion those whom we employ we treat fairly.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It would be comparatively easy to keep a few reserves. There are many applicants, and if a woman were ill a reserve could be called on to take her place. I suggest that any woman who is ill should be paid. If necessary a medical certificate might be demanded. But she ought to be paid, since she is required to work fifty-two weeks in the year. I cannot see why, because she is a charwoman, she should not have one or two weeks' holiday with pay like other people. The proposition is a reasonable one; they should be treated the same as those whom we classify as higher grade employees. I do not think that the sum involved would be very large. I do not want to say anything nasty, but I do think that the minister might give as careful attention to this matter as is given to some other matters involving a considerable expenditure. The public would endorse such an action. There is something else I want to say. It has been suggested to me by some of these women that they would welcome the fact of having a woman in charge over them-an immediate forewoman. Sometimes they would prefer to tell their difficulties

Supply-Public Works

to a woman rather than to a man, who is at the head of this work. This is done in almost every business and I do not see why it cannot be done here too. Perhaps this matter may be considered almost beneath the dignity of parliament; nevertheless I submit that, as in any ordinary business, these people should be treated fairly. I should be glad if the minister would consider the matter; if he did so I am sure he would easily come to a favourable decision.


Mr. MALONEY:: Has the minister the
power to grant holidays to charwomen and labourers?


John Campbell Elliott: No; but that is not what my hon. friend has suggested.


Martin James Maloney: I want to know whether the minister has authority to do it.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member's suggestion was that I should make recommendations to the Civil Service Commission.


Martin James Maloney: Has the Civil Service
Commission control over the char service?


John Campbell Elliott: As to classification.


Martin James Maloney: But as regards the granting of holidays. Have they control over that?


John Campbell Elliott: They can recommend-


Martin James Maloney: But you have supreme
authority as Minister of Public Works.


John Campbell Elliott: I am bound by the regulations.


Martin James Maloney: But surely the minister
must have authority if these appointments are made by him independently of the Civil Service Commission. The granting of holidays does not come under the commission. If the minister has authority to give these poor charwomen the odd holiday-and the labourers who, he says, are being paid fairly good wages, as we all agree-why should we discriminate against them? You allow the ordinary civil servant appointed by the Civil Service Commission the usual holiday each year; why deny that right to the labourer and to these poor women?


John Campbell Elliott: There would be something in the argument if my hon. friend's question were not based on a wrong hypothesis. We name the parties, but the Civil Service Commission classify them and fix the rate of wages and the terms of service.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Dominion public buildings-water, $83,000.
Donald MacBeth Kennedy: What is this?


John Campbell Elliott: This covers water service to all Dominion buildings throughout Canada.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Drinking water?


John Campbell Elliott: And for other purposes as well.


James Houston Spence: Is that water supplied under a meter system? That seems to be a high price for water such as we get in Ottawa.


John Campbell Elliott: We pay the ordinary rates in the different towns where we obtain the water supply.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water service and caretakers' salaries, $28,000.
Charles Marcil: Before we leave the Ottawa public buildings perhaps the minister might answer a question which has been asked me quite often. We are making an attempt to beautify Ottawa by removing a number of old structures in the vicinity of the parliament buildings', and I would like the minister to say whether it is possible to remove that old workshop on Sussex street by Major Hill park, which is an eyesore to those passing on their way to the Basilica and to Government House. Part of the building has been removed, but the other part is Still there and it prevents people from enjoying the beauties of the park. What is the purpose of retaining that old building, which was put up some years ago when the Connaught building was erected? The Connaught building was completed years ago, and I see no reason why this old workshop should remain, because it disfigures the whole street.


John Campbell Elliott: I quite agree with what my hon. friend has said. This building was put up some years ago during the time of the construction of the parliament buildings; it has been used since for the preparation of stone being used in the parliament buildings, and for the last year or two in connection with the tower. We expect to have it removed within three or four weeks.


Peter McGibbon: I would like to ask the minister if the government have seriously considered removing from the estimates this item of $1,565,000 for rents, by putting up their own public buildings. It seems to me there is no excuse for the government of the Dominion of Canada paying such sums for rent. If it is found profitable by business people or friends of the government to con-

Supply-Public Works
struct these buildings and lease them to the government, surely it would be good business for the government to own their buildings. I think the government own enough land now to contain all these buildings, and I would . like to know if this question has been given any serious' consideration.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I thought it was pretty well understood by hon. members of this house that the plan is to proceed with the construction of public buildings to house the various departments of the public service. That is our policy.


Peter McGibbon: When are the government going to start?


John Campbell Elliott: We are practically ready now to call for tenders on the first unit, the Confederation building, which will contain 175,000 square feet of floor space. Of course that is only a very small portion of the accommodation we will require, but this is only the first of a number of buildings which will be proceeded with, not all at once but gradually, and I hope not too gradually.
Mr. MeQUARRIE: I would like to call the attention of the minister to the corner stone tablet at the northeast corner of the parliament buildings. Part of the lettering on this tablet has 'become almost entirely obliterated; I have seen a number of visitors looking at the tablet, and I think it would be a good thing to have that attended to and the lettering renewed so that anyone might be able to read the incription.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not had my attention particularly brought to this matter and I have not noticed it myself, but I will be glad to look into it. Certainly the comer stone and inscription should be kept in proper condition.


George Reginald Geary: I see that this final vote totals $5,536,500. A little while ago in discussing one of the items the minister took the opportunity to compare, in an impassioned manner, the expenditures on public works under this government with the expenditures for the year 1913-14, seeking to establish the economy of the present government by saying that amounts chargeable to income this year were something over $17,000,000, whereas I think he said they were about $22,000,000 in 1913-14.


John Campbell Elliott: No; I was dealing with the total expenditure of this department.


George Reginald Geary: Then we will take the
amount chargeable to income, which is $17,000,000 this year as against $22,000,000 in
the year mentioned. We were speaking of this particular item, which is a more or less general item and for which no immediate physical value is received.
Mr. STEVEN'S: And this is only a portion of it.


George Reginald Geary: That may be quite true. This is an item covering rents, repairs, furniture, heating and so on, and included in it are some of the items to which my friends to my left were referring. It was this particular item which induced the minister to launch into that defence to which I have referred. In the year 1913-14 the total under this item was $1,992,500, so the item is at least 150 per cent higher this year than it was then. It is quite true that the whole amount for improvements, buildings and so on exceeded the expenditure made this year by some $5,000,000, but we received value for that amount. For instance, in 1913-14 we spent $20,000 in Trail, which probably satisfied the demands of that town at that time. The other night we were told by the hon. member representing the constituency in which Trail is located that they are badly in need of a public building in Trail, yet nothing is being done this year. No one would complain if urgent requirements of that kind were satisfied, and in 1913-14 a good deal of money was spent for public buildings, post offices and so on for which value was received. When you come to these more or less general charges, among which are items which were defended by the minister, as I have said we find that the expenditure in 1913-14 was less than two-fifths of the expenditure to-day. I do not see any point in the minister going -back to that year, the facts being as they are. At the same time he ventured into the Department of Trade and Commerce, referring to the trade of Canada at this time as compared with the trade at that year. It occurs to me that that was a bit gratuitous on the part of the minister. We are not saying that the value is not here; we do not contend that the increases are not due in some measure at least to the increased cost of material and labour, and it would have been well if the minister had defended these expenditures on that ground rather than to obtain an unfair result comparing them with what happened in 1913-14.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot agree with what my hon. friend has said, and probably he does not expect me to do so.


George Reginald Geary: But the figures are there.
Supply-Public Works

iMr. ELLIOTT: No. My hon. friend will be fair when I call his attention to the real point to which he is addressing himself, and that is that these services have increased since 1914.


George Reginald Geary: Certainly.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no doubt about that; the services have increased in various ways. Consider labour, with which this item deals very extensively; no one will deny that the cost of labour has increased at an enormous rate since 1914, and when that point is conceded I think the argument of my hon. friend must fail.


George Reginald Geary: Why?


John Campbell Elliott: WThy? Because, not only has the number of employees increased enormously, but the cost of each employee has increased, so that we are having the only result that would lbe possible under these circumstances. I am afraid that my hon. friend has not just got the point.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Are you not going tob
fast?


John Campbell Elliott: We are always going too fast, *when we attempt to answer criticism. I do not propose to let it go without an answer.


Henry Herbert Stevens: You will get one, too.


John Campbell Elliott: The point I was making to my hon. friend was that while you may find raises and increases in salaries, you will also find increases in the cost of materials. The cost of things is uncontrollable. The point I was trying to make to my hon. friend -I hope I did it with as good temper as my hon. friend displayed-is that the test, after all, is the comparison of our total today with the total in former years, when the business of the country was not nearly as great. My point was that with a business of a little over a third of what it is to-day, the expenses fourteen years ago were one and one-half times the total expenses of to-day.


George Reginald Geary: If my hon. friend were to decide this year that he required a house to five in, and ten years hence he does not require a house to live in, is it fair to compare his expenses ten years hence with his expenses to-day, when he has to pay out rent for a house to live in? That is exactly what has happened in this case. We required a large number of public buildings in those days, and for the expenditures in the year 1913-14 we got assets in lands and bricks and mortar. This particular item, which we are discussing at the moment, has increased 150 per cent.


Henry Herbert Stevens: The minister did not include $6,500,000 of capital this year, which makes it $24,000,000 instead of $17,000,000.


George Reginald Geary: There has been a decrease, for instance, in the Yukon. In 1913-14 we were obliged to spend $128,000, while this year we are only obliged to spend $34,000, on account of the decreased business in that territory.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: Could the minister explain the meaning of the different items " Public works-chargeable to capital " and " Public works-chargeable to income "?


John Campbell Elliott: I must say that the very question my hon. friend has asked has caused me to make some investigation. It is a term used by the department presided over by my hon. friend the Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb), and apparently they draw the distinction between public buildings-capital, and public buildings-income. It is a distinction that is fairly hard to follow logically. .


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It is just the name of an account?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the distinction.


Mr. COOTE:: Just a distinction without a difference.


John Campbell Elliott: It seems to be a bookkeeping distinction, rather than anything else.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps this would be an opportune time to take up some matters that were held over for further information.
Victoria, B.C., astrephysical observatory (Little Saanich mountain) [DOT]- maintenance, repairs and improvements, $3,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatoon-public building, $150,000.
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings - improvements, repairs, etc., $102,000.
John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer) asked for certain information as to why tenders were not invited for post office fittings, including boxes, at St. Stephen. The estimated cost was put at $1,300, in August, 1927. Two tenders were received, one from Joseph MacVay * of St. Stephen, for $1,500, and the other was from George Stewart Ryder, St. Stephen, and was for $1,800. As the appropriation covering this work had been exhausted at that time, the tenders were not accepted, and the security furnished by the tenderers was returned. The item has been noted for consideration.

Supply-Public Works


Mr. GRIMMER:: I would like to ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to proceed at once with the repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: There is no vote yet. The item has been noted, along with many others, for the supplementary estimates; that is a matter of consideration in connection with the supplementary estimates.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Is it the intention of the government to wait until such time as they receive tenders that will come within the estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: Our difficulty at the
present time is not with the tenders; it is a question of there being no appropriation now. The first thing for the government to consider is whether or not an appropriation for this work will be inserted in the supplementary estimates.


Robert Watson Grimmer: When does the government intend to take this into consideration? Will that come in in the supplementary estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: It will be considered.


