1929-04-29

[Stage Direction]
Second report of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries.-Mr. Duff.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 170, respecting juvenile delinquents.
He said: This bill is a revision and at the same time a consolidation of the old act of 1908, incorporating certain changes which have been suggested by the conference which was held last summer of judges of juvenile delinquent courts and others interested in social work. The amendments relate largely to procedure and1 are of a nature to make the act work more smoothly.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

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

Mr. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria) :: 1.	How many postmasters have been dismissed in the county of Cape Breton North-Victoria, since the present postmaster general assumed office?
2.	What are their names?
3.	Why were they dismissed?
4.	Upon whose recommendation were said dismissals made?


Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	25.
2,	3 and 4.
Postmasters dismissed in the County of Cape Breton North-Victoria, since the 25th September, 1926
Post Office	Postmaster	Why dismissed
Bay Road Valley			
Benacadie Pond			
Boulardarie East		Neil McPhee		Political partisanship and better location.
Boulardarie West			
Bucklaw			
Dalem Lake			
Eskasoni			
Gairloch Mountain		A. D. Campbell		
Ingonish		J. P. Nunn		Political partisanship and change of site.
Inlet Baddeck			
Ivera			
McNeil's Vale			
Matheson		N. McLeod		Non-residence of postmaster
Recommended by
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwver, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N .S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N .S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mine , N ,S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.

Questions
Postmasters dismissed in the County of Cape Breton North-Victora, since the 25th Sept. 1926 Cone.
Post Office	Postmaster
	
	
North Harbour Cape North.	J. A. McLeod	
North River Centre....	N. J. McLeod	
	
	Mrs. J. Fraser	
	D. Y. McLeod	
South Side Boulardarie.	A. G. Fraser	
Sugar Loaf		Mrs. H. L. MacDonald .
Sunset Cape North		Philip Fitzgerald	
	
Upper Middle River		Mrs. Annie McLennan...
Why dismissed
Unsatisfactory management
More convenient site....
Political partisanship..
More convenient site....
Improved site	
More convenient site....
Political partisanship..
More convenient site..
Improved site	
Political partisanship. More convenient site..
Recommended by
Change of site in the public interest.
Based on report of District Supt.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N .S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
A. McDonald, Commissioner to investigate charges of political partisanship.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.
Authorized by Postmaster General on inspector's rereport.
Michael Dwyer, Sydney Mines, N.S.


OTTAWA BEAUTIFICATION-POST OFFICE SQUARE
Mr. ARTHURS:: 1.	Regarding the property bounded on the north by Wellington street, east by post office building, south by Sparks street and west by Elgin street, did the government enter into a contract for the removal of the buildings?
2.	If so, what sum was paid or received by the government under such contract?
3.	Were the grounds to be levelled by the
contractor ?	.
4.	What sum has been spent to date on this property exclusive of purchase price?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: 1,	2 and 3. Yes, with the Betcherman Iron & Metal Company, the contractor to pay the government $8,311 for the buildings. The grounds were to be graded evenly to the contour of sidewalks and lane.
4. $2,026, this sum was for grading preparatory to sodding, and sodding same, putting in a water supply for sprinkling the grass, laying out flower beds and providing proper soil, and for the purchase of plants.


HUDSON BAY RAILWAY
Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: 1.	Has the railroad been completed to Churchill on Hudson bay? _
2.	Will the road be available for the transportation of passengers and freight by July 1st of this year?	.
3.	What accommodation is there for visitors at Churchill?
4.	What is the total cost of the road to date, and what amount has been expended since 1926?
5.	Are there any facilities for shipping at Churchill?


Mr. DUNNING:: 1.	Winter track has been laid to Churchill, but remains to be graded and ballasted and brought into shape for operation at all seasons.
2.	No.
3.	None.
4.	(a) On the railway itself, $25,920,890.44 to March 31, 1929.
(b) Since 1926, $8,872,058.76.
5.	Present facilities consist of temporary wharves and lighters.


ALFRED PEAT PLANT
Mr. CANTLEY:: 1.	Has the Department of the Interior finished its experimental work at the Alfred peat bogs, and, if so, what conclusion has the department arrived at w'ith regard to the feasibility of producing and marketing peat fuel upon a commercial basis?
2.	Is the plant which has been assembled at Alfred now completely efficient for the recovery of peat fuel and is it an adequate commercial unit for economical operation? If not, what remains to be done, and what alterations or additions does it require, and what will be the cost of necessary additions?
3.	Will the government operate the Alfred peat plant this year?
4.	If so, what tonnage of commercial fuel is expected to be recovered from the season's operations?
5.	Has the peat bog plant at Alfred been transferred by the department to Peat Fuels Limited? If so, at what date and under what terms and conditions of lease, sale, operation or otherwise?
Questions

6.	Is it the intention of the government to merchandise and market the production of said plant or will the same be handled as prior to 1927 or by Peat Fuels Limited?
7.	Has the government considered the policy of paying a bounty based upon tonnage to be payable to producers who might embark in the industry?


Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: As the hon. gentleman who asked this question is in his seat, I might point out with respect to a number of these questions that unless we can secure an adjustment the matters will be referred to the exchequer court. I would like to ask my hon. friend to allow the question to be dropped, except that I will indicate to him a certain number of the questions which I can answer. The others cannot be answered without placing the department in an embarrassing position.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: Dropped.


Mr. CANTLEY:: No, I understand that
my hon. friend is going to answer some of the questions.


Charles A. Stewart: I	will
answer such as I can.
Question stands.


COAL DRAWBACKS
Thomas Cantley: What were the sums refunded by way of 99 per cent rebate of duty on imported coal used by iron and steel makers and/or other industries in each province of Canada during each year since these rebates came into force?


Mr. EULER:: There is no record kept of amount of drawback paid, by provinces:
1908	
$17,268	711909	
24,466	981910	
11,974	711911	
174,330	421912	
173.881	341913	
135,142	071914	
158.810	571915	
141,995	221916	
176,427	461917	
215,201	861918	
261,245	201919	
451,007	041920	
498,946	251921	
324,609	291922	
176,316	141923	
354,678	751924	
302,792	621925	
462,105	531926	
635,049	501927	
757,431	721928	
1,060,090	16



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. PECK:: 1.	What water-powers, developed or otherwise. on the Trent canal system, are still undisposed of and in the hands of the government?
2.	What action, if any, is the government taking to sell or otherwise dispose of these powers?
3.	What applications, if any, have been received by the government for the purchase or leasing of these powers respectively?


PEACE RIVER DISTRICT-HOMESTEADS
Mr. KENNEDY:: 1.	How many homesteads were filed on in the years 1926. 1927, 1928, respectively, in: (a) the Grande Prairie land district; (b) the Peace River land district?
2.	What number of these homesteads, filed in 1928 in each land district, were second homesteads?
3.	What amount of land has been disposed of in the Grande Prairie land district, and the Peace River land district, respectively, by: (a) homesteads; (b) grazing lease; (c) sale?
4.	What townships in each of these two land districts have been surveyed and open for settlement?
5.	What is the total acreage of land surveyed and still open for homesteads?
6.	What additional land will be surveyed in 1929 in: (a) Grande Prairie land district; (b) Peace River land district?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. J. A. FRASER (Cariboo) moved:: For a copy of all correspondence and documents relating to the following payment in the Auditor General's report, 1927-8, part K-31:
Outstanding survey accounts of previous years, for particulars see Auditor General's report, 1922-23, and correspondence in Auditor General's report, 1908-9, page K-151-155, $22,743.55.


Charles A. Stewart: A number of these questions have been coming up from time to time with reference to the Auditor General's report. I think it would be well if the question was put more specifically and a statement given, rather than referring to the Auditor General's report. There is no objection to bringing down the papers.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. CASSELMAN:: 

IROQUOIS POSTMASTERSHIP

Arza Clair Casselman: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams. petitions and other documents in possession of the government (including civil service advertisements) in connection *with the post office at Iroquois, in the county of (fren-ville-Dundas, from the 1st day of January, 1925, to date.



POST OFFICE AT MORECAMBE, ALBERTA

Mr. SPENCER:: For a copy of all correspondence and documents relating to the opening (during 1929) of a post office at Morecambe, Alberta, and the appointment of a postmaster in relation thereto.



TORONTO TERMINALS RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
On the motion:
Third reading of bill No. 63 respecting the Toronto Terminals Railway Company.-Mr. Hoc-ken.
Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition):: In view of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Hocken) is ill and will not be present again this session, and as this is merely a matter of form, may I be permitted in his behalf to move the third reading of the bill.


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


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 99, for the relief of William Henry Blackwell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 107, for the relief of John William Telfer.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 109, for the relief of James Ross Curry.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 120, for the relief of Janet Gee.- Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 126, for the relief of William Henry Laverty.-Mr. Bothwell.
Bill No. 145, for the relief of James Clayton Powell.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Bill No. 147, for the relief of Clare Doutre Walters Bertram.-Mr. McPhee.
Bill No. 148, for the relief of Margaret Duffield.-Mr. McPhee.
Motions for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Edward George Croueher.-Mr. Casselman. *
Bill No. 112, for the relief of William Greig Green.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 121, for the relief of Sylvester Wilfred Kerr.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 129, for the relief of Ernest Carl Bouck.-Mr. Casselman.
Bill No. 151, for the relief of William Thomas Taylor.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).
Motions for third readings agreed to on division.

[Stage Direction]
On the order:
House in committee on bill No. 85 for the relief of Effie Margaret Hill.-Mr. Clark.
John Frederick Johnston: Mr. Clark
moves that the house resolve itself into committee of the whole on private bills.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I beg to move
an amendment:
That bill No. 113 (Letter G1 of the Senate), intituled: "An act for the relief of Antoine Joseph Bourdon" be not now referred to the committee of the whole, but that it be sent back to the select standing committee on private bills, with instructions that they have power to make further investigations.


Mr. CLARK:: The hon. gentleman's
amendment relates to a bill that is not before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not reached
Bill No. 113 yet.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment is quite regular, but the motion is to go into committee on private bills. If the hon. gentleman will make his motion when Bill No. 113 is under consideration we can deal with it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: We cannot deal
with it then. It has 'been the practice of the house for some time to go into committee on a number bf bills. I suppose the older practice was that the house Should go into committee on each particular bill, but it is now generally accepted that when the Speaker leaves the chair the house shall consider in committee a large number of bills, and there is therefore no further opportunity to deal with any one particular bill. So that the only recourse I have, if I wish that a particular bill shall not be proceeded with, is to move now such an amendment as I
Procedure in Divorce

have indicated to exempt that bill. I should like to say a few words on this matter when the question of procedure is decided, but I think I am acting in harmony with the rules in moving the amendment.


John Frederick Johnston: I think the
hon. member is quite within the rules in moving the amendment now. However, if he permits us to go into committee on all the bills on the order paper preceding the bill to which he has referred, the house can make progress. Of course, if he wishes to press the amendment now he is in order.


John Arthur Clark: May I speak to the point
of order? The hon. member's amendment relates to a bill which is not at all before the house. It has reference to order No. 18 relating to Bill No. 113. The house is now dealing with Bill No. 85. As I heard the motion, it was that the house should go into committee on Bill No. 85.


John Frederick Johnston: Standing order 110 provides:
All private bills reported to the house by any committee may, on one motion, be referred together to a committee of the whole house and such committee may consider and report one or more such bills at the same sitting.
Under that rule the amendment is in order at this stage.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: But the motion
has reference only to Bill No. 85. If the motion included all these other bills the amendment would be in order, but that motion has not yet been made.


Mr. MARCIL:: As the Speaker has pointed out, under rule 110 all private bills reported to .the house by any committee may on one motion be referred together to a committee of the whole house, which committee may consider and report one or more such bills at the same sitting.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: But has that motion
been made yet?


Charles Marcil: The motion is to go into
committee on private bills, and the bill to which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) has taken exception is one of those bills. So that the amendment is in order.


John Frederick Johnston: Is it the
pleasure of the house to adopt the amendment?


James Shaver Woodsworth: This, Mr. Speaker, was the case to which I referred the other day. The house may remember that the hon. mem-

ber for North Simcoe (Mr. Boys) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), interpreting, I think the spirit of the house, stated that if the facts were in accordance with the extracts from the letter I read they would oppose this bill in committee. Now the trouble is that this bill went to the committee with a whole grist of others. As I understand it, neither the hon. member for North Simcoe nor the hon. member for Lisgar was present in the committee when this went through; nor did I know it was going through until the next morning after we had had' the discussion. I was therefore unable to follow it up before it had passed the committee on private bills. It is for this reason that I take the rather exceptional method, but one quite within the rules, of asking that at this stage we do not press the consideration of this bill but refer it back to our committee for further investigation.
According to the evidence as presented to the senate committee, I notice that this was an uncontested bill. The respondent was not present. The petitioner made certain statements which were corroborated by the statements of tram of his friends. The respondent was said to have lived at a rooming house, with one Arthur Hacking, and that, as far as I read the evidence, is the only direct testimony of her being guilty of the offence alleged. Further than that, the petitioner and his two friends state that the woman made admission of having had improper relations with the correspondent. That is about as far as the evidence before the senate committee goes; and I understand it is customary that when the petition is uncontested there is not a great deal of attention given to further inquiry into the case.
Only a day or so ago I received a second letter from the woman involved. I should gladly have avoided giving any publicity to her name in this connection, but since I am making a plea that this divorce bill be refused I think perhaps the only course I can follow is to take the house into my confidence and read this personal letter. Let me preface it by saying that I have no independent knowledge of the facts in the case. It may very well be that the woman is guilty; I have had no opportunities for making investigation. But I do think that when statements and charges are made, such as are contained in this letter, the least that can be done is to provide that the woman has a chance to be heard. If her allegations prove to be false, very well; if however, they should prove on investigation to be true, then I think that

Procedure in Divorce
we should have done a very gross injustice had we passed a bill of this character without further inquiry. This is the letter:
Mr. Woodsworth,
Member of Parliament,
Ottawa.
Dear Sir,
Received your very kind letter for which I thank you sincerely.
I noticed your reference to my letter in the Montreal Star and I wish also to thank you and Mr. Boys for your decision to vote against the bill.
My lawyer received the report of the senate committee the day before I wrote you and your letter has made it quite clear to me that there is no provision for custody of children and it is not within the powers of the federal parliament to deal with questions of alimony.
My first lawyer did not seem to take much interest in my case and the one I have now tells me that the Quebec law is very unsettled as to alimony and guardianship of children when a divorce has been pronounced, because the civil law of this province does not deal with divorce but only with separation as to bed and board.
In any case as you tell me that the federal law cannot help me as to alimony and as 1 have no money to go to Ottawa and appear before any committee, I will ask my lawyer to do everything possible, but I think the child is so young that he could very well be given to me by parliament especially now that circumstances cannot be interpreted as _being unfavourable to me in my way of living.
My husband is trying to make you believe I was living with this man, if I understand the report correctly, but I was living with his mother as a boarder. The little money I did make I gave to Mrs. Hacking with the exception of money for my carfare to work, to keep the home going.
I sold my diamond to pay her rent and now she is trying to keep my few moveable belongings because she says I owe her money. I haven't even my clothes and have not the money to pay to get them. If it were not for these kind people I am with who are willing to wait until I can pay my board, I should be on the street entirely.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not know whether
I should rise to a point of order, but I do not think it is proper to read private letters in this house having regard to a matter which is under consideration here. In view of the fact that my hon. friend is in favour of a divorce court, and since his only objection here is that parliament voted against such a court, I would ask him if he thinks anyone would be allowed to send a judge private letters of this kind, and whether he believes such letters should be read in a court of justice in opposition to the evidence which has been produced.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I know of no rule of this house which prevents me from reading this private letter. As to the propriety of my 78594-128
action, let me say this:	Undoubtedly I
believe in a divorce court; that is my only reason for having taken this matter so seriously, but the Minister of Justice was one of those who prevented the establishment of such a court.


Ernest Lapointe: My point is that no
judge would permit such a letter to be read in court.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am sure the Minister of Justice will agree with me that if in reality we are a court we should have the evidence before us, but that is not the case here. The senate committee did not have this information, and in our own private bills committee there was no consideration whatever of the details of this case. I am not putting forward this letter as evidence in the case; I am bringing it before parliament simply as the appeal of a poor woman for a chance to be heard. I ask that we send this case back to our committee where evidence may be heard, and then we will not need to depend upon this letter; we can summon the woman and other witnesses. Let her charges be oarefully sifted. I am simply bringing forward the plea of this woman, and I know of no other way in which I may attain the object desired.


Mr. STEVENS:: This case was brought to the attention of the house by my hon. friend the other day before the bill was referred to committee. Why did he not take advantage of that opportunity and bring these matters to the attention of the house?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I made an explanation a few minutes ago, but perhaps my hon. friend was not present. This bill was considered by the committee the following morning, when the members of the committee who had spoken in favour of rejecting the bill if the woman's statements were true, the hon. member for Simcoe (Mr. Boys) and the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown), were not present. I was not present either; I did not imagine it would come up so soon. I immediately called the attention of the hon. member for Simcoe to these facts in a letter which I wrote him, and as a matter of fact this fuller information, contained in this second letter, has come to me since that committee met, so I could not have presented this information before the committee. I wrote this woman immediately on receipt of her first letter; subsequently I received this second letter on which I now make an appeal to parliament. I could not have presented the

Procedure in Divorce

second letter before the committee; I did not have it at that time. I think that very well illustrates the fact that because of the hasty way in which we grant these divorces we are not dealing fairly with all the people concerned.


Ernest Lapointe: Since my hon. friend
says he knows of no rule which would prevent him from reading the letter I would quote rule 306, page 101 of Beauchesne:
It is not in order to read articles in newspapers, letters or communications emanating from persons outside the house and referring to, or commenting on, or denying anything said by a member or expressing any opinion reflecting on proceedings within the house.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I submit there is
nothing in that rule which is relevant to the matter under discussion.


Ernest Lapointe: Certainly the rule applies; my hon. friend says the evidence is not sufficient, and he reads a private letter complaining about the evidence which has been taken with regard to this matter.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Surely the Minister of Justice is not arguing the point seriously.


John Arthur Clark: If my hon. friend is finished with that letter may I see it?


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not finished with it; I was interrupted while I was reading the letter. I will send my hon. friend a copy later. Now I will finish the letter:
If necessary, I can give the name of the doctor who performed my operation, also the hospital in Ottawa. I do not wish to do this unless it will help materially in my case, as the doctor was wonderful to me professionally and I would not care to give him undue publicity.
I heard my brother-in-law admit he had offered to get Mr. Hacking a good job if he would take me to a hotel and put me in a compromising position in order to get evidence enough for the divorce.
Also he has boasted to me that his brother would never have gone so far as to divorce me if it were not that he had made his brother do it.
He says he worked night and day trying to get evidence. I was grateful for what Arthur Hacking had done in refusing to help their plans so when he requested me to live with him and his mother I readily consented. I thought the money might as well help her as anyone else. I did not realize then that 1 was playing into their hands.
As I was not in Ottawa to defend myself, naturally they had the opportunity to put things in the very worst light possible.
My brother-in-law and his mother kidnapped the baby. He held me while his mother ran out with my baby.
After he was returned to me, my brother-inlaw never let my husband rest until he made him leave me again.
[Mi. Woodsworth.]
Mr. Bourdon refused to listen to me and he and his brother took the child away again.
I told him he could look after the baby better than I could but when I said that I thought he would come back to me.
During our trouble I thought Valmyre would be better away from it all. I did not realize things were as serious as they were. Please believe me when I say if I lose them both, I lose everything worth living for.
I have been very foolish and have done things which seem to be worse than they really are. Since this trouble started I hardly know what I am doing or saying. Arthur Hacking is very revengeful as he has sworn to do everything he can to make me lose my husband and child. He has told Mr. Bourdon some terrible things and he believed because he wants to believe.
I know if he did not get the divorce he would come back to me and I could make him forget all these terrible nine months. Will you not do all you can to give him back to me? Will you not give me the chance to make him forget and be happy once more with our little one? Our child needs most of all his mother, but he loves his daddy and needs him too. I am begging for life itself, will you give it to me?
Perhaps all this seems foolish when read with impersonal eyes but only God knows how my heart is torn for my two loved ones.
Are all my prayers and suffering these nine months to go un-answered and unheard? If it is not possible to do much for me, even a little will be appreciated more than you will ever know. As I said before, you are my last hope.
Please don't let them take my precious baby from me.
Again I thank you sincerely for your kind letter and efforts in my behalf, and shall wait for a favourable answer.
Sincerely.
(Sgd.) Mrs. Antoine Bourdon.
I think that letter makes it own appeal. This woman did not appear before the committee. I understand that if she had made application to the senate committee they would have given an order on her husband compelling him to pay sufficient money to permit her to appear and give her side of the case. Apparently she did not know anything about that; apparently the lawyer whom she consulted was very indifferent and did not inform her of her position. In any case, the matter came before the senate committee and she was not present; all the evidence was received from one side, from the petitioner and two of his personal friends. Under our procedure this matter has gone through the various stages until now it has passed our own committee, where it received no consideration of any kind. This is the last opportunity to do anything in the matter, hence the rather unusual procedure I have been forced to adopt. I cannot think that any member of this house will deliberately deny this woman the chance to be heard, and that is all I ask. She may be an imposter; she may be guilty; it may be that her statements

Procedure in Divorce
are quite untrue. It may be that her charges with regard to the illegal operation are not well founded; I do not know nor am I in position to know, and I do not think anyone can know until she is called before our committee to prove her charges. I do not know whether our committee has ever investigated a case in this manner before, but I am quite sure it has the right to advance money to the women for her expenses. If the senate committee could have ordered the husband to advance money to bring his wife here to appear in her own behalf I do not know why our committee cannot do the same. In this case I am not holding up the business of the house because of the general procedure at all, but because I consider it a serious matter and one in which the rights of a citizen of this country are not being safeguarded, and I appeal to the house to permit an investigation by our own committee before we take a vote on this bill.


