1931-05-21

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines-Mr. Harris.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. TURNBULL (Regina) presented the first report of the select standing committee on industrial and international relations, as follows:
Your committee recommend that 500 copies in English and 200 in French of the evidence to be taken, together with such papers and documents to be incorporated with such evidence, be printed and that standing order No. 64 be suspended in relation thereto.
Mr. TURNBULL moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 49, to amend the Bank Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. SPENCER:: The purpose of this bill is simply to enforce that clause of the Bank Act which limits the rate of interest which may be charged. According to the act the highest rate that may be charged is 7 per cent, but banks in the three prairie prov-

Questions
in-ces very largely, and in other provinces to a certain extent, are charging more than the lawful rate.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the right hon. the Prime Minister, received the departmental report of the investigation regarding Beauharnois which he mentioned at the special session as having been undertaken by him?
2.	If such a report has been received, wall he table it?
3.	Have plans for remedial works of the Beauharnois development been filed and approved by the government?
4.	Are the plans under which the Beauharnois development is now being proceeded with the same plans which were approved by order in council, P.C. 422, dated May 8, 1929?
5.	If the present plans are not the same as above approved, have they been approved, and if so, how and when?
0.	If any change has been made in these plans, what are the changes and why were such changes made?


Mr. BENNETT:: I mentioned, Mr. Speaker, yesterday that in view of the near appointment of a parliamentary committee to investigate the matter referred to in this question, probably the hon. member would drop the question. He does not seem to be in his place, but perhaps one of his colleagues would speak to him about it.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I shall draw it to his attention.
Question stands.


HOUSE OF COMMONS-SELECT STANDING COMMITTEES
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Who were the chairman of the various select standing committees of the House of Commons for the sessions of 1927, 1928, 1929, and 1930?
2.	Who are the chairman of the select standing committees of the House of Commons for the session of 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Select Standing Committees	Chairmen				
1927	1928	1929	1930	1931Privileges and Elections	
Railways, Canals & Tel. Lines Miscellaneous Private Bills- Standing Orders	J. J. Denis	
F. S. Cahill	J. J. Denis	
F. S. Cahill	J. J. Denis	
F. S. Cahill	G. W. McPhee- F. S. Cahill	R. B. Hanson. J. H. Harris. T. H. Stinson. A. U. G. Bury. W. C. S. McLure. O. Gagnon. R. C. Matthews. M. C. Senn. W. G. Ernst. J. L. Bowman. F. W. Turnbull. W. K. Esling. Hon. Geo. Black. Hon. Geo. Black.L. S. R. Morin	L. S. R. Morin....	L. S. R. Morin....	L. S. R. Morin	
Chas. Marcil	Public Accounts	
Banking and Commerce	
Agriculture and Colonization..	S. W. Jacobs	
F. W. Hay	
W. F. Kay	S. W. Jacobs	
F. W. Hay	
W. F. Kay	S. W. Jacobs	
F. W. Hay	
W. F. Kay	S. W. Jacobs	
F. W. Hay	
W. F. Kav	
Wm. Duff	Mines, Forests and Waters	
Industrial and International relations	
On Debates	E. A. Lapierre.... C. R. McIntosh... E. J. Young	
W. T. Goodison... Hon. R. Lemieux. Hon. R. Lemieux.	E. A. Lapierre- C. R. McIntosh... E. J. Young	
W. T. Goodison... Hon. R. Lemieux. Hon. R. Lemieux.	E. A. Lapierre	
C. R. McIntosh... E. J. Young	E. A. Lapierre- C. R. McIntosh...	
Hon. R. Lemieux. Hon. R. Lemieux.	Hon. R. Lemieux. Hon. R. Lemieux.


CANADIAN NATIONAL STEAMSHIPS
Mr. NICHOLSON:: In the 12th annual report, Canadian National Steamships, dated March 25, 1931, at page 7, there is shown in the capital liabilities, 6,609 issued shares of $100 each; also at page 19 of the same report covering Canadian National West Indies Steamships Limited, there is shown capital stock authorized and issued, 400 shares at $100 each.
Have these shares been sold to the public or are they held by:	(a) the Canadian government; (b) the Canadian National Railway Company ?


Mr. MANION:: On page 7 of the annual report of the Canadian National Steamships (Canadian
Government Merchant Marine Limited) 12th annual report, the capital stock outstanding is shown as 3,013 shares, 3,000 of which are held by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Canadian government and the balance, namely, 13 shares, representing directors' qualifying shares, are held by the Canadian National Railway Company. The difference between 6,609 and the 3,013 shares is represented by 3,596 shares which have been cancelled, as shown on page 7 of the said report.
The 400 shares of the Canadian. National (West Indies) Steamships Limited, shown as issued on page 19 of the same annual report, are held by the Minister of Finance on behalf of the Canadian government.
Questions


PAYMENTS TO COKING PLANTS
Mr. CANTLEY:: What amounts were claimed by and paid to coking plants during the years 1928, 1929 and 1930 under the provisions of the Domestic Fuel Act, chapter 52 (1927)?


Mr. GORDON:: Calendar	Amounts	Amountsyears	claimed	paid1928	
nil	nil1929	$6,202 61 nil1930	
5,050 00 $6,202 61
Payment has not yet been made of the amount of $5,050 recommended for the year 1930.


EXPERIMENTAL SHIPMENTS OF CATTLE
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	At what time last fall wras the experimental shipment of cattle to Great Britain made by the Canadian Department of Agriculture ?	_
2.	Were there prior shipments in 1930 to this experimental one made by Canadian live stock cooperatives or other shippers?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	November 1, 1930.
2.	Yes.


STOCKER AND FEEDER CATTLE SHIPMENTS
Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	When was the embargo against Canadian stocker and feeder cattle removed by the British government?
2.	When did the shipments of Canadian stockers and feeders begin thereafter?
3.	By whom was the first shipment of stockers and feeders made, and by whom was such shipment supervised on arrival abroad?
4.	How many cattle were shipped each year from Canada to Great Britain between the years 1923-1930 inclusive?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	April 1, 1923.
2.	March 20, 1923.
3.	Harris Abattoir for self; H. P. Kennedy Co. for United Grain Growers. Supervised on arrival by Hon. Duncan Marshall.
4.	Canadian cattle exports to Great Britain, 1923-1930 inclusive:
1923		 57,672
1924		 79,435
1925		110,868
1926		 79,985
1927		 8,263
1928		 405
1929		 nil
1930	 5,400


TRENT CANAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Were two carpenters employed on the Trent canal at Peterborough in the fall and 
winter of 1930 and two ex-service carpenters with families dependent on them, dismissed, to make way for the men recommended?
2.	Are the two carpenters who have not seen war service still employed on the Trent canal staff at Peterborough?
3.	Are the ex-service carpenters who were dismissed, still out of work and obtaining unemployment relief?
4.	Upon whose recommendation were the two ex-service carpenters dismissed?
5.	Upon whose recommendation were the two carpenters without service engaged?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No carpenters were dismissed to make way for men recommended. Last fall eight extra carpenters were employed for special jobs:-Building cribs, work since completed; building dredge hull, work since completed; building scow, work about completed; placing two new guard gates, work since completed; repairs to two houses, work since completed. Five of the eight carpenters were returned soldiers. One of the civilians was the captain of one of our dredges who was employed at a near equivalent of his summer rate. He was entitled to half pay during winter but preferred working to lying idle, consequently a saving of $68.35 per month was affected by his employment.
Another of the civilians employed on the guard gates, was employed in the winter of 1929-30 at the same class of work and was re-employed, with the consent of the local member, to take charge of similar work because of his experience.
The other civilian employed on building the dredge hull was the only experienced ship carpenter known in Peterborough and was employed on that account.
As these works were completed or neared completion the service of so many carpenters were not required.
2.	Carpenters now employed at Peterborough:- Regu]argtaff
1 Carpenter foreman ship construction, civilian; 1 carpenter ship construction, civilian.
Special staff
1 Carpenter, returned soldier; 1 carpenter foreman, civilian. Consequently, of the special men employed last fall, one returned soldier and one civilian remain employed until work in hand is completed.
3.	No ex-service carpenters dismissed. Cannot answer as to unemployment relief. Their employment throughout the winter by the department would hardly justify such application.
4.	No ex-service carpenters dismissed.
5.	All carpenters employed on recommendation of local member.

Questions


ALWICK RESERVE INDIAN AGENT
Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: 1.	Has the Indian agent at the Alwick reserve in Northumberland county been dismissed?
2.	If so, when, and for what reasons?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.


CATTLE SHIPMENT TO CREAT BRITAIN
Mr. SWANSTON:: 1.	What number of cattle were shipped to Great Britain from Canada in 1928, and on what dates?
2.	What number of cattle were shipped to Great Britain from Canada in 1929, and on what dates?
3.	What was the date of first shipment of cattle to Great Britain from Canada in 1930?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1 and 2. (a) Amount paid by the Federal
contained in the Russell House block.
4.	What was the total number of cattle shipped in 1930?
5.	What number of cattle were shipped to date in 1931?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	.Tune 14th, 304; July 6th, 101. Total, 405.
2.	None.
3.	August 20th, 1930.
4.	5,400.
5.	2,587.


PURCHASE OP OTTAWA PROPERTIES
Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	What amount of money was paid by the government of Canada for the following individual properties in the city of Ottawa: Russell Hotel Company, the Egan Estate, W. J. Irvine, Ottawa Electric Company, the Bangs Estate and the Matthewman Estate?
2.	What money, if any, was paid in each case for the realty, or for the disturbance of business?
Commission for purchase of properties
Properties-
Russell House and theatre:
Paid as per agreement dated July 5, 1928	
Interest	
C.	Mitchell Estate:
Paid as per agreement dated June 20, 1928.. .. Interest	
D.	J. McDougal Estate:
Paid as per agreement dated June 15, 1928.. .. Interest


SI,125,000 00 27,140 88 75,000 00 1,478 40 22,000 00 1,759 87
[Stage Direction]
§1,152,140 88
76,478 40 23,759 87
Compensation-
A. J. Ladas:
Paid	,	
Less-held for demolition contractors in settlement of claim for Ladas having taken fixtures from building	
§1,252,379 15
18,000	00
100	00
Interest
17,900 00 551 86
18,451 86
I. L. Cohen, tenant	 220 00
[Stage Direction]
	18,671	86
Valuation expenses	
14.425	00Legal expenses	
9,887	87Taxes	
10,806	07Sundry expenses	
1,322	96

[Stage Direction]
Less-Receipts from insurance policy in adjustment re fire	 13,498 90
Net cost	 $1,293,994 01
1S18
Questions
[Stage Direction]
1.	(b) Egan Estate, S250,000; (e) W. J. Irvine,
$68,753.63;	(d) Ottawa Electric Company,
$209,153;	(e) Bangs Estate, $325,344.03;
(f) Mattbewman Estate, $215,710.32.
2.	Ob) to (f) No separate amount was paid to any of the above owners for disturbance of business,

George Brecken Nicholson: In the Drayton-Acworth report, sessional papers, 1917, volume 12, at page 25 there is set out a list of securities of the Grand Trunk Pacific Railway Company, guaranteed by the Grand Trunk Railway Company but not guaranteed by the government of Canada. The list
is as follows:-
Per
cent
4 Series A prairie division.. .. $10,206,000 4 Series 4 mountain division.. .	9,963,000
4 Lake Superior division.. ..	7,533,000
4	Perpetual debentures	
34,879,2525	Secured notes, secured bypledges of 4 per cent debentures	
9,720,000Total	$72,301,2521.	Has the Canadian National Railway assumed responsibility for principal and interest on any or all of these securities?2.	(a) At what date and under what statutory- or other authority was such responsibility accepted; (b) under what terms and in what amount in relation to each issue?3.	Do these securities form part of the longterm funded debt as set out at page 15 of the Canadian National Railways balance sheet for 1930?4.	By what net amount do these securities increase such a long-term funded debt?5.	Is it the intention of the executive of the Canadian National Railw-ays to accept responsibility for whatever portion of such securities is are still outstanding?
M:. MANION:
1. It has as to the first three amounts mentioned. The Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada guaranteed the interest on the fourth item to the extent only that the gross earnings of the Grand Trunk Railway should show a surplus available for the purpose after deducting certain preferential payments, such as all working expenses of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada, all interest and other moneys pay-able by said Grand Trunk Railway on their loan capital, bonds or liabilities. These debentures were exchanged in 1927 for Canadian National Railway Company 2 per cent debenture stock guaranteed by the Dominion of Canada.
The $9,720,000 of 5 peT cent secured notes matured on March 2nd, 1921, and were re-

tired from advances made by the Dominion government under vote 126, 1921.
2.	(a) The Canadian National Railway Company are successors by amalgamation to the Grand Trunk Railway Company- of Canada and under such amalgamation they assumed all of the liabilities and obligations of the Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada. The amalgamation was made under agreement dated January 30, 1923, which agreement was confirmed by order in council P.C. 181, dated January 30, 1923. The authority for assuming the liabilities and obligations was by virtue of the said agreement which was made in accordance with and subject to the provisions of sections 152 and 153 of The Railway Act, 1919.
(b) Answered by Nos. 1 and 2 (a).
3.	Yes, with the exception of the 5 per cent notes in the amount of $9,720,000 which were redeemed in 1921. The amount of the 4 per cent perpetual debentures, now the 2 per cent guaranteed debenture stock, has, however, been reduced to $30,559,114, as shown on page 28 of the annual report, this reduction being made by means of a sinking fund as provided for under an agreement with the debenture holders at the time these securities were exchanged.
4.	The amount of these securities that are now in the hands of the public is $58,261,114, and same is included in the total amount of long-term funded debt as shown on page 15 of the annual report.
5.	The Canadian National Railway Company, as stated in answer to question 2 (a), are responsible for the liabilities and obligations of the former Grand Trunk Railway Company of Canada.


TRENT CANAL EMPLOYEES
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Did Superintendent Killaly ascertain that the ex-service men, who were not reengaged in seasonable employment in 1931 on the Trent canal, were inefficient, if so, when?
2.	When did he notify these men that they were inefficient?
3.	When did he report them as inefficient?
4.	In what way were they inefficient?


Mr. MANION:: 1. Yes. In that connection Superintendent Killaly reports: "Services of men not reemployed were known to be unsatisfactory for some years. The fact that they were returned soldiers created sympathy for them resulting in their being retained. They have been reasoned with, appealed to, ordered and threatened with dismissal by myself and other officials on many occasions but all to no effect."

Questions as Orders for Returns
2.	On many occasions in past years.
3.	Not required to report unsatisfactory service of fabourers to department.
4.	Did not give reasonable service. Loafing until superior officer appeared on work.


FEDERAL LEGAL STAFF IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. REID:: 1.	What are the names of the lawyers retained by the Department of Justice or any other department of the government since September of last year, having their offices in the city of Vancouver and the federal district of Now Westminster, up to the present time?
2.	What amounts have been paid for such services, and to whom were said amounts paid?
3.	Were all legal accounts properly taxed and by whom?
4.	What amounts are still owing to these lawyers ?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	A. Alexander, Vancouver, B.C.; C. G. Beeston, Vancouver, B.C.; Burns & AValkem, Vancouver, B.C.; Burton & Hodgson, Vancouver, B.C.; Collins & Green, Vancouver, B.C.; Cowan & Cowan, Vancouver, B.C.; Craig, Ladner & Co., Vancouver, B.C.; E. P. Davis, Vancouver, B.C.; W. S. Deacon, Vancouver, B.C.; L. C. Ford, Vancouver, B.C.;
A.	M. Harper, Vancouver, B.C.; Harris, Bull & Mason, Vancouver, B.C.; R. Rowe Holland, Vancouver, B.C.; R. S. Lennie, Vancouver,
B.	C.; Lucas & Lucas, Vancouver, B.C.; McNeill, Pratt & Co., Vancouver, B.C.; Mc-Phillips, Duncan & McPhillips, Vancouver, B.C.; AV. G. McQuarrie, Vancouver. B.C.; R. L. Maitland, Vancouver, B.C.; A. H. Mac-Neill, Vancouver, B.C.; C. M. O'Brian, Vancouver, B.C.; P. E. Pierce, Vancouver, B.C.; Reid, Wallbridge & Gibson, Vancouver, B.C.; T. Todrick, Vancouver, B.C.; Charles White, Vancouver, B.C.; Whiteside, Wilson & White, Vancouver, B.C.; A. D. Wilson, Vancouver, B.C.; W. G. McQuarrie, New Westminster.
2,	3 and 4. Payments are made by the various departments concerned after taxation by the Department of Justice.


HON. RODOLPIIE LEMIEUX
Mr. LAFLECHE:: 1.	AVas the Honourable Rodolphe Lemieux, during his term of office as Speaker, authorized to use the automobile belonging to the state for the use of liis family?
2.	AVas he authorized to employ a chauffeur paid by the state?
3.	Were the servants of his private dwelling paid by the state?
4.	If so, what amount was paid to them?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1. No. Mr. Lemieux used an automobile which he purchased himself.
2.	Yes. A member of the House of Commons staff acted as his chauffeur when required.
3.	Yes.
4.	$33,430.18 during Mr. Lemieux' term of office, 8i years.


BULL LOANING POLICY
Mr. BUCKLEY:: 1.	How many applications in respect of the hull loaning policy of the Live Stock branch of the Department of Agriculture have been received by the department, and from whom?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the parties whose applications were accepted?
3.	What are the names and addresses of the parties whose applications were not accepted?
4.	Why were said applications not acceptable to the department?
5.	Will the department accept applications now, and if not, why not?


Mr.   AVEIR@Melfort: With regard to the fourth question, it would take weeks to prepare the answer. If there is any special information which the hon. gentleman requires in that connection I shall be very glad to get it for him, but the department would like to be relieved of giving a full answer to this question on account of the labour involved; and only for that reason. I would ask that the question stand as an order for return.


Mr. BUCKLEY:: That will be quite acceptable.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Stand as an order for
return.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. TETRAULT:: 1.	Have indemnities been paid by the federal government for slaughtered animals in the province of Quebec under the system of accredited herds since 1920, inclusive?
2.	How many animals were slaughtered under the accredited herd scheme, by counties, and what is the amount of indemnities paid in each county?
3.	How many head of cattle have been slaughtered in the province of Quebec, under the supervision of the federal government, without indemnities being paid, and how many in each county?
4.	How many of said animals were aged one year and over ?


ACCREDITED HERD SCHEME
Mr. TETRAULT:: 1.	Were animals, in the province of Quebec, tested and slaughtered under the supervision of the federal government, since the establishment of the accredited herd scheme, without any indemnity being paid?
2.	If so, how many in each county?
3.	What ages were the said animals?
Labour Conference


TESTING OF CATTLE
Mr. TETRAULT:: 1.	Does the federal government make free tests, without indemnity, of herds outside of reserve zone and not entered under the accredited herd scheme?
2.	If so, since whatt date?
3.	How many farmers in the province of Quebec have taken advantage of saiid tests during the years 1929 and 1930?
4.	How many of said farmers have applied to date and are waiting test?
5.	What are the details by counties?


BULL LOANING POLICY
Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: 1.	How many bulls have been bought for distribution under the bull loaning policy of the Minister of Agriculture between the first day of September, 1930, and the 15th day of May, 1931?
2.	From whom were these bulls purchased?
3.	What were the individual prices paid?
4.	What were the breeds of the bulls purchased ?
5.	Where and in whose keeping have these bulls been placed?



HUDSON BAY INSURANCE RATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: May I be permitted to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) whether or not he has a statement to make to the house with regard to his efforts to secure fair and equitable marine insurance rates for the port of Churchill, Manitoba.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member implied, the department has been working on this question for a long time- in fact ever since we came into power. However this is a question beyond the control of the department. Insurance rates are largely within the control of the imperial shipping committee which the other day gave out a ruling. I must confess that the ruling is rather indicative of high rates from Churchill. May I add that we are working on the matter and shall continue to do so in an endeavour to secure a more suitable rate.



INTERNATIONAL LABOUR CONFERENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: May I ask the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gorlon), who is acting for the Minister of Labour (Senator Robertson), for some information? He promised to give me information as to who will be the delegates and advisers of Canada at the International Labour conference to be held this month.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, the delegates to
the International Labour conference of the League of Nations will be H. W. Macdonnell, secretary of the industrial relations committee of the Canadian Manufacturers Association; Mr. P. M. Draper, secretary-treasurer of the Trades and Labour Congress of Canada, a3 delegate appointed by the Trades and Labour Congress. There will be the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, High Commissioner for Canada in London and Doctor W. A. Riddell, Canadian advisory officer of the League of Nations at Geneva. There will be no advisers to the representatives.


Ernest Lapointe: In view of that answer may I say that when an opportunity presents itself I shall take occasion to protest against that representation.



DOMINION CENSUS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: I would like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) if any instructions have been issued to the census commissioners to employ returned soldiers where possible?


Hon. H. H. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Such instructions were originally given and were reiterated recently.


Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South):: But those instructions were not carried out.


Charles Marcil: I have a letter from a returned soldier in the province of Quebec. This gentleman is the father of a family of several children, but his application has been rejected.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I would like to receive further information in that connection.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Probably he is not a Tory.


Henry Herbert Stevens: I am afraid the hon. member has an evil mind.



SUPPLY-GRAIN RATES AMENDMENT TO MOTION OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bennett for committee of supply and the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Reid.
Mr. ERRICK F. WILLIS (Souris): Mr. Speaker, the debate on the amendment to

Grain Rates-Mr. Willis
go into supply has furnished the house with many important facts regarding freight rates in western Canada. In particular I wish to congratulate the hon. member for Macdonald (Mr. Weir) upon placing on Hansard various freight schedules. It seems to me however that as the matter is now under appeal to the privy council, and as the Prime Minister has agreed that he will press the appeal as early as possible, the hon. member who has moved the amendment should withdraw it. I say the amendment should be withdrawn because it is of vital importance that this problem should not become a political football. Like other western members of the house I am interested in securing lower freight rates for western Canada. At the same time however I am also interested in securing a market for western barley. It is because of my interest in the market for barley that I have risen to my feet at this time. During the debate the statement has been made that the poultry men of British Columbia cannot use western barley because of the prohibitive freight rates. I say that such is not the case, nor is it the real reason. I make that statement because I have under my hand statistics to show that in the Fraser valley of British Columbia and in Vancouver barley can be purchased more cheaply than corn. Of course, in addition, those rates also apply to wheat. I say that the poultry men of British Columbia still have an opportunity of feeding barley instead of corn. The figures in this connection are these:
Prices of barley and corn for domestic use, Vancouver, May 18, 1931
Barley, No. 3 C.W., bulk, Vancouver and Fraser valley points, $20 per ton.
Corn, Argentine (No. 2 or better), bulk car-lots, Vancouver, $25 per ton; Fraser valley points, $27 per ton.
Corn, American, quotations delivery 10 days, Vancouver and Fraser valley points, $26 per ton.
These figures show that wherever corn is being fed in the province of British Columbia the poultry men of that province could save 20 per cent of their cost by feeding barley.
An hon. MEMBER:: The hens will not eat barley.