Robert Watson Grimmer: I think there are other things to be considered at the present time in connection with the matter. This question came up four or five years ago. I was not the one responsible for it, and was not the one that advocated it. No doubt this is a matter for the postal department. They found out that it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the department, to carry on the work, that the premises should be improved. At the same time, there were boxes which the public were willing to pay for. The government, through their engineers, had estimates prepared, and they took into consideration, for the benefit of the department and also for the benefit of the people in that vicinity, the proposition of at once proceeding with the work. That was in 1922 or 1923. It requires only a matter of probably $2,000 or less to cover these alterations. I cannot understand, nor can the people understand, why the Postmaster General does not see his way clear to spend this small matter of $2,000 in the interest of the department, and for the benefit and convenience of the public.
This building was built some thirty-five or forty years ago. No doubt it was then one of the best buildings in that community; it was adequate at that time. The first floor is occupied by the postal department; the second floor is occupied by the customs, and there is a storey and a half above that-Architecture at that time was up in the air,
rather than just floor space. The upper storeys were used by the caretaker. I do not know whether they are using them at the present time or not. The arrangement of the building is such that there is not sufficient space to carry on the postal service satisfactorily. The government themselves decided that in the interests of the department they would make these alterations and the people were led to believe that this work would be done at once. As I said before, something else must be entering into the matter. I hope it is not unjust to the government to suggest that there is something in connection with the tenders; but I have been informed, although I do not know this to be a fact, that the tenders which have been received for making the alterations have been made by Conservatives in the town of St. Stephen. On the other hand I understand there is no one there who happens to be a supporter of the present administration who is equipped for making those alterations. If it is the intention of the government to wait until such time as they can get a tender from one of their own party, they will have to wait until the next generation grows up.
This matter has been hanging fire for the last five years and it is only proper that the government should understand the situation from the point of view of the people in the town. The whole patronage systtm in that county seems to be narrowed down to one person, and if a whole community is going to be subject to one person in respect to alterations and other matters of this kind, it is time that some of the conditions be changed. Here we have one man deciding not only in this matter but in everything else that comes up in connection with any expenditures in Charlotte county. He decides for the county whether or not the government should make these expenditures and it is time that the government take the people in the county into consideration and not one person alone. I hope what I understand to be the case is not so, but indications point that way.
The same thing has come under my observation in connection with two or three requests I have made of the government with respect to certain matters. Some members of the government promised me they would do certain things for the county in respect to little matters. When I would bring a matter before them, they would say: "Yes, I think that is absolutely necessary and I will look after it." But before they look after it, they
Supply-Public Works

have to refer it to the gentleman I have in mind'and what is his answer? He says: "No, if anything is wanted for the county, let them come to me and I will look after it for them." Therefore that is cancelled. I am afraid the same condition exists in regard to making a slight alteration that is so necessary in a public building in order that the work may be carried on in a satisfactory manner in the interest of the postal services. This is not a new budding; it is a building which the government own; it is a building that needs repair. The amount required is only a small one, and therefore I ask: Why carry it over from year to year, going through the farce of asking for tenders and then throwing the whole thing down until the next session? What did the government say in 1921, 1925 and 1926? "The post office is going to be enlarged; there is no difficulty about that; the undertaking is to begin at once." But the day after the ballots were counted, they forgot all about the matter. I do not believe it has any bearing on the town of St. Stephen as far as the voting is cencemed, nevertheless on every platform one of the government's supporters appears before the public making not only that promise 'but others, promises which have never been carried out since this government came into power, and which I do not believe they intend to carry out. Therefore I say in connection with something the government started themselves, in connection with alterations that are necessary for the convenience of the public, for the satisfactory carrying on of the public business, it is up to the government now to spend that paltry sum of $2,000 and not to put the matter off until next year by calling for tenders and then making a farce of it.


John Campbell Elliott: So far as I am aware
the reason why a contract was not given out was because the lowest tender was quite a considerable amount above that estimated by our architect as a fair value for the work. I do not mean by that that the architect is always correct as to what these things should cost. Sometimes when we call for tenders and they are near the amount estimated, we have to pay more; but in this case the lowest tender was considerably above the estimate and there was quite a difference between the tenders, one being S300 higher than the other. This is, however, not a large item and while I cannot make any promises to my hon. friend about what will happen to the supple-

mentary estimates, the chance of an item of this kind getting in is much better than that of an item of a larger amount. I think those are all the items that were held up.


Mr. FRASER:: Will the minister give me
the information about the tractors?


John Campbell Elliott: I have obtained the information which I think my hon. friend wants. This is a gasoline tractor for Edmonton, costing $1,350. It consists of a four-cylinder gasoline engine with planetary gear, similar to a Ford truck, with rubber-tired wheels, etc., and it is used for the purpose of hauling mail trucks to and from mail cars on station platforms. All parts are made in Canada. It is assembled and supplied by A. C. Lariviere, 56 Colborne street, Montreal. It is the same type as those installed in Toronto and Moose Jaw and it is much cheaper than electric tractors which have been installed previously in many places where charging current is available, such as Montreal, London and Toronto. The price of the electric tractor is about $3,000. There was available in the department a photograph of the tractor and I have attached it to the memorandum which I shall be glad to hand to my hon. friend.


Robert Gardiner: What is the horse-power of the tractor?


John Campbell Elliott: The information does not give the horse-power.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Twenty-five.


Robert Gardiner: This tractor is very
expensive for its size. It is only a very small horse-power. The minister should look into the matter further before he purchases any more.


John Campbell Elliott: The purchasing agent
looked into the matter before this one was purchased.


Mr. LUCAS:: What is the difference between this tractor and those previously purchased?


John Campbell Elliott: I assume this is a larger tractor. It is certainly a more expensive one.


Robert Gardiner: I suggest that the minister look into the matter again. You can buy a Ford tractor for $500 or $600, and there is much more material in them than in these small things. The price is ridiculous when you consider what you get for your money, and I would ask the minister to look into it

Supply-Harbours and. Rivers, NJS.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think you can do this work with any smaller tractors. These are for hauling trucks around the station platforms, and I am told they are suitable for that work and are good value for the money.


Robert Gardiner: I have seen these
tractors at work around the various stations, and there is nothing to them. They should not cost half that amount.


John Campbell Elliott: But they do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-Bailey's Brook-repairs to pier, $2,500.
Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Under the
general vote for Nova Scotia harbours and rivers, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, for the third successive year, the deplorable and inadequate condition of two harbours in the province of Nova Scotia with regard to public service and shipping facilities. As I said, this is the third session I have brought the matter to the attention of the Minister of Public Works, twice to the attention of the present minister, and once to his predecessor.
The first harbour I wish to speak about is that of Port Greville, on the bay of Fundy. The importance of (that 'hanbiour may be realized from the business that passed through the harbour in 1926. Before giving that, let me say that this locality is not served by any other means of transportation. It has no railway facilities, and the business of that locality is absolutely dependent on the shipping facilities provided. To give the committee an idea of the importance of the harbour let me say that in 1926 there passed through the harbour:
5.000.	000 feet of lumber.
31 three and four master schooners repairs.
14 large vessels cleared with lumber.
8 cargoes of piling.
16 cargoes of lumber in smaller vessels.
1.000.	000 feet of lumber shipped in scows.
It amounted, in all, to over 30,000 tons, deadweight, of shipping.
In 1924 or 1925, I am not sure which year, certain repairs were made to the breakwater and certain beach protection work was done. A great deal of money was expended, and it is claimed not properly expended; that is, the expenditure did not give the service it should have provided; a lot of unnecessary work was done, and a lot of necessary work was left undone. The complaint is that the breakwater at this point does not extend out far enough to protect the harbour channel.


John Campbell Elliott: Just what was the date of that work?


Robert Knowlton Smith: In 1924 or
1925, I am not sure which, but I think it was 1924. The chief complaint is that the breakwater does not extend far enough out into the harbour to protect the channel, and the result is that with the flow of the tide back and forth, sediment is deposited in the channel; the harbour is gradually filling up, and it will not be long before there will be no harbour there at ali. The result will be that the people of that locality will be unable to ship their products to the markets of the world. I have a communication here from a member of a shipbuilding company in Port Greville, drawing my attention to the fact that this breakwater must be extended by the government, and also that the beach protection, which extends from the breakwater along the shore, must be repaired. He says in conclusion. "Unless something is done soon this harbour will be a thing of the past." It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, in view of all the money that has been lavishly expended by this government in different parts of the Dominion of Canada, and especially in the city of Ottawa, there should surely be enough money in the treasury to protect important public works that require immediate attention in order to enable the people to conduct their shipping business. Not only on that ground, but from the standpoint of good sound business this breakwater should be extended and the beach protection work repaired, because if much mors time is allowed to elapse the cost of these repairs will be double or treble what it would cost to-day. I implore the minister to look into this matter very carefully, and to bring down an item in the supplementary estimates to provide for this service. I admit that this matter has been taken up by some of the persons in that locality with the engineers who are in charge of the government works in the province of Nova Scotia, but apparently the government's engineers there do not appear to understand the significance of what is required at this port. I would urge the government-and I make this plea on behalf of the people of that district-to have this very necessary work done in order that these people may be provided with proper shipping facilities.
The other harbour I wish to bring to the attention of the minister is that of West Advocate. Before speaking of that, I would ask the minister whether an appropriation is to be placed in the supplementary estimates to provide for extending the breakwater at West Advocate. In that case, I shall have nothing further to say, and it will save time.


John Campbell Elliott: The name of West
Advocate is familiar to me. The work my

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
hon. friend mentions has been considered up to a certain point, but whether or not an appropriation will be included in the supplementary estimates, it is quite impossible for me to say at the present time,


Robert Knowlton Smith: No definite
decision has been arrived at?


John Campbell Elliott: The supplementary estimates have not been before the treasury board or council.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I understand from parties living in that district that the rumour has been circulated there that an estimate amounting to $8,000 would be placed in the supplementary estimates to provide for the extending of the breakwatei at West Advocate. As the minister says that this has not been definitely decided upon, I wish to bring to his attention the situation at this point. West Advocate is also a port on the bay of Fundy, and it has no other transportation facilities beyond the harbour: there is no railroad within a good many miles of this point, and all the lumber, all the pulp, and all the fish of that locality have to be shipped from these two important ports that I have mentioned. At West Advocate, on account of the shortness of the breakwater, vessels cannot get into the harbour, and all the lumber has to be shipped to them in scows and taken out and loaded in the vessels in the stream. The breakwater needs an extension of about 100 feet, I am told, and I would urge the minister to give this matter his serious consideration, because it is impossible for the people living in this district to conduct their shipping business properly and to get their products to market unless the shipping facilities are adequate. I plead with the minister to place in the supplementary estimates a sum sufficient to put these two breakwaters in proper repair, and to extend them at least one hundred feet so the harbours will be protected.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Blue Rocks-wharf repairs, $2,700.
Mr. ERNST:: Mr. Chairman, I am not
objecting to the item, but there are two Blue Rocks, one in the county of Antigonish and the other in Lunenburg county. In the one there is a government breakwater; in the other there is a government wharf. I assume that this item applies to the wharf at Blue Rocks in Lunenburg county, inasmuch as it is in a deplorable condition.
	*


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend can rest
assured that this applies to the place where the wharf needs repairs the most-at Blue Rocks, Lunenburg county.


William Gordon Ernst: Thank you.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bridgewater-repairs to and reconstruction of railway wharf, $30,200.
William Gordon Ernst: In this connection again,
Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to offer I understand that last year the wharves generally were taken over from the railways by the Public Works Department. The wharf at Bridgewater is in a deplorable condition, and a car went through the deck last year. I am very grateful indeed that the minister has seen fit to have this work included in the estimates. But I wish to call his attention to another railway wharf at Lunenburg. Both wharves are of equal importance to the communities they serve. The wharf at Lunenburg was constructed at considerable expense, and is the only wharf suitable for ships of any size. The outer portion is absolutely useless; there is no top on it whatsoever, and the bare piles are sticking out in the water. The inner portion is inadequate for the purpose for which it is needed. In the spring large quantities of bait are brought into Lunenburg by the railway, and it has been the custom for the freight cars to be taken on to the wharf and the bait loaded into schooners. Since the wharf is in such bad repair it is necessaiy to cart the bait from the railway yard down to the respective wharves of the fish merchants. At the time I brought the railway wharf at Bridgewater to the minister's attention I also mentioned this wharf. I sincerely hope that he will make provision in the supplementary estimates to look after these much needed repairs. It is not a question of politics. It is a question of saving an investment that is rapidly going to waste.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dingwall (Aspy Bay)-breakwater, $16,000.
Mr JOHNSTONE:: What is the total
tender for this breakwater?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of the contract was $73,569:	The expenditure to date
is $59,590.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Grass Cove-breakwater-wharf, $28,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: Part of it is a revote of


Robert Gardiner: Will this appropriation
be sufficient to complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Guysborough-dredging, $23,800.
William Thomas Lucas: Will the minister explain
this item?


John Campbell Elliott: The work proposed to be
done consists of dredging three areas: (1) Channel through the bar at Porter's beach; (2) Removal of point of bar at the beacon (Stoney Patch) 450 feet long, 120 feet in extreme width; (3) small area at Peart beach 250 feet long, 30 feet in extreme width. The total quantity to be dredged is 24,330 cubic yards place measurement, or 31,630 cubic yards scow measurement. The material consists of boulders, gravel and clay.


William Thomas Lucas: Will this amount complete
the work?