Mr. IRVINE:: I rise to express the hope that the house will permit this bill to be sent back for reconsideration by the private bills committee. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) brought this case to the attention of the house the other day, and I determined to do the best I could to have this matter investigated by the committee. However, for some reason or other, I did not receive my notification for the meeting of the committee. I do not suggest for a moment there was anything deliberate in that, I am sure it was purely an accident, but the fact remains that I did not receive that notice and hence I was not at the committee and had not the opportunity to direct the attention of the committee to this particular case. The hon. member is only asking that this woman be heard before our committee and that we ourselves judge her claim; I think that is a fair request. It has been said, and I believe it is true, that the expenses of this woman can be paid in order to permit her to give evidence in her own behalf.


Mr. DUFF:: She had an opportunity to appear before the senate committee.


William Irvine: So far as I know this woman had no opportunity to appear before any committee, and I do not think she was aware of the fact that she could appear and have her expenses paid. Having no money herself she evidently did not know that dhe could make application for her expenses.


William Duff: She must have been notified.


William Irvine: I do not know anything about notification. As the hon. member for 78594-128J
Winnipeg North Centre has said, the only thing to do is to bring the woman before the committee and investigate the case.


John Arthur Clark: If there is any doubt in the mind of any hon. member as to the facts not having been proven, or that there are any additional facts which should be brought out,
I certainly have no objection to it going back to the committee.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Motion as amended agreed to.



EFFIF. MARGARET HILL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 85, for the relief of Effie Margaret Hill-Mr. Clark.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 2-Right to marry again.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children involved in this case?


John Arthur Clark: No.
Section agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



ELSIE ALICE HERVEY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 93, for the relief of Elsie Alice Hervey-Mr. Clark.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children involved in this case?


John Arthur Clark: One child.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does the sponsor of this bill know what provision is being made for the child?


John Arthur Clark: The child is with the
petitioner.
Section 1 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the thiird time and passed on division.



HUNTER WILBERT FAULKNER

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 97, for the relief of Hunter Wilbert Faulkner-Mr. Clark.-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On the preamble.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children in this case?


John Arthur Clark: No children.
Preamble carried on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.
Procedure in Divorce



FLORENCE VELMA STRACHAN

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 123, for the relief of Florence Velma Strachan- Mr. Garland (Carleton).-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
Mr. EVANS:: I wish to move an amendment to this bill, notice of which was given some days ago, as follows:
That section 1 of the bill be amended by adding the following words thereto:
"and the said Florence Velma Strachan have the custody of their child William Swinton Strachan, and that the said Alexander Swinton Strachan shall pay annually to Florence Velma Strachan for her support and maintenance the sum of five hundred dollars, so long as she remains unmarried, and the sum of two hundred dollars annually for the support and education of their child William Swinton Strachan."


John Frederick Johnston: As this amendment
raises a question of constitutional law questions, I must ask the hon. gentleman to let it stand until the matter is given proper study. It is a question which might be held to interfere with civil rights of those residing in the different provinces, and I would like some time to consider the question before giving a ruling as to whether or not the amendment is in order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I point out
that this notice was given several days ago, and is quite regular. The proposal is advanced in this particular bill simply in order that this may be a test case. We took the first bill that seemed to be suitable, and if this amendment is in order and if legislation of this kind is within the competence of parliament, we propose to move similar amendments in connection with other bills. It does not seem fair that you, Mr. Chairman, should ask that this stand and that we should proceed to other bills where we would then have no opportunity whatever of making similar amendments. As the Chairman knows, we have to give notice before amendments can be made. We thought this would be a test case. Now you say that you reserve your decision whether or not the amendment is in order, and yet you wish us to go on with other bills. I do not think that is quite fair to those of us who are anxious to expedite business but who nevertheless desire to insist that it be given due consideration. If this amendment that we provide for the support of the children and alimony for the wife, is in order, then it ought to be placed in every bill of this character right down the list. If

you, Mr. Chairman, let this case stand and then go on with the other bills, we would be quite in order to ask that other bills of this character should also stand until this principle is decided.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the wife asked for
that provision for alimony?


James Shaver Woodsworth: No.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. members are
doing this out of the kindness of their hearts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As is known; alimony was granted and the support of the children provided for only in the first cases brought before the Canadian House of Commons. It has not been the custom to ask for this, and in the ordinary petitions it is not included. The women in such cases do not know they have the privilege of asking for it, and the lawyers do not so inform them. Indeed, the lawyers do not know; no one knows, as a matter of fact.


Ernest Lapointe: But if we granted this,
we would be granting more than the petition asked for.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, but why not? If there is a case of substantial injustice: if a woman has married in good faith and if for some reason her husband proves to be a worthless fellow or unfaithful to her, and after some years deserts her, she is thrown upon the world with no opportunity whatever of providing a living for herself. Marriage has at least some elements of a civil contract, and a wife under those circumstances ought to have some claim upon her husband. It is within the competence of this house to grant or not to grant this divorce; it is also within the power of the house to say under what conditions that divorce shall be granted. That can be done whether or not we go beyond the original terms of the petition.


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: I should like to
be quite clear upon what authority my hon. friend suggests that the house is empowered to make any such order as is now sought. I cannot get the authority for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I am not a lawyer. My hon. friend is a lawyer and probably he knows more about the legal side of the matter than I do. I must confess that I am relying largely on the general principles of justice. But I would point out that divorces are not being granted under statutory provisions; that there is no law under which we are acting in this matter; that it is the common law of Great Britain, and that we are simply following precedent. I am subject to correction,

Procedure in Divorce
but I understand that it is competent for parliament to grant divorce for any reason whatsoever. It has been customary to grant divorce only on the ground of unfaithfulness or impotence. I think those are the only two grounds that have been recognized by the house, but I do not see any reason why we should not go beyond them. In other words, there is no statutory limitation, therefore I suggest it is open to us to say under what terms the divorce shall be granted. I submit that it is quite within our power to refuse divorce until such time as suitable provision is made for the children and the wife.


Leslie Gordon Bell: How are we to
know that?


James Shaver Woodsworth: We are discovering that we have no knowledge with regard to these matters. The evidence given before the senate committee does not reveal to us whether the wife has an independence or not; it does not reveal to us who is to take care of the children or whether the mother to whom the children are left is capable of caring for them. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that we in this house have a perfect right at least to make inquiries concerning the circumstances of the wife and children before proceeding to grant a divorce.


Charles A. Stewart: Does the
amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown not provide for alimony and for the custody of the children?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: It is quite
a different thing from what my hon. friend is arguing for. The amendment interferes with property and civil rights, but the hon. member is not arguing on that ground at all.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If the hon. member had followed me closely, I said that I thought we were within our rights; at least that we were following the precedent of the first case dealt with in the House of Commons if we provided for alimony and for the support of the children. That was done in the Campbell case, and that case has never been contested in the courts.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
denying that, but I think my hon. friend would be on stronger ground if he would confine his argument to his proposal, namely, that the house do not act until assured alimony will be granted.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Well, we may proceed in that way later on. In the meantime I suggest that since the action in the Campbell case has never been contested in the courts, we are on fairly safe ground in following that precedent. I was further answering the hon. member for West Hamilton when I said that there lay, even beyond that, the right of insisting that a divorce should not be granted until such time as adequate provision could be made for the wife and the children involved.


Charles Marcil: It must not be forgotten
that divorce bills are sent to the house by people wishing to be exempted from the general law. The general law in Ontario and Quebec is the indissolubility of the marriage tie. These people come here and ask for a favour; they ask for special reasons, to be relieved from the operation of the general act. We deal with each particular case, but according to Bourinot it has been held in the past:
In case, however, the house is not satisfied with the evidence on which the senate has passed the bill, it is always competent for the committee on private bills to go into such further examination of the facts as may be deemed desirable in the interests of justice and society.
I am opposed to divorce on principle, but in this case the hon. gentleman has certainly the right to ask that these bills be dealt with according to the principle of justice. If there are children born of any marriage, and if the applicant wants to be relieved from the obligations which he contracts when he becomes married, some way should be provided by which he may not be permitted to throw his wife and children out on the street without making provision for them. That is a matter of elementary justice.
This question of divorce is essentially a matter that affects civil rights, just as marriage does, and both marriage and property come within the purview of the province. The fathers of confederation, not desiring to implant divorce on Ontario and Quebec as it existed in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, but not knowing what to do with the child found on the doorstep, said: We will relegate this matter to the central authority to make it more and more difficult for divorce to take place in this country. The results showed that they were wise in their generation, for during the first ten years after confederation only seven divorces were granted by this parliament, and up until 1879, special committees were appointed by the House of Commons to deal with each case. But what
Procedure in Divorce

do we see to-day? There have been 293 applications for divorce during this present session, and there are 80 divorce bills on this order paper for to-day. I think the time has come, therefore, when it is the duty of the House of Commons to look into this matter more closely with a view to discouraging people from applying to parliament for divorce, and to discourage the belief that all that it is necessary to do to secure a divorce is merely to send in an application and the divorce will be granted without any answer from the respondent. I hope that some means will 'be found next session to remedy this great evil. I do not want to delay the house on this bill to discuss the principle of divorce, but I may say that I was pleased to see in Saturday's Journal a pronouncement by the Church of England in Canada on this very question. It declares that divorce is the outstanding question for the Canadian people to deal with to-day. It reiterates the stand which that church has previously taken and calls on all its clergymen to bring this very important question to the attention of their people, and not to re-marry people who have been divorced either by the courts or by parliament. I was glad, I say, to see this pronouncement by the Church of England in Canada, because it shows that public opinion in this country is being awakened with respect to this matter.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: I do not know the
facts in this particular case, but apparently this woman believes that she is obtaining through parliament the redress to which she is entitled. We do not know at this time whether or not she desires an order for alimony against her husband, or whether she has the custody of the children, if there are any. But under this bill she is obtaining the redress that she has asked for, and while I am quite agreeable to the bill going back to the private bills committee for reconsideration, I do not think we have power to pass such an amendment as has been proposed. I do not believe it is within the competence of this house to make an order granting alimony to a person who has not asked for it, if indeed it is possible for us to grant alimony at all. It would appear to me to come under the heading of civil rights, and would therefore be under the jurisdiction of the provincial legislature. I think it would be better if the amendment were drafted in such a way that the bill be referred back to the private bills committee to reconsider the case; otherwise this woman may be deprived entirely of the divorce which she

desires, and possibly rightly desires. If we have to act upon this particular amendment, it may mean that instead of the petitioner being granted what she has asked for, she may 'be denied any remedy whatever. I would therefore suggest that the amendment be altered so that the effect will simply be to refer the bill back to the private bills committee.


Henry Elvins Spencer: May I inquire of the
sponsor of this bill who 'has the custody of the children, whether it is the father, the mother, or anyone else?


Mr. GARLAND (Carleton):: The petitioner who is applying for this divorce has the custody of the child and seems to be quite satisfied to look after her own child. I agree with the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Bothwell) that the question of alimony is one for the civil courts; under chapter 184 of the revised statutes of Ontario, being the Deserted Wives' and Children's Maintenance Act, subsections 1 and 2, page 1904, redress to the petitioner may be given. I believe the motion of the hon. member for Rosetown is out of order. This bill was sent back before on the very same ground that it is now proposed to send it back. As far as I am concerned, I want to see everything done that can possibly be done for the child, but the petitioner seems satisfied to look after her own child, and she has as much right to look after her own child as the father.


John Evans: The amendment was moved in good faith, in the belief that we had the power to deal with this matter. I still believe that if parliament has the power to grant divorces, which is a most serious matter as between two married persons, it should have the power to say on what terms that separation shall be granted. The sponsor of the bill has told us that the woman has the custody of the child, but evidently he does not know whether she has t'he necessary means for its support. We know nothing about this case. Surely we have the right to amend these bills as they come before us. If we have not, then I say that the granting of divorce by parliament is simply a farce, and we have carried it on much too long. But as the suggestion has been made that the bill be referred back to t'he private bills committee, I have no objection, although I do not see that there is any need for it.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: The object, as I understand it, is to provide a test case to ascertain if we really have the power to grant alimony. If the amendment carries and we are later advised by the law officers that we have not

the power, then the question will be settled so far as parliament is concerned. When I was speaking on this very question some time ago, the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) took directly the opposite view to that which has been expressed here to-day, he said that parliament has power to deal with this matter, that parliament has actually granted alimony. I think it would be well to bring up a test case to see whether or not that power is intra vires of this parliament.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to submit to my hon. friends that that is not the proper way to bring a matter of importance of this character to a legal test, simply to move an amendment to a bill in the House of Commons. In the first place, the absurdity-I was going to say-of the position we now find ourselves in is this, that the party has already the custody of the child which we are now solemnly asking parliament to give.
I submit that that is really not the right way to proceed. The whole thing arises out of a difference of opinion among the members of this house, in the first place, on the principle of divorce, and secondly, as to the procedure under which divorce has been granted by parliament for a number of years. I have listened here for weeks now to very lengthy addresses by hon. members, particularly by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre, my hon. friend from Labelle, and others, in which it seemed to be implied that those of us who have been more or less silent are entirely in favour of divorce being granted in a most reckless manner. I wish to say, and I feel impelled to say this by the continuity of these debates, that as far as I am concerned I am absolutely opposed to divorce. That is my personal feeling, but I do not come to parliament merely to give expression to my personal views on matters of this kind. I realize that it is accepted throughout the Dominion that divorce may be granted. The practice in two or three provinces has been to grant them through a petition to this parliament and an act being passeed; in other provinces, divorce is granted by the courts. It does not seem to me that we are discharging our duty properly, simply because we have personal prejudices in this matter, to seek to interfere with the redress that other people claim is their right as citizens. I admit to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre that it may appear to some that the manner in which divorce has been granted by parliament has been, we will say, somewhat rapid, but I do feel that he has been a little unfair, in fact I think very unfair, to the senate committee, because my experience in the last twenty sessions is that the senate
Procedure in Divorce
committee, of all the committees of parliament of either house, has given its time to the consideration of its duties, and given it ungrudgingly, and I think to most, if not all, of the members the work has been most distasteful. Therefore I think it is rather unfair to them to be constantly insinuating, or at least leaving the impression in the minds of the public, that that committee is a callous body without any particular consideration for the rights of women and children, and that it deals with the petitions carelessly and recklessly. For instance, my hon. friend moved a certain bill back to committee a few moments ago. I sent out for the evidence and I have been reading it, and I must say that I can see very little reason to question the decision of the senate committee. However, we are quite willing, if a member brings forward the question of the safeguarding of the rights of one of the parties to the suit, to give further opportunity for dealing with it.
But coming to the matter immediately before us, I do not think that this parliament, without much consideration, should immediately adopt a system of granting alimony and the custody of children, when these matters are not cited in the petition, and when it has not been the practice of parliament to deal with them, and when we know that in the provinces there is a very elaborate procedure set up whereby deserted wives and mothers may obtain redress, and children be cared for. I do not think that as a matter of theory or to further some idea of abstract justice we should plunge into these matters and give a decision without consideration.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I do not think my hon. friend is correct. This is only a test case and the hon. leader of the opposition said parliament has the right to grant alimony.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I think in this case it is abstract justice. I believe I quote my hon. leader's opinion corectly when I say he holds that parliament, having the right to grant divorce, has also a perfect right to deal with all matters that arise out of the granting of divorce-the Minister of Justice might agree that that is a sound principle of law-and perhaps had done so in the past. But we are not calling that in question. For years and years a certain practice has been followed, and the Prime Minister declared the other day-I think a little tardily, his declaration should have been made last session; however, he did so, and with a degree of graciousness that my hon. friend ought to recognize- he declared that the government would take this very difficult problem into consideration and endeavour to find some solution.
Procedure in Divorce

Now my hon. friend is asking me to vote cn an amendment which frankly we are not in a position to discuss. The proper place to have raised the question would have been before the senate committee when the case was first considered. It was not raised there, it does not appear in the petition, and it occurs to me that my hon. friends would do well to let this testing of a principle, as they describe it, be considered and determined in connection with the whole question which we understand the government is now going to take into consideration. I think it rather too bad that my hon. friends have felt that the course taken by them was necessary. I agree it is a pity that the government did not last year take notice of the accumulation of these cases, and endeavour to lead parliament into some solution of the difficulty of the administration of this branch of law. I am not saying that by way of censure of the government.


Ernest Lapointe: The only solution that was proposed was rejected by the house.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I quite agree with my hon. friend; but it has been shown by the discussion in the house that the problem is still here.


Ernest Lapointe: I know.
Mr- STEVENS: The Prime Minister has i old us very frankly that he recognizes that the problem exists, and he is going to find some way of adjusting the difficulty. I do not think my hon. friend Should ask the house to deal with what I again say is an abstract principle of justice. It is not involved in this bill, the petitioner does not ask for it; therefore it is merely a question of whether we should carry on the practice in this way or not. The whole subject is to be considered by the government, and personally I do not think we should be asked to give an opinion on it at the present time.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member for Vancouver Centre said that at the present time the mother has charge of the child. The amendment asks that the mother shall have charge of the child legally. To-day there is nothing to prevent the husband from taking the child away.


Henry Herbert Stevens: How does my hon. friend know that?


Henry Elvins Spencer: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre earlier this afternoon pointed out a case where a child was forcibly taken away from the mother. Therefore I think there is some reason in the amendment.


Charles A. Stewart: As I pointed out to my hon. friend a few moments ago, Mr. Chairman, if it were a mere matter of objecting to the passage of this particular bill on the grounds that alimony and the custody of the child or children had not been decided, one could understand the motion, but to make a motion for these specific purposes-something which we have never been asked to express an opinion on, during the period that I have been in this house, at all events-in my humble opinion is an attempt to do that which is outside our jurisdiction. Moreover, the courts are available for the dealing with the question of the custody of the children or child. If one of the parents is deemed to be immoral, the court in every case that I have heard of, has made the other parent the custodian. The same procedure applies to alimony. This woman is not necessarily debarred from the courts of her own province if she desires to secure alimony. I do not think parliament is in possession of all the facts to deal with these matters.


