1931-03-30

PETITION AGAINST VIVISECTION

Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal):: I beg to present a petition from residents of Montreal and district and other parts of Canada praying for the passing of legislation to suppress the practice of vivisection,



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. 0. L. BOULANGER (Bellechasse) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act (returned soldiers' preference).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. BOULANGER:: This bill is similar to one introduced at the last session. It proposes three things. First, it is intended to restrict veterans' preference to Canadian veterans, the term Canadian being defined by the Canadian Nationals Act, chapter 21 of the revised statutes. Secondly, it proposes to extend from three to five years the requirement in regard to necessary residence in Canada demanded of applicants for positions in the civil service. In the third place, it proposes to do away with a practice which has been introduced into the administration of the Civil Service Commission regarding exceptions made to the clause requiring three years' residence in Canada for applicants. The Civil Service Commission has adopted what I might call blanket regulations, which seem to contradict the terms of the Civil Service Act, and in virtue of which applicants are admitted practically as a matter of course into the civil service without complying with the requirements of the Civil Service Act in
39S
Supply-Civil Government

this respect. This bill proposes to discontinue that practice and return to the sense and spirit of the Civil Service Act. Whenever it may be necessary to make an exception tn the requirements of the Civil Service Act, it is proposed that such exception shall be a special case to be specially considered by the cabinet.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. W OODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 19, to amend the Criminal Code (unlawful assemblies).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: This bill is simply to provide a safeguarding clause to ensure that the general nature and character of speeches on public affairs shall be the ground for regarding any meeting as unlawful. In some of our cities recently there has been what seems to some of us an abuse of the law, whereby citizens have been prejudiced with regard to their utterances, while others who may have been listening have been declared to be members of an unlawful assembly; and this without any regard to the general character of the speeches made. This bill is merely to prevent that sort of thing in future.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CIVIL GOVERNMENT

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Pursuant to notice, and in accordance with our understanding, I move, Mr. Speaker, that you do now leave the chair and that this house resolve itself into committee of supply.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Agriculture-contingencies, further amount required, $3,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item represents the excess of expenditures over the appropriation for contingencies by the Department of Agriculture last year. It arises primarily because of over-expenditure in connection with delegations that went out of the country in relation to investigations into agricultural matters.


Mr. POWER:: If it is not out of order at this stage, I would ask the Prime Minister

to have the courtesy to bring down all the documents and correspondence and statements of accounts in connection with an item, No. 61, which will come up in the course of the afternoon's or evening's discussion. The item in question has reference to a governor general's warrant and deals with certain matters under the Department of National Defence.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will see that it is done.


Charles Gavan Power: I am afraid it will be impossible to go on with the discussion unless the papers are down.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Civil Service Commission - contingencies, further amount required, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This is similar to a large number of items that will appear in these supplementary estimates. The custom grew up of carrying forward balances from one year to the other. A printing account of $25,000 at the end of last year was owing by the Civil Service Commission to the Department of Public Printing. When the estimates for the last year were made available it followed that when the balance of printing accounts for the preceding year was paid there remained just that much less money to take care of the business of the department. The result is that some $22,000 would ordinarily have been required, but owing to economies effected otherwise the amount called for to pay the balance due to the printing department to square the accounts of the commission is $20,000.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know whether this is the proper time to discuss the Civil Service Commission, but I would ask the government whether it has arrived at any policy with respect to the abolition of that body. I have in my hand a report of a speech made on February 23, 1931, by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon). I will translate freely from the French. The hon. member is reported in a newspaper called Le Franc Parler, published in the city of Quebec under the auspices and with the imprimatur of the deputy speaker of the house.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: That is the only controlling interest?


Charles Gavan Power: 
An hon. MEMBER:: Wait and see.


Charles Gavan Power: My hon. friend says "Wait
and see." I shall be glad to wait and see if I have the assurance of the government or of the Prime Minister that they have no intention of supporting the contention of the hon. member for Dorchester. May I say that the hon. member, during the late ill fated visit to England of the right hon. Prime Minister and the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) was publicly styled in the newspapers the Acting Solicitor General. Therefore, his statement is almost an official or at least a quasiofficial statement. He says that he speaks for the members from the province of Quebec and his statement is published in a newspaper owned or at least directed by an important official of this house, the deputy speaker. I believe it is the duty of the ministers from the province of Quebec and of the Prime Minister to take the committee into their confidence in this matter. This should be done before we vote any further sums, and I ask the Prime Minister to give us this information.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I hasten
to take the committee into my confidence. This sum of $20,000 was expended last year and this vote is to make good a deficiency caused by an appropriation made by the Civil Service Commission which was used to to extent of $25,000 for printing, payment for which was past due on April 1, 1930. My hon. friend gives point to the argument I advanced the other day when he gibes at the chairman of committees because of his non-partisan character, knowing that the chairman cannot reply.


Mr. DUFF:: He may leave the chair.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He cannot leave the
chair.


William Duff: Oh, yes he can; he can leave the chair and put somebody in his place.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not unless the committee gives him permission. It is hardly in accordance with the usual sportsmanlike qualities of my hon. friend. So far as the large question of the civil service is concerned, from the warning which has been given I feel quite satisfied that there will be considerable discussion of this item when the estimates are before the committee. At the moment we are not submitting any estimates of our own, these amounts being necessary to make good moneys which were expended in the manner which I have indicated.


Charles Gavan Power: With respect to the sneer
of the right hon. the Prime Minister-


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no, the sneer was
my hon. friend's.


Charles Gavan Power: -I have this to say with respect to my sportsmanlike attitude. The hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. La-Vergne), after the Prime Minister had indicated to him what his conduct should be, deliberately went out of his way to indulge in a partisan address to this house. I think the remarks which I addressed to him were of a nature which he himself could understand or at which he himself could not take offence. So far as I know he has made no attempt whatsoever to hide his connection with this newspaper, nor has he-I could quote his paper-made any attempt publicly or privately to hide his feelings with respect to the Civil Service Commission. If he so desires, the chairman of this committee may leave the chair and reply to the remarks of any hon. member. If the chairman thinks that I have cast unreasonable or unjust reflections upon him, he can reply.
I resent the attitude taken by the Prime Minister in this respect. We have been in this house together for a great many years and he should know that I have not on any occasion since he has been here taken advantage of my position unfairly or unjustly to assail any hon. member. For the right hon gentleman to say that this is not a matter which should be brought up during a discussion of the civil service estimates-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend must
have heard what I said.

Supply-Civil Service Commission


Charles Gavan Power: On these estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said there would be
ample opportunity.


An hon. MEMBER:: Just like the special session.


Charles Gavan Power: I accept my right hon.
friend's statement, as I must, that these are matters which should not be discussed on these estimates, but we in Quebec understood that this was an urgent matter. It is extremely unlikely that the Civil Service Commission's estimates will come up for several months. During the period which will intervene between now and the end of the session when the Civil Service Commission's estimates usually come up there will be hundreds of friends of the right hon. gentlemen, hundreds of friends of the hon. member for Dorchester, of the Solicitor General and of the Postmaster General seeking positions in the civil service but who will be precluded by the rules and regulations of the Civil Service Commission. A large number of those are my electors, some of whom up until last September were my devoted friends and on their behalf and in order that the position of the hon. gentlemen opposite may be made known to the public, in order that the people of this country outside of their constituencies as well as within may know something of the value of their statements, I think it is the duty, if the Prime Minister does not wish to do it, of members of the administration from the province of Quebec who are specifically mentioned in this article, to express their views on this matter. There should be no question about it and the people for whom I speak should know where they stand.


The CHAIRMAN:: Shall the resolution
carry?


Charles Gavan Power: No; I am prepared to stay here a long time. I think the Prime Minister owes it to the house to make some statement on these estimates. We have no desire to be obnoxious, but when our friends were sitting on this side of the house we did the best we could to accommodate them in every way. My right hon. friend will not deny that we gave him and his supporters whatever information was asked for, and whatever questions were asked were answered by the ministers of the then government. I believe it is a duty, at any rate it is a courtesy, to give whatever information is asked for, and I do not believe the Prime Minister would be lacking in courtesy to hon. members. It is only in conformity with the ordinary amenities of public life that he 
should answer a question put to him in a courteous manner. I do not ask him to give a general statement as to the policy of the government, although I think I would be entitled to do so; but I ask him, if he will not speak himself, to allow his ministers, the Postmaster General, the Solicitor General, or some of his other ministers to do so. Let someone on that side of the house say in the Commons of Canada what they have been saying throughout the country. The hon. member for Dorchester, who was so bold at a banquet, should be willing to explain his views to the house. Hon. members would, I am sure, be interested; I should be much interested and if on this estimate he will move for the abolition of the Civil Service Commission, I promise him my most cordial support. I will support him to the best of my ability. There are on this side of the house a large number of members who, like him, have had to suffer from the Civil Service Commission in days gone by.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Why did you not take action in that regard yourself?


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. gentleman will look up Hansard of 1923 he will find that a resolution to that effect was placed on the order paper and debated. If at that time we had had the support of hon. gentlemen opposite who to-day would be quite willing to abolish the commission, this infamous commission, composed of imbeciles, would long ago have been abolished. The question is a live one before the public. If the Prime Minister will not give an answer, the Postmaster General should give one. If he will not do so, the Solicitor General should, and if the Solicitor General will not, his deputy, the hon. member for Dorchester, ought to do this.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Probably no other member of the committee knows better than the hon. member for Quebec South who has just taken his seat, that even observations that are made with respect to items under consideration in the estimates, should be relevant to the question raised. If there is any information which the hon. gentleman desires, or which any hon. gentleman desires, with respect to this item, I shall regard it as my privilege and duty to furnish it to the extent of my ability, but I share to the full the observations with which the hon. gentleman commenced his remarks. He said that he did not know whether this was the appropriate place to discuss the matter or not. I think, being a member of the legal profession as he is, he will agree that neither is this the

Supply-Civil Service Commission
appropriate place, nor yet can the observations be said to be relevant because they should be directed to the obtaining of information with respect to an expenditure which has been made, and regarding which we shall have something to say later as to the desirability or not of absolutely restricting expenditures to the estimates except there be cases where governor general's warrants may be issued. So far as that is concerned, anything the hon. gentleman asks shall be at once furnished him. As regards discussing the Civil Service Commission, my hon. friend can do that to his heart's content by placing a resolution on the order paper, and I look in vain to find that he has placed on the order paper a motion to have the Civil Service Commission abolished. On going into supply he has, of course, ample opportunity to mow an amendment that the house regrets that the Civil Service Commission continues to exist. All those are avenues that are open to him, but no one knows better than he that this is not thie appropriate time for such a discussion, and in the best of good nature let me say to my hon. friend that his efforts to draw his compatriots of Quebec will fail.


Charles Gavan Power: May I say that many of them will not be pleased to be called my compatriots. As to the appropriateness of the time, I am not disposed to enter into a discussion with the Prime Minister. He knows very well that if his prominent supporters wish to abolish the Civil Service Commission, they are quite competent to put a motion on the order paper. They could also, on the house going into committee of supply, move that the Civil Service Commission be abolished. They could, even at the present moment-and I realize I could do this myself if I so desired-follow the constitutional practice which obtains in England and with which, no doubt, the Prime Minister is familiar, of moving to reduce the estimates by one dollar. That could be done; I am glad the Prime Minister brought that matter up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This item does not include salaries.


Charles Gavan Power: That does not matter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, it does a great deal.


Charles Gavan Power: I very rarely differ from the Prime Minister on constitutional matters, but it seems to me, unless I am much mistaken, that a motion could be made to reduce this item by one dollar-to one dollar.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, to one dollar!


Charles Gavan Power: I am glad the Prime Minister indicated that method of procedure. Now I ask the hon. member for Dorchester to follow it. The Prime Minister has said just what he should do. The hon. member should do it before he returns to Quebec over the holidays, or I am sure he will have to find some explanation to give to the people of Quebec why he did not follow his own leader's advice and move a reduction in these estimates. It is no longer a matter of great interest to me: it is of purely academic interest to me whether the Civil Service Commission continues in existence or not. In the better days when we sat on the opposite side, I was in the habit of saying to my hon. friends that the Civil Service Commission appeared to have been created for the Tories and the Liberal back-benchers. I believe in all probability it is now created for the Tory backbenchers and the Liberals. Nobody else that I know ever seems to suffer. If the backbenchers desire to be rid of this institution, they have only to follow the method and advice laid down by the Prime Minister, and for once we promise them our hearty cooperation.


Eugène Fiset: Mr. Chairman, in order to elucidate the point raised by the Prime Minister, I should like to have your ruling on the subject matter that can be discussed. I should like to call your attention first to the fact that this is the only item in these supplementary estimates where the name "Civil Service Commission" is mentioned. In the past it has been the rule of the house that when any general estimates of any department came under discussion, hon. members had the right to discuss anything that pertained to that department. I should like your ruling on the matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: While you are considering your ruling, Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Prime Minister whether or not his government has reached a decision regarding a reorganization of several departments, and whether it is true that many employees of the civil service will lose their jobs within a short time?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In answer to the hon. member for Rimouski, I am not here to explain the rules of the house, but if the hon. member wishes to raise a point of order, I will give him my ruling.


Jean-François Pouliot: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that my question was not put politely? I was speaking in my mildest and sweetest tones to the right hon. gentleman. If there was something offensive in what I said, I have not the slightest idea what it was. I

402	COMMONS
Supply-Civil Service Commission
should appreciate highly receiving an answer from the right hon. gentleman, even if it means nothing.


Eugène Fiset: I think, Mr. Chairman, that you have given a ruling already. The very fact that you have given that answer enables any hon. member to go on with the discussion. I am quite satisfied.


Jean-François Pouliot: The satisfactory thing about your ruling, Mr. Chairman, is that no one has to pay the costs, and in that respect it is unlike a legal ruling. May I ask the Prime Minister once more, with all the suavity I possess, if he will be good enough to give me an answer to my question. So many civil servants and their families are very anxious to know what is going to happen with respect to their jobs, especially in these hard times. No answer? If there was something wrong with my question, I would ask the Prime Minister to tell me what it was. I cannot answer myself. Will you, Mr. Chairman, please let me know if there is no answer to my question. I am not deaf but I did not hear any answer.


Mr. GOTT:: The question is a joke.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is no joke. This is a very serious matter to the civil service. We are here representing the people. We have two members in this house representing the city of Ottawa, and every other hon. member represents the country at large. We are all interested in this question. It is no good for the government to say: We are going to do this and we are going to do that; and then do nothing at all; and when something is done, it is most often wrong. I wish to be nice to the right hon. gentleman, but if he does not intend to answer me, I shall have to drop my sweet tones and speak roughly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon. gentleman-


Jean-François Pouliot: I think I know why the hon. gentleman is so cross. It is because a dark horse has won the international Bennett race for the ministry. It is very sad, Mr. Chairman. We are travelling on a mystery ship to treasure island. We know nothing, and nothing is told us. The government asks us to vote these items blindly. According to parliamentary institutions that date back to Magna Charta, the representatives of the people are entitled to know what is the policy of the government. Here we are ready to cooperate with the government in all good measures. We on this side of the house are not narrow-minded; we are broad-minded. I have sat in this house for several years on the

opposite side, and when hon. gentlemen opposite were sitting over here, never did I see a Liberal minister refuse to give them any information they desired. Very often indeed Liberal ministers have supplied Conservative members with confidential information, trusting them to keep it confidential. The Liberal ministers treated all members of the house fairly, without any distinction of party. The fiscal year ends to-morrow, Mr. Chairman, and there are many people who are anxious to know what is the policy of the government with respect to the civil service. Is the government going to give its policy to the press before advising members of the house. I would not be surprised at that at all. Am I to receive no answer? I wish to be courteous to the right hon. gentleman and his colleagues and supporters in this house, but I say that in this request for information I am backed up by all the electors of my constituency irrespective of political affiliations. Once more I ask the Prime Minister if he has anything to say regarding his policy with respect to the civil service.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I should like to get
some information from the Prime Minister in connection with this matter. There are rumours that retrenchments are to be made in the civil service, and that the employees of one department in particular, the Interior department, are to be placed elsewhere. I should like to know if, in considering the retention of employees in the service or their placement elsewhere, the government will give a preference to native-born Canadians. I am in receipt of a resolution from the Native Sons of Canada, asking that such a preference be given. I am sorry that I have not the resolution here; it is in my room, but if the Prime Minister will allow me, I will send him a copy of it. This is an influential society, which is taking a great interest in the affairs of the Dominion, and it recommends that so far as possible native-born Canadians be retained in the service in preference to non-Canadians.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman-Central,
please get me a connection with the ministry! The line seems to be busy. I want to speak to the right hon. the Prime Minister. Ah, I see the line which was out of order has now been repaired and that I have the attention of the right hon. gentleman. I would ask him once more, what is the policy of the government. regarding civil service employees. This question has frequently been discussed in the press, and I would like to know what is going to happen. If the Civil Service Commission

Supply-Civil Service Commission
is abolished, will all the present employees be dismissed? Will there be a complete change of staffs in the departments?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Hon. members laugh; but I am serious. The Prime Minister smiles. I like to see him smile. He is at his best then; it is the natural thing for him to do. Apparently, Mr. Chairman, the line has got out of order again. It is very sad, Mr. Chairman, to have such a disgraceful experience.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: Some hon. gentlemen say, " hear, hear." It shows that they understand. They are not deaf, but they are dumb. Yes, they are dumb. La chatte leur a mange la langue. The cat has eaten their tongue; they do not speak; they have nothing to say. They think a lot; in fact they think so much they have nothing to say. Yes, they think all the time. My hon. friends opposite remind me of a very clever little boy who went to see his grandfather and spoke to him about candy.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: The hon. gentleman
is wasting the time of the house.


Jean-François Pouliot: Well, well, listen. The
little boy said: " II ne parle pas." I would say that of the right hon. the Prime Minister. I wonder if the right hon. gentleman said all he had to say during the last election campaign.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am reminded of the
bright sunshine which follows a long period of rain. The smile of my right hon. friend might be likened to that sunshine. However we on this side of the house are just poking little jokes at him to keep him in good humour. As he is in good humour now I would like to have an answer.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Sit down.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, I am not here to sit down. My right hon. friend knows that as soon as he gets up I will sit down. Until that time, however, I will claim my right and privilege as a member of this house to ask for all available information in the matter. To be dumb is a contagious disease, and I am afraid my hon. friends on the other side of the house are stricken with that complaint, except for purposes of heckling. They make no answer. I would like to know if an answer 22110-261
is to come. Will it come? And from where will it come? The hon. the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) who is in charge of the Civil Service Commission is not in the house and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) is piloting the estimates. I know very well that the Prime Minister must be familiar with all the details in connection with those estimates and I would be very thankful if he would tell us something about them. The silence of my hon. friends opposite reminds me of a practice which prevailed at college. When I attended school there was a period called le grand silence which extended from eight o'clock in the evening until six o'clock in the morning, and in that time nobody was allowed to speak. To-day we have a similar situation; no hon. members on the other side of the house will speak. Well, we have some doctors in the house. We have the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) who is a doctor. I wonder why he does not cure the dumbness of the Prime Minister. The hon. gentleman is a doctor and I am told he is a very good one. Then there is the hon. the Minister of Health (Mr. MadLaren) and hie is a doctor. Is it not a disease to be dumb? The hon. gentleman does not say a word. Perhaps he is suffering from that contagious disease. I think the right hon. gentleman should delegate his first medical officer in the department to cure the dumbness of all the Tories on the other side of thie house. I am pleased to bring to the attention of the Minister of Health the illness of my hon. friends opposite. No answer; wre must have Rip Van Winkle before us. La belle au bois dormant.


Mr. HEENAN:: May I ask the right hon. the Prime Minister if this $20,000 is to pay the printing account; is it going to the Printing Bureau?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, partially, but not wholly.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: A few minutes ago I raised a point in all seriousness and I would like to have an expression of opinion by the government.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Prime Minister is rising from his seat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I hold myself in readiness to answer any question which may be directed to an item under consideration by the committee and to furnish all information available in the departments of this country in regard to items in question. This item does not affect the question of employees; no part of the money is to pay the salaries
Supply-Miscellaneous

of employees. The balance 'that was overexpended was with respect to printing and contingencies. The question of reorganization will be made known in due course, but, as my hon. friend will appreciate, a discussion of that question is not relevant at the present time.


Jean-François Pouliot: If this commission is abolished it will print nothing.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The right hon. gentleman has said that the expenditure is for printing and contingencies; what are contingencies?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In every department of public service there are contingent accounts to take care of unenumerated items of the public service. They are unforeseen expenditures and sums of money are voted to each department for that purpose. Sometimes it happens that the unforeseen expenditures exceed those which have been foreseen. With respect to this item however there is no such condition. The truth of the matter is that there were accounts amounting to $22,532.50 which remained unpaid from the preceding year. Economies in the department however have been made to take care of the balance so that only $20,000 is necessary to provide for accounts carried over from the preceding year.


Mr. VENIOT:: Are there any details concerning the contingent accounts paid?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The details are in the report of the Auditor General. The accounts have been passed by the auditors, and paid. When we reach the report of the Auditor General which involves a sum of about half a million dollars I think the house will have to adopt a very definite policy which will be spoken of when that item is reached.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Insurance - contingencies - further amount required, $11,500.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That amount is to pay for the printing of the second volume of the insurance report for the year ending December 31, 1929. The carry-forward from the preceding year involved some items but in this item no provision was made. The cost of printing was $11,500.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Justice - contingencies - further amount required, $2,500.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: What is that for?


Richard Bedford Bennett: First of all, this sum is to cover the expense in connection with some 
temporary employees, but printing and stationery constitute the major part of it. I think it may be fair to say to the committee that the greater part of these items refers to just such incidents as that in the transaction of the public business. When we reach the large item of $500,000 I shall attempt to make a clear explanation of the whole matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Marine-salaries-further amount required for an assistant private secretary, $1,710; contingencies - further amount required, $13,000-Total, $14,710.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The sum of $13,000 represents an over expenditure beyond the appropriation carried forward from the preceding year; $1,710 is to take care of the payment of an assistant secretary for a period of six months, until March 31, 1931. The payment for the current year will appear in the estimates.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Does this newly appointed official come under the Civil Service Act?


Richard Bedford Bennett: All secretaries, private secretaries and assistant secretaries do not come under the provisions of the act. That is one of the difficulties we have had on our hands during the last few months.