John Campbell Elliott: It is expected to.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $65,000.
Mr. SHORT:: I wish to call the attention
of the minister to a very small amount that is placed in the estimates for the constituency which I have the honour to represent, and which probably has as long a coast line as any constituency in Nova Scotia. In looking over the different items I find we have an appropriation of only $17,000 to take care of all the breakwaters in Digby-Annapolis. I think the records of the department will show that in the constituency there are as many breakwaters as in any other riding in the province. The neighbouring constituency of Shelbourne-Yarmouth, which is represented by the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) has an appropriation of $74,500. I have not any complaint to make, because I have not the slightest doubt that the amount is justified and required; but the same thing applies to my constituency. I look again to the constituency of Antigonish-Guysborough, represented by my hon. friend Mr. William Duff, who sits on the other side of the house, and I find that for his riding the appropriation is $57,600. Why is my constituency discriminated against and allowed only $17,000, while the other two are so generously provided for? I certainly feel that there has been the greatest discrimination, and I am entitled to the same treatment for my constituency as these gentlemen get for theirs. The public service demands it. The government say that they want to do everything they can for the fishing industry in the maritimes, and they have gone to considerable expense appointing a commission to investigate the fisheries problems there. That commission will cost the country a great deal of money. It has made some splendid recommendations which I believe this government will carry out as far as they can. I do not think they can carry them all out, but the commission has recommended that every consideration be given the fishing industry of the maritimes. But that industry cannot be carried on successfully in Nova Scotia without these breakwaters to afford proper protection. In my constituency, more perhaps than in others mentioned, we have the greatest need; the industry there is quite important; yet I am put off with only a trifling sum of $17,000 to take care of breakwaters in that constituency, while others have been liberally looked after. It is in the public interest that the constituency of Digby-Annapolis should be treated just as liberally by this government as such places as Yarmouth and Shelburne or Antigonish-Guysborough. I trust the minister will put a sufficient amount in his estimates to provide for the much needed repairs and improvements in my constituency. There is hardly a breakwater in the constituency which is long enough to enable the fishermen to carry on their vocation satisfactorily; in fact nearly all of them need lengthening, and a great many of them dredging. Some time ago I called the attention of the minister to a petition, which I presented, signed by the residents of Salmon river, Digby county, asking for the dredging of the channel. But no action has been taken; nothing is contained in the estimates for this work. I hope the minister will see that an amount is included in the supplementaries for this dredging in Salmon river. There is also a very important breakwater in my constituency at East Ferry in Digby county, connecting the mainland with Long island and Brier island. It is absolutely necessary that some dredging be done there. The minister has a petition from the municipal council of Digby county asking that a new breakwater be built at this point. It is a very important place; it serves the whole of Long island as well as Brier island.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

There is no means of communication except a ferry and the breakwater is in a very bad state of repair. If we do not build a new one there, important repairs will have to be made. Dredging is also necessary and ought to be done this year. I trust the minister will give instructions to the district engineer with regard to the breakwater on the Salmon river and also with regard to one at Victoria beach. Last year I called his attention to the fact that a dredge was working in Digby harbour and I asked him to endeavour if possible to have some work done at Victoria beach, which is an important station at the mouth of Digby harbour. For some reason or other, however, arrangements could not be made. I sincerely trust the minister will give the matter his serious consideration. Do not let him show such partiality when giving out his appropriations for the year. Let him treat us all alike and he will not have very much trouble getting his estimates through. Surely he will take these matters into consideration and try to treat us as liberally as he can.


John Campbell Elliott: Much as I should like to get my estimates through easily, I cannot get more money than the treasury board will allow me or council will pass. I know my hon. friend will revise his statements as regards discrimination when he considers what has been done for one of his colleagues. If he will look at Queens-Lunenburg he will see how much has been spent there.


Harry Bernard Short: A good many of the items for Queens-Lunenburg relate to works which have been begun already. They are revotes.


John Campbell Elliott: They were represented by the same man last year.


William Gordon Ernst: I thank the minister for
treating my constituency as generously as he has done, although I do not mean to say that he has given us everything that we need.


John Campbell Elliott: At least you will say I have given the things that are urgent.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister has treated the constituency fairly; I will say that. But there is one matter to which I wish to call his attention-something that has arisen since these estimates were compiled. I refer to the harbour of Liverpool. Liverpool is a town of 3,000 and is the capital of Queens county. Since the house convened, thanks to the activities of the government of Nova Scotia, Liverpool has been assured of a newsprint mill of 200 tons capacity daily. This mill is being set up there largely because the power facilities at that point are the best in the

province, and the mill will be situate at tidewater. The harbour is open the year round. But if the venture is to be a complete success it will be necessary for the department to cooperate with the provincial government and with the company in improving the harbour facilities. There is a sand bar across the harbour. It was dredged some years ago but it has again accumulated to such an extent that large vessels cannot use the port. I will ask the minister to give every consideration to the needs of this port, not merely because it is the port of the capital of Queens county but because it is destined to be one of the ports of Nova Scotia. May I ask him to make the fullest survey of the harbour with a view to having everything done which is necessary to make this port what it is destined to be.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
La Have river-dredging, 843,000.
Robert Gardiner: What is the explanation of this?


William Gordon Ernst: That is my constituency; it is all right.


Robert Gardiner: Is that the explanation?


Ernest Lapointe: It doesn't hold water.


Charles Avery Dunning: He is getting too much.


John Campbell Elliott: The work is under contract and this is necessary to complete it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
L'Ardoise-repairs to and extension of harbour protection, $1,800.
Milton Neil Campbell: Those of us from the west are not in a position to vote intelligently on these items; we must take the word of hon. gentlemen from the maritimes. I repeat now what I have said before with respect to these grants for harbours: it seems to me that the proper thing to do would be to increase the indemnity to the provincial government. Go back over a period of years and see what it has cost to keep up these harbours. In my opinion the provinces could expend this money to better advantage than we can. The members of the provincial legislatures are more closely in touch with the situation and they would know what they were dealing with. If you take the records of the three maritime provinces you will see that they have had efficient and economical administration; I know enough about the maritimes to be able to say that. I think

Private Bills
the money would go further if spent by the provinces, and the government might take into consideration increasing the grant to the provinces and having these matters handled by them.


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
suggest that we change the British North America Act and give control of navigation to the provinces?


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not know that
that would be involved at all, although I am not a lawyer. However, I would not allow a little thing like the British North America Act to stand in the way.


Ernest Lapointe: But if there is one
matter which is truly national in its character surley it is navigation.


Milton Neil Campbell: I do not know that
that has anything to do with my proposition, and I do not know that it would involve any change in the British North America Act, although I cannot say that with authority. If the administration of these matters were turned over to the maritime provinces my contention is that they could expend the money to much better advantage, more efficiently and more economically. The members of the legislative assemblies of those provinces are in a much better position to deal with these questions.


Mr. BRADETTE:: But the members of
this house from the maritime provinces should be able to deal with them.


Milton Neil Campbell: Yes, but the members
from all the other parts of the country have a responsibility, and in this case I suggest that the responsibility should rest entirely upon the members of the legislative assembly.


Mr. ROSS (Moose Jaw):: I think the hon. member for Mackenzie is so accustomed to the efficient government of the province of Saskatchewan that he expects to find the same condition in other parts of the Dominion.


William Garland McQuarrie: With regard to the
legal problem I suggest that we have a new doctor of laws in the house, and we might put it up to him.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John Frederick Johnston: There are quite a number of unopposed divorce bills. Will it serve the purpose of the committee to give the numbers of the bills and the names of the persons interested?
Bill No. 158, for the relief of William James Wall.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 159, for the relief of George Rubin Sanderowich, otherwise known as Rubin Sanders.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 160, for the relief of- Kathleen Elizabeth Hedges.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 161, for the relief of Lotus Henderson Conover.-Mr. Geary.
Bill No. 162, for the relief of Marguerite Trelawney Buller Allan.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 163, for the relief of Alexander Graham.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 164, for the relief of William Henry Phillips.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 165, for the relief of Marjory Elgin Burch.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No 166, for the relief of Frances Helen Renison.~-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 167, for the relief of Katie Abramo-vitch.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 168, for the relief of Daisy Myrtle McPherson.-Mr. Pettit.
Bill No. 172, for the relief of Claire Ellen Burke.-Mr. Anderson (Toronto High Park).
Bill No. 173, for the relief of George Edgar Gooderham.-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).
Bill No. 174, for the relief of Pearl Hazel Clement.-Mr. Arlhurs.
Bill No. 175, for the relief of John Arthur Towers Irvine.'-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 176, for the relief of William Henry King.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 177, for the relief of John Pepper. -Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 178, for the relief of Caroline Mildred Totter.-Mr. Edwards (South Waterloo) .
Bill No. 179, for the relief of Fanny Alrheta Schaefer.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. ISO, for the relief of Ivy Ethel James Sergent.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 181, for the relief of Angelo Spada-fore.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 182, for the relief of Lena Zimmerman Staples.-Mr. Hocken.
Bill No. 183, for the relief of Audie Bertha Stewart.-Mr. Pettit.
Private Bills

Bill No. 184, for the relief of Gertrude Aileen VanderVoort.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 185, for the relief of Roy James Vollans.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 186, for the relief of John Young. *-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 266, for the relief of Victoria May Cameron.-Mr. Bowen.
Bill No. 267, for the relief of Laura Esther Phillips Fortune.-Mr. Jacobs.
Bill No. 268, for the relief of Claude Frederick Gibbs.-Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 269, for the relief of Lillian May Gill.-Mr. Jelliff.
Bill No. 270, for the relief of Ruth Gray.- Mr. Arthurs.
Bill No. 271, for the relief of Isabella Muriel Holland.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 272, for the relief of Lily Leona Letheren.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 273, for the relief of Sarah Jane Pinkney.-Mr. Sinclair (Wellington North).
Bill No. 274, for the relief of Gwendoline Proctor.-Mr. Hoeken.
Bill No. 275, for the relief of Frances Evelene Ross.-Mr. Hoeken.
Bill No. 276, for the relief of Hazell Scelena Shaw.-Mr. Clark.
Bill No. 277, for the relief of Amy Simmons. -Mr. Boys'.
Bill No. 278, for the relief of William Charles Worley.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 279, for the relief of Gladys Ham. -Mr. Hoeken.
Bill No. 280, for the relief of Arthur Joel Cox.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 281, for the relief of Mary Ellen Gussie Edwards.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 282, for the relief of William Henery Leonard Gale.-Mr. Church.
Bill No. 283, for the relief of Harriet Louisa Gates.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 284, for the relief of Duke Mulloy Gordon.-Mr. Ross' (Kingston).
Bill No. 285, for the relief of Victor Edward McPherson.-Mr. Ross (Kingston).
Bill No. 286, for the relief of Annie Schreiber.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 287, for the relief of James Retson Watt.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Motion for third readings agreed to on division, and bills read the third time and passed.



GREAT LAKES AND ATLANTIC CANAL AND POWER COMPANY, LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from May 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Denis (Joliette) for the second reading of Bill No. 152, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited.
[The Chairman.]
Thomas Langton Church: I would like to ask the promoter if he would kindly explain the bill.


Mr. DENIS (Joliette):: I have already
spoken once to the bill. I have no objection to giving an explanation if I am permitted to speak again.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hon. gentleman (Mr. Church) has already spoken on the bill and so has the hon. gentleman who has moved the second reading, so that both are precluded from again addressing the house.


Thomas Langton Church: I had not finished my remarks the other night.


Hewitt Bostock: The hon. gentleman has already spoken.


Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Before the motion passes, I want to offer a suggestion. We do not know anything about what is involved in the bill. The sponsor of it did not explain it and we have had this year the spectacle in parliament of bills being reported out of committee without the consideration of a single clause in them.


Mr. CANNON:: Will my hon. friend permit me? If the motion passes the bill will be sent not to the committee of the whole but to the railway committee, where it will be fully'- examined.


William Irvine: I quite appreciate that; but it is t'he privilege of the house to discuss the bill on the second reading and before we endorse the principle of the bill to that extent, we should know what it is about. I am not going to insist on that if we are assured that none of the closure tactics which have been practised during the last week in the house will be applied to the bill until we know what it is about.


Hewitt Bostock: I am informed by the
hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) that he had not completed his speech the other night; that he intended to move the six months' hoist. Under those circumstances he should be allowed to speak.


Charles Avery Dunning: How long did he speak the other night?


Hewitt Bostock: He did not speak forty minutes. The hour of adjournment struck and he had not completed his speech.


Thomas Langton Church: I move, seconded by Mr. Tummon:
That Bill No. 152, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months' hence.