John Arthur Clark: It appears to me that when these petitioners come before parliament seeking divorce they come well advised. I notice they are represented by very eminent counsel, some great constitutional authorities, strange as it may seem, representing certain of the petitioners. It stands to reason that they have given due consideration to the rights of the petitioners and they have asked for all ihat they believe parliament can grant. If the mover of this amendment wishes to have the powers enlarged we cannot enlarge them by voting on the present proposal. It seems to me that parliament should have a definition of the legal rights of petitioners for divorce; and that definition-as to the right for instance of parliament to grant alimony or to decide with respect to the custody of the children-should come from the legal department and not be inferred from a vote in this house. I think the hon. member who moved the amendment will agree that parliament is not a body competent to give a legal opinion. Parliament relies on the Department of Justice for its legal opinions, and in this instance, in my opinion at least, if there is anything to be explained the explanation should come from that department. The explanation should not be gathered from the result of a vote in this committee.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: I am opposed to divorce on principle, but as regards a definition with respect to the granting of alimony and the decision as to the custody of children I do

Procedure in Divorce
not see any reason why this parliament, if it has the right to grant divorces, should not have the right also to consider these other questions. The Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart), who probably is better posted on the subject than I am-


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: -made the statement that alimony was a civil right and that a woman getting a divorce could go to the civil courts if she wished to obtain alimony. But I would point out that if we dissolve a marriage here no right can exist in the matter of alimony for the simple reason that, after the dissolution by this parliament, there is no state of marriage in relation to the parties concerned; therefore there can be no civil right as regards alimony so far as the courts are concerned. After we have dissolved a marriage here how can the woman go to a civil court to get alimony?-there is no marriage. The only condition under which alimony can be granted is when the divorce is granted by the civil courts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I thought it was
suggested that the Minister of Justice would speak.


Ernest Lapointe: No, he remains as silent as he can.


Mr. KELLNER:: After the divorce is
granted here has the woman the privilege to go to the civil court in order to establish her claim in regard to alimony? The hon. member (Mr. Beaubien) has brought out this point and it seems to me the Minister of Justice should favour us with an expression of opinion.


Ernest Lapointe: I should like to have
the question stand as a notice. So far as the province of Quebec is concerned, with the conditions in which I am more familiar, I know that alimony can be obtained in the courts. Of course, there is no divorce there. The chairman, I think, has indicated a wish to reserve decision on the motion which has been made, and we have been discussing this matter an hour since he so intimated. Would it not be well to leave it at that pending his decision, after he has received advice from the proper source?


James Shaver Woodsworth: WThat about the
subsequent bills?


Ernest Lapointe: Does my hon. friend
intend to make a similar motion in regard to every bill-not only to grant divorce to those who seek it but also to give them money for which they do not ask?


James Shaver Woodsworth: If this is intra vires and we are in harmony with the rules of procedure, I think it would be only right that inquiry should be made in each case.


Ernest Lapointe: To grant them alimony even if they do not ask for it? The hon. gentleman is over generous.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I said that inquiry
should be made in each case; I was explicit on that point.


Ernest Lapointe: But if they do not ask
for it why make an investigation? Why investigate whether they want it or not?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Because in the
past we have not been fair to the women in these provinces. The women of Ontario and Quebec have not had the opportunity of bringing their rights before any court where those rights can be properly investigated, and at the present moment we are simply pleading that in some way provision shall be made that women seeking divorces will not be thrown on the street and their children left to shift for themselves. If this bill is to stand until the Chairman reaches a decision, I do not wish to see other bills prevented from going through. But I wish to add some further considerations.
It has been said that it is open to the woman who is granted a divorce to enter action afterwards in the civil courts. I understand however that the trouble is that it is very difficult to get the civil courts to give a decision in such matters. I believe it is the general principle that the same court that grants a divorce ought to arrange the provisions under which that divorce is granted; and certainly there should not be the added expense, imposed upon poor people when they come to this parliament and obtain a divorce, of having to go on later to the civil courts to obtain the custody of children or to secure arrangements for their maintenance. I think it is quite proper that the rights of parliament should be defined, as the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Clark) has suggested. But how is that to be arranged? This matter has been brought up again and again, and always we are met with the answer given by the Minister of Justice-"we will take it into consideration."


Ernest Lapointe: I thought my hon. friend was pleased the other day when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) suggested
Procedure in Divorce

that the government be given an opportunity until next session to look into the matter. The hon. gentleman declared himself satisfied. But now he starts the whole discussion over again.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The Prime Minister the other day stated that during the present session the house had decided against a divorce court for Ontario and that for that reason the question could not again be considered at this time. It was on that ground that some of us accepted his assurances. I have no doubt whatever that the Prime Minister spoke in good faith, believing that to be the situation. But after consulting the authorities I find that there is no reason why the matter may not be introduced at this session. It would be well, therefore, that the house should be clear on the situation. We are willing to let the matter stand if nothing else can be done. But if the question can be decided at this session it should be decided and not postponed, and thus an unsatisfactory procedure maintained in all these cases to be dealt with this year, and with the certainty of the difficulty arising again next year. Let me read from May 13 edition, page 299:
When bills have ultimately passed or have been rejected, the rules of both houses are positive that they shall not be introduced again: but the practice is not strictly in accordance with them. The principle was thus stated bv the Lords. 17th May. 1606-
That when a bill hath been brought into the house, and rejected, another bill of the same argument and matter may not be renewed and begun again in the same house in the same session where the former bill was begun. . ."
That is the senate, in this instance.
"...but if a bill begun in one of the houses, and there allowed and passed, be disliked and refused in the other, a new bill of the same matter may be drawn and begun again in that house whereunto it was sent: and if. a bill being begun in either of the houses, and committed, it be thought by the committees that the matter may better proceed by a new bill, it is likewise holden agreeable to order in such case, to draw a new bill, and to bring it into the house."
Then follows a great number of instances covering a considerable period of time and coming down very nearly to the present. That simply means that under the procedure of our parliament, the senate having brought in this bill and it having been rejected by the House of Commons before a good many of the members knew just what was involved in its rejection, it is still open to us to reconsider our position. Further, now that members of the cabinet have stated very definitely that the present procedure is a farce; now that to-day we have another member of the cabinet saying that we in this house could not possibly 
know the conditions affecting the cases under consideration; now that the Prime Minister has declared the present procedure unsatisfactory and has stated his willingness to bring in some remedial legislation, it seems to me high time that we should insist on some action being taken at the earliest opportunity.
Let me tell the Minister of Justice that I was satisfied with the advance we made the other day, as I then considered it impossible for us to do anything further this session, but since my attention has been called to the fact that under the rules of this parliament it is quite possible for the government to introduce suitable legislation at this session, I am not quite so well satisfied.


Ernest Lapointe: What legislation?


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is no reason why legislation could not be introduced similar to the bill which was rejected, providing for the establishment of a divorce court in Ontario.


Ernest Lapointe: Surely my hon. friend
knows that the bill to which he refers has been rejected by the house, and that is the end of that bill for this session. Even if his interpretation of the rule were correct would he think it fair to impose his views on the majority of the members of this parliament? Majority must rule, even when that majority does not include my hon. friend.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Quite so; the Minister of Justice need not become sarcastic in discussing the matter. I stated that according to the rules of this house it is quite within our competence to introduce that very bill again, and I think the temper of the house is such that another vote on the question might be very different from the vote we took some time ago.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is flattering himself; he has not succeeded in convincing the house to that extent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I was going to suggest that there might be other methods available. For instance, it has been suggested that it might be possible to refer the responsibility for granting divorces to the exchequer court. I know some members of the senate have been considering the advisability of empowering the exchequer court, which is a court of parliament, to undertake the investigation of or perhaps actually to recommend or grant divorces. If I understand the situation correctly, we have it within our power to charge a court to do what we want done. I think it is quite within the powers of this parliament to take that action.

Personally I do not think that would be nearly so satisfactory as the creation of a divorce court for Ontario, but I would say that by so doing we would meet many of the objections which have been raised to the establishment of such a court. In the first place it is clearly within our powers to take such action, and in the second place we would not have to wait until Ontario has expressed an opinion with regard to the matter, as some members have suggested should be done. That is one possible line of action that the government might take even during this session. With these suggestions, I do not think we have yet exhausted the possibilities of action to relieve the situation; therefore I would call the attention of the Minister of Justice and the government to the possibility of proceeding along these lines before this parliament prorogues.


Leslie Gordon Bell: I am so much
in sympathy with the general principle which my hon. friend for Winnipeg North Centre has been advocating for some time with regard to the proper forum in which petitions for divorce should be considered that it is with considerable regret that I am compelled to differ from him now. However, in connection with the matter now under consideration I desire to direct the attention of the house to this fact:	Almost from
time immemorial questions affecting certain domestic relations, questions of alimony, of the custody of children and so on, have engaged the attention of the leading courts in the British Empire, and it has been well recognized that only by those who have engaged in a lifetime of study and investigation of the law and of special cases has it been possible to reach decisions which are worthy of that law which we desire to see upheld. Under these circumstances the suggestion made by my hon. friend is tantamount to saying that parliament would hand over to a body of men, no matter how able, no matter how willing, men without training with no knowledge of legal precedents, with no ability to recognize the effects of the steps which might be taken with regard to the numerous cases which would come before them for consideration, with no appreciation of such a vitally important thing as the value of evidence, the duty and privilege of deciding questions which have come within the competence of courts and which they have been able to decide, as I say, only after lifetimes of endeavour and with due consideration of the best legal precedents obtainable. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that any member of tlhis house whose duty takes
Procedure in Divorce
him constantly into the courts would undertake to say that any parliamentary committee, I care not from what body it may be chosen, would be as well qualified to deal with matters of that kind or, in fact, to render proper decisions upon them; I know I could not conscientiously take that position. So, without regard at the moment for the general principle which has been under discussion, I am compelled to say that for my part at least I must oppose a measure of this kind, which could only have the effect of submitting to men who, whatever their other qualifications may be, are absolutely unfitted to deal with them, matters involving decisions on questions of the very gravest consequence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: To which proposal
does my hon. friend refer?


Leslie Gordon Bell: I was not in the
house when the amendment was submitted, but as I understand it, the effect and purport of the proposed motion was to give parliament the power to consider such matters as the granting of alimony and the custody of children.


James Shaver Woodsworth: No, the hon. gentleman is entirely mistaken.


Leslie Gordon Bell: Then I should be
very glad to be corrected.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I could not quite
understand the point raised by my hon. friend.
I do not want to repeat what I said, but briefly it was that according to May, from which I quoted, parliament has the power to reintroduce this whole question this session, and that it seemed to me that at this session the government might bring forward some sort of legislation which would help us out of our present situation. Parliament might create a divorce court, which I thought would be best, or it might, temporarily at least, refer the whole matter to the exchequer court.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I think the hon. member for West Hamilton was referring to the amendment to this motion, which, as I understood it, certainly dealt with the question of alimony and the custody of children.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If I rightly understand the amendment of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Evans) it was just as the hon. member opposite has said.


Mr. VALLANCE:: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me when the amendment was moved by the hon. member for Rosetown you doubted whether or not he was in order in moving
Procedure in Divorce

it. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has stated that he did not want to tie up subsequent bills but intended to make a test case of this one bill. Suppose that when we refer this bill back to the committee we decide that we can give alimony in this case, what about the subsequent bills in connection with which petitioners be denied that right when they find that they have no rights in the courts of their own provinces? We doubt whether after a divorce has been granted they can go back to the provincial courts and obtain alimony, and we seem to be in doubt as to whether or not the hon. member for Hose town was in order in moving his amendment. I think the house is tied up on the whole thing.


John Frederick Johnston: The amendment as presented by the hon. member for Rosetown reads:
That section 1 of the bill he amended by adding the following words thereto:
"and the said Florence Velma Strachan, have the custody of their child William Swinton Strachan, and that the said Alexander Swinton Strachan shall pay annually to Florence Velma Strachan for her support and maintenance the sum of five hundred dollars, so long as she remains unmarried, and the sum of two hundred dollars annually for the support and education of their child William Swinton Strachan.
When this amendment was moved I suggested to the committee that it was a matter of_ too grave a responsibility to be decided in a hurry, and I asked for some time to consider it. Since that time there has been considerable: debate and I have had the benefit of listening to the opinions of many hon. gentlemen on both sides and also the opportunity of referring to some authorities. Section 92 of the British North America Act reads as follows:
92. In each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say.-
13. Property and civil rights in the province.
To my mind the matter of alimony is one of civil rights, and for that reason I rule the amendment out of order.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: May I point out that you are not ruling merely on the question whether or not the amendment is in order, but you are ruling also that parliament has no right to grant alimony. That is the very thing we want to get decided.


John Frederick Johnston: That is my ruling.


John Evans: Like the member for Bona-venture (Mr. Marcil) I am opposed to the principle of divorce, but it seems to be necessary, and as long as it is necessary I would

like to see this parliament conduct the procedure in a reasonable way. I have sat for eight years in this house and this is the first time I have seen any serious thought given to this great question of divorce. The debate has been worth while if we can attract the attention of the country and parliament to the necessity of having these bills dealt with in a serious way. Since this amendment may not be in order, and I am still in doubt, why not postpone consideration of this bill and all subsequent bills of the same character? It has been pointed out that the government can bring down legislation during this session to put this matter of divorce upon a reasonable basis and have it carried out by means of a reasonable procedure. The government can do that at once, can deal with the whole thing now, and we could deal later with this bill and subsequent divorce bills.


Donald Ferdinand Kellner: What is before the house?


John Frederick Johnston: We are considering
Bill No. 123. All the sections of the bill were carried, and the question is:	Shall I report
the bill?
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



DOROTHY MADELINE HANSON CAMPBELL

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 149, for the relief of Dorothy Madeline Hanson Campbell-Mr. Clark-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children involved in this case?


John Arthur Clark: Yes, one, who is with the
petitioner.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Have you any knowledge as to how the child is being provided for?


John Arthur Clark: I am satisfied that it will be looked after. The father of the petitioner is well able to look after the child and is at present doing so.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read tihe third time and passed on division.



LERA ETHEL VALLANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 87, for the relief of Lera Ethel Vallance-Mr. Casselman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.

On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children involved?


Arza Clair Casselman: There were two children but they have since been placed in the possession of foster parents under the Ontario Adoption Act. As they have been placed under the provisions of that act, the foster parents are responsible for their maintenance.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 100, for the relief of Mabel Lorene DeClute-Mr. Casselman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children involved in this case?


Arza Clair Casselman: No.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 102, for the relief of Emily Munnings-Mr. Hubbs- Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?


Mr. HUBBS:: This gentleman went to
England in 1916 after having lived with Mrs. Munnings for only three weeks. He went to England during the war, came back in 1918, went overseas again in 1920, and was there married. There are no children by the first marriage, and Mrs. Munnings did not live with him more than three weeks.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



MINA THOMPSON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 146, for the relief of Mina Thompson-Mr. Thompson-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Procedure in Divorce
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children ?


Mr. THOMPSON:: There are three children, the oldest being twenty, the second nineteen, and the third seventeen. I understand they are supporting the mother now.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



LOUISA MARTHA WESTON

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 155, for the relief of Louisa Martha Weston-Mr. Casselman-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children in this ease?


Arza Clair Casselman: I have not been able
to find out in this case whether there are children or not, I sent for a copy of the bill, but I, could not get one from the distribution office.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Then I think we
might ask that the bill stand until we find out whether there are any children involved.
Bill stands.



FRANCES GWENDOLYN SNOW LOTT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 91, for the relief of Frances Gwendolyn Snow Lott- Mr. Garland (Carleton)-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children?


William Foster Garland: No children.
Section agreed to on division.
Section 2 agreed to on division.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed on division.



SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 98, for the relief of Marion Ruth Laidman-Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast) moved the second reading of Bill No. 94, for the relief of Edyth May Shields.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any
children?
Procedure in Divorce


Mr. YOUNG (Toronto):: One male child
who has now attained his majority.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, on division.



MARY MELVINA GUERIN

[Stage Direction]
Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast) moved the second reading of Bill No. 95, for the relief of Mary Melvina Guerin.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children
involved?


Edward James Young: Four children
of varying ages who until 1926 had resided with the paternal grandmother, but are now with the petitioner.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The question is
whether in granting these divorces we are free to do so without some provision being made for the care of the children. I should like to have that assurance before the divorce is granted.


Edward James Young: While the mother is not by any means a rich person, she does not seek any relief in that regard from this court. If such relief is to be given, ft can be obtained much more cheaply through the court at Toronto to which she has access.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, on division.



FLORENCE MAY FORBES

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 122, for the relief of Florence May Forbes.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Any children
involved?


Leslie Gordon Bell: There were three
children. The husband of the petitioner, unhappily, became a defaulter and fled the country some time ago. In order that the children of the marriage might be cared for, two of them were taken in charge by the wife's mother in England and are being brought up by her. The wife has charge of the other child here in Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time, on division.



SOPHIA LOVE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast) moved the second reading of Bill No. 127, for the relief of Sophia Love.
James Shaver Woodsworth: Are there any children?


Edward James Young: There are two children, but the husband is in England and

without the jurisdiction of either this court or the courts of the province of Ontario. The petitioner seeks no relief from this court in that regard.


James Shaver Woodsworth: You have no idea as to how the children are being provided for?


Edward James Young: The children are with the petitioner. The husband deserted his wife and ;s living in England, where he went through another form of marriage.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time on division.	[DOT]



HARRY FREEMAN SWITZER

[Stage Direction]
Mr. N. M. YOUNG (Toronto Northeast) moved the second resting of Bill No. 138, for the relief of Harry Freeman Switzer.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time on division.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from April 19, consideration of the proposed motion of Mr. Young (Toronto Northeast) for the second reading of bill No. 88 for the relief of Minerva Elliott.
Mr. SPEAKER:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the children in
this case?


Edward James Young: There is no living issue.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time on division.



SUSANNAH MUSSON SAVERY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. W. BELL (West Hamilton) moved the second reading of Bill No. 156, for the relief of Susannah Musson Savery.
James Shaver Woodsworth: What about the children?


Leslie Gordon Bell: In this case there
is one child fourteen years of age. She is with her mother and is desirous of remaining in her custody.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time on division.



GREAT LAKES AND ATLANTIC CANAL AND POWER COMPANY LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. N. SMITH (Stormont) moved the second reading of Bill No. 169 respecting the Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal and Power Company, Limited.

Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal Company
Richard Bedford Bennett: We should like to have
an explanation of this bill.


