1930-03-21

[Stage Direction]
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford) presented the first report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations:
Yoyr committee recommend that 500 copies in English and 200 copies in French of the evidence to be taken and the papers and records to be incorporated in such evidence be printed, and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. McINTOSH moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Papers with respect to subsidies to the provinces, reference No. 42, moved for by Mr. MacLaren.-Mr. Dunning.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. J. E. GUERIN (St. Ann) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 39 respecting government contracts.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.
Mr. GUERIN; Mr. Speaker, this is a very innocuous piece of legislation, but at the same time it is most important so far as our working men are concerned. It is a bill to safeguard their interests. I may say that I have had the experience, the painful experience, lately of noticing that while foreigners were very much in evidence on public works, our own citizens seemed to be idle. I gave several letters to men asking that they be engaged, and to my astonishment very frequently these men-I might call them young men, about 40 to 45 years of age-returned and told me that they had been refused employment because they were past the age limit. There is evidently some form of workmen's insurance taken advantage of by contractors, which, as it places the age limit very low, I suppose they get at a cheap rate. This bill provides that in connection with all government contracts there shall be no age limit so far as working men are concerned, so that our citizens in general may get an opportunity of participating in the benefits of those contracts. The bill also contains a section giving legislative dignity to the fair wage clause that should be incorporated in all contracts.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. OSCAR L. BOULANGER (Belle-chasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40 to amend the Civil Service Act (Returned Soldiers' Preference).
Some hon. MEMBERS; Explain.
Mr. BOULANGER:: Mr. Speaker, this bill deals with three things. At the present time the Civil Service Act gives a preference to veterans of all the allied armies. This bill would restrict that preference to Canadian veterans. Second, we propose to extend the residence requirement for applicants for civil service positions when such applicants are not Canadians from three years to five years. The third purpose of the bill is to get rid of regulation eleven, which practically overrides the section of the act respecting residence. This regulation states that in cases where, after due publicity, the commission has been unable to secure a duly qualified applicant with the necessary three years' residence in Canada, persons may be admitted to examination despite the fact that they have not been residing in Canada for three years, provided

Timber Marking Act
they have otherwise qualified under the laws and regulations. We want to get rid of this blanket regulation, which, as I say practically nullifies section 33 of the act. Where no qualified candidate can be found, this bill provides that each case is to be dealt with by the governor in council as a special case.


Mr. SPENCER:: Would the hon. member
tell us what he thinks constitutes a Canadian?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: This is defined by an act of parliament.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



TECHNICAL AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: In
what way does the government, intend to implement the recommendations contained in the report on technical and professional salaries? Is it introducing increases in the estimates, or what?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance): The Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) made some answer to a question the other day in that regard. I can only say that the whole matter of the Beatty commission report is under consideration by the government, and the Prime Minister gave assurance that there would undoubtedly be opportunity for the house to discuss it.


Edward Joseph Garland: On estimates?


Mr. DUNNING:: Not specifically on estimates.


Edward Joseph Garland: That was
the Prime Minister's statement, that there would be discussion on estimates, but he did not say that it would be supplementary estimates having for their objective the implementing of the report. I wondered in what way the government intended to implement the report.


Charles Avery Dunning: I will direct my hon.
friend's question to the attention of the Prime Minister.



IMMIGRATION POLICY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior):: Mr. Speaker, the other day a
2419-52J
question was asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) with respect to an advertisement appearing in English newspapers, dated December 8, 1929, asking for single men to train for employment on farms in Canada. I have made inquiry and find that this advertisement was inserted by the British government, in an effort to recruit men to train for work on farms, such men to be placed by the Canadian government.



PATENT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (Secretary of State) moved the third reading of Bill No. 14 to amend the Patent Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, March 20, consideration in committee of Bill No. 10, to amend the Timber Marking Act-Mr. Rin-fret-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
On section 1-Exchequer court may rectify entries.
Mr. RINFRET:: Last night when we were discussing this bill in committee the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) drew attention to the somewhat unusual and awkward construction of paragraph 1 of section 9a I then gave the committee the origin of that section, which reads practically word for word with a similar one in the Trade Mark and Design Act. Since then I have had an interview with the deputy minister of Justice, and I have been supplied with the following information: that a similar section, section 49 of the Trade Mark and Design Act, was originally enacted as chapter 35 of the statutes of 1891. The phrasing to which objection has been taken in the house was put into the section at that time, and has endured ever since. No change was made in it by the statute revision commission of 1906, or by the statute revision commission of 1927.
I am also informed by my commissioner that proceedings have frequently been taken in the exchequer court under the provisions of the Trade Mark and Design Act, and no difficulty has arisen because of the wording thereof. I think the remarks of the leader of the opposition were quite to the point as to the use made of the English language in that original clause to carry out the intention of the legislators. At the same time, it is represented to me by the Department of Justice that its legal effect is perfectly clear; and there is some advantage also, in the opinion
Canada Grain Act

of that department, in adopting the bill in its present form because it is desirable that the necessary powers be conferred on the board in similar language to that embodied in the act which I have just mentioned. Therefore if the objection is not pressed I would now suggest to the committee that the clause be adopted as it stands.


Mr. BENNETT:: Mr. Chairman, in view
of the statement of the minister as to the opinion of the Department of Justice, it appearing that decisions have been rendered upon the meaning of the language of the section in question of the Trade Mark and Design Act, which is similar in terms to that of the proposed section in the Timber Marking Act, I quite agree with the observations that he has made. It is not desirable to use different language if the language has already been interpreted by the courts.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. JAMES MALCOLM (Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved the second reading of Bill No. 12, to amend the Canada Grain Act.
He said: I would just like to make an observation regarding this bill. The bill is drafted by the Board of Grain Commissioners, with their solicitor, and in accordance with the recommendation of last year's committee on agriculture and colonization. That committee, which made certain amendments to the grain act, suggested that there should be a complete revision of the arrangements of the various sections and that the recommendations of the committee should also be incorporated in that legislation.
That has been accomplished, and it is my intention to refer this bill again to the committee on agriculture and colonization, so that any further amendments that may be considered necessary can be discussed there. I doubt very much if anything would be gained by a discussion of the bill in the house at this time, or until the committee have had a chance to hear the representations of those interested. I therefore intend to move at this time, if the bill be given second reading, that it be referred to the committee on agriculture and colonization.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of t.he Interior) moved ithat the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to confirm the agreement between the governments of the Dominion and the province of British Columbia, dated the 20th day of February, 1930, respecting the transfer of the lands in the railway belt and the Peace River block in the province of British Columbia.
Motion agreed to and the house went into comimiit'tee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Charles A. Stewart: Mr. Chairman, there is very little difference between the provision of this resolution and those contained in the other two bills which will be considered at a later date. This land in British Columbia was ceded to the federal government for .the purpose of constructing a railway eastward from the Pacific coast to connect with what is now .the Canadian Pacific railway. An area of land twenty miles wide on each side of that line was ceded by the provincial government for this purpose. In addition, as there had been some considerable alienation of land in that territory, three million acres, known as the Peace River block, was added, and for the land ceded for this purpose the governor in council undertook to pay to the government of British Columbia an annual subsidy of $100,000.
Briefly, the act provides that the land shall be re-transferred to the province of Britidi Columbia, and the grant of $100,000 continued. The only difference between this agreement and the agreements with Manitoba and Alberta-and the agreement with Saskatchewan as well, which I hope to introduce in a day or ibwo-is that there are ordnance lands in British Columbia in question, and I believe section 6 of the act deals with those ordnance lands and straightens out some difficulty between the federal and provincial governments as to their administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The questions of park reservations and the mines and minerals in the park reservations are not touched by this resolution?


Charles A. Stewart: The provisions with regard to parks are identical in all three agreements.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an agreement between the two governments with respect to the transfer of lands in the railway belt and

Natural Resources-British Columbia
the Peace River block in, British Columbia. The question of park reservations involves the mines and minerals being retained by the Dominion, and the Law prevailing in the parks is to be the law of this parliament and of regulations approved by the governor general in council.	_
I do not come from British Columbia, but I desire to protest against these provisions. Imagine people living in a vast area the size of Prince Edward Island being governed by regulations made by the governor in council in Ottawa, and then we are told that we are putting the western provinces on an equality with the other provinces of the Dominion. How long does anyone think Ontario or Quebec would tolerate that state of affairs? T et it is to be thrust upon the western provinces; they are to be told that because the Dominion reserves parks in their provinces, a few officials in a departmental office here in Ottawa are to draw up regulations, to be approved by the governor in council, for the government of these areas, and that the legislatures in the respective provinces are to be subordinated to those regulations in respect to taxes, even, if there is a conflict.
That is what it means. The premier of my province informed the legislature, I believe, that he was forced to take this agreement or get nothing. I am not going to anticipate that discussion, but it is a monstrous thing that in the four western provinces, because the Dominion government reserves areas for parks, the people living within those areas shall not have any local home rule at ail; they will be governed by regulations drawn up by a group of officials sitting in Ottawa and approved by the governor in council. If the legislatures of these western provinces pass laws which are in conflict with such regulations. the laws will fall and the regulations prevail. I put it to the minister: Does he think that is fair dealing?


An hon. MEMBER:: Sure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was not addressing the
would-be-minister; I was asking the minister at the moment. How would the minister feel about it if he were one of the inhabitants? We might as well face the matter very frankly. I regard it as very unfair, and I am very much surprised that the minister would permit the permanent officials of this country to create what Lord Hewart described as the new despotism. He so spoke of it in this country; he published an essay in England, and the Lord Chancellor was so impressed that he appointed a special committee to inquire into the matter. Here we are talking about the new democracy, yet we provide that a group
of permanent officials shall make regulations for the government of the people in these areas.
This is an intolerable condition, and I wish hon. gentlemen would take the trouble to study some of these regulations. We talk about Russia. Why, a lady passing through from New Zealand found a dog tied up in the park in Banff. She was interested in the work of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and when she complained about it-I see the minister smiling; he remembers the case-the answer was that they had to tie up the dogs because they bit the heels of the elks. That is a fact.


Mr. YOUNG (Weyburn):: Perhaps they
did.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps they did; the
hon. member for Weyburn always finds an excuse.


Mr. POWER:: Perhaps they aroused the
antagonism of the bears.


Richard Bedford Bennett: These were the elks.


Charles A. Stewart: I can
assure my hon. friend that it is not contemplated' that either the officials or this government shall act in a despotic manner. In connection with the episode to which he referred, the lady from New Zealand was merely obliged to conform to the regulations of the park.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it was not her dog; she found it tied up.


Charles A. Stewart: Dogs are
not allowed to run at large in park areas, and frequently they are not allowed to run at large in municipalities, as my hon. hon. friend knows. If these park areas are to contain wild animals, which are the great attraction in the parks, these precautions must be taken. Otherwise the animals will not be visible to the visitors.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This was just a bit of a dog you could push aside with your foot.


Charles A. Stewart: I might say that my hon. friend brought this matter to my attention some time ago, and he said he supposed the next order would be to tie up the cats. To my astonishment I found that cats were tied up, because they were eating the birds.
However, I might remind the 'committee that the parks are there for the benefit of all the people, and to preserve the wild life we must have reasonable regulations which will permit those wild animals to remain within the boundaries of the parks. My hon. friend
822	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia
has taken exception to the fact that we are superseding provincial laws. If that is the case, it is only done to the extent necessary in order to enforce the laws and regulations which have been established for this very purpose. So far as I know there is not and there has not been any conflict in the ordinary municipal government of the areas within the parks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, yes.


Charles A. Stewart: It would be a God-send if there were no municipalities inside a park area, but it seems impossible to prevent them from growing up. We have in Banff a considerable number of people, perhaps 2,500 in all, and in Jasper park we have a railway divisional point located within the boundaries of the park itself. I think the house will agree that I would be the last individual to use despotism,, but we are handicapped by the fact that the provincial laws do not give us the necessary authority to take care of conditions which arise from time to time within the park boundaries.


Mr. MANION:: The hon. minister says he has no desire to use despotism, but I remember one occasion very well when he pronounced the death sentence upon protection.


Charles A. Stewart: One could
scarcely call that despotism; that is an expression of a pious wish for liberty.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the provisions are the same with respect to all four provinces, and I read from the agreement with Manitoba as follows:
16. The parliament of Canada shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the whole area included within the outer boundaries of each of the said parks, notwithstanding that portions of any such area may not form part of the park proper, and the laws now in force within such areas shall continue so in force only until changed by the parliament of Canada or under its authority, provided, however, that all laws of the province now or hereafter in force, which are not repugnant to any law or regulation made applicable within the said areas or any of them by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada, shall extend to and be enforced within the same, and that all general taxing acts passed by the province shall apply within the same unless expressly excluded from application therein by or under the authority of the .parliament of Canada.
The parliament of Canada can supersede the taxing power of the legislature of the province, and I think most people would regard the creation within the province of an area not subject to the legislature of the province as being something wholly wrong. It denies home rule to the people of that part of the province of British Columbia; that is

what it means. It is no use talking about despotism not being exercised, the fact is that an invitation to despotism usually results in that force being exercised. Permanent officials thrive on despotism. The essay on that subject of the lord chief justice quotes from a number of judgments including the judgment of the court of appeal in England and reference is made to the tendency of officials in that direction.
I should think that the proper way to deal with this matter would be to have the regulations for the administration of the parks which are passed by the governor in council made subject to the approval of the lieutenant governor in council, because the area is part of the province. Perhaps I should not anticipate discussion, but take the Rocky Mountain park and Jasper park in Alberta, and the combined area-I speak subject to correction- is much larger than the area of the province of Nova Scotia. The sum total of the areas of the parks in Alberta is as great as the area of the maritime provinces.


Charles A. Stewart: They comprise 1,770 square miles in British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am speaking of Alberta. The area of the parks in British Columbia is about equal to the area of Prince Edward Island, is it not?


Charles A. Stewart: Almost.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This resolution gives
effect to a certain principle and at the proper time and place I intend to ask the house to pass judgment upon the principle involved. This is a negation of the whole theory of confederation. I am not averse to the creation of park areas and I hope the minister realizes that my objection is to the form of government afforded to the people within such areas.
The minister has already mentioned the very considerable railway activity within one of the parks where there is a divisional point with a fair population. The area of the Rocky Mountain park is much greater than the minister intimates. Banff alone must have a population of nearly 2,500 and there are many small settlements scattered through that area. This power of parliament is not limited to the areas which may be in the park proper, but it extends over the whole area from the outer boundaries although within those boundaries there may be sections which have been alienated and which belong to private individuals. In one of the parks there was a townsite which belonged to a private corporation, and there are Vast areas in the parks which have been alienated and which belong to private individuals.

Natural Resources-British Columbia


Charles A. Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that those areas are quite small.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. minister will recall that a very substantial area in one of the parks was transferred to Queens university as a gift of the coal which was supposed to be under that area. For the moment I am content to direct attention to this matter in the committee because it is one in connection with which we must register not only a protest but a vote against this allegation of equality which does not place us upon an equality with the other provinces. Equality is denied to the people with respect to their own parks, which equality is granted to the people of the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as the other provinces. I should like to see any parliament undertake to say that the legislatures of Ontario or Quebec should not be able to govern the people within their boundaries.


Charles A. Stewart: I quite
appreciate the force of the remarks of my hon. friend, but I would like him to realize that the administration of the affairs of the national parks is a big task. At present a minister of the federal government has to endeavour to put into force laws which are only provincial in character. For some considerable time we tried to discover some halfway ground which would be acceptable, but we found that to be a very difficult thing to do. Perhaps the ingenuity of some of my hon. friends will suggest a way out of this difficulty which confronts those of us who are responsible for the administration of the parks. While a park may be within the province of Alberta, all the residents within the boundary of that park must of necessity be under some control by a federal authority, otherwise our task would be a hopeless one. We may have gone too far, but I want to stress the fact that I must have the necessary authority with which to administer those areas which are set aside as national parks. I have no desire to interfere with provincial laws except in so far as they make it difficult to carry on this administration.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am grateful to the hon. minister for putting his reply in the terms he has. I offered him a sugestion which, were I in his place, I would accept. I agree with him that the federal parks must be administered as such and that the legislative body responsible for maintenance is the parliament of Canada and not the provincial legislatures. However, the people who live within the geographical area of the parks are subject to the operation of the laws not only of the parliament of Canada but of the legislatures of the
provinces. When you have an area within a province which is subject only to federal legislation, you create a situation whereby powers are exercised entirely at variance with those exercised just beyond an arbitrary line. As the law now is, power is granted to the governor in council to enact regulations, and my suggestion is that such regulations should be subject to the approval of the lieutenant-governor in council so that the provincial authorities would not find themselves in a hopeless position with regard to the administration of a part of their territory.


Charles A. Stewart: Would that not put us in the position of being under the control of the lieutenant governor in council?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The legislative power of the governor in council would not be impaired, but the regulations would be subject to the approval of those who, under the law, have to be responsible for that area.
Take the one matter of the preservation of law and order. The authorities of British Columbia are responsible for the preservation of law and order within the territory called British Columbia. The contention of the crown is that the province and not the Dominion is responsible for the maintenance of the troops to preserve order in Nova Scotia. Conceive the possibility of a somewhat analogous situation arising in any part of the parks in the western provinces. The difficulty would be that the provinces are charged with responsibility without authority, because the federal parliament under these agreements is the supreme law-making authority.
Let me give another illustration: parliament might, if it so desired, licence the sale of intoxicating liquors in that area while the province might be under prohibition. It might, if it so desired, establish certain institutions wholly at variance with the wish of the province in connection with such matters, and without making regulations subject to the approval of the local authorities, you have created a province within a province, a province-it is called a park-controlled by the federal government, although the privy council has said that under the constitution the province may exercise powers as plenary and ample as the imperial parliament in the fullness of its powers could grant and as this parliament within the ambit of its jurisdiction could exercise. I understand the difficulty of endeavouring to legislate along the lines suggested by the minister, but surely the local authorities should have the right to approve the regulations.
824	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask
my hon. friend a question? If that were true, the control would be at once transferred to the province, would it not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; the legislative power is there.