Great Lakes and Power Company
I wish to raise the question whether the second reading of this bill is in order inasmuch as it is within the four corners of a reference to the supreme court on the St. Lawrence waterways question by the following order in council which the Prime Minister laid on the table on the 31st January, and the issues covered by this bill are sub judice and relate to the jurisdiction of the federal and provincial authorities over navigation- the surplus waters, who owns the bed of these streams and the banks and rapids, and generally the power question as follows:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 17th January, 1928, from the Minister of Justice, submitting that at the Dominion-provincial conference, held at Ottawa in the month of November, 1927, the premiers of certain of the provinces questioned the right of the Dominion to dispose of water-powers brought into being by the erection of Dominion works for the improvement of navigation, and asserted a right on the part of the province to dispose of any such water-powers within the limits of the provinces.
This bill is largely a power proposition and it also proposes to give over to a private company a canal running from Cornwall through Montreal. If the bill goes through there will be no St. Lawrence waterways. It will mean that t'he Canadian section will be out of the question for all time. The bill deals with the very questions which are now before the supreme court. All the questions involved in the preamble of it and indeed in the whole bill are now sub judice and I should like hon. members from Ontario to understand that if this particular proposition goes through, we shall have no St. Lawrence waterway. This is the question involved in the reference to the supreme court:
The committee, therefore, on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice, advise that, pursuant to the powers in that behalf conferred by section 60 of the Supreme Court Act, Your Excellency may be pleased to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada for hearing and consideration the following questions.
If hon. members will look at the questions involved in this particular bill they will see that it involves the very question of the jurisdiction of the province as regards not only water powers but the construction of a canal. Therefore it covers questions that are now before the supreme court. It has been announced by one of the provinces that it is going to carry the matter to the privy council, the court of last appeal. There was a debate in the house on the 10th April in connection with the iSt. Lawrence waterway and the Prime Minister suggested that the bill should stand until the papers were brought down. If hon. members will look at the correspondence between Mr. Kellogg, Secretary of the United States, and the Ambassador at Washington of the government of Canada, and the government of Canada, they will see that it covers the very questions that are involved in this bill, namely, the right of the federal authorities on the one hand and the right of the state or province on the other, the international question, the federal division of authority with the provinces', and other questions regarding the canalization of the new St. Lawrence waterway. Further they are starting to divert water at Chicago right down to the Mississippi river for a canal there. Then there is a canal proposition at Ogdens-burg going down to Albany. The third is the proposition before the house to-night for a canal running from Cornwall through the deep sections of the Canadian waterway to Beauharnois and right down to Montreal, and they propose to construct a private canal and upset all the settled canal policy of Canada for the past fifty years. I do not know what is to become of the port of Montreal if this bill goes through and if everybody is to have the right to divert water right from lake Michigan all the way down the great lakes to Montreal for canal and power purposes. Among the questions referred to the supreme court was this:
]. Has the province any proprietary interest in flowing waters within the province-
In this case the water is wholly within the province of Quebec:
-and if so, what is the nature of such interest?
That is covered by the preamble of the bill and the sections that follow. The next question submitted to the supreme court was:
2.	Does the ownership by the province of the bed of any stream whether such bed be level or sloping, give to the province the ownership of water-powers?
It has always been upheld that subject to the rights of navigation, the surplus waters, the bed of the river, the banks and rapids belong to the provinces. The question raised by this bill is already sub judice before the supreme court and no doubt it will be appealed to the privy council. This same question came up in this house two years ago in connection with the Morrisburg dam. The province of Ontario wanted to build a dam at Morrisburg and develop power wholly within Ontario, and the Minister of the Interior read an opinion in the house in the year 1926 to the effect that there was no doubt that so far as navigation was concerned the interest of the Dominion in international streams was paramount, but that the surplus waters and the bed of the river and the banks

Great Lakes and Power Company
arid rapids belong to the province after the rights of navigation were satisfied. The province applied under the Boundary Waterways Protection Act for power to build that dam, and plans were filed by Sir Adam Beck on behalf of the Ontario Hydro Commission and the Ontario government, but the application stood for three or four years, and never was granted. If that dam had been built, it would have been of benefit to the whole of eastern Ontario. It is true that the power to be developed under this bill which is now before us is from a river that is wholly on the Canadian side in Quebec, but what about the rights of the people farther up the lakes? What about the several other canals? And if the province of Quebec is to have this right, Ontario will also claim the same right, and so will the state of Illinois, New York, and other states, and you will find yourself on very dangerous ground. To continue with the questions referred to the supreme court:
2.	Does the ownership by the province of the bed of any stream, whether such bed be level or sloping, give to the province the ownership of water-powers:
(a)	created thereupon by dominion works for the improvement of navigation; or
(b)	existing thereupon by nature?
3.	Has the province any proprietary interest in or legislative control over:
(a) the canals, with lands and water-power connected therewith, and the lake and river improvements which were conveyed to the dominion by section 108, schedule 3, of the British North America Act, 1867, or in or over the disposal of any water-powers created thereby or existing thereupon from time .to time; or
_ (b) water-powers created by works for the improvement of navigation constructed by or under the authority of the dominion since confederation; or
(e) works constructed wholly for power purposes by the dominion out of moneys appropriated by parliament for such purpose?
Part of this canal is for navigation purposes :
If so, what is the nature of such interest or control ?
4.	Has the dominion exclusive legislative power to regulate waters for the purposes of navigation:
(a)	in navigable waters; and
(b)	in non-navigable waters?
5.	Where the dominion, for navigation purposes, expropriates or uses any part of the bed of any stream vested in the province, is the province entitled to any compensation for such expropriation or use?
6.	Has the dominion the exclusive legislative control over and proprietary interest in water-powers brought into being by works authorized by parliament to be erected in an international stream for the purpose of carrying out an agreement between Canada and any foreign country looking to the creation of joint works for the improvement of navigation in such streams?
If not, what are the powers and rights of the province with regard to such water-powers? [Mr. Church.1
That is the very question whicn this bill brings up. To continue:
7.	Where the bed of a navigable stream is owned by the province or by a private individual, is the title of such owner subordinate to the public right of navigation, and to the provisions of any statute which may be enacted from time to time by parliament, within the powers conferred by section 91 (10) of the British North America Act, 1867?
In conclusion, I wish to quote May's Parliamentary Procedure, at page 709, in regard to what principle is involved in the second reading of a bill. He says:
The second reading of a private bill corresponds with the same stage in other bills, and in agreeing to it the house affirms the general principle, or expediency, of the measure. There is, however, a distinction between the second reading of a public and of a private bill, which should not be overlooked. A public bill being founded on reasons of state policy, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, accepts and affirms those reasons: but the expediency of a private bill, being mainly founded upon allegations of fact, which have not yet been proved, the house, in agreeing to its second reading, affirms the principle of the bill, conditionally, and subject to the proof of such allegations before the committee. Where, irrespective of such facts, the principle is objectionable-
As it is in this case, because the question is sub judice:
7 the house will not consent to the second reading; but otherwise, the expediency of the measure is usually left for the consideration of the committee.
The time to enter a protest against the principle of a bill is on the second reading, and I am opposed to this bill in principle. I say further that in view of the order in council which I have read, this bill should not be gone on with on grounds of law and of public policy, and in view also of the exchange of correspondence between Washington and Ottawa on the whole question of the St. Lawrence deep waterway. The interests of navigation are paramount.


Hewitt Bostock: On the point of order, if the question before the courts was exactly the same as the one that is being debated by the house, I would have no hesitation in saying, as I have said in similar circumstances, that the question, being sub judice, was not debatable before the house. But it is not the same question.
As regards the general point raised by the hon. gentleman, I find, according to Bourinot:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question, nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
That disposes, I think, of the question of the point of order.

Great Lakes and Power Company
The question now before the house is that this bill, respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited, be read a second time, and in amendment thereto Mr. Church moves that the said bill be not now read a second time, but that it be read a second time this day six months hence. The question is on the amendment.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals):	Just before the
question is put, while my views on the bill would probably coincide with those of the hon. member who has moved the six months hoist, it is customary to allow petitioners for private bills to appear before a committee of the house and there state their views, what they want, and why they want it, and the normal course to follow in the case of a bill of this character would be to refer it to the select standing committee on railways and canals. While I cannot predict the outcome, the very fact that the six months' hoist has been moved indicates that the bill would be very carefully scrutinized by that committee, and I submit that that work can be done very much better by a committee of the house than by our summarily disposing of the matter on the second reading of the bill. I think we would all agree that we reserve our right to destroy the bill on the third reading even if it does come back from the committee. The work of the house in connection with a bill of this kind can be done much more conveniently by one of the standing committees, and for that reason I am opposed to the six months' hoist.
Mr. G. R. GEARY' (South Toronto):	I
think one would not take exception as a general rule to what the minister has just said. The ordinary course is to allow such a bill to be passed on to a committee in order that it may be explained there by its promoters, but that, of course, is subject to consideration of the general situation which follows the passing of the second reading, that thereby the principle of the bill is more or less adopted. It seems to me that this bill can have no possible chance of success. On principle it is wrong in the circumstances, because we have the very recent declaration of the government that the whole question of the St. Lawrence waterway is to be considered; that not only have negotiations been entered into and correspondence passed between Washington and Ottawa, but that the government has the matter under consideration. I have forgotten the exact language used, but that is the effect of it. This bill is diametrically opposed to any fair consideration of the St. Lawrence waterway proposition. If this bill were passed granting the promoters power to construct the projected canal, it would be an absolute bar to the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway as a national undertaking. One has only to look at the powers contained in section 17 and the other powers scattered throughout the bill to realize that it is not at all the sort of measure which the house should consider at the moment. It is directly opposed to ownership by the Dominion of the deepened waterway when and if it be completed. The bill is studded with provisions that will interfere with and endanger action by this house on the St. Lawrence waterway project.
Now, we have not reached the position where the St. Lawrence waterway deepening can be discussed, but I think I may express it as the general feeling of the house that this great undertaking will come eventually. So the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) has put it, and so most of us in the house believe. But to place in the hands of private owners navigation rights through the St. Lawrence is beyond belief. I do not know of a case where such rights have been granted, either by the federal or the provincial authorities, to private individuals. Nor should they be so granted, because as a highway on land should be free to the passerby, so should the road by water be free to those who seek to use it. No private corporation is entitled to come to this house and ask to be given powers which will override the natural rights of the people to the ownership of their own water courses.


Charles Avery Dunning: Might I interrupt my
hon. friend just there? He says that no private interest should have the right to come to this house and ask. I think it is- the fundamental right of every citizen to come and ask. To receive is another matter, but to come and ask is the undeniable right of anyone.


George Reginald Geary: I accept the hon. minister's correction. I may not have stated the position in apt terms, but my meaning is surely evident. Perhaps a private person has the right to come and ask for anything-


Charles Avery Dunning: That is right.


George Reginald Geary: -but no private person has the right to expect that he may get something of this kind.


Charles Avery Dunning: I agree.

Great Lakes and Power Company


George Reginald Geary: So, Mr. Speaker, it is so
obvious to me that the principle should not be accepted by this house that I concur fully in the motion to read the bill this day six months. We are shortening discussion of the bill perhaps, but its purpose requires no explanation or discussion; those who run may read; and the dangers that would follow the passage of such a bill are so manifest that I submit the house should not at this moment advance it even by a second reading.


Arthur Edward Ross: Mr. Speaker, if we give this bill second reading we accept its principle. I do not think any member is prepared to endorse it. Having, as the minister says, given the bill a little chloroform, I think we should not prolong the agony by allowing it to go to committee for further discussion. I am absolutely opposed to the principle involved, and I do not see any reason for allowing the bill to proceed a step further. Therefore, I support the amendment.


Edward Joseph Garland: Mr. Speaker, this bill, as the member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. Church) intimated, involves the pretty wide question of navigation rights. I had not known, until he drew my attention to it, that the question of navigation was involved, and with all due deference to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) I submit that no bill involving this question on such an important body of water as the St. Lawrence should receive the recognition of this house even to the extent of sending it to committee. I have not heard any satisfactory explanation of the bill. The minister will doubtless reply: Wait until the bill goes to committee and then you will get a full explanation. But the fact of the matter is that if we give the bill second reading we are virtually telling the committee to consider the possibility of granting to private interests navigation rights on the St. Lawrence. The whole situation is so ridiculous that I cannot imagine even the Minister of Railways countenancing it. Frankly, I am in agreement with him on the general principle that private individuals are entitled to fair consideration for their bills.


Charles Avery Dunning: That is all I am asking.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think
the minister is quite right in that regard, where questions of this nature do not arise, but in my opinion this house would make a grave mistake if it were now to give its imprimatur to the possibility of private interests

receiving navigation rights on the St. Lawrence. I am therefore going to vote for the amendment of the hon. member for Toronto Northwest.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am absolutely opposed to this bill, and have been since I first read it. I was prepared to allow it to go to committee and do my best to kill it there, which is really the normal course: but I find myself in a position where I cannot vote against the six months' hoist because I believe the bill merits it. Had that motion not been made, I should not have grievously objected to the second reading simply as a matter of form. Under the circumstances I shall vote for the amendment, for I do believe this bill is bad in principle.