Mr. SMITH (Stormont):: Authority is
sought to construct, improve, fnaintain and operate a combined canal and ship channel or deep waterway from a point below the city of Sorel to a point near Cornwall of not less than thirty-five feet for the passage of ocean-going vessels. The route of the proposed canal is to be from Sorel to Montreal, from Montreal to Laprairie basin, and from Laprairie basin to Cornwall. It is proposed as an alternative to improve and make navigable for ocean navigation the Richelieu river from Sorel to Chambly basin and to construct a suitable canal from Chambly basin to a point on the southeast shore of Laprairie basin. In view of the wide powers asked for in this bill. I think the best way will be to give it second reading and refer it to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where all the necessary information incidental to the project may be made available.
Hon. II. H. STEVENS (Vancouver Centre):
I am not desirous, Mr. Speaker, of opposing an application for the consideration of any reasonable project, but I submit that this bill is of grave importance. The powers asked for are of a very extensive character, and will affect directly the great St. Lawrence project which is now occupying the attention of the government of Canada and the governments of the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec. Only recently the federal government approved of certain plans under the Navigable Waters Act with respect to the Beauhamois scheme, which involves the construction by a private corporation of a canal as well as a power plant. This will vitally affect those great projects. If we give this bill second reading it will of course be said that we have agreed to the principle of the bill. I notice the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) shakes his head, but I am stating what is actually the fact so far as parliament is concerned. Undoubtedly, when a bill of this character is brought forward we are supposed to consider on the second reading its broad general principle, in this case whether parliament is to agree to a private corporation constructing a series of canals in the St. Lawrence. I do not want my hon. friend, the sponsor of the bill, to think that I am merely captious in my criticism, but, speaking for myself, I am not prepared to agree now to the principle of any private corporation undertaking the improvement of the St. Lawrence waterway. I think almost from confederation the question of the canalization of the St. Lawrence to the great lakes has been in the hands of the parliament of Canada. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent by the people of Canada on this great work. I think we ought not to give this bill second reading. Probably the government should have taken the whole question into consideration and have been prepared, when the bill came forward, to state their attitude in regard to it. It should not be the duty of any private member, especially on the opposition side, to now offer objections to the bill, because after all it is a question for parliament and particularly for the government to consider. If the government are prepared to endorse the bill publicly, then it becomes a question of policy whether we shall get behind or oppose the government in the matter. Speaking for myself, I am opposed to the principle of a private corporation being granted the powers set forth in this bill.
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Railways and Canals): Mr.iSpeaker,I should have spoken immediately after the sponsor of the bill (Mr. Smith) moved the second reading had not my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Stevens) been on his feet. With most of his remarks I am in cordial agreement. I for one am not convinced that there should be such a canal as is proposed in this bill, and certainly the government is not adopting the principle of permitting private corporations to enter into the business of canalization and charging tolls, when it has been the policy of successive governments for a great many years past to operate, for the marine traffic of this country, canals without any toll charges. The question which arises in connection with the bill is one which has been frequently referred to this house. When private parties petition for private legislation and pay the fees demanded by this house it is presumed that they will get an opportunity themselves to present the object in which they are interested and for which they desire parliamentary approval. There is only one place where petitioners can thus appear, and that is before one of the select standing committees of this house. That is the only reason why I should be prepared personally to vote for the second reading of this bill-in order that those concerned may have an opportunity of presenting to a committee of this house such arguments as are in their possession, such information as they have, which would warrant parliament in
2036	COMMONS
Great Lakes and Atlantic Canal Company
departing from what has been a principle of many years' standing in connection with undertakings of this character. I am absolutely opposed to the bill finally passing this house, but I am prepared certainly to allow the petitioners to come before a committee of the house and tell us all about it.
I do not pretend to know all that can be known about the St. Lawrence. I have studied the bill to some extent and find that in the main it does not relate at all to the St. Lawrence canal. It is a canal intended apparently to go overland to paraded the St. Lawrence for practically the whole of its distance. That may or may not be a merit, but for my part I am prepared to allow the petitioners to appear before the railways and canals committee and to endeavour there to demonstrate that what they propose is more in the interests of the people of Canada than is the policy now followed. I do not believe they can demonstrate it; I do not believe so for a moment, and I am myself opposed to the bill. But we should at least give them an opportunity to present their case.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does the second reading of a private bill necessarily commit this hou-'e to the principle of the bill?


Mr. DUNNING:: That of course is very debatable in connection with a private bill. But if my hon. friend puts his question in this form: Does the second reading of a private bill, which necessarily involves its reference to a committee of the house for its examination, commit this house to the final passage of the bill?-I can answer him definitely in the negative. It merely involves, in my judgment,-and I speak only as one member of the house-that the house in passing the second reading of the bill permits the petitioners to appear in the only way they can appear, before a select committee, there to endeavour to make out their case. I have indicated that personally I am opposed to the bill as such; but I see no way of treating petitioners fairly, after they have paid their fees, than at least to give them a hearing. That may not 6uit hon. gentlemen; I know it does not. But personally I have consistently followed that course-and, as I say, I speak only for myself in the matter. Certainly I do not deem myself voting for the passage of the bill in voting for the second reading; not at all; in fact, it would require a great deal of new information to persuade me that it is worth voting for at all. But I deem it wise that petitioners, whoever they may be, should have the right to appear before a committee of parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would not trespass on tlhe time of the house were it not for the observations of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning). It is laid down in May clearly that when the house gives second reading to a private bill it approves the principle of the bill. It approves the principle, although the details of the measure may be considered in the committee to which it may be referred.
What is the principle of this bill? The principle of this bill is that a private company may construct a canal and charge tolls, undertake hydro-electric enterprises, construct bridges, and enter upon various matters of that kind. It takes some thirteen pages to outline the provisions of the bill. The Minister of Railways, whose department is directly affected, has said that the petitioner's have given their notice and paid the advertising fees and the fees due to the clerks of the House of Commons and the Senate, and therefore the bill, in his opinion, should go to the committee. I submit with all deference that the principle is that the house itself must determine whether or not it will change a principle which heretofore has been approved, and this house only should vote upon that principle, and not a committee of the house. The house should be convinced, and not a committee. In other words, if the hon. gentleman who introduces the bill is unable to prove to the house in his opening that the matter is one of such great public interest as would warrant this house in departing from the principle which heretofore has guided it in legislation of this character, the bill should not pass. He has not given any explanation to warrant any such thing being done, and as the matter now stands when we give second reading to the bill we have approved the principle of a private canal being constructed, paralleling the St. Lawrence river, with a depth of thirty-five feet and width of four hundred feet, and involving the possibility of tolls being charged, together with various other matters of that kind. I for one will recall to the house what is laid down by May with respect to private bills of this character. When you approve the principle of legislation it must then be assumed that some sort of bill will emerge from the committee to which that legislation is referred. The place to kill the bill, if you wish to kill it, is here and not in the committee; because having sent the bill to the committee you have indicated that you are in favour of the principle of a privately-owned canal, and you instruct the committee to prepare a measure accordingly, and if

Nova Scotia Fisheries
necessary so amending the provisions as submitted that there will emerge from that committee a bill carrying out the principle you have approved. For that I am not prepared to vote. It serves no useful purpose to take up the time of the house in a long debate, but certainly, if such a bill were to originate on this side of the house, I have no doubt what the Minister of Railways would say about it.


Charles Avery Dunning: Exactly the same as I
have said in this case. My hon. friend will permit me to say that I have taken precisely the same ground with respect to bills in the same position emanating from across the way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I recall the case of the
Georgian bay canal bill. After lengthy discussion, and after attention had been drawn to what May has to say on the question, the bill finally went to the committee where, when it was considered, not a single member but one was found to vote for it. What happened was this: It occupied weeks of debate in this house and was given second reading, a very persistent lobby having been maintained to secure its second reading. The last minister who spoke upon it was the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Euler). When the bill reached the committee, however, one member stood up in favour of it. The house was then in the anomalous position of having voted by a majority for the principle of the building of the Georgian bay canal, although, when the bill reached the committee, there was just one hon. member who was loyal to his principles and who stood up for the principle of the bill being given effect to by legislation. That, it seems to me, is hardly the practice to be pursued.
If we have no desire to pass this legislation-and apparently we have not-I think the hon. member for Stormont (Mr. Smith) will be well advised to take the nays and yeas as indicating whether or not it is the intention of parliament to depart from the principle which has heretofore governed, namely, that canals of this character should be publicly owned and that no tolls should be chargeable in relation thereto. With all my friendly regard for the hon. member for Stormont, I beg to assure him that legislation is not based upon considerations of friendship when it affects the public weal, and I for one propose accordingly to vote against the bill.


Hewitt Bostock: Those in favour of the motion will say, yea.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yea.


Hewitt Bostock: Those opposed will say, nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Nay.


Hewitt Bostock: I think the nays have it. The motion is lost.
Motion negatived.



MESSAGE FROM HIS MAJESTY THE KING


Hewitt Bostock: I desire to inform the
house that I have received the following message from His Excellency the Governor General:
Office of the Governor General's Secretary Canada.
Ottawa, 29th April, 1929.
Sir,
I am commanded by His Excellency the Governor Genera! to inform you that he has received the following message from Lord Stam-fordham, private secretary to His Majesty the King:-
"I am profoundly grateful for the address presented by the Senate and Commons of Canada. The Queen and I have been deeply touched by the expression of thankfulness and loyal affection contained in this address, and by all other messages of loving sympathy and devotion which have been received from my people of Canada during my long illness. I trust that under Divine Providence I may soon be restored to full health and strength. George R.I."
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
James F. Crowdy,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
The Honourable
The Speaker of the House of Commons, Ottawa.



FISHERIES NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. W. JOHNSTONE (Cape Breton North-Victoria):: I would like to ask the
Department of Marine and Fisheries one or two questions based upon a report appearing in the Halifax Herald under date of April 26, describing the serious condition of the fishing community of Ingonish, in the country of Victoria." The questions are based upon this report, which is as follows:
A wave of indignation mingled with discouragement has struck this community during the past few days, due to the poor prospect ot receiving a fair price for fish during the coming summer. The Leonard Fishery are offering 2) cents for haddock, gutted; this it is felt is

Tabling oj Files

hardly better than last year, when the fishermen received the starvation price of 2 cents apiece round.
Continuing, the article asserts:
Now it looks as if the fishermen must undergo exploitation for another year and the high hopes entertained respecting the benefits that were to follow the remedial recommendations of the royal commission seem as dead as the fallen leaves of last autumn.
The Minister of Marine and Fisheries is not in his seat, but perhaps he will answer my question to-morrow. I desire to ask the government, first:	Has the government
accepted the majority or the minority report of the fisheries commission?


Hewitt Bostock: I would respectfully ask
the hon. gentleman to give notice of this question.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This might serve as notice,
since the minister is not present.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: My second question
is: What is the policy of the government with respect to the abolition of the steam trawler, and third, what relief does the government intend giving the fishermen of this community?


Hewitt Bostock: This will serve as notice.
NATIONAL DEFENCE EXPENDITURE On the orders of the day:


Henry Elvins Spencer: I
wish to refer to question No. 2, which I placed on the order paper on April 15, and which requests certain information with regard to the expenditure for national defence for the year ending March 31, 1914. This question has been on the order paper for some considerable time and I would like the information before the estimates of the Department of National Defence come up for consideration.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Minister of National Defence):: If my hon. friend will look at the question he will see that in one sense it is not quite so easy to answer as he might lead the house to believe. He asks for the estimated expenditure on national defence for the year ending March 31, 1914. There was no department of National Defence at that time and the only way in which that information can be obtained is by taking the various departments which had any services relating to national defence and adding the amounts together. That requires clerical work, and if I may say so my hon. friend might do it himself about as well as it could be done by the clerks in any of the departments. ApparfMr. Johnstone.]
ently this question just covers what was in the estimates.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I want authentic information; that is why I did not do the work myself.


James Layton Ralston: The estimates for that
year would give the figures.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The minister says these
expenditures were made by several departments, and I want to make sure of my figures.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT-TABLING OF FILES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I mentioned to the right hon.
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) a matter which I think is of sufficient importance to be mentioned in the house now. We have been discussing the estimates of the Postmaster General, and by the arrangement arrived at the other day I think we have done something to expedite the conduct of public business, by having the minister bring the original files to his office to be inspected by members of the opposition without the delay which would be necessary if these files were copied. The multiplicity of cases which have been brought to my attention since we first discussed the estimates of this department render it impossible for us to hope to deal with them all in the ordinary way, and I therefore venture to suggest that the files relating to the cases which I shall presently mention might be brought by the minister to his office for inspection. One case deals with post office affairs at Levis, Quebec, and the other with the appointment to the post office at Mitchell, Ontario. I will not discuss them even in outline, because one is never certain that the information given is warranted by the facts as subsequently indicated by the files. I am bound to say that the Prime Minister thought this request not unreasonable, and since then the Postmaster General has indicated that he is arranging to have these files brought to his office in order that they may be inspected without delay. We are endeavouring to eliminate the discussion of cases involving dismissals, which tends to produce, as I think President Wilson said, more heat than light. Under these circumstances perhaps we can assist the government in transacting public business by pursuing the course I have indicated.
HARBOUR COMMISSION REPORTS On the orders of the day:


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one other matter to

Supply Harbours and Rivers-P E.I.
which I would like to direct the attention of the government. I cannot find in the office downstairs which has the custody of documents tabled in this house any reports for the year 1928 of the harbour commissions of Toronto, Montreal, Three Rivers, Chicoutimi, Quebec, St. John, Halifax or Vancouver. Perhaps the Minister of Marine and Fisheries (Mr. Cardin) will see that these reports are brought down before we discuss certain resolutions now appearing on the order paper. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Robb) is also interested in these matters in view of the report made by the audit board last year upon the affairs of the harbour commission of Quebec.
I mention this so that when the Minister of Marine and Fisheries reads Hansard to-morrow he will see what we desire.



REGULATION OF LIQUOR TRAFFIC


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is another matter I would like to bring to the attention of the Prime Minister, although I know he must have many things to give him concern at this time; I refer to the correspondence antedating the convention of 1924 between Great Britain and the United States, as requested by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan). We desire that this correspondence be brought down as soon as possible in order that we may have the fullest information before discussing certain of the estimates of the right hon. Prime Minister with respect to the Department of External Affairs.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Prime Minister):: The leader of the opposition was kind enough to mention his intention of asking this question to-day, and I have obtained from the department a copy of the convention between His Britannic Majesty and the president of the United States of America respecting the regulation of the liquor traffic, which was signed at Washington on January 23, 1924.
I might say that when this document and others were asked for by the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George I instructed my officials to ascertain from the British government by cable whether the correspondence might be tabled. That message has been sent, but up to the present there has hardly been time for a reply. For the present I will table the convention and will hope to be able to bring down the correspondence later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the hon. member for St. Lawrence-St. George understood that the Prime Minister was cabling Great Britain so that there would be no undue delay. I apprehend that if the Prime Minister does not receive a reply within a reasonable time he will send a reminder or a refresher, as the Minister of Railways and Canals might 6ay, so that this matter will not be overlooked.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I inquired as to when the message was sent, and I was told that a cable had been despatched immediately.
I will follow up the matter at once.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am not quite sure but
I think the treaty and other documents were distributed to the members of the house some years ago, but inasmuch as this is a live question now, I wonder if this treaty could either be printed in the votes and proceedings or made available to the members by some other means.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My impression is that the treaty was distributed to the members of parliament but theTe would be no objection to having the documents reprinted.


Hewitt Bostock: It might be included in
the votes and proceedings for to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That would be very
serviceable.



PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
John Campbell Elliott: The first item is vote No. 131,
harbours and rivers.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As some of the members desire to speak with reference to certain items in vote 132, could this vote be taken up first?


John Campbell Elliott: It makes no difference to me.
Charlottetown-reconstruction of railway wharf, $48,000.


Mr. MACDONALD (Kings):: Would the
minister give us some information as to the work which is being carried on here?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a revote from last year.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Does the
amount cover the rebuilding of the property which was destroyed by fire last year?
2040	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-PHI.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, that is my understanding.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It is very
difficult for the people of Prince Edward Island to understand why the rebuilding of this shed has been delayed so long.


John Campbell Elliott: Will the hon. -member
speak just a little louder and will my other hon. friends endeavour to keep a little order, because I cannot hear a word of what is being said?


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: There was a great deal of dissatisfaction throughout the province in connection with the delay in rebuilding this shed last year. The shed was destroyed some time during June and the rebuilding was not undertaken in time to make it available for the fall season. The people interested think that this delay was unnecessarily long and that the department should have taken some quicker action in order to make the building available for the fall traffic. I am not criticizing the vote in any way except to say that in a matter of such great public interest more energetic measures should have been taken to have the rebuilding done at once.


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the correspondence before me but my recollection is that the fire took place some time after the house rose. There was no money in the estimates to provide for the rebuilding and a governor general's warrant had to be obtained at the earliest possible moment. As I recollect, that was done and it is a great surprise to me to h-ear the hon. member say that the work was not proceeded with. I believe I have something among my papers which shows that the representatives down -there have expressed their great appreciation of the expedition with which the department acted in regard to this matter.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: We notice
here in the House of Commons and in other places that all the representatives for some of the counties in Prince Edward Island do is to express appreciation to the government for what it happens to do. I have no further objection to the vote.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Souris harbour-breakwater repairs, $60,000.
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Would the
minister give us some information as to what work was done last year? There was $30,000 voted for this work a year ago and apparently only about $7,000 was expended. The vote has been doubled to $60,000 and I think some explanation would be in order.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of $60,000
is required to complete the work now under contract with Mr. H. J. Phillips of Charlottetown, P.E.I. This contract consists of placing some 1,500 cubic yards of stone, -from two to three cubic yards in size, in front of the outer block, and placing a further quantity of 2,500 cubic yards, from one to two cubic yards in size along the seaward face of middle section of the breakwater for a length of 460 feet. The tot-al amount of stone to be placed is approximately 4,000 cubic yards. The amount expended last year to the 31st March was $8,347.57.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Was this contract made with Mr. Phillips last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Involving the whole $GO,000 expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: This looks like a very large amount of money -to which, of course, I cannot object, and I am not objecting, as it is being spent in my constituency, but the condition of the railway wharf at the same point and right alongside this breakwater, is very serious at the present time. To my mind, better service would be given to the community and to the town of Souris if a portion of this vote were made applicable to some repairs to the railway wharf. It is rather important because it is a transfer point for a large quantity of freight for the Magdalen islands. The shed on the railway wharf is in bad condition; the roof is leaking, and the merchandise that is being transshipped by the railway should be stored there until the boat calls for it. It cannot be stored there at the present time because it would be in danger of destruction on account of the leaky roof. In addition to that, farmers and business men have to store merchandise waiting for the steamer for the Magdalen islands and under present conditions the wharf cannot be used to any extent because goods cannot be protected from the weather on account of the -condition of the roof. It would be better if an additional appropriation could be made for repairs to the railway wharf shed, but if the government cannot see its way clear to provide any more money, as only a small amount was expended last year and as it might not be necessary to spend the whole of the vote this year on the breakw'ater, I would suggest that a part of the appropriation be used to repair the shed. If that were done, there would be more real value given to the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.EJ.
community and better service given to the town, especially in view of the fact that this shed is the only place where stuff can be stored for shipment to the Magdalen islands or to any other port.


John Campbell Elliott: Our instructions from the engineers are quite in accord with my hon. friend's statement made to the house a year ago, namely, that the matter which is urgent is the building of the breakwater. The other structures are in danger of being completely destroyed unless the breakwater is constructed. It is the protection for the rest, and the information that I have at hand is thait it should be proceeded with first of all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.
John Frederick Johnston: When the committee rose at six o'clock we were considering vote No. 132. The item we are now considering reads:
Victoria-wharf repairs, $1,100.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I am not sure, Mr. Chairman, whether the item of $60,000 for breakwater repairs for Souris harbour was passed or not, but in any case I am sure that the minister will answer my question. Is it the intention of the department this year to see that proper accommodation shall be provided for the transfer of goods from the railway to the steamer, especially the government subsidized steamer for the Magdalen islands? The accommodation at the transfer shed is unsatisfactory now owing to a leaky roof and other defects. Will anything be done this year to remedy that condition?


John Campbell Elliott: There is nothing in the estimates providing especially for that, but there is the general vote for work of that kind, and it is a little larger than usual this year.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I hope the minister will keep the condition of that shed in mind, because it is a very important one. I hope that something will be done in this direction out of the general vote so that the accommodation will be made of some real use to the people. It is of importance in several ways, and particularly because the Dominion government subsidizes a steamship service there to the amount of $50,000 a year, anad surely when a steamship service is subsidized to that extent the transfer shed from the railways to the steamer should be such as to afford protection to the goods.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Westville-wharf, $10,600.
John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I wonder where Westville is.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend not know the location? For his information I may say that it is Queens county on the south side of the West river.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: It is rather difficult to understand why so much money is voted for these places. There is a vote of $8,200 for wharf reconstruction and extension at West river bridge, and this vote of $10,600 for the wharf at Westville. Can the minister tell us just what business is being done at these places to justify such an expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: The district engineer reports:
Westville is a point on the south side of the West river about five miles from Charlottetown, where a small structure known as "MeEwan's" wharf was built by the local government many years ago. It supplies shipping accommodation for the various communities in this vicinity, namely. New Dominion, Long Creek, Canoe Cove, South Shore, Nine Mile Creek and Fair-view, same containing probably from 600 to 800 persons interested in the export of surplus farm produce and import of coal, lumber and general merchandise by -water, as they are entirely cut off from any railway service. The wharf is also a point of call twice weekly for the subsidized steamer "Harland", but owing to recent development in the seed potato industry it has been found inadequate and vessels arriving in the busy shipping season have often to lie at the pierhead one outside the other. There are no statistics available as to the value of the business transacted over this wharf, but from personal observation covering the past twenty years or more I am of the opinion this would not exceed $50,000 per season. The wharf is still controlled by the local government, and as only small repairs have been made on it from time to time it is now in very bad condition and will shortly require to be entirely reconstructed. Under these circumstances shippers and others interested in obtaining improved facilities at the place desire that the present wharf be abandoned and an entirely new one built a short distance to the eastward, and I have no hesitation in advising the department that I consider that it would be better in every way to comply with such request. The proposed new site has an excellent approach both from water and land, with sufficient space for any warehouse accommodation that might eventually be required, while approach to present wharf is up a very steep hill, difficult to team heavy loads over, and the land surrounding it is neither available or suitable for the traffic that it is anticipated will follow improved shipping facilities at Westville.
2042	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.EJ.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: Is that report from the district engineer?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, the district engineer,
Mr. Hyndman.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I have a
great real of confidence in any report made by the district engineer, as I know he is a really practical man. How far is this wharf from the West river bridge wharf, for which there is a vote of over $8,000?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
it is three or four miles below that bridge.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: When those
of us who know the situation existing there compare the treatment the West river is receiving with that accorded to other points in the province, especially in Kings county, we cannot help wondering why it is that so much attention is given to certain points, two, three or four miles apart in one county, and no attention whatever to large sections in another county.