Charles A. Stewart: I may be
stupid about this, but if all the regulations sought to be put into effect by the minister or the department of the federal government within this area were subject, before they could go into effect, to the approval of the lieutenant-governor of the province, then clearly this is provincial control. That is my difficulty. If we can get over that difficulty I am satisfied, but I fail to see how a department of this government would have to go on every occasion and secure the consent of the provincial authorities before they could put regulations into force, without at once admitting that the provincial authorities were absolutely in control of the situation. I am not raising serious objection, but I am pointing out what the result would be.
Mr. BE1SNETT:	I think that could be
safeguarded by a very simple reservation, for instance: provided always that no such regulation should impose upon the individual affected greater responsibility than the laws Df the province provide and that if such regulations do not conflict with laws applicable to the lives of the citizens of the province, they should be approved as a matter of routine. I do not think there would be any difficulty in inducing the provinces to agree to that, but as the matter now stands, its finality disturbs me. You are going to ask the imperial parliament to ratify an agreement that will affect the lives of people half a century or a century hence, when there may be a very large population in those areas.
I agree with the minister's view as to the people within the area. Perhaps it was not originally intended that there should be a large population. Take for instance Jasper park: the Canadian National railway could not operate unless it passed through the park. Of course, it was not Jasper park when the railway first went through there. If my memory serves me aright, there are two other railways, one running down to a coal area in the south and one branching off toward the north.


Charles A. Stewart: The new
park boundary will cut out the coal area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know, in the south,
but is that the case in the north?


Charles A. Stewart: There is only one area, the Pocahontas, that we know of.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What I had in mind was the coal line that runs south.


Charles A. Stewart: To Edson.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is outside of the
park.


Charles A. Stewart: It is outside.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is Edson to be cut out of the park?


Charles A. Stewart: There were the Luscar collieries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the name I was trying to think of. That will be cut out.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We will get rid of that
difficulty; but see what will happen: you will have one little section across an arbitrary line subject to the laws of the province of Alberta. Then you are to pass legislation to take these coal mines, the Luscar collieries, out of it. They are no longer subject to federal control, but across an imaginary line the whole community is, within the Jasper terminals.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, in the centre of the park.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are the difficulties I see and it occurs to me we should have some regard to provincial rights. However great the parks are in this country, they cannot be greater than that. I had hoped the minister might be able to devise a scheme whereby he could, without difficulty, ensure that the regulations passed by the federal government for the control of the people in that area, might be approved by the provincial authorities and that there might if necessary be inserted in the agreement a provision that that approval should not be arbitrarily withheld. For instance, in most leases to-day there is a provision that the tenant will not sublet without leave, provided always that such leave will not be unreasonably withheld. Those words have now been given by the courts-of the country a well defined judicial meaning. One must think not of to-day but of many years hence in connection with imposing such a condition upon the people of this country. It seems to me intolerable when you preface the agreement by saying that you are not going to place the people in that area on an equality with people in other parts of the country. I cannot imagine parliament endeavouring to do anything like that with respect to Ontario and Quebec, the older provinces.

Natural Resources-British Columbia


Charles A. Stewart: As regards
the administration of the park, we have endeavoured to foresee most of the difficulties that may arise, for example, in the mining, the commercial portions of the park, by the removal of the control of the province. All the laws of the province will apply with the single exception that, of course, we reserve the right, which my hon. friend was complaining about, to override any law that we might think repugnant to the administration of the park.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And it is against that
principle the Minister of Justice has been struggling in London with the British parliament.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We are dealing with
our own property; that is the difference.


Charles A. Stewart: So far as
Alberta is concerned, but not British Columbia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what we are
talking about for the moment.


Charles A. Stewart: It will be
necessary for the parliament of Canada year by year to spend larger and larger sums of money upon the parks than have been spent in the past. The parks provide for the people of Canada as well as for those of other countries an attraction that brings a great deal of money into the country and the provincial governments must, of necessity, benefit by the influx of those people into the parks.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What about licence fees?


Charles A. Stewart: Some of the licence fees go to the province. They have been going to the provinces in the past.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The licence fees?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The licence fees at Banff go to the federal department.


Charles A. Stewart: Some of
them. As regards moving picture licence fees, automobile licence fees, gas tax, all these regulations are and will be in effect within the park boundaries and the (province will derive a very substantial income from them. I am not suggesting that all these revenues be taken away from the province and given to the federal government. All I am asking for is sufficient authority to maintain the scenic properties of the park and to administer the park without too great an interference by the provincial authorities. In the main, however, the provincial laws will prevail inside
the park. If my horn, friend were to ask me of any provincial law that is repugnant, I could not at the moment mention one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Because that is covered by an arrangement at the moment.


Charles A. Stewart: We have got along very amicably and have been carrying along the administration of the park quite successfully without any conflict with the province at all. However, I promise to give this matter some thought and see if we can meet the objection that my hon. friend raises in that particular respect.


Mr. ADSHEAD:: Does the sale of liquor within the park come under the control of the provincial or the Dominion government?


Charles A. Stewart: It is controlled by the province within the park boundaries.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is controlled by the Dominion, buit by agreement the province issued a vendor's licence. There is a liquor store at Banff, for instance.


Charles A. Stewart: That again has been done by agreement. The provincial government issues the vendor's licence and collects all the revenue from the sale of liquor. There again, there is an agreement under which the provincial authorities will not issue a Licence except the federal authorities are satisfied.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it would be fairer to put it the other way, and say that the federal authorities have said that no licence must issue, whereupon the provincial authorities say: We will not -issue a licence without your approval. The same situation prevails with respect to police magistrates. The minister recalls the circumstances.


Charles A. Stewart: We have had no authority to appoint police magistrates, but we will have now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly. Now you are going to cover it this way: The police magistrates will be appointed by the federal authorities, not by the province at all. I think the minister and I have no difference of opinion as to the conditions, because we both know what they are both at Jasper and Banff. The position is that with respect to British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba the government is now taking power to appoint police magistrates in the parks without any reference to the province at all. It is also taking power whereby the laws of this parliament shall prevail in the park areas, and if there is a repugnancy between the federal legislation and provincial
Natural Resources-British

Columbia
legislation, the federal legislation shall prevail, or the regulations issued under any statute passed by this parliament authorizing such regulations. Moreover, the power virtually of veto is being conferred on the federal authorities-veto to this extent, that if there is a repugnancy between the provincial law and our law, we now declare with the aid of the imperial parliament, that the federal law shall prevail. That is what the effect of this will be in all the parks of this country. As I said a moment ago, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) journeyed to London for the purpose of having the Colonial Laws Validity Act repealed, also the power to veto with respect to Canadian legislation that might be exercised by the king in council within any time after two years of the passing of our legislation. I say that we are now setting up just that very condition with respect to this area. So far as the province of British Columbia is concerned, a certain area was granted to the crown in the right of the Dominion by the province of British Columbia for the building of a railway, and when it had been utilized to the full for that purpose, then, on the report of the Hon. Mr. Justice Martin, the remaining area is to be transferred to the province. Putting it on the broad principle of equity, these lands should be transferred just as they were received, without limitation or restriction, if you are going to transfer them back at all;
I mean the portions not required. We have set up a national park in British Columbia, and under the terms of this agreement we are imposing a condition whereby the supremacy of this parliament is established forever with respect to that area. I quite agree with the minister that a national park must receive its moneys from the national exchequer and that national regulations must be made by the federal government, but that is altogether different from saying that the people in that area shall be taken out of the jurisdiction of their local legislature and be placed in a position where they are subject to the arbitrary and complete control of this parliament and federal officials. I use the word arbitrary, The minister knows perfectly well that I am not speaking of the individual who at the moment exercises that power in the federal government, but long after he has passed from the scene someone will exercise it. It is the principle as it will affect the future that I am thinking of. That principle is that there shall be established by this parliament an area for a park which is at the moment part of the province, which area, be it small or large, is no longer to be subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the province. That is something,
I submit, that we should not lightly do. I took 
the matter up with the premier of the province of Alberta, but the difficulty is that that is all that this government will do about it.


Charles A. Stewart: I hoipe that my hon. friend will look at it from our standpoint.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am trying to do that. The minister has been perfectly fair in what he says to-day. I appreciate his difficulty, but I submit that the way out of that difficulty is to confer upon the lieutenant-governor in council the power of approval of regulations, in order to see that the regulations impose upon the citizens of the province no greater burden than under the kiw of the province they are now subject to, in which case approval shall not be withheld by the lieutenant-governor in council. That at least provides for all the citizens in a province being subject to the same kind of law, and it concedes, as the minister will observe, the right of this parliament to regulate its own park, but not to impose its will by regulations, under an act of parliament, upon people so that they have a more difficult life than if they lived like ordinary citizens across an imaginary line in another part of the province.


Edward Joseph Garland: Would the leader of the opposition propose a similar restriction with respect to the appointment of magistrates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad my hon. friend has mentioned that point. It is a different question altogether. It concerns the administration of law and order, and for my .pant I am wholly opposed to this Dominion having anything to do with the appointment of those who maintain laiw in one part of the province, while the provincial government appoints them in the rest of the province.
I know of no reason why in a small area a magistrate should be appointed by the Dominion government when just beyond an imaginary line the appointment of magistrates is a provincial matter. I cannot understand it. It is a different thing altogether from territorial jurisdiction. It is a question of the maintenance of law and order and of the enforcement of law, and what kind of enforcement do you get when you have a magistrate who is a creature of the federal power? I am making no reference to existing conditions, but as to what may happen.


Charles A. Stewart: May I ask my hon. friend a question? What is the difference between .the federal authority appointing magistrates and the provincial authority doing it, because 'the appointee is a creature just as much in either case.

Natural Resources-British Columbia


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the minister sees the difficulty. Broadly, under section 92 of the British North America Act, the obligation for the maintenance of law and order in British Columbia rests with the province, and it is the duty of the provincial government to appoint magistrates, and not only magistrates, but lawyers to carry on prosecutions; and to provide jails. When the offender is convicted because of some offence he has committed in the park at Banff, where is he to be sent? Is there a special penal institution provided by the Dominion? No, he goes to Fort Saskatchewan or to some penal institution in British Columbia. Why should the four western provinces find themselves in that position as compared with Ontario and why should the federal power be concerned about the appointment of a magistrate who exercises his jurisdiction in this limited area and not within the province as a whole?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
very much concerned about that difficulty; it is of a very minor character.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But it is the principle
involved.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite so.
But my hon. friend's argument falls to the ground when it is examined carefully in this connection. Of course, it is a reasonable argument if there is no place of detention after the person is convicted. But the appointment to me is not very important, that is not one of the things that causes me any particular difficulty, and I have no objection to the magistrate being appointed by the provincial government. I think that could be easily arranged. But, after all, I fail to see why a magistrate should be any more partial under the federal government than under the provincial.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, it is not a question
of partiality.


Charles A. Stewart: My difficulty is in placing the control of all regulations absolutely under the lieutenant governor in council. It means placing control in the hands of a body which is not interested except in so far as its citizens are interested.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the public are interested.


Charles A. Stewart: The game
regulations, the school laws-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Those are only covered
by agreement at the moment.


Charles A. Stewart: But our
difficulty is not there at all. The difficulty
is that the regulations of necessity may be different from those in effect in the province, and immediately we have to explain to the provincial government why it is necessary to have those regulations. If you can find some common ground on which we can meet our difficulty will be ended. But I say frankly that I do not want to be put in the position of having to go to the provincial government to sanction regulations that I might wish to put into effect. I desire to make that very clear to my hon. friend. I have had a little experience of that kind. I have been trying to administer the resources of Manitoba, and I find it pretty difficult when I have to satisfy the provincial government in regard to all my actions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can understand that.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
want to be placed in that position. I say most emphatically, I would refuse to be put in that position; but I am perfectly willing in a reasonable way to try to conform to the laws of the province in any .park area.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As long ago as the year
of confederation, the privy council on an appeal from the province of Quebec declared that federal companies must conform to provincial laws with respect to the registration of titles and matters of that kind, as all lawyers in the country know. That principle has of course been extended in many instances since that time. Now, take a post office in a city like Edmonton or Vancouver. The principle that the hon. minister contends for will enable this federal government, because it owns the building, to disregard the sanitary laws of that city. He says:	I will decline
to do this because I might be subject to the laws of the province. But the by-laws of the city of Vancouver w'ith respect to sanitation, lighting and all other questions that touch the happiness and health of the people in that area must be complied with. That is an illustration of just what is going to happen in a Dominion park. It is a block of land in a province, and all that is contended for is you should not have the legislature at Victoria, or Edmonton, or Regina, or Winnipeg divested of all its jurisdiction over that block or area because in this instance it is designated a park and not a post office. That is the real position.
Now, let me put this to my hon. friend. My observation, extending over a quarter of a century, of the operation of the regulations in these parks makes it imperative for me, at least, to bring these matters to the attention of the house. This particular matter touches
828	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia
the future because, as I have said, we are asking the imperial parliament to ratify and confirm agreements with the provinces, and the very point the hon. gentleman has made with respect to the appointment of magistrates some years ago became very acute, as he knows. It need not be discussed here beyond saying that no good case can be made out for depriving the provinces of their constitutional powers as to the appointment of magistrates. Then we go to the next point connected with it, namely, the police force. I wonder if the minister realizes that under the law he now proposes to put through, the provinces are divested of authority for police purposes within those parks, and that the Dominion must be responsible for the maintenance of an adequate police force?


Charles A. Stewart: That is what we have done up to now.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know that has been
done by arrangement. But we are not talking of ai'rangements any longer; we are talking of a situation that is to be crystallized into a statute and in a sense made permanent so far as parliament can make anything permanent. Then the minister mentions another matter, the game laws. I recall very well the time when the game regulations of the national parks were at variance with the game laws of the Northwest Territories. Perhaps it was before the minister presided over his department, but he knows what I refer to. In the Northwest Territories the game laws were at variance with the regulations of the department with respect to the parks. As the minister knows, in his own time, there has been some conflict between the game laws of the province of Alberta and the regulations in force in the national park.


Charles A. Stewart: They can
hardly be compared at all because the game laws of the park are absolutely prohibitive.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is just what I am trying to point out. They were not always prohibitive. They became prohibitive, as the minister rightly says, because it was desired to make the park a game preserve.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just over that imaginary line the laws of the province prevail. I have always conceded to the minister in private conversation and in public statement that it was very important for the national character of the park that the game should be preserved within its area, and the province at once conceded that. As the minister realizes, there are now matters that are subject to

agreement:	1. Administration of law and
order; (a) appointment of magistrates, (b) police power; 2, Education:	questions of
schools, payment of taxes, and matters of that kind; 3. Administration of the liquor law. Under the liquor law, as the minister perhaps will recall, the Dominion claimed povrer to maintain absolute prohibition within the parks.


Charles A. Stewart: I doubt if
we could have sustained it though.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say for a
moment that they succeeded. But when there was a government control, the province was not permitted to set up a liquor vendor's store either at Banff or in any part of the national park, unleiss the Department of the Interior agreed. Now, there is no difficulty about that, not any in the world, but when you crystallize all this into law that makes it the subject matter of agreement, I put to the minister this: Does he think it is quite right to divest the legislatures of these provinces of all their jurisdiction in the premises, and say that Ontario and Quebec may do thus and so, but in those provinces thus and so may not be done because this parliament and this parliament only has to exercise its legislative power? That is my difficulty.


Charles A. Stewart: I would like to direct my hon. friend's attention to two things. He contends that our position with regard to the game law, or with respect to the sale of liquor, could have been threatened in the national parks. Had the provinces undertaken to press their claims, I think we would have had to conform to the liquor law, for instance, and have been subject to any regulation they might have wished to put into effect. My hon. friend is very, very anxious to preserve provincial autonomy within those areas, but I leave it to him, or I would ask him, what kind of a position would we be in, we who have control of this territory and are responsible for it, if we failed to provide for its administration? That is my practical difficulty. May I say that I give place to no one with regard to preserving provincial rights. I am very strongly in favour of them, but I do want my hon. friend to keep some of the very practical difficulties in mind, in connection with administration. Unless we have some control to cover a situation of that kind, then you put the Minister of the Interior, in the administration of the national parks, in a very helpless condition, and if any way out of that difficulty can be found, why, I am perfectly willing to adopt it. But that is my difficulty.

Natural Resources-British Columbia


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the house will
accept my apology for talking so much about this matter.


Charles A. Stewart: I am very
glad. It will give us some time to look into this matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just let me put this to
the minister: His last two observations completely make my case.


Charles A. Stewart: Do they?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. He said: I have
no doubt but that had the provinces relied upon their legal rights with respect to liquor and game we could not have done what we have done in the parks, and the same considerations that induced the provinces to view this matter in a national sense will be the considerations that will influence them to do the right thing quite regardless of what may be the attitude of this parliament. They did not have to do it, but they did it, and they did it because they thought it was in the national interest to do it. In the language of one of our learned judges, you can rely upon legislatures to do what they conceive to be right, and we have no right to arrogate to ourselves a virtue which wo do not possess and say that the provincial legislatures will not do their duty; but that this parliament is the only body that will do its duty. The situation is not likely to be changed, and I submit that when the minister takes the time to look at this more carefully he will find that there is a principle of far-reaching consequences, very, very far-reaching consequences, involved. It means that within a portion of an area of this Dominion called a province, provincial powers shall not be exercised by its legislature, and the federal power which, under the constitution, has no jurisdiction in the premises, is to exercise supreme control over that area and the people settled therein. That is wrong, the same way that it is wrong in respect to a post office in a city, or any part of it. That is my submission, and if the minister will try to look at it from the angle I have endeavoured to put before him, I think it will remove a great deal of the difficulty that is now being experienced in the minds of a great many men in western Canada with respect to these agreements, because in it is involved the question-not to the same extent-of mines and minerals, and their operation, and certainly the letter written by the minister, that if something had happened at some time we would talk about it, is not of any force or effect in a matter of this kind. The agreement is what governs,
and if there should be a highly mineralized area in the northern part of Alberta, for instance, it means that it would not be developed without probably going to the imperial parliament and having a statute passed.


Charles A. Stewart: There is a
provision, by agreement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is in the agreement, and that 'is another point. Since you desire me to mention them all, I will do so. The agreement provides for a method by which there may 'be a variation of the terms, and the mere ratification of the agreement by the imperial parliament would not in itself be a sufficient warrant for claiming the power by the negotiation of a new agreement to vary it. The ratification of an agreement merely means that it is binding as between the parties, but when you come to constitutional questions, involving the right of this parliament to change the constitution either of Alberta or Saskatchewan by agreement, I think, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) said some years ago, it is reasonably clear that the imperial parliament alone has that authority.
Mr. Chairman, I regret having taken up so much time in discussing the details of this agreement, but what I have said is referable perhaps more to the agreement with the province of Alberta. Inasmuch, however, as they are all affected by the provisions to w'hich I have referred, I perhaps have saved a little time rather than wasted it in talking now.