Mr. A. J. ANDERSON (Toronto-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I associate myself with
the mover of this amendment (Mr. Church). We have spent a large amount of money in getting reports on the deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway. The government has not declared its policy with respect to the project, but it has submitted certain questions of federal and provincial jurisdiction to the supreme court. The province of Quebec is not the only province interested in the result; Ontario and the western provinces are also concerned. The province of Quebec may have the right to grant incorporation to this company which proposes to build a canal, but the canal would really form part and parcel of the St. Lawrence waterway. The deepening of the St. Lawrence waterway is not only an interprovincial matter, it is international.
There is sufficient in the preamble of the bill to show just exactly what-is intended by the promoters. The principle involved is absolutely contrary to what this parliament should sanction. The United States have treaty rights with regard to the navigation of the St. Lawrence, and this canal, if constructed, would very materially interfere with those rights. This would bring up the question of damages and other collateral matters. I am strongly opposed to the bill on principle, for it affects the question of navigation; and, further, the question of federal and provincial jurisdiction, which at present is under consideration by the supreme court. This is simply trying to get certain powers which will create a complication when we come to deal with the whole question. The preamble itself is quite wide. It says:
Whereas a petition has been presented by the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited, a body politic and corporate,

Great Lakes and Power Company
duly incorporated under the Companies Act, chapter seventy-nine of the revised statutes of Canada, 1906, hereinafter called "the company", praying that it may be authorized to construct and operate a deep waterway from the western end of lake St. Francis at or near the town of Cornwall in the county of Stormont, in the province of Ontario to Hungry bay in the county of Beauharnois in the province of Quebec, and to build a canal from said Hungry bay to a point at or near Melocheville, in the said county at Lake St. Louis, and a deep waterway through lake St. Louis to a point at or near Caughnawaga in the county of La Prairie; or by an alternative route to build a canal from Lake St. Francis at Hungry bay in the county of Beauharnois, through the said county of Beauharnois and thence through the counties of Chateauguay and La Prairie, to some point on La Prairie basin, in the latter county; to create a deep waterway from La Prairie basin to deep water in the harbour of Montreal, so as to make and complete throughout the entire distance from Cornwall aforesaid to the harbour of Montreal as aforesaid, a navigable canal-
And so on.
That is involved in the St. Lawrence scheme, and, as I say, it is merely an attempt to anticipate action in regard to the entire question. If this bill were passed it would thwart the whole scheme. I am opposed to it on principle and I shall vote for this amendment. No doubt if it went to the committee there would be ample opportunity to discuss it, but I do not think it deserves the consideration that was shown a similar bill last year. On principle that bill was wrong but it was sent to a committee and it was there for a considerable time before it was killed. I am satisfied to support this amendment and I think it would be the part of wisdom for the house to accept it.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Argenteuil):: In-as much as I am paired with the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and therefore am unable to vote, our pair being binding at all times, I rise now to say that I am strongly opposed to this bill-as strongly opposed as anyone can be. I can see no purpose in considering rhe matter at all under present conditions. The government have referred to the courts the question as to the respective rights of the provinces and of the Dominion, and the adpotion of this bill would create complications for the administration in any future settlement of that question. I merely rise now to express my opposition to the bill.


Mr. JAMES ARTHURS (Parry Sound):: I have no hesitation in saying that I am opposed to this bill on general principle, especially in view of the fact that there has been so much agitation in Canada and the United States in relation to the deep waterway, with a part of which this bill must interfere. There 56103-187
can be no doubt that the question now before the courts as to the respective rights of the provinces and of the Dominion is involved in this measure, as it is in all legislation along the same line. I am therefore opposed to any measure of this kind at the present time.


Mr. JOHN EVANS (Rosetown):: If this
bill passes and becomes law it will give power to a private concern to interfere with a part of what is known as the deep waterway from Montreal to the great lakes. I thought we had practically laid down a policy regarding utilities of this kind when a similar bill was defeated last year. In my opinion it is time this parliament adopted a definite policy governing such great public utilities, particularly one of such magnitude and importance to the whole country as the project under consideration. I am on principle opposed to placing any public utility in private hands and I shall vote for the amendment. There should be no possibility of a bill of this kind passing this house.


Milton Neil Campbell: I
wish to add my word of protest against the bill and to express my approval of the amendment. Among the powers asked for in the preamble is this:
So as to make and complete throughout the entire distance from Cornwall aforesaid to the harbour of Montreal as aforesaid, a navigable canal or canals and ship channels of a depth of not less than thirty feet between said points for the passage of ocean-going vessels-
This is an important part of the bill.
-and to generate, distribute and sell such electrical energy as may be available.
As the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) has said, this bill is very much like the one rejected by the committee last year and known as the Georgian Bay Canal bill. That bill was turned down and I can hardly conceive of parliament accepting a similar bill at the present time. The government should come forward with some definite policy so that parliament and the country may not be left in a maze concerning projects of this character. It is time the government came forward and definitely stated their attitude towards such bills. It seems a remarkable situation that a bill of this importance, involving a project of such magnitude, should be introduced by a private member without any expression of opinion from the government regarding not only the question under consideration at the moment but all other matters of this nature. I hope that in the few minutes left for the discussion of the bill some member of the government will tell us where the administration stands with respect to it.


Charles Avery Dunning: I did so.

2946	COMMONS
Great Lakes and Power Company


Mr. TUMMON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Chambly-Vercheres (Mr. Lan-glois). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.

Mr. SMITH (Cumberland: I was paired with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff). Had I voted I would have voted for the amendment.


Hewitt Bostock: The hour for private bills has expired.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works - Malagash *- wharf repairs, $3,600.
Robert Knowlton Smith: I would like to ask the minister whether this amount is for repairs in addition to the amount voted last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. If my hon. friend will look at the column showing the revotes he will see that none of this money is being revoted.


Robert Knowlton Smith: This amount is to continue the repairs which were started last year?


John Campbell Elliott: To repair the pierhead by driving creosoted close-piling along both sides and across the end, and renewing and repairing the decking, guard, stringers and so on. This is all new work.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I should like to draw the attention of the minister to the fact that I am instructed that the shipping facilities at this point are inadequate. This is a very important port on the straits of Northumberland and is quite near a salt mine which has expanded rapidly during the past few years. I am told that they require more adequate shipping facilities than they have at present at this point, and1 I would like the minister to take this into consideration when bringing down the supplementary estimates.


John Campbell Elliott: I might tell my hon. friend that it is largely on account of these requirements of the salt industry that this vote is included in the estimates. I will read our report:
This wharf is the shipping point for the output of an important salt product industry, which is growing rapidly. The anticipated value of water shipments of salt for 1927 is approximately $28,000; the value of products and supplies shipped and received over this wharf in addition to the above amounts annually to approximately $15,000.
It is to provide shipping accommodation that this work is being done.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I am not objecting to the amount; I say it should be increased. This is an important industry and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
the surrounding country is so rich in agriculture as well that everything possible should be done to see that proper and adequate shipping facilities are provided.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Murphy's Pond, Port Hood-harbour improvements, $6,000.
Mr. MoQTJARRIE: I see there is a revote of $6,000. Will the minister explain why the money was not spent last year?
John Campbell Elliott: This work is under contract, and it has not been completed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
New harbour - (Antigonish-Guysborough county), breakwater extension, $25,000.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister explain why this item is required?


John Campbell Elliott: It is required in order to complete the work.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: I do not rise to oppose the vote to my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) but I want to call attention to the fact that there is some $60,000 voted for wharves, and so on, in the county of Antigonish-Guysborough. For the county of Halifax, with the indented coastline that they have, to say nothing of the harbours, and so on, there is a vote of some $16,000. Sixty thousand for Antigonish-Guysborough, and sixteen thousand for Halifax! It seems to me that there is discrimination there, and it is hardly fair to the county I represent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Parrsboro-repairs to harbour protection works, $3,600.
Robert Knowlton Smith: Will the minister explain this item?


John Campbell Elliott: It covers repairs to the harbour, protection work. They have to tear down and rebuild a portion 160 feet long, 10 feet wide, and 10 feet high. This work has greatly deteriorated, and has been damaged by storms. This is one of the important shipping ports of the province; the lumber shipments are valued at $750,000 to $1,000,-
000.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Is this under contract?.


John Campbell Elliott: No, it is a new work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
56103-187J
Pictou-repairs to railway wharves, $25,000.
Thomas Cantley: I would like to ask the minister a question in regard to the control or ownership of these wharves and the other railway wharves in the province of Nova Scotia. Would the minister be good enough to tell me if the Public Works department has taken these wharves over from the railway department?


John Campbell Elliott: The transfer is hardly
completed, but negotiations have been under way and are very nearly completed for the taking over of these wharves by the Public Works department.


Thomas Cantley: I presume that that will apply to the other railway wharves in the province of Nova Scotia?


John Campbell Elliott: It applies to a number of them, but not all of them.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister be good enough to tell me the exceptions?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not that information here, but I can give it to my hon. friend later.


Thomas Cantley: You will let me have that later?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: I presume this amount
will be expended by the Public Works department?


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, yes.


Thomas Cantley: I want to thank the minister for the vote, and also for the small vote to cover repairs to pier at Bailey's Brook. Both were urgently needed, and the repairs to the railway wharves at Pictou should have been made some considerable time ago. I want to thank the minister for undertaking it at this time.


William Anderson Black: Would the minister be good enough to tell me what has led up to the transfer to an outside department of these railway properties and railway wharves which are necessary for the operation of the railway? It. would appear as though only a portion of them were being taken over. Why a portion, and not the whole? If the policy is to take them over, why not take them all? What led up to it, and what is the real policy with regard to it? Why should a railway wharf be taken over by another department of the government? They
2948	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
are part and parcel of the railway, operated and used 'by the railway, and the Public Works department has nothing whatever to do with them.


John Campbell Elliott: One of the reasons why we are not taking all the wharves over, as I answered my hon. friend, is that there is a difference between those which are public wharves and those which are mostly railway wharves. It was thought by the railway authorities, as this department is charged with the construction and repair of wharves throughout the country, that they could look after the work perhaps more conveniently, having facilities already available, than the other department. There was the additional reason that they were not wholly railway wharves, but served the public generally, and it was contended that they should come under the Public Works department.


Thomas Cantley: That remark cannot
apply to the railway wharves at Pictou, which are wholly railway wharves, serving only the railway or the customers of the railway.


John Campbell Elliott: Our information is to the effect that this wharf is used for various purposes. It is used extensively for the shipment of timber on vessels, loading, of course, from railway cars. This is one of the notes that our representative gives us:
The Canadian National Railway wharves at this place afford the, only adequate wharf accommodation for all traffic.
This wharf (shed wharf) is a transfer wharf for freight, mail and passengers to Magdalen islands, via steamer Lovat; Prince Edward Island via steamer Hochelaga, and other traffic to local ports.


Thomas Cantley: That information is
quite correct so far as it goes, but it is not strictly accurate in this respect; the railway wharves are used exclusively in connection with the railway. It is quite true that the coastal boats land their freight and their passengers.


John Campbell Elliott: Would my hon. friend
say that the vessels going to the Magdalen islands are railway vessels?


Thomas Cantley: No. If my hon. friend
will wait a moment I will make myself clear. It is quite true that the coastal boats use these wharves, but they use them to land passengers and freight which come over the railway. That is the point. Ninety-nine per cent of the freight handled by these boats passes over the railway either inwards or outwards. As a matter of fact they are feeders to the railway. Any local freight
(Mr. W. A. Black. [
coming by these boats is infinitesimal, probably not more than one per cent. These wharves are strictly railway wharves. The east wharf which the minister referred to as handling lumber, handles nothing but deal and lumber of that character which is largely shipped abroad. There are several other wharves which are used by other shippers.
I may add further that both these wharves were built by the Intercolonial prior to its being taken over by the Canadian National railways and they are essentially and entirely railway wharves. I want to make that clear. I asked whether they were now being taken over by the Department of Public Works as I have been endeavouring to get authoritative information for six or eight weeks. I asked a question in regard to it in the house some few weeks ago and was told that the wharves had not been taken over. I now note from the explanation made by the minister that while they are not yet actually taken over, the matter is under negotiation and the intention is to take them over.


John Campbell Elliott: The intention is to take
them over but-


Thomas Cantley: Then I understand their
administration will be by the Department of Marine and Fisheries as is the custom in regard to wharves under the control of the Department of Public Works?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Round Hill wharf repairs, $5,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Is this Round Hill, Annapolis county?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: These repairs are very much needed. In fact the wharf was in such a condition last year that steamers could not call at it, and I would request the minister to be kind enough to give instructions to have the repairs made just as soon as possible.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Soldier's Cove wharf replacement, $4,200.
Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond) :: I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works if his department still persists in the stand which they have pursued so far in building a new wharf at Soldier's Cove.


John Campbell Elliott: That is the intention.


Finlay MacDonald: What
explanation does the minister offer for this extra expenditure?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.


John Campbell Elliott: District Engineer Locke
has reported under date of November 4, 1927, recommending that the new wharf be built of creosoted substructure pile type on the eastern side of the cove. The Chief Engineer reports as follows:
The petition sets out various reasons whereby it is considered the present site of the wharf would be the proper one and from the reports on file, dating from 1902 to date, I have excepted the following summary of statement as to actual conditions as reported by the engineers from time to time, and which deals with the points raised in the petition as well as such other features as seem to me to be pertinent to the question.
East side	West side
Shelter Well sheltered Well sheltered Cost	$4,150	$5,150
Or $1,000 more.
Location
In centre of district At one side of district Warehouse
To be provided, included in cost
Private owned, for sale
It is also stated that the east side is easier to keep in shape. The report continues:
I am not yet in a position to deal with the fifth point raised in the petition, that the highway from suggested site would be so steep as to make it impractical to haul more than one-third the average load from the wharf to the main highway, since Mr. Bernasconi, when assistant engineer in 1909, reported that the grade of the road from the eastern site would not be less than one in ten, which grade would render the hauling of loads a difficult matter.
However, in the report of October 25, 1927, by Assistant Engineer Gregory, forwarded with Mr. Locke's report of November 4, it is stated "and that the then objection, that the main highway was too far away from the site, had now been overcome by the provincial main highway coming closer to the site through diversion along the shore of the lake."