Eugène Fiset: Has	any portion
of this $13,000 been used for travelling expenses of civil service employees and ministers? The contingencies usually include the travelling expenses of civil employees.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The knowledge which the hon. member has through his experience in the Department of National Defence enables him to speak with much authority about a matter of this kind, but that entire amount of $13,000 represents an over expenditure, representing a carry over from the preceding year which diminished the estimates for the current year by that sum, and this amount of $13,000 represents exactly the amount which had to be paid out of the current estimates because of the carry over from the preceding year.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if-the salary of the assistant secretary is to be $3,400 a year? It is $1,700 for six months.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is $3,420 per year for an assistant private secretary, Mr. Lallamme.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Legislation
Department of National Defence-contingencies-further amount required, $10,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That represents an over
expenditure in the same way.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask in connection
with this item-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The item has been carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of Justice-Supreme Court of Canada-law books and books of reference for library, and binding of same-further amount required, $2,550.
Richard Bedford Bennett: That item merely represents the over expenditure to enable the fiscal year to be commenced without a deficit.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
The Senate-salaries and contingencies- further amount required, $7,296.39.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Mr. COOTE:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member for
Macleod desires an explanation. This item with reference to the Senate represents expenditures in connection with the special session. With respect to the House of Commons the corresponding item represents in part the expenditures incidental to the special session also the expenditures for the payment of sessional clerks and for certain numbers which were carried over, about which there will be ample opportunity for discussion when the Auditor General's report is under consideration by the public accounts committee.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Legislation-House of Commons-expenses of committees, clerical assistance, etc.-further amount required, $6,000; contingencies-further amount required, $18,500; estimates of Sergeant-at-Arms-further amount required, $23,000-Total, $47,500.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: The question I should like to ask my right hon. friend does not relate so much to the item under consideration as to a matter of procedure, which, however, I feel might best be mentioned at this stage. Up to the present, in reference to the explanation of estimates which affect several departments of the government, we have only heard from the right hon. Prime Minister. I am not sure whether my right hon. friend is taking control of the estimates in his capacity of Prime Minister or in his capacity of Minister of Finance, but I wish he would tell us whether the other
ministers who are in charge of the different departments are to be allowed to explain their own estimates or whether we are to look only to him for explanations of the items that appear in the estimates which have been presented to the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been the practice generally for the Minister of Finance to deal with supplementary estimates because the items have not been numerous, and, as the Minister of Finance is in control of the supply bill when it is ultimately submitted to the house I thought it desirable, and have prepared myself, to deal with them as has been done on previous occasions. There are not many items, and I thought I could furnish any explanations that might be required with respect to them in my capacity of Minister of Finance.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Do I understand my right hon. friend desires by his remarks to have it inferred that the ministers who are responsible heads of the different departments are not to be expected to answer questions put to them in regard to matters affecting their departments, where these matters arise out of the estimates which are before us?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has not been the custom heretofore, and I have followed that custom.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I cannot agree with that statement.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes; that was the procedure followed last year when the supplementary estimates for the preceding year were submitted. These do not involve future expenditures. These are expenditures that already have been made, and I might further say to my right hon. friend that these were largely made before we came into power. The duty is cast upon me, and I think he will agree in a moment as to the soundness of the position I take, of endeavouring to ensure that every minister in his department faces the new year on April 1 without carrying forward a balance which he must pay from this year's appropriation, thereby making his appropriation deficient for the present year. I am endeavouring to do that; I believe it is sound business, and if I might anticipate what I am going to say in a moment, the Auditor General points out that that should be done. I brought with me the volume of the Auditor General's report containing that recommendation. In his report for the year ending March 31, 1930, at page
Supply-Legislation

9,	the Auditor General points out what the difficulty has been from year to year. In the year 1928-29 the carry over was $1,572,000, and last year it was $505,000, so there was $1,000,000 appropriated for the current year that had to go for the purpose of paying the accounts of the past year. As these estimates are of that character I assumed that the usual practice of the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for the passage of the supply bill, of making explanations, would be the proper one to follow, and I was going to make a little more lengthy explanation in connection with this matter and ask the committee to agree with me that there should be no over expenditure in the different departments. 'Certainly the right does not exist in any department to over expend money through the officials when there has been no appropriation by parliament. I should think that principle has been clearly laid down, although it has been departed from in some instances without the ministers knowing about it. The time has come when some very drastic action will have to be taken to prevent a recurrence of that condition.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I entirely
agree with what my hon. friend says about over expenditures on the part of the officials; I think he is right in trying to put an end to that. However, I do not agree with him as to it being the practice for the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance to handle all the supplementary estimates. Parliament generally has been accorded the fullest information in respect to all relevant questions which have been asked, and I submit that full information can only be obtained from the ministers at the head of the different departments concerned, with the aid possibly of their deputies.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: May I get some information in relation to the item of $23,000 for the Sergeant-at-Arms?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That means the department of the Sergeant at Arms and all that is involved in it up to March 31, and as it involves a large number of items in connection with what might be called the internal economy of the house at the special session and otherwise, details of which are in the Auditor General's report for the current year, I am only asking the house, now that they have been paid, to legalize the payment of them.


James J. Donnelly: Does that mean expenses for the special session and up to the 31st of March this year, and this session as well?
I Mr. Bennett.]


Richard Bedford Bennett: Up to March 31, 1931,
being the end of the fiscal year. These supplementary estimates cover expenditures already made, some of them possibly in 1929. They will also cover all expenditures that have been necessarily made up to the end of this year, which is to-morrow.


James J. Donnelly: Are there any of these expenditures which go back to 1929? Can the Prime Minister give us any information?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There is one item that went back to 1929, not in connection with the Sergeant at Arms. Because of the carry forward from 1929 to 1930, there was not enough to take care of the whole of it and a balance was left to 1931.


James J. Donnelly: The sum of $500,000 has been expended by the Department of Agriculture since the first of September last. Is not the Minister of Agriculture going to explain how that amount was expended and why? Is he not going to be allowed to say anything about it or give information of any kind?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my hon. friend will use different words. He says the minister is not "allowed" to explain. There is no such word as that in this house. The fullest possible opportunity will be given hon. members to ask any questions, and the answers will be forthcoming.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the details of these accounts appear in the report of the Auditor General next year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture-fruit-further amount required,
Mr. MOTHERWELL:: What is this for? Was the department short to this extent on the original estimate of a year ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The $20,000 was largely owing to the demand made in Nova Scotia and British Columbia in connection with the fruit crop, which was exceptionally heavy. The vote was not sufficient to carry the account, together with the sum that had to be taken from the main estimates by reason of other expenditures carried forward from last year. This is for fruit inspection in Nova Scotia and British Columbia, for reasonable additional work.


James J. Donnelly: How much was carried forward from the previous year?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have not the figure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Supply-Agriculture
Live stock - further amount required,
Richard Bedford Bennett: The shortage in this case arose because the department undertook additional work in the sheep and swine divisions and assisted in the club work and sow purchase policy of the administration. Then there were increases in the exhibition grants which could not have been foreseen and are not fixed by rule, and an increase in the record of performance policy in cattle and poultry, which hon. members will understand was the policy of the administration when the former minister left the department. There are similar increases in other directions. I can get the details of all these expenditures if it is desired.


Mr. VALLANCE:: I would ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) if he would do so-because he is in a much better position, probably, than the Prime Minister to give the information-to tell us just how much of this $100,000 was spent under the swine, sheep and cattle policy. He might also give us the information which has been asked for quite frequently at this session as to just what is the policy regarding live stock.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We can leave the item
and the details will be given to the committee. The item can stand for the moment.
Item stands.
Health of animals-administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and Canned Foods Act-further amount required, $300,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps the committee
desires the details of this item. This is largely in connection with the compensation that has to be paid because a larger number of animals reacted than provision had been made for in the estimates. There is a considerable amount of additional money required for the purpose. We may let the item stand and I will see that details are furnished.
Item stands.
Administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act-further amount required, $20,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is an item with
which the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) is familiar. It represents the increased activities of the inspectors under the Destructive Insect and Pest Act. The greater portion of the expenditure, if not the whole of it, was, I think, incurred before this government came into power. It was necessary because of the prevalence of
larger numbers of insects and pests in some parts of the country, and additional help had to be employed.
IMr. MOTHERWELL:	This is a very
important item, and I think the committee would like to have a detailed explanation as to how the entomological staff is getting on in the rounding-up of cut-worms which were destructive on the prairies last summer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had not anticipated
that the practice which has heretofore obtained would be departed from. This is not the time, in my judgment, at which to discuss the general question of destruction caused by pests and insects. This is money that was expended under the policy of the former administration. I could give the hon gentleman the details, but they are involved in the details of the whole departmental enpenditure. There is no segregation of this $20,000, which is an over-expenditure beyond the appropriation made. The main estimates called for $625,000 and the expenditure was $645,000.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In view of the fact that spring operations are beginning on the farms to-day, I would ask the Prime Minister to let all these items under agriculture stand until the Minister of Agriculture is in his place to carry the estimates through, in order that we might get some information from him. Most of us from western Canada are going home on Wednesday, and we should like to know from the Minister of Agriculture whether he really has an agricultural policy or whether he contemplates doing anything for the farmers. We should get that information from him. It is only fair and proper, even if these items are to cover money already expended, that the committee should be given information such as I am asking for. The house and the country are entitled to it. I should like to be able to tell the people whom I represent, and who are practically all farmers, that the government has some policy which will be of benefit to them.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the members
of this committee will agree that it has never been suggested before that the policy of the government should be declared on the voting of supplementary estimates for the current fiscal year. These debts have been incurred largely by appropriations made by the hon gentleman's own administration, and I should think in fairness to those who have to be responsible for their payment that the payment should be legalized without any delay. With the exception of one item, that is all that is involved in these supplementary estimates.
Supply-Agriculture


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The present session opened rather late and we are already in the midst of our spring operations. Unless I am very much mistaken, during the last ten years hon. members have had the right to discuss the general policy adopted by any department at the time their estimates were being considered, no matter whether it was an item which had been spent or otherwise. I do not desire to embarrass the Prime Minister, but in view of the lateness of the opening of the session and the disappointment of the farmers at receiving nothing of a definite character, after having been prepared for a pronouncement by the Prime Minister at the Regina meeting, a statement of policy should be made by the government. I am making this suggestion in fairness to the people whom I represent and who are very vitally interested in the agricultural policy of this government. I do not claim that governments can do everything for the farmer or for the unemployed, but at the same time these people are expecting something. If we have nothing to give them, let them know it so that they can act accordingly.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, stands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Inasmuch as
my right hon. friend has said two or three times that the practice now being followed is what it has been heretofore, and in view of the fact that for some time I occupied the position which he now occupies, I may respectfully remind the committee that when estimates were brought down, whether they were supplementary or other estimates, not only were the ministers expected to be present and to give the desired information, but their deputies were expected to be present in the gallery and to come on to the floor of the house as might be necessary in order to give any information which the committee might wish to have. My hon. friend both in the special session and at this session, has been treated very generously and leniently by the opposition with respect to all matters he has wished to advance, and I think he owes it to the committee to see that a liberal interpretation is given to the obligation of the government and of its ministers to reply to any questions asked with regard to items appearing in the supplementary estimates. When the house began its sittings this afternoon the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was in his seat, but after the first item respecting agriculture can.i' under discussion in committee he left. I submi:' that the committee is entitled to more in the Vvv.y of respect from the hon. (Mr. B**iBett.]
ministers. Questions should not be left unanswered and hon. ministers should not deliberately absent themselves from the committee when matters pertaining to their departments are under discussion. If my hon. friend will allow his ministers to give us such information as they are able to, wp will make allowance for limitations that may be all too evident.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the last observation is hardly worthy of the right hon. gentleman or of any hon. gentleman who leads the opposition in this house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We have
received no answers to our questions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: At my request the
Minister of Agriculture left the committee to obtain particulars which he thought he had with him. He did not deliberatly absent himself from the committee. It has been and is the practice of parliament when estimates are being voted for the future to allow the fullest possible discussion with respect to policies and everything else connected therewith, but when we are endeavouring only to legalize expenditures which, according to the Auditor General's report were very deliberate, I think another set of considerations prevail. This committee, being anxious to retain some semblance of integrity with respect to its dealings, is now legalizing the unwarranted acts of those who made certain expenditures because they say they were instructed to do so. In my judgment, that is a wrong conception of their public duties by the permanent officials of this country. I am seeking to do only what I think any minister in my place would endeavour to do as Minister of Finance charged with the responsibility of a supply bill-to deal with these items without any undue delay. The sum total of these items is not large, except the one item of $2,000,000 for the Welland ship canal. This item permitted the contractors to continue work in a very open season, but they did so on the understanding that they would not be paid until parliament had voted the money. The amount of $505,510.46 is to cover items which, according to the Auditor General's report for 1930, were illegally and improperly expended.
So far as the inquiries with respect to the item under discussion are concerned, I asked the Minister of Agriculture to obtain from his department the list of expenditures as it has been found impossible to segregate these items from the whole. The original estimate of $25,000 was expanded into $645,000, and the

Supply-Unprovided Items
extra expenditure is now being compensated for by this item: it is to take care of the overdraft.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend inferred that these estimates were different from other supplementary estimates in that they were to meet payments for alleged unwarranted acts. I ask my right hon. friend whether he wished to imply by that remark that these estimates are different in any material essential from the supplementary estimates usually brought down, at the beginning of each session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will admit that during the last few years they do not differentiate, but now that the right hon. gentleman has raised this question I might as well answer it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I was going to discuss this matter when the item of $505,510.46 was under discussion.


Eugène Fiset: Have the chairman call the item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is that amount for unprovided items?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Item No. 64.


Eugène Fiset: May I suggest
that the chairman call the item in question; it would be more regular.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be much more regular, but inasmuch as the right hon. the leader of the opposition has raised this question I am ready to answer it. If it is the will of the committee that we take up item No. 64 I shall be very glad to do so, but we have an item under discussion at the moment and I suggest that it should be disposed of first.
Service
Administration of justice..
Agriculture	
Charges of management.. .
Then follow, one after the other, down to
Royal Canadian Mounted Police	
Then he goes on to say:
From the figures given in the above statement it will be seen that, after allowing for the unusual over-expenditure of $1,048,482.21 on account of Pensions in 1928-29, the amount of the over-expenditures of appropriations in 1929-30 exceeded that of the preceding year by approximately $20,000. As pointed out on page V of my report for last year, the responsibility for these over-expenditures rests entirely with the departments administering the


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


James J. Donnelly: The question asked by the hon. leader of the opposition is right and proper. We are discussing a vote for the administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act, and we desire to know what progress has been made in destroying the cutworm. We want to know what progress they have made in overcoming the cutworm, because it has done a great deal of damage in western Canada and has destroyed a number of crops. What progress has been made in fighting that insect? It is right and proper that they should tell the committee what has been done.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is the committee going to discuss the present item or have it stand?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Stand.
Item stands.
Unprovided items, 1929-30. To cover unprovided items, 1929-30, as per Auditor General's report, vol. 1, page 5, 1929-30, $505,510.46.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Resuming my observations with respect to this item, the Auditor General at page VII of his report for 1929-30 says:
The unexpended portions of grants for the fiscal year amounted to $73,609,335.23, an increase of $15,353,248.78 over the amount unexpended in 1928-29. The amount by which grants were exceeded was $505,510.46, for which a special parliamentary appropriation will be necessary.
The following comparative statement shows, under services, the amounts by which grants vrere exceeded in each of the last three fiscal years.
Then follows the page from his report on the items:
1929-30	1928-29	1927-28
			 $ 31 47
$ 6,055 87		
21,289 95	$37,799 29	787 95
the Royal Canadian Movfcted Police:
			 $8,141 86
appropriations exceeded and especially with the accountants of the departments whose duties in such cases are clearly defined in an executive regulation approved by the Governor in Council on July 7, 1892. The over-expending of appropriations has the effect of lessening parliamentary control over expenditures and, although in very exceptional cases it may have to be permitted, the practice is to be deprecated and means should be taken to prevent it.
Supply-Unprovided Items

No explanations with regard to appropriations not fully expended were furnished by two of the departments. As the amounts voted were based on estimates submitted by the various departments, I consider that the House of Commons is as much entitled to explanations of under-expenditures as of overexpenditures.
Then he goes on to discuss other matters. Each minister, upon asking his department, as the ministers have to do, as to what had to be provided in the way of money in the supplementary estimates to make good expenditures that had been made prior to the 31st March, 1931, was furnished with the details that I have submitted to the house. This item of 1505,510.46 is one of them. I know not how long the practice may have continued antecedent to 1927-28, but it is apparent that during those three years it grew from a practice amounting to about $109,000 to one amounting to $1,572,000. The responsibility is, as the Auditor General says, with the accountants of the departments, and if parliamentary control of appropriations is to be maintained except under very exceptional conditions that may sometimes prevail, it follows that discipline must be applied, or the whole system will be wrecked for if accountants and deputy ministers under the control of ministers may make, beyond parliamentary appropriations, expenditures amounting to $1,000,000, they can do it to the amount of So,000,000 or $10,000,000. All we are doing is to endeavour to start on the first of April with a clean sheet, and every appropriation that the committee is being asked to make to-day is to legalize what has 'been done and to pay back debts that have been incurred by the departments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In speaking a moment ago, I agreed with my right hon. friend as to the desirability of having the closest kind of control exercised in order to prevent government officials from sanctioning over-expenditures. What I should like to point out to him is that with respect to the expenditures we are now discussing he has had that control for eight months; the previous government had it for four months. If there is a very large excess of expenditure, my right hon. friend and his ministers are the ones who are primarily responsible for it; they have had the control at the time when its exercise was required. Moreover, I am quite sure, although I have not had an opportunity to secure the estimates, that if we look back for many years in the past, we shall find that the item which is now before the committee is one that has appeared regularly in the supplementary estimates. It does not arise solely from over-payments in the current fiscal

year. As my right hon. friend said a moment ago, there are many things which are unforeseen, items that even deputy ministers and ministers have not foreseen and the Auditor General has not foreseen. In a business involving the expenditure of between $300,000,000 and $400,000,000 annually, it would be extraordinary if there were not items here and there running into a few thousand dollars that might escape notice in that way. This item is inserted to make good those unforeseen amounts. It need not imply any real neglect on the part of anyone unless it is carried to too great an extreme.


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend will find as he continues his administration, that with a great many contracts unfinished, it is very difficult to end a year with a complete payment of accounts covering that particular year. Provision is made for a short period in which to cover those accounts. I am quite well aware of the practice spoken of by my right hon. friend, but may I point out to him that the Auditor General is the individual who is in charge and who has control and can control.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know. But the trouble is the money is spent before he gets a chance.


Charles A. Stewart: That may
be; but my right hon. friend will agree with me that the Auditor General has the authority to prevent payment. What happens is that very frequently contracts run from one year to another, and it is difficult to say what the exact amount really is at the end of the fiscal year. The appropriation really ceases at the end of the fiscal year. It is most difficult to have a complete and exact accounting closing out accounts and contracts for the fiscal year ending on the 31st of March.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have been
able to secure a copy of the supplementary estimates presented to parliament for the session 1922-23 and which contain the item to cover unprovided items for 1921-22. This would correspond with the session we are now holding. The Liberal administration had come into office and had been in office for, I believe, three months when these excess estimates were presented. The present administration will very soon have been in office for about eight months. The item before us is to make good unprovided expenditures amounting to $505,510.46. In the supplementary estimates of 1922-23, the item there recorded for unprovided items for 1921-22 which relates to expenditure under the previous Conservative administration is $2,055,030.86. My right hon. friend will see from this to what extent the

Liberal administration has exercised care and caution in supervising expenditures in the departments as compared with his friends when they were in office.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would my right hon.
friend kindly let me have the estimate?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I will read the item to the house:
Unprovided items, 1921-22-434 to cover unprovided items, 1921-22, as per Auditor General's report, part b, page, 3, 1921-22, $2,055,030.86.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I suppose my right hon. friend remembers the circumstances in connection with that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There are always special reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are no special
reasons about this one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The same
reasons.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. My right hon.
friend will remember the extraordinary demands made on the treasury in connection with unemployment relief in 1920-21. The supplementary estimates for 1922-23, from which he has quoted, are for the fiscal year ending on the 31st day of March, 1923. They are supplementary estimates for future expenditures, and what my right hon. friend read there was just one block item, instead of giving the details as I have done.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am reading
precisely the same item that my right hon. friend has here. His item reads:
To cover unprovided items, 1929-30, as per Auditor General's report, vol. I, page 5, 1929-30.
It is an item to cover unprovided items for the previous period.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The estimates that were submitted for the year ending March 31, 1923, were estimates for that period, not for the period ending March 31, 1922. But I am dealing with items that have been expended, and I have given the details of them. I am doing that, instead of allowing them to run into next year, and putting an item in to cover them. The Auditor General has put in an item of $505,510.46, which compares with the item which my right hon. friend has mentioned. What has not been realised, apparently, is that we are now endeavouring to start the year clear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So were we.
Supply-Unprovided Items


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, because the next
year you did the same thing. What I am trying to do is to avoid this step next year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That has happened every year since there has been an accounting.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. There may be a
small sum. My right hon. friend says that it was $2,055,000 odd for the year 1921-22. It was $1,500,000 in 1928-29.
The Auditor General directs attention to what must be painfully apparent to everyone. It means that you substitute the minister and an accountant for parliament, because the money has gone and there was no appropriation for it. Instead of doing what I might have done, namely, let this be treated as a supplementary estimate next year, or in the supplementary estimates this year by putting in an item "to cover amount unprovided for",
I am giving the details of each department where the overdraft was, so there might be upon the record an indication of what these overdrafts were, and then we would start fair and square with the world. That is what has been done. The question as to policy cannot enter it because I could abandon all these items and treat them simply as one item, as was done in the main estimates. But I am going to endeavour at least-one may fail in the endeavour; an ex-minister says that we will fail, but I do not thing that we will-to see that hereafter there mil be no over-expenditures by accountants and deputy ministers in departments, with the aid of a minister, about which the minister may know nothing-


Charles A. Stewart: Except under governor general's warrant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Exactly, but that is another thing altogether. Then those over expenditures are legalized in the estimates that come before the house. Once more I desire to make it clear to the committee, although it may be that my conception of my obligations as Minister of Finance is not such that I shall be able to realize it-the hon. member for West Edmonton says that is so-


Charles A. Stewart: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But this is so. We are asking the committee this afternoon to pass these estimates of money that has been expended so that this house may hold this administration responsible for what happens from tihe 1st day of April next, after which we cannot say that any part of the expenditures were incurred by the former administra-
Supply-Unprovided Items

tion. I think an effort should be made to make it possible for each department to live within its appropriation. If not, some men will lose their positions. That is all I have to say.