Mr. McPHEE:: It is well represented.


John Alexander (1874-1948) Macdonald: I was going to suggest, when my hon. friend interrupted, that the representation apparently has a great deal to do with it, and I say that with all due deference to my hon. friends from Queens county. My hon. friend (Mr. McPhee) lived alongside the West river a few years ago before he moved west, and he knows as well as I do that the expenditure of fifteen or twenty thousand dollars on sections of the river there three or four miles apart is justified by the exigencies of the representatives of Queens county.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bailey's Brook-extension to pier, $3,000.
Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, what is
this item for?


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required
to construct a cribwork extension 240 feet long, 10 feet wide and 10 feet high to the eastern pier. An extension to the pier is required in order to straighten and constrict the channel, thus preventing the accumulation of debris which obstructs the traffic. About sixty fishing boats use this harbour during the fishing season, and the improvement suggested will be of great benefit to them in the handling of their fish. The annual value of the fisheries is $24,500. Three lobster factories are located in the district, which has a population of approximately five hundred.


Thomas Cantley: How much was spent last year, and who was the superintendent under whom the work was done?


John Campbell Elliott: Last year we spent $2,490
I have not the name of the superintendent. I shall be very glad to get it for my hon. friend.


Thomas Cantley: Can the minister tell
me under whose recommendation the superintendent was appointed, and if he continued throughout the season to carry on the work?


John Campbell Elliott: I could not answer that
question offhand.


Thomas Cantley: I think the minister had
better let the item stand over until he has the information ready.


John Campbell Elliott: It would facilitate matters if my hon. friend saw fit to let the item pass, but I am not going to urge it. I will undertake to supply all the information >he requires.


Thomas Cantley: Will you allow me to
discuss the matter later?


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly, I shall be very
glad to.


Thomas Cantley: With that understanding, all right.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Barrington passage-ice piers, $35,000.
Mr. ERNST:: Would the minister explain
on whose recommendation this is being done, and for what purpose?


John Campbell Elliott: Seventeen thousand dollars of this is a revote from last year. The amount is asked to be provided towards the construction of a second concrete pier at Barrington passage. The amount expended on the pier last year was only $104.


William Gordon Ernst: They are ice piers. What
purpose do they serve?


John Campbell Elliott: It is claimed that under
existing conditions the people of Cape Sable island are practically isolated during the winter months. The ferry which runs between Barrington passage and Cape Sable island cannot give regular service on account of the heavy ice fields which run up and down the passage making navigation unsafe. If the proposed piers were constructed across the passage they would keep the ice fields broken up in such small quantities that the ferry boats would have no difficulty in making daily trips.


William Gordon Ernst: Does this represent the final expenditure, or will further piers be necessary?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


John Campbell Elliott: It depends to a certain
extent upon the results obtained. If the first two piers constructed have the effect of doing what the engineer thinks they will do, it is possible that something further along that line will be done.


William Gordon Ernst: How much more?


John Campbell Elliott: There are only two piers
at the present time.


William Gordon Ernst: What is the final scheme if
this experiment proves satisfactory?


John Campbell Elliott: The $35,000 includes everything contemplated at the present time.


William Gordon Ernst: The present expenditure is
experimental, I understand?


John Campbell Elliott: Largely.


William Gordon Ernst: If the experiment proves
successful what is to be done further? Is there no definite scheme?


John Campbell Elliott: No, this is experimental
and there will be nothing definitely decided upon until the engineers have an opportunity of seeing how it works out.


William Gordon Ernst: On whose recommendation,
may I ask, is it being done?


John Campbell Elliott: The engineer's.


William Gordon Ernst: Is the minister quite sure?
I was informed that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston) promised this work.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, it is the engineer.
Part of his recommendation is as follows:
Under existing conditions, it is readily seen that the people of Cape Sable Island are practically isolated during the winter months, and the reason for this isolation is that the heavy ice fields which run up and down the passage do not allow the safe navigation of the passage, and it seems reasonable to believe that if ice piers were constructed across the passage at its narrowest part they would break the ice fields which flow back and forward through the passage during the winter. As the tide runs in and out of the passage four times a day. ice piers would no doubt keep the ice fields broken up in such small quantities that the ferry boats _ would have no difficulty in making their daily trips.


William Gordon Ernst: Is it being done on the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence? It is in his constituency.


John Campbell Elliott: I know he has spoken on
behalf of this.


William Gordon Ernst: Before the engineers made
their report?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it was after the
engineers reported.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Brooklyn-dredging, The Mersey Paper Company. Limited, to contribute one third of cost, $70,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister might
explain this item. There is another one of a similar character.


John Campbell Elliott: This is one of a number
of similar projects which the government have been assisting. This amount of $70,000 is asked to be provided towards the following dredging at North Brooklyn, the Mersey Paper Company Limited to contribute one-third of cost: The work proposed at Brooklyn consists of the dredging of a dock and basin for the pier of the Mersey Paper Mill Company. The average dimensions of this work are approximately; length, 1,150 feet; width, 550 feet; depth, 23.1 feet below L.W.OjS.T. It is estimated that 176,400 cubic yards scow measurement of sand, clay and gravel will have to be removed.
The object of the work is to provide suitable berths and basin to accommodate large steamers which will be engaged in carrying the products of The Mersey Paper Mill.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will this wharf remain
under the control of the government?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is $70,000 the total cost, or will it be $105,000?


John Campbell Elliott: The total cost will be
$110,000. Our information is that The Mersey Company are expending a large sum of money there, variously estimated between six and nine million dollars, in establishing a paper mill at North Brooklyn; and I believe their power development will involve a further expenditure.


William Gordon Ernst: The power development is
being done by the provincial government entirely, but the company have built their plant and pier there at their own expense.


Robert Gardiner: The government has
nothing to do with the pier?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Robert Gardiner: Who will have access
to the pier?


John Campbell Elliott: All those doing business
with this large concern; it is not a public pier.


Robert Gardiner: How far is the government going to go with this policy. It is ridiculous to do dredging in connection with private piers.
2044	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: It is the same policy as is followed in connection with dredging up to grain elevators. It is the policy of the government wherever there is a large expenditure of this kind creating considerable business development to endeavour to assist either in dredging or sometimes in actual dock construction. In this case we are assisting merely in the dredging.


Robert Gardiner: Will the government
endeavour to secure from the company the right of access to the pier on the part of the public?


John Campbell Elliott: The government have done so in cases where they have contributed towards the wharf. But where they are doing only dredging I do not recall any case in which that right has been sought.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It seems to me that the public should have the right to use the wharf. This was the case in connection with Anticosti island.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes; but in that particular case additional construction was made to render the place a port of refuge.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Would it not be a good policy, wherever the government undertake to do dredging in connection with such operations as this, to provide that the public shall have the right to use the wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think that any
question in particular arises in connection with the matter. Practically everyone who will have any business at the wharf is doing business with The Mersey Company, and I know of no objection on their part to such persons using the wharf. What applies in some oases does not apply here. There is a very large development in this case and I understand that a substantial investment is being made by the company. In making arrangements in a matter of this kind you try as nearly as possible to do the fair thing in view of what the company has done. I think we are getting all that we are entitled to.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It might happen, however, that a town would grow up on this site and someone might want to build a store or to do business of any other nature, and it would be very inconvenient if they could not land material at the wharf without first obtaining the consent of the company. When the government does dredging of this sort it should receive, it seems to me, something in the nature of a quid pro quo. Personally I see no reason why the public should not be allowed to use the wharf.


William Gordon Ernst: In this particular district,
which happens to be in my constituency, this wharf is not required for public purposes. There is an excellent public wharf owned by the government.


John Campbell Elliott: There are two other
wharves.


William Gordon Ernst: Yes, there is a breakwater
and there is a wharf in the district. There is mo question about the public needing this wharf, for there is ample accommodation. Furthermore, dredging is always done to improve someone's waterfront or to render someone's wharf more accessible.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Is there a company town growing up there?


William Gordon Ernst: No, not do any extent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Digby-repairs and renewals to pier, $6,000.
Mr. SHORT:: Has the minister had any
application with reference to dredging in Digby basin? He is aware, I presume, that Digby is the only entrance which the Canadian Pacific Railway have to Nova Scotia; that is to say, by steamer from St. John across to Digby. They have just given a contract for a very much larger steamer than is operating at the present time, an up to date vessel which will cost a considerable sum of money. This new vessel will draw very much more water than does the present boat, and it is absolutely necessary that dredging shall have been done by the time the boat arrives. Her construction will require about a year and it will take some time to do the dredging. I am wondering whether the minister has had any application from the town of Digby or from the Canadian Pacific Railway with reference to the necessity for dredging there.


John Campbell Elliott: In the details I have here ;here is nothing touching the matter to which ray hon. friend refers. Of course, we are only supplied with the details of the items actually in the estimates. It is just possible that such a request has been made but neither my deputy nor myself has it in mind at the moment.


Harry Bernard Short: I want to direct attention to the fact that this work will be absolutely necessary. The steamer now being built by the Canadian Pacific Railway for that service is 350 feet long, whereas the one now in use is less than 200 feet in length, so some extra dredging will be necessary. I do not ask this for the benefit of Digby at all but for the benefit of Canada generally, because this

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
is the only Canadian Pacific Railway connection into Nova Scotia. I want to direct attention to the fact that some provision should be made in the dredging operations for the coming summer to take care of the necessary dredging at Digby basin because, with the present channel, at low tide this new steamer would be hardly able to turn round. As the minister knows, we have a great rise and fall of tides there; the average is 24 feet, and sometimes we have tides of 28 or 29 feet, so it is essential that this dredging should be done this summer.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand this is a
Canadian Pacific Railway steamer to which my hon. friend refers, and evidently at the time they were making this request they overlooked the work he has in mind. However,
I will be glad to have the matter looked into.


Harry Bernard Short: They gave the contract for the new ship only two or three weeks ago.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Fourehu-harbour improvements-The British Metals Corporation (Canada) to contribute one-third of cost, $75,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is this also for dredging?


Mr. MACDONALD (Richmond):: I would like an explanation of the work intended to be done at this point.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is required for dredging at this point; The British Metals Corporation (Canada) is to contribute one-third of the cost. It is proposed to dredge the entrance channel generally 100 feet wide and 2,050 feet, long, to a grade of 16 feet, with a turning basin at Cann's Point 600 feet long and 100 feet to 300 feet wide to the same depth. Through the rock area at the outer end of the channel, which is 700 feet long, it is proposed to limit the bottom width of the dredging to 75 feet. The completion of this channel and basin will provide for vessels of 17 to 20 feet draft and will give ample accommodation for local coastal vessels.


Finlay MacDonald: What
were the reports from the engineers? What class of dredging is it to be?


John Campbell Elliott: District Engineer Locke
requested this appropriation, and according to his statement The British Metals Corporation (Canada), in their letter of April 10, 1928 to the Department of Marine and Fisheries, requested consideration by the department of the provision of shipping facilities for them in order that they might proceed with the
shipping of concentrates produced from ore from their mines at Stirling, Richmond county, Nova Scotia. The company followed this up by their letters of August 17 and October 11, 1928, and their telegrams of October 26 and 31, 192S. There was also a telegram on January 21, 1929, from Mr. M. A. Patterson of Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Hon. J. L. Ralston also wrote in respect of this matter in May of last year.


Finlay MacDonald: I asked about the dredging. What have the engineers reported as to the class of material to be removed, and what kind of harbour do they thing they can make?


John Campbell Elliott: I gave my hon. friend the size of the harbour, its length, depth and width. It is estimated that the rock excavation will amount to 16,000 cubic yards, place measurement, estimated to cost $8 per yard, and it is estimated that the dredging will amount to 186,000 cubic yards, at 50 cents per yard.


Mr. MacLAREN:: Is this $75,000 the total cost or two-thirds of the cost?


John Campbell Elliott: The total cost to complete the work will be about $200,000, and this is one-half of our contribution.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then the government
will pay $150,000 altogether?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Finlay MacDonald: How
does the government propose to do the dredging at the entrance to the channel?


John Campbell Elliott: What does my hon. friend mean; does he mean by contract or day labour?


Finlay MacDonald: How is
it proposed to remove the stone in the entrance? I have gone over this location very carefully; I was with the engineer when this harbour was inspected in 1926, and we found that the entrance was solid stone. How does the government intend to remove this stone?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the ordinary practice will be followed, so far as I know; they will drill and blast and then take out the stone with a dipper dredge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They will drill and blast
and then claim extras.


John Campbell Elliott: No doubt they will claim everything they can.
2046	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


Finlay MacDonald: Is this
work to be done by contract or by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: I think it will be done
by contract.


Finlay MacDonald: In Nova Scotia we have found in the past that most of these contractors come back for extras. This will be a very expensive work if it is done by tender and contract, and I think it is up to the government to safeguard themselves in some way. A short time ago we had the case of St. Peter's canal; I notice that in the estimates this year we are providing an amount for 1925 extras.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: Might I ask if this
is a new harbour we are creating or if shipping has used this harbour previously?


John Campbell Elliott: Fishing boats and small
coastal boats have used the harbour for some time but up to the present it has not been an improved harbour.


Finlay MacDonald: For the benefit of the hon. member for Mackenzie I may say that Fourchu is an old harbour. We have 12 feet of water there, but extensive developments are made necessary through the increased shipping which will result from the mines at Stirling. Fourchu as a harbour was frequented as early as 1700.
Before this item carries I would like to thank the Minister of Public Works for the magnificent way in which he has treated the county of Richmond. I notice that there are a few other points which he has treated in a very substantial manner but the only way we can get action from the minister is to go after him as hard as we possibly can. I am very glad to see that he has remembered my old constituency in the way he has.
I understand that requests have been made on many occasions from the district of Main a Dieu, asking that a shed be placed on the public wharf there. I understand that the fisherman's union have sent a request that this should be built. The wharf was built in 1925 and the fishermen of the district have asked for a shed. The cost of building this shed would not be very much and it would be of great convenience to the fishermen.
I would like also to direct the minister's attention to the need of a public wharf at Louisburg. This is the oldest town in the province of Nova Scotia and is one of the larger towns in the province. It is without a public wharf and I claim that it is a disgrace for the government to allow this community to go this length of time without 
having such a public convenience. I would ask the minister to forget some of his friends in that district. The reason a public wharf has not been built is that his friends have secured options on all the available property in that district, and the minister is not in a position to decide which one he is going to purchase the property from.


Mr. POULIOT:: Are they good friends or bad friends?


Finlay MacDonald: I do not think they are good friends, when they do a thing of that kind. I would ask the minister to take this matter under immediate consideration.
Another matter requiring immediate attention is the repairing of the breakwater at Gabarouse. I understand that some of the logs required for the purpose have been taken to the district of Fourchu and the breakwater at Gabarouse, which is badly in need of repairs, must be allowed to go by the board.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Glace Bay-wharf reconstruction, $16,000.
Finlay MacDonald: I am very glad indeed to see this vote in the estimates. Could the minister tell the house if that wharf has been taken over by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: The negotiations are nearly completed but the agreement has not actually been signed.


Finlay MacDonald: It will be taken over?


John Campbell Elliott: That is the intention.


Finlay MacDonald: The intention is that this vote will be spent this year and not revoted next year.


John Campbell Elliott: That is getting into the realm of prophecy to a large extent. The completion of the agreement has taken a longer time than we contemplated and that is :he reason for the revote this year.


Finlay MacDonald: The terms have all been agreed on?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but it is impossible to say how long it will be before the agreement is completed. The work will not be started until that agreement is contemplated but I expect that it will be done this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
Grass Cove-breakwater wharf, $2,000.
Finlay MacDonald: Will this vote complete that work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, this is to complete
it. This amount is required to complete the work now under contract. About $31,000 has been spent on it already.


Mr. BLACK (Halifax):: What county is
that in?


John Campbell Elliott: That is in the constituency of Cape Breton North-Victoria.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $80,000.
Harry Bernard Short: I	should like to ask the
minister on what he proposes to expend this $80,000 and in what sections of Nova Scotia.


John Campbell Elliott: I can only tell the hon.
member where the general vote was expended and how it was expended last year. This is to meet the ordinary maintenance charges made up of several small items, many of which cannot be foreseen at the present time.


Harry Bernard Short: I	brought this matter to
the attention of the minister last year when this vote was up and directed his attention to some dredging which was very urgently required at Battery point-known as Victoria beach-and I endeavoured to get the minister to make a definite promise that he would consider this matter during the present session. I was not very successful last year but I hope he will not turn a deaf ear to my pleas to-night. This is a very large fishing station right at the entrance to Digby basin, just inside the bay of Fundy. The government owns two breakwaters there but they are filled up with sand and dredging is very urgently needed.
I would also like to refer to the dredging which is required at Digby basin. The government should have its engineers look into this matter before the present season opens so that the dredging may be completed this year. I do not make this request from a local standpoint at all as it would be to the benefit of Canada generally. As I have said before, this is the only connection the Canadian Pacific Railway Company has in Nova Scotia. Their line of steamers run from St. John to Digby and before they can operate their new steamer it will be absolutely necessary that extensive dredging work be done there.


John Campbell Elliott: We cannot do dredging
work out of this vote; this is only for repairs to works already constructed.


William Gordon Ernst: I notice the amount is increased over last year by some S15,000. There must be some purpose in increasing it in that manner. Is any part of it allocated?


John Campbell Elliott: Of course the more works
we have, the more repairs we require. As a general ride we are reaching the point where we are extending the quantity of dredging being done in different places. The increase is not at all out of proportion to the increase in work of this kind that has been done in recent years.


William Gordon Ernst: Does it bear some direct
relation to the capital expenditure in the province?


John Campbell Elliott: It bears a direct relation to the amount of repairs it looks as if we would- require this year to works that are already constructed. The engineers recommend that an additional amount be voted this year.


Mr. QUINN:: Do I understand the minister to say that no dredging will be included in this $80,000 appropriation?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Felix Patrick Quinn: The fishermen of Bald Rock
in Halifax county requested an engine for hauling up their fishing boats. Will that likely be included in this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend propose the purchase of an engine?


Felix Patrick Quinn: Yes, at Bald Rock. It is
a public work. A skidway was provided two years ago, and the request came in from the fishermen for an engine. I think I mentioned it to the minister.


John Campbell Elliott: That might be done out
of this appropriation.


Felix Patrick Quinn: It would be?


John Campbell Elliott: I say it could be.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Will the minister say, it
would be?


John Campbell Elliott: Possibly.


Felix Patrick Quinn: No dredging is included in
this vote?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Will there be some way of
providing an item for extra dredging? The constituency of Halifax is not very liberally treated under the item "Harbours and rivers," and I might point out that a small amount of dredging is needed at the harbour of
2048	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
Chezzetcook. There is only one wharf on the east side of the harbour which is being filled up with sand so that the vessels cannot get in. I bring the matter to the attention of the minister again andi I ask that he would give it some consideration.


William Gordon Ernst: Would the minister give
me a little more information in respect to the item "Harbours and rivers generally"? Is it the practice of the department that the engineers simply say: We want $80,000 this year; or do they give a number of specific instances and say: We require $1,500 here, $1,500 there and other sums elsewhere in addition to a certain amount for emergencies?


John Campbell Elliott: I can give my hon. friend a list showing what was appropriated last year and which was spent practically before the end of February.