Finlay MacDonald: Are
those the only reasons that the minister's department now gives for the building of a new wharf in that locality?


John Campbell Elliott: It is reported to us to be cheaper and better. Those are the reasons.


Finlay MacDonald: I have
taken the matter up with the Minister of Public Works and he has made t'he statement that the petition states so-and-so. I know of no petition that has been passed through my district except one and that is a petition in opposition to the new * site of the wharf, a petition which the minister has in his possession and which is signed by 153 residents of the district and vicinity which the proposed wharf would serve. The question came up in 1921 and the same engineer who has handed in the report which the minister today reads, reported that the site of the existing wharf was the site that should be chosen. The people in that vicinity claim that this new wharf is an unnecessary expenditure of public money. We need public money. I make the statement that I am not opposed to the expenditure of public money in my constituency and I say that we have not so far received a sufficient quota of public moneys that are expended in Nova Scotia and in the Dominion generally. The county of Richmond is entitled to far more money but that money should be expended properly. It should not be expended as this $4,200 is to be expended in Richmond where it is being spent wholly and solely for political purposes. It is being spent in order that a vacant farm in that constituency may be sold at a better price. That is the whole statement. There are not six people in that community who want this new public wharf. It is only the patronage holder, my opponent in the last election, and the individual who owns the property, who are interested in having this new wharf built. As my hon. friend knows, his department must function when they are asked to do so by departmental heads, and that is the reason why such a report is in the department to-day. I have here a petition which was presented to the hon. Minister of Public Works, signed by 153 residents of that district. They are not all of one political faith, but of all political faiths. There are only three or four people in that district who have not signed this petition. Those people have signed because they want public money spent for public service. They do not want to see public money wasted. They want the present wharf which was built in 1921 to be repaired by this government. They do not want the new wharf built, and the minister knows that full well. This is the petition which has been signed by 153 persons of that district:
We, the undersigned residents of Soldier's Cove, Grand River and vicinity, humbly petition your department to reconsider the matter of constructing a wharf at Soldier's Cove, opposite the site of the present wharf, for the following reasons:
Whereas, the location on the opposite side of the harbour is not suitable for shipping-[DOT]
They make the statement openly, that it is not suitable for shipping. Further, let me state that the only marine captain in that district, Captain D. L. Stewart, a man who has sailed the Bras d'Or lakes for the last twenty-five or thirty years, is the man who signs second on this list, and he should know whether the above statement in the petition is right. The petition goes on:
2050	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
-is not suitable for shipping, because of its exposure to the Bras d'Or lakes, for a distance of twenty miles, with north and northwest winds prevailing;
Whereas, ships could not moor at suggested site of new wharf, with above-mentioned winds prevailing;
Whereas, wharf site would have to be purchased and the department put to the expense of building a new wharf, where one now exists;
I repeat, Mr. Speaker, only one or two people in that whole district are interested in the purchase of this site. It goes on:
Whereas, a highway would have to be constructed for a distance of half a mile;
Imagine it! A new highway will have to be built although a highway already exists leading to the present wharf. It goes on:
Whereas, the highway from suggested site would be so steep as to make it impractical to haul more than one-third the average load, from the wharf to the main highway;
Whereas, the construction of a wharf on the suggested site would increase the distance now traversed to Lewis Cove road, by at least one and a half miles;
The people who are mainly served by this wharf are the people in the Grand River district, and the petition of 1921 which caused the government to take action was largely signed by the people of Grand River district. They wanted that wharf, and they want the wharf that exists to-day. It is only the few who have a piece of property at the lower end of Soldiers' Cove who want this new wharf-a wharf, mind you, to reach which the people will have to go one and a half miles further. As the petition says:
Whereas the present site of the wharf at Soldier's Cove is most easy of access

The people who are to be served say that the present wharf is most easy of access. The petition goes on:
We further petition your department to effect the necessary repairs to the present wharf, which we consider would be of greater service to the community which it serves and a great saving to the treasury of this dominion.
In 1921 this same engineer, Mr. Locke, investigated both sites through his resident engineer, and when no political pressure was being exerted, he selected the site on which the present wharf is built and recommended that to the department, but to-day on account of the little 'bit of political pressure that has been exerted by my opponent in the last election, and by one or two people who want to make a little divvy out of the sale of a piece of land, this government throws discretion to the winds. Our fishing communities need the expenditure of public money on every part of the Atlantic seaboard, and all they are asking for in this case is a little

bit of repairs to the present wharf. Owing to the action of provincial government officials in 1925 the old wharf was broken, and this government has never seen fit to repair it. There was an item in the estimates of 1926 for repairing that wharf, but this government did not see fit to expend that money when they came back into power, and to-day we find in the estimates an item of $4,200 for the building of a new wharf in a different locality altogether. As the representative of that community, as the one who receives the large support of that district and the support of the adjoining districts, I make the statement here that I am opposed to that sort of public expenditure. I want public money expended for public service, and not to gratify a few barnacles that are hanging on to this government.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Finlay MacDonald: No. I move to amend the item by striking out the words "wharf replacement" and substituting therefor the words "repairs to present wharf." It may be necessary to reduce the amount from $4,200. I am opposed to this item absolutely.


Edward Joseph Garland: The house has no doubt been impressed by the excellent case presented by the hon. member who has just taken his seat, and although I know nothing about the situation my curiosity has been aroused, and I would ask the minister to explain the situation, or to answer the allegations that have been made by the hon. gentleman.


John Campbell Elliott: I did not notice whether my hon. friend was in his seat when I made the explanation in regard to this item. If he was, I suppose he heard me.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am sorry I did not catch what the minister said.


John Campbell Elliott: I gave a full explanation, but I shall be glad to give it again. This is not a new matter. It has been a matter of controversy in that community since this wharf was first proposed in the year 1902, and there has been a serious difference of opinion with regard to it. For that reason a very careful examination was made and greater care was taken in ascertaining the relative merits of the two sites than otherwise would have been the case.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister explain how it happens that a report evidently came from the engineer three or four years ago in

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
favour of one site, and now another report comes from the same engineer in favour of a different site. I should be glad if the minister would elucidate that.


John Campbell Elliott: The first recommendation was in favour of the site that we now propose.


James Dew Chaplin: By the same engineer?


Finlay MacDonald: I take exception to the minister's statement. In 1902 there was no such thing as a wharf in that district. I have been practising medicine for fifteen years in that community, and I take exception to the minister's statement.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend was following me-


Finlay MacDonald: I have the floor, and I am going to keep it.


Charles Avery Dunning: You have not. You gave it up and the minister took it.


Finlay MacDonald: I have
as much right to it as the hon. Minister of Railways.


Edward Joseph Garland: I rise to a ' point of order, Mr. Chairman. I asked the hon. minister a question, and I thought he was doing his best to answer it. He had reached a comparison between the statement of the engineer a few years ago and his statement of to-day. I think he ought to be permitted to conclude his statement, and then I shall be delighted to hear the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton finish his oration.


John Campbell Elliott: I was stating that this
is an old controversy, and if my hon. friend from the riding had been paying attention to what I was saying, he would know perfectly well that I did not say there was a wharf there in 1902. I said that there had been an agitation- between two contending parties in that riding as to the best site, each side wanting their own site ever since 1902. My information is that when the people of Soldier's Cove discovered it was proposed to reconstruct the wharf they started an agitation to build a new wharf at another location, the reasons for the change being: (1) The present wharf was at one end of the district, while the proposed site would be in the centre; (2) that when the present wharf was built the majority of the local people were in favour of having it at the site of the now proposed wharf; (3) and that the objection that the then highway was too far away from the site has now been overcome by the provincial main highway coming closer to
the site through a deviation along the shore.
I hope hon. members will not think that this decision was arrived at without the most careful consideration. One cost 84,200; the other will cost over 85,000. My hon. friend will not contend for a moment that the old wharf is suitable at the present time, or that it does not need complete reconstruction at the expenditure that I have stated. Those are the circumstances. The department takes full responsibility, and has arrived at this judgment after the most careful consideration.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: The hon. member's
motion is in direct conflict with standing order 56, section 510:
It is not allowable to attach a condition or an expression of opinion to a resolution in the committee of supply, or to change the destination of a grant.


Finlay MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the minister states that an agitation had been conducted since 1902. No doubt when his party was in power from 1902 to 1911 the same people were interviewing the government and doing their utmost to have a wharf built in a locality where only one or two families lived. In 1921 the public placed before the government a petition, signed, as is the present petition, by 153 residents of the district. As a result of the petition the Department of Public Works, through this very same engineer, Mr. Locke, selected the site of the present wharf in Soldier's Cove. I may state that he selected it without political pressure being exerted, as is stated in the petition. Political pressure had been exerted, and was effective for fifteen or twenty years in preventing the wharf being built in that district. There is now a wharf at Soldier's Cove, and it will not take very much money to repair it. The top is in perfect repair; but in 1921 the Department of Public Works, through its engineer, used ordinary native wood instead of creosoted timber.


John Campbell Elliott: What year?


Finlay MacDonald: 1921.
You cannot say that the engineer is bad from the political standpoint, for he has been as good a tool of this government as any that I have ever known. Now, Mr. Chairman, as the representative of that district, thoroughly conversant with every step that has been taken in the construction of this wharf, and knowing the interests that it must serve, I strongly object to the minister's statement. If we do our duty to-day we will repair the present wharf at Soldier's Cove and not incur this additional expense. Instead of handing out public money to a few of his heelers, I
2952	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
would ask the minister to extend some of it on wharves along the coast for the benefit of our fishermen; I would ask him to spend it in the opening up of the Grand river; I would ask him to spend it in building a public wharf at Louisburg, or in aiding the districts of Main a Dieu and the Lorraines, L'Ardoise, and so on; I would ask him to spend it in giving us a life saving station at Scatarie island.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


John Frederick Johnston: Carried.


Mr. QUINN:: It is not carried yet. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister who requested the repairs to the breakwater at Devil's island1, $1,400.


John Campbell Elliott: That item was passed some time ago.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Who requested the repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not propose to go back to the discussion of an item that was passed some time ago while another item is still under consideration.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Is the item, Soldier's Cove, still under discussion?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I noticed that the minister did not reply to the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton (Mr. Macdonald). This discussion comes under item 134. I am asking for an explanation about Devil's Island breakwater repairs in order to ascertain whether the telephone and telegraph communication between the island and the mainland has been re-established.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to give my hon. friend the information when I have the data relating to telegraphs and telephones. It is about three books from these items.


Felix Patrick Quinn: May I ask if the item Dover, wharf repairs and extension, refers to Dover in Halifax county?


John Campbell Elliott: That is Antigonish-Guys-borough.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Who directed the minister's attention to the wharf repairs at Owl's Head, $1,200? At whose request was it placed in the estimates?


John Campbell Elliott: It was supported by the engineer.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Who directed the engineer's attention to the weakness of the breakwater and the necessary repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: As far as I know the engineer is supposed to examine these wharves and report on their condition.


Felix Patrick Quinn: At whose request?


John Campbell Elliott: On his own responsibility. That is what he is there for.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Then we have Sheet Harbour wharf repairs, $1,000. I suppose the same answer applies to that. Then Tangier.


Mr. BANCROFT:: I rise to a point of order. We had better call in all the Nova Scotia members so that we shall not have to go over this again. This is the second time we have gone over the list; they have all been discussed.


John Frederick Johnston: I would point out to the hon. member that we are taking this vote item by item.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am discussing vote 134.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee is now discussing Sydney wharf, $27,000.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am speaking to vote 134.


John Frederick Johnston: But the committee decided to take it item by item.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Vote 134 is the whole item.


John Frederick Johnston: The committee decided to take vote 134 item by item and we are now at Sydney wharf.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Then am I precluded from discussing any item that has been previously dealt with under this specific vote, 134?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Certainly.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am asking the Chairman, not you.


George Halsey Perley: The hon. member was not here this afternoon and it has always been customary-it is an act of courtesy on the part of the minister

to answer reasonable questions regarding one of the items in a vote such as this.


Ernest Lapointe: One, yes; but he is going over the whole list.


James Dew Chaplin: Probably it would take less time if the question were answered.


John Frederick Johnston: The rule states:
Sometimes there are a number of items in a resolution. Each item may then, if the committee think proper, be taken up as a distinct

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
question, and so discussed and amended. The debate in such a case must be strictly relevant to the item, and when it has been disposed of, no reference can be again made to it when the subsequent items are under consideration.
_ The committee decided to take vote 134 item by item, and to revert to items already passed is not in order.


Peter McGibbon: If we are to adhere to the letter of the rule we shall not make much progress. The minister and the government this afternoon absolutely blocked their own estimates; there is no question about that. The hon. member is asking a simple question and there is no reason why he should not get an answer. There has not been much opposition, but if an hon. member is to be prevented from asking questions because of a technicality we must take some other means of getting our rights.


John Frederick Johnston: The hon. member was not interfered with until he got beyond the item under discussion. He went down the list until he passed the item now before the committee. I called "Soldier's Cove" which was carried, and the committee is now considering Sydney wharf.