Charles A. Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend (Mr. Bennett) I would just like to say that our difficulty is a very real one. No conflict has arisen so far in the administration of the parks. The province of Alberta, of course, has the largest park area, and we have made provision for taking out of the park areas mineralized lands, or any land that might be useful for commercial purposes. One can readily understand the difficulty that might arise if that area happened to be in the centre of the park. I may say that in order to get rid of the difficulty I have frequently thought of taking out of the park area the municipalities of Jasper and Banff, 'but. that does not seem to be a feasible solution of the difficulty. I do claim, however, that if you put the Department of the Interior, whoever the minister may be, under the control of the provincial authorities, for the administration of the parks, especially when all the money that will be required annually to maintain these parks will be furnished by the federal government, you put
830	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia
the department and the minister in an impossible position. As I say, we have had no conflict so far. All I ask is that I be put in a position to be in control, not of the people, nor come in conflict with provincial laws, if you will. It might be that we would come in conflict in connection with the administration of the game laws of the parks.


Edward Joseph Garland: If the health inspector of the province found a condition of affairs, say at Banff, that was wholly unsatisfactory, would he have the necessary jurisdiction under the changed situation, to enforce the laws of the province with respect to health and sanitation?


Charles A. Stewart: I will admit at once that if this act were passed the ultimate control would be in the hands of the [DOT] federal authorities. There is no doubt about that, but it is difficult to enumerate in any act the particular difficulties which might arise. They would only arise in a very few cases, as I said a moment ago. The question of the appointment of police magistrates is not material.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Years ago, as the minister knows, the question did arise in connection with sewers.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, but I am speaking of my own administration, and with the exception of the liquor and game laws the question never did arise. We have always got along very well with the provincial authorities, but now we are seeking to establish park areas all across Canada, and as I have said on previous occasions there is not much use in advising the federal government to spend huge sums of money on them, and then leave them under the control of the provincial authorities. There must be some place where federal authority shall prevail, and there are times when it becomes necessary that that authority must prevail. I do not mean that in any arbitrary way, but with all due deference to what my hon. friend has said, in my opinion the citizens are just as safe and will be protected just as much under the administration of the federal authorities as they would be under provincial jurisidiction.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But that is not the point.


Charles A. Stewart: I will admit that.


Edward Joseph Garland: Then there is a question with regard to the operation of restaurants, hotels, places of amusement and so on, for which licences are required under provincial legislation. Is it proposed that the

federal government alone shall have the power to grant these licences and, if so, will the federal government enforce the laws of the province or of the federal government in respect of these licences? What would be the situation in that regard?


Charles A. Stewart: I may say that the two questions I have mentioned were the only two points I had thought of in drawing up this legislation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The question of licence
fees did arise, as the minister knows.


Charles A. Stewart: That question has been settled; I think we get one dollar for each automobile licence and the province gets the balance. The taxation laws of the province are in effect with regard to education and so on.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister did not quite get the point. Take the case of a hotel; to-day in the rest of the province a hotel is subject to inspection, and its licence may be withdrawn if it does not carry out the laws of the province or the regulations imposed upon it. If a hotel in the park district does not carry out the laws of the province and is not observing the standard which has been set for that type of hotel; if the provincial inspector is of opinion, from reports he has received, that this is the case, will he have any power to go in there and withdraw the licence of the hotel and close it up?


Ernest Lapointe: In that case there is
no doubt that the provincial laws apply, unless there is a law enacted by the parliament of Canada which excludes the parks from the operation of the provincial laws, but I am sure that is a law which never would pass this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But the regulations are now outstanding with regard to Jasper Park and Banff.


Ernest Lapointe: The agreement states:
. . .all laws of the province now or hereafter in force, which are not repugnant to any law or regulation made applicable within the said areas or any of them by or under the authority of the parliament of Canada, shall extend to and be enforced within the same, and that all general taxing acts passed by the province shall apply within the same unless expressly excluded from application therein by or under the authority of the parlament of Canada.
With regard to health regulations, to which my hon. friend referred a few moments ago, there is no doubt the provincial regulations

Natural Resources-British Columbia
will be enforced unless this parliament should pass a law excluding the parks from the operation of those regulations, and I cannot imagine that being done.


Edward Joseph Garland: But who is going to enforce those regulations within the park area? There is the question of private rights, the rights of the individual citizen and so on. He has his investment there; for some reason he has become careless and his place is in need of improved sanitation. Who is to make him improve the sanitary conditions?


Ernest Lapointe: Unfortunately for the
federal treasury, it will be the federal police. I might direct the attention of hon. members to the fact that this country is spending almost
82,000,000 a year just to maintain these parks in some favoured provinces. I do not think there would be much objection on the part of the people of Canada if the provinces took these parks entirely under their jurisdiction and paid for the upkeep.


Edward Joseph Garland: I was just going to suggest in passing that if the enforcement of sanitary regulations with regard to the Banff public 'bath, let us say, is not going to be any better under the new regulations than it was under the administration by the federal government in the past, I do not view the prospects for the future with any particular satisfaction.


Ernest Lapointe: I would certainly support my hon. friend in any proposal he might make for the purpose of improving those conditions, but I merely suggest that this government retains control and pays for the maintenance of these parks largely for the benefit of these provinces. So I do not think it is unfair that when the regulations come in conflict, the federal regulations should prevail. However, this is a matter of agreement, and apart from that it is not definitely settled for all time, as was suggested this afternoon. There is a provision in the agreement which permits both the parliament of Canada and the legislature of the province to modify or vary that agreement, or to amend it at any time, by concurrent legislation. Surely we must presume that if some trouble should arise, for which a satisfactory solution is impossible under this agreement, it will be easy to amend it or modify it in a way that will be satisfactory to everyone concerned.


Mr. GEARY:: Does not the matter go a little deeper than that? Referring to what the hon. member for Bow River has said, municipal institutions are under the jurisdiction of the province alone. Can the province, by agreement with the Dominion, divest itself
of its exclusive jurisdiction in regard to municipal institutions? If it cannot do so and you enter into an agreement with the province, what validity has that agreement in the case of any infraction of a regulation made by the Dominion? I think its only validity is an approval in advance, a blanket statement by the province that it will forego its exclusive jurisdiction over the territory through its provincial municipal laws. My leader has suggested that the regulations should be approved by the provinces. With all respect I do not think that would quite get us anywhere, because there would have to be regulations made under the provincial municipal law.


Charles A. Stewart: I would point out that municipalities have not been set up in the parks. What you might call the municipal government is carried on by a citizens' committee, in conjunction with the superintendent.


George Reginald Geary: That makes it all the worse. I understood from what has been said that municipal corporations have been set up.


Charles A. Stewart: The provincial municipal law governs, but the organization has not been set up.


George Reginald Geary: Then if one wanted to lay a sidewalk or build a roadway, how would it be done?


Charles A. Stewart: By the federal government. The citizens pay taxes for the purpose of carrying on education, but they pay very little taxes for anything else.


George Reginald Geary: Then suppose there is no municipal institution which could make a law for the tying up of this unfortunate dog?


Charles A. Stewart: That would be a park regulation.


George Reginald Geary: You are infringing upon authority.


Charles A. Stewart: Not upon the municipal authority.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is a provincial act which has the power of municipal regulation.


George Reginald Geary: I do not see where you have advanced it at all by this agreement. I do not think you would be in position to enforce any of the regulations so long as there were municipal regulations being enforced in the locality.


Charles A. Stewart: I would like to point out to my hon. friend that there are no municipal organizations. In order to give the citizens an opportunity of having some control over their own affairs, they have a
832	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia
citizens' committee in the towns of Banff and Jasper. This .committee works with the superintendent of the park in the carrying out of what would ordinarily be called municipal activities.


George Reginald Geary: Does not the minister think this matter should be in a little better shape?


Charles A. Stewart: I am not convinced that a municipal organization within the park area could be acceptably worked out. If that were attempted we would have to take the whole municipality out of the park and put it under the control of the province, and we have not endeavoured to do that.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: It would not be a municipality.


Edward Joseph Garland: I do not think the hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Bennett) needs to apologise for having taken uip the time of the house in a discussion of this matter. There have been very few matters so particularly interesting to those of us from Alberta, and the points -raised by the hon. leader of the opposition have been so convincing that I 'hope we will have a further consideration of the subject in a committee. Will this bill go to a committee for further discussion?


Charles A. Stewart: To the committee of the whole.


Ernest Lapointe: This is a resolution prior to the introduction of a bill.


Edward Joseph Garland: After the second reading it would be introduced to a committee of the house.


Ernest Lapointe: In this house.


Edward Joseph Garland: The questions of the appointment of magistrates, the enforcement of law and order, the granting of licences, the enforcement of regulations, policing, 'health and sanitation, and other matters should be dealt with so that we will understand what is happening. Until the hon. leader of the opposition raised these points I had no idea that .the situation was so involved. I am not quite convinced that the proposal which he makes, that the lieutenant-governor in council of the province should have the power to pass upon the regulations of the federal authorities, is the best way out of the situation. As the minister has suggested, we might be able to get on some common ground but I doubt very much if that end could be achieved in a committee of the whole. I would like to see this bill referred -to a smaller committee where we 
might be able to arrive at some intelligent basis for mutual agreement. I can see possibilities of considerable discord. The minister says that the question of payment of the magistrates has -not struck him as being of major importance, and possibly he will drop that clause and make some provision whereby the magistrates required within the park areas could foe appointed by the -provincial authorities. If that were posible then some provision might be made for the administration of the laws of the province.


Ernest Lapointe: Would the provinces pay the salaries of such magistrates? Their salaries are included in the estimates.


Edward Joseph Garland: An arrangement might be made to that effect.


Ernest Lapointe: Does not the hon. member think that the power which pays should appoint?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How are the trustees
appointed?


Charles A. Stewart: Ordinary
school districts are set up at Banff and Jasper and the Alberta School Act prevails.


Henry Elvins Spencer: With the sanction of the department?


Charles A. Stewart: The federal jurisdiction has been of a very meagre character. The provincial laws have applied in these areas and unless this bill becomes law we will have to utilize those laws. As I stated before, the only time when -conflict threatened, and then it was not very serious, was when we made our parks closed areas so far as game was -concerned, and when that was done the provincial laws did not apply within the park areas. The question of the sale of liquor came up when the province went under government control, but that has been settled through agreement. The province is in -control of the sale of liquor within the parks but. they do not issue licences or set up vendors' stores unless we are in agreement.
There are no municipal organizations in -the sense that they have organized municipalities. In order to give the citizens some say in the administration of the community they have what they call a citizens' committee which works in conjunction with the superintendent.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: How are they elected?


Charles A. Stewart: They are
residents of the community, merely acting in the capacity of people who have an interest in the community and who lend their services for that purpose. After all, the superintendent

Natural Resources-British Columbia
is virtually in control but he works under the provincial laws in every particular. We are asking that we be given sufficient authority, which authority nightly belongs to us, to enforce such regulations as we deem necessary, and which are beyond the extent of the provincial laws. I do not deny what my hon. friend has stated, that we are taking over control which otherwise would rest wholly within the authority of the province.


Mr. BOYS:: Is this not the position: at
the present time the province has entire authority and control and if this bill passes that control will pass to the Dominion except in such way as the rights of the province may be expressed by the agreement in question?


Charles A. Stewart: We axe
seeking only to take control where the laws of the province are repugnant to the administration of the park authorities.


William Alves Boys: The hon. minister has referred to the clause which makes that very feature effective; in other words, that the province continues to have absolute jurisdiction unless there is conflict or unless that jurisdiction is specifically taken away by the terms of the agreement. It is very difficult to understand properly this discussion when we have not before us a copy of the agreement.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend will find it in each one of the four agreements.


William Alves Boys: We have not copies before us.


Charles A. Stewart: They have been distributed for some tame.


William Alves Boys: I beg the minister's pardon,
that is my mistake. Would the minister give me the number of that particular clause?


Ernest Lapointe: It is clause 16 in the
British Columbia agreement.


Mr. RYCKMAN:: It is clause 15 in the
Alberta agreement.


Charles A. Stewart: The clauses are similar in the four agreements.


William Alves Boys: I do not see why it is essential to have a magistrate appointed by the Dominion. The criminal law of Canada is enforced by provincial magistrates and why should there be Dominion magistrates to enforce the provisions of this bill? We might as well have a magistrate here in Ottawa to look after the extensive parks which belong to the Dominion government, as to have a magistrate appointed by the Dominion in connection with these territories.


Charles A. Stewart: In discussing this matter the provinces very properly stated that if we desired to have a magistrate within the parks, we should pay for his services, and it was agreed that the province should make the appointment and that we should pay the salary. We pay that salary to the province and they in turn pay it to the magistrate. That is the situation at the present time. I do not look upon that as serious, although we put in this agreement the suggestion that we might have the appointment of the magistrates as we pay them.


Mr. EVANS:: I did not hear all the replies of the minister, but I would like to ask for some information regarding a statement by the Minister of Justice that the Dominion government is simply retaining possession of these areas. Is that not in the first place a false assumption of ownership, or how hoes the Dominion government obtain title to these areas? Do they not really belong to the provinces within whose territory they are?


Ernest Lapointe: Fortunately the question raised by my hon. friend will be submitted to the supreme court and even to the privy council, so I think it is better to let them decide that than for him and myself to discuss it to-day because I am quite sure we shall not agree.


Mr. BLACK (Yukon):: Have the terms of the agreement with British Columbia been discussed in detail with the government of that province and is that government satisfied?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Mr. FRASER:: The minister in his general statement on the resolution made some observations in regard to the admiralty lands. I have in my district a situation in regard to these admiralty lands. I should like to know from the minister whether the question of the return of the Chilcotin ordnance lands to British Columbia has been discussed, whether that area has been returned to the province or what arrangements have been made? It is in the centre of the cattle raising area, 100,000 square miles. It is a source of a good deal of trouble at the present time and it is going to be a source of a great deal more trouble in the future. Has the situation been investigated to the satisfaction of the British Columbia government?


Charles A. Stewart: I cannot
answer my hon. friend in regard to the particular area he mentioned because a number of these areas were under discussion before the agreement was consummated. I will, however,
1EVISED EDITION
S34	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia
get him the information before the bill comes up for discussion in committee. The ordnance and admiralty lands and the question of ownership and difficulties about ownership have been under discussion for some years. In some cases the province sold the land, and that is the case in British Columbia. The federal government always maintained that these lands did not legally belong to the province. That matter has been settled by this agreement and there is a schedule of these lands. I shall be glad to get the schedule for my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Dead Man's island case was one that went to the privy council.


Charles A. Stewart: There are
a number of these lands. The worst feature of this case was a question of title in Vancouver. That has been cleared up by the agreement with the British Columbia authorities. Both parties, so far as I know, are entirely satisfied with the arrangement that has been made. I will get my hon. friend a schedule of the admiralty lands. They are not all settled yet as regards definition of area, but the parcels and localities have been settled.


John Anderson Fraser: I understand from the minister that when the bill comes up in committee we shall have a detailed statement and be at liberty to discuss the matter with him?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The situation, I think,
was that the reservation in the first instance was in favour of the crown when British Columbia was a crown colony. The lands belonged to the crown in right of the empire. When British Columbia entered confederation, their contention was that these lands became the property of the crown in the right of the province, whereas the Dominion contended that, it being responsible for defence, they were under the control of the crown in the right of the Dominion. This clears that matter up.
There is a question to which the Minister of Justice should direct his attention during the next few days: Is it competent for any province, by agreement, to legislate itself out of the provisions of the British North America Act? That is a question which, I think, we must settle. The British North America Act provides that there shall be a legislature for each province. It provides that the legislature of each province may make laws exclusively with respect to sixteen subjects that are mentioned It provides that 
the Dominion parliament may legislate for the peace, order and good government of Canada, but so as not to limit the generality of the words, it provides that it may exclusively make laws with respect to twenty-nine named subjects. Is it competent for the federal parliament and the legislature of British Columbia to provide that the British North America Act shall have no operation with respect to a portion of the province of British Columbia? That is the problem we have to face. The hon. member for South Toronto refered to it, but I intended to summarize the situation after we had discussed the details. There is the neat problem, stripped of eveiything, to which the law officers of the crown must direct their attention: Can a province by agreement legislate itself out of the British North America Act? If so, I should like to know on what principle it can be done.


Edmond Baird Ryckman: The counterpart of that is found in the first two lines of clause 15 of the Alberta bill which, I understand, is the same clause as is in the other bills. I am not at all influenced by the statement more than once made by the Minister of Justice that the man who pays the piper can call the tune. A number of men put up a factory in a city; they spend the money, but that factory is, of course, subject to the laws of the municipality in which it is situated. This clause reads that by agreement:
The .parliament of Canada shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the whole area included within the outer boundaries

And so on. The parliament of Canada cannot by reason of the British North America Act take exclusive jurisdiction in the matters referred to.


William Alves Boys: There is just one other thought in connection with the very feature we are discussing. It is impossible to ascertain with certainty, when one reads clause 15, whether it is the intention that the province should have any future rights as to legislation or not. I gather from what the minister has said that it is the intention, if laws are passed by the province in future, that they shall have effect unless they are repugnant to Dominion legislation.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


William Alves Boys: I presume the only words
which would lead one to that conclusion are those appearing in the eighth line:
That all laws of the province now or hereafter in force-
Does that mean laws which may hereafter be passed by the province?

Natural Resources-British Columbia


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


William Alves Boys: I would direct the minister's
attention to the opening line of the clause:
The parliament of Canada shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction.
It is true that five lines further down there is a reservation:
The lav's now in force within the said area shall continue in force.
And of course that would follow.


Charles A. Stewart: Or to be
put into force.


William Alves Boys: It does not say that. If the
minister is going to contend that it has that meaning, it seems to me it becomes an absurdity. In one place it is said that the Dominion government is to have exclusive jurisdiction and in the next it is said that the provinces may pass laws.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not see the conflict.


William Alves Boys: Why not? If you have exclusive jurisdiction, 'haw can the province pass any liaiw that would have any effect at all? At all events I submit that for the minister's serious consideration, and I would think that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) would agree with my contention. If you open the section with the straight unqualified statement that the parliament of Canada is to have exclusive jurisdiction, and then put in a limitation which says that the laws now in force shall continue, surely to goodness no further law passed by the province could have any effect.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not a lawyer, but I admit frankly that, as iit stands now, we have not that jurisdiction. The section first of all says that the parliament of Canada shall have exclusive jurisdiction in the park, but that is qualified by the statement that the provincial laiws now in effect and to be in effect hereafter shall be utilized, if you will, or shall prevail in the park. That again is qualified by the statement, only so long as those laws are not repugnant.