Mr. WILLIS:: An hon. member has interrupted me by saying that the hens will not eat barley. The answer to that statement is that the agricultural experts of Canada are either experts or they are not. Through these experts experiments have been made in the provincial agricultural colleges of Canada, and through the Department of Agriculture for the Dominion which show that the two grains are practically inter-
22110- 116
changeable. That is to say, for poultry purposes barley may be fed as well as corn. I say these men either are experts or they are not. Their judgment,should be accepted or they should no longer be classed as experts of the Department of Agriculture. The argument may be used that the barley which is available in British Columbia is the product of that province. Such is not the case. In the year 1930 the province of British Columbia produced only 295,000 bushels of barley. In the province there are 22,800 farms whereon among other things, 64,700 swine are being fed. Hon. members will readily see that the supply of barley would last for only a few days. I am informed by the agent of the Dominion seed branch at Vancouver that the barley available in British Columbia is practically all western barley. Again, the seed branch of the Department of Agriculture is right or it is wrong. I say that the correct reason as to why the British Columbia poultrymen are not feeding western barley has not been given. If hon. members wished to go further in the matter of poultry feeding they might turn to pamphlet No. 128, new series, Department of Agriculture, which gives the general conclusion that barley is interchangeable with com. The statement has been made also that eastern Canada cannot feed barley because it is too dirty. May I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that in Toronto the spread in price between barley and corn is 25 cents, and there are at the lake head at the present time 8,000,000 bushels of barley. If barley is dirty it can be cleaned for about 2 cents a bushel. It is available in Toronto for the use of poultrymen, swine feeders and live stock feeders at a saving of 23 cents a bushel as against corn. That is the saving which could be made by feeding barley instead of corn. During the last year there were brought into British Columbia 520,000 bushels of corn, the large part of which was fed to poultry. In my opinion, by a tariff that com should be made less available, and then they would have to feed western barley. The real reason behind the fact that the poultrymen of British Columbia do not feed barley is not a question of freight rates; the tree reason is that these men who feed corn will not change the diet of their pet hens. If we are going to work together in this country they must feed barley. The reason they are not doing so at this time is that they do not agree with conclusions arrived at by the Department of Agriculture. They do not believe the experts in that department, those experts who in the past have done so much to help them. That is the real reason, and I



Grain Rales-Mr. Campbell
say the time has arrived when the poultry-men of this country must come to the point of view of considering those Canadians in the middle west wljo are trying to make a livelihood by raising barley, rather than considering the dietetic eccentricities of any hen that ever laid eggs.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) made some statements with regard to export freight rates that I do not care to let go unchallenged. The hon. member expressed the opinion that export rates were, in effect, subsidized rates, that domestic business had to carry the whole burden not only of its own logical rates but the loss on export business. If this were so of course it would mean that the country as a whole is subsidizing export business. I do not agree with that view. It may be true of some commodity rates, but with respect to the particular rates that are under consideration-grain rates-I submit that the figures certainly prove the very opposite. I do not blame the hon. member or anyone else for holding such views, because the railway officials have for years past spent a great deal of time getting out propaganda to convince people that some of these commodity rates, such as the Crows-nest pass rates on grain, were a loss to the railway company. For instance, when testifying before the special railways committee in 1922, Mr. Beatty, of the Canadian Pacific Railway, predicted that if the Crowsnest pass rates were permitted to come into effect that year it would mean the Canadian Pacific Railway would fall short by $15,000,000 of paying its fixed charges and dividends. But what was the actual result? The Crowsnest pass rates did come into effect that year, and we find that the Canadian Pacific Railway, instead of being in the financial position predicted by Mr. Beatty, not only paid its fixed charges and dividends, but had a larger surplus than it had the previous year. Mr. D. B. Hanna, testifying for the Canadian National Railways, made a similar statement, and predicted that the operating deficit on the Canadian National system that year would be not less than $26,000,000.


Mr. McGIBBON:: Was that with respect
to the whole system or just the western part?


Milton Neil Campbell: The whole system. Of course, that was only the predicted operating deficit; he did not take into account the fixed charges. I find that that year, instead of the deficit being, as he predicted, $26,000,000, it was considerably less than in the previous year $15,000,000.

In this connection I might quote some figures published by the Canadian Pacific Railway with regard to their net earnings, which would seem to disprove the statement that the Crowsnest pass rates are losing rates to the railways. Let me take first the figures for 1924. In the first four months of that year, January, February, March and April, the net earnings on the Canadian Pacific system were a little over $5,000,000; for the second four months they rose to $9,000,000. Now, in those eight months there is a minimum of grain handled. But take the last four months, that is, September, October, November and December, the months in which the great bulk of the grain crop is handled, the months in which grain as a commodity furnishes a very much heavier percentage of the total traffic than it does in the other months of the year, and we find that for those four months the net earnings rose to the huge total of $22,000,000. Taking 1925, the net earnings for the first four months were $4,980,000; for the second four months $10,000,000; for the third four months -the very period in which according to the predictions made by these railway officials they ought to have had a heavy loss, the net earnings showed the enormous total of $26,000,000. Surely, sir, if these figures mean anything at all they mean that the grain crop handled under the Crowsnest pass rate is a profitable commodity to the railway. In 1923 I find that the total net earnings of the Canadian Pacific Railway were $23,000,000, but the last four months accounted for $20,000,000 of the total, that is, the greater proportion was earned in the last four months. The Canadian National Railways show figures very similar. For 1924 the net revenue was $11,197,000, and almost all of this was earned in the four months in which grain was the largest part of the traffic.
Now let me take the operating ratio of the Canadian Pacific Railway. The operating ratio, I may explain, is the number of cents that a railway must spend to earn a dollar. In 1921, the last year in which the old grain rates were in effect, the operating ratio was 82.28; that is, the Canadian Pacific Railway had to spend 82.28 cents to earn a dollar. In 1922, the year that the Crowsnest pass rates came into effect, and the year in which Mr. Beatty had predicted the enormous loss to which I have referred, the operating ratio dropped to 80.55 cents; that is, it cost the Canadian Pacific Railway less to earn^ a dollar that year than it did in the preceding year.
In testifying before this same committee in 1922, Mr. D. B. Hanna stated that the

Grain Rates-Mr. Campbell
Canadian Northern Railway had always paid its way when it was operated as a western railway, and 1915, the year it was linked up with the eastern section, was the first year it has shown a loss. On the western section of the railway grain is by far the largest part of the traffic, and naturally if grain was handled at a loss the figures would be altogether different.
Let me take some further Canadian Pacific Railway figures as published by the company. These show that for the five-year period, from 1007 to 1011 inclusive, the system produced net earnings on the eastern section of $44,500,000, and on the western section $91,500,000. In the next five year period, 1912 to 1916 inclusive, the eastern section showed net earnings of $70,000,000 while the western section showed net earnings of $144,000,000. This again would certainly seem to indicate that grain is not handled at a loss.
Now I am going to touch another angle of this question. It seems to me that the passenger service is one of the services of both railways on which there is a heavy loss, and this ought to be given more consideration than has been given to it up to the present time. It is difficult usually to secure figures of the relative passenger and freight earnings. It is only when a rate case is being heard by the railway commission or by the courts that the railway companies produce figures that throw some light on this particular question. In 1922 the Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway did produce such figures before the railway commission. Those figures showed that for that year the freight service on the Canadian National Railways produced a net operating surplus of $20,000,000, while the passenger service resulted in an operating deficit of $8,500,000. That, is, the railway company had to dip into the money earned by the carriage of grain, cattle, coal, lumber and other commodities, and take out $8,500,000 to pay the loss on the passenger service. In the same year even the Canadian Pacific Railway, efficiently managed though it may be and built as one unit from the very beginning, operating under the most favourable conditions, showed an operating deficit on the passenger service. These figures do not take into account at all the enormous investment in the passenger equipment of both railways. If these figures could be secured, they would show an enormous loss on the .part of the passenger services, and it seems to me something could be done and in fact something must be done to cut down the cost of passenger service.
I know people will complain when a train service is reduced, but the time has come
22X10-116i
when they will have to be allowed to complain. I think the duplication between the two great roads is almost a national disgrace. We have luxurious trains going across this continent every day; there are two of them leaving Winnipeg almost at the same time, and between Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal we find a tremendous amount of unnecessary duplication. Go through those trains to-day and you will find that in many cases not more than twentydive per cent of the space is occupied. It seems to me the time has come when the government will have to talk business not only with their own railway but to the Canadian Pacific Railway as well, and show them that there must be some reduction in the duplication of these services. In that way it seems to me some relief may be given in the matter of freight rates.
Let us consider the question of the Canadian National hotels, which are linked up with the passenger service. We are told it is necessary for the Canadian National Railways to spend millions of dollars in building hotels in order to hold the passenger gervice. If the passenger service is being carried on at a loss, why need we spend this money to bolster up that losing service? Look at the enormous amount of money which has been spent during the last few years by the Canadian National management. It is a national disgrace. Four million dollars was spent in Saskatoon, in my own province. Perhaps the hon. member for Saskatoon might not agree with me, but I say it was a totally unnecessary expenditure, even though it was spent in my own province. That is one of the things saddled on our freight service, with which we must deal one of these days in order properly to reduce freight rates.
But perhaps I am getting away from the subject matter of the resolution before the house. ^ The question of the disparity between domestic and export freight rates on grain is one that is exercising public opinion to a great extent in western Canada to-day, and it should be exercising opinion in eastern Canada as well, because after all the eastern farmer is paying the bill. While we are losing our market for a large quantity of our coarse grains, the eastern farmer is paying very much more than he should pay for his hog feed and chicken feed. There have been so many figures placed on the record during this debate already that I do not propose to cover the ground again, but I will just quote a few figures to show the extent to which this disparity exists. The. freight rate from Saskatoon to Liverpool to-day is about 62 cents per hundredweight on grain, while from Saska-
Grain Rates-Mr. Reid

toon, to Sherbrooke, Quebec, it is 70i cents. From Saskatoon to Truro, Nova Scotia, the rate is 74 cents; to Guelph, Ontario, it is 65i cents. Now take the figures via Vancouver. From Saskatoon to Liverpool via Vancouver and the Panama canal the average rate is 57 cents, but the export part of that rail rate is only 24 cents, whereas to ship grain to Langley, British Columbia, just a few miles from Vancouver, costs 50i cents.
This is a matter which, it seems to me, must engage the attention of parliament to some extent. Of course since it is now sub judice, so to speak, perhaps we are not in a position to deal with it here, but I do believe the debate has served a useful purpose in giving to the public information which they should have in connection with, this all-important question.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has pointed out that if I press the question to a vote it will defeat my object; in view of the fact that he has given the assurance that he is seized of the importance of the matter, and that as soon as possible it will receive attention, I ask permission of the house to withdraw the amendment. In doing so I assure hon. members that I brought this matter before the house in the utmost sincerity on behalf of the farmers of British Columbia.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: By unanimous consent
leave is granted and the amendment is withdrawn.
Amendment withdrawn.



SUPPLY-(DEPARTMENT OF MARINE

Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I presume I will be in order now in discussing the main motion. As we are going into supply to discuss, among other things, the estimates of the Department of Marine, I wish to draw the attention of the house and the government to a matter of importance. I am sorry the Prime Minister is not in his place, because it was to him I particularly wished to address myself in pointing out the extent to which this department is lending itself to political jobbery.
I am not introducing an amendment to the resolution, expressing want of confidence in the government for the reason that this is largely a matter for the Prime Minister. He cannot be aware of the circumstances which I am going to mention. If after having heard them he takes appropriate aotion to cause justice to be done, then he is not deserving of a vote of want of confidence but rather a

vote of confidence. If on the other hand he ignores the situation and, by clever jugglery of words and phrases, proceeds to minimize it and to support the department in its action, then a vote of want of confidence which would be rejected by a majority of thirty would not particularly affect the situation. I would rather leave it in that way, in his hands, and if he does not see that the justice is done which the conditions as I will represent them, warrant, then the censure of his action will be rather in the form of loss of esteem by the people of Canada generally.
In an ordinary way I would say that the minister in charge of the department could not be held blameworthy, but in one of these cases to which I will more particularly refer, he is unmistakably to blame, because I informed him in writing of the whole circumstances and he never answered my letter, which was written more than a month ago. So far as I know he has done nothing to remedy the situation. I have not attempted to make political capital out of this matter, as I think will be proved by the correspondence I wall presently read; all I ask is that justice be done. As I say, under ordinary conditions, I would not be prepared to blame the minister; he is new to his position and it is generally admitted that he is in charge of a somewhat weak department. I am not here to take advantage of * my parliamentary immunity to slander men in any branch of the service, and I want to say emphatically that there are very many good men in that department who would be only too willing to make a success of their branches and bring the whole department to a creditable standard if they received the least encouragement, or if they even received permission, but it is a well known fact that for years the department has been run under a formula something like this: Change nothing; do nothing; stand still. Ignore the fact that Canada is growing, with ever increasing requirements of service, and above all block anything that savours of progress or of improvement.
That sounds like a strong statement; I wish I had more time and I would demonstrate it to the fullest degree. Take the case the other day, when the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) introduced a bill to amend a few of what he considered the grosser errors in the Canada Shipping Act. I see that the Province somewhat misquoted me by saying that I had expressed the opinion that the bill was obsolete. I was not referring to the hon. member's bill but to the whole act, and I might have added at the same time, with a

Marine Department-Mr. Neill
good deal of truth, that the whole department was obsolete. I am aware that the negotiations that have been going on in Britain for some time past-for the past two or three years or, at the outside, four-have somewhat precluded the idea of our revising the Canada Shipping Act at the present time. But that has been a matter of only two or three years. The fact is that the act has been rotten and obsolete for twenty years, yes, and thirty years. In 1908 or possibly 1911, I am not sure which, but over twenty years ago, somebody woke up in the department and drew up a complete revision of the act, and at that time, I believe, it was a wise and suitable one. I never heard any strenuous objections made to it. But they never got any further than that. That effort cost them so much exertion that they stood pat; and if any member came into the house full of fresh energy, and filled with a consciousness of the absurdity of our shipping act, and asked that action be taken, then the bill would be brought down from the shelf and dusted off, and they would show it as a proof of what they were prepared to do. Yes, they were prepared to do something. But the trouble is they never did anything. There was always some excuse: this man or the other was sick. It was always a case of "manana," as the Mexicans say. Literally it means "to-morrow", but the idiomatic significance of the word is that there are a whole lot of to-morrows-why, therefore, bother about to-day. Well, that is the spirit in which the act has been regarded during the last twenty years, and, as I say, it is still produced to-day to show what the department is prepared to do.
I can give many instances, much nearer the present time than that, to show where there have been neglect, evasion and failure to take action that has been vigorously called for. But what is the use of my wasting the limited time at my disposal? Those who have never had any business with the department are not interested, and to those who have had busines with them I do not need ' to state my case because my words find an echo in their own experience. It is possible that a strong, vigorous and determined man, taking hold of the department, might have reorganized it and made it a credit to the government of Canada. My hon. friend in charge of the department (Mr. Duranleau) sits opposite me, and, I admit, he presents all the appearances of having those characteristics of strength, vigour and determination. But unfortunately, so far as I have been able to find out, he has hitherto devoted all those energies only to making a strong,
vigorous machine of his department, instead of making a strong and vigorous department.
I will cite three cases, the last the worst of them, and I could go on much longer if time permitted. The first is the case of a man named Beattie, who was on a seasonal patrol job on the west coast for three years. I have here certain letters with reference to the matter but I shall read only the pertinent portions of them, for there is no use going into a lot of preliminaries. In November last I wrote to the agent as follows:
Beattie was on for three years running and did splendid work. Was on two years running at Pacheena. He is a returned man.
He applied this season.
Why was he rejected in favour of a nonreturned man?
This is the reply I received:
I regret that I am unable to reply to the query contained in this letter.
In desperation I then took the matter up with the minister himself, to whom I wrote: Dear Sir:	*
A man named Beattie acted as patrolman on the west coast for three years running, and did very good work, which was admitted by all who came in contact with him. He is a returned man.
He applied this season, as usual, and was rejected in favour of a non-returned man. Beattie took no part *whatever in politics.
Why was the preference given to a nonreturned man?
The reply I received from the minister three weeks later was as follows:
Dear Mr. Neill:
Replying to your letter of the 8 th April re Beattie, patrolman, west coast trail, I would point out that these positions are purely of a temporary and seasonal character. They do not continue from year to year, Last winter the Comox-Alberni men were taken from Bamfield.
To deal for a moment with the expression "non-permanent." The positions are non- permanent in that the work lasts only three months each year. But these men are classified, according to the Civil Service Commission, as "permanent seasonal." They are put on year after year. There must be thousands of men in all the departments who maintain their positions year in and year out, doing work regularly, re-appointed in a seasonal capacity. They are in that sense temporary, but it is not the custom to change them every year. If, however, that is to be the practice, how can you expect good service from men who know that their only requisite for employment is to stand in with the political powers of the moment? They know they will be fired the moment their party goes out. How, therefore, can they take an interest

Marine Department-Mr. Neill
in their work? Indeed, they may be fired at the end of the next year, and I submit you cannot expect good work under those circumstances. No reference whatever is made to the fact that this man, a returned man, who had given three years of good and faithful service, particularly good service, was let out and his place taken by a nom-soldier.
The next case is that of a man named Dean, from whom I have a letter and an affidavit. I will read the affidavit, which is explanatory.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: What is the name?


Alan Webster Neill: 0. S. Dean. The affidavit reads:
I	
do declare that in the month of May this year I applied to the coxswain of Bamfield life saving station for appointment to his winter crew. As he had a vacancy he told me I was accepted. I saw the coxswain after the election in September. He told me that if I wanted to go on the crew it would now be necessary to apply to a certain Mr. Braine. I did so, and Mr. Braine said I could not go on the crew on political grounds, that I was associated with the wrong party. I said, "you mean I voted wrong." "Yes! In fact feeling is so strong against the appointment of yourself that the coxswain will be fired if he takes you on."
I took no part in the recent Dominion election except to cast my vote. I am not a member of any political party. I am a war veteran and a reservist.
The affidavit is made in the prescribed form and is sworn to before a notary public. The letter is, of course, largely a repetition of the statements made in the affidavit, and I shall therefore read only that part of it that goes beyond the affidavit:
Next along came the election, of which I took little notice, and I went about my work .... According to the above scheme I am barred from .any government controlled job. I know this is not so, as the Premier of Canada said words to the effect that politics had not to interfere with the services, so that you can bring this specific case to the notice of the powers that be.
I am not writing to ask you to use your influence for me in any way but I am so annoyed at the extraordinary insulting position, that I want to expose the whole thing.
It will be seen that this man was not accused of being an active politician or anything of that kind, because he was not. He was only suspect, that is all. Had I been asked before or during or shortly after the election how the man had voted, I would have said with all sincerity that I did not know. That was the extent of my acquaintance with him or his possible political views. At any rate, it is not denied that he took no part in the election. Yet he, a returned man, was rejected in favour of a non-retumed man.

Now I come to the case of a man named Martin-Cameron, in connection with the life boat service at Tofino. It is the custom in connection with these boats to keep a permanent crew of six men, with an additional crew of four men in winter to look after wrecked vessels, boats that are lost, and so on. I have been familiar with the procedure for nine years and I know that the four winter men are selected by the coxswain. The only time I interfered was when I was approached by the Canadian Legion who accused the coxswain of not hiring a certain man who was a returned soldier. I asked the coxswain why he had not appointed this man and he said he was absolutely no good, and I have since found out that that was the case. I then told the Canadian Legion that they could recommend a man for the position as often as they liked and I would pass him on to the coxswain but there was one sine qua non for the appointment, and that was that the man, either soldier or non-soldier, had to be a capable seaman and pass the O.K. of the man in charge of the boat. I was not going to have on my conscience the responsibility of a shipwreck occurring a distance away, where valuable lives might be at stake, and the only means of help being a life boat -manned by politicians. I insisted that in every case the coxswain must pass finally on the application.
In this particular case a vacancy occurred a few months later and t'he coxswain put on the man recommended by the legion. He lasted only three weeks by which time he proved the bad opinion the coxswain had of him. It has since been discovered that even his claim to being a soldier was false. It happens occasionally that vacancies occur when men leave the permanent service. Late last fall one of the permanent men did leave and this man Martin-Cameron who had had three years' experience on the winter crew, who was a returned soldier and a highly educated man, suitable in every way for the position, applied for it, but a man named Evans was appointed. I wrote to the department in the following words:
I have your letter of this date advising me inter alia that V. Evans of Tofino is a member of the life boat at that place and that he was appointed October 11, 1930, permanently and that he is a returned man.
My information is very definite that he is not a returned man. Further, that Mr. Martin-Cameron a returned man and capable and experienced applied to you for the position and was rejected in favour of Mr. Evans, he not being a returned man but having political influence. I suggest you make strict inquiry into this.

Marine Department-Mr. Neill
I received the following reply:
I beg to advise that it has now been ascertained

After I stirred up the matter:
-that Evans is not a returned man. He was, however, properly recommended for the position and the appointment approved by the department.


Mr. HEAPS:: Who recommended him?


Alan Webster Neill: Ah! The next is a letter
written a little later on by Mr. Martin-Cameron to myself, as follows:
I wrote to Mr. Graham (your late opponent), asked most politely if he would kindly explain how he came to recommend Evans when my application was in first and had three years' previous service besides being a returned man.
1 said I felt that as he had offered himself as a candidate for parliament he would not deliberately act against one who had voted for him and also against the laws of the country unless he had some reason I could not fathom.
And later on in the letter he states:
If any person obtains money under false pretences I believe it is a criminal offence against the laws of the country, and this is what Evans or his friends have done, so that I shall be glad and much obliged if you *null put my ease as I state it before the proper minister at Ottawa. Unless the minister is prepared to compound a felony he has only one course open, that is to cancel Evans' appointment and appoint me in his place.
When Mr. Martin-Cameron states that he voted for Mr. Graham, there are three reasons for my believing that that is the truth. First of all, before the election he said to a friend of mine that he was going to vote against me; after the election he told me quite frankly that he had voted against me, and, furthermore, I know the man and I know his type, and when he says that he voted against me, I believe him. In fulfilment of the request contained in Mr. Martin-Cameron's letter, I took the matter up with the proper minister, as I was in duty bound to do. I wrote to the minister under date of April 15, as follows:
In October last there was a vacancy on the permanent crew of the Clayoquot life boat.
Tofino is the same place. The letter continues :
Mr. T. Martin-Cameron, a local resident, applied for the position in the regular way. He is a returned man, and had the further qualification of having acted on the winter crew of the life boat for three years. I may explain that a small crew is kept on the year round as permanent employees, and in the winter time four extra men are taken on as temporary.
On the recommendation of Mr. Thomas Graham, defeated government candidate, a man named V. Evans was appointed. He was represented as being a returned man.
Mr. V. Evans is not a returned man. Therefore, the position was obtained by misrepresentation and should be cancelled and a
returned soldier, qualified by three years of experience, appointed in his place. Mr. Evans is probably still on probation.
These men are put on probation for six months and it would not be necessary to discharge this man, he could be told that he was not needed. My letter continues:
This is not a case of my trying to help a political supporter, because Mr. T. Martin-Cameron, I have every reason to believe, voted for my opponent; but it is a case of a qualified man wth years of experience, and a returned soldier, being turned down in favour of a man lacking these qualifications. I only ask that you should see justice done in the matter.
I was trying to shield the minister's reputation, and I put this matter up to him privately. I told him that if justice were done nothing would be heard of this matter. However, I did not receive an answer to that letter and, so far as I know, no action was taken. In due course I wrote to Mr. Martin-Cameron, as follows:
Rather than merely make political capital by explaining this matter in the house, which would not do you any particular good, I thought I would try to arrange it privately with the minister, and I wrote a letter to him, copy of which I enclose. You will see it is dated April 15th, and up to date I have received no answer. If that is to be the way, then the only alternative is to bring it up on the floor of the house and expose the deal, but if they would have agreed to do you justice I would not have said a word about it.
Mr. Martin-Cameron's reply reads as follows:
As you say, to have this matter brought up in the house might not do me personally any particular good, but I assure you my circumstances or feelings don't matter twopence as long as it helps in some way to stop or expose the political prostitution and abuse of patronage that seems so rampant in this province and possibly throughout the country.
Apparently he had written again to Mr. Graham, because he enclosed me a copy of the letter he received in reply. I would direct attention to one sentence in Mr. Graham's letter, reading as follows:
I see no reason why I should make any explanation re my actions.
That is the whole trouble with this system of political patronage-power without responsibility. Elections, yes and wars have been won on less popular slogans than that. What made the United States break away from the old country? It was taxation without representation, but is taxation without representation much worse than power without responsibility? I would not have dared to write such a letter to anyone because I am responsible to the people who sent me here. What happened in Comox-Alberni during the elections?