Finlay MacDonald: I want to ask the minister a few questions. I am not through.


Felix Patrick Quinn: He will be here another week now on account of this.


Charles Avery Dunning: Perfectly proper; that is your right.


Finlay MacDonald: Did I
understand the minister to say that the repairs to the old wharf would cast $5,000? It would cost only $4,200 to build a wharf on the east side of Soldier's Cove. Will it take $5,000 odd to repair the old wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is right in his understanding of what I said.


Finlay MacDonald: As I
understand it, wre are going to spend $4,200 in the purchase of a site to construct a half mile of highway and build a wharf; and the wharf will be built at a point which is not feasible. The first name on the petition to which I have referred is that of a Shipper, the only man who ships out of that port, and in his opinion and in the opinion of the others the site is not feasible. These people state that you cannot build that wharf for that money; you cannot purchase the site and construct the highway for the money.
The old wharf, constructed on the other site, did not cost more than $3,000, and all that is required to-day is a little creosoted timber. I cannot see how the minister can stand up and advance that sort of argument and expect this committee to accept it.


George Taylor MacNutt: It is a most unusual
occurrence for a representative of a maritime riding to get up and ask for a vote to be reduced, and I am sure the hon. minister, after the many statements he has made in the last few days as to the amount of sweat he has lost in securing money from this wonderful treasury board, should welcome an opportunity to accept the suggestion offered by the hon. member for Richmond-Wegt Cape Breton (Mr. Macdonald). I have some knowledge of the district which is under discussion, and I may tell the minister that if the hon. member has a petition bearing 150 signatures or more he has a petition that covers pretty nearly all the people who are living in that community. I also have some knowledge of the situation in respect of the two wharves, and I am free to admit that there is a good deal in what has been said regarding the prevailing winds affecting shipping on that side of the harbour. The present wharf was built in 1921, and if I know anything about construction work it is about wharf building. In my opinion no wharf built in 1921 out of native Nova Scotia timber is to-day in very bad condition. I should be inclined to regard the charges made by the hon. member as somewhat serious and I would advise the minister to make haste slowly in this matter and prosecute some further investigation.


James Dew Chaplin: Will the minister tell us
what the estimate consists of? I know nothing about the matter, but I should like to know what the estimate is for the right of way as well as for the wharf itself.


John Campbell Elliott: The cost of the new structure-including right of way, $75, and warehouse, $200-is $4,150 and it is placed at $4,200.


James Dew Chaplin: What about the site itself?


John Campbell Elliott: That is included; there is $75 for the right of way.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Has the minister the two reports of the engineer, one made in 1921 and the other on which this item is based? If so, it would be interesting to have those reports read.
2954	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.


Mr ELLIOTT:: Yes; we have all the data including the correspondence and-


Robert Knowlton Smith: And the reports?


John Campbell Elliott: And the reports. We have all the correspondence that has passed ever since the matter was first agitated. I may say to my hon. friends that I have no desire to force a wharf on an unwilling people in that section of the country and I am perfectly satisfied to let the matter stand.


Finlay MacDonald: In view of the stand the minister has taken I want to ask this question:	Is he in favour of
repairing the present wharf which the government built in 1921?


John Campbell Elliott: Not in view of our information.


Thomas Cantley: Has any work been done on the new wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Thomas Cantley: No provision made for
the highway leading up to it?


John Campbell Elliott: We have nothing to do
with the roads. A road has been built by the province which comes near the site of the new wharf, but we have made no expenditure in connection with it.


Thomas Cantley: How near does it come?


John Campbell Elliott: The main highway has
become the provincial highway, and is closer to the wharf.


Thomas Cantley: I can tell the minister it is not very close. In view of the fact that he has received a petition bearing over 150 names asking that the existing wharf which has been there since 1921 be repaired, I think he would be well advised to let the item stand and change it to a repair item.


John Campbell Elliott: I will probably drop it
altogether; I do not want to force a wharf on people who do not want it.


Finlay MacDonald: The
minister has received a petition signed by 153 people, including the Liberal counsellor in the district of Grand River, asking that the wharf at Soldier's Cove be repaired. This wharf was built as a public convenience and for the public service, and I state distinctly to the committee that the proposed new wharf would not be of public service and would not serve the community. I think the .minister is ill-advised when he makes the statement that he will not repair a public wharf which this

government allowed a provincial government to destroy in 1925 by placing upon it some 50 or 100 tons of sand. This money has been appropriated by the treasury board, and it is the duty of the minister to give those 153 people the public service which they require. I make the statement advisedly that it will not cost anything like $5,000. You must have creosoted timber to put in a new wharf, so why not put it in the old wharf which is there with a warehouse right alongside? In 1922 a merchant of Grand River constructed his own warehouse for perishable goods, and it still exists.


John Campbell Elliott: I am very much obliged
to my hon. friend for the information he has given and for the manner in which he has given it. I do not propose to prolong the controversy, so I will let the matter stand and if I find anything to lead me to change my view to that which my hon. friend has expressed I will do so; otherwise I will drop the item.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The minister has just stated he will allow the matter to drop.


John Campbell Elliott: I will let it stand for the present.


Felix Patrick Quinn: That means it is wiped out for this session, or that it will come up some day when no one is here to oppose it, and it will go through flying like many other things toward the close of the session. I want to place myself on record as not opposing any small vote such as this amount of $4,200 for Soldier's Cove, or any other votes for the province of Nova Scotia, although we are only spending the paltry sum of $492,100 on harbours and rivers in the province of Nova Scotia which is absolutely surrounded by water, where we would expect a comparatively larger vote than any other province in Canada. What I want to ask the minister is this: When a requisition is made for a public work in any constituency of Nova Scotia or any other province, who recommends that expenditure and why is not the elected representative of the people for that particular constituency consulted? He is the man who is logically and rightfully the most interested and best informed on matters in his own riding. Why is he not consulted, and why do we find in the estimates votes for some constituencies larger than they should be, while in other constituencies there is no appropriation at all?


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose my hon. friend is referring to the constituency of Queens-Lunenburg, in which the largest vote is being spent?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I did not mention Queens-
Lunenburg; we are dealing with Soldier's Cove. I was called to order by the chairman a short time ago because I referred to Devil's Island; my hon. friend is now referring to Queens-Lunenburg and I hope the chairman will rule him out of order.


William Gordon Ernst: Again I want to thank the
minister for listening so attentively to my persuasive eloquence; I hope it will continue to be persuasive with him.
Item stands.
Sydney-wharf, $27,000.


Finlay MacDonald: Will the minister kindly give us some information about this vote? What is to be the total expenditure for the' site and the wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: This is an amount required to complete the wharf at Sydney, to finish the work now under contract with the Cook Construction Corporation of Montreal.


Finlay MacDonald: What is to be the total cost of the wharf and the site?


John Campbell Elliott: The total will be probably 8135,000.


Finlay MacDonald: For both?


John Campbell Elliott: The site cost $68,000;
amount of contract $59,755; inspection and other expenses, $7,245, making a total of $135,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Tangier-wharf repairs, $1,300.
Felix Patrick Quinn: May I ask the minister who recommended this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: The report of the engineer,
in all these cases.


Felix Patrick Quinn: That is the answer in all
cases. At whose request would the engineer go to Tangier? There are 150 coves and harbours in the county of Halifax; why should they pick out Tangier?


John Campbell Elliott: It is the duty of the
engineer to go round to the various wharves and inspect them. They make reports, and from these reports and all the other information which we can obtain we come to the best conclusion possible with regard to the necessity for repairs or construction.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Tangier happens to be sixty miles east of the city of Halifax, and I wonder why the resident engineer of Halifax or the province of Nova Scotia should particularly
pick out that place. I am not saying that Tangier is not an important settlement, but there are others just as important in the constituency of Halifax. I cannot understand why the engineers should pick out that place, sixty miles from Halifax, and find there a necessity for a $1,300 expenditure.


John Campbell Elliott: Our report is that this
work is required for the maintenance of the structure which provides facilities for a fishing industry valued at $15,000 annually. Fishing is the only means of support for a population of 400 people. If my hon. friend objects to it, I am willing to let this item drop.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I do not object to the item. My hon. friends say "drop it", but let me tell my hon. friends from the province of Quebec that they are feeding out of the public trough to a greater extent than the province of Nova Scotia.


Mr. DUSSAULT:: I suggest to my hon.
friend that he is spending more than the wharf would cost by taking up the time of the committee for half an hour on an item of $1,300.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I have the utmost respect
for the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Dussault), but while we may be on a very small item of $1,300, my hon. friends from the province of Quebec will be talking about $8,500,000 worth, and they will fight very hard for it. I am not objecting to the principle, nor am I objecting to this vote.


John Campbell Elliott: I would not say that you are supporting it.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am supporting it.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We cannot see it yet.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Why is there such a small
vote for the constituency of Halifax? Why should we get $1,300 for Tangier, and not get more in other districts? There have been many requests made for the county of Halifax, and they have not been granted. I cannot understand why this particular district has been picked out for an expenditure of $1,300. I would like to know who requested the engineer to go down there?


Mr. POULIOT:: If my friend-


Felix Patrick Quinn: I am asking a question of
the Minister of Public Works and my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) may keep his seat.
Item stands.
2956	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, N.S.
Westport-wharf repairs, $3,500.	.


Harry Bernard Short: I am very glad to see that
the minister has a small appropriation for this very much needed wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope my hon. friend is
not going to insist on this item standing, because I will have to meet his wishes if he does.


Harry Bernard Short: I just want to find out
whether this will include some dredging that is needed at this breakwater. It is a very important breakwater.


John Campbell Elliott: There is no dredging included in this; it is to cover repairs to the wharf. Our report is that the repairs will consist of rebuilding a section of the pile wharf, 90 feet by 30 feet, on which the piling has been destroyed and eaten off by the limnoria; replacing 30 brace and fender piles, also destroyed, and 10,000 feet board measure of bulkhead. This is one of the most important fishing centres in Digby county, the annual value of the fishing catch amounting to between $200,000 and $300,000. On account of this report, we feel that the repairs should be done, and that they are all needed.


Harry Bernard Short: This is a very valuable
breakwater, and a lot of money has been spent on the construction of it. It needs these repairs very badly, but the appropriation now made is totally inadequate. This is a large piece of work, and there is some dredging that is very urgently needed. I hope the minister will give instructions to his resident engineer that a dredge be sent there during this coming summer. Perhaps this can be provided for out of the $65,000 for harbours and rivers generally. I hope the minister will give the necessary instructions to have this work carried out as quickly as possible.


John Campbell Elliott: I may say that there is some money being expended out of the general vote to repair the incline slip, bulkhead, refoot some of the piling that was destroyed by the limnoria, and make the wharf 6afe and secure for the winter. This amounts to about $550, and will somewhat increase the amount. Apparently it is a necessary work at a very important point.


Harry Bernard Short: I am sure it would be in the public interest if the minister would recommend to the engineer that the necessary dredging be done there.


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


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Yarmouth bar [DOT]- breakwater repairs and improvements, $4,000.
Felix Patrick Quinn: I presume that has been recommended by the district engineer.


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Without any suggestion from the representative of that county.


John Campbell Elliott: I could not say as to that.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I thought that would be the answer.


William Anderson Black: I want to correct the statement I made a short time ago in reference to the expenditure under this vote No. 134, in the counties of Antigonish-Guys-borough and Yarmouth. I stated that there was about $60,000 voted for these two counties, but I find, on going carefully over the figures, that out of nearly $500,000 these two counties are getting $135,800, or 27 per cent of the whole vote. Halifax county, the most populous in the province of Nova Scotia, does not get $16,000, as I said, but $8,500. I would ask the Minister of Public Works not to hold up that item for Tangier, because it would reduce the $8,500 to about $7,200, and that would look very small. I feel that the minister would almost be ashamed of such a small amount.


John Campbell Elliott: When my hon. friend was making his estimate I am sure that he wanted to be absolutely fair and not leave the impression that on account of the riding being represented by some particular party it was being discriminated against.


William Anderson Black: Oh, no, I just
took the figures as they were.


John Campbell Elliott: Did my hon. friend take the trouble to see how much was being expended in Queens-Lunenburg? Does he know that about $120,000 is being expended in that riding?


William Anderson Black: It is needed.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt it is. It is because it is needed that it is being spent.


William Anderson Black: I am not opposing that vote.


John Campbell Elliott: It is being spent because our reports show that it is a little more needed there than in the riding represented by my hon. friend.


Mr. ILSLEY:: I want to say a word in answer to the suggestion made by the senior member for Halifax, namely, that public money spent in Nova Scotia should be op-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers, P.E.I.
portioned in proportion to the population or something of that sort. If we adopt that suggestion we shall be following an entirely wrong principle. The money should be spent in accordance with the needs of the various constituencies. There is a feeling in Nova Scotia that a good deal of money is spent in the county of Halifax. We in the other parts of Nova Scotia do not object to that if the money is needed; but it is an entirely erroneous doctrine to be propounded in the house that because the constituency of Halifax does not get a very large proportion in any particular year of the money spent in Nova Scotia, something is wrong. I, as a representative of one of the rural constituencies of Nova Scotia, wish to protest against the idea going out that we from that province are always trying to get all the money we possibly can regardless of the needs of our various constituencies.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward Island-harbours and rivers-[DOT] Bonshaw freight shed, $2,900.
Felix Patrick Quinn: Why is this freight shed needed?