William Alves Boys: The section does not say that.


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, it does.


Edward Joseph Garland: It also says that the provincial laws shall continue in force until changed by the parliament of Canada.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right. I did not draft this legislation, but it was drafted by a man who I think knows his business fairly well. There is no denying 2419-531
the fact that we are seeking, and in the opinion of a number of hon. members no doubt wrongfully seeking, to usurp provincial rights. That question might be argued, but I think we are making it abundantly clear that we are going to use the provincial laws in every particular except where they might be repugnant for administrative purposes. If I am wrong, I want to be put right. If we continue as we are at present without some provision for administrative purposes we shall be no better off than we are now. We shall be spending our money and shall have no power to enforce regulations in the park.
I do not go to the extent of wanting exclusive jurisdiction. If we could cover what is desired in some other way, all right..


William Alves Boys: You could put it the other way and say that the province shall have exclusive jurisdiction except in regard to matters which may be legislated upon by the parliament of Canada, in which case the federal laws shall have precedence. Then you would have what you want.


Charles A. Stewart: Would not that be doing exactly the same thing? After all, are we not superseding provincial law by federal law? My hon.. friend simply necks to do it in another way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In order that the Minister o.f Justice may have no misunderstanding as to the point I desire to leave for his consideration, may I direct his attention to section 91 of the British North America Act, which reads:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of Canada, in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms of this section, it is hereby declared that (notwithstanding) anything in this act) the exclusive legislative authority of the parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated, that is to say:
- Then follow twenty-nine subjects. Section 92 says:
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:
1. The amendment from time to time, notwithstanding anything in this act, of the constitution of the province, except as regards the office of lieutenant-governor.
4. The establishment and tenure of provincial offices and the appointment and payment of provincial officers.
836	COMMONS
Natural Resources-British Columbia
6.	The establishment, maintenance, and management of public and reformatory prisons in and for the province.
7.	The establishment, maintenance and management of hospitals, asylums, charities, and eleemosynary institutions in and for the province, other than marine hospitals.
8.	Municipal institutions in the province.
9.	Shop, saloon, tavern, auctioneer, and other licences in order to the raising of a revenue for provincial, local, or municipal purposes.
The next subsection deals with local works and undertakings, and then subsection 13 reads:
13.	Property and civil rights in the province.
Then follow:
14.	The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
15.	The imposition of punishment by fine, penalty, or imprisonment for enforcing any law of the province made in relation to any matter coming within any of the classes of subjects enumerated in this section.
16.	Generally all matters of a merely local or private nature in the province.
Now may I ask the minister to turn to section 16 of this agreement and look at the language as well as the punctuation:
The parliament of Canada shall have exclusive legislative jurisdiction within the whole area included within the outer boundaries of each of the said iparks, notwithstanding that portions of any such area may not form part of the park proper,
That is to say, our jurisdiction extends exclusively over the whole area although within that area there are portions that are not part of the park. That, I submit, is in direct conflict with the provisions of section 92 of the British North America Act which I have just read.
Now the question I put to the Minister of Justice is this: Is it competent for the governments of British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta by agreement with the government of Canada, to repeal the operations of the British North America Act with respect to a portion of the province in question?


Ernest Lapointe: I shall be pleased to consider the argument put forward by my hon: friend, and we may have a further discussion on it when the bill comes back. Meanwhile, may I mention the fact that these agreements are to be ratified by concurrent legislation by this parliament and by the provinces, and they must also receive the ratification of the imperial parliament. This may give a new application to the argument of my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


Ernest Lapointe: The wording of the imperial statute has not been decided on yet. I quite agree that a province cannot change the British North America Act any more than this parliament can change it. We cannot divest ourselves of the powers entrusted to this parliament by the constitution, and the provinces cannot do it either.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Nor can the two together.


Ernest Lapointe: But as in other matters, as in connection with the federal subsidies to the provinces, if there is an agreement as between the province and the federal parliament to change what but for that agreement would be in force, and that becomes a law of the imperial parliament, and any change has to be ratified by the imperial parliament, I think that might cover the objection of my hon. friend. I shall be pleased to consider the point.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If the minister does not think I am trespassing too much on his time, he has promised consideration of that point, but there is this further fact that if this is ratified by the imperial parliament then we have a constitution for four provinces that varies in form from the constitution of the others and which can only be affected by subsequent legislation of the imperial parliament, notwithstanding any of the terms of the agreement.


Ernest Lapointe: No, because this agreement may always be changed.


Mr. CANNON:: If my hon. friend will
allow me, that happens even now. If he will refer to the constitution of British Columbia or of Prince Edward Island he will find that in order to meet special cases special provisions were made which are not to be met with in connection with the other provinces. Well, this is a special case; we are meeting it in a special way.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no doubt about the fact that the imperial parliament passed special legislation with respect to Prince Edward Island, providing that that province should never have fewer members in the House of Commons than in the Senate. It also passed special legislation with respect to a subsidy to British Columbia. The Solicitor General will recall that the late Sir Richard MacBride went to London to protest against certain amendments 'being made that1 affected his province-monetary consideration in that instance-but this . parliament agreed, as the hon. gentleman will recall, to an address that was sent to the imperial parliament, after the privy council had heard the case of Prince

Manitoba Boundary
Edward Island, with respect to the representation in this house of all the three maritime provinces.


Edward Joseph Garland: A few
minutes ago the Minister of Justice expressed the opinion that disagreements between the provincial authorities and the federal might be settled later on by concurrent legislation between the two under section 24. Does that power come to the two governments by virtue of this act being passed by the imperial parliament, or would not the agreements arrived at amending the act itself have to go to the imperial parliament again?
Mr. LAPOINTE; No, not necessarily. This is an agreement that will be ratified by the imperial parliament and surely both legislatures will, by concurrent legislation, have the power to vary the agreement.


Edward Joseph Garland: To vary
the agreement?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Edward Joseph Garland: I could
quite easily imagine legislative proposals quite contrary to certain provisions of this legislation as it is now before us.


Ernest Lapointe: Provided we agree.


Edward Joseph Garland: And it
would not require imperial sanction?


Ernest Lapointe: I am quite sure about
that.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I hope that applies to unemployment insurance and matters of that kind.


Mr. HEAPS:: Last session the Minister of
Justice took exactly the opposite view on the question of unemployment insurance.


Ernest Lapointe: I do not see what unemployment insurance has to do with this.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In this way, the hon minister said that the provincial legislature could not hand over any of their functions to this parliament.	'


Ernest Lapointe: I still take that position. It will require an amendment of the British North America Act to do it. That is what we are going to do really. This agreement will require amendment of the British North America Act.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in on division. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41 respecting the transfer of the railway belt and the Peace River block.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



MANITOBA BOUNDARY


[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (Minister of the Interior) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
Resolved, that it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the extension of the boundary of the province of Manitoba in the northwest angle inlet of lake of the Woods.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Explain.


Charles A. Stewart: This is merely for the purpose of transferring to the province of Manitoba two and a half acres contained in the northwest angle inlet of the Lake of the Woods jutting across the line into the province of Ontario. It comes about owing to the fact that in 1873, I think, before the boundary line between Canada and the United States was projected, the boundary followed the meridian to the northwest angle of the lake. Later when the survey took place that point was removed a considerable distance south of the intersection on the meridian line, where a monument is set up, and we came into possession of those areas jutting into the province of Ontario. My bill provides for their transference to the province of Manitoba.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the province of
Ontario agreed?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes, I have their consent.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Edmonton) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 42, to provide for .the extension of the boundary of the province of Manitoba in the northwest angle inlet of the Lake of the Woods.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SUPREME COURT ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11 to amend the Supreme Court Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: I hope the minister will explain the bill.


Ernest Lapointe: Clause 37 of the Supreme Court Act was inserted by an amendment of 1920 and provides for leave to appeal. Difficulty has arisen in that the members of .the supreme court take a different view as to the meaning and effect of the section. Some
Insurance Act

of them take the view that two conditions must concur to permit of that special leave of appeal, first, that the case must be appealable to the courts of highest resort, and, second, would have been appealable to the Supreme Court of Canada prior to the amendment of 1920.


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the two thousand dollar limitation?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes, subject to the clause which provides for the two thousand dollars. I could see by the files in the department that the intention at the time was to restrict the appeals to cases above two thousand dollars, but unfortunately the proviso was put in the section owing to the use of the double negative there, making it ambiguous, and some of the judges took the view that cases which were appealable before the amendment of 1920 ought still to be appealable even if they are under two thousand dollars.
The amendment has the effect of making the matter absolutely clear, and under the amending section, which will be beyond controversy, by limiting appeals per saltum to cases in which the value of the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of two thousand dollars, that is, to cases which would be now appealable de piano had the decision sought to be appealed from been that of the court of appeal of the province instead of a court of lower jurisdiction.
My hon. friend from St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) intimated that he might have some objection to it, but he told me yesterday that, upon consideration, he was approving of the amendment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, he discussed it with me.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 21. to provide for the regulation of vehicular traffic on Dominion property.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, one of our members spoke to me to-day and said he was very much interested in this matter. Would it be possible for it to stand until next week? I had no idea the bill was about to be called. Mr. SPEAKER:	Bill stands.
[Mr. Lapointe.1



INSURANCE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 35, to amend the Insurance Act.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Some explanation of a bill on
second reading is customary by a minister.


Charles Avery Dunning: I made the explanation
on the first reading of the bill.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If that is all that is to
be said, then all right.


Charles Avery Dunning: In any case, it was my
intention to move that the bill be referred to the committee on banking and commerce where it might thoroughly be looked into.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time ind referred to the select standing committee on banking and commerce.

Ernest Lapointe: Owing to the fact that some of
these bills have to be postponed, on account of the absence of hon. gentlemen interested-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The vehicular traffic bill is the
only one I have in mind.


Ernest Lapointe: We agreed to postpone
:he Export Act, and I agreed with the hon. aiember for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Cahan) that the natural resources bills should stand for the time being.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am only too happy to oblige my hon. friend by consenting to his going into supply, that is, reserving the rights of all parties.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Public Works-harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-southwest Miramichi river-dredging, $16,200.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that a navigable
stream at that point?


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Yes. This amount is required to provide for dredging the shoal on the northwest Miramichi river in order to provide passage for the tugs which ascend to the booms for rafts of logs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Waterboro-wharf improvements, $5,000.
Mr. SHORT:: Where is this?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the county of
Royal. This amount is asked to provide for converting the present wharf into a graded structure. There is a tide to be provided for, and they wish to have it a graded structure instead of as it is at present.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
White Head (gull cove)-breakwater, $14,000. Mr. GRIMMER:	Was any work done on
that breakwater last year and, if so, was it done by the government or under contract?
John Campbell Elliott: This is under contract to Mr. A. D. Dyas. I was asked as to contracts with Mr. Dyas, and I find this is one which was let to him.


Harry Bernard Short: Does the fair wage clause
apply there?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will this complete the
work?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, this is to complete
the whole contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Woodward's Cove-breakwater	extension,
Mr. GRIMMER:: I should like to know
if any work was done on this breakwater last year and, if so, whether it was done by the government or under contract.


John Campbell Elliott: This is under contract to
Mr. T. P. Charleson.


Robert Watson Grimmer: I should like to direct
the attention of the minister to the fact that most of these appropriations this year are revotes. However, I do not think the people were disappointed last year, because it seems to be the policy of the government, to pass appropriations for that section of the country and to wait until just before an election to proceed with the work. The people knew very well that the government would undertake this work at the opportune time. Then I desire to direct the attention of the government to the fact that they have been generous enough to give three contracts for breakwaters and one contract for a whartf to a professional man m the town of St. Stephen, a very busy doctor enjoying an extensive practice.


John Campbell Elliott: Does my hon. friend refer
to Mr. Dyas?


Robert Watson Grimmer: Yes, and I venture to
sav that he does not know anything more
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
about the construction of breakwaters than I know about carrying on his profession. If the government believed that medical men were the only people in the county of Charlotte to whom contracts should be given for construction work I should like to know why they passed over one of their supporters in the town of St. George, a medical man who has an extensive practice among the fishermen along the eastern shore, or why they overlooked a medical man on the island of Grand Manan, a staunch supporter of the government who has devoted his lifetime to looking after the wants of the fishermen on that island. These are men who have a knowledge of the needs of the fishermen, and I venture to eay that either of these gentlemen, unlike the gentleman in the town of St. Stephen., could distinguish a breakwater from a wharf.
I should like also to know why, in preparing the estimates for the county of Charlotte, the government overlooked hundreds of supporters in the village of Castalia who, to my knowledge, for the last five years have been requesting the government to construct a breakwater at that point in order to assist the fishermen there. The harbour of Castalia is one of the most exposed on the island; in fact it occupies perhaps the most exposed position of any harbour on the bay of Fundy. The fishing industry there has been decreasing for years, and without the protection of a breakwater it is impossible for the fishermen to carry on successfully. This has been brought to the attention of the minister time after time, but no action has been taken.
I also notice in looking over the estimates that not one dollar is appropriated for the island of Campobello, another large fishing centre. I know that last year a delegation interviewed the minister and brought to his attention the need for a public wharf at Malloch's beach, and I have every reason to believe that the minister gave the delegation some assurance at that time, because it was currently reported that this work would be undertaken this year. The people were delighted at that report and with great satisfaction they said that at last the government intended to construct this much needed wharf. I know that the attention of the minister has been directed to that question and also to the need for the extension of the breakwater at Wilson's beach and for dredging at Curry's cove, all on the island of Campobello. The board of trade of that island, which was only recently established and has been very active, are very much disappointed that there are no appropriations in the estimates to provide for these works. They know what is required to carry on the fishing industry and thev have

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
made recommendations to the minister, but like other requests which have been made by the residents of the island they have had no effect.
I would like to direct the attention of the minister to another matter of urgent importance. The fishermen at Stewartown on Deer island are forced to carry on their fishing activities to-day in the same manner as they were carried on fifty years ago. They are loyal supporters of this administration and should receive some consideration of their needs. This may be the last opportunity the minister will have for presenting estimates, and I would suggest that he includes an item sufficient to carry out the improvements required. Should the Conservative party come into power action will be taken to carry out the desires of these people, as it is the policy of the Conservative party to build up the industrial life of this Dominion. I suggest to the hon. minister that he place an amount in the supplementary estimates which would give some tangible assistance to these people. Merely passing a vote one year and then revoting the next year has no effect, and I think there are other professional men in the county who are loyal supporters of the government who would be more capable of carrying out the construction of breakwaters and wharfs.
I suppose it is customary, as it is in other departments, that a certified cheque or a guarantee accompany any tender so that the government will be protected in the work being carried out satisfactorily to them.


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member has
made a suggestion that perhaps this might be the last set of estimates which I would be piloting through the house, but I would remind him that this may be the last session during which he will be asking questions about estimates. I think the same may be said of many hon. members of the house, as life is so uncertain.
Our regulations insist upon a certified cheque accompanying the tender, which cheque must be for ten per cent of the amount involved. I think there are three or four contracts which this most estimable professional man has received, and I would have supposed that my hon. friend would have understood that these large contracts are not performed manually by the contractor himself. We advertise for tenders and we ask that the work shall be done according to certain specifications and completed with the approval of the officials of the department. The certificate of the engineer is a requisite to the recovery of payment.


Harry Bernard Short: May I ask the hon. minister a question?


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps the hon. member will permit me to make this statement before he makes his. A certificate of the engineer showing that the work has been properly performed in accordance with the specification is necessary before the contractor can receive his pay. A great many of the concerns which tender are incorporated companies and very frequently I know nothing at all of the personnel of those companies. These companies are known to the department because as a general rule the companies which do work from year to year are those who have been doing business with the department for some time. Perhaps that would not apply to the same extent when individuals are concerned, but I do not think my hon. friend quite got the point when he made the suggestion that we should give this work to some other good doctor who was a friend of ours. We do not give contracts to those who do not tender; we give contracts to the lowest tenderer. We could not call for tenders and then send word to some man, no matter how estimable he was, that he was to be given the cantract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who were the tenderers?


John Campbell Elliott: The tenderers for the
breakwater extension at Woodward's Cove were:
Thos. P. Charleson, Ottawa	$29,870
Ed. A. Farren, St. John, N.B	 37,798
J. E. Gaskill, North Head, N.B	 39,720
J. E. Byrne & J. E. Kane, St. John,
N.B	 39,965
It will be noticed that the tenderer who received the contract was practically $8,000 below the next tenderer on a $29,000 contract.


Harry Bernard Short: Is that the medical gentleman who received the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is referring to the Dyas contract.


Robert Watson Grimmer: That would be Seal
Cove.


John Campbell Elliott: In the Seal Cove contract the following tenders were received:
A. Douglas Dyas, St. Stephen, N.B. . $15,636 3. R. Jonah & Geo. H. Young, Fredericton, N.B	 17,885
Thos. P. Charleson, Ottawa, Ont.. ..	18,580
Regarding the complaint of my hon. friend that the work was not carried out in the year in which the appropriation was granted, I may say that perhaps a higher percentage of the money voted last year has been spent

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
than in any previous year for some time back. That is, the work was carried on with unusual dispatch. We got some of the estimates through fairly early, and we were able to proceed with the work. I would be glad to show to my hon. friend, or to give to him in the house, a comparison of the percentage of expenditure in proportion to the appropriation for the year. We have not quite completed our year, but I think I can convince him that it compares very favourably with any other year for many years. I would think the fact that we entered into a binding contract last year in the cases to which he refers and that we are having those concluded early this year, must satisfy him that the work is being done with about as much dispatch as is possible where many of these works require material to be provided after the contract is let and material that cannot be immediately obtained.
With regard to Malloch's beach on the island of Campo-bello and the understanding that some assurance had been given by me that an amount would be placed in the estimates to provide for that work, I want to assure my hon. friend that I could not give any such assurance, because no matter how anxious I might be to place the amount in the estimates, the amounts that I put in are always cut down. I have to pass the treasury board and the council with the estimates. I could not give the assurance, and I hope he will not think I have broken faith with anyone who thought he had assurance, because the Minister of Public Works has difficulties enough when he makes it an absolute rule not to give assurance until the amounts are actually in the estimates. My hon. friend will, I think, realize the truth of that statement.