Eugène Fiset: Would the minister be kind enough to elucidate one point. He says that these expenditures have been incurred by different departments, but that no payments have been made. The expenditures were authorized but no payments were made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: In many instances the
payments have been made in full.


Eugène Fiset: Speaking from
experience, I would say that some of the statements that have been made by my right hon. friend are not exactly-I do not like to use the word, correct-but I remember when I was deputy minister, and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) whom I had the honour of having as my minister at one time will bear me out in this-never was any overexpenditure of that kind authorized. The expenditure may have been incurred, but no payments were made before the appropriation was voted. I think that applies in this case also, unless there were extraordinary payments that I am not aware of.
Another thing: In every department, before the accountant or even the deputy minister .can authorize any over-payment of that kind, the Auditor General must sanction that overpayment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He says not.


Eugène Fiset: He is making a mistake, because in my experience as deputy minister never has an accountant paid out a check without getting the authority of the Auditor General. That is provided by law.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my right hon. friend must be under a misapprehension because there are cases where an appropriation is exhausted, and then either the account must stand until the money is voted or-


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what they do not do.


Charles A. Stewart: Where do
they get the money?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With an overdraft.


Charles A. Stewart: I never was able to get it except by a governor general's warrant. My right hon. friend will find that the accounting situation is not quite so loose as he would depict it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would just answer my hon. friend by saying that his own department owed the printing bureau a large sum

of money, which we had to pay, thereby reducing by that amount the grant that was available for the purpose indicated. The printing bureau rendered their accounts promptly, and there was no reason why these accounts should not have been paid; but by not paying them you got past the passing of the estimate, and showed just that much less money to vote. If you wish to go on in that way, that is all that it is necessary to do. But the liability has to be met another year. T


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
questioning that at all.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Let me give the figures. There was over three-quarters of a million dollars owing to the printing department by different departments. Part of that was in consequence of the election, the same as the census vote, which is a large item, but matters of that kind can be dealt with and should be dealt with. My hon. friend says that the Auditor General passes upon the account. All I can say is that he says not.
feir riUGENE FISET: He is a new man; he has been imposed upon.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not see how the
Auditor General necessarily sees the accounts before they are paid. He does not know the
sum total. All he passes on is the accuracy of the account.
hir EUGENE FISET: In my department there was pre-audit, a continuous audit, and a post-audit.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is not sufficient to enable him to say whether the appropriation is exhausted. He says in his report:
As pointed out on page V of my report for last year, the responsibility for these overexpenditures rests entirely with the departments administering the appropriations exceeded and especially with the accountants of the departments, whose duties in such cases are clearly defined.
And then the order in council is given. Since I have been in the Department of Finance I have observed that to be the case and to the best of my ability I have endeavoured and purpose to continue to provide that there will be no over expenditures next year beyond the appropriations.


Eugène Fiset: Will the right hon. gentleman allow me to make one more remark? During the war and even while demobilization appropriations were being made my hon. friend will remember that under the War Appropriation Act the audit was changed to fhe extent of allowing the Auditor General to take charge of audits of the expenditures

Supply-Unprovided Items
made by the Department of Militia and Defence. I am more familiar with those expenditures than with the expenditures of the department about which my right hon. friend is talking at the present time. I know however that there is a provision in the audit act that every accountant before incurring any expenditure not voted by parliament absolutely must consult the Auditor General.


John Vallance: I would like to ask
the Prime Minister a question. Are we to understand that these supplementary estimates are being asked to cover a deficit for which this government is not responsible? Have new policies for which this government is not responsible brought about some of these expenditures? Take for instance the subject of agriculture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not use the word deficit generally as perhaps the hon. member will follow. I used the word deficit in respect to appropriations in every instance, and the details are given with much greater fullness than has usually been the case. Instead of putting in the supplementary estimates for the whole account under one item we pursued the other course and gave to the committee details of every department as to contemplated expenditures. Some of the expenditures represent a continuation of policies and some of them represent sums already expended. I give the following illustration. We will suppose that the grant is 1600 and the expenditure is $700 but exactly the same policy has been followed at which involved the spending of only $600. Extraordinary circumstances however involved the necessity of increasing the expenditure to $700 and we have asked for a supplementary estimate because the money has 'been paid. I will say to my hon. friend the ex-Deputy Minister of Militia and Defence that in many instances the money has not been paid. In the major number of instances however it has been paid. Despite what the hon. member thinks should have been the practice, and with him I agree, the Auditor General has said it is not the practice and as he is Charged with the responsibility I am bound to accept his interpretation and I think my hon. friend will agree there has been no mistake made in the matter so far as I am concerned.


Eugène Fiset: I was merely asking for information.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. the Prime Minister has given to the house as an explanation of the $2,055,000 unprovided
item in the accounts of 1921-1922 the fact that the amount was due to special grants for the unemployed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The years 1922 and 1923.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: No, 1921-22. I quote-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thought the right hon. gentleman said 1922 and 1923.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. My right hon. friend had the book before him, and it shows an unprovided item for 1921-22. The sum mentioned is to cover unprovided items for the years 1921-22 as per the Auditor General's report part b, page 3. I have that part of the report in my hand and I will read from it in order to explain how the unprovided items arose. The grant for agriculture was exceeded by $12.72. The charges of management grant was exceeded by $3,08831; civil government salaries, by $5,416.95; civil government contingencies by $507.22; customs and inland revenue by $167,705.67 and demobilization by $976,322.89.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is the item to which I referred.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, demobilization. But that does not account for a million dollars; the amount to which my right hon. friend referred was over $2,000,000. Then, in connection with militia and defence the grant was exceeded by $2,999.14. The grant for penitentiaries was exceeded by $161,738.24; that for pensions by $298,428.06; for post office, outside service $417,93529; for public works, income, $20,510.36; for the collection of revenue, S350.84; for trade and commerce, $15.17; making a total of $2,055,030.86. If we deduct the amount my right hon. friend had in mind, that for demobilization amounting to $976,322.89, there is still left over $1,055,000 of grant exceeded which appeared as unprovided items for the years 1921-22. That was a period during which hon. gentlemen opposite had been in office for nine months and the Liberal administration in office for three months. The item we have this year arises when a Liberal administration has been in office for four months and hon. gentlemen opposite have had control for eight months. It is not the figure of $2,055,000 but the figure of $505,000. I would ask the house and the country to draw their own conclusion.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not wish to leave my hon. friend under a misapprehension that I have made the statement that there was absolute control. I agree that perhaps more control is desirable. In departments there is such a thing as switching votes,
Supply-Unprovided, Items

and that practice should I think be prohibited. It should not be practised to any considerable degree. I do wish to say to him however that never in my nine years experience have I known the department to pay by cheque out of an appropriation that was exhausted. That is what would have to happen before a supplementary would be required. May I say to my right hon. friend that that cannot be done. Either money would have to be provided by warrant or the practice would have to be adopted to which my right hon. friend has taken exception, the practice of allowing it to run over into the next year and paying it out of the appropriation for the following year. I will admit that has been practised but not to any great extent. I think however that is a practice which might very well be stopped at once and permanently.


Richard Bedford Bennett: All I can say is that the Auditor General has used this expression:
"the over expending of appropriations." . . . and it can mean only one thing.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
question that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -has the effect of lessening parliamentary control over expenditures and although in very exceptional cases it may have to be permitted, the practice is to be deprecated and means should be taken to prevent it.
That is the statement made by the Auditor General.


Charles A. Stewart: He does not refer to payments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: In some cases payments have actually been made.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the point to which we take exception.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe we are not so
much at variance. I see the point taken by my hon. friend. The Department of the Interior owes the printing department several hundred thousand dollars. Instead of paying that amount between the end of March and the first of May, thereby incurring an extension of the estimates to that extent, payment was not made. As soon as the estimates are voted however payment is made. That decreases the amount of money available for the estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: That undoubtedly is what happens all along the line.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Hon. members will find
amounts passed by this house against which I protested to the extent of three-quarters of a million dollars. In tracing the matter

I have found that practice has been followed right through the piece. The Secretary of State approaches various departments and and asks for money to which they reply that they have no money, the money having been used for some other purpose, namely to pay deficits of the year before. If that is what the hon. gentleman means then we are one.


Charles A. Stewart: There is no doubt that is what has happened. I do not question that, but what I do question is the statement of my hon. friend. Those moneys we are now voting could not be paid unless my hon. friend had warrants for them, and all the warrants that have been passed are here.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They have nothing to
do with these things.


Charles A. Stewart: The
amounts for which you are now asking the consent of parliament will have to be paid after the appropriations are made.
Mr. BENNETT [DOT] My information is that they have been paid, and the Auditor General says so.


Charles A. Stewart: They could not have been paid unless the Auditor General allowed them to switch accounts. There is no other way in which it could be done.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Agriculture - publications - further amount required, $3,000.
Mr. McINTOSH:: May I ask the Prime
Minister just what publications are referred to here?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Publications of the
Department of Agriculture, brochures with respect to weeds, seeds, livestock and so on for which the appropriation last year was $28,000. They required $31,000, a considerable part of which was incurred by reason of the fact that a new office was being occupied, and the movement of the publications entailed considerable expense.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-salaries and contingent expenses; of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada-further amount required, $40,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This represents a sum. for which parliament made no appropriation last session, and which was expended for the purpose of setting up the tribunals under the-statute passed Last year. There is one chief counsel at $4,000 per annum; seven assistant counsels at $3,600 per annum; one junior

Supply-Welland Canal
solicitor at $2,640; two clerks, grade four, at $1,680 each, and a medical staff consisting of one assistant medical adviser at $4,020; four pensions medical examiners at $3,040; one stenographer, grade two and four additional stenographers, making a total of $59,420. Then there are travelling expenses and the subsistence for six months amounting to $12,600. The total of the items I gave is $59,420, and $40,000 further is required to take care of the service.


Eugène Fiset: I think this amount is put in the estimates under a misnomer. It is said to cover salaries and contingent expenses of the Board of Pension Commissioners for Canada, but the Prime Minister in his explanation tells us that the money is required for the establishment of the tribunals, which is an entirely different thing.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Board of Pension Commissioners is the designation under which this is all classed.


Eugène Fiset: No, the Board of Pension Commissioners is the standing board, and this amount is required for the tribunals. I think it is a mistake.
Mr. POWEiR: I think that item should be divided; that portion which has to do with commission counsel might apply to the Board of Pension Commissioners, while the remainder should be credited to the Department of Pensions and National Health.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is quite correct as to the item covering two services, the commission service and the medical staff. The medical staff which I gave is under George V, chapter 35, section 1051, and (the other is under sections 1, 2 and 3 of the same statute, with respect to commission counsel. The one amounts to $23,820 and the other to $35,600.


Eugène Fiset: Perhaps by adding the words "and staff" it might be sufficient,


Richard Bedford Bennett: It has been all treated in the Auditor General's accounts up to the moment as part of the Board of Pension Commissioners. The setting up of the new tribunals has been carried for the moment in that classification, but the appropriations will be separate in the main estimate which provides for that work. This, I understand, is sufficient to take care of the deficit.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Will the right hon. gentleman give us the names of the solicitors who have been appointed, together with the salary in each case?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have given the salaries.
I have not the names at the moment. These items will all be revoted in the main estimates.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Railways and Canals-Welland ship canal; construction and betterments-further amount required, $2,000,000.
Peter John Veniot: The Prime Minister gave a short explanation in connection with this matter some time ago. Would he mind repeating that explanation now?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I should be very glad to do so. The construction of the Welland ship canal, as the committee well knows, is being done under contract. It is usual, weather conditions being as they are, that the work stops at a certain season of the year and is resumed in the spring. Having regard to unemployment conditions, the minister authorized the contractors, who employ several thousand men, to continue their work, it being well understood that this did not increase the cost to the country. They continued their work and gave employment during the winter, but they were informed they would not be paid until parliament made new provision accordingly, and this item is to enable that to be done.


Peter John Veniot: Then this is at least
$2,000,000 for which the old government is not responsible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so; I did not suggest that at all.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not quite sure that I understood the explanation of the Prime Minister. Am I to understand that the contractors were paid an extra amount to have them carry on the work later in the season?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No agreement was made to pay them extras, but they were asked to continue the service in view of the fact that a large number of men were unemployed. They have not been paid. This is a case in which they have not been paid, and they were told they could not be paid until provision was made for that purpose.


Charles Gavan Power: But I understand certain sums of money were voted last year for the Welland canal. Tenders must have been called for and contracts let. Am I to gather from what the Prime Minister has said that these contracts were extended to cover more work, larger quantities of work, or that the units of work were extended?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The total estimate last year was $7,600,000 and it was anticipated that between $5,000,000 and $6,000,000 would be
Supply-Welland, Canal

spent. As a matter of fact more than that was spent, and this $2,000,000 is to take care of that sum, which will be available after March 31. That is, they merely 'had a contract and went ahead with it. There was no money in the estimates to take care of this expenditure.


Charles Gavan Power: It was really an additional contract which was given, then?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, just the same contract.


Charles Gavan Power: The same contract, but more work was performed than was anticipated at the time the contract was let.


Mr. MANION:: The engineers of the Department of Railways and Canals had estimated that the contractors, who have a contract to continue the work to completion, would spend in the neighbourhood of seven million dollars last year. But the weather was so fine, the fall was so open that the contractors had finished that portion of the work for which the seven million dollars was appropriated and would then be obliged to lay off their men. It was in September some time, and the question was whether we should tell them to go on and wait for the passing of this estimate by the house, or allow them to lay off two thousand men.


Charles Gavan Power: The unit prices were the same?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just what period was covered by the work represented by this extra two million dollars?


Robert James Manion: We figured it would take two million dollars up to March 31, and when
this estimate is passed the contractors will get their money.


James J. Donnelly: How much more money will be devoted to the Welland canal? How far has the work progressed?


Robert James Manion: The work is obviously progressing rapidly or we would not spend the extra two million dollars.


James J. Donnelly: How many more millions do you want?


Robert James Manion: There is a requirement of about seven or eight million dollars-in the neighbourhood of seven million dollars-to complete the work. Whether it will be all completed this year or not is not known at the present time.


Peter John Veniot: As I understand it, under ordinary conditions this work would have closed down at a certain period-


Robert James Manion: That is not quite right.


Peter John Veniot: -and the appropriation voted last session would have been sufficient to carry on the work up to that period. Owing either to the open season or to the necessity for carrying the work along further than ordinarily, with a view to relieving unemployment, the contractors were authorized to go on with their operations, which would represent an expenditure beyond the appropriation voted last session. In view of that permission given them to go beyond that appropriation, and naturally supposing that, it being out of the ordinary, the work might cost the contractors more per unit at that advanced season of the year, has the department obligated itself to the contractors to pay them anything additional beyond the unit prioes of the contract?


Robert James Manion: None whatever. May I
point out that my hon. friend's premise is wrong. Under ordinary circumstances, with ordinary weather conditions, the amount of $7,000,000 voted last year would have taken care of the work until the freeze-up. But because the weather was so fine, the season so open, the freeze-up being delayed, the contractors could carry on their work further than they otherwise would have been able to do. Consequently they got through more expeditiously than they had anticipated the work which they had estimated to do this year, and rather than allow them to lay off a couple of thousand men in strenuous times we permitted the contractors to continue operations on the condition that they would not be paid until the estimate was passed by the house. It makes no difference whatever, except that there was performed this year rcork which, under ordinary weather conditions, would have been held over.


Peter John Veniot: Suppose we had had the
ordinary freeze-up, this work would not have been carried on?


Robert James Manion: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: I claim that there has been the ordinary freeze-up, to use that term. It has not been as early in the season as heretofore, but there has been a freeze-up and these men have carried on work after that freeze-up.


Robert James Manion: Not the part interfered
with by the freeze-up. They got a good proportion of the work done earlier because the freeze-up was so late, but certain other works they were in a position to carry on.

Supply-Welland Canal


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister has been speaking of the desirability of controlling expenditures by the government. A fundamental principal is that when parliament votes money for a particular purpose that appropriation should be used exclusively for that purpose, and if a further appropriation is necessary the ministry may take one of two courses: It may ask parliament to vote the further appropriation, or, if parliament is not in session, it may secure from His Excellency a governor general's warrant, should the work be urgent, and the additional expenditure be justified on that ground. The minister has told us that this work was continued in order, as I understand it, to give employment to men who otherwise would have been unemployed. The minister says so. That being the case, I submit that the government should have adopted one of two courses. It might have taken a part of the appropriation which this parliament made for the purpose of relieving unemployment-the $20,000,000-and used it to provide employment in some such way. I am not so sure, there being a contract already in existence, that it would have been wholly proper for the government to do it in that way. But at least there was money voted for unemployment purposes under that specific heading. As an alternative, however, had the matter been one of great necessity, the government might have done what apparently they have done in other cases; they might have secured a governor general's warrant for the necessary amount. But they had no right whatever, of their own accord, to issue contracts to contractors for work to be done on the Welland canal or for anything else without this parliament having in the first instance made the requisite appropriation. In this instance the government has taken upon itself to spend $2,000,000 without having a governor general's warrant for the purpose, or without having an appropriation from parliament. I say that is an entirely wrong method of procedure, and if the Prime Minister is anxious, as apparently he is, to reform the methods of controlling expenditures, he had better begin immediately with his own colleagues and his own administration.


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, evidently, this amount of $2,000,000 has been spent to relieve the unemployed in the province of Ontario. That is discrimination. The government has no right to have parliament appropriate $2,000,000, for Ontario, over and above the $20,000,000 voted for all the provinces, in the course of the emergency session.
I repeat it, that is discrimination. I think parliament should refuse to vote this amount. Moreover, why should Ontario be more favoured than the other provinces.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is well to correct a misstatement on the part of my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King). There was no new contract; the contracts were made by the right hon. gentleman's government. They are contracts that will have to be paid The contractors had exhausted the money voted, and the only question was whether or not they should go on-because they will have to be paid anyway. It makes no difference; they will have to be paid under that contract which the former government made and which we could not break. The only question, therefore, was whether or not they should continue the work instead of laying off the men, as would ordinarily be done. It was the question between discontinuing the work or allowing the men to get the benefit of employment during the still open season. We said, "We have no money to pay you because the government, anticipating the requirements, provided what they thought necessary for the purpose." And the money not being ample to carry on the additional work performed by the contractors under their contract-it was not a new contract but the same one-we allowed them to continue operations on the understanding that they would finance the work themselves and when parliament met, as it was bound to do, the necessary appropriation would be passed. Parliament had to do it anyway.


Peter John Veniot: They could have carried on under the general estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: They did carry on under the general estimates, but the money was exhausted.


Peter John Veniot: I mean, they could have carried on under the general estimates for the current year.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No. It was thought desirable to let the house know what was spent instead of carrying forward into the next year a deficit or over-expenditure on the past year's operations. This committee is being told exactly what the situation is-that $2,000,000 has been spent.


Mr. CARDIN:: Told afterwards.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but it was under the contract which my hon. friend's government made and which had to be paid anyway.

Supply-Welland Canal


Mr. CAE DIN:: Only as regards that item which was voted last year. Parliament did not pass on the $2,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, but it is not referable to any item; the contract covers the work which is to go on from year to year. Money was voted to pay the contractors based upon the contemplated amount of work to be done. That amount of work was finished and then the contractors, having their machinery and plant on the ground, said that they could go along with the work and an appropriation could be put in the estimates. They wanted to know whether they would go ahead or stop work, and we said:	Go ahead and do it.


Peter John Veniot: Why not put it in the
general estimates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not put in the general estimates-


Peter John Veniot: I am speaking on the question of unemployment and I think I am in order. Money was voted by this house and tenders were called for but contracts were never let.


An hon. MEMBER:: The same thing applies to British Columbia.


An hon. MEMBER:: The same thing applies also to Quebec.


Peter John Veniot: The attention of the
Minister of Labour was called to the fact that unemployment was very acute in Cara-quet and Little Shippigan and the government was asked to go on with its work. That work has not been proceeded with and no relief for unemployment has been accorded to the people in those sections. In this instance, $2,000,000 is being .expended, although no appropriation has been made, in order to relieve unemployment in some other section of Canada.


Peter John Veniot: Put it there then.


Richard Bedford Bennett: -for the simple and obvious reason that the work was done prior to March 31, 1931.


Peter John Veniot: The work is done but the
contract is not completed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Was an order in council passed appropriating what would be necessary for this work or authorizing the contractors to proceed after the contract had expired?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contract has not
expired.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


Peter John Veniot: Why not put it in the
general estimates for 1931?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The money was expended before March 31, 1930, and we want this committee and the House of Commons to know it.


Peter John Veniot: It was an accommodation
to the contractors to be allowed to go on with the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We do not think so.