William Gordon Ernst: But is there any list of
prospective expenditures this year?


John Campbell Elliott: A large number of items are noted.


William Gordon Ernst: Will the minister give me
the list of those?


John Campbell Elliott: 
William Gordon Ernst: The total of those is whait?


John Campbell Elliott: It is not totalled because as yet we have not the estimates for many of them.
500
100


Mr ERNST:: This amount of $80,000 is intended to include all those as well as emergencies which may arise owing (to storms?


John Campbell Elliott: Repairs. We do not do any large repairs out of these. They are small, usually in the vicinity of or under $100. If

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
there is a very urgent ease we might perhaps go just a little bit further, but this is to meet urgent cases.


William Gordon Ernst: Has it not been the practice in the past-this is my recollection-to vote a lump sum for dredging generally in the maritime provinces?	-


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Gordon Ernst: I have just been advised by one of my colleagues that that item is in the estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a principle involved in this which applies to many cases of a similar character. When a bulk sum estimate amounting to over 10 per cent of the total estimates for any one province is granted by this house, it will be observed that it places in the hands of the minister a very substantial sum of money to be expended without regard to parliament. It will be observed that some of the items that we have voted do not exceed SI,000. Therefore any expenditure beyond $1,000 that is made out of this $80,000 vote is not being quite fair to parliament. The largest item which the minister read, if my memory serves me, was $750.


John Campbell Elliott: There was one of $940.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not catch that, and the next largest, I think, was for $750. I do submit that it is a violation of the general principle on which supply is based if a bulk sum estimate is passed by the house without having some idea as to what is to be expended as a maximum in any one particular instance. That is the only reason I mention it. In days gone by, when those who now sit to the right were sitting to the left of the Speaker, those who are curiously inclined may have observed from the utterances of distinguished Liberals who came from the province of Ontario how strong their criticism was with respect to bulk estimates involving the possibility of the minister making expenditures under pressure from political supporters in any particular section, and that certainly would be the case here, judging from the reports that were read, and the number of cases that were singled out for favourable treatment in the estimates and those that were left untouched in the estimates and must be dealt with out of the larger vote if they are to be dealt with at all


Finlay MacDonald: What
does the government intend to do with the $500 it is going to expend at Petit de Grat? Is that for wharf repairs?


John Campbell Elliott: That is marked for breakwater repairs.


Finlay MacDonald: What is it proposed to do with the $500 to be expended at River Bourgeois?


John Campbell Elliott: That is for wharf repairs.


Finlay MacDonald: To which wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Boyd's.


Finlay MacDonald: I may say that Petit de Grat has been asking for a public wharf for some time. The people in that community make their living exclusively by fishing. There is a small item in the estimates for dredging, but there was a much larger sum in the estimates in 1925 for that purpose, namely, $30,000, and it was not expended. This is a revote of some of that money. On the other hand, hardly a fishing boat goes out of River Bourgeois, and yet it has two wharves, one built in 1926, and the other taken over from A. J. Boyd ten or fifteen years ago. I say, Mr. Chairman, that we should not spend money in this way for political purposes, as was done last year at Soldier's Cove. The town of Louisbung also wants a public wharf; Petit de Grat wants a public wharf, and I would ask the minister to place a sum in the supplementary estimates for this purpose so that this needed work may be done. That will be far better than taking the advice of defeated candidates who want their fathers' wharves repaired. The entrance to the Grand river should also be opened We have had this matter up in the house on various occasions, and probably next year if there is an election on, the minister will have an item in the estimates for that purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Little Bras d'Or-wharf, $2,300.
Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Is that a government
wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: This is a cribwork wharf
which it is proposed to construct, 20 by 35 feet. It is asked for by the district engineer, who states that the -wharf is required to provide accommodation for Little Bras d'Or village and for the people living along the Bras d'Or channel and trading with the village by water.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Liverpool-dredging, $30,000.
William Gordon Ernst: Is this appropriation to remove the bar which has formed across the river, and to which I drew attention last year?
2050	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think the hon.
member drew attention to it last year, but I think that is the purposes of the vote.


William Gordon Ernst: I am sure that I did bring
it to the minister's attention last year, and I read a resolution from the town council.


John Campbell Elliott: This amount is asked to be provided towards dredging a channel from near the highway bridge at Liverpool, out to a point outside the bar at the entrance to the harbour. Total length of channel is 3,890 feet. The inner 1,050 feet of the channel has a width of 200 feet and the remainder of the channel a width of 150 feet.
The district engineer reports:
The bar at Liverpool is formed by the meeting of the tidal flow from Liverpool bay and the currents from the Mersey river. Where the forces of both are neutralized an eddy is formed and all material flowing down the river or flowing in from the sand banks outside the harbour naturally begins to settle in said eddy. Under ordinary average conditions this filling in is comparatively small, but an unusually heavy storm, accompanied by extraordinarily high seas, has been known to cause a filling in of from 3 to 3$ feet. The people of Liverpool have at different times asked for a deeper channel than the one herein proposed, but the district engineer has suggested a depth to the proposed new channel of 16 plus 1 foot at L.W. O.S.T. This depth conforms almost precisely with the average depth of the immense body of sand lying outside the bar. By similarizing the depths of the channel and the outside deposit of sand, the likelihood of renewed filling in is reduced, also the 16 plus 1 foot depth, if fairly well maintained, should accommodate practically all the shipping which will enter Liverpool harbour in the future.


William Gordon Ernst: That is the work which the town council resolution referred to last year? It is the removal of the bar to give sixteen feet at low water?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Malignant Cove-wharf extension-to complete, $1,200.
Thomas Cantley: What money was spent last year, and what is proposed to be done this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Last year we spent S4,-337.61 to March 31. This amount of $1,200 is required to complete the construction of the cribwork extension of fifty feet to the eastern pier. The work is asked for to provide shipping accommodation for the gravel industry.


Thomas Cantley: Will this complete the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Pictou-repairs to railway wharfs, $10,000.
Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, in regard to the repairs to the Pictou wharf last year, there seems to be some misunderstanding. On March 14th, 1928, the Minister of Railways and Canals in reply to a question asked by me, said that the repairs to these wharfs were to be carried out by his department. A little later, on April 12, the minister so informed Mr. James A. Fraser of New Glasgow. I think he confirmed the same information in a letter to the Board of Trade of Pictou some few days later. Now may I ask by what department were the repairs actually carried out, the railway or the public works department.


John Campbell Elliott: The repairs that were made last year by this department amounted to $13,918.44 to March 31. I am not in a position to say what was done by the railway department in that district, but I shall be very glad, if my hon. friend wishes it, to tell him exactly what was done by my department.


Thomas Cantley: Would my hon. friend be good enough to explain why the Minister of Railways said the work would be done by the Railway department? He so informed me on March 14th, and this was confirmed by a letter from the Minister of Public Works of April 12, also by a letter addressed to Mr. James A. Fraser, New Glasgow, on April 18th, and again by a letter to some parties in Pictou. Then on April 19th the minister informed Mr. James A. Fraser that the work would be done by the Department of Public Works. What is the explanation of this change of attitude, one statement at one time, and an absolutely different statement at another time?


John Campbell Elliott: I think the explanation is that at the time the statement was made by the Minister of Railways and Canals the works had not been taken over by this department. They were not taken over until July, I understand, and that is why the apparent difference has arisen.


Thomas Cantley: Am I to understand that the wharves were actually taken over by the Department of Public Works in July last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: And before work was
begun on them?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: All the work done was done by the Department of Public Works; is that correct?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: All the work after they were taken Over was done by the Department of Public Works.


Thomas Cantley: There was no work done before they were taken over by your department?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Thomas Cantley: Was the work done by tender and contract or by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: This work was done by day labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How much?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount was $13,-
918.44.


Thomas Cantley: I understand that $25,000 was voted last year for this work.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: How much was spent by the Public Works department?


John Campbell Elliott: $13,918-nearly $14,000.


Thomas Cantley: How much material did you buy? Did you buy any from the railways?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not a list of the material.


Thomas Cantley: Under whose superintendence was the work done?


John Campbell Elliott: By Isaac R. Arbuckle as foreman.


Thomas Cantley: Who recommended him?


John Campbell Elliott: I assume that the district engineer made the appointment. I have nothing to show who recommended him.


Thomas Cantley: Is it not a fact that he was appointed on the recommendation of Mr. McColl?


John Campbell Elliott: It is possible, but I have nothing to indicate on whose recommendation he was appointed.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. McColl appears to be the man in that district who controls all the appointments and the whole expenditure of the Public Works department.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, no.


Thomas Cantley: I judge so from the fact that he recommended the man as superintendent to carry on the work at another point further east. Later that man was dismissed on the report of one of the engineers that the character of the work done by him
was the worst he had ever seen. Then I find that another man was appointed on the recommendation of Mr. McColl, that other work was carried on at the recommendation and for the benefit of Mr. McColl, and that Mr. McColl practically dictates to the department as to what should be done.


An hon. MEMBER:: Is Mr. McColl a defeated candidate?


Thomas Cantley: No.


John Campbell Elliott: I have nothing on record to show there has been any dictation by Mr. McColl, but I have no doubt that his recommendation would receive very careful consideration.


Mr. HANSON:: Who is he?


Harry Bernard Short: Is he a district engineer?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Harry Bernard Short: Why, then, should you take recommendations and advice from a layman with reference to your expenditures on public works?


John Campbell Elliott: In matters of this kind
recommendations coming from someone in the district who is well known to the department, and whose recommendations in the past have worked out well, always carry weight.


Harry Bernard Short: But the district engineers
are certainly familiar with every part of the district and they would know best who should prove the most suitable man.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt the district engineer is the man who really settles the question as to the foreman.


Harry Bernard Short: Who is Mr. MoColl? You
must know who he is.


John Campbell Elliott: If my memory serves me, he was the Liberal candidate in the last election.


Harry Bernard Short: No, he was not; you are
wrong there.


Mr. BROWN:: Tell us who he is, then.


Harry Bernard Short: We want the minister to tell us. He knows who he is.


John Campbell Elliott: I really do not know that I know the gentleman.


Thomas Cantley: Will the minister tell us
what influence Mr. McColl has? Why are his instructions taken, as apparently they are, with respect to all these matters?


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt that if his recommendations were taken it was because the officials of the department knew who he
2052	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
was and in the past had found his recommendations satisfactory. There must have been some reason for it. I have no recollection of any personal acquaintance with him. That is all I can say. I have nothing in my papers to indicate.


Mr. FORKE:: The leader of the Progressives would know.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Minister of Immigration (Mr. Forke) suggests he is one of his old colleagues.


John Campbell Elliott: That may be.


Robert Forke: I met him in Halifax and
I know he is a very fine fellow.


Thomas Cantley: For the edification of the minister I might refer him to a letter dated September 8, 1928, which is addressed by the district engineer at Halifax to Mr. MacLean. Mr. MacLean was appointed on the recommendation of Mr. McColl and the letter states that after conversation with Mr. McColl it had been decided that all the outstanding accounts had not been forwarded, and that having been done the gentleman would not perform any further work. The letter goes on to say that the completion of pay rolls and accounts would be expected not later than September 14, 1928. No further work was done for some considerable time. Later Mr. McColl recommended the appointment of another man and he went on with the work. I want to know why Mr. McColl directs the operations of the department in Pictou county as he evidently does. He was not the defeated candidate; he never was a candidate for the federal house. Why does the minister take orders from him and obey his instructions?- because that is virtually what has been done in two or three cases.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not know that I
know who he is.
Mr. MiACDOUGALL: You said he was the Liberal candidate.


John Campbell Elliott: I was undjr the impression that he was. And that perhaps is the best evidence my hon. friend can have that the gentleman's recommendations were not accepted on that ground. So far as appointments made by the engineer are concerned, I have no doubt he consults in each locality someone on whom he thinks he can cely. We endeavour to get the best foremen He can, and I must say that in all the work done there has been very little complaint iD the district about our not having been able to secure the services of a competent foreman. Personally I have no knowledge of the matter.


Thomas Cantley: I want to tell the minister that the record is full of instances that show McColl as having directed and practically controlled the work of the department in the county.


Mr. BANCROFT:: Is that the Duncan report? What is the hon. member referring to?


Mr. JACOBS:: It seems to me that if Mr. McColl is not permitted to function while the government is in power he certainly will not be able to do anything when my hon. friends come into office. He is making hay while the sun shines. I do not think any blame can be laid at the door of the Minister of Public Works.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is a valuable contribution to the debate.


Thomas Cantley: Mr. McColl recommended Mr. MacLean. His work was not satisfactory, judging from the report of the district engineer, who reported to his chief that the work was the worst of the kind he had ever seen. Then there was further trouble with his accounts and he was asked to explain having put in an account for a certain amount of work. The engineer says that he was on hand on the day for which an item was put in for labour and that the man was not in attendance at the wharf at all and could not have done any work. The explanation then was that he was at home sharpening saws and doing other work of that kind. That is the type of man Mr. McColl recommended; but notwithstanding that, he is allowed to recommend another man to do the same class of work. There is no evidence that work of any consequence was done; the work remains undone. Is not that the fact?


John Campbell Elliott: There was $14,000 worth of work done.


Thomas Cantley: Out of how much?


John Campbell Elliott: Out of $25,000.


Thomas Cantley: In other words, about one-half the work contemplated was done. The fact is that a state of affairs exists there which is not creditable to the department and they had better make a change.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend wants to be fair in the matter.


Thomas Cantley: Yes, I want to be fair.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, only a moment ago 1 drew his attention to the fact that this wharf did not come under the jurisdiction of the department until July 12.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


Thomas Cantley: Pardon me; I am referring to the Arisaig breakwater, not the wharves at Pictou. All my discussion during the last few minutes has been with reference to appointments made on the recommendation of Mr. McColl, and I was instancing work carried on in connection with not the Pictou wharves but the Arisaig breakwater.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Maitland-breakwater extension, $50,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Last year $50,000 was voted for this work which is being carried on in the constituency of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Ralston), and there is $50,000 again this year. How much of that work was done last year and what expenditure was made out of that sum?


Thomas Cantley: We have not yet finished with the Pictou Wharf.


John Campbell Elliott: I will recall it.


Thomas Cantley: That makes a difference; we are not through with the Pictou wharf yet. What is the intention of the department with regard to completing that work? About half of tihe work contemplated has been carried out.


John Campbell Elliott: We are asking for a revote of $10,000 which is to be provided towards repairs to wharves, as follows: repairs to east wharf, $2,750; repairs to shed wharf, $6,850; repairs to west shed wharf, $400, making a total of $10,000.


Thomas Cantley: That is for this year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Thomas Cantley: Will that work be done
by contract or day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: I should think day labour would be the only way to carry on that work satisfactorily, and I will give my hon. friend the reason. When it comes to repairing an old wharf, the condition of which cannot be ascertained until the flooring is taken up or something of that sort done, for years the practice of the department has been to do such work by day labour. It has been found that when such work is advertised everything is presumed against the old wharf and there are always extras, things which must be done and which could not be foreseen, making it necessary for the contractor, who is not sure just what may be the condition of the old wharf, to put in an estimate usually much larger than the amount for which the work could be done by day labour.


Thomas Cantley: The minister has appealed to my sense of fairness, and I will admit frankly that probably he is correct in this case. However, I want to point out that the work done last year consisted almost entirely of re-covering the top of the wharf; and practically nothing was done with regard to the piling or the underwork. Both wharves are in bad condition with regard to the substructure and piling, and a very great deal more work must be done than it will be possible to do with the amount of money voted this year. I am thoroughly familiar with that situation and have known of it for years; the wharves have been neglected for a long time, and they are only standing to-day by the grace of God. That is the situation, and I trust that the minister will see to it that the work is begun immediately and carried on without delay until this amount of money is expended. I submit to him, however, that the amount voted is not nearly sufficient to complete the work as it should be done. I give the minister credit for having good intentions and for dealing with the work to this extent; I think perhaps he has adopted the most economical and indeed possibly the only way in which this work could be done, but I hope that in his supplementary estimates he will supplement this vote sufficiently to carry out all necessary work in connection with these wharves.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Port Maitland-breakwater extension, $50,000.
Harry Bernard Short: Will the minister tell us how much money was expended on this work last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Last year $15,132 was
spent to March 31. This amount of $50,000 is required to provide for the completion of the work now under contract with Messrs. MacMillan and MacDonald, the amount of the contract being $62,711.95. Of this present vote $35,000 is a revote.


William Gordon Ernst: Which Mr. MacMillan is
this?


John Campbell Elliott: Mr. A. S. MacMillan.


William Gordon Ernst: Of Halifax?


An hon. MEMBER:: Of Hudson Bay.


Samuel William Jacobs: Surely the province can
support only one Mr. A. S. MacMillan.


John Campbell Elliott: Apparently this firm includes Mr. A. S. MacMillan and Mr. C. R. MacDonald of Halifax, Nova Scotia.

2054	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


Harry Bernard Short: This amount is required to complete the contract? They did not complete their work last year, which I understand is an extension to the original breakwater there. I believe they have been working on this same breakwater for a number of years. Can the minister tell us how much money has been expended in this work?


John Campbell Elliott: The recent expenditure
was to provide for the construction of an extension to the breakwater 520 feet long, 20 to 25 feet wide on top, 32J feet high at the outer end and building a break 400 feet long on the existing work. The amount of the contract was $62,711.95; inspection, contingencies and so on $2,288.05, or an approximate total cost of $65,000. The balance required is $50,000.


Harry Bernard Short: Will this S50,000 complete
the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Would the minister be
good enough to tell us just how many contracts exist between Mr. A. S. MacMillan and the Dominion government? If he has not the information before him at the moment perhaps he might give it to the committee when his estimates are up again; it would be very interesting information. Just while we are on this item I would like to know if public tenders were called for, who the tenderers were and what were the different amounts of the tenders.


John Campbell Elliott: Tenders were called for.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In what manner?


John Campbell Elliott: They were advertised.
Perhaps I had better give my hon. friend all my information respecting this item. On June 6, 1928, the first call for tenders was received and Messrs. MacMillan and MacDonald were the lowest with a tender of approximately $58,033.53, which was accepted by order in council dated June 23, 1928. On receipt of a wire from the contractors stating that they had made a mistake in their unit prices, which should have been $62,969, it was decided to call for new tenders, which were received) on July 25, 1928. The first tender was from M. A. Condon and Son and amounted to $69,808.96; the second was -from MacMillan and MacDonald, amounting to $74,767.57, and the third was from J. W. and S. F. Comeau, amoiinting to $76,384.57. As the lowest of the tenders received on the second call, the amount of $69,808.96 was 
considerably higher than the price quoted by Messrs. MacMillan and MacDonald in their first tender, which amounted to $62,969. The matter was taken up with the firm and they agreed to work at unit prices, entailing an expenditure of about $62,711.95.


William Gordon Ernst: Has this work been completed?


John Campbell Elliott: This item is to complete
it.


William Gordon Ernst: Will this amount complete
all the work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: Will the minister tell me
the amount of the tender of J. W. Comeau?


John Campbell Elliott: That tender amounted to $76,384.