Marine Department-Mr. Neill
Did they elect two men, one to be a member and the other to ibe a tyrant; one man to represent them and the other to tyrannize over them? What is it but tyranny and oppression when the mass of the people have to be ordered and dictated to at the will of one man who acknowledges no responsibility and holds no mandate from the people whatever?
In another part of the district another instance occurred. A returned man, a Conservative all his life, had got a chance of getting a small job on relief work, but the secretary and the president of the local Conservative association laid their heads together and told the powers that be that this man was a Liberal, and one of the two recommended the other and he got the job. The returned man did not get it although he was a Conservative and was well known to be such when the matter was exposed. It is only an instance of the way these things are juggled with when you get power into the hands of irresponsible people, irresponsible in the sense of having no responsibility to the public. There is a body or party being got up in the province of British Columbia to try to do away with just such transactions. Among the evils of the party system which they list is this one:	'
Appointments are not made by the heads of departments but by the patronage committee, a group of supporters who know of nothing and care for nothing but the services the applicant has rendered to the party.
One of the planks in their platform of reform reads as follows:
To use every endeavour to destroy the party system for all time.
Then again we find the Province, a Conservative paper, saying editorially with reference to patronage:
The public is ill served by such a system. There is no stability in it. A man who does not know from year to year whether he is to go on in his job or not, merely at the will of a change of government, cannot be a really good citizen. He becomes a time-server and a pusillanimous fellow of little worth.
That is from the Province, and I say more power to them. Some of our newspapers make a practice of publishing in their daily issues news that appeared in newspapers one hundred years ago, and by a curious coincidence, almost on the date that this transaction I have mentioned occurred, this excerpt from the Observer, of September 26, 1830, was reprinted. The Observer was a well-known British paper, and I commend this excerpt to the consideration of the house:
The Duke of Newcastle has caused notices to be served on all his tenants who voted for

Mr. Serjeant Wilde at the late Newark election-not only those who gave plumpers against him, but those who gave half a vote only to his nominee. The number of persons who will thus be turned out of their houses, many of them perhaps born in them, amount to fifty-one.
In those days it was open voting, and they knew how people voted. To-day it is only hecessary to be a suspect. In those days they turned people out of their houses; today they turn them out of their jobs. 13 there much difference? Have we advanced very much in the last hundred years, after all? That is the curse of our public service. Is the government big enough to end it or is it only going to make excuses and pass it on? A gentleman on the opposite side of the house the other day said that if the government did not do something that he wanted done in his district, they were writing his political epitaph. The idea struck me that a suitable epitaph under these circumstances would be something like this. I would not apply it to the government. I would not say that it was appropriate to the department or to the minister, or even to an individual, but I would suggest that it should be put upon the grave of political patronage. I would suggest a cross of brass, the most brazen of our metals, and this inscription, which I am quite sure would be welcomed [DOT]by every well-thinking man and woman in Canada:
If heaven is pleased when sinners cease to sin,
If hell is pleased when rascals enter in,
If earth is pleased of grafters to be rid,
Then all, all are pleased, for-Patronage is dead.
So let it be.



SUPPLY-MEW BRUNSWICK-'UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

["It being eleven o'clock,\nthis house stands adjourned until to-morrow afternoon at three o'clock."]
Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: There is something which I wish to draw to the attention of the house in connection with the expenditure of unemployment relief moneys in the province of New Brunswick. It will be remembered that last September I strongly opposed the placing under the supervision of provincial governments, especially the government of the province of New Brunswick, the expenditure of the unemployment relief grant that was voted at that session. I am not going to take up the time of the house to-day to repeat what I then said, but I wish to call attention of the hon. member who represents the Minister of Labour in this house to the manner in which this money has been spent in the province of New Brunswick under the supervision of the present provincial government.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Veniot
I shall not enter into any details of the political discrimination that was exercised in certain counties of the province of New Brunswick, beyond pointing out one or two facts which I am in a position at any time to' prove by the production of proper evidence. I wish, however, to call the attention of the house to an investigation that is now going on under a royal commission in the province of New Brunswick into the expenditure of provincial moneys under the Department of Public Works of the province. I refer more especially to the expenditure of moneys on roads and bridges. This investigation was asked for on the floor of the provincial legislature of New Brunswick last session, and a royal commissioner, the deputy attorney general, was appointed to investigate the charges. That investigation is now proceeding. Already five or six road supervisors have come before the commissioner and admitted their guilt in the padding of pay sheets. Some supervisors have admitted their guilt in that respect to the amount of thousands of dollars, others to lesser amounts. I find, Mr. Speaker, that of the five or six supervisors who have openly admitted their guilt, out of the sixteen or twenty who are to be brought before this royal commission, five are men who were employed as supervisors of roads to expend the money voted by this parliament for unemployment relief in the province of New Brunswick, under the supervision of the Department of Public Works of that province. The investigation that is now going on-I want to make this clear-does not touch the expenditure of the 120,000,000. It touches the expenditure of the revenues of the province on ordinary public works such as roads and bridges in the province of New Brunswick. But when I find that five or six supervisors have already admitted their guilt-


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: What have we got to do with that?


Peter John Veniot: You have this to do with it. When I find that five or six supervisors who have already admitted their guilt before the royal commission now sitting in New Brunswick were the same men who were employed last fall and winter in supervising the expenditure of the moneys voted by this parliament for the relief of unemployment in New Brunswick, I think it is time that the Department of Labour took cognizance of the matter.
The other day I asked the hon. gentleman who represents the Minister of Labour whether the department received detailed
accounts from the Department of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick. He replied that the department did not, that they received merely a certificate issued by. the head of the department in the province, or by somebody connected with it, as to the proper expenditure of this money. If five or six supervisors have been guilty of padding pay sheets when they were spending the provincial moneys, there is every reason to suppose that they were equally guilty of padding pay sheets when they were expending money under the supervision of the provincial government, which had been voted by this parliament for the relief of unemployment in the province. However if that, is not sufficient to stir the Department of Labour to demand an investigation into the doings of the Department of Public Works in the province of New Brunswick, I am going to cite still another instance. I have in my possession a certified copy of a statement showing expenditures made on a certain bridge in my own county called the Connell bridge. The bridge is twelve miles from my own residence. The bridge superintendent was a defeated candidate in the provincial elections which took place in the province of New Brunswick on June 19, 1930. I find by the pay sheet in my hand that the superintendent of bridges is given credit for ten hours work per day at the rate of 60 cents an hour, while the workmen under him were working only eight hours a daj>'. If that is not padding a pay sheet, I want to know what it is. I have-


Mr. McDADE:: Why does the hon. member not lay a charge?


Peter John Veniot: I am laying a charge, right now. I am prepared to lay a charge and to put my seat up for it. I am laying the charge right now.


An hon. MEMBER:: Let my hon. friend
lay a charge.


Peter John Veniot: I am laying a charge, right now. I am laying the charge that in this particular case the money expended by the Department of Public Works, of the province of New Brunswick, and money voted by this parliament, was not honestly expended.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whom are you
charging?


Peter John Veniot: The superintendent of
bridges, Mr. Theo. Hackey of Bathurst.


An hon. MEMBER:: Whose appointee is
he?

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Veniot


Peter John Veniot: The appointee of the
provincial government.


An hon. MEMBER:: What has he to do
with us?


Peter John Veniot: He was appointed to spend your money; the money voted by this parliament.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He is a Tory.


Peter John Veniot: I have objected to it. I
have stated that the provincial government should not expend this money, because I have noticed the loose way in which the Department of Public Works of the province of New Brunswick has been administered.


An hon. MEMBER:: What is the charge?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hon. members opposite
do not see anything wrong with it.


Peter John Veniot: I do not wish to take up
more time of the house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Peter John Veniot: I do wish, how'ever, to give a further instance or two of the w*ay in which money was expended, and these instances I can prove. One particular case refers to a certain man in the parish of St. Andre, in the county of Madawaska, who contracted to do some hauling of stone given by him free providing he would ibe paid for the hauling. His offer was accepted. After he had started work it was learned he had not voted the right way in the provincial election, and the supervisor in charge who had been the defeated candidate in the provincial election, ascertained that this man was receiving money from the unemployment fund provided last September was instrumental in having him thrown off the job because he had not voted properly in the provincial election. That is another Charge I make and I can prove it. If the house wants names I can give them.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is an old custom down there, apparently.


Peter John Veniot: It is no worse than the
customs which have prevailed in the province of Ontario. In that province fraud after fraud was proven against a certain government.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. member cannot prove it?


Peter John Veniot: Yes I can. And that is no worse than-


Mr. OOTNAM:: That government has been out of power for thirty years.


Peter John Veniot: No.


Ernest Lapointe: One at a time.


Finlay MacDonald: Stick
to New Brunswick.


Mr. GOTT:: I suggest that the hon. member-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Peter John Veniot: I think I shall have to
send the hon. gentleman across the line to interview another customs officer. Then he might perhaps get better-


Eccles James Gott: Will the hon. member permit
a question?


Peter John Veniot: No.


Eccles James Gott: All right.


Peter John Veniot: Let me give another instance or two. Up to within a year or two ago it was the practice of the Department of Public Works of New Brunswick to forward directly to individuals cheques for work performed by them. I do not know when the change took place whereby cheques were not sent directly to the individual, but were sent to'the supervisor for distribution to the workmen. What happened? In my own town and in my own parish men bad worked and earned money under the Unemployment Relief Act. Three days before Christmas the time for payment came and their cheques were sent for distribution to the two defeated candidates in the provincial elections.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Peter John Veniot: This was Dominion money. Those cheques were not distributed to the men on Christmas eve. At a public conference called in Bathurst to deal with the unemployment situation I asked one of these defeated candidates why the cheques were not distributed. He said they were held back because all the cheques had not come. Those men had to spend Christmas without a dollar to buy anything for their families. That is how the unemployment money was spent in my district. Let me go further.


Mr. SPENCE:: We had better vote.


Peter John Veniot: It is all right for the hon. member to interject, but let me say to him that while he may have had sufficient money in his pocket to buy his Christmas dinner those poor people had not one cent. Not only were the cheques held up by the defeated candidates but they were handed to merchants in the town of Bathurst to some of whom moneys were owing by the workmen. Money due two years back was kept out of their cheques, and their families were left without a cent.

Unemployment Relief-Mr. Smith (Victoria)


An hon. MEMBER:: Were they postmasters?


Peter John Veniot: They were not postmasters, and they were not ex-postmasters. In the lower end of the county of Gloucester some ex-postmasters may have been treated in that way since the present government has come into power. Their heads are being cut off right and left. Now, I wish to go one step , farther.


An hon. MEMBER:: Fire another shot.


Peter John Veniot: Let me go one step further. Let me relate another harrowing case. I cite the case of a man who was to receive $9.90 under the Unemployment Relief Act. He was a poor man and had only one arm. At home his wife and child were sick in bed. Although his cheque came, it went to the supervisor. The supervisor called him in and said, "Your cheque for S9.90 is here." The man replied, "I am glad to get it; you know about the state of affairs at my home; I am glad to get it." "No," the supervisor said, "you cannot get this cheque. You owe $14.35 to the agricultural society for two years and you will not get the cheque." That cheque he never got. They threatened to gaol him for the amount, and he had to go out and borrow the difference between $9.90 and $14.35 and pay it over to the supervisor. He had not a dollar left. Next day his wife and child were both dead ajid he had to borrow money to bury them. That is the way this money has been spent to relieve unemployment.


George Manning McDade: What did you ever do to relieve unemployment?


Peter John Veniot: I never did anything like that. One thing is certain, if I did undertake to do anything for unemployment I would so surround it with safeguards that a poor man would not be robbed.


George Manning McDade: While you were in power you did not do anything.


Peter John Veniot: No poor man ever came to my door to be turned away with a harsh word. I do not know whether I can say as much for the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. MeDade). He seems to be very much touched by the story I am relating. Right in his own county the cheques were never sent to the men who worked on the Tabusentac hill; they were sent to the supervisors and distributed among the merchants.


George Manning McDade: Not at all.


Peter John Veniot: I make that statement and the hon. gentleman cannot deny it.


An hon. MEMBER:: The human heart is touched.


Peter John Veniot: I do not think there is any human heart at all in the distribution of this money. I am going to appeal to the acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) to obtain from the Department of Public Works of New Brunswick certified paysheets such as the one I hold in my hand, so that the matter may be looked into . I will give him the names on the paysheets I want, and I ask him to obtain those sheets. Further, when they are obtained I want a special investigation, based on the charges I make with respect to the paysheet I hold in my hand now. This is no hearsay. I know what I am talking about. Besides this paysheet showing this man working for ten hours a day at 60 cents an hour while the men only worked eight hours a day on the bridge according to the paysheet, that paysheet shows this superintendent employed for every day the men worked, and I can prove he was not on the work every day. Is that charge definite enough? Surely it ought to be. When I ask for an investigation I do not want any investigation held in the haphazard way that investigations are now being held in the province of New Brunswick. Into the charges I make I want an investigation held by a judge of a county or superior court, who can hear both sides and before whom we can have the parties represented by lawyers. I do not want the investigation held by a partisan commissioner. I make these charges and I am prepared to stand by them on the one condition-that a judge of a county or superior court shall be appointed to hold the investigation.


Mr. B. F. SMITH (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, had it not been for some of the references which have been made by my hon, friend the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) I would not have said a word to prolong the discussion, but I think it only fair on behalf of the Minister of Public Works in the Neiw Brunswick government and the other officials of his department who are and have been conducting the work, that something at least should be said in their defence. I am inclined to think, however, that it would have been advisable to have left the whole question in abeyance until some report had been received from the royal commission that is now making an investigation. Until that report is received by the people of New Brunswick I am thoroughly satisfied that it would have been much better to have left this question entirely alone. On behalf of the Minister of Public Works of
1832	COMMONS
Unemployment-Mr. Smith (Victoria)
New Brunswick I do want to say that when the report is made to the provincial government I am fully satisfied that if it be found that any persons have been found guilty of taking funds out of the exchequer of the province, or of receiving moneys unfairly or unjustly, not only will they be asked to make restitution but they will be prosecuted according to law. I am also satisfied that no one should attempt to defend any person who has unjustifiably appropriated public funds, and I am convinced that no member of the present provincial government in New Brunswick has been charged with one single act such as my hon. friend the exPostmaster General has endeavoured to impute to that government.


Peter John Veniot: I did not charge any member of the government of New Brunswick.


Mr. SMITH (Vietoria-Carleton):: My hon. friend left that impression.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all. I made no imputations and no insinuations. I ask that the hon. member withdraw his remark.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Having heard the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) make his statement, I think what the hon. member for Victoria-Carle ton (Mr. Smith) has said is fair comment.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: Mr. Speaker, there was no question in my mind, and I do not think there could have been any question in the mind of any hon. member of this house, but what the hon. ex-Postmaster General desired to impute was that the government of New Brunswick had wilfully and wrongfully taken the money that was voted for the relief of unemployment, that they had filched it, that it had gone through the hands of dishonest people.


Peter John Veniot: That is a poor defence.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would recall this to your mind, Mr. Speaker. In New Brunswick we have 1,300 supervisors of roads, and they are selected from men in every walk of life, in some cases men of very little education, and in some cases I doubt if we are able to get thoroughly honest men.


Mr. POULIOT:: Might I ask a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: There is no one who understands that statement better than my hon. friend the ex-Postmaster General. He knows what happened during his regime

as Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick. During that time I went to his own county of Gloucester and held an investigation myself. He would not allow me, a layman, any legal assistance. Being an ordinary farmer and knowing very little about the law, I conducted the investigation. What did we find? We found that boys under eight years of age were on the payroll when the ex-Postmaster General was Minister of Public Works in New Brunswick. We found, as the hon. gentleman well knows, that men's names were on the payroll who had never seen the locality or done a day's work, and who admitted to him that they had been Working on the sea during that whole period. I ask my hon. friend what sort of justice he meted out to those people. He came back to the legislature of New Brunswick and exonerated every one of them. He held them blameless, and said there were no charges against them, but that the province had received full value for all the money expended.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to correct my hon. friend.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: You would not permit a question while you were speaking.


Peter John Veniot: I rise to a point of order.


Eccles James Gott: I rise to a point of order, too.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Gloucester says he is raising a point of order, which he has a right to do.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. gentleman is
making a statement which cannot be borne out by the facts. I do not think he is doing it intentionally, but the records will show that the commissioner referred to by him was dismissed and punished, yet to-day he is one of the supervisors under the Tory government.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: I would
ask the ex-Postmaster General who held that investigation.


Peter John Veniot: I held it. It was a departmental investigation. If the hon. gentleman will take his seat I will answer his question.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This is all out of order.


Peter John Veniot: I was asked a question and I am answering it.


Hugh Guthrie: The hon. gentleman was
not asked to make a speech. Someone must enforce the rules and I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, to do so.

Supply-M arine


Mr. VENTOT:: There was a departmental
investigation held by the minister.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: If the
hon. member wants to make a speech I suppose he can do so.


Peter John Veniot: I do not want to make a
speech, but the hon. gentleman asked me a question and I am answering it.


Ernest D'Israeli Smith: But I
want to point out to this house the unfairness of the ex-Postmaster General in making such a reference to the government of New Brunswick. He knows that he went to Gloucester county and held the investigation to which I have referred. He knows that the facts I have stated are absolutely correct.


Peter John Veniot: I do not.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: We of
the province of New Brunswick know the exPostmaster General; we know how fair he is in his references to any political matters.


Peter John Veniot: They know you too.


Benjamin Franklin Smith: I am
perfectly willing that they should know me. Let me say this in closing: The other night when the hon. gentleman was speaking he referred to himself as the lone star from New Brunswick. I was not surprised that he compared himself to a planet, but I am sure he did not mean the north star, because the north star still shines in the heavens as much as it ever did, while my hon. friend has lost his hold in the province of New Brunswick, as he knows. He does not shine down there as brilliantly as he once did. I regret having had occasion to take up so muoh of the time of the house on a question of this kind, but I did feel it was only fair to do so on behalf of the government of New Brunswick. I think we should wait until that royal commission has brought in its report in order to see what action is taken upon it.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not intend to speak at any
length on this matter, but since the nightshirt of Long Lake told me to sit down, I will get up. When you were a student at the university, Mr. Speaker, do you remember being told that the greatest orator of all times, Demosthenes, used to put stones in his mouth when speaking on the beach, in order to have a louder voice? I noticed with pleasure that my hon. friend from Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Smith) did not put potatoes in his mouth when he spoke, which explains why
he spoke with so much fluency. I am always interested when people from New Brunswick discuss the topics of their beautiful province; it is a great entertainment for all of us when they get into the heat of a discussion. To sum up that debate between my good friend the ex-Postmaster General and my new friend the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton, may I say that it will be better for the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton if he does not speak so much about this matter, because it smells very badly.


Eccles James Gott: Speak sense.


Jean-François Pouliot: I was not referring to the hon. member; I am not within range of his halitosis. I am speaking of the situation which exists there. I have been told repeatedly that things are so bad in New Brunswick that ex-Premier Baxter resigned in disgust.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Bretcn South) in the chair.



[Stage Direction]
Department of Marine-salaries, $432,530; contingencies, $70,000.
Charles Gavan Power: May I ask the minister if
the rumour which has been circulated is true, that Mr. Lucien Dansereau is to be appointed deputy minister?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose my hon. friend knows that these appointments are in the hands of the Prime Minister. According to law and practice, the heads of the various departments are appointed by the Prime Minister, so the question will have to be directed to him.


Charles Gavan Power: On the recommendation, I
suppose, of so important a member of the ministry as the Minister of Marine?


Alfred Duranleau: I can answer my hon. friend in this way:	There is no vacancy at
the present time.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services relating to navigation and shipping, $53,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Is the
minister prepared now to publish the report in regard to Ripple rock in British Columbia?


Alfred Duranleau: The report is now
in the hands of the printer and we expect to have it in a day or two.
Supply-M arine


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And
table it?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: Can the minister
give some explanation with regard to the statement which I understand was issued by his department a few day ago in regard to insurance in connection with Hudson bay? The matter came up to-day on a question asked by the hon. member for Nelson. The Minister of Railways indicated that he had further representations to make, but I should like to know what this statement means in terms of dollars and cents in relation to rates of insurance via Hudson bay and also in relation to the present rate of insurance on grain via the St. Lawrence. I would direct the minister's attention particularly to this paragraph:
The report also says the joint hull committee has agreed to reduce the rate of the additional premium for suspension of the North American warranty, with respect to vessels passing Cape Sidley inwards on and after August 10 and leaving the last landing port in Hudson bay on or before September 30. The reduction will be from 60 shillings to 50 shillings per cent per hundred pounds insured value, plus 2 shillings per ton on gross registered tonnage.
I do not know what this means, but no doubt the minister does, since this statement was issued from his department. We should very much appreciate an explanation.


Alfred Duranleau: In a few days we
shall have the report of the committee and we will then give the information.


Mr. HEENAN:: The wages of the men in the Halifax shipyards have been held back for some time through a dispute between themselves and the shipyard authorities. Has that question been settled yet?


Alfred Duranleau: The matter is going
to arbitration and we are now looking for an arbitrator.


Peter Heenan: I do not just understand
what the minister means in this case by arbitration. The Acting Minister of Labour is in his place, and between the two they might furnish me with the information. I am not criticizing; I am only asking for information. As I understand the situation, a minister of the crown gave a decision as to what were fair wages in the construction of an icebreaker in the Halifax shipyards. Under the laws of Canada that decision was final; no other tribunal had a right to decide the matter, according to the laws of the country. I asked the Marine department to retain a sufficent sum in order to pay these men what is due them. Do I under-

stand that the question is to be arbitrated as to whether or not the men are entitled to their money, or is the question of arbitration merely one between the government and the company to determine who shall pay the money?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand there is a disputed item in the contract of the company who employed these men. I do not think there is any dispute as to the money being due the men. If I remember rightly, when I had a conference with the Minister of Labour some time ago he told me that the amount due the employees was around five or six thousand dollars. We have in hand the sum of ten thousand dollars deposited by the company, which is a security that these men will be finally paid. At present we are trying to get the consent of the company to pay the men out of this fund, but if we cannot succeed in this we shall take action. The men are fully protected. It is merely a question of time.


Peter Heenan: I do not want to labour the question but I do desire to see justice done these men, because I know something about the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: Justice will be done.


Peter Heenan: I do not mind if the question of arbitration lies between the government and the contractors as to which of these two parties shall pay the men; but there should be no arbitration proceedings as to whether or not they are entitled to the wages.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt that the men are entitled to their wages.


Peter Heenan: Thanks, very.much.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Is the construction of the Ile-aux-Coudras pier in the St. Lawrence completed?


Alfred Duranleau: That question will
come up under another item.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then I will ask it at that time.


Charles Gavan Power: Can the minister give any details regarding the construction of a new building to provide quarters for the pilots in Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: That will come under the item of administration of pilotage. I shall have no Objection to giving the information then.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine
To continue subsidies for wrecking plants- Quebec and British Columbia, $70,000.
Thomas Reid: What are these wrecking
plants?


Alfred Duranleau: They are salvage
plants.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What companies in Quebec have subsidies?


Alfred Duranleau: There is one company in Quebec and there is one on the Pacific coast.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What is the name of the Quebec company?


Alfred Duranleau: The Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company, Limited.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much d<? they receive?


Alfred Duranleau: They have been receiving S60,000 a year, from last year. They have a contract.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the minister aware that within the last year or eighteen months the control of this company has passed from the Canadian Pacific Steamship Company to an American concern, the Chaplin Company of New York? I do not ask the question by way of criticism, because the change probably occurred long before he became a minister; but I would ask him to endeavour as soon as the period of the subsidy has expired to see to it that control gets into Canadian instead of American hands.


Alfred Duranleau: Does the hon. member mean that the fhajority of the shares are in the hands of Americans? I have not heard a word of that.


Charles Gavan Power: I am giving that information so that when the contract comes up for renewal the ' minister will be aware of the situation.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: Has the minister received an application this year for a subsidy from the Maritime Wrecking Company, who have lately established quarters at Rimouski?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think we
have received any requests of that kind.


Mr. QUINN:: Have any applications for
subsidies been received from dredging companies in the maritime provinces?
Mr. DURANLEAU. I do not think so.


Ernest Lapointe: How long does that contract run?


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member
means the contract with the Quebec Salvage and Wrecking Company?


Ernest Lapointe: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: It will expire on
May 1, 1932.


Alan Webster Neill: What proportion of this vote will go to the British Columbia wrecking plant this year, and what sum was expended last year?


Alfred Duranleau: There is an existing contract between the department and the Pacific Salvage Company Limited of Victoria. This contract is for a period of ten years and will expire on July 2, 1935, and is for $10,000 per year.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: Why is there such a
difference between the amount expended in the province of Quebec and the amount expended in British Columbia? I understand that Quebec is to get S60,000 while British Columbia will receive only $10,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Quebec is larger than
British Columbia.


Alfred Duranleau: I was not in charge
of the department when these contracts were entered into. These companies probably knew at the time they entered into the contracts just what the service was worth. The wrecking company in Quebec has had a lot to do during the past few years. While I was on the western coast I was met by the directors of the Pacific company and they intimated that the amount they received was not adequate for the services rendered. I was inclined to increase the contract price had business conditions improved.


Ernest Lapointe: Do not offer anything,
they will ask for it.