Peter John Veniot: It should not be included
in the supplementary estimates. The Minister of Railways and Canals has informed this committee that one of the reasons for allowing this expenditure to be made was in order to help unemployment. I am glad to hear him make that statement and I am pleased to know that at least something is being done in that part of Ontario. Nothing has been done in New Brunswick, and especially in the county which I represent. Money was voted last year by this house for public works m New Brunswick and tenders were called for-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After the
moneys which had been voted by parliament had been exhausted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Speaking from memory,
the order in council provides that they were to be paid when the moneys should be voted by parliament.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think we can now see clearly where we are in the matter of how moneys are likely to be expended hereafter. The regular method is for parliament to appropriate a certain sum named in an estimate and when that sum is exhausted the government is supposed to come back to parliament for further appropriations for the particular purpose-


Robert James Manion: They are doing that now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -or if the
matter is one of great urgency and work must be completed before parliament can -be reassembled, then a governor general's warrant may be issued in order that the work may be carried on. The Prime Minister is adopting a third method under w'hieh, when the supply is exhausted before the fiscal year is ended, the government may by order in council direct the contractors to proceed and incur further outlay, and then ask parliament

Supply-Welland Canal
by means of a supplementary appropriation, to make good the amounts thus expended. I submit that that is something which has not been done heretofore, and it is entirely irregular.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is no
justification for it whatever.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It was
done many times by the right hon. gentleman's government.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not that I
am aware of at the moment, although I speak subject to correction. Since we are seeking to reform the government's method of financing I should like to know if this is to be taken as a precedent. Are we to understand that in the next year when parliament puts through appropriations whether for the Welland canal or for public buildings or for any other service, when those appropriations are exhausted, the government of the day, as of right by order in council, is to order the work to be continued and further expenditures incurred without having any appropriation passed by parliament till after the work is completed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I have no doubt that I could cite a large number of cases-I have two or three before me now-where contracts were made and the contractor rushed his work and carried it beyond the appropriation. This applies to the construction of public buildings and other works and the contractor has the choice of making a claim for damages for breach of contract, or relying upon the infallible justice of the crown. The Welland canal is under contract and the contractors could have stopped work last fall. However, the season was good, a large number of men were being employed, the freeze-up was delayed and the minister said: Go ahead. The contractors did not require authorization from the minister, they could have gone ahead themselves. However, they did work certified to by the engineers to the extent of $2,000,000. The same thing has happened in connection with public buildings, one or two cases being right here in this city; the sum expended far exceeded the amount of the estimate. This always will be so. We have come to parliament with a supplementary estimate for the fiscal year in which it belongs. We say to parliament: that much money has been spent on a contract made heretofore and we desire it to be paid and charged against the fiscal year in which the money was expended. The contractors, exercising their choice, have preferred to go ahead with their work and to wait 22110-274
for payment until parliament votes the necessary funds. Either the right hon. gentleman has not examined the files of the Public Works department or he has not checked up with the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) because if he had he would have discovered that in at least five cases out of every ten where a contractor gets his equipment erected he pushes the work with all possible speed and relies upon what was described by a great judge as the infallible justice of the crown to see that his contract is preserved and the balance of the contract price paid.


Charles A. Stewart: Will my
right hon. friend tell me where there is any difference between the method pursued by this government and that adopted by the preceding government?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is being brought down now and the committee is being told that it was an expenditure made during that fiscal year. There is no new principle involved in this procedure.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend was inferring there was.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This procedure is adopted in order that the contractor may receive his money just as soon as possible.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend lays claim to special virtue, for having asked parliament to appropriate $2,000,000 in order to pay for work already performed. B3' what other means could he hope to obtain the money? There is no virtue in asking parliament to appropriate this money because it could not be obtained by any other means. What I would point out, not only to the Prime Minister but to other hon. members, is this: money is voted not only in relation to the particular project upon which it is to be expended, but with some relationship as well to the work being carried on in other parts of the Dominion. Where large appropriations are made, such as for the Welland canal, where the contract has run for a great many years, my recollection is that it has always been a question of how much the government would be justified in allotting to that particular project having regard to what was being allotted to other provinces and other projects. If the Welland canal is to be picked out as the one favoured scheme of the Dominion, if it is to receive an additional appropriation of $2,000,000 without similar treatment being accorded to other parts of the Dominion, there will soon be a good deal of dissension throughout the country as to the way in which public contracts are awarded.
Supply-Welland Canal

My right hon. friend would have been in a much stronger position had he held to the ground which his minister took when he rose to speak, and had said perfectly frankly: This has been a hard year; there have been a lot of men unemployed; the contract had expired; we thought this was a way of giving employment to an additional number of men, and we decided therefore that the contractor would be given the work. In other years the contractor has been obliged to cut his cloth according to the appropriations made by parliament. This is a ground which the minister might well have sought to defend, but there is no defence whatever for the government by order in council appropriating $2,000,000 or practically appropriating-


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not appropriate any money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is a technical term-by order in council guaranteeing to the contractor and thereby to the men employed that it would come to parliament, ask for $2,000,000, and however irregular the procedure, put that appropriation through by the majority which they have in the house. If justice is to be done to all parts of the country and to all the objects and services for which the government is called upon to make appropriations, public appropriations cannot be made in that way. I say again, I hope the Prime Minister will not feel that he is establishing a precedent at the moment, and certainly we on this side will not countenance as a precedent the step which he is now taking of asking parliament to make good expenditures that have been incurred without any previous appropriations by parliament and no governor general's warrant for the making of them at a time when parliament was not in session.


Jean-François Pouliot: There is a point I do not understand in this item. The Minister of Railways telegraphed me with regard to a station that he could not find a sum amounting to a little less than $7,000 to pay the difference between the appropriation and the lowest tender, or the tender that I know of, and yet this is an item amounting to $2,000,000 for which he has found the money. There is not a separate department for railways and another for canals; the department is the Department of Railways and Canals Therefore I believe I am in order in asking the minister how he made this discovery of $2,000,000 for canals when he was unable to find less than $7,000 for railways in order to build a station at Riviere du Loup. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Rail-
ways have full information in regard to the matter because I took the trouble to send both of them some papers and complete particulars. I have appealed to them without success. I am not surprised at that at all, but now I appeal to the House of Commons.
There is nothing like a Tory panic. There was a Tory panic in 1911 about reciprocity, later a Tory panic during the war, a Tory panic accompanying the War-time Elections Act, a Tory panic in connection with unemployment, and to-day it is a Tory panic in rushing through the business of the house. Plutarch says that big men are judged by small actions. To-day we shall judge small men by big misdeeds. I shall arraign several ministers, some as accessories before the fact; others as accessories to the fact, and finally, some others as accessories after the fact. I have a voluminous report that has been sent by the provincial board of health to the railway commission, with regard to-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must ask the hon. gentleman to confine his remarks to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will only say, Mr. Chairman, that you will understand me better, because I am speaking on a question of principle. It is the principle involved in the minister being unable to find $7,000 although he has no difficulty in finding $2,000,000. This is a secret that every one of us would like to know. The report relates to the building of *a station at Riviere du Loup.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not mind my hon. friend discussing his principle, but he must Confine his remarks to the item before the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I read the correspondence with my hon. friend in which he said he could not find money for the building of the station?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is relevant, certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you. I will proceed


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I ask my right hon. friend-


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very sorry to interrupt my leader, but I am sure he will be pleased with my argument. On October 14 -and may I say all the people in my con-situeney were expecting gold bricks from the

Supply-Welland Canal
*Minister of Railways, instead of which they *have received Irish confetti-I sent a night letter to the Minister of Railways as follows:
Riviere du Loup, October 14, 1930. Hon. R. J. Manion,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Canadian National railway officials supposed to have notified tenderers for new station building here that your department has refused to sanction construction of same. Please wire me if such is the case and if so -why and at whose request did you refuse your sanction?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot see that this is relevant to the Welland canal.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the Chairman is kind [DOT]and patient enough to listen for half a *minute, the question of money will arise, *and he will see how it was impossible then for the minister to find any money. The telegram continues:
May I draw your attention to the fact that the actual station building is condemned by board of health.
This is the reply that I received:
Ottawa, Ontario, October 15, 1930.
Jean-Fran?ois Pouliot, M.P.,
Riviere du Loup, Quebec.
Yours received. The question of new station at Riviere du Loup like many other matters held up because, of costs involved. Necessary repairs to station have been sanctioned.
R. J. Manion.
The cost involved was about $7,000. I have another letter in which there is a great complaint of poverty. It reads:
Office of the Minister of Railways and Canals.
Ottawa, Canada.
February 25, 1931.
Dear Mr. Pouliot,
I have your letter of February 23 with enclosures. As you are already aware, it has not been possible to provide a new station at Riviere du Loup for financial reasons. As you are also aware, the revenues of the railways, instead of improving, are decreasing-
All the money is spent on canals.
-and these revenues in the case of Riviere du Loup and vicinity are further decreased by the 20 per cent reduction from normal rates accorded shippers in the maritime area. Under the circumstances, I can see no early hope or expectation of the provision of a new station at Riviere du Loup. The railway management is, however partially from revenues and partially by capital appropriation in the estimates, endeavouring to find $15,000 for necessary repairs and improvements to the present structure. I, personally, trust that nothing may occur to prevent this expenditure being made.
Very truly yours,
R. J. Manion.
It is most extraordinary, Mr. Chairman, that the minister can find so much money for the canal and yet can find no money for the building of a station, when it has been said by such a big business man as Mr. Atterbury, the president of the Pennsylvania railroad-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I want to be
as fair as possible, but for my hon. friend to be discussing a station at Riviere du Loup is not the same thing as discussing the Welland canal, for which there was a contract. I must ask hon. members to keep to the item before the chair.


Jean-François Pouliot: Shall I be allowed to
proceed, Mr. Chairman, when the estimates for the railways is called?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Undoubtedly.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: During the last parliament there was an appropriation in the estimates for the construction of a post office building in my district. The Minister of Railways said a few moments ago that $2,000,000 was spent on the Welland canal in order to relieve unemployment. The item I speak of, $10,000 for the construction of a post office building, was urged by the reeve of the municipality where the post office was to be erected, in a telegram which he sent to the Minister of Public Works, urging that the contract be let as soon as possible in order to relieve unemployment. So if the government can find $2,000,000 to relieve unemployment by carrying on work on the Welland canal, and provide the money by order in council, it seems to me that they could have found it proper to construct this building to relieve unemployment. To that telegram of the reeve of the municipality urging that the contract be let as soon as possible in order to relieve unemployment, there was no reply.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot see that this is relevant to the item under discussion.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is relevant if the remarks of the Minister of Railways, who has referred to work for the unemployed, are relevant.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think I must keep the committee to the discussion of the item before the chair.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Then keep the minister in order, too.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am quite willing to do so, if I can.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Would the minister or the Prime Minister advise the com-
Supply-Ottawa

mittee who the contractors on the Welland canal are, and when the last payment was made to them under the appropriation made by parliament?


Robert James Manion: The contractors were the Porter people, the Lyall Construction Company, the Canadian Dredge Company, the Atlas Construction Company,' and A. W. Robertson. That I think completes the list of the big contractors who were given contracts by the late government. I am sorry that I cannot say offhand when the last payment was made, but it was made out of the appropriations that was voted by the late government. When the appropriation was exhausted, naturally we stopped paying. Now we are asking for the money to pay for the balance of the work. The contractors have carried on of their own free will. They could have retired, but they chose to carry on.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is very
material to have a statement from the minister as to when the last payment was made. Perhaps the minister will let the item stand, and after recess I would ask him to tell the committee what amounts have been paid to the contractors under the appropriations made by parliament what contractors received payments, and the dates the payments were made.
Item stands.
Ottawa-addition to central heating plant- further amount required, $21,500.
Ottawa-National Research Council laboratories and equipment 

 further amount required, $41,330.


Mr. CIIEVRIER:: I should like details with respect to these items.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This amount of $21,500 is required for payment of balances due on the following contracts in connection with the addition to	the	central heating plant	at
Ottawa:
1.	Balance	due	on	contract	with	A.	T.
Garvock for addition to building, $0,122.
2.	Balance	due	on	contract	with	W.	G.
Edge Ltd. for alterations to mechanical equipment, $8,217.
3.	Balance due on contract with J. Inglis Co., Ltd. for pulverizing and burning equipment, $3,660.
4.	Balance due on contract with Canadian Vickers Ltd., for boilers, $1,550.
5.	Balance	due	on	contract	with	Bailey
Meter Co., Limited, for flow meters, $1,888- Total, $21,437.
The work in connection with the addition to this plant was commenced in the year 1929-30, and it was expected that $80,000 out of the appropriation of $200,000 would be expended on the above contracts during that year.

The sum of $130,000 was provided in the estimates of 1930-31 to complete the work but that sum was insufficient owing to the fact that instead of $80,000 only $58,500 was expended in 1929-30, thereby mortgaging the appropriation of 1930-31 by $21,500 greater than was anticipated. It is to pay off this obligation that the amount of $21,500 is required.
The amount revoted in 1930-31 was

With respect to the contract with A. I. Garvock for an addition to the building, an order in council was passed on September 3, 1929, accepting the tender of Alex I. Garvock at $82,000, for an addition to the central heating plant at Ottawa. There was only one tender received for the work. The contract was subsequently increased by authority granted on October 23, 1929, to accept the tender of Mr. A. I. Garvock, at $4,756. The total contract was for $87,312, and the contractor received $81,190, leaving a balance owing of $6,122.
The other item refers to the laboratories that are being built in connection with the national research council. The particulars are rather extensive, but if the house desires to have them they can be furnished. This amount of $41,330 is required to pay the contractors, Robertson and Janin, of Ontario, Limited, for work performed during 1930-31 in connection with their contract for the erection of laboratories for the national research council, and for which there were no funds owing to the exhaustion of the appropriation of $1,500,000. The expenditure incurred in 1930-31 was $1,541,330, and the amount paid $1,500,000, leaving a balance due of $41,330.
Item agreed to.
Burlington channel-improvements-further amount required, $151,495.
Port Arthur and Fort William-harbour improvements - further amount required, $288,530.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to ask the Prime Minister if this is a case similar to that of the Welland canal. The harbour in question happens to be in the constituency of the Minister of Railways and Canals. I notice that over a quarter of a million dollars is rated to further the work. May I say to my right hon. friend that where there are small amounts, amounts say, of a few hundreds or thousands of dollars necessary in order to complete particular work within the fiscal year there may be a reason why some latitude

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
should be shown. However when we come to items amounting to a quarter of a million, half a million or two millions, special explanations are required and should be given.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure my right hon. friend has observed that in respect to the last item to which I referred the contractor had gone ahead with the work and appropriations had been exhausted. In this particular case the further amount required to pay the balance owing on three contracts for work performed in the years 1930 and 1931 on the widening and deepening of Burlington channel is $151,495. The balance owing to the R. C. Huffman Construction Company Limited on contract number 21051 for the new substructure of the Canadian National Railway bridge and substructure and roadway approach for the new leaf of the Bascule lift bridge is $61,104.90. The balance owing the Hamilton Bridge Company on contract number 21098 for construction of Strauss Trunnion Bascule bridge, the new leaf, including alterations and additions to the existing span, is $75,090. The amount owing to the Canadian National Railway Company for work done in 1930, placing ballast, ties and rails in connection with the new Canadian National Railway spring bridge rendered necessary by the widening of the channel is $15,300. The total amount required is $151,494.90. Those items constitute expenditures under contracts which were not made by the present administration. As far as I know the expenditures were properly made under that contract. The appropriation having been exhausted the companies interested now ask the government to provide for the amount to which they are entitled.


Peter John Veniot: Have the contracts been completed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This particular contract?


Peter John Veniot: Yes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My information is that contracts in regard to that particular work have been completed, yes. There is further work however to be done in that locality. This particular work is completed. The amount of $15,300 is payable to the Canadian National Railways for putting in ties, ballast and rails in connection with the bridge. As I have said the total amount required is $151,494.90.


James J. Donnelly: What was the original amount of the contract?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The original amount was a very large sum of money. The appropriation
in 1930 and 1931 was a million dollars. The expenditure was a million dollars. I have before me the report of the officials which I shall read:
When the $1,000,000 was voted in the main estimates 1930-31, it was considered sufficient for all the work expected to be performed during the year, but owing to favourable weather in the fall and early winter, more work was done than expected.
This statement would seem to explain the position in regard to that expenditure. I presume my hon. friend wishes to know the details concerning the balance owing Huffman and Company. I will give the following in that connection:
Amount of final estimate	$505,084 90
Amount paid 1929-30.. ..$113,180 Amount paid 1930-31. . .. 330,800

	443,980 00
Balance owing	$ 61,104 90
Four tenders were received for this work in answer to public advertisements. The four firms tendering were the R. C Huffman Company Limited, Canadian Engineering and Contracting Company, Port Arthur Construction Company Limited, and Russell Construction Company. The tender of the R. C. Huffman Company Limited was $385,508.30. The Canadian Engineering and Contracting Company asked $360,054.90; the Port Arthur Construction Company Limited asked $404,544.30 and the Russell Construction Company asked $418,566.40. During the progress of the work it was found necessary to authorize an increase in the quantities in the pier foundations, excavation, timber and steel sheet piling. This was authorized by order in council of July 26, 1930,-two days before the earthquake.
Then I have before me a statement showing the balance owing the Hamilton Bridge Company. It is as follows:
Amount of progress estimate No. 5 for work done to end of February 1931. $248,170
Less drawback	 24,810
Net amount earned	 223,360
Amount paid	 148,270
Amount owing, due to exhaustion of appropriation	$ 75,090
Order in council April 28, 1930, accepted tender of the Hamilton Bridge Company, for the construction of a strauss Trunnion Bascule bridge, including alterations and additions to existing span.
Three tenders were received March 25, 1930, in answer to public advertisement:
1.	Hamilton Bridge Company Limited, Hamilton	$236,005	852.	Canadian Bridge Company, Limited. Walkerville	
243,627	153.	Dominion Bridge Company,Montreal	
248,606	00
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

The contract was let for 8236,005.85. The amount owing to the Canadian National Railways after deducting the salvage for old tracks, bolts, nuts and so on in connection with putting in the new rails and tracks on the new bridge was 815,277.
In answer to the question by my Lon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) I will read the following:
It is expected that the two bridges will be open for traffic over the new highway by April 15, and the entire works including dredging, new north pier, et cetera, should be finally completed and ready for use June 15, 1931.


Charles A. Stewart: I am confused by the statements made by my right hon. friend. Do I understand him to say that only 875,000 of the 8151,000 required has actually been spent in the year 1930, or during the fiscal year 1930-31?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I told my hon. friend
how the totals were made up.


Charles A. Stewart: From the
explanation of the Prime Minister it would appear the actual expenditure was only $75,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, I am afraid my hon. friend is confused between two things. The first figure concerned the construction company, the second the bridge company and the third the railway company. The sum total of all amounts to $151,495, the figure in the estimates. The sum of 875,090 was the amount due to the bridge company.


Charles A. Stewart: I think my right hon. friend has discovered how difficult it is to deal with contracts. There are many and varied contracts throughout Canada for the construction of buildings and other public works governed by appropriations by parliament. He will have to come from time to time to get those appropriations through.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
explanation of the second part of the item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The explanation of the
second part of the item concerning Port Arthur and Fort William is a little more lengthy. It is as follows:
This further amount is required to pay amounts owing on three contracts for work performed in 1930-31 for which the appropriation was insufficient, as follows:
Balance owing Messrs. Chambers, McQuigge and McCaffrey on final estimate on contract No. 15,924 for the construction of a section of the rubble mound breakwater in Port Arthur harbour and the extension thereto, to the end of the working season of 1930, $254,308.01.

Balance owing the Great Lakes Dredging and Contracting Company on final estimate on contract No. 22,088 for deepening and widening entrance channel to the dry dock and slip of Port Arthur Shipbuilding Company and removal of part of lot 10 at the confluence of the Kaministikwia and Mission rivers, $29,969.12.
Amount owing to Messrs. Chambers, McQuigge and McCaffrey for rubble mound protection work on Kaministikwia river at Fort William between the Fort William terminal elevator and the consolidated elevator, $4,252.50-Total amount required, $288,529.63 -say, $288,530.
Appropriation 1930-31, $140,000
Expenditure 1930-31, $140,000.
In other words the whole sum has arisen out of a contract which was made about a year and a half ago. The work proceeded slowly at first and then with greater rapidity, with the result that the balance I have mentioned has become due.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This appears
to be a contract similar to that amounting to $2,000,000 in connection with the Welland canal. I point out to my right hon. friend and to the house that the previous administration brought down estimates setting forth certain amounts to be expended on this particular work. When parliament was about to prorogue the government again looked over the estimates to see what was necessary in the way of supplementary estimates in order to conclude the work within the fiscal year. At the time the estimates were brought down we placed on the table an estimate of the amount we believed to be necessary to complete a certain amount of work within the fiscal year or to go the length we thought proper at that time. Most of the estimates now before us are in the nature of amounts to make good additional sums of money the contractors have been authorized to incur without any appropriation from parliament. In fact, they would appear to be in opposition to the sum that parliament had declared was the total amount which should be paid. The matter is entirely irregular and the situation is not made any better by the fact that in some of these cases, as in the present one, the present administration has practically doubled the amount which parliament at its regular session thought would be ample to expend in the present fiscal year on a particular contract. I realize that we are in the hands of the government in the matter of these payments, but I do think the house should understand that what we are doing now means virtually making good large sums of moneys to contractors for public works, none of which moneys have been authorized by parliament heretofore in the regular way

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
but all of which have been incurred by the government's direction to the contractors simply to go ahead with the work and to trust to the government, with its large majority, putting through the accounts when parliament reassembled.


Mr. ARTHURS:: In all cases I understand the contracts were let by the previous government, were they not?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like
to make that perfectly clear. These contracts have been running for a number of years, and each year parliament appropriated the money it thought was ample to be spent during that fiscal year. The fact that the contract was let by a previous government does not affect the situation at all. The important fact is how much the government of the day asked parliament to appropriate, and the point which comes up for consideration now is how much the government opposite, of its own volition, has incurred by way of public expenditure by order in council, without any authority from parliament and without any warrant from His Excellency, The Governor General.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The item under discussion is No. 18, harbours and rivers, $440,025.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think I had given a
full explanation of this when the committee rose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my right
hon. friend tell us what payments have already been made within the present fiscal year on account of harbour improvements at Port Arthur and Fort William, and when the last payment was made? I understand that the item of $288,530 which appears in this estimate is for payment to be made on work that has been done in this fiscal year but for which there was not available money under the original appropriation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is correct. This
case perhaps very clearly illustrates something which my right hon. friend has overlooked, and it becomes essential to take a few moments to clear the situation. In every appropriation of public moneys tenders are usually called for and a contract is entered into. The contract involves, on the part of
the crown, the payment of the price agreed upon and, on the part of the contractor, the performance of the service which he undertakes. There is usually in all such contracts a date within which the work is to be completed, and if the contractor finishes the work within the time that is all that can reasonably be expected. But if by pushing the work forward with expedition, he anticipates the conclusion of the contract, it sometimes follows that he is in a position to get his money before he would otherwise receive it, provided that parliament has made an appropriation. If not, he has to wait until the session of parliament before he can receive it. It would be entirely wrong to grant governor general's warrants in a case such as that. Warrants are not issued where contracts have been outstanding. That has been the general principle of governments, because it has been held that the necessity which justifies the issue of a warrant does not arise where there is a contract. That principle has generally governed, although it has been departed from in some cases; for instance, it has happened where there has been a great disaster or any occurrence of that kind, even although there has been a contract, where a particular work has been destroyed. This case amply illustrates the point I was making. The contract was No. 15914, the original amount $472,500, and the contractors Messrs. Chambers, McQuigge & McCaffrey, the date of the contract, September 19, 1928, and the date for completion, July 28, 1930. I wish the committee to bear in mind that the contract was to have been completed by the middle of July last year. The contractor commenced work in September, 1928. This was authorized by order in council passed on August 26, 1928. The work was awarded to the lowest tender. There follows in the particulars I have a description of the work that was done. It was done on the unit basis. In a letter dated October 8, 1930, the minister authorized Messrs. Chambers, McQuigge & McCaffrey to proceed under the terms of their present contract with supplying and placing of core stone and cover stone in the prolongation of the section of the breakwater next adjacent to the section then under contract. This authority was given partly to relieve unemployment in Port Arthur, and was to expire at the end of the working season, the contractors to wait payment and the government to ask parliament at its next session to provide the necessary funds. The above additional work was covered by authority of order in council dated January 28, 1931, after it was known exactly how much work had been performed. The additional expenditure incurred by the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
above authority amounted to $219,225. The total amount owing the contractors is $254,30S. That is the situation with respect to that item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the contract finished?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, the work was finished. There is no contract outstanding for further work.