Robert Watson Grimmer: I am well aware that they are carrying out the contracts now, because they have sublet contracts for lumber to be delivered to go on with the construction work during next summer. As regards the assurance of the minister to the delegation that came from the island to interview him in connection with Malloch's wharf, it was currently reported on the island they were so much elated over the report which the delegation brought back to them that one would be led to believe that some assurance had been given that the wharf would be constructed there.
The minister says that deposits for all these contracts are supposed to be made, and are made, prior to the letting of the contract, and that in the cases of these breakwaters
Mr. Dyas contracted for, the deposit had been made. That deposit was no doubt satisfactory to the government?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Was it by his own personal certified cheque, or otherwise?


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot give that information offhand, but I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend. The rule is that it must be cash or Dominion government bonds or what
is considered to be the equivalent of either of those.


Richard Bedford Bennett: A certified cheque.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. My hon. friend
can rest assured that the security is taken in every case.


Robert Watson Grimmer: I asked another question which the minister neglected to answer, namely, whether Castalia breakwater was included in the estimates when they were prepared for Charlotte county this year, and whether the minister was requested to give this matter more than "serious consideration."


John Campbell Elliott: I cannot say. I have before me just the details of the items that have been placed in the estimates. My hon. friend will understand that involves my keeping a large amount of data on hand in connection with each item for which an appropriation has been placed in the estimates. Those are the only details I can give my hon. friend. He will readily understand that I cannot keep in mind all the applications that were made for which items did not pass the treasury board and were not placed in the estimates.


Robert Watson Grimmer: If it were an outstanding one, the minister might remember. This seems to be an outstanding one.


John Campbell Elliott: Did my hon. friend mention it a year ago?


Robert Watson Grimmer: No.


John Campbell Elliott: We pay a good deal of attention to requests that are made both in the house and by the people who are concerned to the greatest extent, that is, the firms themselves and the people in the community. I usually follow very carefully requests that are made by hon. members when the estimates are in course of preparation. I cannot recall the request in regard to the Castalia breakwater, but I have no doubt it was made, because many hundreds are made


Robert Watson Grimmer: The people who have the patronage of the Castalia district have given
842	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
the people of the island to understand that when the list of estimates was submitted, the minister was requested to give the breakwater at Castalia particular consideration, and the reasons why were outlined. For that reason I cannot understand why no attention at all has been paid to the matter. I would like the minister to look it up for me and, if possible, to straighten it out so as to give the people there the satisfaction they are asking for.


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


Robert Watson Grimmer: There is another question in regard to the breakwater at Harrington's cove on the island of Grand Manan. If I remember rightly, an appropriation was made for that breakwater two or three years ago.


John Campbell Elliott: There was none last year.


Robert Watson Grimmer: If my memory serves me aright, the appropriation was made in 1924 or 1923, and for reasons best known to the government at that time the position was changed to Ingall's head and the breakwater constructed there. Naturally the fishing interests of that portion of the island have been looking for the government to do something in regard to constructing a breakwater at Harrington's cove, after having had it under consideration and passing an appropriation for it. They are desirous of knowing whether the department intends to fulfil that part of the contract. I would like that information.


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


Harry Bernard Short: When the department receives tenders for contracts, does it not look into the ability of the tenderers to carry out the work upon which they submit tenders, and ascertain whether or not they are regular contractors? Does the department accept tenders from medical men for the construction of breakwaters and award contracts to men who know nothing whatever about work of that description? Was the contract let to Doctor Dyas last year?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Harry Bernard Short: Evidently he did not carry
out his contract because I see three of these items are revotes. I should think that the department would look into the record of parties tendering for works of this description to see if they are in a position to carry out the contract if it is awarded to them.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Was Mr. Dyas carrying out the contract himself or subletting it?
fMr. Grimmer.]


John Campbell Elliott: In reply to both my hon. friends I would say that both these contracts were let late in the season. The contract for Seal 'Cove was let on the 25th of September, and the work has been proceeded with, I am informed, with despatch. Our reports are good. So far as looking into the identity of the tenderer is concerned, we do not do that particularly. I have difficulty enough already, when I accept the lowest tender, explaining to my hon. friends why I did so, that I do not propose to explain why I did not accept the lowest tender. My hon. friend will readily understand how hard it would be for me to satisfy him why some friend of his who happened to be a doctor and had submitted the lowest tendter did not get the contract on the ground that he was not a practical wharf builder. I understand that Doctor Dyas has an excellent foreman who looks after the work.


Harry Bernard Short: He sublets the contracts,
according to my hon. friend from Charlotte.


John Campbell Elliott: No, in no case have we
had notice of these contracts being sublet.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 25. respecting the Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company and to subdivide the unissued capital stock-Air. Geary-Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Charles Avery Dunning: Mr. Chairman, in the
absence of the promoter of the bill, the member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary), I may say that it was referred to the committee on banking and commerce and passed that committee without amendment. It will be noticed by members of this committee that the proposal outlined is in conformity with an amendment which is proposed to -the Insurance Act, and which received its second reading this afternoon. There is no exception whatever 'to take to the bill.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



INTERPROVINCIAL AND JAMES BAY RAIL &quot;WAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. GEORGES PARENT (Quebec West) moved the second reading of Bill No. 32, respecting the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company.

James Bay Railway
Mr. J. E. A. DUBUC (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to know from the Minister of Railways (Mr. Crerar) whether this bill would have any prejudicial effect on the Saguenay river and the Chicoutimi district as the nearest point in the province of Quebec to James bay. It appears from the bid that the terminal is proposed to be on the Notta-way river. Would it not be in the interests of the Canadian National Railways not to renew the charter unless the promoters are prepared to build at once? In view of what the country has at stake at Fort Churchill, and that a further outlet on the Saguenay river, where navigation is possible until the end of December, would be of great importance to western Canada, I 'believe nothing should be done that would prevent the Canadian National Railways having that outlet. Therefore I would ask the Minister of Railways to tell the house if anything in this charter might obstruct in the future the development of the plans of the Canadian National Railways in that section?
Hon. CHARLES A. DUNNING (Minister of Finance):	The Minister of Railways is
absent at the moment and I can speak only from memory regarding this particular proposal. Two years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway, who own this particular charter, came before parliament and asked for a renewal. The renewal was given then in the same terms as are proposed in this bill, providing for commencement- of construction within two years. This railway runs generally in a northerly direction and is built now as far as Angliers in the province of Quebec, which I believe, is immediately east of lake Timiskamdng, and the proposal is to continue the line from there north-ward to the Nottaway river. 1 am under the impression that my hon. friend from Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubwc) has in mind a line which conceivably might run from the Nottaway eastward to the Saguenay river.


Julien-Édouard-Alfred Dubuc: Yes.


Charles Avery Dunning: This line would therefore be at right angles to such a proposal and in all probability would not interfere with any possible development from the Nottoway river to Chicoutimi on the Saguenay. In case I should be in error in some of these particulars which I am giving from memory, I presume the bill will be referred to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, where it is customary to go very fully into such points as, for instance, that raised by my hon. friend, and to give consideration to any representations for or against the renewal of the charter.
All I can say regarding it at the moment is that it is a very old charter. It will be noticed that it was granted originally in 1901, that a portion of the line has been built, and that the proposal is to give a further two years within which to commence construction of the remainder of the railway. The form of the bill is exactly what the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines has demanded within recent years for such bills, and there is no complaint at all about its form. I think all the matters to which my hon. friend has referred could be very well investigated by that committee when the bill goes there.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: Mr. Speaker, I am very much interested in this question in view of the fact that rather extensive dredging was done in the Saguenay river last summer. Would it not be proper to continue the work so as to have an outlet to James bay from the St. Lawrence through the Saguenay river?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Speaker, the promoters of this bill, like a good many other promoters of railways, when they get a charter from this parliament state that they intend to build their railway within a certain time. After the charter is granted they come back to the house for renewal after renewal, and little or nothing is done. It will be noticed that the bill itself does not say that they "shall," or " must," but that they "may." It looks to me very much like a bartering of charters. They get a charter, and possibly because they cannot undertake the work themselves they try to sell it to someone, or get someone interested in it, and if they cannot do that they come back to parliament and ask for a further extension of time. As regards the time specified for completion, it says they "may" commence to construct, and if they do not do it, after a while the conditions may be surrendered and the charter become null and void, but that does not prevent them from asking for a further extension of time under the same conditions. This very bill has been before the house ever since 1901, and we have no guarantee whatever that under this bill anything will be done.


Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: In answer to the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) it is true that this project has been before the house for some years, dating back to 1901. No harm can be done by giving the bill a second reading and referring it to the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, in order to give the promoters of the bill an opportunity to

James Bay Railway

be heard, and if they fail to satisfy the committee of their intentions or their bona fides, the committee can very easily turn the proposal down. In the meantime, owing to the vast development which is going on in the northern parts of Quebec and Ontario, especially when we are dealing with such a concern as the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, I think an opportunity should be afforded to the promoters to be heard. The proposal is a very simple one. They want to develop that part of the country. It is true that they have not been granted as many charters in the west as formerly, because latterly nearly all the railroad construction work in the west has been carried on by the Canadian National Railways at the expense of the whole Dominion of Canada. The promoters of this bill are not asking for this. Ihey are asking merely for an extension of time of two years, to complete in five years. I think it is only fair that the bill should be read a second time and referred to the committee, and if they are not satisfied with the bill they can turn it down.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: The hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) has made a point which has been in my mind for some time. The ex-Minister of Railways (Mr. Dunning) said that this was an old charter. As a matter of fact you and I, Mr. Speaker, were in parliament when this charter was first granted. I was away for eighteen years; I came back, and I find this same old charter. It reminds me of a very important discussion which took place in the old parliament building at least thirty years ago with regard to indiscriminate granting of charters and the perpetual renewal thereof. In spite of the good reasons given for renewal in this case I am sorry to have to differ from mv good friend from Bona venture (Mr. Marcil). I sincerely believe that before this bill >s sent to the committee the history of this company should be given to the house
not that I have any special grudge against this company or this particular project, but because it illustrates the abuses that have taken place in connection with extensions, as pointed out by the hon. member for East Calgary.
It did not take me very long to retrace the history of that slow-going concern. First of all, may I point out that in the bill before us reference is made in the margin to some four statutes. As a matter of fact in the short space of half an hour in the library I picked out ten statutes referring to it. Here is the history of the company: It was incorporated 
in 1901 under the statutes of that year, chapter 66. It was called, as it is now, the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company. The provisional directors were gentlemen most of whom I have known, some politicians, some business men, not one of whom, I think, has ever invested one farthing in the venture. The company was to build a line from "a point on the Canadian Pacific railway at or near Lumsden's Mill, to or towards the Des Quinze river." Then various other clauses were incorporated in the charter which was granted before the Railway Act of 1903. I find that in 1903 a subsidy was voted to this company by parliament for fifty miles to be constructed within two years, and an extension of time was granted, the first period having expired, for two further years. That is in chapter 134 of 3 Edward VII. In 1905 the same company came before parliament and received a further extension of time of two years within which to begin the building of the line. In 1906, 6 Edward VII chapter 43, section 42, the subsidy granted in 1903 was renewed. A further extension of time was given to the company to begin the construction of the work that it had undertaken to do in 1901. Six years elapsed and nothing was done. In 1912, the company again came before parliament, and under chapter 106, 2 George V-a change of reign but no change in the system-the company secured from parliament a further extension of time, and it received from parliament at that time a subsidy in lieu of that voted in 1903, again voted n 1906, and never used. Finally, in 1917, sixteen years after the incorporation of the company, a practically new charter was granted; and curiously enough that act, the most important of all the past acts with reference to the company, is not even mentioned in the margin of the bill we have before us.
I wonder how these bills are prepared. The marginal notes are supposed to refer us to all the statutes relating to the company. That I think is important. Some of the statutes mentioned there have no importance whatever. They are either dead letters or repealed; while this act of 1917, which is the material one, which contains the authorization of parliament to this company to contract with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, is not even mentioned; s,o that we do not know that in dealing with this company we are dealing, to all intents and purposes, with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. Is it a matter of prudence on the part of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company? How is it that the one material section, which makes reference to the contract to be entered into between this company and the Canadian

James Bay Railway
Pacific Railway Company, which was incorporated in the act of 1917, is not even mentioned?
At all events, in 1917, part of the original charter was repealed; new sections were inserted, and the company was authorized to continue the line. Then came section 8 of that act, which authorized an agreement between the company and the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, for the construction of the same line from Luimsden's Mills to the Des Quinze river. In 1922, five years after this fifth renewal of the charter and five years after the authorization to make the 'bargain with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, this company, serving as a cover for the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, again secured the right to continue, if it thought fit, the work which never had been begun. That was twenty-one years after the first charter; it was of age then, but not yet baptized.
In 1924, two years later, there was another definition given with regard to the line to be constructed. The authorization was for the construction of a line from Angliers to the head of the Nottaway river. In the interval, the Canadian Pacific Railway Company had built a line which my friend the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Cahill) knows was secured by the people of his constituency only after many years of effort.
Then in 1926, under chapter 20, 16-17 George V, the company secured a further extension of time to build that line from Angliers to the head of the Notbaiway river, and in, 1928, under chapter 61, 18-19 George V, the same company secured a further extension of two years, and secured the further right to build a line from Villemairie to some point in the township of Guigues or the township of Nedelec, in the county of Pontiac. I understand neither line has been built.
So, after twenty-nine years, apart from the short line which the Canadian Pacific Railway Company built from Lumsden's Mills to Angliers, no use has been made of the nine charters granted to this company. Is it not time for parliament to reflect upon the privileges it grants to large or small companies to go on year after year, depriving the people of the 'communications to which they are entitled, and very often depriving other enterprises from coming into these fields and accomplishing the same purpose?
The hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc) made reference to some project similar to this, which was designed to connect James bay with the part of the province he represents. In my part of the province there
is a railway line running from Montreal about 160 miles to the northwest. That line was started by a small colonization company; they did some work, although they were under great handicaps, and finally they sold their charter and their rights to the Canadian Pacific railway. I represented the same constituency some thirty years ago, when we secured the construction of that line to the point where it now ends. For twenty years now there have been demands not only from the people of the constituency, but from the chambers of commerce and the trading people of Montreal to have this line serve as a connecting link between the city of Montreal and the transcontinental line, which was built with money collected through taxes from all the people of Canada. I believe the one million people living in Montreal paid their share of the amount of money invested in the transcontinental line, and therefore they are entitled bo have some connection with it. Now .they have to go down to Quebec or connect with the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway in order to link up with the transcontinental line.
I repeat, is it not time for us to look over these charters and see that the companies either make use of them or abandon their rights? Is it not the duty of this parliament to see that our statutes do not remain filled with unused charters which block other enterprising people who might be disposed to construct different lines of rail? The whole country is interested in seeing that privileges granted by parliament are not abused by either large or small companies.
Privileges of this kind may be abused in two ways. Abuse may take the form of squandering the money of the people in venturesome enterprises which are not justified; or abuse may consist of not making use of the powers granted by parliament, whether by this company, by the Algoma Central Company, by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company or by any other concern. When they receive charters granted under our Railway Act, they are given practically sovereign powers. They are given the power of expropriation; they are permitted to pass through public and private property. Surely parliament does not give these powers just for the sake of giving them. Parliament does not invest these companies with such enormous privileges merely to enable them to make or to lose money. We are supposed to grant charters in the public interest ; we are supposed to invest companies with the power of constructing railways for the benefit of the trading public and for the benefit of settlers. Lines are often built to open up a country and to enable people who are in
James Bay Railway

quest of virgin land to settle on farms and have communication with the centres of population. If the privileges distributed for these reasons remain unused by those who receive them, it works to the detriment of the public as a whole, and parliament is remiss in its duty if that situation is not remedied. This point has been in my mind for many years. It was discussed in the old parliament. I remember very well the excellent declarations and speches made by the late Sir Wilfrid Laurier, by the late Mr. Blair, by the late Sir Charles Tupper and by Sir George Foster. The Railway Act of 1903 was largely the outcome of those discussions. That act was the consolidation of the various acts which had been passed previously as well as a standardization of the charters to which the acting minister has referred. It was not only to change the law that we made that reform, it was not only to see that every company, large or small, would receive a charter with the same number of standard clauses in it: it was mainly for the purpose of preventing an abuse which deprived the trading public at large of the benefit of railway construction. It would seem as though we are to have several similar bills before us and it is time that we had a declaration from the government as to whether or not they intend to implement engagements entered into twentydive years ago. After eighteen years' absence from this house I begin to ask myself if I am not a Rip Van Winkle, because when I return I find the abuses which were to be corrected by the com-binded wisdom and genius of all parties still existing.
There is the further point brought up by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). The actual results of the navigation of Hudson bay are not known. It is not known whether there will be sufficient trade to support four or five lines running to James bay or Hudson bay. The Hudson bay venture was ratified by parliament largely for the benefit of the western provinces; but I aim quite sure that our western friends would be the first to say that the people of the eastern provinces, especially of Ontario and Quebec, are entitled to their fair share of the return trade from Europe which may cotme over that route. It seems to me that we should not keep on granting charters for railway lines to connect with that sheet of water or as some say that sheet of ice, when we do not know how many lines will be needed. The amount of trade which will accrue is unknown, and if we continue to renew charters to different companies to build lines from James bay westward, from James bay southward, or from James bay eastward, without knowing what

the results will be, it will be some time before any one line is built. Any one company might- hesitate in expending capital when they know that other rival lines may be built.
I do not say that we should hold these companies strictly to the two year limit; but there should be some limit, as the railway companies seem to consider that these renewals are a permanent privilege and that this parliament will renew a charter every time it is asked. In the light of these past exiperiences, I think the house should hesitate before committing itself to the principle of the renewal of charters without a good reason being given why such renewal should be -made.
Motion agreed to on division and bill read the second time.