Alfred Duranleau: During these times of depressiqp we have to be very careful about expenditures, and I think this contract should be allowed to stand.


Charles Marcil: How many wrecks occurred on the St. Lawrence river last year?


Alfred Duranleau: I would have to read a long list.


Charles Marcil: I would be satisfied with the number.


Alfred Duranleau: The cases are not
numbered.


Charles Marcil: Has the number been reduced as the result of the improvements made in the river?
Supply-M arine


Alfred Duranleau: They have been reduced in number.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: The information given by the hon. minister is very comforting, but upon inquiry of the department I am informed that the grant to Quebec this year has been increased from $35,000 to $60,000.


Alfred Duranleau: This year?


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: That is the information I received, for the year 1931.


Alfred Duranleau: If I am not mistaken, that was the amount paid last year.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: The information is for 1931.


Alfred Duranleau: There is nothing new in the item this year.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: It is given as $60,000 for Quebec and $10,000 for British Columbia, while last year it was $35,000 for Quebec and $10,000 for British Columbia. That is the information contained in the order for return.


Alfred Duranleau: The amount of
$35,000 was voted in 1929-30, and then a new agreement was entered into increasing this amount to $60,000 for 1930-31, and that was the amount paid last year.


D'Arcy Britton Plunkett: I would suggest that a new agreement be made with the British Columbia company as soon as possible.


Ernest Lapointe: It would depend upon
the amount of work they have to do.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is a list received from
these salvage companies as to the amount of work done during the year?


Alfred Duranleau: We receive such reports.


Angus MacInnis: Is the amount of subsidy based on the services rendered as outlined by the report?	*


Alfred Duranleau: The amount voted
is governed by existing contracts for the maintenance of certain plants. For instance, in the case of the western company, the contract will continue until 1935.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. minister stated that when he visited the coast early this year the salvage company had suggested that they were not receiving enough for the services performed. He stated that if the financial position had been better he would have been inclined to increase the amount paid. Would that increase be justified by the report made to the department?


Alfred Duranleau: According to the information I have received from the department, it would be justified, and from what I saw when in the west I am of the same opinion. Navigation is increasing every year and very often they are called upon to assist wrecks, so in better times probably we will increase this item.


Angus MacInnis: I do not suggest that the item be increased unless it is warranted.


Alan Webster Neill: This company keeps up a
very valuable plant. They are not. paid for what they do in the way of assisting wrecks, as the boats assisted pay for that service, but the subsidy is paid for their maintaining a plant in constant operation. They keep steam up all the time on one or two boats in the harbour of Esquimalt. The minister stated that shipping was increasing and consequently these companies had more to do, but that is an argument which would work both ways; if they do more business they would be entitled only to a smaller subsidy. If the minister contemplates increasing the subsidy I trust he will do it along the lines of my request to the late government, that is that this company keep a boat at Bamfield at least during the three winter months. The present service is maintained by one of the naval boats and one of the fishery protection boats, but neither boat is really suitable for the work. The Givenchy and the Armentiere are fairly good sea boats, but they are very light and if required to put out in a heavy storm in order to rescue a ship they would not be able to do very much. They have not the weight of vessel nor the power of engine to do the work, and it would take them all their time to take care of themselves. These boats are well manned and I know they would make a very gallant effort in case of emergency; nevertheless they are not the right type. The boat required is similar to those maintained by the salvage companies, and if an additional $10,000 were paid, I think this company should be required to keep one of their boats at Bamfield for at least the two worst winter months; for the other two winter months the naval or fishery protection boats could meet the situation. I think if he looks into the matter he will find that what I have stated is the fact.


Alfred Duranleau: The department has in mind the change suggested by my hon. friend if the subsidy is increased.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Marine
Miscellaneous and unforeseen expenses,
Mr. ROSS:: I wish to bring to the minister's attention certain recommendations that have been made by the Canadian Navigators' Federation. Would it be appropriate for me to bring this matter up on this particular item?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Arthur Edward Ross: The Canadian Navigators'
Federation come to Ottawa every year and present their recommendations to the minister, and as a rule after they have made their recommendations and presented their petitions to the minister the house and the country never hear anything further of them. I must admit, however, that it is the opinion of the federation that this year they received the best hearing they have had in the existence of the federation. Their recommendations affect Shipping and the whole country so far as navigation is concerned,' although perhaps they may be more directly applicable to the great lakes.
First they ask that consideration should be given by the department to the load line for vessels on the great lakes. This is a very important matter. Many vessels have been lost with all hands owing to their being _ overloaded, more especially in the fall months of the year when ice forms freely on an already overloaded vessel.
I do not know whether the minister wishes to reply to each recommendation as I mention it or whether he would prefer that I give them all first and then let me have his opinion on them afterwards, but certainly I would like to have an expression of opinion from the minister as to these recommendations.
The second recommendation is that an inspection be made of all gas and diesel driven vessels over ten gross tons. They state that there are over three thousand of these vessels now on the great lakes, including lake Winnipeg, and as they are engaged in competition with steam driven vessels in carrying passengers, the federation ask that they be inspected and be required to carry lifesaving equipment. There is no inspection of these gas and diesel driven vessels at the present time as there is in the case of steam driven vessels, and to the layman it does look as though we had now reached the stage where an inspection of these boats is necessary.
Next they ask that direction finders or wireless be provided on all great lakes vessels. The government is now spending
thousands of dollars erecting radio beacons on the lakes, and yet only a few vessels are equipped with direction finders.
They also request an annual inspection of all compasses of vessels over ten gross tons. That is not done, and I think the time has come when it should be done. If the compasses are found defective they should be adjusted, the federation urges, and a deviation card furnished to the federal inspector, the owners,, and to the master of the vessel. Three-quarters of all the disasters bo vessels, they claim, are caused by faulty compasses, yet there is no law to compel owners to have their vessel compasses inspected or adjusted.
Next they urge that increased life-saving apparatus be provided on the great lakes. This has more particular reference to the next item, for the life-saving service, which item I am sorry to see is reduced. At the foot of the great lakes every year there are wrecks involving loss of life, and no life saving apparatus is available unless we solicit the aid of our American cousins. There are several wrecks at such a point as the Main Ducks, and yet we have no life-saving apparatus of any kind at this important point on the great lakes.
They also ask that the sick mariners' fund be extended to apply to the great lakes. At the present time it covers only as far as Montreal, in other words the head of ocean navigation. They claim that it should be extended to Fort William; for the greatest volume of shipping in the world exists on the great lakes.
They also recommend that seventy-five per cent of all Canadian products be carried or transported on British or Canadian vessels.
They also ask that investigations into wrecks be held before a judge and jury of shipmasters instead of by a one-man court as at present. Why should one man be vested with such powers? The shipmaster should be given the same chance as any other man to defend himself. I have come across several cases where I thought it was rather unfair that the shipmaster and the officers should not have been given a hearing.
Next they ask for a revision of the Canada Shipping Act. I think it is quite apparent to this house and to every person who is interested in shipping that there should be a revision of that act.
They also ask for compulsory pilotage on the upper St. Lawrence. I know that the shipowners oppose this, and claim that they hire their own pilots. That is not objected

Supply-Marine

to by the federation, so long as there, is a pilot on board and the pilot is a certificated official of the government. At the present time if a wreck occurs there seems to be no way of placing the responsibility.
They also ask for a change in the coastal laws. This has been a favourite subject of my own for some time. It is a question as to which there should be some discussion, as to the abrogation of the present coastal laws.
They also ask that in support of our own Canadian dry docks an amendment be made respecting the assessment of repairs. At the present time the United States charges 50 per cent duty on any repair work done in Canada. Canada, on the other hand, charges only 25 per cent. What is the result? Last fall a wreck occurred at the Main Ducks, involving repairs to the amount of about $70,000. That work -went to Ogdensburg instead of a Canadian dry dock, and the vessel was a British bottom.
These are some of the points which the Canadian Navigators' Federation has brought up, and unless we get from the minister an expression of opinion with regard to them, or some answer is made to the deputation which waited upon him, these recommendations will simply die as has happened in years past. It is for that reason I am bringing the matter up in the house, and I trust that the minuter will give me a reply respecting these recommendations.


Alfred Duranleau: I thank the hon.
member for Kingston City for his kind remarks with respect to the reception which the navigators received when they came to my office. I was very much interested in all the suggestions they made at that time, and I am pleased to say that their brief has been put into the hands of the experts of my department. I am not myself an expert in these matters, but I have issued a direction that the experts in the department study each of the points dealt with in the brief and make reports thereon. My department and myself are prepared to give every possible attention to the views expressed by the navigators. I hope my hon. friend from Kingston City will notice that within a short time we shall be giving attention to the views of the navigators of Canada.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: The minister has said that he is not an expert in these matters but has asked his officials to bring in certain changes. May I urge that changes with regard to these matters are very long overdue?

The Canada Shipping Act is founded on the British Shipping Act of 1854 and there have been very few changes in our act since that time. In that interval the British shipping acts have been almost entirely revolutionized: ours remains practically unchanged. I understand that in 1913 a revision was proposed, but the war intervened and nothing was done. I wonder whether the action of the minister in referring this brief to the officers of his department means that after another twenty years we may hope to have some sort of report. I understand that regarding some provisions of the Canada Shipping Act we cannot take action because of our relationship with Great Britain; any amendments we propose might come into conflict with the British shipping laws. In the meantime however we are hopelessly behind the shipping legislation of Great Britain. It seems to me that although the men who go down to the sea in ships are not directly represented here, something ought to be done in their behalf. Indeed the very fact that they are not directly represented places upon hon. members of the house a greater responsibility to see that something is done to protect their interests.


Eugène Fiset: What about Admiral Duff?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Admiral Duff may represent certain interests on the Atlantic, but I doubt whether he represents the interests of a great many of the sailors and marine engineers. I do not wish to go into details concerning the Canada Shipping Act, but I could not better indicate how far behind we are than to point out that the forms in use to-day giving the accounts of wages of seamen are still in pounds, shillings and pence. That may not be of great importance but at least we should compute the wages of seamen in dollars and cents rather than in English terms. Probably I should not use the word " compute." In practice dollars and cents replace the pounds, shillings and pence. Our form however follows that in use in Great Britain, and it seems to me that when we are talking about the status of Canada Canadians ought at least to consider themselves as having attained the status which should enable them to use forms that conform to the ordinary commercial papers we use in this country. I give that only as an illustration of the present state of the Canada Shipping Act and its administration. It is hopelessly out of date, and I hope that before we pass the estimates of this department the minister will give us definite assurance that

Supply-M arine
the matter will not again be pigeon-holed for a number of years. I hope it will not be put into cold storage and brought out years hence. We should have some assurance that the Canada Shipping Act will be revised in the near future.


Alfred Duranleau: Will my hon. friend
tell me to what form he refers?


James Shaver Woodsworth: The wage account
form.


Alfred Duranleau: Because I have before me the forms as provided by the statute, and I see that dollars and cents are mentioned, and not pounds, shillings and pence.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have before me
a form actually used showing an account of wages. It was used in connection with one of our ships in the Canadian government Merchant Marine, and the particular document in question is dated December 24, 1930.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the item carry?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Chairman, I
think we ought to have a definite statement from the minister as to when the anomalies of the Canada Shipping Act will be corrected, and when we shall have consideration of revisions to act.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt
that there have not been many amendments to the Canada Shipping Act within the last few years.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I think 1854 is
correct, is it not?


Alfred Duranleau: There have been
amendments since that time.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Very slight.


Alfred Duranleau: There is no doubt
that the act is an old one. My hon. friend is right when he said that it should be revised completely. It is the intention of the Department of Marine to study the act, having in mind a complete revision. As soon as the Statute of Westminster has been adopted we will see that a complete reform of the act is made.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Thank you.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Tres bien.


Angus MacInnis: I would like to make a
few remarks to show how much superior the British act passed in 1894 is to the Canada Shipping Act of to-day. With regard to the scale of provisions for seamen I would refer hon. members to the Canada Shipping Act.


Alfred Duranleau: What section?
22110-117J


Angus MacInnis: Schedule A, page 238.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, I have it.


Angus MacInnis: About ten items are included in the schedule of provisions, including bread, beans, pork, flour, peas, tea, coffee, sugar and water. That is the fare at the present time provided under the Canada Shipping Act. Now we shall turn to the British Shipping Act of 1906 where we find a very extensive list, including water, soft bread, biscuits, salt beef, salt pork, preserved meats, fish, potatoes, vegetables, split peas, green peas, beans, flour, rice, oatmeal, tea, coffee, sugar, milk, butter, marmalade or jam, syrup or molasses, suet, pickles, dried fruits, fine salt, mustard, pepper, curry powder and onions. All hon. members know the important part played by proper food in the life of the ordinary man. Under the Canada Shipping Act men go to sea with provision for only a few essential items of food. At this moment I am not saying that is all that is carried by ships at sea, but that is all they need to carry in order to comply with the act. I think that in this one essential something should be done. There is also the fact that no medical examination is required by the Canada Shipping Act. It very often happens that seamen are taken ill with infectious diseases very shortly after leaving port, and because of the confinement and the limited quarters on board they are a much greater menace to those working with them than they would be on shore, and of course they cannot be properly taken care of until the boat reaches port. I agree with the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woods-worth), and I am glad to have the assurance of the hon. minister that very shortly steps will be taken to revise the act.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Life saving service, including rewards for saving life, $75,000.
Alan Webster Neill: This is one of the few items showing a decrease-a very substantial one of 25 per cent. As this is for life saving, I should like to ask the minister how is the economy going to be effected; will they save this man and not the other, or will they discriminate according to the race or religion or politics of those shipwrecked?


Alfred Duranleau: We have reduced the amount by reason of the fact that the amount voted in previous years was never expended. For instance, in 1929-30 only 160,478 was expended, in the previous year $53,380; in fact we have never expended more than $60,000, so we thought this year we could reduce the amount to $75,000.
Supply-Marine


Alan Webster Neill: There is plenty of opportunity to spend the whole vote. The condition of the buildings at Bamfield and Tofino is such that they require attention.


Alfred Duranleau: I understand they are being taken care of at the present time.


Arthur Edward Ross: Will the minister give the number of life-saving stations on the great lakes?


Alfred Duranleau: We have stations at Cobourg, Port Stanley, Southampton and Point Pelee.


Arthur Edward Ross: I hope that before another year the minister will take into consideration the need for some life-saving station at the foot of the lakes. There is no doubt that the Cobourg station would be too far away to be of any use to those wrecked, for instance, on the Main Ducks and at points beginning at the islands. We have had great difficulty in saving men wrecked at those points.


Alfred Duranleau: This question was dealt with by our official whom we sent there and was favourably reported on by him, so it is being considered by the department at the present time.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Is there any life-saving station on lake Huron?


Alfred Duranleau: We have a station at Southampton.
Mr. CAYLEA': Nothing north of that?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: What is the service on the great lakes costing per year?


Alfred Duranleau: The annual cost is about $10,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hydrographic and tidal and current surveys and to provide for the maintenance and repair of hydrographic steamers, $570,000.
Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, this vote, I
presume, includes one for a new hydrographic steamer for the Pacific. I wrote to the minister about this last fall, and the correspondence fell by the wayside-I got no answer. As soon as I saw he was calling for tenders for this steamer I urged upon him that, as in the past, he should require a boat burning coal instead of oil, our coal industry being in a very bad condition. Later on we saw in the papers that a tender had been accepted for a boat burning oil. I understand there was some hitch about the details of the machinery or something, and that it was possible to stall it off; so a delega-

tion waited on the Prime Minister in that regard. I hope the minister can give me an assurance now that the specifications have been changed to cover a boat burning coal. If not, there will be a revolution out there.


Alfred Duranleau: This item does not
include the necessary amount for the construction of the hydrographic boat for the Pacific.


Alan Webster Neill: It does not?


Alfred Duranleau: It is not included in this item. This item is to provide for the continuation of hydrographic surveys, and the maintenance of automatic gauges for the determination of water levels in the St. Lawrence and great lakes, and for the operation and maintenance of permanent tidal stations, and the equipment of temporary stations during the summer months. There is no increase in the amount. As to the hydrographic survey boat, if my hon. friend has not received an answer I am sorry.


Alan Webster Neill: So am I.


Alfred Duranleau: But I am pleased to say his suggestion, also made by the hon. member for Nanaimo, has been accepted and I have ordered a change in the specifications in order that the boat will burn coal instead of oil. Unfortunately that change will mean an increase of about $35,000 in the construction costs, we having had to lengthen the boat by 14 feet and build a double instead of a single bottom. We have done so because we thought the suggestion of my hon. friend should be accepted. We want to encourage Canadian mines instead of foreign producers. I may add that the tender had not been definitely accepted because there was a little discussion about the rate of wages to be paid to the employees of the firm which was the lowest tenderer, but that matter has been straightened out and I think within a few days we will sign a new contract. If so, there will be a supplementary estimate for it.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I have much
pleasure in expressing my sincere appreciation of the action of the minister in this regard. It will make quite a difference to us on the coast, and I trust he will always continue to adopt my mild suggestions.


Alfred Duranleau: When they are sound most assuredly they will be considered.


Thomas Reid: Is a survey of the Fraser
river made every year?


Alfred Duranleau: I think that comes
under the Department of Public Works.

Supply-M arine


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I should like to know what portion of this money will be expended on the Pacific coast.


Alfred Duranleau: We will spend S115.000 on the Pacific coast, 890,000 with the steamer Lillooet, 815,000 with the auxiliary house boat Pender, and $10,000 with the auxiliary house boat Somass.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much was spent in the province of Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: 


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Where were these works conducted?


Alfred Duranleau: The surveys were made first by the Cartier and the Bayfield. As my hon. friend knows, the Cartier was working on the north shore.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Are there any works to be done this year?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, we have the same vote and the same works will be continued,


Ernest Lapointe: With the same crews?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say exactly, but, with a little change, perhaps with better crews.


Mr. CARDIN:: Do I understand that this item covers the work in Hudson bay?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Does the department propose to continue this work this year?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Olof Hanson: What amount is intended. to be spent this year on the Pacific coast?


Alfred Duranleau: I gave the figures a moment ago of what we propose to spend this year.


Olof Hanson: What amount was spent last year?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not that information, but I suppose it was about the same amount.


Mr. McINTOSH:: What about the expenditure in Hudson bay this year? '


Alfred Duranleau: It will be, practically the same.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: How much will it amount to?


Alfred Duranleau: We expect to spend $110,000, with the steamer Acadia.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radiotelegraph service, and to provide for the construction and maintenance of radiotelegraph ship to shore stations and the general administration of the provisions of the Radio Act and regulations throughout the Dominion, $832,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: This item covers a very important service and I should like the minister to explain the reason for the reduction. I am rather inclined to think there should be an increase.


Alfred Duranleau: The decrease was occasioned by a reduction in revenue. We have tried to reduce expenses to the minimum in every department without interfering with the efficiency of the service. The chief of that special branch of my department reported that we could go on this year with this reduction, so I thought it my duty to accept his report.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: It may be due to the fact also that certain works undertaken last year have been completed.


Alfred Duranleau: That may be so.


Alan Webster Neill: The amount indicates that
no great change is contemplated in the service, but I want to tell the minister that there is a very well grounded rumour on the coast, almost too definite to be wholly without justification, to the effect that a private company proposes to purchase and take over the stations from this government. I want to tell the minister that I believe this action would meet with the unanimous disapproval of all shipping people and of a great many others whose business takes them up and down the coast. They do not want the radio services handed over to a private corporation. Later on, when the estimates of the Minister of Public Works are up, I intend to make the same protest in regard to the telephone and telegraph services.
There are many reasons for this feeling. One reason is that a private company is out to make money, and will not extend its service unless it is sure the extension will be profitable. That is not the case with a government department; its province is to help shipping and develop the country. If it were thought advisable they would put in an extra station to assist shipping when they knew that station would not pay, but a private company would object to that expenditure. I hope the minister will go into the question very thoroughly before any action is taken. I know of my own knowledge that negotiations have been going on having in view the handing over of the radio stations of Canada to a private company, and I should like some assurance from the minister that no action will be taken immediately at all events.
1S42
Supply-Marine


Alfred Duranleau: Two services are performed by these stations; they are, first, aids to navigation, and second, they aid the business interests in the west through a radiotelephone service. I can tell my hon. friend that this question has not been considered as yet by the department. When I was in the west the point was brought up, not in connection with the aids to navigation but in connection with the aid to business interests. It was contended that if the department abandoned that part of the work to a private company, possibly better service would be given, but I can tell my hon. friend that we are not inclined to accept that view. Nothing will be done this year, at any rate, because as yet we have not considered the matter at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Radio service-to provide for the general improvement of reception conditions to licensed broadcast listeners, $225,000.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: As all the members of the committee know, some years ago a commission was appointed to investigate the propriety^ of changing the present system of broadcasting into a publicly owned or controlled system. The department decided that, pending the consideration of the report of that commission, no new licences should be issued. I know that not very long ago a new licence was issued in favour of a firm or syndicate ^ or association of some sort in the western section of Ontario. What reasons justified the departure from the principle I have just stated in regard to the issuing of licences? So far as I can remember, that principle was recognized and accepted by the whole house.


Alfred Duranleau: Is the hon. member referring to the Windsor station?


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Yes.


Alfred Duranleau: We have not departed from the policy adopted by the former administration in this respect except in that particular instance. In that section of Ontario, on the American border, the people have been complaining for months, indeed, years, that they have been able to receive nothing else than American topics and music. There seems to be a sort of curtain, if I may use that term, between Toronto and Windsor, and the people in Windsor have been complaining of inability to get anything in the way of Canadian news or music. There has been a delay in deciding the question of a change in the administration of radio stations in Canada, the province of Quebec contending for certain rights in radio matters. The question was referred by the Minister of

Justice to the supreme court and the case will probably go to the privy council. The delay will probably be lengthy, and we thought, under the circumstances, we should give a small station to "Windsor. It is only a small station, about one thousand watts for day and five hundred watts for night operation. I think we have acted in the best interests of that part of the country.


Eugène Fiset: Why did the minister decline to entertain the application of Dr. Landry of Mont Joli for a renewal of his licence under the old terms? He was refused on the ground that the department was contemplating an absolutely new system.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend is
mistaken when he asserts that we have refused a renewal.


Eugène Fiset: The department
refused to renew his licence on the previous terms; they wanted to impose new conditions and charge a higher fee. Perhaps the minister will give me some information in the matter.


Alfred Duranleau: I shall be glad to
supply that information later.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I do not desire to criticize the minister for having made an exception in the case of Windsor. I am quite familiar with the peculiar and unsatisfactory conditions there from the point of view of reception. As I remember, the matter had been under consideration in the department for some time, and I may say that I was myself somewhat inclined to make an exception in favour of that city. But runiour has it that instead of granting a request which had been made by very responsible people in that section of Ontario, the department issued a new licence in favour of a Conservative organization. That organization, I see by the press, is not yet complete; it is awaiting the appointment of a certain number of directors. According to the reports, it is going to be purely and simply a Conservative organization. Now, I do not criticize the desire of a Conservative association to broadcast; I feel that the two parties are entitled to have their views broadcast over stations of their own. In a case like this, however, I do feel that if an exception had to be made it should not have been made in favour of a political party; it should have been in favour of those who made the strongest representations in support of the establishment of a station at Windsor. If I remember rightly, the Border Cities Star made a request of the department to be allowed a station for themselves in conjunction with some other

Supply-Marine
concern. That request was refused, and a petition made by a certain number of friends of the government was granted. I have already expressed the view in this house that, as a general rule and as a matter of principle, these broadcasting licences should be given first to newspapers, Whenever a newspaper is in a position to undertake the expenditure involved in the establishment of a broadcasting plant. I do not think it is fair to turn down the applications of newspapers; and, in my opinion, if a request was made by the Border Cities Star it was not the proper thing to have refused that request and, instead, granted a licence to a Conservative organization. I should be glad of an explanation. I repeat, I am not criticizing the minister for having made an exception; had I been in his place when he granted the licence I should probably have made an exception in favour of Windsor myself. Indeed, I had practically made up my mind to grant a licence to the city of Windsor because, as I have said, I know the conditions there are certainly unsatisfactory; they cannot get any Canadian programs and must be satisfied with what is broadcast from American stations. It is only fair, therefore, that the people there should be afforded an opportunity of broadcasting Canadian programs. What I am complaining of is that the exception has been made in favour of a Conservative organization.