Charles A. Stewart: Inside the estimate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, not quite, but the
difference is not substantial. The amount is about $35,000. There is a balance owing to the Great Lakes Dredging & Contracting Company in connection with the same work. The amount of the final estimate is $62,146.37, the amount paid being $32,177.25; the balance remaining is therefore $29,969.12. The original work under this contract consisted of certain operations which I need not mention. The work was extended on September 19, 1930, to include an additional 100,000 cubic yards from lot 10 at the confluence of the Kaministikwia river and Mission river to give more room for steamers to turn, on condition that the contractor would await payment until further funds had been voted by parliament. I mentioned this in parliament last September, when I made reference to these matters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to call the attention of the Prime Minister to this point. In a number of localities where there has been public work either contemplated or commenced, the work has been stopped and there has been unemployment. Communications have been sent to the government asking whether it would be possible to have the work proceeded with and replies have been sent by the government to the effect that parliament has not made an appropriation beyond a certain amount and that it would therefore be altogether unlawful to proceed with the work. One case was mentioned this afternoon by the hon. member for Provencher. That was a case in point. Either this reason is a true one or it is not true; either the condition given in that reply should apply in all cases or it should apply in none. What appears to have been the case here is that in some localities where there have been contracts certain contractors have received, as it were, special favours; they have been allowed to go ahead with the work. They have been given to all intents and purposes new contracts, although they have been told that they would have to wait until parliament reassem-

bled in order to have the money voted to make good what would have to be paid to labour. On the other hand, where other communities have asked that a similar course be adopted, they have been told that it was illegal to proceed in that way. One way must be right and the other wrong, and I submit that the right way is to limit the work to the amount - parliament has voted for the contract. I recall several of the contracts which relate to items in the supplementary estimates as having been fully and carefully discussed by the previous government. It was recognized that it might not be possible to have the work completed within the fiscal year, but it was contemplated that it would be continued in the next year. My right hon. friend will, I am sure, agree that when he brings down his main estimate there will be item after item which will read somewhat in this way: To complete work, amount required in addition to-mentioning the previous amount voted. That is the way in which estimates are presented to parliament. A given work or service may involve the expenditure of $1,000,000, and the minister in presenting the estimates to the house will inform the house that while the work when completed will amount to $1,000,000, nevertheless the government is asking only for $500,000 for what is to be done within the fiscal year. The estimate for the additional $500,000, or a portion of it, will appear in the estimates of the next year. That is the way estimates are voted when voted regularly, and I submit again that wherever a departure is made from that course it is irregular.
The Prime Minister has explained to us that this expenditure was made in part to relieve unemployment. That is part of the explanation which he has put on the record. Again I would point out that parliament at the last special session voted $20,000,000 to aid in unemployment. If it was contemplated that these public works would be continued beyond the point at which it was intended by the previous administration that they should be continued, in order to provide work for the unemployed, then hon. gentlemen opposite should have submitted additional estimates at the special session, and have stated at the special session that there was going to be so much unemployment during the coming winter, that they intended to go further with the dredging of harbours, the extension of wharves and the building of public buildings than had been contemplated by the previous administration. The estimates should have been submitted to parliament and we should have been told that they were for the purpose of relieving unemployment. That would have been

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
treating parliament fairly and the public fairly, but the present method is highly irregular and is not at all defensible.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am glad the right hon. gentleman made that closing [DOT]observation, for it enables me to point out to the committee that at the special session, on September 10,
I directed attention to that particular policy as being the policy which the government would pursue. The words I used on that occasion, which appear on page 68 of Hansard, were as follows:
Work is being carried on in connection with the breakwater, we will say. at the head of the lakes-I give that as an illustration-the parliamentary appropriation has been exhausted; the work could be usefully carried on, and give employment to several hundred men for several weeks longer; it would be proposed, at the same unit cost, to continue that work.
And on September 11 I made the following remarks, which appear on page 94 of Hansard:
But, as I said yesterday, it is proposed to continue existing contracts upon the unit basis upon which they have been let by my hon. friends opposite, in cases where by so doing employment will be provided which might not otherwise be available. And I gave an illustration. It happened to be the illustration of a breakwater which had been brought to my attention. That is, the appropriation for the year is exhausted. The work was let by tender on a unit basis.
Employment could be given to a few hundred men from now until the close of navigation by continuing the present contractors in their work under the same unit basis. That I conceive to be a proper case to deal with, and I mention it as one of those it was proposed to deal with.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: 
Richard Bedford Bennett: No. We were asked many questions as to how we proposed to deal with this problem, and we replied that we proposed to extend the docks, for instance, upon a unit basis, and we have done so. There is a clear distinction and there should be no difficulty in the committee's deciding between what is new contract and what is the continuance of existing contract. Had the work at the head of the lakes been terminated the equipment would have been removed. It was admitted that at some time or other this rock breakwater would have to be extended, and the unit cost of the work was fixed by the contract. The equipment being on the ground, the work was extended on the basis of the same unit cost as had prevailed in the original contract.
Some of the matters mentioned this afternoon involved the voting of money for new contracts, and I am sure that when we come to the main estimates my right hon. friend
will admit that no government he has ever known has succeeded in extending to the same extent the contracts of the former administration. Case after case will be found where tenders were called for and contracts let for the very reason mentioned by the right hon. gentleman, namely, to endeavour to provide employment for those who might not otherwise be usefully engaged. Many of these cases involved constituencies which had not supported the present administration, and when the main estimates are considered I feel satisfied that hon. members will admit that this government has been extraordinary in that regard. We did not do as has been done at times-cancel contracts on accession to power. A few days before the late government gave up its seals of office they passed many orders in council accepting tenders.


An hon. MEMBER:: After defeat.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No effort was made to
cancel those contracts. How unlike the action taken by the former administration. They came into office and found that the Journal Publishing Company had leased a portion of its office space to the Agriculture department. The Auditor General's department decided that other quarters should be found and the contract was cancelled, with a resulting cost to the country of $22,000 in damages and costs. I think it will be found that a very earnest effort has been made by the officials in charge of these contracts to meet in every sense the public necessity rather than to serve any political ends.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has referred to a certain contract and has tried to have it appear that with respect to contracts his government has acted differently from the previous administration. Might I remind the committee that with respect to that particular contract, and other contracts which were dealt with similarly, they were dealt with in the manner in which they were for a very obvious reason; the administration which had been in office prior to the time at which the action was taken was an administration that had never received any authority to act, either from this parliament or from the people of this country. It was a phantom administration which came into being for a short time in 1926 without having the support of the majority of this House of Commons or of the electorate of the country.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is quite, different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When that so-called shadow government undertook to award
contracts to its friends, ilt became a first duty
Supply-Agriculture

of the incoming administration to see that contracts of the character should not be permitted to continue. What my right hon. friend in continuing existing contracts describes as being such a virtuous act upon his part in contrast to what was done by other administrations is in reality nothing of the kind. In regard to what his administration has done in continuing the contracts which were in existence when they came into office, it will be found that in each case tenders had been called for before the elections. Moneys had been appropriated by parliament at a previous session, in all particulars the authority of parliament had been obtained, and the government which held office at the time these contracts were signed simply performed an executive act necessary to complete the will of parliament in regard to these contracts. There is nothing there for which my right hon friend is to be specially thanked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Live stock-further amount required, $100,-
000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: This vote is required, first, to meet grants to fairs and expenditures in connection therewith, $19,300. Of this amount, $6,000 is needed for four new fairs named by the late administration to receive class B grants, namely Chilliwack, Armstrong, Assiniboine and Waterloo. It might be mentioned that these four fairs were named as B fairs during the elections but that has no reference to the fact that they were deserving. The fair at Valleyfield was changed from class A to class B at an increased cost of $3,500. A winter fair was started at Sherbrooke at a cost of $9,800.
In the cattle division, the amount voted for cow testing service was $55,000 while the total estimated expenditure for the year was $62,500. This is not an abnormal increase, as I think hon. gentlemen opposite will agree that when you are dealing with a matter of $55,000, an increase of $7,500 is not out of the way.
The poultry item is the largest of those I am reading. The total expenditure was in round figures $290,000. The appropriation, as will be noticed is $258,000. The departmental officials observe that the increased expenditure is due mainly to the following reasons:
1. Very greatly increased activity in poultry promotion in Quebec, in cooperation with the provincial department. In all, six new poultry promoters were added to the staff and the sum of $3,000 was set aside to assist in cokerel distribution.
TMr. Mackenzie King.]
2. The increase in the work of car-lot inspection of dressed poultry in the western provinces, an increase of easily 30 per cent. In this work, fifteen additional men were employed over the previous year. Further, the period in which the men were employed was considerably longer than in previous years, owing to the increased number of killing and plucking demonstrations and the fact that many points w'ere induced to ,ship itheir poultry earlier than previously.
For sheep work there is a deficit of $15,000. For sheep promoters the amount voted was $34,000 and the amount expended $42,000, leaving a deficit of $8,000. During the year, the increased demand for pure bred rams, increase in the organization of sheep clubs, increased demand for ewe lambs for breeding purposes, for sheep demonstrations, including demonstrations on wool, docking, castration, dipping and the control of sheep parasites necessitated increased travelling on the part of officers connected with this work. For the ram premium policy the amount voted was $10,000, the amount expended $17,000, leaving a deficit of $7,000.
As I said this afternoon, these policies were not those of the present administration. These items are but carrying out new policies as regards which I am bound in fairness to say the exact amount that would be spent could not with definiteness be ascertained, but the appropriations made were regarded as being sufficient for the purposes. A somewhat larger sum was actually expended.
The vote for the general grant was $10,000 and the expenditure slightly over $37,000, made us as follows:
Manitoulin Turkey Growers Association, $100.
Canadian National Railways (transportation of boys to Great Britain), $600.
Eastern Canada Live Stock Union, $1,000.
Western Canada Live Stock Union, $2,500.
Canadian Cooperative Live Stock Producers,

Toronto Horse Parade, $500.
Ottawa Horse Parade, $400.
Ottawa Riding Club, $300.
Montreal Horse Parade, $400.
Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere Horse Show, $450.
Canadian Hunter and Light Horse Society, $5,000.
Maritime Live Stock Marketing Board,

Ontario Plowman's Association, $300.
Maritime Cooperative Egg and Poultry Association, $1,250.
British Columbia Plowing Match, $75.
Silver Fox Exhibitors Association, $1,500.
Winnipeg Live Stock Exchange, $455.
Montreal Poultry Show, $1,407.
These make up the sum total of the items whidh I have mentioned, and I think altogether they make up the whole $100,000.

Supply-Agriculture


Mr. CARMICHAEL:: The Prime Minister stated that there were four class B fairs for which $1,500 each is required, and I believe he said that that indebtedness was incurred by the former administration. We have in western Canada some class B fairs which were discriminated against by. the former administration. I happen to know of one particular fair, that of Kindersley, Saskatchewan, which is a class B fair on a par with those which have received the $1,500 each, yet the Kindersley fair has never yet been paid the $1,500. I believe there are two or three others similarly situated. While I know there is not much hope of receiving redress under this item, this discrimination should cease. There is absolutely no reason why one particular district in Canada should be given $1,500 of federal money while another district similarly situated is refused. I believe the present administration wants to be fair, and in fairness to all the districts, when this apportionment is made for the ensuing year, I trust that those which have been discriminated against will be included in the grant to class B fairs.


John Vallance: Might I point out to
the administration that there are two classes of class B fairs?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


John Vallance: That is true. The
Minister of Agriculture will bear me out. He knows, because he has been written to about the matter. In the class B fair, there is class 1 and class 2. It has been suggested to him, as the hon. member for Kindersley points out, that the class 2-B fair, should receive the same consideration as the class 1-B fair. The four that are receiving the grant have, I think, been accepted as class 2-B fairs. The 1-B class practically controls the B class fair, and they have not seen fit to allow the new B class fair to get into the 1-B class and they propose to segregate them as 2-B class fairs. What the hon. member for Kindersley states is absolutely correct. In my home town we have the same condition as he describes. The minister has been approached regarding this matter by those that are looking for this assistance, and I should like the minister, through the Minister of Finance, to state what position these 2-B class fairs are in.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I assume hon. members
will present in writing to the minister their statements with respect to the qualifications to share in the grant in question. The only difficulty that I had about the matter was in ascertaining just why four should suddenly become entitled to a grant by telegram during the election, but that may have been due to an oversight. Presumably the matter became so pressing because it had been overlooked, as much departmental business necessarily is, and it was taken care of in that way. May I observe in all these matters no new policy has been initiated by the Minister of Agriculture. If hon. members will take the trouble to look at the supplementary estimates presented on May 11, 1922, by the then government with respect to the previous fiscal year, they will find that the late Mr. Fielding, then Minister of Finance, took complete control of the estimates. They will find on column 1662 of Hansard how he dealt with them and got them passed. I am bound to say that no such information was given then as has been given on this occasion.


Charles A. Stewart: Neither the Hon. Mr. Fielding nor the succeeding Minister of Finance took the responsibility of answering for every department. The ministers were in their places and ready to answer if questions were asked.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That may be, but all
the answers were given by the then Minister of Finance, Mr. Fielding.


Charles A. Stewart: I was
present in the House of Commons at the time and have been on every occasion since, and the ministers always answered the questions that were asked. The Minister of Finance of course took charge.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	Might I suggest to the
Prime Minister in connection with his agricultural policy that it may be wise to launch a new policy with regard to these fairs? There are two class B fairs: 1-B and 2-B. I do not know what grants the government is going to give to class 2-B fairs, but I know what grant has been given to the class 1-B fair, and that is $1,500 a year. The class A fair has been receiving $5,000 a year. Regina gets $5,000; Saskatoon gets $5,000, and other fairs are getting $5,000-fairs which in my estimation are not doing as good work for agriculture as those in many of the smaller cities like Yorkton, Prince Albert, North Battleford and so forth. I would suggest to the Prime Minister that when he is investigating policies with regard to agricultural fairs he endeavour to remove that grievance. The class 1-B fair ought perhaps to be put into the same category as class A, and given the same grant, namely, $5,000 a year.


James J. Donnelly: Every year during the past several years we members from the west, when the grants to class B fairs came up for discussion, have urged that something should
Supply-Agriculture

be done about them. These grants to class B fairs were started several years ago under the Union government to promote agriculture, more especially in the outlying districts. A closed list was formed, and if you happened to have a fair of a certain size, you got the grant; and if your fair was not up to that size, you did not get the grant. We contended year after year in this house that there should be some policy laid down with respect to these class B fairs, and urged that any fair coming up to a certain standard should get the grant. I make that same recommendation to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) now, that he decide upon a standard for the class B fairs, and that any fair coming up to that standard get the grant; if the fairs now getting the grant do not come up to that standard, withhold the grant. Assiniiboia gets a grant for a class B fair. When these grants were first inaugurated, that was a new country, hardly settled, but it has now a bigger fair than many other towns of larger size. We always contended that we were absolutely entitled to the grant and that we should not be discriminated against just because ours was a young fair, and finally we got the grant. I would again urge the minister to establish a standard for these fairs and that every fair coming up to that standard should get the grant.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Health of animals-administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and Meat and
®onnnnnli Fooils -Act-further amount required, «poUU,uuO.
Richard Bedford Bennett: It will perhaps be within the memory of members of the committee that m 1929 it became essential To vote $500,000 in the supplementary estimates for this very purpose. This year the necessity arises out of an increase in the sums payable in the infected areas in eastern Ontario, in the counties of Stormont, Dundas and Russell; in Quebec, in the counties of Stanstead, Sherbrooke, Chicoutimi, and Lake St. John; and in New Brunswick, where the compensation exceeded the anticipation by about $25,000, making in all the sum of $300,000. This is an item which, with the best intentions in the world, it would probably be impossible for any government to gauge very accurately.
It turned out that a larger number of cattle were attacked than was contemplated.


William Richard Motherwell: I have to congratulate the minister upon continuing this good work. I think that the over-expenditure, however, is largely due to new areas being opened up during the period of this government's
FMr. Donnelly.]
administration. I noticed by the Gazette during the winter that a new area was opened in Manitoba, another in Quebec near Sherbrooke, and another in New Brunswick. It is all good work, but I believe it will be found that the over-expenditure was due to opening up these new areas. The rumours were that this work was going to be discontinued, but here is evidence that it is to be continued, and I want to compliment the minister upon that. It is of tremendous value not only in that it checks the spread of bovine tuberculosis, but because of direct effect in checking the spread of this terrible disease among humans as well.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is correct. In New Brunswick the compensation was about $25,000 more than estimated, and the expenditure in eastern Ontario was $125,000 more than normal.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There were some new areas established in Manitoba, one adjoining my riding. I have received several letters asking me to ascertain if this good work is to be continued. When I go home at Easter may I assure my people that it is to be continued?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly.


Mr. GRAY:: Is the Prime Minister aware that the Department of Agriculture, through the health of animals branch, has sent out a letter through the office of the chief inspector advising that a recommendation has been made by the minister's office that officials when on departmental business in Halifax should stay at the Lord Nelson hotel, and directing them to govern themselves accordingly? I mention this because, as I think this house will realize, there is in the city of Halifax a government-owned hotel, and while I do not urge that there should be discrimination, at least we should not point out to these officials that they should use a privately-owned hotel operating in competition with a government-owned hotel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: AVill the hon. gentleman be good enough to produce the letter?


Ross Wilfred Gray: Does the right hon. gentleman deny that it was sent out?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He has no knowledge of it nor has the minister in charge. We want the letter that we may deal with the official accordingly.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I have in my possession a copy of a letter signed by A. E. Moore, chief

Supply-Agriculture
travelling inspector. It is dated December 16, 1930, is sent out to inspectors in the health of animals branch, and reads as follows:
To Inspectors:
Sir,-I beg to advise you that recommendation has been given by the minister's office to the effect that officials of this department when visiting Halifax should stop at the Lord Nelson hotel. Kindly govern yourself accordingly when on official visit at that point.
I have the honour to be, sir,
Chief Travelling Inspector.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the name on it?


Ross Wilfred Gray: A. E. Moore.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Has the hon. gentleman seen the original letter?


Ross Wilfred Gray: I have seen the original letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That being so, Mr. Chairman, I hasten to assure the committee that the matter will be investigated. The minister himself has no knowledge of it, and had not heard of it until the statement was made by the hon. gentleman. I had not heard of it. No instructions of that character were given by the minister or by the government so far as I am aware.


William Duff: As shareholder in the Lord
Nelson hotel I have no objection to these officials staying at that hotel.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Administration of the Destructive Insect and Pest Act-further amount required, $20,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: The information that
was given with respect to the other items applies also to this. Increases in salaries and wages account for 19,500, travelling expenses $8,000, laboratory and field equipment, $2,500. These increases were due to an unusual demand for potato inspection for certified seed production in Quebec and Prince Edward Island. As a result of an increase in inspections, there was an increase in the cost of the operation of laboratories and field equipment. The number of plants coming into the country that had to be inspected at ports of entry increased by over nine million. Further, some extensions and improvements were necessary in two or three of the plant pathalogical laboratories. The estimated cost in Prince Edward Island for potato inspection was $30,000, and the actual cost $37,000. The contemplated expenditure in Quebec was $20,000, and the actual expenditure $31,000. The increased cost of laboratory equipment accounted for $2,000.