ALGOMA CENTRAL AND HUDSON BAY RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing) moved the second reading of Bill No. 33, respecting the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Mr, Speaker, the explanation in the margin of this bill reads:
Extension of time for construction and completion of certain line of railway.
This explanation should read as follows: Extension of time for construction and completion of a certain portion of a certain line of railway.
This railway has constructed nearly 300 miles of line, 200 miles of which is main line and 80 miles being extensions. Two years ago this company -came before parliament and asked for an extension of their charter, which was granted, but they have not been able to carry on the construction work proposed, a-nd I hope the house will grant the further extension which is now asked for.
The first -charter was granted to this corporation in 1890, for the building of a main line from hault Ste. Marie to Fran-z on the main line of the Canadian Pacific railway. A few years afterward another charter was granted for the extension of the line from Franz to Hearst, and, -as I said 'before. this company has under operation nearly 300 -miles of main line running from Sault Ste. Marie -to Hearst, and nearly 100 -miles of branch lines. A few years ago they operated a weekly passenger service; this was later changed to a tri-weekly service, but last year they inaugurated a daily passenger service from Sault Ste. Marie to Hearst. When the first charter was given the provincial government granted

Hudson Bay Railway
1,500.000 acres of land, and 500.000 acres went with the second charter. Most of that land is mineral and timber land, a great deal of which has been 'parcelled out and is under development. Practically from Franz to Hearst most of that section has been open to colonization. We have some very progressive colonization settlements in places like Sbavert, Coppell, and so forth, which are well known through our section of the country.
I believe no objection will be put forward in regard to the other extension going northward, because those who belonged to the railway committee in the first session of the new parliament, 1927, are fully aware of my activities in two instances with respect to applications for the granting of charters to two newly formed railway companies. An application of a private corporation for a charter for the construction of a railway into the Red lake district was defeated largely by my activities. The same also applies to an application in connection with a proposed privately constructed railway from Iroquois falls to the southern part of James bay, which I claim was also defeated on account of my objections.
Some hon. gentlemen may think this railway will run parallel to the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway. It is true it will be running parallel northward, but the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario is 135 miles eastward of the eventual construction of the extension. Every hon. member, at least from Ontario, is fully aware of the activities of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario commission and its alertness in railway matters and so far I have not heard any objection to the extension of that charter to the Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company. This company has been capitalized in the sum of nearly 85,000,000. Most of that money has been spent and so far no dividends have been paid to the shareholders. They have their main line in first class condition. They have been working on the road-bed for the last five or six years in a very effective manner and that line compares favourably with any publicly-owned railway or the Canadian Pacific. Therefore I believe this bill will receive the sanction of the house.
Speaking of the eventual extension from Hearst northwards which will tap the Albany river, I repeat that this extension will not enter info conflict with the present extension of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway from Cochrane to James bay, which very likely will have a terminal for years to come at Moose Factory, because it is nearly 100 miles from Albany to Moose Factory. I do not believe it is necessary to mention the
potentialities of the country in minerals forests, water powers or colonization land. Again I repeat, that I hope the house as a whole will fully realize the legal and moral rights this corporation has in asking for the extension.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Has the hon. member any guarantee that if this extension is granted, any work will be done on this railway within the next two years?


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: At the present time I
do not believe construction will be warranted because the company wants to consolidate its present holdings, to settle the land held for colonization and to continue its present lumbering activities. No doubt eventually we shall have on James bay at Albany one of the largest pulp mills on this continent. My hon. friend will realize that this is not a time to expand the newsprint industry. But I am firmly convinced that when conditions warrant it the company will proceed with its extension towards Hudson bay.
Mr. HENRI BOTTR.ASSA (Labelle):	Mr. Speaker, I do not want to renew all the objections I made to the previous bill, although the same principle applies; but I want to call the attention of the house to the fact that this is an exactly similar case. I am sorry that I have to make these objections to ventures which may be good in themselves and in which some of my best personal friends are interested. If this marginal note is complete-and I have had no time to look up this matter as I had in the other case-thirteen statutes have been passed for this company from 1890, as the hon. member states, which was the date of the birth of the company, to this year.
As he says, it has been built in two parts, one connecting Sault Ste. Marie, that is the Soo line, with a station called Franz on the Canadian Pacific main line, and the other from Franz on the Canadian Pacific to Hearst on the Canadian National. This request to renew the powers of the company to tap the Hudson bay basin has been renewed, I do not know how many times; but what has been built is but a fraction of what was supposed to be built and what this company has been asking for and has been keeping in reserve on paper for years without making use of it. It is another one of those lines starting from the end of Hudson bay and coming down a little more to the west than the one with which we dealt previously. If you take the line which is being contemplated to connect the transcontinental with the Canadian Pacific line from Montreal to Mont Laurier; the one which, I

Hudson Bay Railway

think, still holds a charter to connect the Hudson bay somewhere with the Joliette branch of the Canadian Pacific; the one mentioned by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc), and, I think, another one which is supposed to come down the St. Maurice valley, we have at the present time charters enabling various companies to build an open fan of railways all starting from James bay to come and tap-what? I do not know. But there are certainly twice as many charters as can be made use of for the next half century for the trade that may come from Hudson bay to Ontario and Quebec, or that may go from Ontario and Quebec to Hudson bay.
This is another instance of the same thing. It is curious that these two bills should come together, both charters dating from the same year, because although the Algoma company was incorporated in 1890, it was in 1901, the same year that the Interprovincial and James Bay Railway Company was incorporated, that it changed its name and became practically what it is now. I am not quite as sure of this one as I was of the other; but I do not think I am mistaken when I say that this is one of the numerous companes which go by various names, but which are the creatures of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I think it is another one of those charters which the great company holds in its hand to prevent any competition from coming within its territory, or even to prevent the national railway of Canada, to the success of which we are supposed to be devoted, from competing; because this is in the way of any railway that might be built from any point on the Canadian National railway to tap Hudson bay.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What about the Timiskam-ing and Northern Ontario?


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: I do not know enough about that. It is so complicated, as between Quebec and Ontario, and various companies, that I do not know about it; but I do know about these charters. We have had the same difficulty. It took us twenty years to secure the construction of the line that had been started from Montreal to St. Jerome and then from St. Jerome to Ste. Agathe. I am sorry the hon. member for Terrebonne (Mr. Prevost) is not present. I saw the beginning of the line from St. Jerome to Ste. Agathe. It remained! there for about twenty years and then was brought up to a certain point on the Red river, then called Chute aux Iroquois, which is now called Labelle. Later we secured the construction of thirty miles further. So it took about thirty years to connect one of the best centres of colonization of the province 
of Quebec with the city of Montreal, 160 miles distant. Do our western friends realize that? They very rightly complain, time and again, of the difficulty they have had in getting railway communication; but do they know that in the oldest province of Canada there are regions capable of settlement and culture, within 150 miles of Montreal, which have yet no communication, because practically the whole of the railway system of Quebec is in the hands of either the Canadian Pacific or the Canadian National? The Canadian National Railways are entirely bound to their old trunk lines and the Canadian Pacific is in pretty much the same position. As far as the province of Quebec is concerned, the Canadian Pacific has certainly helped colonization; but as the late Lord Shaughnessy said to me once, when I went to see him to have this colonization road constructed through my constituency, "My dear sir, you must realize that this is a business enterprise. We cannot build a line just for the sake of giving transportation facilities to help people. We are out to get traffic, andi we are not going to spend money to provide transportation facilities for people who will not furnish the traffic to justify the expenditure." I made this observation to Lord Shaughnessy:	"Do
you not realize that by building branch lines you are opening up new territory, bringing in new settlers, creating more traffic for your road? The settlers that your branch line will bring in will build butter and cheese factories, they will cut the hardwood which is now rotting in the woods because it is impossible to transport it by water." That caught his imagination; he built that branch line; and to-day it is one of the best paying branch lines of the Canadian Pacific. For each of twenty years there was only a small tourist traffic for about three months and the rest of the year the traffic was not sufficient to pay for the coal and grease necessary to run the trains. To-day, as I said, it is one of the best paying branch lines of the Canadian Pacific. It has opened up new territory. It has brought people in there who would otherwise now be working in the factories of New England, and would be lost to the province of Quebec and to Canada, to agriculture and industry in this country. By building that branch line the Canadian Pacific have increased their traffic; they have contributed to increasing the population and developing the agriculture and trade of that portion of the province.
The same is true of any other branch line constructed as a colonization enterprise. In the west the farmers, of course, have to cope with the very long distances, because coloni-

Highwood Western Railway
zation has been scattered over an immense area. In our province the people have another kind of difficulty to contend with, and that is the hard and costly work of the forest settler, who has to spend time and money for three or four or five years, or employ the labour of his own family, in clearing the land, and during those years all he receives by way of return is the proceeds from the sale of a few logs. Colonization in northern Quebec and northern Ontario is extremely hard, but we have in those northern regions a remnant of what was formerly the hardiest and most courageous breed of settlers known to the world.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The voyageurs.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No; they were the
pioneers. The voyageurs never took to colonization; but they observed things, and when they came back to their parishes they would say to their fellows: If you want a good lot, go into that bush. Some of them would go and cut wood there for one or two years, but they needed communications. Roads were extremely difficult to build through the bush. It is true that the governments of both Ontario and Quebec have done a great deal to help the settlement of these northern territories; but the farther you get from the large centres the greater is the need of railway communication. Besides you cannot expect the settler in the forest to-day to be so utterly different from other human beings of his own age that he will work as his forefathers did fifty years ago. He demands more facilities, and his children ask for more advantages. They will not stay in the bush to be eaten up by the black-


An hon. MEMBER:: Bears.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: No, by the black flies. To-day they will not stay three or four or five or six years up in that northern territory with practically no communication with the civilized world. They ask for better roads. They wish to have a small Ford car as soon as possible, and they ask for railway communication to ship their hard-won produce to the large centres. These people deserve consideration. We in the province of Quebec are in full sympathy with the settlers of the western provinces and with their endeavour to get better railway facilities, but surely we in the province of Quebec are entitled to some sympathy from them in our effort to help our own people, who have done their share, and are still doing their share, in building up Canada. That is one of the reasons why I have taken this, the first opportunity this session, to remind the house of the difficulties 2419-54
which our people have to face, and to speak of the abuses that there have been in the granting of railway charters to companies that keep them in their portfolio, and sometimes issue bonds, although I do not think they can do that now, but at all events prevent other companies from constructing a road through that territory, thereby depriving the country of the advantages that would be derived from sensible legislation which I 'hope this parliament in its wisdom will pass before very long.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



HIGHWOOD WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38, respecting the Highwood Western Railway Company.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: Before we proceed with this bill I think we ought to have an understanding as to how bills of this nature aTe to be dealt with. It was laid down three years ago during the discussion on, the Georgian bay oanal project that, according to Bouriniot, these private bills should go to the select standing committee unless there was objection to the principle of the bill. What the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Bourassa) may have said in regard to these bills this evening may be all very true, but I do not suppose any of us can remember the details of what he said. It is simply impossible for us in this house to come to a proper decision on these bills during the short time available for their discussion, and I think it would be much more to the point if we made a practice of simply giving them a second reading and sending them on to the committee, where they could be thoroughly discussed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Johnston in the chair.
Harbours and rivers-New Brunswick-Seal Cove-breakwater extension, $17,000.
Robert Watson Grimmer: What was the nature
of the deposit given by Mr. Dyas, the contractor for the breakwater construction; was it by certified cheque or a guarantee from a bonding company? The minister promised to give me this information.

850	COMMONS
Supply*-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.


John Campbell Elliott: I hope I did not lead my hon.
friend to believe that we would be able to go through the securities between six o'clock and eight. The department was closed at the time the house took recess, but I shall be very glad to show my hon. friend the securities we hold and I have not the slightest doubt that he will find them absolutely satisfactory.


Robert Watson Grimmer: In the list of estimates
submitted from Charlotte county was Castalia breakwater included, and was the minister requested to give it particular consideration?


John Campbell Elliott: I have the file in connection with the Castalia breakwater. I find that there has been only one inquiry, namely, a letter dated June 28, 1926 from the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). It was answered on the same date. Since then the file shows that a report was made on August 8, 1928, with regard to the work required, and apparently an estimate was prepared about that time showing the cost would be $110,000. The district engineer stated that it did not appear reasonable to undertake such expensive construction as seemed to be necessary to meet the local requirements in view of the prospective benefit.


Robert Watson Grimmer: Has there been nothing
since 1926?


John Campbell Elliott: On May 8, 1929, the matter was taken up again with the engineer, when the whole file was gone over and the report considered.


Harry Bernard Short: This is the last of the items from the maritime provinces, and before we dispose of it I would remind the minister that many of the items are revotes. The reason given for these revotes is that the appropriations last session were so late in passing that the contractors did not have an opportunity to complete the work. Now the minister has these appropriations so early in the season, perhaps earlier than he has had them for a long time, I trust tenders will be called immediately so that the work can be completed during the spring and summer months, and that where it is undertaken by the government by day labour, there will be the same despatch. I hope the minister will give instructions to his department that these appropriations are to be extended before the weather gets too bad next fall.
While I am on my feet may I revert to Nova Scotia? Tenders have been let for the rebuilding of the pier at Digby and for dredging. For the last three sessions the minister

will remember that I have called his attention to some dredging that is very necessary in Digby harbour at Victoria beach. There are two breakwaters there owned by the government and dredging is very urgently needed, that being a very important fishing centre, and if it is not done in the course of the next year or two, the fishermen will be able to use the breakwater only from half tide up. When the dredging is done in Digby harbour this summer I would respectfully request the minister to give instructions that the dredging at Victoria beach be also done.


John Campbell Elliott: I shall be very glad to
look into the matter. I think if my hon. friend will peruse the reports on the work in his district he will find there is no ground for complaint as to the despatch with which it has been carried on during the past year. In regard to the revotes, the passing of the estimates here does not mean the money is available until the supply bill is put through.


Harry Bernard Short: You know you are going to get the money.


John Campbell Elliott: We hope so. One year
not very long ago we were disappointed, but it turned out all right in the end. With regard to the work last year, so that there may be no misunderstanding, my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer) seemed to think the money had been voted, but for some ulterior reason it had not been spent. May I call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that *for the last forty years just about seventy per cent of the money voted has been expended? This year the expenditure, I am advised by the estimates branch, by the 31st of this month will be as nearly as possible 87.5 per cent of the total appropriations- with very few exceptions the highest of any year in that forty year period.
May I also say to my hon. friend from Charlotte (Mr. Grimmer), that I find on looking over the returns that a number of the items in his riding were reported some time ago as being 100 per cent completed at that time? Of course, it will be readily understood that all these contracts cannot be let at the one time. I sent on a recommendation to council to-day for certain contracts; we will be letting contracts right up to the end of the fiscal year. But I just want to call my hon. friend's attention to the fact that last year we did get all our estimates through early, but, as my hon. friend says, we knew that they were passed by the house, and while the money was not actually then available we were able to make our calculations upon the estimates which had been passed. I think it is an

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
advantage that when money is voted it should be expended as expeditiously as possible. I do not think anybody need have any fear that we are voting money we should not be voting, but I am very anxious once it is voted to have it expended as soon as we can, having due regard for the care that has to be taken in the expenditure of those moneys.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, the minister was good enough to express an appreciation of criticism. I understand the successful tenderer in the case last under review was a medical doctor. Is that correct?


John Campbell Elliott: Is my hon. friend referring to Woodward's Cove?


Thomas Cantley: Either that or the preceding item it does not make any difference as far as my argument is concerned.


John Campbell Elliott: You mean Doctor Dyas?


Thomas Cantley: Does the minister really think it is in the public interest to give work of this character to people who have neither the experience nor the plant to carry on the work successfully?


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid my hon. friend was not here this afternoon.


Thomas Cantley: Pardon me, I was here all afternoon.


John Campbell Elliott: Well I cannot have made myself as clear as I had hoped I had, because I went into that question just before recess. I think my hon. friend will be one of the first hon. members to say that I cannot inquire into the profession of the lowest tenderer. Part of the condition is that the work shall be done according to certain specifications, and to the satisfaction of the engineers of the department. Their certificate is a condition precedent to the right of the contractor to recover. Furthermore, every tenderer must show before his tender is in order the plant that he has available for doing the work. That has to be satisfactory to the department also. So that as long as he shows he has the proper plant, gives the proper security and is not in bad standing on the books of the department, we cannot refuse to give him the contract. What would my hon. friend have done in the case of Doctor Dyas's tender of $29,800 odd, which was $8,000 lower than the next tenderer? Would we have said: No, I will not accept that tender because that man is a medical doctor? I would just like to know what my hon. friend would have done. Will he tell me?
2419-54^


Thomas Cantley: I would not give a contract for public works of this character to a medical doctor, who had no plant of any kind to carry on the work, and who is simply going to turn the contract over to someone else and get what is vulgarly called a rake-off for doing it. I would ask the minister this: Would he go to a blacksmith for whatever dental service he required? Would he go to a sawmill to get his hair cut?-even though it be not much more abundant than mine. Would he go to a foundry to have his clothes made? If not, why does he go to a medical doctor to have work of this character done? A public work of some importance goes to a man who has no plant and nto experience. The minister is shrewd enough to know why this man puts in a tender and why hte wants a contract for work of this kind.


John Campbell Elliott: Will my hon. friend tell me why he does it? I am not shrewd enough to know that.


Thomas Cantley: What is the minister's
question?


John Campbell Elliott: The hon. member says that I am shrewd enough to know why he puts in a tepder of this kind. I must say that I am not shrewd enough to know, but I do know that he came $8,000 below the next tenderer.


Harry Bernard Short: He probably gets something for extras.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend will perhaps be in the house when the question of extras is being considered.


Harry Bernard Short: If I am, I shall have something to say about it.


John Campbell Elliott: I have no doubt the hon. member will, but I shall be able to assure him, because I will 'be here to explain just how the money was expended. I shall be able to satisfy my hon. friend that the contractor has not received any extras to which he was not entitled.
With regard to the delicate operation to which my hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cant-ley) has referred, that of the adornment of either himself or myself by the barber, I may say that I do not let such jobs by tender, and I do not suppose my hon. friend does either, because in his case the contract would not be a much larger one than mine. I appreciate my hon. friend's humour. I am sure he is not serious, because he knows perfectly well that more than 90' per cent of the contracts that are let are let to men who do not do the actual work of the contract.


Mr. McGREGOR:: Why?
852	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
Mr. ELLIOTT; Because they are presiding over companies that do a large part of the work.


Robert Henry McGregor: Because they can sublet.


John Campbell Elliott: If they can tender $8,000 lower than the next tenderer and make any money out of it, that is their business.


Robert Henry McGregor: How many tenderers were there on that job?


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: What dates were
they received?


John Campbell Elliott: I gave that information this afternoon, but I shall be very glad to give it again. The tenders were received on 11th June, 1929-that is, for Woodward's Cove, the last item under consideration. They were:
Thos. P. Charleson, Ottawa	$29,870
Ed. A. Farren, St. John, N.B	 37,798
J. E. Gaskill, North Head, N.B	 39,720
J. E. Byrne & J. E. Kane, St. John N.B	 39,965


Thomas Cantley: Mr. Chairman, the minister has asked me a question as to what I would do under certain circumstances. I would not give a contract of this character to men who had neither the experience nor the plant to carry out the work. The minisiter is not lacking in intelligence or in business ability, and I am quite sure that in the bottom of his heart he feels exactly as I do about it. The reasons he suggests are not the reasons why work of this character is given, as it is being given in numbers of cases by the government to people of this kind, henchmen of the government, middlemen who have, a pul'l, who have neither experience nor plant. Such is mot in the public interest and the minister knows that quite well.