Alfred Duranleau: I am glad my hon.
friend shares my views with respect to the granting of a licence to a radio station in Windsor; I am sorry I am not prepared to share his view tha't radio licences should be granted primarily to newspapers. My hon. friend may be right and he may be wrong; that is a matter for consideration. Is it better to grant radio licences to newspapers or to business concerns who are ready to accommodate both newspapers and others who are interested in broadcasting? That is a question. My hon. friend states that this licence was granted to a Conservative organization. I think he is wrong. We received twenty-one applications from Windsor. Some were received from other parts of Ontario, but they were all for a Windsor radio station. A licence was granted to a concern which will accommodate everyone, and I did not grant that licence before I was assured that everyone would be well served; especially the Border Cities Star.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: What was the concern?


Alfred Duranleau: The Border Cities Star were assured that they would have the best service from this station.


Ernest Lapointe: What is the operating company?


Alfred Duranleau: The licence was
granted to Mr. Campbell and Mr. Morgan Dean.
Mr. OARDlIN: In their own names?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Has any request been made for a transfer of the licence to another company?


Alfred Duranleau: No.


Mr. SANDERSON:: Where do these gentlemen reside, in Windsor?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is it a company or a partnership?


Alfred Duranleau: Not yet. I understand there may be a company formed. Perhaps hon. members would like to hear the hon. member from Windsor (Mr. Morand).


Mr. MORAND:: I rather believe that the ex-Minister of Marine has been making political capital of this radio licence for the last four years. The city of Windsor and surrounding country has been without Canadian broadcasting-


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: We know that.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Licences were granted for other places, and Windsor was probably the only place in the whole Dominion of Canada that could not get Canadian broadcasts.


Ernest Lapointe: Who got the licence?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Mr. Malcolm Campbell and Mr. Morgan Dean, who, I can assure the -committee, are very good friends of ours. I do not think there was any question at any time but that a good friend would geit it. Before the elections this broadcasting station was peddled through my constituency for the purpose of obtaining support for the various Liberal members and was probably held up $or -that purpose.


Peter John Veniot: You happened to be successful; you were the best -peddler.


Raymond Ducharme Morand: These men are the type who will see that justice will be given to everyone who desires to use the station.


Frederick George Sanderson: When the hon. member says they are good friends, does he mean good political friends?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: Both.


Frederick George Sanderson: But mainly political.
Supply-M mine

Mr. MORAiND: No, not mainly political. Mr. Malcolm Campbell is the president of the Kelsey Wheel Company, Limited, and is a business man of good standing in the community. Mr. Morgan Dean is a well-known business man of Windsor. It is probable that a stock company may be formed in which people so desiring will be given an opportunity to fake stock.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is the Conservative party taking any stock in that company?


Raymond Ducharme Morand: The Conservative party, not having the same amount of money during the last elections as had the Liberal parity, will not be able to take any stock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Before six o'clock the hon. member for East Essex had intimated to the committee that while I was Minister of Marine I used the radio service to help political friends, or something to that effect. I desire to state that during my term of office as Minister of Marine nobody could complain that I used the authority which was mine in order to help political friends and to prevent others from making satisfactory arrangements to broadcast their speeches. I think the records of the department will show that the requests that were made to me by Conservative organizations were in all cases-I will not qualify it by saying where circumstances permitted-met. I did all I could in order to meet their requests, and if any politics has been played in the matter I think my hon. friend from East Essex is more responsible than I am.


Frederick George Sanderson: When the minister finally decided to issue another licence at Windsor, what steps did he take in regard to the applications? I think he said that he had received twenty-one applications. How did they come to him? How did these people know that the department was going to issue another licence?


Alfred Duranleau: When I said there were twenty-one applications, I had in mind applications extending over a period of two years, most of which had been abandoned. We therefore considered the last ones, and we came to the Conclusion that the two parties mentioned by my hon. friend from East Essex were the best on account of the assurance
they gave us that they would provide a first-class service and would accommodate everybody, the newspapers and others who might need the services of a radio station. Having that assurance, we issued the licence in favour of those two men. They were strongly recommended by the member for that division.


Frederick George Sanderson: And I presume the minister took that recommendation.


Alfred Duranleau: I think I had to,'to a certain extent.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister has made mention once or twice of certain newspapers. Would he indicate to which newspapers he refers?


Alfred Duranleau: After the licence had been practically issued-at all events the correspondence had closed the matter-representatives of the Border Cities Star came to me. I had previously discussed with those who had applied for the licence whether they would accommodate the newspapers, especially the Border Cities Star, because that paper had applied for a licence, I think, nearly two years before, and I was given the assurance that they would receive the best of service. I repeated that assurance to the representatives of the Border Cities Star. They appeared to be satisfied.


Frederick George Sanderson: In addition to the recommendation of the hon. member for East Essex, I suppose the minister had recommendations from the two other members from that district?


Alfred Duranleau: I think at least one other member recommended those two men.


Frederick George Sanderson: Did the minister have any recommendation from the Conservative association of Essex county?


Alfred Duranleau: I am not prepared to say yes or no to that question. It may be so, but I would have to look up the record. I am sure, however, that the members for the district recommended these two men.


Frederick George Sanderson: The minister would not forget if a recommendation came to him from the Conservative association. Naturally he would pay attention to it, and I think no fault could be found with that. Does he not recall whether he received any recommendation from the Conservative association of East Essex, West Essex or South Essex?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think we received so many recommendations as that.

Supply-M arine
We may have received one, but I am not sure, and I should not like to mislead the house on that point. I can look it up and give the information to my hon. friend if he so desires.


Frederick George Sanderson: Would the minister
state from which of the Essexes he got the one recommendation that he apparently recollects?


Alfred Duranleau: The reason I recollect it pretty well is because I had an appointment with those members.


Mr. ROBINSON:: There was no recommendation so far as I am aware from any Conservative organization in Essex county. There was just the recommendation from the three members, for East Essex, South Essex and West Essex.


Frederick George Sanderson: I was asking the minister whether he gcrt any recommendations or not.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: If he got any others I do not know.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Lighthouse and coast services-agencies, rents and contingencies, $236,000.
Peter Heenan: Would the minister tell us who had charge of the work of painting the buoys and lighthouses on the lake of the Woods last season?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told that the work was done under the supervision of Mr. Parrott.


Peter Heenan: That was last season. Is this work being done the same way this season?


Alfred Duranleau: It has not been done yet, but I suppose it will be; I am not sure.


Peter Heenan: I am referring now more particularly to the fact that last season and for the past three or four seasons Mr. Parrott engaged the men himself to paint the buoys and lighthouses, and I was wondering if the same gentleman would do the engaging this season.


Alfred Duranleau: It will be done in the same way this year by the same man.


Peter Heenan: Then would my hon. friend be surprised to know that the defeated candidate in that constituency has advised the people of Kenora that he is authorized by the department to engage the men, end that he is appointing single men instead of married men?


Alfred Duranleau: So far as I am informed, nothing of the kind will be done. The same man, our agent, will hire the employees and will attend to the job, and no one else.


Peter Heenan: .1 am glad to know that. I am glad to have the point cleared up, not only in my own mind but in order to appease the citizens of that part of the country, because I understand that this gentleman not only claims the right to do it but has already done it. I am speaking of the defeated candidate, who is going around Kenora boasting of the fact that different departments of the government have authorized him to say that except through his representation nothing can be done.


Mr. ARTHURS:: That really would be a
good thing for the riding.


Peter Heenan: It may be better than
it was before. However if matters are going to be that way we would like to know it so we may all bow the knee to the defeated candidate, who was defeated by the electors. The people indicated very plainly that they did not want him to represent them; notwithstanding their wishes, however, he claims to represent them at the present time. If that is the way matters are to be handled, perhaps it may be the better way. However I would like my hon. friend to clear up the matter. I have no objection so long as the work is done and the married men who are out of work in that particular part of the country are given employment, I do not care whether they are Conservatives or Liberals. But I wish to ask my hon. friend whether or not his department is going to allow a man who was defeated and discarded by the electors to go about among the citizens telling them that they shall not receive their rights as citizens unless he so wishes.


An hon. MEMBER:: That was the rule
last year.


Peter Heenan: Before my hon. friend
answers I would like to say to him that another department with which I shall deal at the' proper time has assisted this man in an action whereby he is guilty of framing persons in northern Ontario to deprive them of their jobs.


Peter McGibbon: Did my friend not do
the authorizing a year ago?


Peter Heenan: I will deal with my hon. friend any old time he likes, and in any way he likes.


Peter McGibbon: Well, why postpone it?
Supply-M mine


Peter Heenan: My hon. friend is familiar with pretty nearly everything in the world except the particular subject about which I am talking at the present time. The gentleman of whom I am speaking was the defeated candidate. He was not a Conservative but was used by the Conservative party during the campaign in order to split the Labour vote in our riding. At the present time he is boasting that he has authority from the heads of different government departments to say that nothing may be done and no man may be hired unless with his approval, and through him. A married man went to the gentleman in charge of the job and was told that the matter was out of his hands and that he had nothing to do with it. These men have had to go to the defeated candidate and bend their knees to a man who was discarded by the electors. If that is the way the Department of Marine is going to be handled in that district I have no objection, so long as we know definitely. If however as the minister says this man is not telling the truth, we ought to know it so that the people may be acquainted with the fact.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the other department I have no authority to answer.


Peter Heenan: Oh, no.


Alfred Duranleau: As to my department, however, I can say that no instructions whatever have been given to the defeated candidate concerning the works mentioned by my hon. friend. The department with which I am connected will see that the works are carried out by the agent of the department and not by any defeated candidate. That is the policy of my department.


Peter Heenan: I am glad to know that.
I have one further question, and I shall have finished. Will my hon. friend tell me whether or not any instructions have been issued to this the defeated candidate either directly or indirectly concerning the methods he must adopt to engage or recommend men for this job?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose my hon.
friend would have no objection if a defeated candidate suggested to an agent or foreman the name of a man who might be employed, provided that man is efficient and can do the job properly. It may be that a defeated candidate would suggest some man to the agent, I do not know. From my own point of view however there have been no instructions issued and no authority given to a defeated candidate. I am informed by the head of my department that no such instrue-

tions were issued from the officials of the department to the defeated candidate about whom my hon. friend has been speaking. I think that settles the question and that my hon. friend will be satisfied with the works as they will be carried on.


Peter Heenan: I accept the word of the
minister, and I am grateful for what he has said. However I cannot accept the gospel that a man who has been rejected by the electors and told that he is not wanted to represent them should have any preference in making a recommendation in respect to anything. I will say that I believe that gentleman should be allowed to live, the same as any other citizen


Henry Herbert Stevens: I hope my hon. friend
will not get bitter.


Peter Heenan: He has a right to live,
and I am perfectly willing to let him live until after the next election campaign, but he has no more authority and his word should carry no more weight than that of any other citizen. I am prepared, however, to accept my hon. friend's word. Will the minister tell the committee what is the rate of wages paid to the men on this work?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand the prevailing rates have been paid to the men.


Peter Heenan: What is the prevailing
rate? What is the rate being paid?


Alfred Duranleau: Offhand I cannot give the rate exactly. I can say however that the prevailing rate is being paid to the men on the work.	[DOT]


Peter Heenan: I hope my hon. friend will take an opportunity to verify his impression, because I think he will find that the rate paid is not the prevailing rate. I have another matter to bring to the attention of the minister. The Dominion government has not a boat on the lake of the Woods, not one to use to take out painters and distribute buoys. I understand that in former times tenders were asked from different boatmen to do this work. I would ask the minister if my understanding is correct, but before he answers I would like him to tell me whether tenders have been called for similar work this season?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not that information from the agent.


Peter Heenan: I beg the minister's pardon?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not received that information from the agent.

Supply-M arine


Peter Heenan: I am afraid the minister is behind the times, because I have had that information for over a month. I would like to know whether or not it is correct. Is it correct that tenders were not called for at all on this particular occasion but that the department instructed the overseer or superintendent to engage a certain man and his boat.


Alfred Duranleau: I say frankly that I have not that information, and neither has my department. However we shall have it to-morrow.


Peter Heenan: To-morrow?


Alfred Duranleau: If my hon. friend has the information he may be satisfied.


Peter Heenan: Oh, no.


Mr. DURAN  LEAU@: If he wishes to have it from the department, I shall have it for him to-morrow.


Peter Heenan: I would not ask the minister to accept the information I have, because I must tell him that it does not reflect favourably on the department.


Alfred Duranleau: If the information is accurate it will be satisfactory to me. As I say, however, if it is the desire of my hon. friend I shall have the information for him to-morrow.


Mr. McGIRBON:: Mr. Chairman, I have
been very much interested in this new doctrine propounded by the member for Kenora-Rainy River. Going back into history, the only analogy I can find is the case of Saul of Tarsus. The late minister has got a new light, he has seen a vision; hence he thinks it a crime for the ministers of this government to consult their representatives in the various ridings. But the hon. gentleman was for eight years a member oif a government that practised the doctrine of consulting defeated Liberal candidates, and those defeated candidates distributed the local patronage. Yet in spite of that record he comes here to-night with a new doctrine. We have had many new doctrines from that side of the house lately. The other day the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) propounded this novel doctrine: "Why," he exclaimed, "the Liberal party paid their penalty on the 28th of July last for all their sins of omission and commission; the slate has been wiped clean of- all their sins-"


An hon. MEMBER:: They have been
atoned for.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	Yes, they have been
atoned for, absolution has been granted them. He said: "It is a crime to go back behind the 28th of July last. We are a new party, we have got a new doctrine." This means, of course, that they are scrapping the old doctrine just as they scrapped the platform of the convention of 1919-a platform which at first they took as a chart, then for a compass, and finally they threw the compass into the sea.


Ernest Lapointe: Let us vote this item,
doctor.


Peter McGibbon: Now we have a new
doctrine. We are told that we must not criticize anything the Liberal party did; all their sins of omission or commission are to be forgotten. Now, I wonder what port they are heading for to-day. It will be very interesting to watch their tactics for the next few months. I think we already see signs that the old ship is 'being scuttled-at least it is being headed for a new port, and it will be navigated by a new pilot and manned by a new crew. In other words, there will be a new policy enunciated by the Liberal party before very long. They are going to bury the past. I wonder what pilot will direct, and what crew will work the ship in the next few years, I wonder what port they will be heading for. I suspect they will go back again to the old doctrine.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried.


Alan Webster Neill: No, Mr. Chairman, 1 want
to speak after that hon. gentleman.
Mr. MoGIBBON: My friend from Comox-Al'bemi is always ready to fill in a gap at any place on any subject.


Alan Webster Neill: The gap is very evident just now.
Mr. MoGIBBON:	Well, I might retort
that the gap in the mental machinery of the hon. member is very evident, but I will not do that. I protest, Mr. Chairman, that these people should object to tactics which for eight long years they took advantage Of themselves. I think there Should be some consistency and some honesty in the practices of the different parties in this house.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, let us get
back from doctrines and ships to the item before the committee, which, as I understand, has to do with lighthouses. I think this is an appropriate moment for me to carry out the very definite instructions given me a few weeks ago by the hon. Minister
Supply-M arine

of Railways (Mr. Manion). At that time we were discussing a bill providing for compensation to government employees injured in the course of their work, and I put in a plea to have the benefits of the bill extended to lightkeepers' assistants. The hon. Minister of Railways assured me that the proper course for me to follow was to go to the Minister of Marine and request aid from him. Therefore with this authority behind me I presume I am in order in bringing the matter before. the committee at the present time. This item is for various things, including salaries and allowances for lighthouse keepers. The point is this, that there is a class _ of employees called lighthouse keepers assistants, who, technically, do not come under the provisions of the bill sponsored by my friend the Minister of Railways because they are employed by the lighthouse keepers, not by the government; although their payment is provided by the government, actually it comes out of the pocket of the lighthouse keepers. Suppose the lighthouse keeper receives a salary of $900, and is required ^ to keep an assistant, the government will give him a salary of $1,500, but this extra $600 is not enough to secure the services of an outside man, so some member of the lighthouse keeper's family, his wife, or son, does the work. I appeal to the Minister of Marine that when providing the miserable salaries- because they are miserable, when these lighthouse keepers have to provide an assistant -that he would , add a very little extra sum -I do not suppose it would exceed $10 a year

to enable the lighthouse keeper to pay to the provincial board of workmen's compensation the small contribution necessary so that if any of these assistants were killed or injured the compensation received would help to take care of their families. If the minister would kindly consider this proposal -he need not put it in this item-it would be of advantage to the service and would be doing justice to these men according to the very spirit of the act. Not only the Dominion, but all the provinces protect their workmen by way of giving them compensation for injuries received in the course of their employment. I am not saying the lighthouse keepers' assistants should not be paid by the lighthouse keepers, because it is a desirable arrangement, but the small addition to their pay that I have suggested would enable them to meet the situation.


James Arthurs: I have very great
pleasure in endorsing the plea made by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. There are many places where the lighthouse keeper has

one or more assistants, and they are hired simply for the season. They at least run as great a risk in every way as the lighthouse keepers themselves, and I think some provision should be made to bring them within the scope of the legislation to which my hon. friend has referred.


Alfred Duranleau: The question is very important, and I will give consideration to it.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $2,354,600.
Eugène Fiset: Is the lighthouse
keeper still at Bicquet in the county of Rimouski?


Alfred Duranleau: If my memory serves me right, I think he has not been changed yet.


Peter John Veniot: What branches of the service are affected by the reduction of $530,400?
* Mr. DURANLEAU: The branch affected is the construction branch.


Peter John Veniot: While I have no objection to this item passing just now, there is a question to be discussed in connection with the salaries of lighthouse keepers. Would the minister consent to let this item stand so that the matter may be taken up at a later date? There is certain information which is desired, and if the minister would consent that this or any other item stand on which we could discuss the question of lighthouse keepers, we might be able to make some progress.


Alfred Duranleau: This is the item, if there is any information desired.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister allow this item to stand for the present? We want to discuss the matter and we need certain information. It is not an unusual thing to have the minister let an item stand so that we can discuss even his whole department. That has been asked numerous times and there never has been any objection.


Alfred Duranleau: If it is the desire of the committee I have no objection to letting this item stand.


Eugène Fiset: For general discussion.
Item stands.

Supply-M mine
Amount required to pay compassionate allowance to John Davidson, formerly lightkeeper at Cape Mudge, B.C., $500.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: Is this an annual expenditure? Why is this allowance made?


Alfred Duranleau: This man was
appointed keeper of Cape Mudge light in June, 1898, and gave faithful service until October, 1918, when he was forced to resign his position through loss of eyesight. He became practically blind at that time. There was no means at the disposal of the department-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried.


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: I want the minister to finish his explanation; I do not care who calls "carried." The minister had not finished his explanation, and I want to get it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Hon. members called "carried."


Donald MacBeth Kennedy: It does not matter what hon. members said.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. gentleman will take his seat, the item is carried.


Alfred Duranleau: This amount has been paid for years, and everyone admits that it is a deserving case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of pilotage, $225,000.
Eugène Fiset: I have received, not only this year but for several years past, applications from students of the province of Quebec who are anxious to become apprentice pilots. . I understand that two years ago the regulations of the department were changed, and that notwithstanding what may be the political complexion of the candidate, his name is entered on the list provided he possesses the necessary qualifications. He has only to apply to the director of pilotage to file his application, and forms are sent to him containing all the necessary instructions and directions as to medical examination and so on. May I ask the minister if the same procedure still applies?


Alfred Duranleau: The same policy has been followed since this government came into power.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maintenance and repairs to wharves, $6,000.
Mr. RALSTON:: Has the matter of water
supply for the lighthouse at Cape Forchu, in Yarmouth, come before the minister, and has he given it his consideration? It is a matter which has been pending for some time.


Alfred Duranleau: I think the question
of the digging of a well has come before the department, and it is under consideration.


James Layton Ralston: Has any progress been
made?


Alfred Duranleau: We have made no
decision yet, and I cannot say exactly the position of the matter now.


James Layton Ralston: I should like to press
the minister for favourable consideration, not merely consideration.


Alfred Duranleau: I will give the matter
my consideration.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister state
Whether the wharf at Pointe du Chene, in the county of Westmorland, formerly held by the Department of Marine, is still held by that department or whether it has been transferred to the Department of Public Works?


Alfred Duranleau: It is still the property of the Department of Marine.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I understand that this sum of $6,000 is to provide for small repairs to the wharves administered by the Department of Marine. I understand that the wharves are constructed by the Department of Public Works and passed on to the Department bf Marine for administration, and the Department is responsible for the state of repair of all the wharves under its control. As the minister knows, the government has acquired wharves which were the property of the Canada Steamship Lines in the town of Sorel, along the Richelieu river. These wharves are in very bad condition and need repairs. I should like to enlist the support of my hon. friend the Minister of Marine in order to help the Minister of Public Works come to the conclusion that these wharves should be reconstructed. Will the minister be favourable to the reconstruction of these wharves on the Richelieu river?


Alfred Duranleau: As my hon. friend
knows, under this small item of $6,000 we do only the very small repairs, costing up to $25. All other repairs are made by the Department of Public Works. With regard to the wharves mentioned, we have drawn the attention of the Department of Public Works to the repairs which are required.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply

M arine
[Stage Direction]
To provide for breaking ice in Thunder bay, lake Superior and other points deemed advisable in the interests of navigation, $44,000.
Peter John Veniot: A question was asked by
the hon. member for Beauce on May 15, as follows:
1.	For how many days did the government icebreaker N. B. McLean work in the gulf of St. Lawrence arid Chaleur bay during the months of March, April, and May, 1931?
2.	To what point in Chaleur bay did she succeed in cutting a channel through the ice?
3.	What was the daily cost of the operation of this vessel, including wages of crew and fuel ?
4.	Was the vessel obliged to abandon this work on account of an accident?
5.	If so, for how long will the vessel be laid up, what is the estimated cost of the repairs required in order to put her back in working condition ?
So far the question has not been answered. Perhaps if the minister has not the information to-night he could give it to us when we take up at a later date the item which has been allowed to stand. Will he also say at whoge request this boat was engaged to break ice in the baie de Chaleur and up the Restigouche river as far as Dalhousie?


Alfred Duranleau: There were no icebreaking operations in Chaleur bay this year. I intended to answer to-morrow a question which has been asked in this regard.


Peter John Veniot: Was a request received by the department for breaking ice in Chaleur bay? If so, from whom did that request come?
'Mr. DURANLEAU:	I think a gentleman
from that locality, connected with the plant there, applied to the department verbally for relief this spring.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister remember the name if I mentioned it? Was it Mr. W. S. Montgomery?	,


Alfred Duranleau: I believe that is the man.


Peter John Veniot: He is not connected with
the plant there.


Alfred Duranleau: Well, he came to my department and represented that if an icebreaker could be sent it would advance navigation by fifteen or twenty days.


Charles Gavan Power: I might assist the minister
by telling him that I read the documents produced some days ago and it appears that General J. B. White of the International Paper Company requested the minister to send an icebreaker to Chaleur bay, which request was acceded to. That appears from the documents filed a week ago.
IMr. Duranleau.]


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think we
had a request direct from the paper company.


Charles Gavan Power: From General White.


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Montgomery
asserted that it was the wish of the company that we should send an icebreaker.


Charles Gavan Power: But the minister produced
certain documents which I had the pleasure of reading two or three days ago. They showed that the International Paper Company, through its manager, had requested that the icebreaker be sent.


Alfred Duranleau: This year?


Charles Gavan Power: Yes. The papers were
produced at the request of the hon. member for Beauce, and I read them two or three days ago. The hon. member is not here, but no doubt I could find the papers.


Alfred Duranleau: That, I am informed, was in the year 1930.


Charles Gavan Power: Perhaps the minister is
right, but I was under the impression that it was this year.