William Richard Motherwell: Before dinner recess I drew attention to the extreme severity of the cutworm outbreak in the west. I have here a map that was sent out by the entomological branch of the Department of Agriculture, a very efficient branch. I should like to know what success they have met with in attacking this invasion of cutworm on the prairie We would like to know if experiments have been made to show how the cutworm larvae have wintered. We are in hopes that a large number of these larvae will have been destroyed by the intermittent freezing and thawing during the last winter. If some accurate information were given out as to the fertile or non-fertile present condition of these larvae, the farmers would be guided as to their spring sowing. They are advised in this bulletin not to sow their grain until small seeding tests have been made and if on May 15 it is found that there is no cutworm, they may sow their fields. That is too late, however; they will run into danger of frost if they wait until May 15 to sow their wheat. I suggest that the minister take steps to test the topsoil where the larvae are located, incubate them and find out the condition of the eggs. If the eggs are found to be in a dormant and non-fertile condition the farmers may feel easy; if on the other hand the eggs are fertile notwithstanding the exposed winter through absence of snow, the farmers might be disposed to follow the advice given by this bulletin. I can assure my hon. friends opposite, however, that the advice given in this bulletin would mean that wheat sown after May 15 would be too late for many districts. I suggest again that experiments be made by testing the incubatory capacity of the larvae, in the same way as hen eggs are tested in an incubator. A test could be made so as to ascertain the percentage of fertile larvae which develop into cutworms and from that stage into the moths. If this procedure is adopted the results would be of great value to the farmers in determining the date of their spring sowing, because if eggs prove non-fertile, seeding can proceed forthwith as soon as spring opens.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member is aware of the fact that the Department of Agriculture works in conjunction with the provincial departments of agriculture in these matters. At this moment field studies are being carried on for the very purposes mentioned by my hon. friend. Necessarily in a country as large as this those studies must be of local import and are carried on largely through the efforts of the provincial authorities with the aid of skilled and scientific assistants which may be furnished by the federal Department of Agri-
Supply-Welland Canal

culture. That work is being carried on, and a brochure is now in process of being printed which will contain the information gathered through the efforts of these provincial and federal authorities. It is believed that the knowledge thus obtained from actual field studies will enable the farmer to be advised as to how best to cope with the evil the hon. gentleman has so properly mentioned.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal; construction and betterment-further amount required, $2,000,000.
Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend asked for some information as to the last payments made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: As to the total payments which have been made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, in connection with the Welland canal. J. P. Porter received his last payment on December 12, 1930; Lyall and Sons, on November 13, 1930; J. P. Porter on his next contract, section (B), on December 12, 1930; the Canadian Dredging Company on November 13, 1930; the Atlas Construction Company on December 11, 1930; the Canadian Dredging Company on section 7, on December 11; A. W. Robertson on November 13. In connection with the powerhouse substructure the last payment is on September 16 made to Messrs. Aiken, Inness & MacLachlan and McLachan. The Canada Cement Company was paid on December 12; payment was made on November 20 for the metal work for locks and installation; payment was made on November 20 for the steel gate, gate machinery and installation and on December 11 for the bridge superstructure. There was a payment made for transmission lines on November 11, and in connection with the Ryan contract $7,200 was paid on November 13.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That exhausted those payments?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: So that we may understand the significance to be attached to the main estimates when they are brought down, I wish to ask my right hon. friend if the procedure attempted and being countenanced to-day will be followed by the administration in the next fiscal year. If for example, parliament is asked to appropriate $7,000,000 for the Welland canal in the main estimates, are we to assume that that $7,000,000 is the total amount to be spent within the next fiscal year, or will the total amount to be spent be $9,000,000 or $10,000,000, made so by orders in council passed in 
order to enable the contractor to continue the work? The reference to the estimates made by my right hon. friend means something or nothing, and I would like to have an explanation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think my right hon. friend in .making his observations has done some violence to his own equipment. It must be perfecty obvious that unless there is a contract outstanding there can be no expenditures, and the contractor has the option to finish his work within the time stipulated by his contract. We on the other hand have the option of not paying until there has been a further appropriation. We are bound however for the work done within the terms of the contract. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of contract. Therefore parliament must provide or take the consequences of the breach of contract. That is all that is involved in these payments.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, no.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My right hon. friend must realize that this is not a new contract.


An hon. MEMBER:: That has nothing to do with it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If one could attach any value to what my hon. friend has muttered one certainly would not attach much importance to it as a matter of law.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I did not mutter anything.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, my right hon. friend did not; it was an hon. member. Clause 43 reads as follows:
Should the amount voted by parliament and applicable towards payment for the works hereby contracted for, be at any time expended previous to the completion of the works, the minister or the engineer may give the contractor written notice to that effect. Upon receiving such notice the contractor may, if he thinks fit, stop the work-but shall not be entitled to any payment for work done beyond the amount voted and applicable, as aforesaid -until the necessary funds shall have been voted by parliament in that behalf. And in no event shall the contractor have or make any claim on His Majesty for any damages or compensation by reason of the suspension of payment, or by reason of any delay or loss caused by the stoppage of the work. And in the event of the contractor electing to proceed, or proceeding with such work after such notice-
Such notice was given in this case.

and before suoh additional funds are voted, no action of the engineer, or of any other person on behalf of His Majesty, in giving orders, instructions, or directions, or otherwise

Supply-Welland Canal
acting with respect to such work, shall be taken or considered as in any manner improving the rights of the contractor or as waiving in any particular any of the provisions of this section.
In other words this whole contract contemplated the possibility of a contractor being ahead of the appropriations when doing his work, and such contractor took the chances. Further, in five cases out of every ten in this country a similar practice is followed. I could go further and say that it is followed in 75 per cent of the cases. The minister might expect that $25,000 would be sufficient for a particular year but he might spend $100,000. The next year the same thing might happen.


Charles A. Stewart: My right
hon. friend knows better than that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know just that, and
there is one instance in Edmonton at this very time.


Charles A. Stewart: But my right hon. friend knows that appropriations are made on the recommendation of engineers of the department.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know how they are cut down. The engineer may recommend $100,000 but the Prime Minister may cut it down to $50,000 and say that that is sufficient.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, but that does not
interfere with the validity of the contract and the necessity of paying the contract price. That is the procedure in most contracts. The complaint made by my hon. friend's leader i3 that the present practice is so unusual and so unheard of that the whole fabric of government is threatened and all the institutions of this country may be swept away. As a matter of fact what is being done in this case has been done in three-quarters of all the cases in this country. In all the cases I read this afternoon in connection with orders in council which were signed in July these conditions prevailed and they will continue to prevail where there is a time limit for the conclusion of the contract. The contractor takes the chance when he goes forward with his work that there will be a vote from parliament.


Peter John Veniot: He waits for the appropriation; he does not get it the way my right hon. friend is giving it to him.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Is there ever a time
when there is justification for the payment of the bill?


Peter John Veniot: Only when his contract is
finished, if he takes upon himself the responsibility of going ahead with the work.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The clause I read provides that the contractor will get his money but in the meantime he must spend his own.


Peter John Veniot: That clause provides also
that there is no possibility for payment on the part of the government unless money is voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Unless it is voted, of course not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All that my right hon. friend has read only goes to confirm the contention which we who sit on this side have made, namely that the contractor has no claim against the country for any work for which there has not been special provision made by parliament. That is the essence of the clause which my right hon. friend has read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, just the opposite.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No matter v.hat work he proceeds with, unless parliament has made the appropriation for that work he is not entitled to any claim whatever and, as I say, it simply confirms the statement that the ministry in this action has been taking an entirely wrong course.
Now may I come back to the Welland canal. That contract has been continuing for many years; I think it runs back ten years or more. This house has been voting a certain sum year after year for a certain amount of work to be done. I do not recall any previous year in which any of the contractors on the Welland canal ventured to go beyond the amount of work for which this parliament voted money, but this year, when parliament has appropriated $7,000,000 my hon. friends, after they come into office, say to the contractors, "Parliament has voted only $7,000,000, but you are at liberty to go ahead and incur an expenditure of $9,000,000. We have a majority in the house and we will see that you get your extra $2,000,000, if you wait until parliament reassembles." What I want to ask my right hon. friend is this: If that is the proper and legal way of proceeding this year it will be equally proper and legal next year, and if my right hon. friend comes to parliament with his estimates after the Easter recess and there is an amount included therein of $7,000,000 for the Welland canal, what guarantee has this house that this amount of $7,000,000 will represent what the government proposes to spend on the Welland canal next year? If they follow the course they are adopting now it will not be $7,000,000; it will be $9,000,000. If we allow this



UVISED EDITIOK

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Welland Canal
[Stage Direction]
matter to pass and this action on the part of the ministry to become a precedent there is no reason why it should not be $10,000,000 or $11,000,000. In other words the whole principle involved in the appropriating of public moneys by vote of parliament is of no value; it becomes null and void. I say, Mr. Chairman, this is wholly irregular. I cannot understand what my right hon. friend can have in mind when in one breath he talks about the necessity of reforming the financial methods of the country, and the next moment comes before parliament and asks us to make an appropriation of $2,000,000 for work which already has been performed under order in council and not in any particular by authority of parliament.
Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall the item carry?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, Mr. Chairman; I cannot let the erroneous statements remain without making a proper explanation. Once more I say to the right hon. gentleman that he does not seem to appreciate or understand the value of a contract. According to his statement all you would have to do would be to let the contractor go ahead and finish his work and then find no money for him, and he could not get it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I would not allow him to go ahead; I would have him stop when the money was used up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You cannot make him stop, because you have entered into exactly the opposite kind of contract.


Charles A. Stewart: What was
the meaning of what my right hon. friend read a moment ago?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That provides for this
very case.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Read it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I will read it again:
Should the amount voted by parliament and applicable towards payment for the works hereby contracted for, be at any time expended previous to the completion of the works, the minister or the engineer may give the contractor written notice to that effect.
Any one who is familiar with the interpretation of contracts knows that this merely means that when the appropriation is exhausted, the contractor is so advised. Then it proceeds:
Upon receiving such notice, the contractor may, if he thinks fit, stop the work,-but shall not be entitled to any payment for work done beyond the amount voted and applicable, as aforesaid-until the necessary funds shall have been voted by parliament in that behalf.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What does that mean?


Mr. RALSTON:: No liability until parliament votes the money.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly; the liability
is there, but there is no claim. May I say to those hon. gentlemen who happen to be lawyers that in the Windsor v. Annapolis railway case the authority is contained for what I have said. If that is not sufficient authority, there is the case of Onderdonk v. the King. The third case is McEwen v. the King and the next is the case of Creelman v. the King. I happen to know about these cases because I had something to do with two of them. This paragraph which I have read merely provides that upon receiving such notice, the contractor may, if he thinks fit, stop his work. If he stops, then well and good, but he cannot stop; he must go ahead to complete the work within the time limit.


James Layton Ralston: He does not have to go
ahead if he is notified to stop.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is not what he is notified. If in a court of law counsel made a statement like that I know what the .judge would say. He is told that he will have to wait for his money until parliament provides it, and that is all. All that is suggested from the other side is this: never provide him with that money and never pay for the work. In other words we are told that we should repudiate the contract by not appropriating money. Do hon. gentlemen opposite mean to say that any contractor could not get a fiat for that?


James Layton Ralston: You do not repudiate the contract if you act according to its terms.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But you do not act
according to the terms of it.


James Layton Ralston: If my right hon. friend will permit me to finish, I was going to say that the contract contemplates the giving of notice and the stopping of work, and the fact that the contractor shall not be entitled to his money unless that money has been voted by parliament. He therefore does take the risk, but he knows he takes the risk when he enters into the contract. Therefore there is no repudiation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely my hon. friend
realizes what it says: it says he may stop work if he thinks fit. If he goes on-


James Layton Ralston: He takes the risk.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The risk of what?


James Layton Ralston: The risk of the vote never being made.

Supply-Welland, Canal


Richard Bedford Bennett: I had some little respect for my hon. friend's legal ability, but surely he does not mean that.


James Layton Ralston: I say that is the risk he takes, the risk of the money never being voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The risk of parliament
never voting the money?


James Layton Ralston: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the risk the Postmaster General takes-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think junior counsel
will add nothing to the argument. May I venture to say that my hon. friend from Shel-burne-Yarmouth will remember the old maxim, "the infallible justice of the crown." The crown cannot repudiate a contract by failing to do what parliament is bound to do, having entered into a contract for a party to finish work within a fixed time, and not having voted enough money to finish it within the first year, or within the term fixed for its completion, if the contractor goes ahead and does it at this risk, the risk being that parliament must vote the money. The crown cannot escape its responsibility by failing to discharge the obligation imposed upon it by this contract, the obligation being to pay the amount required. That condition does not relieve the crown from paying.


James Layton Ralston: The contract says he is not to be paid.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, quite the opposite.


Eugène Fiset: Then what was the object of the order in council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has not read the clause which states that a definite time has been fixed within which this work is to be completed. That is the vital point in his present argument. In that connection may I remind him of what the minister in charge of this department has said. The minister told us that this additional work was gone on with in order to furnish work for the unemployed. The twTo statements do not hold together. The minister on the one hand says: "We spent $2,000,000 additional on the Welland canal because there were men unemployed this winter, and the government thought this was a good way to give them employment." The Prime Minister now says this $2,000,000 is required because the contract has to be completed within a specified time and it has not been so completed. I say that either one of these explanations is the correct one and the other is incorrect, or maybe both 22110-28J
of them are incorrect. The point I should like my right hon. friend to clear up now is where in the contract the clause is which states that this work must be completed within a certain time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am afraid few things better illustrate the attitude of mind of the right hon. gentleman that what he has just said.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Never mind my attitude of mind; let us have the facts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not get excited;
possess thy soul in patience. The illustration I had in mind with respect to a contract in which a certain time was named was given this afternoon-I had the date before me, July 30, 1930. That was the contract for the central heating in this city, and that is the case to which I referred.- I had not the papers with respect to the Welland canal. I was illustrating my point and I did not say there was a definite date or that this work was done for that purpose. I said, "assume that the contractor desires to do it." Last fall, on September 7, in this house, in the remarks I then made, I pointed out that if favouring conditions made it possible the government would, on a unit basis, proceed with the work if it added no extra cost, for the purpose of providing employment to people in a given area, and I took Port Arthur by way of illustration. This, as a matter of fact, affords a second illustration, and as it happened, at the unit cost the contractor went on with his work and gave employment, to a thousand people in one instance, and several hundred in another. I cannot see that anything I have said detracts from the general principle that, in the extraordinary circumstances that arose in connection with the unemployment situation, which was a national problem, where a unit cost was fixed for the construction of works under an outstanding contract, and it was within the time fixed for the completion, if the work were expedited by the contractor for the purpose of supplying employment to a large number of people it was a perfectly legal and proper exercise of power to allow the continuance of operations. And upon parliament devolves the legal obligation, the infallible justice of the crown, at the first moment that the house meets afterwards, to supply the contractor with the money to compensate him for the work he has done. I do not think there is any doubt as to that being the practice followed in this country from time immemorial, and it will be the practice in the future. Wherever work is done within the time fixed for the completion of the contract and the contractor goes forward, takes
Supply-Welland Canal

his chance and does his work, the crown is bound at the first session to provide the money he has expended to prevent him from going into bankruptcy, as one contractor did because of the failure of the crown to supply him with the money he had expended.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We now have a third reason for the expenditure. My right hon. friend says that parliament should make provision in this way in order to prevent a contractor from going into bankruptcy.


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course he i id it; they were the last words he used before he sat down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not this contractor.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not this contractor, no. We have had three separate explanations. One is that the contractor may go into bankruptcy-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If hon. gentlemen are not anxious to have the estimates passed they may proceed as they wish. These are not our estimates; I wish to make that clear. The late Liberal administration when in office presented certain estimates to the house in the form of main estimates. They were carefully reviewed before parliament prorogued and a supplementary estimate was brought down. Hon. gentlemen opposite were then on this side and they were free to criticize the estimates. We made the statement that according to our best study-


Richard Bedford Bennett: There was no criticism
of this item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -what we were asking for was all that we considered necessary. With respect to the Welland canal, which is only one case in point, we asked for an expenditure of $7,000,000 for the fiscal year. That was the extent of our estimate. Now we are confronted with a supplementary estimate for $2,000,000 for the Welland canal in addition to the $7,000,000 which we said was sufficient and all that should have been expended in the last fiscal year having regard to what was being spent on other public works in other parts of the Dominion. The question which many hon. members opposite as well as members on this side are asking themselves is this: Why should the contractors on the Welland canal and up at Fort William and Port Arthur be specially favoured in one case to the extent of an additional appropriation of $2,000,000 and in the other of a quarter of a million dollars, while the contractors in

other parts of the Dominion receive nothing additional and even in some cases, where we had unemployed walking the streets and parliament had made an appropriation for buildings, contractors should receive no authority even to proceed with work for which parliament had made appropriations. The excuses and circumlocutions of my right hon. friend up to the present are not adequate to satisfy us on this side of the house as to the wisdom of voting this amount at this time. I want to get from my right hon. friend before this item is passed the clause in the contract which provides that the work must be completed within a period of time.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not say that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Then I wish
him to say that there was not such a clause.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said I did not know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We will wait
until my right hon. friend gets the information. We are entitled to it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the resolution
carry?


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: No.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Stands.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: This house is entitled to the information. Last session we voted $20,000,000 without question for unemployment relief and now we are told that there is in connection with the Welland canal $2,000,000 spent in addition, according to the minister, for the relief of unemployment. The Prime Minister gave the explanation that it was because of some legal requirement which obliged him to see that the contractor was paid if the work was done within a certain time. And he said that no contractor should go into bankruptcy. This country is entitled to know the terms of the contract in its entirety and on what grounds we are asked to vote this extra $2,000,000. I therefore ask the Prime Minister or the minister to give the house the terms of the contract with respect to the matter, indicating the time limit within which the work should be done, together with a copy of the order in council which was passed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is within the right of hon. gentlemen if they desire to delay this estimate, and I wish them much joy in so doing. I think this country will properly appraise their value. The truth is that these men have spent this money, they have done the work. The reasons moving towards the

Supply-Welland Canal
doing of the work are matters of record. It helped unemployment and enabled them to keep their crew together. The freeze-up was later than usual and the fall was open. Not a single cent more has been expended on this work by the country on this account, and the leader of the opposition, who at one time led a government, comes into the house and tries first to raise the sectional issue. He says, "How is it that this much has been spent here and not elsewhere?" That is the sectional issue. Year after year millions of dollars have been voted in connection with the Welland canal, which is a link in a great chain of transportation. This is a very ambitious undertaking on the part of a population of less than ten millions and at a cost of $100,000,000 or more; and it will cost probably $125,000,000 or more before completion. When the minister said that the work was gone on with because it would furnish employment, that was perfectly correct; and 1 pointed out, as I repeat now, that this item is in the estimates because it represents toil, labour, material furnished by the contractors under the contracts-because there are many contracts, as the house knows, covering various sections of the canal. I say, therefore, that the contractors are entitled, at the first session of parliament after the work has been done, to the provision of the money necessary to compensate them for the services which they have rendered. This must be done or parliament ceases to keep faith with its own contractors.
Now, I said this afternoon that there was an order in council with respect to the matter. The minister tells me that no order in council was passed. No authorization by order in council was required for the work to be proceeded with and none was passed. They merely went ahead with the work, because there was no limitation imposed upon them to stop. They went ahead knowing that the appropriation had not been made, but they took their chance. The illustration I gave, happened to have reference to the Welland canal. Hon. gentlemen know that it is an old device to endeavour to divert an illustration to a particular case before the house. As a matter of fact, no such effort was made on my part, for I had no figures indicating when the contract was to be completed. It may have been that it should be completed years hence or when all the work was done. I did not know; I was not concerned about it. But I did give an illustration, one in which the Public Works department provided a date within which the work was to be completed.
I showed that on July 26 last an order in council had been passed by the late administration. I did not for a moment suggest that it was passed improperly-in my judgment it was properly passed-because if business is to be carried on in a proper and legitimate manner work should be done without adding any cost to the public or increasing by a single cent the money that must be paid for the service rendered. This is especially so in cases where the work will give employment to several thousand people at a time when employment is at a premium. At such times it is not the privilege but the duty of a government to afford a contractor the opportunity to do the work. When, as in this case, the contractors signified their willingness to take the risk in the good faith of parliament, then I submit that it is only a proper exercise of its power that parliament should grant supply for that purpose. If this committee desires further information and asks for the production of contracts which might be brought before it when the general estimates are under consideration, that procedure will have to be followed. If it is desired to hold up this estimate for the Welland canal until to-morrow, it is always within the power of the opposition to do so. Whether or not that power is properly exercised is not for me to say; that is for them to determine. The general estimates will afford an opportunity to consider this matter in its entirety, as well as every matter which we have been discussing. Of course the identical items will not be before the committee, but so far as any discussion upon the principle of appropriation and expenditure is concerned, the general estimates will provided a most ample opportunity to secure from the ministers in charge of the respective departments such information as is desired. I submit that it has never been the custom for the house to pursue the course which my hon. friend suggests should be pursued in this case. Notwithstanding what the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) has said, the discussion on similar estimates in the past does not seem to have been carried on by any minister other than the Minister of Finance. They were passed very rapidly in bulk, and that seemed to be the end of them. I did think at that time, and I still think I was right in suggesting, that the widest possible explanation be given in the estimates themselves so that the members of the committee might have before them such reasonable details as it was possible to give as to how the moneys were to be made up. When the former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) inquired as to this matter, I thought reasonable explanation should be
Supply-Welland Canal

forthcoming with respect to this item, as to how much each contractor earned as certified by those who checked their work. This is merely an effort to relieve them in respect of the liabilities neoessarily incurred in carrying on work of this kind, and also to keep the good faith of the country with the contractors.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon. friend has referred to the opposition as having certain powers. May I remind him that the opposition has also certain duties, and the first duty of an opposition is-


Richard Bedford Bennett: To oppose.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: -to safeguard public expenditures; to see that the moneys of the people are expended in accordance with the methods provided by the constitution, and that the requirements of the law and the practices of parliament in all particulars are fully carried out. In view of the latest explanations which have been given, the situation seems to be going from bad to worse. The Prime Minister admitted this afternoon that no appropriation had been made by parliament for this purpose, and we assumed naturally that in that event there had been a governor general's warrant. My right hon. friend then said that no warrant had been issued, and we began to consider how these contractors came to have the right to receive $2,000,000 from the public treasury for expenditures incurred in connection with the construction of the canal. We assumed that the government as a whole had some responsibility in the matter, and I asked my right hon. friend how that responsibility had been assumed. I received from him the reply that an order in council had been passed. He now tells us that no order in council was passed. If we had left the matter where it was this afternoon, where my right hon. friend thought we ought to leave it in order to save time, the record would have been to the effect that an order in council had been passed and the public would have assumed that the members of the government, who have a collective responsibility, had known something of this transaction. I submit that parliament and the country have a right to assume that the Prime Minister would be very careful in making a statement of that kind. The right hon. gentleman found fault with me because I complained-I complained in the interests of the country-of his taking upon his shoulders all the work of government. If there ever was a reason why each minister of the crown should explain his own estimates, we have it in the remarks of the Prime Minister this

afternoon when he, as president of the council and the one who signs the orders, told the country that an order in council had been passed authorizing this expenditure, and then comes back in the evening, after further consultation with the minister of the department, and tells us that no order was passed. What are we now reduced to by way of authority for expenditure of this $2,000,000? It has come down to the mere word of a minister. In other words, the precedent being established at this time is that under the present administration-this is the first opportunity we have had to question them on their methods-all that any contractor who has a contract for any given amount appropriated by this parliament needs to do in order to go ahead after that amount has been fully expended, is to have the direction of the minister in charge of the department to go ahead; then parliament will be asked to vote the money and because the government has a majority he will receive it in due course. My colleague to my right tells me that he does not even need that, and when I reflect upon the Prime Minister's words I am inclined to think that he is correct. From what the Prime Minister told us, all the contractor has to do is just go ahead and spend as much money as he likes and then it will be up to the infallible justice of the crown-to use the phrase that was used-to see that the amounts are paid. If that is the way in which public moneys are to be appropriated by this administration, the sooner we understand it the better, because it is altogether contrary to the proper method and it should not be sanctioned for one moment.
I have no desire to delay my hon. friend in getting his estimates through, and I think I have done as much as any one in this parliament to facilitate the passing of estimates. However, I am going to see to it that in attempting as I shall to facilitate the business of the house we receive the information to which we are entitled and that nothing is going to be put over by mere bluff.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are going
to ascertain the facts and we are going to understand them.
I would ask my right hon. friend to let us have this contract and a statement of the expenditures which have been made under it so that we may consider it. In the meantime, the item might stand over until to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was my impression
that an order had been passed. Upon inquiry, I found that although preparation had been

Supply-Welland Canal
made for an order in council the legal advisers of the department were of the opinion that it was unnecessary. Whereupon the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals wrote to each contractor, in the following words:
It is the desire of the Department of Railways and Canals that the construction of the said works be continued, without suspension thereof, pending the voting by parliament of the necessary funds therefor, and, in the event of your electing under the provisions of clause 43 aforesaid to so continue the construction of the said works, I have to assure you that early in the coming session parliament will be asked to vote an additional amount to make payment under the said contract for the construction of the works so continued.
That was signed by the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Addressed to whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Addressed to each of the contractors.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
makes it worse than ever.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That letter was dated
December 27, 1930. The contractors had represented that owing to the conditions then existing they could continue the work without cessation at the same unit price, supply some employment to the unemployed, and carry forward their undertaking. That is the contract which has always existed with reference to that work; there was no change. I regret having made the statement that an order in council had been passed. The question was asked and I answered as I did knowing that the material for an order in council had been prepared by the minister. I recalled later that the legal opinion was that it was unnecessary to have an order in council. The terms of the contract were such that it was sufficient that a notice be given by the deputy miinster, and the letter I have just read contains the terms under which they continued their work.
I would be the last person in the world to suggest that an opposition should fail in its duty, but I find it difficult to understand just what is involved in the production of a dozen contracts that I have not seen, that were made, as the right hon. gentleman said, at least ten years ago, and that are still in force and effect and will be for some time. I am not conscious of endeavouring to withhold from the committee any information and I think I have given it somewhat fuller information than ever before has been placed upon the records in connection with supplementary estimates, not for a further year but with respect to a period that has passed. I think in previous years you will look in vain for details with respect to similar estimates.