Mr. SPENCE:: In this case how much did the successful tenderer get in extras?


John Campbell Elliott: Nothing.


James Houston Spence: Does the minister mean
that tenders are awarded without the department investigating the financial condition of the contractor or knowing whether he is capable of completing the contract?


John Campbell Elliott: They rely on the deposit made by the contractor, which amounts to 10 per cent of the value of the work to be done, either in cash or its equivalent, and then there is provision for withholding a 20 per cent drawback.


James Houston Spence: We all understand that, but it is a most peculiar thing that tenders are awarded to people who have no equipment whatever.


John Campbell Elliott: They must have the equipment.


James Houston Spence: How could a doctor have the equipment?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Except dental instruments. Before we leave these maritime estimates I wish again to bring up a question which I brought up early in the session. Some of this work is done by contract and some- by day labour. I want to ask the minister what rate of pay his department proposes to give on work done by day labour, under foremen appointed by his department, and what will be the length of the working day of these labourers. I think that is very important; we should give protection to the people doing this work.


John Campbell Elliott: The rate will be the prevailing rate in the district as fixed by the Department of Labour.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The minister says it will be the prevailing rate as fixed by the Department of Labour in that district. Take my own constituency, for example; does the Department of Labour fix any prevailing rate in the town of Inverness?


John Campbell Elliott: To what work does my hon. friend refer?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Any public work at all under your jurisdiction.


John Campbell Elliott: The Department of La-oour will fix the prevailing rate on each pubic work as it comes along.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The other day I received a return to a question which I asked, and I find that men were working a ten hour day and receiving $2.50 per day during 1927, 1928 and 1929, under the department administered by the minister. Did you fix that rate?


John Campbell Elliott: What was the rate?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: It was $2.50 per day for a ten hour day, or twenty-five cents per hour. Do you say your department fixed that rate?


John Campbell Elliott: That is done after consultation with the representative of the Department of Labour, I understand.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: But I know of no representative of the Department of Labour there. I want to get at this thing in fairness to labour throughout Canada. I do not want to see your department setting a bad example to the employers of labour in any part of the country, and I think this question should be

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
thoroughly discussed here.. To me it is a crying shame that men should be asked to work ten hours a day at the rate of twenty-five cents per hour. And before these estimates go through I want to see that the men who work on these .public undertakings, whether they are Grits or Tories, are given a fair day's pay for a fair day's work. I object to any of these estimates going through until labour in this country is given some protection.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friend if there is a minimum wage law in the province of Nova Scotia?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: There is not such
a law at present, but one will be put in operation very soon. However, there is a wage regulation in the district where these appallingly low wages are paid by a department of this government. In the town, where they are paying $2.50 for a ten hour day the lowest wage paid by other industries is $3.25 for an eight hour day. I want to ask the hon. member if he is in favour of a wage of twenty-five cents an hour for a ten hour day for any workmen in Quebec or anywhere else. If he favours that idea, let him stand up now


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very seldom asked
a question, but I am always glad to answer when I can. I think my hon. friend from Inverness is right in one sense and wrong in another. I think he is quite right to ask that wages paid day labourers on any public work should be raised if possible, and I do not think any member of this house being opposed to such action being taken when it can be done. Last year I was the first member to bring up in the house the question of low wages in Quebec, and I remember that the very same day a gentleman was speaking in Quebec on the same question. Some hon. members in the far corner of the house asked me why I had chosen that particular day to bring up that matter, and I said it was the first day the estimates of the Department of Labour had been before the house. I think people should be paid well; I think the wage mentioned by my hon. friend is too low and in that regard I entirely share his views. However, there is another point to be considered. I believe in cases of this kind it is for the province to act, and if my hon. friend will tell me when the minimum wage law in his province will come Into operation, I will continue by observations later.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: With all due respect to my hon. friend, for whom I have a very high regard, we must remember he is not the
Minister of Public Works or the Minister of Labour. With regard to a minimum wage law in Nova Scotia I might point out that such a law passed by the province could not possibly apply to a federal undertaking. My hon. friend, being a lawyer, knows that fact. Here is what we have to consider: We have men throughout this country employed by the Department of Public Works, working ten hours a day for a starvation wage. That fact cannot be denied. As a member of parliament I object to that condition and I do not think we should pass any of these estimates until we see that these men are given a fair chance to make a living. I want my hon. friend the minister to give me some assurance to-night before I cease obstructing-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I used the word
"obstructing" advisedly, because so long as men are being cheated out of a livelihood I am going to obstruct as long as I can raise my voice in this parliament, and I imagine I wtill receive some support from hon. members to my left.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order. I must point
out to my hon. friend that the use of the word "obstruction" is not in accordance with the rules of the house.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Very well; I will
use the' word "protesting". I do not think any party in this house should deal with this question lightly. Here we have the government of Canada, which is supposed to set an example to private employers of labour in this country', compelling people to work fo? ten hours a day at twenty-five cents an hour. So long as I occupy a seat in this House of Commons I intend to protest against such action.


Ernest Lapointe: It won't be long now.


Harry Bernard Short: I think the hon. minister is mistaken, we may be over there next year.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I sincerely hope
that every hon. member who has any sense of social justice will join me in the protest I make to-night. I do not intend to allow any of these items to go through without discussion.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Mr. Chairman-


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the hon. member kindly to excuse me because I was asking a question; if he wishes to go on it will delay the giving of the answer. I have looked up the Parliamentary Guide to find out if the hon. member for
854	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
Inverness (Mr. Macdougall) is a lawyer. He spoke with great fluency, but there is one part of his answer which does not mean very much. I asked if the government of Nova Scotia had enacted a minimum wage law, but I have not received an answer.


Harry Bernard Short: What has that to do with this question?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will answer one member at a time. I am a human being and I have not two mouths and two tongues to answer two members at once, but I will admit that I have two eyes with which to enjoy watching them.
This question is very easy for even a layman to understand.


Harry Bernard Short: A layman?


Jean-François Pouliot: We have no clergymen in the house. It is claimed that a very sad situation exists in the rate of wages being paid. These men are not skilled carpenters or joiners, they are day labourers. They are not young men or strong men who can do the same amount of work as a skilled tradesman; many of them are old men, they are satisfied with what they receive and they are satisfied to accept work at that rate.


Mr. IRVINE:: Would it not be better for the Minister of Labour to tell us how he arrived at that rate for wages?


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member will wait but a few minutes I will be finished with my argument, at which time I shall be very glad to let him have the floor. I ask him to be as kind as the hon. member for East Calgary (Mr. Adshead) and allow' me to proceed in discussing this matter with the hon. member for Inverness. That hon. member spoke with furore-that is a nice Italian word, and I think it is parliamentary too- in answering the Minister of Public Works, when he stated that these people were being ill treated. If the hon. member for Wetas-kiwin was not present in the house when this matter was brought up, and if the house will grant me its indulgence, I will explain it to him. My hon. friends have shown great anger in their desire to protect the poor people. I think we are all interested in the welfare of the people, but in order to help them we must do so by going to the right door.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: The right or the left.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member is of the same political faith as the premier of Nova Scotia, and he should go to him and 
say: My dear Mr. Rhodes, this situation is appalling and I do not understand why you do not enact a minimum wage law; this relief should be by means of a provincial measure, and if you do not do that we will have to raise hell-


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I say that in a parliamentary sense-"-with the Minister of Public Works."


Harry Bernard Short: Mr. Chairman, I must rise
to a point of order. The hon. gentleman has used unparliamentary language. The hon. member for Inverness was called to order for using the word "obstruction".


Jean-François Pouliot: I will withdraw my expression.


Harry Bernard Short: I want a ruling on that.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. member has
withdrawn it.


Harry Bernard Short: Is that kind of language to
be allowed in this house?


John Frederick Johnston: I might say that the
whole debate has been out of order as it is not relevant to the matter before the committee. The word which the hon. gentleman used is not unparliamentary according to the rules of this house.


Harry Bernard Short: We are very glad to obtain that information because we may want to use it ourselves.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. member is in
the limbo. The hon. member for Inverness made a statement which I at once -challenged; he said that even if there were a provincial minimum wage law in Nova Scotia it would not affect the rates paid by Minister of Public Works. That is the most absurd statement I have ever heard in this house, because the wages paid by this department are fixed by the prevailing rates in the district.


John Frederick Johnston: I would point out to
the hon. member that a general discussion of the wage laws in any province is certainly not in -order in -discussing this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why was not my hon.
friend brought to order when he spoke along these very same lines? I ask, Mr. Chairman, that I be permitted to finish my argument. When there is a provincial wage law establishing the prevailing rate of wages then the Department of Public Works is ready to pay that rate in any particular district. If we talk logically in regard to that, there is only one thing to say, namely, that if the government of Nova -Scotia, after the future wise

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
recommendation of my hon. friend, adopt such a policy, the prevailing rates will go up. That will please me, and then the rates of wages paid by the Department of Public Works will also rise.
In conclusion, I am very much surprised that people accept work under those circumstances. If they are not satisfied with the rates of wages, they should wait until those rates are increased so that they may have better pay. I am sure that the hon. member for Inverness voiced the representations of his Tory friends in his constituency who were working for the Department of Public Works. The fairmindedness of the government is shown in giving, through the Department of Public Works, an opportunity for earning their bread and butter to those people who do not share their views, and who have such an eloquent spokesman in the house. In order to leave no doubt as to my views in regard to the matter, I desire to urge upon my hon. friend that he should write or wire to his friend Mr. Rhodes, asking him kindly to introduce that bill at the earliest opportunity in the Nova Scotia legislature. This will, of course, have a very bad effect, it will deprive us of the privilege of 'hearing our hon. friends giving the Minister of Public Works a calling down without any reason.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Last year when the estimates were before the house I asked on every occasion, both of the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Marine and Fisheries, whether fair wage clauses satisfactory to the Minister of Labour would be inserted in all contracts. I got not only an answer in the affirmative, but a copy of the fair wage clause itself. If the statements of the hon. member for Inverness are correct, I cannot conceive why anybody should sign or the government should let a contract at as low a rate of wage as twenty-five cents an hour. Nobody can live on such a wage.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: This is on government work where they appoint a foreman, not on contract. There was a return brought down.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: More so with a government contract the rate of wages should be set and approved by the Minister of Labour. I cannot conceive that twenty-five cents an hour would be sufficient for any human being to live on, even supposing it were the prevailing rate of wages in the district. Supposing the prevailing rate in a district were to go down to fifteen cents an hour, surely the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Public Works would not pay that rate. There should
be some discretion by means of which the Department of Labour should be able to fix a living wage for the people who are working for the government. In Calgary forty or forty-five cents an hour is the wage for ordinary day labour. Even these old men who have been mentioned cannot eat and live on less than that. If it is the custom of the department to confine itself strictly to the prevailing rate of wages, surely if the prevailing rate in its judgment is so low that a man cannot live on it, the department should not be bound by that rate but should give a wage that would be ample for living conditions.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to give an answer to the hon. member for Inverness as well as to the hon. member for Temiscouata and the bon. member for East Calgary. This matter was discussed pretty fully when the estimates were before the house the other evening. While we have .passed Nova Scotia and are not dealing at the present time with either Nova Scotia or New Brunswick estimates, it is important that we should clear this matter up while it is before the committee. Last year, if my information is correct, the wages paid, as regards day labour, throughout the whole of Nova Scotia were fixed by the engineer after consultation with the fair wage officer for the district, and1 were fixed in accordance with the prevailing rate in that particular district. I have before me a list of wages paid in the counties of Richmond and Inverness, and I can give my hon. friend a list of the rates of wages paid in every county in Nova Scotia.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Will the minister
give me the rate of wages paid on the Inverness pier? I have it under my 'hand.


John Campbell Elliott: On the work at Inverness in Inverness county the rates of wages were for the foreman, S5 per day and for labourers, thirty cents an hour.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: How many hours?


John Campbell Elliott: Ten hours.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: How much for boys twenty years of age?


John Campbell Elliott: Twenty cents an hour for water-boys.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: For boys twenty
years of age?


John Campbell Elliott: No, schoolboys, I understand. They were what we call water-boys. That was the rate at Finlay point, Inverness, Margaree harbour, Margaree island, Murphy's pond. I think those are all in the county of Inverness. May I call my horn, friend's atten-
S56	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.B.
tion to a further fact? In certain portions of the province there has been a bigger change than in others in the last eight or nine years. I find that in Annapolis Royal in the county of Annapolis in 1929-30 a rate of fifty cents an hour was being paid to foremen as against thirty-five cents an hour which was paid in 1921-22. I think it is only fair to say that all wages have increased in those districts in recent years.


Harry Bernard Short: They have all round.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes. I think the increase in certain sections has not been as marked as in others.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: There have been
reductions in certain sections too.


John Campbell Elliott: Possibly so.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Under the minister's department.


John Campbell Elliott: I do not think the increase here is as great as in other districts, but the rule observed in the department is that we have to go by the prevailing rate in the district. The rate last year was higher than that of the year before, as a comparison of the different years will show; but under the rate paid last year nothing less than thirty cents an hour was ipaid except to water-boys.


Mr. ILSLEY:: Will the minister tell us
how the rates paid by his department compare with those paid on the highways by the government of Nova Scotia?


Harry Bernard Short: What has that to do with
the question? One is federal and the other is provincial.


John Campbell Elliott: I know my hon. friend is seeking information, and he knows perfectly well, as every hon. gentleman here knows, that the prevailing rate was twenty-five cents.


Harry Bernard Short: No.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
allow me to finish, it was raised last year by the fixing of a rate by the Department of Labour on Dominion government works to 30 cents an hour. The raise came in regard to work done by the province. Up to that time they were paying 25 cents an hour.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Will the minister
now tell us the hours of work as compared with the hours done on the highways of Nova Scotia?


John Campbell Elliott: Under similar hours, there was a five cent difference.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I must correct my hon. friend. The hours on the Nova Scotia highways are nine hours a day and 30 cents an hour. The Dominion government pays 25 cents an hour for a ten hour day.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister is comparing
carpenters with men who shovel gravel on the highways for the provincial government. The men who work on the breakwaters are carpenters.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Harry Bernard Short: You have a foreman who
gets $5 a day or 50 cents an hour, and the ordinary carpenter gets 30 cents an hour.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is wrong.


Harry Bernard Short: The minister started making these comparisons with the provinces. I would isk him to tell us what the carpenters working m the provincial bridges get. He will find hey get from 35 to 40 and 50 cents an hour.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend is wrong
with regard to the figures for carpenters. The list for carpenters is in a different volume from the one before me, but the carpenters receive 35 cents an hour. It is ordinary labour that receives 30 cents an hour.


Harry Bernard Short: You are comparing your
35-cent an hour men with the labourer who is shovelling gravel on the provincial highways. The hon. member for Hants-Kings asked for these comparisons, and now I want the minister to tell me what the provincial governments pay their carpenters on bridge work. He will find that it is a good deal higher than this government is paying for the same kind of work.


John Campbell Elliott: I understand it is the
same rate.


Harry Bernard Short: Then why did you make
that unfair comparison?


John Campbell Elliott: When we put up the rate, they raised theirs to what we pay.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The carpenter rate or
the day labour rate?


John Campbell Elliott: Both.
Mr. LETELLIER de St. JUST: I believe that much valuable time is needlessly being taken up by this discussion. I have here a letter from the trades and labour congress of Canada, stating that they are endeavouring to have enacted this session a draft bill respecting the payment of fair wages to workmen

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Que.
employed on government undertakings, and I submit that the proper time for this discussion would be when that bill is before the house. The question could then be fully discussed on its merits.


Robert Henry McGregor: Does the Minister of
Labour think that 25 cents an hour is a fair wage for any workingman in this country?


Mr. HEENAN:: No.


Robert Henry McGregor: Then why is that rate
allowed to be put in the contract? I was told by the Department of Labour the other day that the Minister of Labour inserts the fair wage clause in every contract let by this government for public works. If the minister believes that that is not enough, why does he stand for it?	.


Peter Heenan: If I should answer that
question, I am afraid the chairman would rule me out of order.


John Frederick Johnston: This whole discussion
is certainly out of order. There will be a time when this question of hours of labour and wages paid to labour may properly be discussed, but this is not the time, and I would ask hon. members to come back to the item before the committee. I would point out to the committee that the estimates for the provinoe of Nova Scotia were passed some days ago, and we are now dealing with the province of Quebec.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it does not matter whether we are dealing with the estimates of Nova Scotia, Quebec or any other province. Certainly we as members of this parliament are not going to be recreant in our duty to the people who have to perform this work, in whatever province the work may be done. We must have some consideration for them, and on their behalf I rise to protest against the grossly unfair practice of this government in instituting wages on our public works which are absolutely a disgrace in this country. That is strong language, but it is absolutely within the facts. The Minister of Labour gets up to-night and says: Oh, well, it will be time enough for me to discuss that later. If he has the interests of labour, organized or unorganized, at heart, this is the time for him to discuss the question.


Peter Heenan: I did not say what my hon. friend says I said. I did not say that I did not want to discuss it at this stage. I said that I was afraid the chairman would call me to order if I began to discuss it, but if the committee gives me permission, I will explain the policy of the government.


John Frederick Johnston: I think this discussion
has gone far enough afield. There is a well known rule that discussion must be strictly relevant to the item before the committee. This discussion is not relevant.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Are not the wages
paid to the men who work on these public undertakings strictly relevant to the works themselves, Mr. Chairman?


John Frederick Johnston: The chairman is in
the hands of the committee. If it is the desire of the committee to discuss that question, it may be discussed.


Ernest Lapointe: Very great latitude has
been allowed already. We should get back to the item.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Since we have had so
much of this discussion it may be well to finish it. Had the chairman taken at the outset the position which he should have taken, this would not have happened; but certainly it is relevant to discuss the wages paid to the workmen who do the work on these public undertakings. I would ask the chairman to read the item.


John Frederick Johnston: The resolution under
discussion is No. 132, for harbours and rivers for the province of Quebec. "Resolved, that a sum not exceeding-"


Ernest Lapointe: These are public works in Quebec province, and hon. gentlemen are discussing fair wages in Nova Scotia.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The minister will realize that an argument as to the rate of wages paid on Dominion government works might be illustrated by a reference to what is paid in other places. I was going to make this observation: I am sure the minister will realize how sound it is with respect to this very item.