Peter John Veniot: In 1929 Mr. Montgomery
made a request of myself by telegram which I passed on to the Marine department, but no request was made by the heads of the company at Dalhousie. In fact, I communicated by telegram with the company at that time, asking them if it was necessary. It was in the fall of the year, after the freezing-up. There was a vessel loaded with sulphur and it was feared that she would not be able to reach the dock and that some damage might be done her. I wired the company, asking if it was absolutely necessary to have an icebreaker go there, and after a delay of twenty-four hours they wired in reply that the necessity no longer existed, soft weather having intervened. The vessel in consequence was able to reach the dock. But during that winter of 1929-30 Mr. Montgomery interceded on behalf of the company to have an icebreaker go down the St. Lawrence and through the gulf, opening the ice in the baie de Chaleur and up the Restigouche river as far as Dalhousie. It was contended that this would open navigation two or three weeks earlier than usual. It was considered at the time that there was no necessity for granting such a request, and as no application had come direct from the company interested, the matter was left in abeyance. Nothing was done:	I understand that this year Mr. Montgomery again made a request. While I should like to see the bay open to navigation

Supply-Marine
three or four weeks earlier than it would be in the natural course, I cannot see that it would be of great advantage to shipping on the north shore that we should go to the enormous expense of opening the gulf of St. Lawrence, Chaleur bay and Restigouche river. We have daily communication by rail with Dalhousie and anything which it is necessary to import or export at that season of the year can be shipped by rail. There is therefore no necessity for going to this heavy expenditure. I wanted to explain that to the committee. Perhaps the minister could look up the records and see whether any request has come direct from the company through either the superintendent or manager at Dalhousie, or the general manager at Montreal. I do not think there has been such a request.


Alfred Duranleau: No icebreaker was
sent there this year.


Eugène Fiset: Has the minister
received from the chamber of commerce of Rimouski an application, supported by several navigation companies that operate between Rimouski wharf and the north shore, to try during the winter to keep the deep water channel clear? This year navigation was interrupted for barely two months, and I understand that the services of an icebreaker about once a week will be quite sufficient to keep that channel open and ensure communication between the south shore and the north shore. I hope that if the minister, who is familiar with the situation, has received an application, he will give it due and, if possible, favourable consideration.


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say offhand from whom such an application has come.


Eugène Fiset: It came from the
chamber of commerce.


Alfred Duranleau: I believe I received
an application and it is under consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Loan to harbour commissioners of Montreal, with interest at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council, for such period and upon such terms and conditions as the governor in council may determine, and to be applied in payment of deficits resulting from the operations of the Montreal harbour bridge, $681,600.
Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: In view of what was said a few days ago in regard to the building and operation of a bridge in the harbour of Montreal, and of the importance of this question, I would ask that this item be allowed to stand.


Alfred Duranleau: If it is the desire ot the committee I have no objection to allowing it to stand.
Item stands.
Construction, maintenance and supervision of aids to navigation, including salaries and allowances to lightkeepers, $2,354,600.


Alfred Duranleau: I suggest to the. committee that this item be carried, and I will provide an opportunity to discuss any questions relating to marine matters when the remaining items are before the committee.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: I think that is satisfactory.


Alfred Duranleau: I am holding item 326.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister will allow us to discuss anything concerning his department when that item is before the committee?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, concerning any marine question.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Under those conditions I am satisfied to allow this item to pass.


Peter Heenan: I received a letter some time ago pointing out the dangers to navigation existing in the lake of the Woods. I am sure the hon. member to the minister's right (Mr. Rogers) will substantiate what I have to say in this regard. This lake, which is international in character, is usually kept at a level ranging between elevations 1062 and 1056. When it is at a level of about 1061 there are many rocks which lie just about six inches or a foot below the surface of. the water. Hundreds of pleasure and commercial boats ply this lake, and some have been caught on the rocks with a consequent endangering of life. At the present time the lake is down to the low level of 1056 and it would be an easy matter for the minister to have a few holes drilled in these rocks and blow them up. In the interests of safe navigation would he. ask some of his officers to make a report on this work?


Alfred Duranleau: This is a matter which would come under the jurisdiction of the Public Works department.


Peter Heenan: Only after the Minister of Marine had said what was required for the purposes of navigation.


Alfred Duranleau: I will do that with pleasure.


Charles Gavan Power: Before. we next return to a discussion on the estimates of the Marine department, would the minister see to it that
Supply-Railways and Canals

due diligence prevails in his department in the bringing down of certain returns which I asked for in the early days of the session, particularly those relating to the Quebec harbour?


Alfred Duranleau: I believe those will be ready very soon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Railways and Canals - civil government * [DOT] salaries, $2S3,235; contingencies, $46,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Mr. Chairman, I do not rise to offer any objection to this item, but our understanding was that the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce would be taken up after we had finished with the Department of Marine, and hon. members on this side have governed themselves accordingly.


Robert James Manion: The acting leader (Mr. Guthrie) tells me that the Minister of Trade and Commerce was not ready to go on.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canadian government railways: to provide additional car ferry and facilities for ear ferry service between the mainland and Prince Edward Island, $1,059,310.
Charles Gavan Power: Is this the car ferry which was completed yesterday?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: And at the baptism of
which the minister officiated?


Robert James Manion: I did not officiate; I was simply one of the spectators.


Charles Gavan Power: He made a speech anyway. What was the cost of the vessel?


Robert James Manion: The contract price is


Charles Gavan Power: Any extras?


Robert James Manion: There usually are in these government contracts, but we know of none.


Ernest Lapointe: That is almost inviting them.


Robert James Manion: I am not inviting them.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: Where was this car ferry built?


Robert James Manion: At Lauzon.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Hudson Bay railway and terminals: construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost at $2,500 (revote, $1,375,000), $6,000,000.
Mr. BROWN:: On a previous occasion this session I asked the Minister of Railways if it was the intention of the government to do anything towards implementing the promise made during the election to build the Mafe-king cut-off. I understand from statements made by the Minister of Railways during the campaign that the party opposite considered the Mafeking cut-off as part of the Hudson Bay railwaj'. I would like to know if there is anything included in this vote for the building of the Mafeking cut-off. Perhaps the committee would like to know just what that is. I am told that the minister on one occasion said he did not know what it was himself, but under any circumstances he would build it.


Robert James Manion: I have already corrected that statement once or twice in the house, and I wish to correct it again. I never made any such statement. I would like to make another correction. I did not say that I considered the Mafeking cut-off a part of the Hudson Bay railway.


John Livingstone Brown: In that case I shall have to read a report of a speech by the Minister of Railways at Dauphin, June 29, 1930, as follows:
"Mr. Bennett has promised to build the Mafeking cut-off."
Mr. Bennett does not consider the Mafeking cut-off a branch line of the Canadian National railways, but a part of the Hudson Bay railway system to be built by the Dominion government.
To build the Mafeking cut-off will not mean political interference with the Canadian National Railways. No public man has ever given a more solemn or emphatic pledge on any matter than has Air. Bennett that he will preserve the integrity of the Canadian National Railways.
That is the report of a meeting held at Dauphin on June 29, 1930, in which the Minister of Railways is quoting Mr. Bennett as saying that he did not consider the Mafeking cut-off a part of the Canadian National Railway system, but as part of the Hudson Bay railway and that it should be built by the Dominion government.


Robert James Manion: What is my hon. friend
quoting from?


John Livingstone Brown: From a statement that has been given to me of a report of a speech given by the minister.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


An hon. MEMBER:: Who reported it?

Supply-Railways-Mafeking Cut-off


John Livingstone Brown: This is a matter of some importance. I may say for the 'benefit of hon. gentlemen who perhaps are not familiar with the railway situation in that part of the country that Mafeking is situated on a branch line of the Canadian National that runs up to Prince Albert. It is about twenty-five miles from the Saskatchewan boundary and about sevjenty miles from Hudson Bay Junction. For the people of Manitoba to get to Churchill they have to go to Hudson Bay Junction, and then, the road comes back at an angle of sixty degrees to The Pas. This Mafeking cut-off, which was promised' by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways, would form the third side of the triangle, and if we remember our mathematics aright, any two sides of a triangle are together greater than the third side. This cut-off would save probably seventy miles. There has been a strong demand in the province of Manitoba for a shorter line to Hudson bay than the present one, and the Mafeking out-off has been very strongly supported by some constituencies in Manitoba, those lying to the west, principally the constituencies of Nelson and Dauphin. This question formed one of the chief issues in the election campaign last summer in that part of Manitoba, and it can safely be said, I think, that the present member for Dauphin owes his election entirely to the promises that were made by the present leader of the government to build the Mafeking cut-off.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Where does the hon. gentleman get this report?


John Livingstone Brown: It was furnished to me. If it is not true, the minister can say so.


Robert James Manion: I did not make that
promise. I will speak as soon as my hon. friend is through.


John Livingstone Brown: I have said that the Mafeking cut-off formed one of the chief issues in the election in that part of the country. The former Minister of Railways, Hon. T. A. Crerar, speaking at a meeting in Dauphin, declined to give any such promise. He was questioned on the matter of the Mafeking cut-off and he came forward and made a straight statement.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: More than he ever did in this house.


John Livingstone Brown: He made no promises that he knew he was not in a position to fulfil. I have been told by a number of people in that constituency that because the Hon. T. A.
Crerar did not make rash promises that he knew he could not carry out, Mr. Ward, the Liberal candidate, lost the election in that constituency.


Robert James Manion: As my hon. friend has
quoted from a statement which is supposed to be a report of a speech of mine, would he mind quoting from a report of Mr. Crerar's speech?


John Livingstone Brown: I am just going to do that. The Hon. T. A. Crerar, speaking at Dauphin on July 19, 1930, said:
I am not here to tell you that the Mafeking cut-off 'null be built. The Mafeking cut-off is a branch line from one point to another on the Canadian National railways and is not a departmental matter. I cannot ask parliament to advance the money to build this road unless it is recommended by the directors of the Canadian National Railways. A study is being made of all phases, and if the directors of the Canadian National Railways recommend this construction I will give the matter consideration. From the standpoint of freight rates the Mafeking cut-off should not be built.
It is quite easy to understand, Mr. Chairman, that when a responsible minister of the crown, speaking in a constituency in which the Mafeking cut-off was perhaps one of the chief issues, comes forward with a plain statement of that kind, making no promises that he knew he could not fulfil, a large measure of support would be withdrawn from the government candidate and go to the men who made the promises.
Here is an extract from a poster that was used in the election of Mr. J. L. Bowman, the Conservative candidate in that constituency:
If you want the Mafeking cut-off, there is only one way to get it. Vote Bowman. Printed by the Dauphin Herald and Press. Dauphin, Manitoba, by the authority of J. N. McFadden, official agent for J. L. Bowman, Conservative candidate.
The present Prime Minister, speaking at Winnipeg on June 9, 1930, said:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay road and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada. The Conservative party which commenced the construction of the Hudson Bay railway will see it through. . . .
That does not happen to be true, because the Conservative party did not commence the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. The extract continues:
.... will see it through with all auxiliary *works and development necessary to its effective operation.



Supply-Railways-Mafeking Cut-off
The present Prime Minister at Brandon said:
The Mafeking cut-off is one of the works which should now be under way, not only as a needed public improvement but as a means of relieving unemployment.
Undoubtedly the commencement of that work would do a great deal to relieve unemployment, and it was expected by those who were foolish enough to believe the promise made that the work would be carried on during the winter and that a right of way would be cleared. As I have said, this was one of the chief issues in the constituency of Dauphin. I think the hon. member for Dauphin is in the position of a man who has been the recipient of goods obtained by false pretences.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: His election was won on the campaign promises of hon. gentlemen who are now members of the government to the effect that the Mafeking cut-off would be constructed. That has not been done. I do not believe the Mafeking cut-off should be built. To my mind it would not give the best service to the province of Manitoba, and would not furnish the most direct connection with Hudson Bay. However the promise was definitely made by the Minister of Railways and Canals and by the Prime Minister that this road would be built. The fact is that it has not been built.


Robert James Manion: I should like to have the evidence from which my hon. friend is quoting. What has he besides a written statement handed to him by someone? How does he know I made any such statement? I ask him to give the evidence. He has stated three or four times that I said certain things, and I should like to know the source of his information.


John Livingstone Brown: The information was furnished me in the form of an extract.


Robert James Manion: By whom? What party supplied it?


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps the hon. member-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: I have no hesitation in saying it came to me from the man who was the Liberal candidate in that constituency.


Robert James Manion: I should like to say-


John Livingstone Brown: And I accept it as the true evidence.


Robert James Manion: I should like to say that the Liberal candidate was not my reporter on that occasion. He was not even present at the meeting, so I do not choose to accept the statement made by him.


John Livingstone Brown: Will the minister say he
never under any circumstances directly or indirectly promised that the Mafeking cut-off would be built?


Robert James Manion: When the hon. member
has completed his statement I shall m'ake mine. He had better go ahead and give some evidence other than the statement from which he quoted. I do not wish to hear the unsupported statement of a gentleman who was deprived of his election.


John Livingstone Brown: Here is an extract from a
poster that was used in the campaign.


Robert James Manion: I did not put up the
posters.


John Livingstone Brown: "There is only one way to get tlie Mafeking cut-off."


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Livingstone Brown: I know it is a common
practice for hon. gentlemen opposite to deny newspaper reports. They claim they are mis-reported and repudiate anything credited to them.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend produced
not a newspaper report but a statement prepared by the defeated Liberal candidate. I have not contradicted any newspaper reports, but I am asking my hon. friend to produce the newspaper reports.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps I
might do that. I quote from a report which appeared on June 23, 1930, in the Mail and Empire, an organ of hon. gentlemen opposite, of a meeting addressed by the present Prime Minister at Brandon on June 21, 1930. It quotes the leader of the Conservative party as follows:
Let us put Crowsnest rates in effect on the Hudson Bay railway. Let us finish the port Let us get the lowest possible insurance rates and aids to navigation without delay.
Of the same meeting the Mail and Empire report continues as follows:
Endorsation of the suggested Mafeking cutoff to afford Manitoba a shorter route to the Hudson Bay railway was voiced by the Conservative leader. Supporting the proposal Mr. Bennett said that this would be a proper national undertaking to be started to relieve unemployment and he asserted such was his intention.

Sup-ply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off


Robert James Manion: I was asking for newspaper reports of my speeches.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a report of a speech made by the present Prime Minister, and I would ask my hon. friend if he would not regard a statement of the Prime Minister as a pledge just as binding on the part of the government as any the hon. minister himself might make.


Robert James Manion: Yes, and since my right
hon. friend has brought up the matter I may tell him that last winter at considerable expense we had surveys made in connection with the Mafeking route. I was waiting for my hon. friend to finish his statement before replying to him.


John Livingstone Brown: I may say to the minister
that these are newspaper reports which have been sent to me by the defeated Liberal candidate.


Robert James Manion: From what newspaper?


John Livingstone Brown: The importance of the
matter does not depend upon the newspaper in which the report was contained but rather upon the statement made by the minister in connection with the matter referred to.


Robert James Manion: The importance of a
statement rests in the truth of it. I do not choose to accept the statement made by a defeated candidate. I spoke at various places in Manitoba, and in Dauphin I did refer to the Mafeking cut-off. I said we would investigate it, and if we thought it satisfactory or advisable to build the cut-off, on the advice of the Canadian National Railway, we would build it, or something to that effect. We have moved in the matter. During the past winter a survey has been made, but as yet no report or recommendation has been handed to me. I am told however by my deputy that the survey is completed. It would seem that the present government has gone a good deal farther than my hon. friends went when they were in power. I do not know whether or not the cut-off will be built; that will depend to a great extent on the report that is received and the financial condition of the country. The possibility of construction will depend on many factors.


John Livingstone Brown: It is certain that the people of Dauphin came to the conclusion that there was a very wide difference between the straightforward and honest statement made by the Hon. T. A. Crerar, the then Minister of Railways, and the statement made by the present Minister of Railways.
22110-lisi


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. Three or four times the hon. member has referred to the honest and straightforward statements of the late Minister of Railways and Canals, and implied that I had not made straightforward statements. I object to the implication that I have made dishonest statements, or statements which were not straightforward.


John Livingstone Brown: It is clear that there was
such a wide difference between the statements made by the Hon. T. A. Crerar and those made by the present Minister of Railways that a large majority of the people of Dauphin came to the conclusion that it was the statements of the present Minister of Railways that swung the vote from the Liberal to the Conservative candidate.


Robert James Manion: I am very glad I did well in some places. I spoke in many places in Manitoba and I must say that we got quite a number of seats in that province. I am pleased that I was well received in some constituencies.


John Livingstone Brown: The minister did not come to my constituency.


Robert James Manion: I did. If it had not been for a rainstorm the hon. member might not have been here, criticizing, to-night. As a matter of fact my hon. friend was lucky. He is pretty good at prayers, and I think on that occasion his prayers must have saved him because there was a heavy downpour of rain and we did not hold the mass meeting which had been scheduled. I am informed that even a dub speaker like myself could have swung the election against my hon. friend if he could have got there to speak to the people.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. minister has no
small opinion of himself. The intervention of the rainstorm was a most fortunate occurrence because it saved a good deal of embarrassment for some of those who were campaigning against me. At a later date however the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens) came in his place, but he did not succeed. The Minister of Trade and Commerce and the Minister of Railways and Canals may settle between themselves as to which is the better man.


Robert James Manion: No, not as to which is
the better man, but as to which is the worse man for allowing my hon. friend to get back into parliament.
1856	COMMON'S
Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off


John Livingstone Brown: I would ask hon. members
to bear in mind that the Mafeking cut-off was to be undertaken immediately to relieve unemployment.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend does not
suggest that before a survey is made we should begin to build the line?


John Livingstone Brown: Not at all, but-


Robert James Manion: "But" what? The survey
has been made at considerable expense, and as yet the report has not been received. That is the best I can do.


John Livingstone Brown: Just another instance of
unfulfilled promises.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no.
Mr. MUIiLINS:	The constituency of
Dauphin adjoins the constituency of Marquette. I attended several meetings in Mr. Bowman's constituency, and the question of the Mafeking cut-off was never once mentioned at any of them, nor did it in any way affect his election. I am sorry that through sickness he is not in the house to deal with the accusation made by the hon. gentleman. Mr. Ward's defeat is well known to my hon. friend. He went down to defeat because he was a little progressive and was not needed by the constituency of Dauphin any more than one was needed in the constituency of Marquette.


Mr. GARDINER:: Will the minister give the various amounts making up the total?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The item is for $6,000,000 and is made up of $1,000,000 for the line between Le Pas and Churchill and the other $5,000,000 is for work on the terminals so far as we expect to go this year. Those are the two larger items. If my hon. friend wishes I can give him more details in regard to the terminals.


Robert Gardiner: Can the minister give any details of the progress of the work?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The work has been progressing very satisfactorily. In fact I am informed by my engineers, and by the contractors with whom I took the matter up very recently, that they are further ahead of their schedule than they expected to be, and unless something unforeseen happens trial shipments of grain will go out of Churchill this fall. We have no reason at the moment to think that that will not be possible. If my hon. friend wishes to know about any particular item I shall be glad to give him the details, but that in a general way covers what is being done.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I presume the $5,000,000 is to be spent for the completion of the works?


Robert James Manion: The details of the $5,000,000 are as follows:
Wages	$ 750,000
Transportation of men	 60,000
Freight	 75,000
Timber, 5,600,000 ft. B.M. (including freight)	 250,000
Building lumber	 25,000
Coal, 9,000 tons (including
freight)	 100,000
Dredge parts	 50,000
Other equipment		25,000
Gasoline and oil	 25,000
Hardware	 25,000
Crib iron	 25,000
Water supply, tanks, pumps, etc.	25,000
Fill by Canadian National Railway, 400,000 yards at	75	cents.	300,000Elevator, 2,500,000 bushels..	..	3,100,000Sundries	
165,000


Charles A. Stewart: I thought the elevator was practically completed.


Robert James Manion: Oh, no, my hon. friend is wrong as to that. When I was there last October the foundations and base had been laid. The superstructure is to be completed this summer.


Charles Gavan Power: How many men were employed there?


Robert James Manion: Around 1,000 between the contractor and ourselves. We had about 600 men and the contractor 400. That does not include the men doing the work on the railway itself. I may say that the railway at that time was in excellent shape. We went over it at an average speed of something more than 20 miles an hour, and although I had rather expected it to be a little disjointed and heavy, I found it was in excellent condition. With the amount of work to be done this year I think the road will be in splendid shape to handle the freight that is expected to go out this fall.


Charles Gavan Power: How many men is it proposed to employ this year?


Robert James Manion: My engineer informs me there will be 2,000 men employed in the middle of summer, but at the present time there are 1,149 men including the railway gangs-because the Canadian National Railways are acting as our agents on the construction of the line-and the men working on the terminal itself.
Mr. MoINTOSH: How does that number compare with the number employed last year?

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off
Mr. MANION I thought the number would be about the same, but the engineer tells me that owing to the construction of the elevator and the cribwork we will have more men working than we had last year. He states the figure for last year was about 1,000 while this year it will be about 2,000.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: The hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mullins) mentioned that he attended several meetings in the constituency of Dauphin and the question of the Mafeking cut-off never was mentioned. I quite believe him. There was no necessity to mention it. Every telephone post, every backyard fence was plastered with posters reading just like this:
If you want the Mafeking cut-off there is only one way to get it-vote Bowman.
Printed by the Dauphin Herald and Press of Dauphin, Manitoba, by the authority of J. N. MeFadden, official agent for J. L. Bowman, Conservative candidate.
There was no necessity for the hon. member for Marquette to mention the Mafeking cutoff in that constituency, because, as I said before, these posters were pasted all over the constituency and surely the member for that constituency and the people who are responsible lor the Conservative organization there must take some responsibility for these posters. Every man in Manitoba, whether a member, a defeated candidate, or a private citizen knows that the Mafeking cut-off has been one of the chief issues for the last two or three years. I know the preceding government was blamed for not taking the action that many people thought they should take in regard to the cut-off. I do not know whether the Mafeking cut-off is right or wrong, but I feel pretty certain that the Canadian National Railway officials will never endorse it. There is no man in this house could tel! us how many people are interested in the Mafeking cut-off other than the hon. member for Nelson himself. He knows it has been a live issue in the north country to get a short line to Churchill, and he knows also that practically everybody in that constituency, starting from Portage la Prairie and going straight north to Le Pas, has been interested in advocating the Mafeking cutoff. Personally I do not agree with them, I think they are wrong.


Mr. MULLINS:: I said the Mafeking cutoff was not discussed at any of the meetings I attended or took part in. What was said at other meetings I do not know anything about.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There was only one
thing discussed where my hon. friend held meetings, and that was the cow and the cream can. He had a miniature cream can depicting the old cow outside the building.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just to
verify what was said by the hon. member for Lisgar, I have taken the trouble to get the Free Press files and I find that in the issue of June 28, 1930, the Minister of Railways is quoted as stating at Dauphin on June 27, 1930, that his policy for unemployment would include the building of highways, the St. Lawrence scheme, the construction of the Mafeking cut-off, the finishing of the Hudson Bay railway and many other works.


Charles Gavan Power: Now is the time to say you were misquoted.


Robert James Manion: Of course my hon. friend
from Quebec South knows that nobody could be misquoted more easily than myself, because I speak so rapidly, though I do not think I have ever before accused a newspaper of misquoting me. After all, without offence to the newspapers, I do not suppose any man can speak very often and very rapidly, as I do, without being misreported occasionally. So far as the Winnipeg Free Press is concerned, that is a very fine newspaper, but I should not care to hold myself responsible for everything it happens to say about me. I went into Manitoba for about a week and held a couple of meetings a day. For the first three or four days the Winnipeg Free Press used about half its space in describing what a terrible citizen I was, and I spent about half my time at the meetings in telling what a rotten newspaper it was, so I think honours were about even, though we managed to get more candidates elected than the Winnipeg Free Press did. Without saying they have misquoted me, I have already told the hon. member for Lisgar what I said.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was the minister speaking over the radio at that time?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I think I was speaking over the radio, and there was a reporter from the Free Press there as well. I spent some fifteen or twenty minutes paying my compliments to the Manitoba Free Press and telling how often they told untruths about us; I did not have to exaggerate at all because the Manitoba Free Press went the limit on all occasions. On the other hand I did not leave anything unsaid about the Manitoba Free Press, and apparently I said it very successfully.
185S	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-oft


Mr. RINFRET:: Did the radio misquote
the minister?


Robert James Manion: No; the results in Manitoba would seem to show that the radio quoted me correctly.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: During the last ten years I have listened to the minister speaking in this house on many occasions, and I know he is very fast but a very pleasant speaker to listen to.


Charles Gavan Power: Not always.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: His words are not
always pleasant, but he has a pleasant voice, and after listening to his speeches in this house and the next morning reading Hansard, we find that everything he said in the house was taken by the reporter just as he said it. I think the Minister of Railways speaks really faster in the House of Commons than he does on the public platform, so I do not see how all these reporters and other people listening could misquote the minister all the time.