John Campbell Elliott: This is to construct a freight shed, 30 feet by 60 feet. Warehouse facilities are urgently required on account of the development of the seed potato industry in the district. The annual business over the wharf is between $30,000 and $40,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Charlottetown - reconstruction of railway wharf, $140,000.
Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Is this wharf being taken over from the railway department by the Public Works department?


John Campbell Elliott: An order in council was passed on October 19, 1927, granting authority to transfer from the Canadian National Railways to the Department of Public Works certain wharf properties including the railway wharf, freight shed and portion of coal shed at Charlottetown.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
West Point wharf repairs, $4,000.
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Before the items for Prince Edward Island are all through, while I do not like to follow the suggestions that were made in the house this afternoon and evening with regard to favouritism in .the matter of distributing the money in the Public Works department, yet having regard to the situation that existed last year and that exists this year in Prince Edward Island, I feel it is almost impossible to get
away from that idea. A year ago I drew the minister's attention to the fact that out of an amount of $107,000 voted for harbours and rivers for the three counties of Prince Edward Island, the sum of $1,000, which was a revote from the year before, was voted for Kings county. This year I find a similar condition existing although not to quite so bad an extent. Out of a total vote of $229,800, an amount of $13,000 is voted for Kings county. It seems to one representing the county in opposition and remembering that the other counties have government representation, that our county is being penalized because two years ago it voted against the government. I hate to make that suggestion. I know the minister does not want to play that kind of politics, but it is pretty difficult, in view of the facts as we find them, to entertain any other idea. If we did not have needs, and very serious needs, I would not say a word, but I want to call the attention of the minister to this fact. In 1925 a vote of $36,500 was put through the house for a very important piece of work, namely for the strengthening of the Souris' breakwater. Souris is one of the most important towns in Kings county and it is an important point serving a large section of the people. As I say, in the session of 1925 an amount of $36,500 was voted for this' work and a contract was let, but for some reason or another the contractor did not perform the work. In the session of 1926 the appropriation was dropped; the contract was not renewed and the work has not yet been done. The breakwater is in imminent danger of going to pieces, and if this occurred Souris property would be destroyed. I should like to ask the minister why the vote of $36,500 passed in the session of 1925 was dropped and not renewed, in view of the fact that he has the government engineer's report of the urgent need of the work and the imminent danger of the breakwater being destroyed if it is not strengthened.


John Campbell Elliott: Do I understand my hon. friend, who is the representative for Kings county, to say that there was just $1,000 expended in that constituency a year ago?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I said that out of the votes passed in the house a year ago, amounting to $107,000 for harbours and rivers in the whole province, the sum of $1,000 was earmarked for Kings' county.


John Campbell Elliott: If my memory serves me aright, an amount of $SI0,000 was expended on a potato warehouse on a wharf in Kings county, my hon. friend's riding, which he says was discriminated against.
2958	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers, P.E.I.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I was not
speaking about the votes which were the result, of the recommendations of the Duncan commission. As a result of the recommendations of that commission there were three votes, one for Prince, one for Kings and one for Queens. I was leaving those out altogether because they are not ordinary votes by this parliament. I was referring to the votes for harbours and rivers for the three counties, and for that reason I did not take into account any particular county.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend wishes
to be fair, does he mean to suggest that Kings county last year and this year has not been very generously treated by the Department of Public Works?	.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I may say, Mr. Chairman-


John Campbell Elliott: I am not asking you.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I will reply to the minister's question, by asking him another. Does he think it is fair when he votes 8170,000 for the three counties for harbours and rivers generally that only $1,000 should be granted to my county, which needs public works even more than the other counties? I say this to the minister, and he should know it, that in our county we have a larger proportion of harbours and rivers than in any other county in the province.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend sees, does
he not, that $145,000 of this $229,000 is a revote?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I am aware of that. I have asked the minister a direct question twice about the Souris breakwater, but I will repeat it. In the session of 1925 this government voted $36,500 for the purpose of strengthening the Souris breakwater. That work was needed at that time, and it has been needed ever since. A contract was let by the government, but through some inadvertence the contractor did not complete his work. The vote was dropped in 1926 and again in 1927. That work is very much needed, because there is imminent danger of the breakwater being destroyed if it is not strengthened. Why was that vote put in the estimates in 1925 and then dropped, and why is it not being renewed now when there is very much greater need for the work?


John Campbell Elliott: I suppose the various
officials who have had to pass upon these votes from time to time have decided that something else was more urgent. That is all that I can say.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Does the
minister expect me to be satisfied with suppositions? If so, he is making a mistake. I am not satisfied to take what he supposes at all, and it is not fair to ask a member to accept his suppositions in the matter. If anything could most strongly bear out the charge of favouritism and discrimination against Kings county it is that one fact that a vote was put in for this work when the county was represented by a Liberal, and dropped out of the estimates the following year when he failed to secure re-election, and the vote has been dropped ever since. The minister's answer is not satisfactory. I want something better than that; I want some facts.


Mr. JENKINS:: I should not like the
impression to go abroad that Kings county had been discriminated against in any way by the other members from the province. I know my hon. friend from Kings wants to be fair to the representatives of Queens and Prince. At all times I have endeavoured personally to co-operate and do anything I could to help the people of Kings county. I want that distinctly understood. When construction of a warehouse at Georgetown was mooted last year we did everything we could to support that request. Even from a selfish point of view, Mr. Chairman, jt was our duty to do what we could to establish a warehouse at that point, because Georgetown harbour is open very much later in the season than Charlottetown harbour, and a considerable quantity of our potatoes and other produce going forward must be shipped through that port. Therefore, as I say, it was essential that we should push for Georgetown if only from a selfish point of view. I think my hon. friend from Kings would not want the impression to go abroad that my colleagues and myself from Prince Edward Island were in any way responsible for votes not being put in the estimates for his county. Kings county needs ' more money, Mr. Chairman, and I think there should be more warehouses established there, because the potato business is growing very rapidly, and I feel sure if the minister can see his way clear to do anything for Kings county next year, or even in the supplementary estimates this year, my colleagues and myself will be only too pleased. I am quite sure that the member for Kings would not want to convey the impression that we were endeavouring to block expenditures for his county. Personally I say from the floor of this house that I am not doing so. On the contrary, I repeat that my colleagues and I

Live Stock Act
are endeavouring in every way to co-operate with the people of Kings county. I only make that statement in order that my position may be clear before the people of my province.
I want to thank the Minister of Public Works for the consideration he has given to our province. A great deal of fault has been found with him to-night, but I sincerely appreciate all he has done for our county, for the building of a wharf at Charlottetown, and numerous other works throughout the province, all of which were necessary. I am sorry to hear so much criticism of the Public Works department because, speaking personally I have always found the minister a first-rate fellow. He is willing to meet any reasonable demand. Our friends on the other side must remember that a great deal of money is being spent in places where we have not representation in accord with the government, notably in Toronto, for instance, and I thi*k the minister has 'been very fair to constituencies that did not send representation to this side of the house. I have always found him very reasonable and wish to add my word of tribute for the good work he is doing.


Felix Patrick Quinn: I would not say a word at
this stage of the debate but for an interjection of the Minister of Public Works when I was endeavouring to answer a question. He said that the had not asked me the question which I attempted to answer on behalf of twenty-five per cent of the representation from Prince Edward Island. The last speaker, who represents part of seventy-five per cent of the representation of Prince Edward Island, has tried to point out that the Department of Public Works has been very fair, but I ask was the minister fair when he tried to place to the credit of Kings county an expenditure of $60,000? May I say, and my friends to the right of the Minister of Public Works will bear me out in this, that Kings county is the only county in Prince Edward Island whose harbours are open to shipping throughout the winter, and naturally a cold storage potato warehouse would be placed in that county. Now when this expenditure is made in Kings county to look after the shipping requirements of the whole province, why should the minister endeavour to place that expenditure to the credit of Kings county?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I was glad to hear the remarks of my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Jenkins). I wish to assure him
that there was no intention on my part to charge either him or any of his colleagues from Queens or Prince with being a party to discriminating against Queens county. I want to be fair to them because I have always found them absolutely fair with me. But certainly the votes that have gone through the house to-night are not fair to the Island, nor were the votes that were passed last year. With regard to the frostproof warehouse which the minister referred to as having been built in Kings county last fall, I think the remarks of the member for Queens make it clear that that was not a county affair, but provincial. I wish to express the appreciation of the people of Kings county for the building. It was late in the season before the contract was let, but from December up to the 4th of January five large steamers loaded at the warehouse. I think this justifies the expenditure. But I do wish to get an answer from the minister in regard to the vote for the Souris breakwater which was placed in the estimates, passed by the house, and the contract let in 1925. Why has not the work been carried on since?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. Chairman, I move
that the committee rise and report progress
Progress reported.



LIVE STOCK AND LIVE STOCK PRODUCTS ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 61, to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act-Mr. Motherwell-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Regulations-Beef for domestic consumption.
Mr. TOLMIE:: Will the minister explain
the bill?


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, this is a bill
to provide for the voluntary grading of beef for domestic consumption. It is the result of the work of a committee that entered very fully into the whole question throughout western Canada. They also visited Chicago to ascertain how the grading system was working there. As a result they recommended that this system of voluntary grading should be adopted. Their recommendation was endorsed by the Western Canada Live stock Union. The 'bill passed through the committee on agriculture without change, and at this hour of the night I can safely recommend it to the consideration of the house.
29G0
Live Stock Act


George Halsey Perley: Does the minister suggest that it would not be all right in the morning?


William Richard Motherwell: It would be all right both morning and evening.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Are you adopting the
United States stripe system of branding?


William Richard Motherwell: That was discussed in the report, and it was thought to be a very handy way. I may say that we are not accepting in toto the recommendations of the committee to which I have referred. We propose to call together all parties who are interested in the grading of beef, that is, a representative butcher, a representative abattoir man, and a representative producer, in order to work out the grades. It is important to ascertain just how many grades are required. The committee recommended that there be two grades only-choice and fancy. There is a difference of opinion whether those would be suitable names. To make quite sure that that is what the country desires one of the first steps to be taken will be to call together, as I have said, a fully representative committee of all the various interests, and so work out a system of grades.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Have the United States
added a third grade yet?


William Richard Motherwell: I do not think so.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: Has it worked out fairly
successfully in the United States?
Mr. MOTHERW'ELL: It seems so. Some are not enthusiastic over there, but I think the system has come to stay. There seems to be, a very general opinion in favour of it, especially in western Canada. I found a much greater number of people supporting th,e system than I anticipated, especially the small butchers, who find it necessary in the summer time to order their meat from the abattoirs. They never know what they are getting. Under this system they would order by name the grade they want, and if not supplied they would have some redress against the abattoir.


Simon Fraser Tolmie: I do not think you need
the system so much to protect the dealer- he is a pretty good judge of beef-as the consumer, who when he ordered prime steer beef steak was sold cow beef of second quality. Cut up into steaks, he could not tell what grade was being supplied. With this system of branding in force the grade will be indicated, no matter how thin the steak may be. In that way the consumer will be educated to buy the better grades. This will have

beneficial effect on the producer, inasmuch as he will receive a little more for first class beef. That has been the great trouble all the way through-the ability of the middleman to sell second or third grade steer beef for first class. I notice this simply gives you power to work out your system later on.


William Richard Motherwell: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I am a little disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the minister now intimates that the form which the brand is to take is to be left open. In committee we were advised that the roller system would foe adopted. I hope he is not going to retire from the position then taken and that possibly the stamp system may be adopted. This would not cover every cut of beef, and, as the member for Victoria (Mr. Tolmie) points out, it is the public that must be protected.


William Richard Motherwell: After this committee works out a system of grades which* it is prepared to recommend, such system will first of all foe submitted to the trade, and to the consumers and producers, to see how acceptable it will be. It will have to be done quickly, on the roller system, just as we brand the top of a box of butter. It is the same system. We shall have to work out some system and submit it to the interested public and find out whether they have any suggestions to- offer before it- is finally adopted.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is all I wanted to know. The bill is a good one and I approve of it. The minister is of the opinion that the roller system is a good one?


William Richard Motherwell: Yes; it is the most expeditious.


Thomas Cantley: The minister probably
knows already that a considerable number of cattle are being slaughtered in some provinces and are reacting from the tuberculin test. How will he indicate beef of that character?


William Richard Motherwell: That opens up a
considerable problem which we can more properly discuss on the vote for the administration of the Health of Animals Act.


Thomas Cantley: Is not this a good time
to take it up?


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
On motion of Mr. Lapointe the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.

Questions
Monday, May 14, 1928