Harry Bernard Short: I might say that Mr. Comeau is practically doing the work on this breakwater, so evidently Mr. Comeau and Mr. MacMillan, one being the lowest and the other the highest tenderer, have gotten together and split the contract in some way.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The minister has given us some very interesting information, to the effect that on the second public call for tenders Messrs. Condon were the lowest tenderers, but nevertheless the contract was not awarded to them. Instead of that, a friend of the government was approached and asked if he would not do the work at his old unit price, and a contract was entered into practically without competition. I want to know if Messrs. Condon were asked, after the second tenders were called for, if they would do the work at the price previously tendered for b>
Messrs. MacMillan & MacDonald; was any offer made to them or did the department arbitrarily make a private contract-because that is what it amounts to-with Messrs. MacMillan & MacDonald.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I did not make myself clear to my hon. friend. The first render which came from Messrs. MacMillan & MacDonald was for a total expenditure of approximately $58,033. My recollection is that that tender was based on certain unit prices, but a wire was received stating that a mistake had been made in the unit prices which were-


Richard Burpee Hanson: We understand all that, but the minister has not apprehended my question. It appears that as the result of representations made by Messrs. MacMillan &

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
MacDonald the first tenders were abandoned and new tenders were called for. MacMillan & MacDonald were not the lowest tenderers; as a matter of fact they were about $5,000 higher than Messrs. Condon.
Mr, ELLIOTT:	Who were $7,000 higher
than MacMillan & MacDonald.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Seven thousand dollars
higher than the previous tender of MacMillan & MacDonald, who admitted that they had made a mistake in their unit prices and did not want to do the work for that amount of money. The department, in violation of the tender system and all that it implies, did not award the contract to Messrs. Condon, who were the lowest tenderers and who had every right to believe they would get the contract. Instead of doing that they go to their friend Mr. MacMillan, a second time and give him an opportunity to put in a third price which would be below the lowest tenderer. I want to know if that is the way to do public business. I am willing to bet without knowing anything about it that there will be claim for extras from MacMillan & MacDonald which will exceed their second tender price and we will be faced with another vote next year. Some explanation is due from the minister as to why Messrs. Condon did not get the contract in accordance with their tender and why the department, if they considered that Messrs. Condon's price was too high, did not give them an opportunity to bid on the lower price at which it was given to MacMillan & MacDonald. In all fairness to Mr. Condon he should have had the right to do that and I would like to know why he was not given that right.


John Campbell Elliott: I would like to ask the
hon. member on what ground Mr. Condon had that right.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Because he was the lowest of three tenderers on the second call for tenders, and if anbody had a right he certainly had one. He was occupying a preferred position with respect to the public tenders and I want to know why he was not asked if he would do it at the lower price, having regard to the figures the department had evidently compiled. I gathered from the minister that the department felt that all the tenders were too high. Is that not right?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That is what I gathered
from what the minister said; the department felt that the price was too high, having regard to MacMillan's first offer. They got 78594-1304
after MacMillan, who had failed on the second public competition, and they asked him to do it at a price somewhat lower than the price quoted by Condon. I want to know if Condon was given the opportunity to do it at that price.


John Campbell Elliott: I think if the hon. member will permit me to repeat what took place he will be the first man in the house to say that we did the right thing. First of all, we called-


Richard Burpee Hanson: You did the right thing by MacMillan.


John Campbell Elliott: And by the people of this country. First of all the hon. member said that Condon should have been given an opportunity on the second call to make a second quotation, and gives as his reason the fact that on the second call for tenders Condon was the lowest tenderer. If that is a good reason, applying to the second call for tenders, that the man who was lowest on that second call for tenders should have the first chance, then that is a good reason with regard to the first call.


Richard Burpee Hanson: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to make my explanation.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Did Mr. MacMillan not represent to the department that he had made a mistake in his unit price and it was too low?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, and even allowing for the mistake which he made his figure was $62,969 and it was the lowest tender. Does the hon. member get that point?


Richard Burpee Hanson: No, I do not understand that.


John Campbell Elliott: I will try to make it
clear.


William Gordon Ernst: Why was he not awarded the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps I will be permitted to make my explanation. We called for tenders and MacMillan & MacDonald were the lowest tenderers at a price of $58,033, but they wired us that they had made a mistake and my recollection is that they sent in the figures on which the estimate had been made, showing that instead of totalling $58,033 it should total $62,969. However, they were still the lowest tenderers.


Richard Burpee Hanson: On the first call for tenders?
2056	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but just on the possibility that they had not made the mistake which they convinced us that they had made, the government felt that the safe course to take was to give everybody another opportunity of tendering.


Mr. PRICE:: That is pure bunk.


John Campbell Elliott: If it is, then I submit
to the superior judgment of my hon. friend in regard to matters of that kind; that is all I can say. We called for new tenders. The lowest tenderer was Condon & Son, with a price of $69,808; the next tenderer was quoting a price of $74,767.


Harry Bernard Short: Who was that?


John Campbell Elliott: MacMillan & MacDonald. The highest tenderer was Comeau, with a price of $76,384. I submit that the proper course to take was that which my hon. friend from York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) is advocating, to give the preference to the lowest tenderer, not the second lowest tenderer. We should say to MacMillan & MacDonald, "Now, you tendered before for $62,969. True you were the lowest tenderer, but your second tender is $74,767." Under our contracts we are not bound to accept the lowest or any tender. We then find that if we had accepted what we were satisfied was the bona fide lowest tender on the first call for tenders, we would have had a contract for practically $7,000 less than the lowest tender on the second call. We say to MacMillan: We cannot accept your tender. Although you were the lowest tenderer the first time, we cannot even give the contract to you at the lowest of the second set of tenders, but if you will take the contract at the lowest tender that we have, which was your first tender of $62,969, we will make that an agreement. That was my recollection of the arrangement, and I think it will appeal to my hon. friend as having been a fair one.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The fallacy of the minister's argument is this: that on the first call for tenders there was no tender from MacMillan and MacDonald that was acceptable. They practically withdrew their tender. I agree that the minister did the right thing in calling for new tenders. That was the only thing he could have done. He calls for a second set of tenders, and he finds that Messrs. MacMillan and MacDonald are not the lowest tenderers, but it is quite apparent the government wants them to have the contract. I do not know on whose recommendation this was. The Minister of National Defence has a right to recommend his friends if he wants to do so, and I would not find 
any fault with that at all. Mr. MacMillan did not get the contract in public competition, but as I said a moment ago, it is apparent that the minister and the government wanted Mr. MacMillan to have the contract, so they approached him and made a private arrange-with him. They never gave a single one of the other tenderers an opportunity to come in and say: I will do it for the same figure. If Messrs. Condon and Son had been willing to meet the reduced price of $62,969, in all fairness the contract should have been given to them. The minister is able to make out a case only becauses he can show that he got the work done for less than the lowest of the second lot of tenders. An injustice has been done to Messrs. Condon and Son just in order to give a contract to the minister's friends.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Before we leave the item
for harbours and rivers of Nova Scotia, I am going to ask the minister to bring down a statement of all the contracts that thave been awarded to Mr. MacMillan by the government since 1926, and all the contracts that have been executed or are in the course of execution. We would like to see the magnitude of his work for the department.


Finlay MacDonald: And the reasons why he was favoured.


John Campbell Elliott: I will answer the last question first. The reason he is favoured as any other man is favoured by the government, is because he was the lowest tenderer.


Harry Bernard Short: He was not the lowest
tenderer.


John Campbell Elliott: He surely was the lowest tenderer.


Harry Bernard Short: He was not.


John Campbell Elliott: Who put in a tender as
low as $62,969?


Harry Bernard Short: When the minister called
for new tenders, MacMillan was not the lowest tenderer. When the minister makes a statement like that, I am quite in order in contradicting him.


John Campbell Elliott: He put in a tender for
$62,969. Who else put in a tender as low as that?


Harry Bernard Short: On the second call for tenders, Mr. Condon's tender was $69,S08, and Mr. MacMillan's was $74,767. But the minister never asked Condon if he would revise his figure and he never asked Comeau if he would

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
revise his. How long does the minister consider that a business concern doing business in that manner would last and have reputable firms deal with it?


William Anderson Black: It seems to be the custom of the Department of Public Works to declare tenders that come in to be unsatisfactory, then to have a visit from some firm which is the highest tenderer, with the result that this gentleman, a friend of the government, a man who is doing almost all this work in Nova Scotia and is creating dissatisfaction amongst his friends because he gets all this work, is given these contracts. Moreover, I have no doubt at all that if the work is unprofitable, there will be certain extras which may make it profitable. That applies, it seems to me, to almost every set of tenders for which the goverment calls. That is what happened in connection with the Bedford basin. The tender was declared unsatisfactory ; Mr. MacMillan paid a visit to Ottawa with the result that he got the work, and I believe it cost more than the highest original tender.


William Gordon Ernst: The Minister of Public Works is a member of the legal profession. Will he not agree with me that the situation is this: He publishes an advertisement calling for tenders. Those tenders constitute offers to the department, at which offers particular persons will do the work required. They are nothing more than offers, and, being offers, they can be withdrawn at any time before acceptance. Probably the minister will agree with me that far.


John Campbell Elliott: I will say to my hon. friend just to clear that up: while the second set of tenders was being called-


William Gordon Ernst: I was not dealing with those. I was putting forward an abstract proposition.


John Campbell Elliott: But as long as the deposit is held, I think my hon. friend will agree with me that the tenderer cannot very well withdraw his tender.


William Gordon Ernst: I just want to go on with my proposition. A tender can ordinarily be withdrawn. The minister calls for offers again. Surely the minister does not mean to insinuate or to suggest to the committee that, when calling for tenders a second time, the department retain the deposits of the tenderers in the first instance?


John Campbell Elliott: That is exactly what we do.


William Gordon Ernst: That is an irregular procedure, I would think.


John Campbell Elliott: It is a special safeguard.


William Gordon Ernst: In any event, Mr. MacMillan chose to revoke his first offer. He revoked it by putting in an offer which was substantially higher. He could not have two offers before the department at the same time. If he did not have his first offer before the department, then only the second one remained. In the second call for tenders the department had three offers to do the work: Condon, S69,808; MacMillan, $74,767, and Comeau, $76,384. The lowest offer was that of Condon for $69,908. Under the prevailing .practice the minister was bound to accept the lowest tender.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Mr ERNST:: Well, if he did not accept it, he was equally bound, as a matter of courtesy and decency, to give the man who put in the lowest tender-and it was the lowest tender before the department, because MacMillan revoked his first tender-an equal chance with MacMillan to take the work on otheT terms. In the next place, the minister points out that MacMillan's contract price was $62,969. That is, he takes the work on the basis of his original contract price. I am going to suggest to the minister that there have been and will be extras in connection with this contract. That is obvious from the fact that if the contract price was $62,969, the minister would not now, before the contract has been completed, be calling for an appropriation of $65,000. Last year he had voted for this work the sum of $50,000 of which apparently $15,000 was expended. Of this year's vote of $50,000, $35,000 is a revote. If $15,000 was expended last year and the minister is asking for $50,000 further before the contract has been completed, it means that he is appropriating for this work $65,000, or between $2,000 and $3,000 more than the contract price, in anticipation of extras I suggest to the minister that next year he will be back with a further sum for extras.


William Duff: That is to pay the inspector.


William Gordon Ernst: I do not think the inspector got paid under that vote. Surely the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough does not wish to suggest that the government would create a sinecure for some political friend.


William Duff: They always do. My hon.
friend is ignorant. Where, ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise.


William Gordon Ernst: I am suggesting to the minister that there is $2,000 already appropriated for extras. I would ask the minister to tell the committee what the tenders were in the first instance. He has told us that Mac-Millian's was the lowest tender and amounted
2058	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
to $58,000 odd, but that MacMillian stated that he had made a mistake in his schedule, and he increased his tender to $62,969. I think the minister owes it to the committee to say who were the other tendering parties in the first instance and to give the amount of their tenders. In the second place, I think he owes it to the committee to say whether there was any change in the specifications when the tenders were called for the second time, because the tenders were all higher, and it would seem there must have been a change in the specifications to make such a change in Mr. MacMillan's tender. If there was a change in the specifications, why was the contract awarded on the basis of the first specifications?


John Campbell Elliott: I want to answer my
hon. friend by calling his attention to what perhaps he overlooked when I was giving the details before. The amount of the contract is $62,711: inspection, contingencies, and so forth, $2.2S8.


William Gordon Ernst: How much of that is contingencies and how much inspection?


John Campbell Elliott: Inspection, contingencies
and so forth, $2,288.05.


William Gordon Ernst: How much of that is inspection?


John Campbell Elliott: It all comes under the
one heading. There is no division between them. The approximate total cost of the work was $65,000. The total expenditure last year was S15,132.83. This $50,000 was asked for when it was thought that the probable expenditure before the 31st of March would be over $15,000. I think my hon. friend will see that there has been no increase in the amount asked. As to any change in the specifications, I can assure him that there has been none. The second tenders were called on exactly the same specifications as the first tenders, and as an additional safeguard, when Mr. MacMillian asked to be relieved on account of the mistake and had satisfied the officials of the department that he had made a mistake and that his tender was $62,969, the second call for tenders was only made after the 10 per cent cheque of Mr. MacMillan on his first tender was retained.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Why was that done?


John Campbell Elliott: It was done so that we
would have security that we would not have to pay beyond that amount in any event.


Harry Bernard Short: You rejected the tenders.
{Mr. Ernst.]


John Campbell Elliott: No, we did not; and it
was because we did not reject them that the deposit was kept. In that way we still have Mr. MacMillan, the lowest tenderer in the first call, bound; we had his 10 per cent, and it was with that clearly in mind that the second call for tenders was made. That was only done with a view to checking up whether or not the increase from $58,033 to $62,969 had been an actual bona fide mistake on the part of the tenderer, and whether or not that was the best price at which we could let the work. When the new tenders came in we still had MacMillan's old tender of $62,969 and his deposit, and we still had as the lowest of the new tenderers, Condon and Son, who I believe the hon. gentleman is perfectly correct in saying, were a perfectly good firm. None of the firms that tendered was blacklisted; they were all good firms. The tender of Condon and Sons was for $69,808.
Now I want to refer to the argument of the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the lowest tenderer should have the preference. We still had the lowest tender on the first call; that is the $62,969, and where my hon. friend from Queens-Lunen'burg makes a mistake is that he takes it for granted that we had not taken the precaution of keeping the first tenderer bound by retaining his deposit. I have proven conclusively to the satisfaction of my hon. friends that we have done exactly what the hon. member for York-Sunbury says the lowest tenderer was entitled to. We took the precaution of calling for the second lot of tenders. None of them was as low as the lowest of the first tenders. None of them was as low as the tender for which we still held the deposit. If it was our duty, as my hon. friend says it was, to go to the man from whom we had the lowest tender, who was stiil bound to us, and say to him, "Your lowest tender is $74,767. You ask us not to hold you to your lower tender because you had made a mistake. If you are going to get the contract it will have to be at the lowest of the first tenders, namely, $62,969." and the preference was given to the lowest tenderer-


Richard Burpee Hanson: You did not say a word
to Condon?


John Campbell Elliott: Not a word more than
we did to the other higher tenderers. We followed the course which my hon. friend says was the proper course. We went to the lowest tenderer. Why would we go to Condon, whose tender was $7,000 higher than the lowest tender? I want to say just another word, unless there is something any hon.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
gentleman wishes to ask in regard to this matter. With regard to the first tenders, I am not able to give my hon. friend the particulars from the information I have here, but I shall be very glad to furnish that to him. As to giving a list of all the contracts that MacMillan has with the Department of Public Works, I shall be very glad to furnish that, but I think my hon. friend asked for a list of all the contracts that MacMillan had from the government. That would necessitate my going to the various other departments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Of course the minister is
not responsible for any other department.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
furnish that so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned.


William Gordon Ernst: I think before this item
passes we should have the tenders on the first call.


John Campbell Elliott: That is a perfectly fair
proposition, and I want to say to the committee that the more this matter is investigated the better it will suit me.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then the item will stand.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Gordon Ernst: Would the minister bring
down the complete file, not only the first tenders, but the complete file relating to this particular expenditure?


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly.


William Gordon Ernst: That is, the expenditures of
last year relating to the letting of the contracts.


John Campbell Elliott: Everything.


William Gordon Ernst: As the item is to stand I
do not want to prolong the discussion. But simply as a legal proposition, surely when the minister calls for second tenders that is tantamount to the rejection of the first tenders. In other words, the offer is rejected whether you retain the deposit or not. Look at the position you would find yourself in supposing in the second case Condon had tendered for $60,000; would you have let the contract to Condon?


John Campbell Elliott: He would certainly have
got it.


William Gordon Ernst: Without going back to Mr. MacMillan?


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly, because he
would be the lowest tenderer.


William Gordon Ernst: Then when you call for
tenders the second time it is tantamount to a rejection of the tenders in the first instance. You cannot ask a man to make a second offer and hold his first offer open; you cannot ask other people to submit tenders in competition with him. If it is a rejection, and I submit there is no doubt that it is, then the only offers you had before you were the three you obtained when you called for tenders the second time, on which Mr. Condon was absolutely entitled to the contract which Mr. MacMillan got. One reason which prompts me to say something relative to it is the fact that this is not the only instance in which Mr. MacMillan has not been the lowest tenderer and yet has got the contract. True, the other instance was in the Department of National Defence, but when you have that recurring it creates suspicion. In the National Defence contract the MacMillan tender was $116,000; that of the Standard Construction Company was $109,000 in round figures. In that case Mr. MacMillan was allowed to put in private figures and was awarded the contract for $107,500. When those things recur in case after case, we on this side of the house can be forgiven if we think that all is not well.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think anybody
needs to ask forgiveness for criticizing any of the public accounts. I quite agree that if the department is being conducted as it should be those in charge will welcome investigation into the expenditures made. It is no compliment to furnish all the papers in connection not only with this item but every other item that passes through the department. It may be a little difficult at all times to safeguard as well as they should be safeguarded, the rights of the people whose money we are paying out but, so far as I am concerned, anything in the way of scrutiny I think is perfectly proper; and it is not merely the function, it is the duty of my hon. friend to demand it. So we are all agreed as to that. Now, as to the proposition of law, that by calling for the second tenders we had repudiated the first tenders, I think my hon. friend will rec'onsider the matter when he realizes-and this is a matter to which I gave some thought-at the time it was going through, and I am practically certain I am right and the deputy is of the same view- that we retained the first tenders. We did that to make sure that we would not lose the benefit of them in case they should be lower than the second ones that we would get. We called for tenders a second time
2060	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
in order to check up an error which it was claimed had been made. That is the object of stating in the advertisement that the lowest or any tender would not necessarily be accepted.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is not that put in for
the purpose of being able to reject tenders from those who are on the black list, contractors who had fallen down on previous contracts?
Mr. ELLIOTT1: That is one of the reasons.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Does the minister think it a proper principle in connection with contracts for public works that there diould be this continual private bargaining? That is the objectionable feature about this contract, that it was done-I do not say improperly-[DOT] under cover without the other tenderers knowing anything about it. Reputable contractors will not tender for these big public works unless they think they are going to get a fair deal, and the minister will find that such men will be not available unless they are sure there is no private bargaining behind closed doors. That is the ofojectlionable feature about this contract.


Harry Bernard Short: Was there any change in the specifications from the first time that Mr. MacMillan first tendered for this work and time of his second tender?


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that there was none.


Harry Bernard Short: I should think you would be rather suspicious of those figures. In the first case his tender was $62,969, and in the next $74,767, a difference of $12,000. I would be rather suspicious of a contractor who put in tenders like that. This is the man to whom the contract was awarded, and on his first offer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I put this to the minister. The calling for tenders the second time was, so far as the department is concerned, merely asking people to tender subject to an unknown tender which would be accepted if they exceeded its figures. In other words, the government said to decent people who desired to tender for the work: We will receive your tenders, you believing that you are tendering for the work, but you are really tendering against a tender which we hold in reserve. The very argument for retaining the deposit was that they were going to give that contractor the contract if they could, and all the tenders were against his tender. Is not that the situation? All the sophistry in the world does not get away [M* Elliott.]
from the fact that in the files of the department was that tender and when you put in the second advertisement for further tenders, of necessity those who responded were tendering against that secret pigeon-holed document. I say that is wrong. The intention was to give the family contractor of Nova Scotia the business, and nobody else, and that is what happened. I agree with what the member for Digby (Mr. Short) says, that when you see a thing like that it should make any ^ engineer, any minister, or any deputy suspicious that the tenderer knows a good deal more about it than the tender indicates.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend's argument, perhaps, would have more point if it were not for the fact that such was not the case. When the tenders were opened, what occurred? Does my hon. friend mean to suggest that in point of fact the people who tendered did not know what the lowest tender was at the time the first set of tenders were opened?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


John Campbell Elliott: They all do. Don't think that these contractors do not know what their competitors are doing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I never suspected any leak like that.


John Campbell Elliott: It is done openly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: How could it be done?


John Campbell Elliott: When the tenders are
opened they are public.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Does my hon. friend
mean to say that the first prices were announced before the second tenders were called?


John Campbell Elliott: Certainly.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By whom?