John Livingstone Brown: Speaking about the Winnipeg Free Press reports of the speeches of the Minister of Railways, I saw one report which I felt at the time must have been a mistake. The hon. member was speaking at some gathering, I do not know where, about the progress that had been made in connection with the Hudson Bay railway, and he undertook to give some credit to the former government for the rapidity with which they had pushed forward the work. I felt that must be wrong, because I had heard the Minister of Railways use all the adjectives in the dictionary in denouncing the incompetence of the former government. I felt that surely that report appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press must be wrong.


Robert James Manion: We might just as well
clear up this question of who built the Hudson Bay railway. I will admit to my hon. friend from Lisgar that the Liberals apparently began it. I am looking at the recorded figures of expenditures. The Liberal party apparently began it in 1908 and 1909, and my recollection is that Hon. George P. Graham turned the first sod. I will give the figures of the money spent.


John Livingstone Brown: I know there was a change of government in 1911.


Robert James Manion: In 1908-09 the amount spent was $92,000, in round figures. In 1909-10 the amount was $53,000; in 1910-11 it was $184,000 and in 1911-12 it was $159,000. That would be the end of the Liberal regime, because

they went out in the fall of 1911. Apparently $184,000 was the highest amount spent in any one of those four years. In 1912-13 the sum of $1,009,000 was spent by the Conservative government, and we spent in succeeding years amounts as follows: in 1913-14, $3,071,000; in 1914-15, $3,2.56,000; in 1915-16, $2,981,000; in 1916-17, $1,792,000; in 1917-18, $1,288,000; in 1918-19, $641,000, when active construction ceased. In every year during all that period the Conservative government spent very much more than the Liberal government spent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What was theTe to show for it when it was all spent?


Robert James Manion: Good progress was made on the railway itself to which the expenditures just Quoted apply. I will admit that the port at Nelson was not very much of a success, but both parties were agreed as to the selection of that port on the advice of engineers. The terminus was changed to Churchill by my predecessor, not Mr. Crerar but Mr. Dunning, also on engineering advice. The change was made in 1927 and I quite admit that while the late government were in power they spent very large sums of money on this project. In 1926-27, for example, they spent $2,800,000, in round figures mostly on the railway. Then in 1927-28 they spent on the railway and terminal $3,544,000 and in 1928-29, $6,159,000. In 1929-30 it reached $8,396,000 and in 1930-31 they spent $4,175,000. This year we are spending $6,000,000, five millions of which, as already explained, is on the Churchill terminal, including $3,100,000 on the elevator, and the other million for the railway.
I do not wish to go into the political aspect of the question, but certainly during the first four years of the construction of this line, under the Liberal regime, hon. gentlemen opposite spent very little. The real expenditures began in 1912-13, when over $1,000,000 was spent. I will put myself on record here, where I cannot be misquoted, since hon. gentlemen can quote Hansard, as saying that in my opinion both parties have done a great deal of work on the Hudson Bay railway line. I think both parties have rather vied with each other to see which would deliver the goods. We are going to deliver the goods, as a matter of fact; we happen to be in power, and we are going to finish the job, but I think both parties did very good work on the project.


John Livingstone Brown: There is nothing in what the minister has said to disprove the statement I made, that the Liberal government began the work on the Hudson Bay railway. That

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off
was the only statement I made. The minister has sought to smother all arguments under a multitude of figures with which I do not disagree. I simply said the Liberal government began to build the Hudson Bay railway.


Robert James Manion: I did not say the hon. gentleman's statement was wrong; I think that is the only statement he made that was right. Most of the other statements he made have been proved to be wrong, but I will admit that the statement he made in this respect was correct.


John Livingstone Brown: The minister took a long time in an attempt to disprove a statement which he now admits was correct.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman was on his feet for half an hour, in the course of which he gradually disproved his own statement.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish to ask the Minister of Railways a plain, simple question: Did he or did he not promise, at Dauphin or other places, that he would complete the construction of the Mafeking cutoff?


Robert James Manion: I did not.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Anywhere ?


Robert James Manion: No, I did not do so anywhere.


Paul Mercier: What is the total amount spent on the Hudson Bay railway since 1908?


Robert James Manion: The total expenditure to March 31, last on the railway and terminals combined has been $44,655,722. This years expenditure will bring the amount up to $50,000,000. That includes both railway and terminals, as well as the six millions spent at Nelson. It does not include three millions expended by the Department of Marine.


Mr. BURNS:: Mr. Chairman, I think the
fact should be emphasized again that the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Bowman) is not in his seat to-night. No member of this house has been more faithful in attendance than the hon. member for Dauphin. He was called away suddenly because of illness at home, and I hope his absence has not been made the occasion for certain hon. members of the opposition to make an attack upon him here to-night. I can assure them that the hon. member is away from unavoidable causes, and that the electors of the constituency of Dauphin have no apology to make for sending here a man of the calibre of the hon. member.


William Richard Motherwell: I should like to ask the minister whether it has been determined as yet how the government propose to operate the elevator when it is built. A great majority of the people in Saskatchewan are anxious that it be operated by the government rather than by a private company. I wonder whether anything has been decided with respect to this very important matter.


Robert James Manion: So far as any question has
ever come to me, I may say that we have not even considered leasing it to a private company. The department intends to carry on the operation of that elevator just as it has done the elevators at Port Colborne and Prescott. Some elevators are operated by the Department of Trade and Commerce, but unless there is a change of policy, which is not intended, the Department of Railways will continue to operate the elevator to which reference has been made.


William Richard Motherwell: After the minister's courteous reply I should be sorry to introduce a controversial question. I suggest, however, that before my hon. friend repeats the allegation that both parties agreed to the road going to Nelson he should try to confirm that statement by something of a nature which can be accepted as correct. I have discussed the matter many times with the Right Hon. George P. Graham and he always told me that, the government, before they went out of power, had refrained from letting the whole contract to Nelson or anywhere else until it should be decided which was the better port of the two. The contract was left for 100 miles past The Pas, and then the matter was left in abeyance pending the completion of that stretch of 100 miles. The government changed in 1911 and the incoming government was entirely and alone responsible for sending the road to Nelson. I wish to be corrected on that point if I am wrong, but I have information direct from the Right Hon. Mr. Graham. I have searched Hansard on more than one occasion for information in contradiction of that statement, but I have not found any evidence of such a character. Perhaps there is no evidence in support of what I have said except the word of the gentleman who was familiar with the conditions at that time. There may be no documentary evidence, and I believe my hon. friend is telling exactly what he believes to be correct; I am not even suggesting that he is misrepresenting the situation. Indeed, the statement has been made so frequently that some people have come to believe it, that both parties were responsible for sending the road to Nelson. But my information convinces me that that is not correct.
1860	COMMONS
Sup-ply-Railways

Majeking Cut-off


Robert James Manion: I should not care to be
unjust to Right Hon. George P. Graham, who sat for many years with me in this house and who is now in a quieter and happier atmosphere. I would not do him an injustice under any circumstances because he is a very dear friend of mine and I am fond of him. My information as well as my reading on the subject leads me to the conclusion that no positive decision had been arrived at as to the selection of a terminus until Mr. Cochrane came in.


William Richard Motherwell: That is right.


Robert James Manion: I have read the reports of the engineers and they reported strongly and repeatedly in favour of Nelson. Mr. Cochrane visited Nelson personally and finally that port was selected. I asked the engineer, while my hon. friend was speaking, why it was, if the original construction was not aimed at Nelson, that the road was located as it was. If my hon. friend will look at the map he will see that the road runs almost directly east towards Nelson from The Pas and diverges only after it gets near to that port, swinging then directly north. If it had been the intention of my hon. friend's party when in power to go to Churchill, they need not have taken in two sides of the square; they could have followed a different route. But I do not wish to place Mr. Graham in a false position. So far as I am aware, no definite decision was reached until after Mr. Cochrane came in.


Mr. EULER:: Can the minister give an estimate of the quantity of grain that can be carried out of that port in a season of average length, provided the full facilities are utilised?


Robert James Manion: That depends, of course, on the length of the navigation period.


William Daum Euler: The average period.


Robert James Manion: One of the most unpopular pastimes nowadays is the attempt to contract that period unduly when one is discussing western Canada, and personally I am loath to venture an estimate. Some time ago I saw a fine old gentleman there, Bishop Turquetil, who has been in the district for thirty years, and he made an estimate of the open season which I have always regarded as quite reasonable. He says that if you have a very ordinary boat, you are sure of three months' navigation through the straits; if you have a boat of a protected or reinforced type, you may have four months; and if in addition to that you have icebreakers, you may reckon upon five months. After all, conditions in the straits are controlled by the ice which comes in. But let us suppose you have four months of naviga-

tion: that would be about 120 days. The elevator is supposed to handle about 500,000 bushels per day, and 500,000 multiplied by, say 100 gives you 50,000,000 bushels. I am informed that there is a maximum capacity of 72,000 bushels per hour, but elevators do not often handle to capacity 24 hours a day, so that 500,000 bushels is a fair estimate, and for 100 days that would be 50,000,000 bushels. There is no reason, however, why one elevator should handle all the traffic.


William Daum Euler: Would the port be capable of handling the output of more elevators than the ones which are being established now?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


William Daum Euler: Does the minister's assumption apply to the season in which grain is produced, or would it overlap into the second season?


Robert James Manion: It would overlap. The
season would be probably from the middle of July, extending through August and September and a part of October, perhaps the whole of October. It would run probably from the first of July to the end of October, so that early July would be too soon for that year's crop. The elevator would therefore have to handle the wheat of the previous season.


William Daum Euler: They would not be able to
handle, during more than two months, any of the crop of that season.


Robert James Manion: That is a fair estimate,
but I do not wish to be dogmatic.


William Richard Motherwell: There is a carryover at every port, even at the Pacific. At present Fort William has only just begun to empty, and shipping will foe going forward until the new crop comes in.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: For the benefit of
hon. gentlemen opposite I might give some information regarding the length of season during which it may safely be assumed the port wall be open. I have here statements made by captains who have navigated the northern waters and I will give the names and the number of years they have navigated, together with their opinions as to the periods at which the port opens and closes. I may add that I have taken this information from a booklet with reference to the Hudson Bay railway, prepared by the Natural Resources Intelligence department of the government.
The first name that appears on the list is that of Captain F. Anderson, Canadian Naval Service, in command of expeditions, 1911-14.

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off
Years in northern waters, 4; navigation begins July 15 and ends November 15; duration, seventeen weeks.
Next, is Captain H. E. Webb, SS. Bonaven-ture: years in northern waters, two; begins July 25 and ends October 15; duration twelve weeks.
The next name is that of N. B. Saunders, agent of the Department of Railways and Canals. According to Mr. Saunders, navigation begins on August 1 and ends October 28, the duration being thirteen weeks.
Captain William Wakeham of the Department of Marine and Fisheries, who spent several years in northern waters. According to 'him. navigation begins between July 1 and 19 and end's October 15-20, the duration being between fourteen and sixteen weeks.
Captain M. Bartlett, with Commander Lowe, steamship Neptune, July 31 to November 1, thirteen weeks.
Captain A. Kean, steamship Prospero, August 1 to October 31, thirteen weeks.
Captain C. Couch, Newfoundland, July 15 to October 5, twelve weeks.
Captain C. R. Sinclair, merchant navy, six years in northern waters, three and a half to four months.
Captain Adams, whaler Artie, June 20 to October 25, eighteen weeks.
Admiral Markham, British navy, seventeen weeks.
Doctor Robert Bell, F.R.S., geologist and scientist, June 15 to October 20, twenty-two weeks.
Commander Gordon, July 1 to October 10, twelve to fifteen weeks.
Lieutenant Schwatka, United States navy, two years in northern waters, four months.
A. P. Low, F.R.G.S., July 20 to November 1, fifteen weeks.
J. W. Tyrrell, explorer and engineer, July 15 to November 15, sixteen to eighteen weeks.
W. A. Bowden, chief engineer, Department of Railways and Canals, August 1 to November 1, thirteen weeks.
Captain J. E. Bernier, explorer and navigator, nineteen years in northern waters, seventeen weeks.
Walter Dickson, Hudson's Bay Company, twenty years in northern waters, five months.
Captain Silsby, July 1 to October 31, eighteen weeks.
Captain Thomas McKenzie, whaler, New Bedford, July 15 to October 15, twelve to thirteen weeks.
Captain E. B. Fisher, whaler, East Falmouth, thirteen to fifteen weeks.
Captain T. C. Clisby, fourteen years in northern waters, July 1 to October 31, eighteen weeks.
Captain John Spicer, whaler Grotan, twenty jrnars in northern waters, July to September, thirteen weeks.
The average for the twenty-seven opinions is about seventeen weeks. I believe this evidence was given before the Senate committee which investigated this matter. I could go on and give the committee opinions and information obtained from expeditions such as the Hudson Strait expedition carried on by the Royal Air Force at the request of the government. I could read extracts from the reports which would be enlightening to the committee.
Many people seem to believe that the bay and the strait freeze over, but that is not the case. The bay and the strait never freeze over, although at times the strait is packed with ice. There is a tide of from sixteen to eighteen feet in the bay; a large amount of water has to go in and out of the strait and the current is so strong that it carries the ice away. I have talked with many seafaring captains, men who have sailed the seven seas, and many of them tell me that with proper aids to navigation-I may say that these various expeditions and explorations have been carried on without any aids to navigation-they would rather take a vessel into Fort Churchill or Port Nelson than into Montreal. And yet, I understand, the marine insurance rate on grain out of Fort Churchill has been set at twenty-six times the rate out of Montreal. Many of these Captains consider it more dangerous to navigate the St. Lawrence river than to go through the strait and into Hudson bay.
In order to obtain first-hand information, the government sent a fleet of aeroplanes into the strait in 1927 and 1928 with orders to fly as often as they could during the winter months, to photograph and obtain information as to ice conditions in the strait. A few extracts from the report of this expedition might prove to be interesting to those hon. members who may be a little curious as to the length of time the ice remains in the strait. This expedition had three bases in the strait, and they report that at base B the ice was first seen in 1927 on November 16; at base C it was first reported on December 3, and at base A, on November 30. The planes were flying every day from the bases located at different positions in the strait, and they
1862	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Mafeking Cut-off
were continually taking observations and photographs. This information will probably change the opinions of some hon. members as to the ice conditions in the Hudson strait.


An hon. MEMBER:: What page is that?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: That appears on
page 15 of the report of the Hudson Strait expedition, 1927-28.


Thomas Reid: Has the hon. member any
figures as to the rate on grain from Fort Churchill to Liverpool? If we had the rate we would be able to find out whether or not it would be worth while to ship from that port.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I have read the rate as published in the newspapers, but we cannot always believe such reports. I understand it has been set at something like three per cent, but I am not sure that that is correct.


Thomas Reid: It should be known.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: If the committee desires, I can give more data from the report, Any hon. member can secure this book and I am sure it will be found to be very enlightening, especially to hon. members who believe that the strait is frozen over for several months in a year.


John Livingstone Brown: The hon. member for Nelson has given us a great deal of information in regard to the Hudson Bay railway, and perhaps he can give us some information in regard to the Mafeking cut-off. It was very significant that the hon. member did not come to the defence of the Minister of Railways when this matter was under discussion. Perhaps lie could tell us whether the people in the constituency of Nelson were given the impression that this cut-off was to be completed by the government.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I will be honest
enough to admit that I used the Mafeking cut-off a good deal in my campaign, but I used it only after I was informed that the right hon. the Prime Minister had promised to complete it if it -was found to be a practical route. I am a member of the executive of the Mafeking Cut-off Association, and I have worked very 'hard to have it built and I am still working. I have not only requested but I have insisted on several occasions in writing to the Minister of Railways and Canals that a physical survey be made of this route. I was informed unofficially that an economic survey had been made and that the engineers

did not consider it to be a practical proposition. I refused to accept that economic survey because it is nothing more than the opinion of one man, and I do not consider that to be good enough. The Minister of Railways and Canals kept his word to me and put a survey over this route last winter. I inquired a few days ago if he could give me any information in connection with this cutoff, but he informed me that he had not received the report. I am very much interested in getting this work started as I have quite a few hundred' unemployed men in my constituency and that would be a good opportunity to give them employment. I do not think any hon. member can state honestly that the government has no intention of building this cut-off. I take it that it will be built if the Canadian National Railway engineers recommend it as a practical proposition. If they say that it is not a practical proposition, I for one will not be unfair enough to ask that the Canadian National Railways throw a lot of good money after bad.


John Livingstone Brown: I thank the hon. member for the statement he has made. He said that after he saw the reported speech of the Prime Minister he promised his constituents that the cut-off would be built.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: If it were practicable.


John Livingstone Brown: The Prime Minister did not say that.


Bernard Munroe Stitt: That was what was reported to me.


John Livingstone Brown: The report of his speech does not show that he said that. Take that in conjunction with the statement of the Minister of Railways that the Prime Minister did not consider it a part of the Canadian National railways, but rather a part of the Hudson Bay railway-


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I never heard that
statement made.


Robert James Manion: Did my hon. friend say that I intimated something about the Prime Minister?


John Livingstone Brown: The Minister of Railways is reported to have said that the Prime Minister did not consider the Mafeking cut-off as part of the Canadian National Railways, but as a part of the Pludson Bay railway.


Robert James Manion: The Hudson Bay railway at the present time is not a part of the Canadian National railways. If the Mafeking cut-off were built, I should say it would be

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off
part of the Hudson Bay railway, but when all is said and done, that is a matter to be decided later.
May I say one other word on behalf of my hon. friend from Dauphin, who is not here to-night to speak for himself? The hon. member for Lisgar has said a number of times that there were certain reasons why the hon. member for Dauphin was elected. I do not wish to reflect on Mr. Ward at all. He was a very estimable gentleman, but Mr. Bowman was elected over Mr. Ward because the people of the constituency of Dauphin thought him the better man. I was in that riding and I thought him the better man, and evidently the people agreed with me.


Charles Gavan Power: The hon. gentleman is shifting his ground. He said before that the hon. member for Dauphin was elected because, the minister himself had been up there helping him with speeches.


Robert James Manion: They helped to show how good he was.


Charles Gavan Power: Much as I dislike to depreciate the hon. gentleman in his own estimation, I take it, from what has transpired here to-night and what has been read, that the primary factor in the election of the hon. member for Dauphin was that the Prime Minister had promised that the Mafeking cut-off would be built. I gather that even the hon. member for Nelson, who has just spoken, was under the impression that the Mafeking cutoff would be built. The Minister of Railways as a member of the cabinet is jointly responsible with his Prime Minister for any pledges the Prime Minister gave. If the Prime Minister made that particular statement, and it has not been denied by anybody on the other side of the house, I think it binds the government and binds the Minister of Railways. He is bound by that and by all the other pledges that the Prime Minister gave. It seems to me that the Minister of Railways cannot simply brush this aside by saying: We shall have to consider the matter later. He should make a more definite statement as to whether or not this cut-off is to be built. Knowing the right hon. the Prime Minister, I do not believe he ever made any promise that ended with the words, " if it is practicable," or "if it is advisable," I heard the Prime Minister in the election campaign, and according to him everything he mentioned was practicable and should have been done already. If I remember rightly, I think he said in this particular instance that it should have been done already, and that if he got into power he would do it. He did not talk of the practicability of anything because he can do everything. He said it, and he has been trying to do it ever since, with very little success.
I think the Minister of Railways ought to make some definite statement on the attitude of the government with respect to this cutoff.


Robert James Manion: I have made the statement already. I am afraid my hon. friend could not have paid me the compliment of listening. I said that I had directed a survey to be made of the Mafeking cut-off route, that that survey was made last winter, but that we have not yet received the report. I said that so far as the building of the Mafeking cut-off was concerned it would depend on that report, on the attitude of the Canadian National Railways in regard to recommending it, or the reverse; also on the financial condition of the country, and perhaps, on the success of the Hudson Bay railway as well, because it must be remembered that the Hudson Bay railway has not yet been tried out, and until some shipments have gone forward and we have thoroughly tested the route it is difficult to say whether or not the Mafeking cut-off is necessary. We are going to look into the matter. Regarding the promise of my right hon. leader, he is not here to speak for himself, but he can usually speak for himself without my assistance or that- of my hon. friend.


Charles Gavan Power: I would not give him much if I could.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is not giving me much either.


Charles Gavan Power: Oh yes, I am.


Robert James Manion: I stand by any pledge the Prime Minister made, and I think he has carried out within nine months a larger proportion of his pledges than are usually carried out by any leader of a newly-elected government. I say with very great confidence that no leader has ever come into office in Canada who has carried out so large a proportion of his promises in so short a time as my right hon. leader.


Jean-François Pouliot: After nine months no
child is born.


Charles Gavan Power: 1 made a very broad statement when I said I was not prepared to help the Prime Minister. But in view of the barrenness and sterility of the government as pointed out by the hon. member for Temis-couta, I will be quite prepared to help the Prime Minister carry out the second part of most of his pledges-to perish in the attempt.
I8o4	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off


Henry Alfred Mullins: I wonder why the hon. member for Lisgar and the hon. member for Provencher do not mention the Mafeking cut-off being discussed on the platform throughout the constituency of Marquette. Marquette is just as much interested as Dauphin is in the Mafeking cut-off, and yet it was never once mentioned in my constituency in any shape or form. It is remarkable that they should talk so much about it in the constituency of Dauphin and not mention it at all in Marquette. The reason is, Mr. Chairman, that more important matters came up for discussion before the constituents of Marquette. They are not interested in narrow political questions. The people of my constituency take a broader view of things. Hon. gentlemen know very well that the trouble with m3' hon. friend from Lisgar is that so few of the Progressives came back. The right hon. leader of the opposition said in Neepawa that there would not be one of them in the house this year. Well, I give him a lot of credit for that prediction. He showed pretty good judgment, because there are only two of them here, and they would not be here if I had my way. I prefer a good Liberal any time to a Progressive-Liberal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I direct the attention of the Minister of Railways and Canals to tiwo features of the statement made by the Prime Minister with respect to the Mafeking cut-off? There were two very positive assertions. One was that it was to be a national undertaking. The other was that it was to be an undertaking for the purpose of immediately relieving unemployment. There is no doubt about the present Prime Minister having given that pledge to the electorate, because he did not in any way' repudiate it when in his presense I read his statement to the house at the last special session. If the Prime Minister had any cause to take exception to the statement he would have taken exception to it at that time. As a matter of fact, he did quite the opposite. He expressed rather admiration for the number of promises he had made and the care with which I had recorded them. So there is no doubt that the statement I have read was the one made by the Prime Minister to the people of Manitoba. May I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals this question? He says that he is now having a survey made of this route. Does that survey relate to this route as a national undertaking? In the second place, does it relate to this undertaking as a national undertaking for the purpose of immediately relieving unemployment?
I Mr. Power.]


Robert James Manion: If the road is built it will be a national undertaking, there is no question about that, because I do not know anyone else who would build railroads in Canada at the present time. So that part of my leader's pledge will be carried out if the road is built. Secondly, in regard to relieving unemployment, if there is any unemploy'ment at the time of the building of the road it certainly will be relieved. I am not attempting to be facetious at the expense of my right hon. friend. I am simply giving the answer which occurs to me if there is unemplo3-ment it will be relieved. If such a promise was made, these are the easiest parts of it to fulfil-at least that is the way it strikes me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Did that
promise relate to unemployment last winter or to anticipated continued unemployment in the winter to come?


Robert James Manion: Since we have not begun construction, obviously it does not relate to last winter. Probably' it refers to future unemployment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As I regard it, that was only part of the pledge given by the present Prime Minister. The pledge of the party' as a whole in reference to transportation matters was contained in the following words:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada.
Would my hon. friend tell us the branches that are being built at the present time or what branches are being contemplated with a view to canying out the undertaking given in that particular pledge of the Conservative party as set forth by the Prime Minister?


Robert James Manion: That pledge included the [DOT]completion of the Hudson Bay railway, and we are carrying out that part of the pledge. At least we are carrying on the work as rapidly as my right hon. friend's government would have carried it on had they been in power. So far as branch lines are concerned, outside of the Mafeking proposal I do not know of any branch lines that are being projected. At the present time of course, the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railway are building branch lines in different parts of the country, but I do not know of any other branch lines. I could name a number of branches that are being built but they come under the estimates of the Canadian National Railways and I have not the list before me at the present time.