Ernest Lapointe: You are flattering yourself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will flatter the hon. minister-not myself. He probably read that a great contracting firm that had a government contract in this city was compelled to go into the hands of a receiver. It was contended that in one of their contracts the Minister of Labour of that time intervened and compelled them to pay higher wages than they had been paying, with the result that they lost a large sum of money. That is common property; I suppose it has been seen in the press by all hon. members.


Ernest Lapointe: What firm?
858	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Harbours and Rivers-Que.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Peter Lyaill and Company. It was their contract for the Welland canal. We are now about to pass a large number of items. The government has control in awarding the tenders, and I am sure the Minister of Justice will say that no man can live and maintain a family on sixty five dollars a month. That is the reason I have always favoured a minimum salary of one hundred dollars a month for the civil service. Now, on this vote under consideration we are discussing the question as to a particular item with respect to which a contract has been let, and that involves the basis of wages to be paid so that the tenders will have some uniformity as between one province and another. For instance, the member for Winnipeg North Centre yesterday raised the question of a contract for the construction of a ship, contending that the rate of wages prevailing in one province was much lower than that prevailing in another. That is by way of illustration of the point I desire to make. I do submit to the minister that in all these matters it should be seen to that at least a decent wage is paid. I think the minister will agree that it is impossible to keep body and soul together on the low wages that have been referred to.


Ernest Lapointe: I agree, but this is not the time to discuss it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is.


Ernest Lapointe: My friend knows it is not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The government must
take the responsibility of fixing a decent wage for those who work for it, not for a contractor. Now, the chairman has called the aggregate of all the items for Quebec, and we suggest-merely as a matter of suggestion at the moment, we not being in a position to do more

that it is desirable that the government itself should provide for an eight hour day and decent compensation for all work that is done under its immediate direction, and not compel workmen to accept a very low rate of compensation rather than starve. In respect of the MacMillan contract for work on the Hudson bay railway last year that situation prevailed, and also in respect to work on the railway carried on by the government itself. In both cases the hours of labour were longer than in my judgment they should have been, although men may be willing to work extra hours for extra pay. But the rates of pay, having regard to the amenities of life and the higher standard of living that we hope to maintain in this coun-|Mr. T.apointe.]
try, must not be confined to what we call the professional classes; the men who toil with their hands, even although they are not skilled artisans, must get for the work they do, menial though it may be, more than sufficient to keep body and soul together.


Ernest Lapointe: I will not answer my hon. friend because I think the whole discussion is out of order and we should do some business.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is supposed to answer?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Perhaps the Minister of Labour (Mr. Heenan) would like to tell us. He expresses great solicitude for the labouring people.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about putting your question to Mr. Rhodes?


An hon. MEMBER:: Tasehereau.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is just the same in Quebec as in Nova Scotia.


John Frederick Johnston: Order.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I cannot allow this matter to be dropped so lightly Mr. Chairman. It is of vital importance to our labouring people. If we allow the same conditions to continue in relation to our working people that have prevailed in the years gone by, we shall be remiss in our duty. I think it is up to the Minister of Public Works or to the Minister of Labour to tell us what rates of wages are going to be offered to those who are engaged on these public works, and whether the working day will be eight or ten hours. On behalf of the working people of this country I ask the government to answer this question. I quite appreciate why the ministers should want to hide behind some rule of order, but that does not satisfy me at all. On behalf of the working people of this country I want to know what the government intend to do with respect to rates of wages and working hours.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, there is no rule of order to prevent my hon. friend from communicating with Mr. Rhodes, the Tory premier of Nova Scotia.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I want an answer from somebody who is responsible.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall this item carry?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, Mr. Chairman,
I insist on an answer to the question.


An hon. MEMBER:: Order.

Sup-ply-Harbours and Rivers-Que.


Mr. MACDONALD (South Cape Breton):: I want to direct one or two questions to the Minister of Labour. The member for Temiscouata referred a few minutes ago to a fair wage bill. Some time ago when the matter was brought up in this house I understood the minister to say that the government intended to introduce such a measure this session. Is that the intention?


Peter Heenan: On that occasion I said the bill had been presented by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, and that in accordance with the regular practice we had submitted it to the law officers of the crown. We have since received their opinion that the bill is ultra vires of this parliament.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is that the bill Mr. Biggar prepared that was circulated in French and English?


Peter Heenan: Yes. A fair wage bill is now under consideration by the government, and I hope next week to be able to say something more about it.


Robert Henry McGregor: Is that fair wage bill ultra vires on the government's own work?


Peter Heenan: I have just said that the bill presented by the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada is in the opinion of the law officers of the crown ultra vires of this parliament.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, may I draw your attention to the fact that only members on the other side of the house are blocking the passing of these estimates, and those members are mostly from Nova Scotia. I cannot understand it.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall the item carry?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Mr. Chairman, unless you rule the discussion entirely out of order, I must insist on an answer to my question. Since we have discussed the matter for an hour, I think we have a right to find out from the Minister of Public Works what wages are to be paid on public works and what the working day will be. Surely he can answer that.


John Campbell Elliott: In each case the wages will be fixed by the fair rate of wages current in the district. This has to be a matter of consideration in each particular case. As I explained to my hon. friend the other day, and again to-night, the minimum that we paid last year in the province about which he was inquiring was thirty cents an hour.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Not twenty-five cents?


John Campbell Elliott: No, thirty cents. The
water-boys were the only ones who got below thirty cents an hour. In every case that is the rule. The wages are higher to-day in nearly all these districts than they were years ago. The only time to ascertain what are the fair wages current in the district is when the work is about to be started. We cannot tell now what wages we will be paying at that particular time. When the work is to be done, inquiry will be made and the fair wages current will be paid.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I thank my hon. friend for giving me the assurance that fair wages will be paid. Certainly it is time, because they have .not been paid in the past. What hours are you going to ask those workmen to work? Is it going to be an eight-hour day or a ten-hour day?


John Campbell Elliott: The prevailing rates of wages and hours of work are both ascertained by the prevailing custom in the place where the work is being done.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Take a hypothetical case. We will say that my bon. friend is undertaking a public work, and that the prevailing hours are fifteen hours a day. Would my hon. friend put that into effect? I think it is absolutely absurd.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, no, I certainly would not.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: You do. not believe in the ten-ihour day, do you?


John Campbell Elliott: I must say that something detpends upon .the urgency of the work and the custom of the particular community. We try to meet the desires of the people who are working in, that particular community, as indicated by the way in which they work on other works. I prefer the eight-hour day, personally.


An hon. MEMBER:: Why not put it into force?


John Campbell Elliott: But I do not get a chance to practise it.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: My hon. friend has said that he would not put into effect a fifteen-hour day, and he says that he personally prefers an eight-hour day. I submit to you, sir, that what you should do is this: Fix your working day for those men employed in accordance with yo-ur conception of justice,
S60	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Que.
not what the prevailing rate is at all. The time has gone by in this country when we should subject people to a remuneration of twenty-five or thirty cents an hour for ten hours a day. I am very much surprised that people should take Objection to our trying to get a little better wage and shorter hours for the poor people. I imagine they are mostly all Grits. I am doing a service for the Liberal party to-night, or trying to do it.


John Campbell Elliott: We get quite good workers sometimes from the other side.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They do not get a chance very often.


James Lorimer Ilsley: In my district in Nova Scotia, if the men are paid by the hour they will want to work ten hours, because they are working ten hours a day on the farm, and there will be considerable difficulty in getting those men to work on wharves and piers that are being repaired, rebuilt and extended, unless they are given an opportunity to work ten- hours a day. Speaking for the farmers of the district I represent, the men will expect to work ten hours if they -are paid by the hour. Conditions may be quite different in the district represented by my hon. friend.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: And the reason they expect to work ten hours a day is because they could not make a living if they worked only eight.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The rate of wage is exactly the same as that paid by the government of Nova Scotia, thirty cents an hour.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Ghainman, my first remark will be this, that the items for the maritime provinces have not been blocked by the members -from Quebec, and now that we are on the Quebec items it seems that they are being blocked by some hon. members from the province of Nova Scotia. I do not think it is fair, and I think that the province of Quebec should be just as well treated by the members from Nova, Scotia as the members from Quebec have treated the province of Nova Scotia. If that is done, we will then be applying the golden role. I wish to be concise and clear in stating that according to my belief the matter of minimum wage comes under the jurisdiction of the provinces. We have an evidence of that in the fact that the province of British Columbia has enacted

a law for minimum wages. If in any given province there is no such law the prevailing rates will be lower than they would be if such a law existed. To condense the whole thing, I would say that so long as the provinces do not adopt minimum wage laws the prevailing rates will be lower, and then my hon. friends will be unable to place the blame on the government for the lower rates of wages that are paid to people working for the Department of Public Works. I do not think that I am narrow-minded in stating that. I do not speak only of Mr. Rhodes, but I speak also of Mr. Ferguson, Mr. Baxter, Mr. Taschereau and all their cabinet ministers, in fact, every province in which there is not a minimum wage law. There is only one exception, that is, British Columbia, where such a law exists.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one in Alberta.


George Reginald Geary: And Ontario.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, if there is an exception in Alberta, and if there is one in Ontario for the men as well as for the women-


George Reginald Geary: For everybody.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then Mr. Ferguson is
better than Mr. Taschereau, and better also than Mr. Rhodes and Mr. Baxter. It is not a case of attacking one man more than the other. It is a case of putting in the same bag all those who are alike and who do not understand that the welfare of the people depends upon their efforts. It is their duty to bring in minimum wage laws, and if my hon. friend had devoted one-tenth of the time he has taken up in this house to speaking to Mr. Rhodes, with his convincing eloquence I am sure he would have gained his point and that that law would have been brought in during the first session Mr. Rhodes was in power. On the other hand, if he forgot to speak to Mr. Rhodes about it, why blame the present Minister of Public Works?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: Because it is a
Dominion public work.


Jean-François Pouliot: Because he is a Liberal minister. If the Minister of Public Works were a Tory-which will not be the case for fifty years-my hon. friend would be silent, but since he is a Liberal my hon. friend tells him

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Que.
what he should have told the Tory premier of his own province. I hope that my hon. friend will change his views and send a wire to Mr. Rhodes urging that such a bill be brought before the Nova Scotia legislature.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: I am speaking for
the workmen of Quebec as well.


Jean-François Pouliot: It would not be much
trouble for my hon. friend to send the same wire to Mr. Taschereau, and I will countersign it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Baie Ste. Catherine-wharf, $25,000.
Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: I think we should have a little explanation with regard to this item. Is it new work? We should know what it is for, how much it is to cost, and where it is.


John Campbell Elliott: This work is for the purpose of providing facilities for an improved ferry service between Baie Ste. Catherine and Tadoussac which is expected to increase considerably due to the extension of the provincial highway to Baie Ste. Catherine and down the other side of the Saguenay river as well.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Beauharnois-to .purchase and reconstruct wharf, $25,000.
George Halsey Perley: I should like the minister to explain this item. Has it anything to do with the Beauharnois company? Is the government to help that company with some of their works?


John Campbell Elliott: No. It is stated that the old wharf is practically useless, and that up to a year ago a structure called the Leduc wharf was kept in fairly good condition for the accommodation of the traffic, but since the death of Mr. Leduc this wharf has not been maintained and cannot be used safely for shipping. The work has been requested by the Beauharnois municipal council in a resolution dated October 23, 1929, and in a letter by Mr. Raymond dated December 3, 1929. In his letter Mr. Raymond stated that this'wharf was an absolute necessity owing to the increased traffic due to the large development resulting from the construction of the new Beauharnois canal. The traffic is very heavy and amounts to some $2,000,000 annually.


George Halsey Perley: Who owns the
wharf to be purchased by the government?


John Campbell Elliott: The Leduc estate.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is being paid for
it?


John Campbell Elliott: 


Richard Bedford Bennett: Who fixed the value?


John Campbell Elliott: The district engineer. Perhaps I might give my hon. friend all the details. The present wharf consists of a pile substructure, a crib superstructure and a wooden sheathing, the whole being filled with stone and earth. It is now in a very dilapidated condition, and a new crib will have to be built in front. The area of the wharf proper is 23,725 square feet. The filling which was done on this wharf, in order to obtain the present area, represents more than 12,000 cubic yards of stone and earth. This filling alone is worth 60 cents a yard, which represents a value of $7,200. The price asked by the Leduc estate is $10,000, but if we subtract the value of the filling we arrive at an amount of $2,800.


William Alves Boys: What is the practice obtaining now in the department with regard to these various works? As I remember it, works costing over $5,000 were advertised and let by contract, while those under that amount were done by day labour. Is that the practice prevailing now?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, that is the practice,
and I think last year a greater proportion of these works were done by contract than was the case previously. However, I do not want to be understood as saying that all works of $5,000 are done by contract, and since this item has to do with repairing an old wharf it is just possible that part of the work may be done more advantageously by day labour, until we ascertain the condition of the substructure and various timbers.


William Alves Boys: I take it, then, that out of this very large total-and I am not seeking to criticize it at all, since the total for Ontario is even greater-a large number of these items would come within the class costing $5,000 or less. I presume that in arriving at the various amounts in thie estimates, some wage has been fixed for the work to be done by day labour, not only throughout this province but throughout the other provinces as well, a wage of twenty-five, thirty, or thirty-five cents an hour, whatever it may be. The minister no doubt has it before him in the estimates. I suppose the work under this item will be done by contract, but perhaps in the item immedately following the minister could give us that figure. I take it that when you arrive at a certain figure which is intended to cover the



S62 COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-Que.
contract, you must reach that conclusion by figuring a certain rate per hour for the men who are to do the work. I do not care whether it is under this item or any other, but would the minister tell me whether there is a rate per hour for the whole province of Quebec for day labour or whether it varies in different parts of the province?
John Campbell Elliott: With regard to the first
part of my hon. friend's question, this work probably will not be started until the ice goes out at any rate, and it may be possible that we will not have our supply available until later than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You usually start the work before that.


John Campbell Elliott: No, we do not start the
work until we have the money available, and conditions may be different three or four months from now. In arriving at an estimate of what these works will cost, they judge largely by what was paid for similar work in the nearest district perhaps during the preceding year, but in fixing the fair wage which must govern either in day labour work or in contract work they have to take conditions as they find them at the time the contract is being let. That, as my hon. friend very properly suggested, varies also in the different districts in which work is being done.


William Alves Boys: With that explanation perhaps we might get a direct answer to the question I have asked. In deciding on the amounts of the estimates now before the house, what is the wage that was estimated for the work and, if it varies, what is the range of variation?


John Campbell Elliott: The practice is followed as I have stated. The wage is not fixed in advance;, in making the estimate, which is only approximate, first of all the engineers take the statement of the district engineer as to general conditions in that district, and they make their estimate largely from the unit prices of that kind of work.


William Alves Boys: The minister is very patient
in giving me information, but he does not give me what I asked for. Am I wrong in assuming that the minister has upon his desk in connection with these various items under $5,000 a statement showing how much day labour is required, and how many labourers at so much per hour? Perhaps he has an estimate of the district engineer before him


John Campbell Elliott: No, I have not.


William Alves Boys: How do you arrive at uThat it is going to cost?


John Campbell Elliott: It is based upon the unit system, what similar units of work will cost in the particular districts.


William Alves Boys: How can there be any unit of similar work in connection with the repairing of a wharf?


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Do you consult the labour unions where there are any in the district?


John Campbell Elliott: No. The district engineer consults with the fair wage officer in the particular district to arrive at what shall be the minimum wage paid.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: The Dominion fair wage officer?


John Campbell Elliott: Yes.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: Does that officer consult with the union?


John Campbell Elliott: He obtains the best information from all available sources.


Peter Heenan: He consults with the labour union and sets the highest rate which prevails in the district.


George Halsey Perley: How much is this going to cost altogether?


John Campbell Elliott: The total estimated cost is $30,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Ten thousand dollars for the wharf?


John Campbell Elliott: Ten thousand dollars for the wharf, $18,460 for the cribwork, $1,000 for levelling surface, and $540 estimated for contingencies.


Robert Gardiner: In giving the details the minister stated that this was a very dilapidated wharf and that practically the only thing left of value was the filling. The minister estimated the filling as being valued at 60 cents per cubic yard, or a total of $7,200. What is the additional amount being paid for?


John Campbell Elliott: That is for the rest of the wharf.


Robert Gardiner: You say it is dilapidated and of no value.


John Campbell Elliott: The purchase of the site and everything else, except the filling.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bonaventure-rebuilding protection works,
William Alves Boys: Would the minister give us the details of this item?

Questions


John Campbell Elliott: This is to construct a breakwater which was commenced during 1928-29.


William Alves Boys: Why is the amount $1,200 instead of $2,800 or $3,600, or some other figure.


John Campbell Elliott: The amount is required to complete the construction of a breakwater 100 feet in length by 18 feet in width in round timber open faced cribwork, well ballasted with stone and sheathed and covered with spruce deals. The estimated cost is given at $1,700; materials purchased in 1928-29, $500; and balance required to complete $1,200.


William Alves Boys: That is all the information the minister has?


John Campbell Elliott: That is all that appears in the engineer's report.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no work done last summer.


John Campbell Elliott: Just materials purchased.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In 1927-28?


John Campbell Elliott: No, in 1928-29.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Bradore Bay-wharf, $47,000.
George Halsey Perley: What constituency is that in?


John Campbell Elliott: It is in the constituency
of Oharlevoiix-Saguenay. There is a revote of $5,000 from 1929-30, and this work is under contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the total contract price?


John Campbell Elliott: It is given as $60,334.


Herbert Bealey Adshead: I am not familiar with
the geography of this district, and I would appreciate the minister's advising me if there ia anything in the estimates for Anticosti island.


John Campbell Elliott: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is Beauharnois this
year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cap de la Madeleine-in full and final settlement of the claim of Messrs. Munm & Shea in connection with their contract for w'harf extension, $27,249.25.
George Halsey Perley: We should have some explanation of this item. This would appear to be one of those cases where the contractor had taken the contract at too low a price and there are extras now to be paid.


John Campbell Elliott: The water conditions at
this point were very unusual, and upon examination it was found that it cost S54,00C more than the contract price to construct, and the recommendation was made that we make up the difference. After very careful consideration it was decided that the company should pay half and that we should bear half the loss.


John Frederick Johnston: Shall this item carry?


Robert Gardiner: No, it should be held
over.
Item stands.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Mackenzie King the house adjourned at 10.40 ,p.m.
Monday, March 24, 1930