Charles Gavan Power: Was the letter which has
just been read written at the request of the contractor?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was written after the contractor and the deputy minister had had a conference, in order to regularize a matter having regard to section 43 of the contract, which section I read a few minutes ago.


Charles Gavan Power: Does that not put a different interpretation on the matter from the one the right hon. gentleman has given? We find now that a new contract has been entered into between the Department of Railways and the contractor; or rather, it is not a new contract but they have authorized an obligation binding upon the so-called infallible justice of the crown, because it is a written contract. As the Prime Minister explained his position to us, he stated that under the old contract as he read it to the committee, the crown was bound to make payments for this work provided that the contractor decided to carry on, and this was at the contractor's option. Now we find from the letter which the Prime Minister has read that these contractors, as a result of conference with the deputy minister, exacted from the deputy minister a letter regularizing their position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps it would help
the matter if the hon. gentleman had the other part of the letter. I was directing myself entirely to one portion of it.


Charles Gavan Power: If the hon. gentleman will
not put all the facts before us, how are we to judge?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The other part shows
the contract that was referred to. I did not think it necessary to read it, and I do not think my hon. friend would have done so had he been in my place. It is as follows:
In accordance with the provisions of clause 43 of your contract No. 24275, dated the 18th day of August, 1921, entered into with His Majesty the King, therein represented by the Minister of Railways and Canals, for the construction and completion of sections Nos. 1 and 2 of the Welland Ship canal, I hereby give you notice that the amount voted by parliament and applicable towards payment for the works thereby contracted for has been expended.
Then came the second part which is exactly within the terms of section 43.
Supply-Welland Canal


James Layton Ralston: No. The second one is not within the terms of section 43.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The second paragraph
quotes it.


James Layton Ralston: Does the paragraph not suggest that the contractors go on with the work and promise to get a vote of parliament? What the minister is doing is asking parliament to make good this letter written by the deputy minister.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. MEMBER:: Another legal mind.


William Duff: No it is not a legal mind. Perhaps it is just as well for the lawyers to let the rest of us have an opportunity to discuss the matter. Am I right in assuming that the Deputy Minister of Railways wrote that letter to the contractor on the advice and instruction of the minister?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: If the letter had not been sent, would that money have been due to the contractors, according to the contract?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Certainly, the money would still be due without the letter.


Paul Mercier: Were there accounts still pending?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there are large accounts pending and the country would still be liable. The contractor chose to go on.


Mr. DUPUIS:: I would ask the Prime Minister to produce the letter and give the date of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did. It is dated 23rd December, 1030.


Vincent Dupuis: I understand a large part of the $2,000,000 was already spent at that time.


Robert James Manion: None of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not at that time. I gave the date of the last payment in answer to a question of the leader of the opposition.


Vincent Dupuis: That is not the date the work was done.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The work was done subsequently to that and the amount of work done by Porter came to $40,000, that done by Peter Lyall and Sons to $203,000, and so on, making a little over $2,000,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Would the hon. gentleman put on Hansard the names of those who are to profit by this $2,000,000?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave them to Hansard a moment or two ago in answer to my right hon. friend.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It seems to me that this is a most extraordinary situation. As I understand it-and I trust the Prime Minister, or his deputy, the Minister of Railways and Canals, will correct me if I am wrong-last year at the regular session parliament voted the sum of $7,000,000 for the Welland canal. I understand there is on record a letter from the deputy minister to the contractor, advising him that that amount of money was exhausted, that is, the amount legally and properly voted by last year's parliament. I further understand that the Prime Minister, in explaining the matter to parliament to-day, said that in speaking of the $20,000,000 voted last year at the special session for unemployment relief, he referred to certain possible undertakings, including perhaps the undertaking which we are now discussing, which might have to be resorted to by the government in order to relieve unemployment throughout Canada. If this amount of $2,000,000 had been (taken out of the unemployment relief fund regularly voted by parliament, I would raise no objection whatsoever. But the point is this: it is much worse than proceeding by order in council. Here you have a contractor or a number of contractors carrying on public undertakings in the Dominion of Canada on the signed letter of a deputy minister of the crown without ever having received the authority of parliament. That is the situation and I suggest to the Prime Minister that these contractors financed their undertakings from the banks on the authority of a letter from the deputy minister, which letter has been produced by the Prime Minister. Therefore we are in the position to-day that a letter from a permanent official of the crown is supplementing the regular authority of parliament when a vote becomes a grant. During the special session of parliament, the Prime Minister took away from parliament its power over taxation. He is now taking away from parliament its control over public contracts throughout the Dominion.
Mr. CASGRAiIN: Do I understand that two letters were written by the deputy minister to the contractor, one stating that the amount of money appropriated was exhausted, and the other advising the various

Supply-Welland Canal
contractors that they could go on with their work and be paid afterwards by amounts of money that would be voted by parliament? If there are two such letters, I ask the government to produce them.


Robert James Manion: There was just one.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said there was only one, and I read it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Both statements, I understand, were in the same letter.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Mr. FRASER (Northumberland):: In view of the anxiety regarding unemployment, may I ask the Prime Minister whether the policy followed in connection with the Welland canal was the policy followed by this government after July 28 last, in connection with other government contracts?


Charles A. Stewart: The Prime Minister has, of course, taken the leadership with regard to the supplementary estimates, but every minister of the government of which I was a member used to be instructed to be iri his place in the house and to be prepared to answer any question which might arise in respect to his department. It has taken a long time to produce this letter, but we know now that this government is irrevocably committed to paying this two million dollars.


Robert James Manion: So was your government.


Charles A. Stewart: Not necessarily. I beg to differ.


Robert James Manion: The contract was there.


Charles A. Stewart: The contract was there, I admit, but parliament up to a recent date had authority even over contracts. If the situation is to be changed, we had better know it. If the government of the day and contractors are to be all-powerful and to supersede parliament, the sooner we know it the better. But the government of which I was a member did not proceed in that way. I do not suggest that governments can repudiate contracts, but it surely would be a pice thing to have a progressive contract punning over two or three years and parliament having no control over the expenditure until the work was done.


Robert James Manion: We have control. We
pre dealing with the matter now.


Charles A. Stewart: I beg to
differ. Year after year estimates were brought down for the Welland canal and voted by parliament. The expenditures were made under those estimates, and when the estimates ceased, the work ceased. That has been the
system pursued with respect to work on the Welland canal. I am willing to admit that fast year was an exceptional year, and if our hon. friends opposite had told us that this work was undertaken for the purpose of giving employment, and if the letter binding the government had been produced, I do not think the government would have had as much trouble as they are having this evening over this particular item.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon.
member for Northumberland has asked a question to which I think he is entitled to an answer. I confess that we are still a little in doubt as to what the attitude or policy of .the government is in this matter. As I said a moment ago, the Prime Minister has indicated that in some way or another it related to the time factor and to legal conditions of the contract, but I am prepared to take the .word of the minister of the department, who .was of the view which the Prime Minister subsequently veered round to, that this work was in part gone on with because of the unemployment conditions existing. I shall not inquire too far, but will say that apparently such was the policy, to provide work for the relief of unemployment. The question which the hon. member for Northumberland has Risked is whether that policy was adopted with respect to other works in Canada or whether it was confined to work on the Welland canal. If that was the policy, and it applied to other works, what were the other works to which it applied? I think we are entitled to an answer to that question.


Mr. McGIBBON:: As a member representing largely a labour riding I am very pleased indeed at the attitude of the opposition tonight on this question. The leader of the opposition has just stated that in his opinion the government did this work to relieve unemployment, and yet we find him and his own party condemning the government for having spent two million dollars to help relieve the unemployment situation in this country.


Vincent Dupuis: We are not condemning the government. We are asking for information.


Peter McGibbon: You are camouflaging. For hours this evening the party opposite has been condemning the government for spending this two million dollars, and it was not two million dollars of their own money. The contractors spent the money, and it did not cost the Dominion government one extra dollar. The party opposite has objected to paying the contractors for the money they spent on that work. That is the situation we find
Supply-Welland Canal

in this house to-night, and as a member representing to a large extent a labouring constituency I am glad that the opposition have made their attitude known.


Mr. SANDERSON:: May I ask if the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario was speaking for the Prime Minister or for the Minister of Railways?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not know how carefully the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario has been following the discussion, but certainly he has heard no word from my lips condemning any assistance given to relieve unemployment. What I have been trying to ascertain, and am still trying to ascertain from the government, is whether this work was undertaken for the purpose of relieving unemployment. If that was part of the government's policy, I am asking whether that policy was confined to the work on the Welland canal or extended to other public works in this country; and if so, what those public works were. I am asking for that information and would like my right hon. friend to give an answer.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did state to the committee this afternoon that the government had taken the estimates prepared by hon. gentlemen opposite, and so far as was reasonably possible, where the situation warranted it, the government called for tenders and carried on contracts for the purpose of supplying the public works required; and especially was that so where by so doing employment would be furnished to anyone. That is what was done. If hon. gentlemen, when the main estimates are before the house, will take the estimates of last year and compare them with the expenditures made during the year, with the contracts outstanding and the sums of money that it will be essential to vote in the main estimates to carry to completion the works thus started, I think they will agree that, to a very large degree, a real and earnest effort has been made, to carry out wherever possible undertakings that would not only meet the public demands but help also to supply employment to those who needed it.


William Alexander Fraser: I am not satisfied from the evidence I have at hand that the policy referred to by the Prime Minister with regard to the Welland canal was made applicable to other government contracts.


James Layton Ralston: I understood the Prime Minister to say that the committee would be given the benefit of a copy of the order in council. I presume he will bring down also whatever other documents are relevant.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I said there was no order in council.


James Layton Ralston: I beg pardon-the contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Do not have any misunderstanding. I did not say the contract. I said that the production of it would serve no useful purpose.


James Layton Ralston: If my right hon. friend has not already agreed to that, I do wish to point out that enough has been revealed in this discussion, I think, to show that we cannot be perfectly clear as to what is in the contract or what documents are on file without having them produced.


Richard Bedford Bennett: You ought to know what is in the contract. You made it ten years ago.


James Layton Ralston: We do not carry the details in our heads.


Richard Bedford Bennett: But you expect other people to do so.


James Layton Ralston: Probably if we had been as close to it as my right hon. friend we would have remembered whether there was any time limit, which is, I understand, one of the essential points which was suggested by my right hon. friend as constituting a ground for liability. We do not know whether there was a time limit or not.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I did not suggest that there was a time limit, because I said that I did not know what was in it.


James Layton Ralston: My right hon. friend was
giving that as a reason generally why there was liability under these contracts and why we had to pay a contractor because, he said, there was a time limit in most of these contracts, and if the contractor did his work on time we were liable to him whether parliament voted the money or not. I understand now that the Prime Minister does not know whether there is a time limit in the contract or not. That can only be decided by an inspection of the contract itself. Secondly, it was thought that there was an order in council extending the time and asking the contractors to go ahead. Apparently that is not correct; there was nothing more than a draft order in council which it was not considered necessary to pass in view of the advice of the iaw officers of the crown. But the remarkable thing that has come out in this discussion is the letter which my right hon. friend has read. The term of the contract is that if the appropriation has run out the government may give notice that the appropriation has

Supply-Welland Canal
expired and then if the contractor goes on he does so at his own risk. Apparently the government wanted the contractor to go on notwithstanding the fact that the appropriation had expired. If they wanted him to go on why did they give notice at all? What is the use of this stop and start notice-and that is all it is-all in the same breath? One minute the government says the appropriation has expired, with the consequences which the contract specifies but, the next minute it says in effect: "Even though there is no appropriation and even though the contract says you go on at your own risk, go ahead; we shall be very glad if you will go on and we will put a vote before parliament at the next session." That is the situation as it appears so far from the documents we have heard, and I feel, as do many other hon. members, that we ought to see the contract and ought to see all the documents just to ascertain the real attitude of the government in regard to the expenditure of this money. It is not a question of criticizing the expenditure if made for the purpose of unemployment; it is a question of the regularity of expenditures and the policy which this government is following in connection with expenditures without previous parliamentary authority. We want to know when we enter into a contract whether the contractor must stop if the money runs out, or if he goes on, does he do so at his own risk. We want to know whether the deputy minister can simply write a letter and do away with the express provision of the contract, and make it absolutely obligatory under the principle of the "infallible justice of the crown" which so often this evening has been invoked that parliament should vote this money. I submit, Mr. Chairman, that you should not press the vote and that your repeated suggestions that the vote "carry" might perhaps be discontinued, if you do not mind. I would suggest that the vote be not carried until the Prime Minister brings down the contract and other documents.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Vincent Dupuis: May I ask the Prime Minister if it is possible with the documents he has in hand to tell this committee how much of the $2,090,000 was paid as salaries to ordinary working men?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Roughly speaking I
would say in reply there were 2,000 men employed. They were employed during the months of December, January, February and March. The major part of the money expended would be for wages.


Vincent Dupuis: The amount is not available?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On behalf of
the opposition I am asking the Prime Minister to produce the contract under which these moneys are being paid. Do I understand that he refuses to produce the contract?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is the contract
under which the right hon. gentleman has for a period of nine years made payments. It is a contract with which every member of his government is thoroughly familiar. It is not here. It is dated August 18, 1921, and there have been no alterations whatever in it. I refer to one of the Porter contracts; the others may have been on different dates No possible purpose can be served in having it here, and it is not sought for any useful purpose.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr.MACKENZIE KING: The last remark of my right hon. friend is altogether gratuitous and very much out of order. May I say to the Prime Minister that it is quite conceivable that the original contract might contain in it clauses which would prohibit anything in the nature of the action he has taken, and that may be the reason he is trying to keep from this parliament and the country the contract in question. I venture to say my right hon. friend cannot suggest an instance in the history of this parliament where parliament has been asked to vote money under a contract and has been refused the right to see the contract itself. My right hon. friend knows very well that hon. members on this side of the house do not remember the terms of contracts which were passed many years ago. He knows also that no one on this side of the house has attempted to manage the affairs of all the departments of government, or to carry in his mind all the particulars referring to all matters in all departments. We are entitled to the information. I hope the Prime Minister will realize the seriousness of declining to give to this house a contract under which he asks us to vote the sum of $2,000,000.


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know, Mr. Chairman, there has never been a case in which a contract upon which payments have been made for ten years has been sought by the opposition. Does the right hon. gentleman remember any such contract?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No payments were made by the opposition in this matter.
Supply-Welland Canal


Richard Bedford Bennett: Did anybody ever hear of such a thing? What relevance has it to this issue? What relevance has it to the payment of $2,000,000 for services rendered and work done?


James Layton Ralston: Why did my right -hon. friend bring down the clause in the contract?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It was obtained by one of my hon. friends at dinner time for the purpose of indicating that there was authority to pass the amount.


James Layton Ralston: It is remarkable that we are not entitled to see the other clauses of the contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is not the point; the contract is not here and the offices are closed. If it had been, asked for before dinner it would have been here.


An hon. MEMBER:: Get it to-morrow.
Mr, BENNETT: It may be obtained for to-morrow if the hon. members wish to tie up the estimates. The only question in my mind is whether or not it is right and in the interests of the country to tie up the country's business in this way. This is a contract in connection with which the previous government had knowledge and under which money has been paid for nine years; yet my hon. friends opposite want the people to understand that their solicitude for the public interest is so great that now, on this last day of -the fiscal year, they must -have the contract before payment upon it can be made. My hon. friends talk about their solicitude for the public interest; yet they want to see a contract nine years old. May I ask the exMinister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart, Edmonton) who has become so virtuous in his observations in reference to parliamentary institutions and payments from the federal treasury, if he got a governor general's warrant to pay the cost of putting in certain flooring for a political favourite just before the last election? Did he or did he not? Was a governor general's warrant laid upon the table of the house in the early days of the session concerning Mr. Marshall, a former resident of Edmonton and a contractor, giving him money as a gift, by warrant, just before an election?


Charles A. Stewart: For doing
what?


Richard Bedford Bennett: For doing certain work in connection with an elevator in the city of Edmonton.


Vincent Dupuis: Amounting to about $25.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman is not clever.


Vincent Dupuis: The Prime Minister says I am not clever.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The Prime
Minister has the floor.


Vincent Dupuis: I rise to a point of order. I think the right hon. gentleman has no right to say that.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. gentleman is rising to a point of order he must state the point of order, and the Prime Minister will sit down.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the point of order?


Vincent Dupuis: I would like to know if the right hon. gentleman, who has the reputation of being a one-man government-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Vincent Dupuis: Just a moment.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What is the point of order?


Vincent Dupuis: I would like to know if he is so much a judge as to reflect on an hon. member of this house in a way that is not parliamentary.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must state his point of order and not make a speech. While I am chairman the rules of the house must be observed, and if hon. members are not satisfied let them appeal to the house.


Vincent Dupuis: My point of order, Mr. Chairman, is this: I protest, not because of myself-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: That is not a point of order.


Vincent Dupuis: I protest against the term used by the right hon. gentleman, and I ask him to withdraw it, not because of my humble person, but because I am one of the representatives of the people here and he has no right to say that about me. I remember that the right hon. gentleman was called a humbug, and he did not like it, so I do not like him to say that about me. I would like the right hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Will the hon. member state his point of order?


Vincent Dupuis: I would like the right hon. gentleman to withdraw that statement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: To withdraw what?


Vincent Dupuis: That expression.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What expression? My hon. friend must understand I cannot hear everything that goes on in this house. If th&

Supply-Welland Canal
hon. member will state which expression he wishes to be withdrawn I will decide on the matter, but I do not know to what expression he has reference. If he does not know himself I cannot guess it.


Vincent Dupuis: Of course I do not want to go very far with this matter, Mr. Chairman, but you know very well that this expression is not parliamentary.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: What expression? If my hon. friend will state it I will be able to give a ruling. If it is not .parliamentary I will ask the right hon. Prime Minister to withdraw it, but the hon. member must state which expression he means.


Vincent Dupuis: I am very sorry that the Chairman-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot hear everything.


Vincent Dupuis: I am very sorry-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will ask the hon. member once more to state his point of order, and if he does not do so I will ask him to take his seat.


Vincent Dupuis: If the chairman will allow
me to speak I will state my point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot allow the hon. member to make a speech; he must state his point of order, because he has risen to it.


Mr. FAFARD:: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, if I were to say that the deputy speaker of the house was not clever, would I have to withdraw that expression?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Is that the point of
order my hon. friend is raising? If so, I would not consider it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Richard Bedford Bennett: After these interruptions, Mr. Chairman, I will proceed. I can quite understand, as I said, the solicitude for the public interest which is shown by hon. members opposite, but I find it a little difficult to appreciate in view of the fact that this is a contract under which, according to the statement which was just made, over $7,000,000 was voted last year. It is the same contract with the same people; payment is to be made to them for the same class of services, certified by the same inspectors. The only difference is that they continued their work beyond the appropriation that was made by parliament at the last session.