John Campbell Elliott: By the committee of the department who opened the tenders.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have seen a good deal of that and I am going to furnish some information about it presently.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend has. If he can suggest any way that is more open and gives every contractor from one end of the country to the other a fairer chance than that does, I should like to have his suggestions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister wanted
to be fair about it his notice would be: "Subject to a reserve tender of so many thousand dollars, sealed tenders will be received up to-such-and-such a date at twelve o'clock noon

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
for the construction of the work." He should have said, "These tenders are subject to a reserve bid of $62,000", or whatever it was, and then the tendering public would have known. Otherwise the public was tendering against a secret pigeonhole document about which no one knew except the minister and his friends. And they kept the man's cheque so that they could say, when the time came, "You have it now beyond peradventure; your cheque was never parted with". What other construction can be placed on the matter? If my hon. friend had to deal with it as a matter of law what would he say? He would say, "You are subject to a reserve bid". But not having so stipulated, the lowest of the second tenderers should have got the work.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend has the
facts as to what took place-the different calls for tenders; what does he say should have been done? What tender should have been accepted?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The cancellation of the
first call for tenders was within the right of the government. But when it did not exercise that right it could not approbate and reprobate at the same time. It could not keep the tender of one tenderer up its sleeve and ask the world to tender, not knowing that fact. It should then, having called for new tenders, have made known to the tendering public that these new tenders were called for subject to a reserve bid of so many dollars by a known tenderer. If it failed to do that, then the department was not fair to the others who tendered. In other words, there either was or was not need of the first set of tenders. If they were rejected in toto then there was a new oalling for tenders, and that new calling for tenders should not have been subject to the first call, because many things might have happened in the meantime; the price of material might have changed. But once new tenders were called for, then everything that took place under the first set of tenders was eliminated and should have been forgotten. If it was not, it was not fair to the other tenderers who, as I have said, tendered against a reserve bid. And that reserve bid was the bid that subsequently got the work. That is the story.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend makes
that argument seriously-and I know he does, and it sounds well-he has used a most unfortunate expression in speaking of a reserve bid. I would ask my hon. friend a question as to his practice as a solicitor in selling farms, for instance, subject to conditions.
When he has a reserve bid fixed; is it his policy, has it ever been his policy, to let the tendering public know what that reserve bid is?


Richard Burpee Hanson: Very often.


John Campbell Elliott: Never.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Excuse me.


John Campbell Elliott: Well, I will not say never, because I have never had the privilege of practising down in the province in which my hon. friend lives. But I know that they do not do it in the section where I have conducted sales-


Richard Burpee Hanson: The public is notified
frankly, "This property is subject to a reserve bid of so much"; and that is notice that if they do not reach that figure they do not get the property. That is often done. If there is no reserve bid you state in your advertisement, "Property sold without reserve". Did my hon. friend never hear that expression? Surely.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: There are two kinds of
sales.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, but I appeal to hon. gentlemen who have attended sales where there was a reserve bid. After a certain amount of bidding has taken place the auctioneer says, "This property is being subject to a reserve bid"; and he opens the envelope containing the reserve bid, which has been kept secret up until the time he looks at it. And even then he does not disclose what the reserve bid is. He says that the reserve bid not having been reached he must decline to knock the property down to any purchaser. I am speaking only of the practice that has been followed where I have practised law for a good many years. That is the practice, and I know of no exception thereto. Now, with regard to this question which I asked the leader of the opposition, his argument brings us to this point: The first man's tender and all the first tenders should, he says, have been obliterated; the proper thing to have done, if we were to call for new tenders, would have been to have forgotten all about the first tenders. But what would have been the position? We should then have had to grant this contract to Condon & Sons, whose tender amounted to $69,808. That is what my hon. friend says should have been done, and that would have meant our paying $7,000 more for the work than we did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Are the extras settled
yet?
2062	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: The contract is not yet
completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Every contract of which we have any record, so far as this gentleman is concerned, has always involved a claim for extras, and that would carry the figure beyond the first contract.


Richard Burpee Hanson: One thought occurs to me. Why was not Mr. MacMillan held to his first offer? That is a very pertinent inquiry. Is the Department of Public Works in the habit, if a contractor says that he has submitted too low an offer, of doing what it has done in this case? If they wanted to protect the public treasury why did they not accept the offer of $58,000? It seems to me that would have been more praiseworthy. Why did they give him a chance to withdraw? They had a legal offer to which they could have held him; they had 10 per cent. ' They did not have to call for new tenders.


Samuel William Jacobs: It was an error.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I am addressing my remarks to the minister, not to the silent reserve at his side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not to the new minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The point, I submit, is
one to which the minister might direct his attention. I am curious to hear his defence.


John Campbell Elliott: I am delighted to tell my hon. friend what strikes me with regard to his point. As I understand the hon. gentleman, he wants to know why we did not hold to his original offer the man who said, "I made a mistake when I tendered at $58,033; I really intended my tender to be $62,960". Now although I have not the engineer's estimate before me, my recollection is that not only was that $62,969 the lowest of the first tenders received, but that the $58,000 tender was considerably below the estimate. The object of calling-


Richard Burpee Hanson: What was that estimate?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be glad to get the information, but apparently it is not here.


Richard Burpee Hanson: At this point will the
minister tell us whether Mr. MacMillan discovered his mistake before or after the tenders closed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is an important
point.


John Campbell Elliott: I think it was after the tenders closed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He suddenly discovered his tender was too low.


John Campbell Elliott: The figures presented
satisfied the department that it was an error. Subsequent tenders were called for in order to check that up and give the contractors an opportunity to show whether or not any one of them was willing to do it for that amount or less. Now I want to put this to the fairness of my hon. friend:	The very fact that we
received three tenders, the lowest of which was over $11,000 higher than the $58,000 tender and $7,000 higher than the tender which this man said he really intended to submit,-this very fact, I say, is the best evidence we could have that there had been a bona fide mistake and that the real tender he intended to submit was $62,969.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will all depend upon what the other figures of the first calling of tenders reveal.


John Campbell Elliott: That may have some bearing.


Mr. McNUTT:: Did the wire received from the MacMillan firm specify wherein the error lay-whether it was in the unit price or in the extension figures?


John Campbell Elliott: I think he claimed it was in the unit price.


Harry Bernard Short: Do I understand that the
minister has not the first tenders, or the figures
of the first tenders, with him?
' [DOT]


John Campbell Elliott: No, I have not the list
of replies to the first call for tenders; I cannot tell as a matter of fact whether there were others.


Harry Bernard Short: The MacMillan tender was
the lowest received on the first call, but the minister has not the others?


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Harry Bernard Short: Probably the next tender
was $62,900, and that may be the reason why it was given to MacMillan.


John Campbell Elliott: As I say, I am not sure
there was another tender.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: Would the minister give us the date on which the first call for tenders was closed and also the date on which Mr. MacMillan told the department he had made a mistake in his original tender?


John Campbell Elliott: I think I have the information my hon. friend requires. On June 6, 1928, the first call for tenders was received.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: That was the opening date; what was the closing date?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: It was shortly before June 23, because on that date Mr. MacMillan was notified that his tender of $58,000 was to be accepted.


William Gordon Ernst: Then after the tenders were opened and became public property Mr. MacMillan increased his tender by $4,000?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You had accepted
his tender of $58,000 before you gave him a chance to make his tender of $62,000?


John Campbell Elliott: We first refused-


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Just a moment;
you said you notified him that his tender of $58,000 had been accepted, but he was subsequently given a chance to tender for $62,969. Will the minister explain at whose instigation this was done.


John Campbell Elliott: I think that is correct.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Then it is correct
that Mr. MacMillan's tender, being the lowest, was accepted at $58,300, and later you notified him that the department had accepted his tender. Then he sent a telegram stating that he had made a mistake in his tender, and you gave him a chance to tender again for $62,969. If this is the way the public business of the Dominion of Canada is to be carried on I think it is a sorry reflection upon the government of this country.


Samuel William Jacobs: Now that the hon. gentleman is a member of the house probably he will help improve the government.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I am not talking to you at all; you are not the Minister of Public Works.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: You are not even nearly
the minister.


Finlay MacDonald: I would like to ask the minister a question; he has probably answered it already, but I did not hear him. Were the deposits of the other tenderers in the first instance returned to them?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not in a position to say how many tenderers there were in the first instance; there is nothing in the details before me to that effect, but I shall be glad to furnish the information.


William Gordon Ernst: The minister is to bring
down the complete file?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: And in the meantime the
item will stand?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.
Item stands.
St. Francis Harbour-breakwater extension, dredging and groyne, $33,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: In what county is this
harbour?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in Antigonish-
Guysborough.


Harry Bernard Short: Is this work to be done
by contract or by day labour?


John Campbell Elliott: It is under contract.


Harry Bernard Short: Who has this contract?


John Campbell Elliott: Thomas P. Charlcson.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let us have the details
of this item; we might find it as interesting as the last one.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
hear any suggestions my hon. friend may offer. This amount is required to provide for completing the following works at St. Francis harbour-


Richard Burpee Hanson: Where is that?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the constituency
of Antigonish-Guysborough. This is to provide for a breakwater extension. A contract was let for this work on September 5, 1928, to Mr. T. P. Charleson of Ottawa; the amount of the contract was $23,445. The work will consist of a timber cribwork extension to the present breakwater, 16 feet wide on top and 300 feet long measured on the harbour face, together with an ell at the outer end, 50 feet long measured on the harbour face. This amount is also required for dredging. An order in council was passed on August 30, 1928, accepting the tender of the Beacon Dredging Company, Limited, of Halifax, for the removal of 13,750 cubic yards, scow measurement, from a crib site 45 feet by 100 feet to 10 feet at low water, and from a basin 450 feet by 50 feet to 110 feet wide to a depth of 16 feet at low water. This also includes a proposed groyne, which is designed to prevent the gravel from spreading along the breakwater and finding its way around the end. This groyne will be 100 feet long, 8 feet wide and an average of 8 feet high, built of solid crib work. The probable total cost of the work is $38,000; the expenditure made last year was $5,497; a revote of 830,000 is required together with a new vote of $3,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who had the contract
for the groyne? Was it awarded the Beacon Dredging Company?
2064	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia


John Campbell Elliott: The groyne is estimated
to cost $768.


William Anderson Black: Who is the president of the Beacon Dredging Company?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say.


William Anderson Black: Do you know any of the members of the firm?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not.


William Anderson Black: Who signs their
letters? There must have been some correspondence.


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say offhand; we
will have it in the department.


William Anderson Black: Perhaps the min-inster could tell us to-morrow?


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be delighted to
do so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I presume there was a
public call for tenders, so perhaps the minister could tell us how many tenders were received, together with the amounts.


John Campbell Elliott: Three tenders were received for this work in response to a public advertisement of July 20, 1928. The first tender was from Thomas P. Charleson, and amounted to $23,445; the second was from W. E. Landry, amounting to $29,303 and the third was from Charles McNeil and Alex. G. Fraser, amounting to $33,640.20. The chief engineer's estimate of the cost was $25,000.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the contract been
sublet, and if so who is the subcontractor?


John Campbell Elliott: I do not see anything in the details I have as to its being sublet.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The department should
know.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think it has been sublet.


William Anderson Black: In what county
is this place?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the same county I mentioned just a moment ago, Antigonish-Guysborough.


William Anderson Black: There was some
work done there last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, $5,197.
nVIr. Bennett. J


William Anderson Black: Is that the
locality where a lot of dredging was done and when they went to take the dredge out they found that they had to turn around and dredge themselves out?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to answer
my hon. friend's question.


Mr. ANDERSON (High Park):: You had
better get posted before you come back here.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the hon. member
state that there was some place where that occurred?


William Anderson Black: I understand so.


John Campbell Elliott: Could I have the name
of the place?


William Anderson Black: Perhaps I can
give it to you to-morrow.


Finlay MacDonald: That
occurred at more than one place. You will remember that a year or two ago we were discussing L'Archeveque harbour. A dredge was brought in there and could not get out. Some overcasting was left there and I put a question on the order paper with respect to the matter. The minister answered that he had no knowledge of any overcasting having been left there. But the overcasting was left there in the little boat channel.


William Gordon Ernst: I understood the minister
to say that the contract price was $23,000.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


William Gordon Ernst: Why is the total vote
$38,000?


John Campbell Elliott: It is $33,000.


William Gordon Ernst: There was $5,000 spent last
year, making a total of $38,000.


John Campbell Elliott: It is made up as follows: Breakwater extension, amount of contract, $23,445; dredging, amount of accepted tender, $10,312; groyne, estimated cost, $768; inspection and contingencies, $3,474.50; making a probable total cost of the work, $38,000, less probable expenditures for 1928-29, $5,000, leaving the balance required $33,000.


Felix Patrick Quinn: What is the population of
St. Francis Harbour, and what is the extent of the business done there? Why should such amount be expended on such a small place?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Szotia


John Campbell Elliott: My information is that
St. Francis Harbour is a fishing settlement on the north shore of Chedabucto bay, ten miles east of Guysborough and twenty miles from Mulgrave, the nearest rail connection. The population of the settlements from which the fishermen come to this place for the fish is about 200.


William Gordon Ernst: How many boats come there?


William Duff: A gentleman named Walter
McNeil, a very good Conservative, has about 250,000 cords of wood which will come down the river to be shipped from St. Francis Harbour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: He would not be shipping it over the breakwater.


William Duff: That is all you know about it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I would not think so.


William Duff: Why do you say so?


Thomas Cantley: Who is the Conservative at Pictou?


William Duff: Walter McNeil.


Thomas Cantley: I never knew of a McNeil in Pictou county who did not vote Grit.


William Duff: Walter McNeil was a Conservative candidate in 1921.


Thomas Cantley: He did not stay that way very long.


William Duff: Thank God for that.


William Gordon Ernst: I asked a question as to how many fishing boats used the harbour.


John Campbell Elliott: The nearest I can come to answering the hon. member's question is the value of fish marketed. That amounts to from $7,500 to $10,000 annually.


William Gordon Ernst: Do I understand that this is being done for Mr. McNeil?


William Duff: I asked for it, so I should know why it is being done.


William Gordon Ernst: Then it is being done for
Mr. Walter McNeil?


William Duff: I would say partly.


William Gordon Ernst: What proportion?


William Duff: Thirty-three and one-third per cent.


Richard Burpee Hanson: To pay for his apostasy.


William Gordon Ernst: I would like to know if Mr. McNeil is cutting this pulpwood from his own lands for himself, or is he cutting it for American companies?


John Campbell Elliott: The amount of wood
estimated to be cut is 90,000 cords and the extent of the shipping operations is estimated to be 15,000 cords per year. There are also tracts of land adjacent to the Boylston Lumber Company's area which would produce 80,000 cords additional.


William Gordon Ernst: Then it is being done for the 95,000 cords of wood?


William Duff: Two hundred and fifty thousand cords altogether.


William Gordon Ernst: An exaggeration of 150,000 cords is not much for the hon. member.


William Duff: You are very smart, aren't
you?


William Gordon Ernst: I think the committee should be informed as to whether or not this wood is cut by an American company or is being shipped by a British subject.


William Duff: It might be owned by Russians.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is this another Matane case where the government is making a grant of the public money to assist in shipping raw material out of this country and depleting our natural resources? The government robbed the Canadian National railways of the carriage of pulpwood from that place by building a large pier to enable the American company to carry the pulpwood out of the province of Quebec to be manufactured in the United States.


William Duff: This is going to Liverpool.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I do not dispute my hon. friend's word but I do not think he knows where it is going.


William Duff: Oh, yes, I do.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If this pulpwood is being cut on the Hollingsworth and Whitney property then I can tell the minister it will be going to the state of Maine.


John Campbell Elliott: The Boylston Lumber Company, Limited, a holding company, own over 8,000 acres of land on the Goose Harbour river, on which is standing about 90,000 cords of pulpwood. This company would immediately commence operations on a large scale if
2066	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Nova Scotia
arrangements for shipping the wood could be made. At the present time it is practically impossible to ship any wood out of this section of the country, except by small schooners, and by taking the chance of loading wood in the bay without any protection. Under present competitive conditions it is impossible to carry on pulpwood operations, unless large quantities can be handled and shipment made by steamers.


William Gordon Ernst: The committee should have some information as to who the Boylston Lumber Company is, and where the wood is going. In a former case, where the government were doing something for a purely British company, they contributed one-third of the cost. If this is a United States company and if the wood is to go out of Canada, I think the company should contribute the whole cost.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I think the item had better stand until we get the information.


John Campbell Elliott: I will provide the information.


Thomas Cantley: Can the minister find out if there is any wood there at all? I doubt if there is any.


John Campbell Elliott: I have the report from the engineer as to the quantity of wood that is there. I think the item should pass.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Let it stand. The engineer's report could not be first-hand. He did not cruise the property. He is giving what somebody told him.


William Gordon Ernst: Is there on file any correspondence from the Boylston Lumber Company?


John Campbell Elliott: I am not able to say. All the reference that I have under my hand is to the report of the engineer.


William Gordon Ernst: Is there on the file nothing from anyone but the engineer? Surely the engineer does not pretend to give the amount of timber on a particular piece of property?
Company require it. If it were not for the fact that the pulpwood could not be shipped out without this being done, it would not be done. The committee should be informed who the Boylston Lumber Company is, and where the wood is going.


William Duff: Mr. Walter McNeil is a very enterprising citizen of this country who has large investments in Nova Scotia, and I am pretty sure he is the manager of the Boylston Lumber Company.


William Gordon Ernst: I should like to know who the stockholders of the company are and where the wood is going.


William Duff: How can we know where the wood is going?


John Campbell Elliott: I can perhaps clear up my hon. friend s suspicion that this is being done entirely for the company, because after speaking about the necessity for providing facilities for getting the wood out, the engineer goes on to say:
There is another reason for which these harbour improvements should be made, particularly the extension to the breakwater, and that is that ot. Francis harbour is the centre of an important fishing district and if coastal steamers could call at that place, business con-needed with the fisheries would be very materially assisted and should develop. There seems to be no other means of providing a calling place for said coastal steamers except by the extension of this breakwater, therefore, to accommodate the fishing business and to encourage this important pulpwood operation.
I would recommend favourable consideration of the extension to the breakwater, the construction of a protecting groyne on the outer side of the gravel beach and the dredging of a loading berth and approach thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Short Beach breakwater extension, $7,500.
Harry Bernard Short: Where is this Short Beach? Some of my hon. friends behind me want to know if this was named after me, but I repudiate any knowledge of it.


John Campbell Elliott: There is "a petition from Mr. ELLIOTT: It is in a very good seethe residents of St. Francis habour transmitted ^'on of the country. It is in Shelburne-Yar-and endorsed by Mr. William Duff, in a letter mouth, dated March 9, 1927," and there is the Item agreed to engineer's recommendation.	g


William Gordon Ernst: 
John Campbell Elliott: I am in* a position to
tell where that island is. It is in the county of Halifax.


Murray MacLaren: I suppose the island is
quite a small one?


Mr. McINTOSH:: It has great possibilities.


John Campbell Elliott: The population of the
island is about 300, engaged wholly in the fishing industry.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
South Bay, Ingonish-purchase, reconstruction and extension of Corson's wharf, $6,000.
Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Has
the government already purchased this wharf'
I would like an explanation.


John Campbell Elliott: An order in council was
passed on April 9, 1929, authorizing the acquisition from the estate of Mr. H. C. Corson of a wharf property, for the sum of $1,100, also the purchase from Mrs Bridget Peters for the sum of $50 of an additional fifteen-foot strip of land, adjoining the Corson right-of-way, required in connection with the proposed wharf at South Bay, Ingonish.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: On
whose recommendation would that be?


John Campbell Elliott: There is a petition from
the residents of North and South Ingonish, stating that a wharf at or near Corson's wharf would serve Ingonish Harbour, South Bay, Ingonish and Ingonish Centre in stormy weather, and provide a safe place for the steamer to land.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Is it the intention to make it a government wharf for government steamers to call at? The petition must have been recommended by somebody. Who recommended it?


John Campbell Elliott: I have not the names
of the petitioners and I have not the petition. I assume that it would go to the district engineer. In his report he refers to the fact that this petition was presented.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Is that to be a government wharf for government steamers to call at?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At 11 o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, April 30, 1929