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is also an undertaking to improve port facilities:
We pledge ourselves to aid existing traffic channels and to increase port facilities on the great lakes, Hudson bay 'and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans.
One Hudson bay port has been mentioned by the minister. What port facilities at Hudson bay, other than the port terminus mentioned, are contemplated?


Robert James Manion: I think my right hon.
friend has not read the sentence correctly because it is obvious that my leader meant the port facilities at Churchill.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: One place?


Robert James Manion: Yes. I imagine one port
would be sufficient to try out the route.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, I would
have thought so.


Mr. BRADETTE:: What about Moose
Factory?


Robert James Manion: I understand that the
Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway are building towards Moose Factory. At the present time we are not doing anything in that vicinity.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: In order that we may
have this "Ma-fake-ing" matter, as my hon. friend from Quebec South called it, straightened out, I think we had better read again the statement made by the Prime Minister as reported in the Mail and Empire. Before I do that, however, may I tell the hon. member for Rosetown that nobody on this side of the house made an attack on the hon. member for Dauphin. I think all hon. members have a very high regard for the hon. member for Dauphin. If he was led astray by his leader in regard to the Mafeking cutoff, naturally he cannot be held responsible. No one on this side of the house has said anything disrespectful about him; on the contrary I think all hon. members hold him in the very highest esteem. I am sure, however, that if the hon. member were here tonight he would make the same statement as was made by the hon. member for Nelson; certainly he would not try to camouflage, as the hon. member for Marquette has done. The hon. member for Nelson came out with the straightforward statement that during the campaign he used the argument in connection with the Mafeking cut-off, and he will admit, I am sure, that his statements in regard to that stretch of railway were beneficial to him and secured for him a certain number of votes.


Jean-François Pouliot: He is honest.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: What did the Prime
Minister say? The Mail and Empire contained the following report of the speech delivered at Brandon by the Prime Minister on June 21, 1930:
Endorsation of the suggested Mafeking cutoff to afford Manitoba a shorter route to the Hudson Bay railway was voiced by the Conservative leader. Supporting the proposal, Mr. Bennett said that this would be .a proper national undertaking to be started to relieve unemployment, and he asserted such was his intention.
Let me read that statement again. I would ask the Minister of Railways to pay special attention:
Mr. Bennett said that this would be a proper national undertaking to be started to relieve unemployment, and he asserted such was his intention.
When the Prime Minister said it was a proper undertaking to relieve unemployment, he was not anticipating unemployment during the coming winter because he made the statement that he would end unemployment. In fact the Minister of Justice said he would end it in a much shorter time than promised by the Prime Minister. I shall read this statement again, because I know the minister will understand it if it is read three times.


Robert James Manion: I hope my hon. friend
himself understands it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I have understood it
for a long time, but the minister has tried to avoid the issue. I have before me a statement referred to by the hon. member for Lisgar and said to have been made by the hon. minister himself. I listened to it over the radio.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend mean to tell me that he paid me the compliment of listening to my speech over the radio?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I certainly did-when I had nothing else to do.


Robert James Manion: I wish my hon. friend had profited by what I told him. If he had he would not be sitting over there.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Minister of Railways was billed to speak in my own home town. On that occasion a rainstorm did not stop him, because we have hard surfaced roads.


Robert James Manion: I assure my hon. friend it was not because I was afraid to go into his riding.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I should have been
pleased to extend to him a welcome.


Robert James Manion: I will come next time.
1866	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I would have extended
to him a personal welcome. Now, I have not read this statement the third time, and probably I had better dp so:
Mr. Bennett said that this would be a proper national undertaking to be started to relieve unemployment, and he asserted such was his intention.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Here
endeth the third lesson.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: When the Prime Minister made that speech he was considering the unemployment situation which existed at that time. As I said before and now repeat, the Prime Minister said he would end unemployment, so it is obvious he was not contemplating unemployment during the coming winter. It seems to me that the Minister of Railways and Canals, as the head of the department, is in duty bound to carry out the pledges of his leader.


Robert James Manion: Would my hon. friend
suggest that in building the Mafeking cut-off we should start to build a road through the bush without a proper survey?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But the minister had
that information before.


Charles Gavan Power: Absolutely; the Prime Minister should have known that before the promises were made.


Robert James Manion: We would have known
it had my hon. friend's government made the survey that we were making last winter.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the Minister of Railways let me finish my speech? I know he does not like to listen, but I am making statements because they are true. When the Prime Minister made his Brandon speech he led the people to believe he intended to construct the Mafeking cut-off in order to relieve unemployment existing at that time. He was referring not to unemployment that is going to exist three or four years from now, but to unemployment that existed then. Now the Minister of Railways asks: Do I expect that the Department of Railways could have started building the Mafeking cub-off last year? Why certainly they could.


Robert James Manion: Without a survey?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Canadian National engineers had made some kind of survey.


Robert James Manion: They had not.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was the Prime Minister going to build this railway without making a survey?

Mr. MANiION: The Prime Minister did not say he was going to build it without a survey. According to the report that my hon. friend has read, the Prime Minister said he would complete the Mafeking cut-off; but the Prime Minister is a man who has had a very wide experience both in business and in politics, and he certainly would not suggest building a road without a survey through the bush where even the feasibility of the road is disputed. I do not think anyone with any sense would suggest it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The Prime Minister has had a great deal of experience in politics and in business, and he has had a tremendous amount of experience in promises.- He led the people to believe that he was going to start this Mafeking cut-off, and if he intended to build it knowing no survey had been made, he is much more of a superman than I think 'he is. No, Mr. Chairman, the Mafeking cut-off was a vital issue in the province of Manitoba, and the promise made by the right hon. Prime Minister to build it deprived several gentlemen who are not supporters of his from sitting in this house to-day, because he and his Minister of Railways led the people to believe that they were going to start that cut-off immediately. The words of the Prime Minister that I have quoted prove it beyond any question of doubt. I do not care what interpretation you put on those words, you cannot change their plain meaning that he was going to start the Mafeking cut-off in order to relieve the unemployment that then existed there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out to my hon. friend what the Prime Minister did say with reference to this as well as to other promises? Speaking in the special session, as reported in Hansard of September 9 at page 38, he said:
It must be remembered that promises with respect to policies are matters of profound importance to the Canadian people, and the policies we promised to put into effect we propose to put into effect immediately.
There was no reference to a year hence; it was to be done immediately.
When the right hon. gentleman-
Referring to myself.
-placed upon Hansard the speeches which I made, I am bound to say that they read much better than they sounded when they were delivered, and I congratulate him upon the process of education to which he this afternoon has subjected his followers. It is a matter of profound satisfaction to me to know that so many of them think as I do upon the matters to which he referred.

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off
That was the statement made by the Prime Minister in this house with reference to this among other promises. Is my hon. friend as a member of his right hon. leader's administration going to repudiate at this time the promise that the Prime Minister made, and which he admitted he made by the very words that I have read? It seems to me this is a matter that cannot be dealt with lightly. This was a very large undertaking, it was an undertaking described by the Prime Minister himself as a "national undertaking." It was so described in relation to the most serious problem with which Canada was confronted at that time, and the promise was made to the electorate in order to win him support, and undoubtedly he did get.support on the strength of that promise. Now my hon. friend cannot get away from a promise of that kind by saying that the Prime Minister is not in his seat. He is one of his colleagues and is the one primarily responsible for matters affecting railways. I submit he ought to say quite frankly to the house and to the country either that this is one more of the promises intended for nothing except to get the Conservative party into office, or that this railway is going to be proceeded with as a national undertaking as was promised by the leader of his party in the last election.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to repudiate any of the promises made by my right hon. leader. Whatever promises he made I have no doubt he will carry out. So far as this work is concerned, a survey has been made, and that is as far as we can go at the present time. What will be done in the future I have already indicated to the committee. In regard to promises, I do not wish to bring up political issues, but it must not be forgotten that my right hon. friend ' made many promises in the past, and I can recall some that he paid very little attention to later on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say that that is not an answer to the present case.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: And may I go so far as to say that I made no promises that were not carried out.


Robert James Manion: I cannot agree with my right hon. friend. Whait about the ringing tones in which he promised to reform the Senate in speeches he made from one end of Canada to the other during the election of 1925-26? The only reform of the Senate he attempted was to put a few more reformers into that chamber. But surely that is not What the right hon. gentleman meant when
he preached Senate reform. I am sure he would be the last to claim that that was his intention. However, I do not wish to go into the question of broken promises, but I repeat that, so far as my right hon. leader is concerned, any promises he made that affect my department, to the extent that I am able I intend to carry out, including the promise in question, but I may tell the house and the country that until we get the report on the survey I have no thought of spending a dollar.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the Minister of Railways be kind enough to tell me what unemployment the Prime Minister meant when he said "the undertaking to be started to relieve unemployment?"


Robert James Manion: Surely my hon. friend does not expect me to tell him what the Prime Minister meant by a passage from a speech which may or may not have been properly quoted. I did not hear the speech.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But he admitted in this house that he was properly quoted.


Robert James Manion: I do not think so. I heard him reply to the right hon. leader of the opposition Who had quoted certain promises, and he did not take them up seriatim, he simply dealt with them in a general way as indicated in the quotation which my right hon. friend gave the house a minute ago. I do not know what my right hon. leader had in his mind in regard to unemployment at that time. I have not any doubt that if the Mafeking cut-off had been built then it would certainly have helped to relieve unemployment. And when it is built, particularly if my right hon. friend should be in power, it will undoubtedly help to relieve unemployment, as it would if we were in power and we built it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But surely if my hon. friend's right hon. leader felt certain he was going to be placed in power he would not anticipate any unemployment after he had been in power a reasonable length of time. The plain implication of the words of the Prime Minister lead me to believe that he meant to start the Mafeking cut-off immediately in order to relieve unemployment; because he said in his campaign speeches that he would end unemployment, and I believe he was sincere. I think he sincerely believed that after he was in power a short time unemployment would be at an end. I believe he was sincere when he said, "As soon as I have a chance to put my tariff policies in force unemployment will end." So in the
1868	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off
speech he made at Brandon, when he said this work would be undertaken to relieve unemployment, he really inferred beyond any question of doubt that he intended to. start that work immediately in order to relieve the unemployment wThich existed at that time. That is my belief.


Mr. HAY:: I take issue with the statement
of the hon. member for Provencher that the Mafeking cut-off was a live issue in the province of Manitoba. It was not a live issue in Manitoba during the last election; it was not a live issue in the constituency of Springfield, in the constituency of Selkirk or even in the city of Winnipeg. To some extent Winnipeg is interested in the Mafeking cut-off, but only as a temporary expedient to provide a shorter route to the bay until a more direct route can be provided. At the present time Winnipeg is interested in a direct route between the lakes and Hudson bay on the east side of lake Winnipeg. That is what Winnipeg wants and that is what the eastern portion of Manitoba wants and expects. That is what we intend to press for. The hon. member for Marquette stated that this was not a live issue in his constituency, which is much further west than the city of Winnipeg, so on the whole I think I am safe in saying that the Mafeking cut-off was not a live issue during the last election.
I must take exception also to the statement of the hon. member for Lisgar, in which he gave the Liberal party credit for the construction of the Hudson Bay railway. Some four years ago the Conservative party in Manitoba started to build the Hudson Bay railway, and actually concluded the construction of some forty miles of line at that time. The hon. member for Marquette was a member of the Manitoba legislature then, I believe. Because of financial difficulties the project was not completed; Manitoba was sparsely settled at that time and the money available was limited. As a result we were unable to carry out the project, but the Conservative party have always stood for the development and upbuilding of Canada generally. Our faith was illustrated by the construction of the Canadian Pacific railway, and it always has been stronger, with respect to the development of Canada, than has been the faith of the Liberal party.
I do not wish to delay the estimates, but I felt that I must set the hon. member for Provencher right in that respect.


William Daum Euler: To change the subject for
a moment, I should like to ask the Minister of Railways what I regard as more or less

of a practical question. The minister stated some time ago that the total cost of the road would be something over $50,000,000, which I think the committee will agree is a very substantial sum.


Robert James Manion: That includes the road and the terminals.


William Daum Euler: Quite so. The primary purpose of the road, I think, was for the movement of grain from the prairie provinces to Great Britain, so I should like to ask the minister if it is possible for him to say- although I do not desire to press him too much-whether the cost of moving a bushel of grain from any point in the prairie provinces to the British market by the Hudson Bay route is less than the old route, and if so what is the difference.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid I cannot say. Even the test movement has not been carried out, and I imagine we will not be able to judge fairly for at least a year or two to come. Many considerations are involved. There is no doubt that under the Crowsnest pass rate, the movement of grain through Churchill will be shorter than via the head of the lakes and Montreal, but at the same time there are other questions to be considered. There is the question of insurance, which is very important, and there is the question whether or not it will be possible to charter vessels, though I believe there will be no great difficulty about that, for three or four months in the year at least. Probably the big question is that of insurance, and as to that much will depend on the results achieved in the operation of the route. After the ships have been coming to Churchill for a year or two, if it is found that there is reasonable freedom from accidents, and that ships can come in and out without difficulty, no doubt the insurance rates will come down immediately. The rates on the St. Lawrence formerly were very much higher than they are to-day, and that is true of any new route. It all depends on experience. If experience shows this to be a safe route the rates will come down. Every effort will be made to make the route safe and I do not think there will be any difficulty in entering or leaving the harbour during a certain number of months of the year. Hudson strait is 600 feet deep and very wide; there will be modern aids to navigation, and so long as there is no ice there should be no difficulty in the way of ships entering or leaving. Once the experiment is started and successfully carried on for a couple of years, there is no doubt

Supply-Railways-Mafeking Cut-off
that insurance rates will be reduced to what we might call a normal basis.
I might just add that very often, since I was a boy in school, we have been mistaken in our judgment of northern Canada. So often we have found that some section of the north, which we looked upon as an Arctic region capable only of raising Eskimos and polar bears, had many other possibilities. So I should not be surprised to find that the Hudson Bay route may be quite successful. I have been in this house for some fourteen years, and although I have been interested in the matter, and rather against it, living at the head of the lakes, I have never raised my voice in or out of this house in opposition to the project. As a Canadian I sincerely hope it will be a success, though it may take a certain amount of traffic away from the port from which I come. Having spent over 850,000,000, for which both parties are responsible, it w'ould be too bad if the route were not something of a success at any rate. I know my hon. friend feels just as I do in that connection.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The hon. member for Springfield said a few moments ago that the Mafeking cut-off was not a live issue in the province of Manitoba during the last campaign. I was just referring to the remarks of the hon. member for Nelson, and the hon. member for Springfield must know that resolutions were passed by a great many boards of trade and strong influence was brought to bear to have the Mafeking cut-off constructed. During the last session our mail was flooded with petitions in regard to that cut-off, so it cannot be said it was not a matter of great interest. The controversy in the newspapers between the hon. member for Nelson and Hon. T. A. Crerar will prove beyond question that the cut-off is a live question in the province of Manitoba. It might not have been so important in my hon. friend's constituency; probably it was not so much to the front in my constituency, but to a large extent it was a provincial issue.
I should like to ask the minister if the right of way has been surveyed, or how far the engineers have gone.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry I have not that information. I have not any report at all, except that the engineers have made their survey.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would the minister expect a report during the session?


Robert James Manion: I do not know. To be perfectly frank, I have not inquired, but I 22110-119
know I have not received the report. I may tell my hon. friend I am not in any particular hurry for the report. I am not rushing it, but neither have I asked the railway to delay it. The engineers have been instructed to make that report; I understand they have completed their work, and it is up to them to hand in their report when the time comes. After this discussion I imagine they will get it in.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If the Minister of Railways has not taken very much interest in the project, as he admits himself, then he is not in any great hurry to carry out his leader's promise.


John Livingstone Brown: I wish to place before the committee again what I regard as the essential feature of this situation. The Hon. T. A. Crerar went to Dauphin on July 19, 1930, and made a statement on the government's policy at that time. He made what might be called a conditional promise with reference to the Mafeking cut-off. He said:
I am not here to tell you the Mafeking cutoff will be built. The Mafeking is a branch line from one point to another on the Canadian National railway, and is not a departmental matter. I cannot ask parliament to advance money to build this road unless it is recommended by the directors of the Canadian National Railways. A study is being made of all phases, and if the directors of the Canadian National Railways recommend this construction I will give the matter consideration. From the standpoint of freight rates the Mafeking cut-off should not be built.
After the Hon. Mr. Crerar had made that speech it was felt that he had thrown cold water upon the campaign of the Liberal candidate in that constituency. The Minister of Railways has made the statement that the people of Dauphin chose the present member for the constituency rather than the former member because they considered the hon. gentleman a better man. Now I am not going to institute any comparison between the two gentlemen, for I have not heard anything to the detriment of either of them. But the Minister of Railways knows perfectly well that often it is not the personality of a candidate that determines the outcome of an election; it is the policies of the government or of the opposing party. And it was the policy of this government as enunciated by the present Prime Minister with reference to the Mafeking cut-off that determined the election in the constituency of Dauphin. The Hon. Mr. Crerar made a statement there and the Minister of Railways went at a later date and made another statement. These two statements were before

1870	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Mafeking Cut-off
the people of Dauphin, and if the Hon. T. A. Crerar had made the same sort of speech as the minister has made to-night, there would have been no difference between the policies of the two parties. But it is well known, and the hon. member for Nelson has admitted it, that it was on the representations made by the present Prime Minister and the Minister of Railways in regard to this matter that the people of Dauphin made their choice as between the two candidates. The statement made by the Minister of Railways at that time was not a conditional promise. The people accepted it as unconditional, and, comparing it with the conditional statement made by the Hon. Mr. Crerar, they acted accordingly. I say, therefore, that the present member for Dauphin sits in this house because of the promise made in regard to the Mafeking cut-off by the present leader of the government and his Minister of Railways.


Robert James Manion: I might suggest that Mr. Crerar, the late Minister of Railways, was not accepted even in his own constituency.


John Livingstone Brown: That has nothing whatever to do with it.


Robert James Manion: He was beaten by 2,000 in a constituency that knew him well, so that they did not pay much attention to his promises of any kind. I followed him even in his own constituency and he was not very careful in his language. We knew him in this house. I sat with him in this house for a number of years and he was not any more particular with his promises than my hon. friend from Ldsgar-or myself-


John Livingstone Brown: Speak for yourself; don't speak for me.


Robert James Manion: He was not as good a politician as my hon. friend; the results show that. He was not thought very much of in his own constituency.


John Livingstone Brown: Camouflage.


Robert James Manion: At any rate, the results show that the people of Dauphin thought that Mr. Bowman and not his opponent should be here, and we shall have to stand by that for a while.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is
a considerable item-86,000,000-for the Hudson Bay railway and terminal, and under it I presume I am at liberty to discuss the general railway situation. As this is probably the only opportunity I shall have for the purpose, I wish to refer the Minister of Railways to pledge No. 5 in the Prime Minister's famous Winnipeg speech. This reads:

We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada; to the Pacific slope by a Peace river outlet, and east and west by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways.
I had fondly hoped, Mr. Chairman, that there would be in the estimates some amount to implement that pledge given by the Prime Minister in his famous keynote Winnipeg speech in regard to the Peace River situation; and much as I am impressed by the representations made by hon. members from Manitoba with reference to the Hudson Bay route, I wish to impress upon this house the fact that, as a national asset to Canada, the development of the Peace River outlet is of far more consequence than the development of the Hudson Bay terminals, because there is no question in the world-


An hon. MEMBER:: Be careful.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
being careful. I am going to support this item, but I wish at the same time to impress upon the house the fact I have just stated, that, as a national asset, the development of the Peace River outlet is of more importance than the construction of the Hudson Bay terminal upon which we are spending, according to the minister, the gigantic sum of $50,000,000, for a limited season ranging from twelve or thirteen weeks to a maximum of fifteen weeks a year.
Now, I do not want the Minister of Railways to come back with the statement that the late administration was in power nine years and did not carry through the Peace River outlet scheme. We have a new administration in power to-day, and the present Prime Minister's clearcut and explicit promise has been given with respect to the matter. He gave a specific promise in that pledge, No. 5, to proceed with the Peace River outlet. Let me point out to the minister that we are not dependent on the Pacific coast upon a landlocked port, open only three or four months of the year. In the city of Vancouver, at Prince Rupert and at Stewart in the far north we have three beautiful harbours, among the finest in the world, to any one of which this outlet could be constructed.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, because he is a delightful speaker. But I would point out to him that the Peace River outlet hardly comes under the Hudson Bay vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am
coming to that.

Supply-Railways-Majeking Cut-off


Robert James Manion: I am not averse to discussing it, although it is now nearly eleven o'clock, but the hon. member is really out of order in dealing with the question under this vote.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My
only reason for bringing it up now is that, before I can support this item of $6,000,000, it is necessary that I should have a declaration of policy from the Minister of Railways in regard to that pledge given by his leader. I have read the pledge; it is No. 5. If the Minister of Railways is not prepared to unfold to parliament and the country the intentions of himself and of the administration in regard to the Peace River outlet, then I think it is incumbent upon this house to leave this item over until the Prime Minister is in his seat; because those of us, on both sides of the house, who have come from British Columbia, are absolutely pledged to work night and day for the construction of this Peace River outlet, which is a most vital question to us. And it is really not a political question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does the hon. member really think it comes under this item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I am discussing the relative merits of this vote of $6,000,000 and the Peace River outlet. An item can be discussed in two ways, either absolutely or relatively by comparing the proposal involved with other projects. I am discussing this item in the latter way.
The Minister of Railways came to the city of Vancouver and made speeches just as facile and voluble as the one he delivered in Dauphin on June 27, when he pledged himself to start the construction of this Mafe-king cut-off. However, his remarkable lucidity, facility and volubility of expression did not avail him very much.


An hon. MEMBER:: You were there, that is the reason.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Ig the hon. minister now in a position, remembering the declaration of the Prime Minister during the special session that all these promises were to be implemented immediately, to inform the committee and the province of British Columbia, which is most vitally interested, what the policy of the administration is going to be, either now or in the near future, in regard to the construction of an outlet from the Peace River area to the Pacific ocean?


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend will take this matter up on the railway estimates I will 22110-1191.
give him a statement. The matter of a Peace River outlet is being investigated by the two railways. I think my hon. friend heard me state in the house that a report had been made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company. I have a copy in my office, although I have not the company's permission to table it, but when Mr. Beatty returns from England he and Sir Henry Thornton are to meet in my office early in June to discuss the whole question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This discussion is out of order, because speeches in committee must be directly relevant to the item under consideration.


Paul Mercier: It can serve as a notice of motion.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Mr. Chairman, I think it is within the knowledge of every hon. member who has sat in this house for any length of time that it is relevant to point out in regard to certain proposed expenditure that some other expenditure might have been undertaken somewhere else. Otherwise there would be no opportunity for an hon. member to complain that a certain work had not been undertaken in his own riding. Where would be the opportunity for an hon. member to ask questions with reference to a public work in, or affecting his constituency, not provided for in the estimates, unless in connection with an item covering a similar work in some other part of the country? I submit that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre is perfectly in order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member by
his remarks has confirmed me in my opinion. Ample opportunity is afforded to discuss any item which is submitted, and every reference must be strictly relevant to the item under consideration. I rule this discussion out of order on the ground that it is irrelevant. I base my ruling on standing order 58, paragraph (2), which reads as follows:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all due
deference to you, Mr. Chairman, I must say that this house is representative of all parts of Canada, and an hon. member from eastern Canada or an hon. member from western Canada is hardly in position-


Hugh Guthrie: Do I understand that you have ruled, Mr. Chairman?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will appeal from the ruling.

Orleans Island-Beaupre Bridge


Armand Renaud La Vergne: All those in favour will please say "aye".


Alan Webster Neill: I rise to a point of order.
The appeal is made not to the committee but to the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am putting my ruling into writing for the purpose of reporting to the Speaker, so that the hon. member's point of order is not well taken.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I make some observations in the meantime?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry, but I cannot allow that.


Jean-François Pouliot: It would distract the committee and you would be interested in hearing my observations.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry to disappoint the hon. member.
And Mr. Speaker having resumed the chair:


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is moved by the hon.
Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), seconded by the hon. Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) that the committee report progress-


Ernest Lapointe: There is no report, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There was no motion made; the committee rose to appeal to the house from a ruling of the Chairman.


Ernest Lapointe: It is eleven o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It being eleven o'clock,
this house stands adjourned until to-morrow afternoon at three o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, May 22, 1931