James Layton Ralston: And that is the difference.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Just what does that involve? Every contract made in this country is open to that construction, and in five cases out of ten that has been done. Looking through the parliamentary proceedings I see no record of any effort to challenge that procedure in respect to contracts sanctioned by parliament. If this contract had not been sanctioned by parliament I could understand it, but under the circumstances hon. members will agree that the time of the house is being needlessly taken up. What will the production of the contract do? What purpose can be served by it? That is the real point. The house has a right to cognizance of the contract. In the main estimates we must vote further moneys for this canal; there are balances still due, and the house once more will determine whether the contract in respect to which the Liberal government voted money for nine years will continue to have money voted under it for two years by a Conservative government. All the hullabaloo has been raised on this point. To quote the language of the right hon. leader of the opposition, is this elevating to the reputation of parliament? Is this calculated to enhance its value in the minds of the public? Is this giving a finer appreciation of the value of parliamentary institutions to those who look on from afar? These are questions which the right hon. gentleman asks so frequently that I may be pardoned if I venture now to make the same inquiry. Apparently the idea is to tie up parliament, to prevent the business from being transacted, because you cannot have brought before you to-night a certain document to which no reference was made before six o'clock. Hon, gentlemen opposite knew the offices would be closed after six, that there would be no opportunity to get the document after that hour, but now they ask that the contract be produced. They gave no notice of such a wish before the dinner adjournment; they indicated no desire of that kind in all the time they had at their disposal. Now, when the vaults are closed and the offices empty, they wish to get the contract in order to delay this item. Well, they can get the delay they desire; I can wait as well as they can wait. I am not in the least worried about it. I hope they will enhance their position before the people of this country, and that my right hon. friend will have the opportunity of referring to the high place that parliamentary institutions must hold in the minds of the people. He should have ample opportunity for making such references, in view of the scenes we have
Supply-Welland Canal

witnessed during the last few minutes. An hon. gentleman opposite rose to a point of order when I remarked about his reference to a governor general's warrant that paid Mr. Robert Marshall something over $25 for work done. I said the hon. gentleman was not clever when he made that reference. Does anyone say he is clever in making an observation of that character? I will leave it at that. Five or ten minutes go by; a whispered consultation is held; the rear troops are brought up; the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. Young) tells the hon. gentleman what he should do in order to put himself right. The spectacle goes on, and we are told that this is a sign and a symbol of cleverness in the parliament of Canada. Well, Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned I think this item should pass. We can stay here for another hour, however, and let the people see the spectacle if hon. gentlemen opposite insist.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Prime
Minister is fond of using the expression "what a spectacle" and of referring to the amount of time consumed in unnecessary discussion. If my right hon. friend will take time to look over Hansard to-morrow he will be surprised to see the spectacle he has made of himself during this evening, and the amount of time he as Prime Minister has taken up in the house in regard to this one particular item, giving first one version, then another, none of them correlated or consistent one with the other.
May I make our position very dear. We are asked to vote $2,000,000, which is not a small sum, under a contract the terms of which are not known to this house at the present time.


Mr. COTNAM:: You had them under your fingers for nine years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The right hon. gentleman's government has had them recently in the council chamber, and I venture to say he does not know anything about them.


Mr. SPENCE:: You must be in the same boat; you do not know anything about them either.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is why
I am asking for them. The Prime Minister has said he does not know what they are; the Minister of Railways does not know the terms of the contract, and there is not an hon. member of this house who knows those terms. All we are asking now is to be permitted to see the contract in order to learn what are the terms.


An hon. MEMBER:: But you voted money on it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and it has been stated that we entered into the contract at the start. If a Liberal government entered into that contract, if I am not mistaken, it will be found that there is a clause in it providing that unless the moneys are appropriated by parliament they shall not be available for any of the work. And if that clause is there it furnishes a very good reason why my right hon. friend may not wish to produce the contract to-night or at any time. I am not asking him to discontinue the whole discussion until the contract is produced. I said fully an hour ago that I thought it would be well for the item to stand until the contract was produced, and I am still of the opinion that it should stand until then. Obviously it cannot be produced to-night. But there are a good many more estimates still to be discussed. If the Prime Minister refuses to produce the contract and wishes to have the discussion continue until it is produced, that must be his responsibility. We are anxious to facilitate the business of the house and get on with the items, but we are going to know the terms of that contract before we vote $2,000,000 under it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Had the request for the contract been made before six o'clock the contract would have been secured, but the staff of the Department of Railways and Canals does not work at night, and these contracts are treated as having some value. One of the deputies hearing the discussion this afternoon obtained a copy of the letter and also section 43 of the Porter contract which I read to the house, believing that these were the only important clauses to read. This matter must come before the house on the main estimates, and I will undertake to produce the contract and, if desired, have copies made before that time. But so far as this item is concerned I cannot see that it has reference to it at all. I do not think any purpose can be served, so far as the passing of this item is concerned, by the production of the contract, and it would be very much to be regretted if the House of Commons took the attitude of one party saying, "We will not go on until you produce the contract," and the other party saying, "We will." I am perfectly frank in saying that the house has a right to the contract and we shall be glad to table it. But I cannot produce it when I have no notice, and did not know that it would be called for, seeing that it is a contract which has been

Supply-Welland Canal
nine years in force and under which my hon. friends have voted very large sums of money indeed. The relevant section-at least the section which I thought relevant-the minister got one of the deputies to get for him. He sent word out as soon as the question was raised, hoping that he might procure it, but he has not got it. It cannot be produced at the moment. That is what I am informed. I shall be very glad indeed to lay on the table of the house copies of the Welland canal contracts, and before the main estimates are considered there will be ample opportunity to do so. The truth is, I am-sorry to say, that I treated these supplementary estimates for the year ending March 31, 1931, in perhaps a much more casual way than I should have because I had been under the impression that the expenditures having been made and the obligations incurred, parliament as a matter of course would authorize them. In connection with the main estimates there will be every opportunity for discussing any question involved, or giving any information desired. If I were in the position of the leader of the opposition I would endeavour to obtain all the information that might possibly be procurable ; but no one has ever heard me suggesting that we should ask for information with respect to a contract if it were merely a contract upon which payment had been made for seven or eight years. The time to do that is when the contract is first brought to the attention of the house, and usually this is done. I believe, in this case, the same thing occurred. The contract, I think, was made in August, 1921. Perhaps it was after the government came in, but I believe I read that it was made in August, 1921. That was one contract, because there are various contracts in connection with the various sections, bearing different dates. I can only say that the items are here and to-morrow is the last day in the fiscal year in which these moneys can be paid. That is all there is about it, and if the opposition takes the view that they should not be paid, we will endeavour to do the best we can. In the past, however, it has been customary to pass these estimates without much discussion. It is true the pages of Hansard will show that I took a great deal of space making explanations, but these explanations were made not because I desired to give them at length but because I was asked by the house itself to make them. And if the reasons I have given lack coherence I can only say that there were many considerations that led to our purpose, which we believed to be in the public interest, to vote the money to which the contractors are entitled.


Charles A. Stewart: My right hon. friend has made reference to some contract undertaken by one Mr. Marshall for which I am accused of getting a governor general's warrant to pay for the work done. He has not offered any explanation. I am bound to say I do not remember the matter at all, but if Mr. Marshall was paid by order in council, undoubtedly the government knew all about it, and I cannot see why my right hon. friend should at this time make reference to this particular question. So far as my memory serves me, I never asked the government to grant me a warrant which was not justified and necessary in the public interest. Let me say to my right hon. friend that if he expects to get estimates through he will find that the quickest way is to produce all papers asked for, or to allow an item to stand until they are produced. Nor was he recreant in his duty in asking ministers, when we were on that side, to produce papers before an item was passed. We are well within our rights in asking for all information and for all papers, and it will not hurt my right hon. friend to allow the item to stand until to-morrow, seeing that he still has a great many more items to pass.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The sage observations offered by my hon. friend from West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and the advice tendered may be most excellent; I fancy they are. But they have no application to this particular case, because this afternoon when the question was raised I asked that the item stand and I supplied in detail the information requested. Had the opposition asked for the production of the contracts they would have been here to-night. But we were not asked for their production.


Charles A. Stewart: No sage observations have been made. So far as I am personally concerned I do not like references to past actions on my part without full opportunity being given to review them, when an impression is left or sought to be left that there is something wrong somewhere about the transaction. I may say to my right hon. friend that any time he attempts that with me he will not get away with it without a reasonable explanation. There is nothing sage about that statement. May I observe, however, that he, himself, tendered some sage advice across the floor when we were sitting on the side he and his followers now occupy. And we were bound by what he at that time decided was in the best interests of the public-we produced whatever was asked for.
Supply-Welland Canal


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. gentleman will have, produced from the files and laid on the table of the house, the original with respect to the matter. He brought the criticism on himself.


Mr. IRVINE:: I have been listening with great care to the discussion that has been going on between the Prime Minister and the loader of the opposition. I have been doing my best to discover what the real issue is and (o endeavour to come to some conclusion respecting it. The whole spectacle this evening proves the contention I have often put forward in this house, that the committee of the whole is not a very good place in which to discuss any estimate. I hope some day we shall have more adequate facilities provided. It is significant that for very many years money has been voted by parliament in connection with the contract at present under discussion. The challenge that no one knows what is in that contract has been issued and no one has taken it up. Having voted so much money during all these years without knowing what is in the contract, I do not mind doing it once more. I do not see that we will be doing more harm than has been done already. To me all this discussion seems to be nothing more than red tape. The declaration has been made that this vote is irregular. If I understood the Prime Minister correctly, he said that it is not irregular, it has been done before by hon. gentlemen on this side. That has not been denied, and therefore I can only conclude that if it is irregular it has been done before. Having been done before, why not go ahead and be irregular some more? This discussion is simply red tape. The amount will have to be paid. If it is authorized by the contract it will have to be paid; if it is authorized by the government apart from the contract it will have to be paid, and so it does not make much difference to me personally whether we vote this to-night or to-morrow.
Something has been said about the authority of parliament being jeopardized by this vote.	Parliament never had any
authority except the authority of the governing party. That authority comes from the cabinet, and that has been the only authority exercised by this parliament ever sinice I entered this chamber. I see no reason why we should object to following the same system. Perhaps we should have a better one, but although I have contended for a change, the right hon. leader of the opposition did not see fit to bring that about when he was Prime Minister. I see no reason for holding up this vote, particularly when we are 
advised that under the contract the company was authorized to carry on because of unemployment conditions. We know that such conditions existed and we know that such work would give employment to many men. We know they got work and in view of that I think this is an excellent time for conciliation. I enjoyed the speech of the leader of the opposition on conciliation in connection with the Imperial conference; if that is good for the Imperial conference it is a most excellent thing for the parliament of Canada. Let us have some conciliation and let us have it now and get on with the business of the committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The original Johnston P. Porter contract has been secured by the Minister of Railways and Canals. It being an original document, obviously it cannot be laid upon the table. However, I will pass it over to my right hon. friend. The contract which is dated August 18, 1021, was authorized by order in council dated August 18, 1021. It calls for tfhe construction of sections 1 and 2 of the Welland ship canal to be completed by March 31, 1025. Security of $400,000 was furnished. This matter is covered by departmental records file No. 14002, and the insurance policies required by section 125 were filed. The time for completion was extended to March 31, 1027, by a supplemental agreement which is attached to the contract. It was later extended to March 31, 1020, by order in council. It was again extended to June 30, 1030, by order in council dated March 16, 1020. It was finally extended to March 31, 1031, by a supplemental agreement dated January 8, 1031, which is attached to the contract.


Charles Gavan Power: A great deal of this information is new to us, especially that in connection with the supplemental agreement dated January 8, 1031.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is the same as those of 1027 and 1020.


Peter John Veniot: Why have not we the
right to see that?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not dispute the
hon. member's right to see it.


Charles Gavan Power: We have been told all afternoon that there was no new contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Neither there was.


Charles Gavan Power: I should say that a supplementary agreement would be very similar to a contract.

Supply-Welland Canal


Richard Bedford Bennett: It merely extends the
time for completion.


Charles Gavan Power: It is a new condition.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: The time was extended.
Although it may have no great bearing, I think we have occasion to resent the right hon. gentleman's manner towards us during the course of the afternoon. No one on this side of the chamber had an idea other than that this contract had been authorized by order in council, and so we did not ask for its production.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The original oontract was authorized by order in council.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry if the right hon.
gentleman misunderstood me. When the matter was being under discussion this afternoon we were given to understand that this $2,000,000 vote was an amount authorized by order in council. Before six o'clock we did not ask for the production of the contract because ,we did not think it was necessary, but after the dinner recess the right hon. gentleman moved from one position to another. He then proceeded to cite one clause of the contract without laying the complete contract upon the table of the house as he should have done. He knows very well that had we raised a point *of order and asked the Chairman to require the production of the contract he would have been obliged under the rules of this house to produce it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think not.


Charles Gavan Power: As the right hon. gentleman thinks not, the next time a similar question .arises we will ask for a ruling from the Chairman. In any case it was only after the dinner .recess that this matter of a contract came up. A clause from the contract was cited and a letter was read, and now we find that there was a supplementary contract. I submit that events have shown that we were perfectly Justified in requesting the information which we have received from the right hon. gentleman. He has laid great stress upon the fact that this contract has been in existence for nine years, and that millions of dollars have Been voted under it, bu't I would call his -attention to the fact that on every occasion upon which moneys were voted on this contract there were in their seats some responsible ministers who were prepared to give explanations. To-night we had the right hon. minister stating that he knew nothing about a .contract; he gave us to understand that the Minister of Railways and Canals was not iamiliar with the details-the minister will 22110-29
correct me if I am wrong-and he said: You must vote the money under this because you have voted money already. I submit that we are entitled to differentiate between the manner in which this contract has been treated in other years and the manner in which it should be treated this year.
A further reference was made by the right hon. gentleman which might be rather annoying to hon. members on this side of the chamber. He has intimated that on the last days of the fiscal year we are endeavouring to obstruct or to retard the progress of this estimate. The right hon. gentleman could have brought these estimates down last week.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he could not.


Charles Gavan Power: Why could he not?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He could not bring them down until he obtained the consent of the house.


Charles Gavan Power: He could have obtained that consent last Monday; there was no necessity for waiting until the last days of the fiscal year in order to bring them down. We are being asked to vote $2,000,000 without having any information or without being permitted to have the documents to which we are entitled.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my
right hon. friend for having produced this contract. The production is all the more remarkable because the Prime Minister told us only a moment ago that the vaults were locked and the clerks were in bed and therefore it was impossible to get anything. However, it is here and he has been kind enough to give it to us. I believe I have discovered the reason why my right hon. friend did not wish to produce this contract. The latest version with respect to the matter was that there was no order in council. I find here a definite contract reading:
This agreement made the 8th day of January, 1931, between Johnston P. Porter, of the city of Halifax, in the county of Halifax and province of Nova Scotia, of the first part, and His Majesty the King represented herein by the Minister of Railways and Canals of Canada, of the second part.
This is a formal contract signed by Mr. Porter, the contractor, and the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals, but in this formal contract there is reference to an order in council in virtue of which this present contract has been entered into.


Robert James Manion: Is that not just an extension of the contract?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, but it is in virtue of an order in council granting an

Supply

Welland Canal

extension of time that it has been possible to make a new contract. I hope the hon. member for Wetaskiwin will not hold us lacking in any desire to be conciliatory when we are simply endeavouring to get at the terms of contracts which are for expenditures involving millions of dollars. One of the reasons given for this contract is as follows:
And whereas, under and by virtue of an order in council (P.C. 2303) dated the 30th September, 1930, authority has been given to the further extension of the time for the completion of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275, by the party of the first part, io the 31st day of March, 1931.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was not the order in council my right hon. friend was talking about.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That is an order in council pertaining to the contract and in virtue of which the contract was made.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not for $2,000,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In virtue of which the agreement respecting the $2,000,000 expenditure which we are being asked to make good to-night was entered into.


Robert James Manion: The right hon. gentleman's own government during its regime extended the contract three times, and since we came in we extended it once. This is just an extension of the contract. There is no change in it. The ex-Minister of Marine nods his head. He agrees with me.


James Layton Ralston: It is quite right that we extended the contract.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I come to the original contract. We have now _an. order, in council which extends the time under which this work is to be done, an order in council of which the house up to this moment had received no information and of which it would have had no knowledge but for the production of the document in consequence of all the efforts we made this afternoon and evening to obtain it. In virtue of the extension of time given by order in council of September 30, the Minister of Railways and Canals subsequently had a contract entered into between the contractor and his deputy.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: What is the date of the order in council?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The order in council extending the time is dated September 30, 1930, a rather significant date. After we had had the, special session of parliament, after parliament had voted $20,000,000 to aid unemployment, and after my right hon. friend had had an opportunity to ask parliament foi

any privilege or right which he wished to have with respect to meeting the unemployment situation, it is then that the government by order in council extends the time of this contract. Then we come to the month of December.


Eugène Fiset: When the appropriation voted for that same year had expired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On September 30 there still was some of the appropriation, but after that the appropriation had expired-


Richard Bedford Bennett: The appropriation had
not expired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not the whole of it in September, but my right hon. friend and his colleagues were paving the way for this further amount to be authorized later on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The Prime Minister was away.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not
imagine my right hon. friend's colleagues did anything without his full knowledge. Even if he were away, I think he knew all about it. But this agreement is dated the 8th day of January, 1931, a formal agreement signed by the contractor and the Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Merely extending the
time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, authorizing further expenditures. This is not even the letter to which reference has been made. All we were told of was a letter written by the deputy; there was nothing about a new contract, but this is a contract, signed, sealed and delivered in the presence of Mr. F. S. Lazier for the party of the first part, and in the presence of Mr. J. Proulx for the party of the second part.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Will my right hon. friend read the operative part of it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I shall read
the whole of it. It reads:
This agreement made this 8th day of January, 1931, between Johnston P. Porter, of ;he city of Halifax, in the county of Halifax and province of Nova Scotia, of the first part, and His Majesty the King, represented herein by the Minister of Railways and Canals, of Canada, of the second part:
Witnesseth a contract bearing No. 24275, dated the 18th day of August, 1921 (hereinafter referred to as "contract No. 24275") was entered into by and between the party of the first part and the party of the second part for the construction and completion of sections Nos. 1 and 2 of the Welland Ship canal, for the considerations and subject to the terms, covenants,

Supply-Welland Canal
provisoes, agreements, conditions and reservations as in contract No. 24275 set out, which, by reference thereto, will at length and more fully .appear;
And whereas the time for the completion, by the party of the first part, of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275 was therein fixed for the 31st day of March, 1925, as in clause 3 of contract No. 24275 set out and provided;
And whereas the time for the completion of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275 was extended by supplemental agreement dated April 20, 1925, to the 31st day of March, 1927;
And whereas the time for the completion of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275 was further extended by order in council (P.C. 395) dated March 14, 1927, to the 31st day of March, 1929, and by order in council (P.C. 448) dated March 16, 1929, to the 30th day of June, 1930;
And whereas the party of the first part has not yet done, furnished, performed and delivered the works contracted for under contract No. 24275;
And whereas, under and by virtue of an order in council (P.C. 2303) dated the 30th day of September, 1930, authority has been given to the further extension of the time for the completion of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275, by the party of the first, part, to the 31st day of March, 1931.
Witnesseth that, in consideration of the premises, the parties hereto have mutually covenanted and agreed as follows:
1. That the time for the completion, as set and provided in clause 3 of the contract No. 24275, by the party of the first part for the party of the second part, of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275 and as extended by supplemental agreement and orders in council aforesaid is hereby further extended to the thirty-first day of March, 1931, and that each and all, except and subject as hereinbefore set out and provided, the terms, covenants, provisoes, agreements, conditions and reservations in contract No. 24275 set out and provided shall be and continue in force and effect between the parties hereto in as full and complete a manner as if the date (the 31st day of March, 1925) set out and provided in clause 3 of contract No. 24275 for the completion of the works contracted for under contract No. 24275 had been the 31st day of March, 1931 (the date herein named and fixed) named and fixed in contract No. 24275 in the first instance instead of the date therein so named and fixed.
In witness whereof the parties hereto have executed these presents the day and year first above written.
Signed, sealed a"nd delivered by the party of the first part in the presence of F. S. Lazier.
J. B. Porter.
Signed, sealed and delivered by the party of the second part in the presence of J. Proulx.
V. I. Smart,
Deputy Minister of Railways and Canals.
J. W. Pugsley,
Secretary.
In other words, the amount of $2,000,000, which we are now being asked to appropriate, is in virtue not of any estimates submitted 22110-29j
to the house by a previous administration nor of any act of a previous administration at all, but by virtue of an extension of time made by the government of the day opposite on the 30th September last and in virtue of a new contract entered into between the contractor and the present government in January of this year for which at the time there was no existing appropriation. That is the position. It is in respect of moneys that were not voted previously. May I quote to my right hon. friend what he himself had to say in parliament at the special session with respect to appropriations that had not received the sanction of parliament? He was referring to remarks of the ex-Minister of Justice in the debate on unemployment relief, and he will find his own words at page 91 of Hansard of the special session as follows:
Having regard to the attitude taken by the right hon. gentleman as to the desirability of having antecedent parliamentary sanction for expenditures-
Not post-parliamentary sanction of expenditures, but antecedent parliamentary sanction of expenditures such as we are now discussing.
-I am sure that he will agree that any effort to appropriate so substantial a sum as that mentioned in the resolution should have parliamentary sanction before the money is expended.
And my right hon. friend adds these words:
I think that is a cardinal principle of representative institutions and of responsible government.
Those are the words of the Prime Minister on the lilth of September, before this extension of time was granted with reference to this $2,000,000 contract that we are now discussing, and three or four months before the actual contract itself was entered into with the contractors for the additional $2,000,000. So I say to my right hon. friend that out of his own lips he stands condemned. I am prepared to leave the matter at that.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Now that the contract has been produced, I do not intend to take up very much time beyond saying that the general principle upon which I have always proceeded is that there should be antecedent authorization by parliament of public expenditures. There was in this instance antecedent parliamentary authorization because parliament had approved of the contract and of its terms by voting money for the work for nine or ten years in succession. It will be remembered that this contract was to be fulfilled in March, 1925, and when the right
Supply-Welland Canal

hon. gentleman's government went out of power in July, 1930, the contract had not been completed. Therefore there were extensions, three in number, and a further extension was made until the 31st of March of this year. There had been an antecedent approval by parliament of the contract that involves this large expenditure, but parliament had voted part of the money only.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But not approval of the expenditure itself.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Parliament had antecedently approved of the contract and of the whole of the expenditures that were to be made for the purpose of carrying into effect the terms of the contract. Only part of the money, however, had been voted. It would be incumbent upon the crown to make good the moneys due for the work that was performed. I am not going to discuss that further.
When the right hon. gentleman and those associated with him were so insistent that they had never done such a thing, might I ask them whether, in 1928-29, the government of that day did not authorize work on the Hudson Bay railway, and that it be proceeded with after the appropriation for the year had been expended? Afterwards the sum of $1,700,000 was included in the 192930 estimates for that work. Let hon. gentlemen look up the estimates and see. The situation that arose then was not one of grave unemployment. It was simply a question of carrying on the work, and the government of that day arranged to get the money without coming to parliament. The Canadian National Railways put up the money in the meantime and parliament voted the money later. That hon. gentlemen will find by looking at the estimates for those two years.
I have endeavoured with a good deal of difficulty to get the contract for the right hon. gentleman and his friends. There is nothing about this matter that is irregular or improper or in any way at variance with the principles which I laid down. That is the reason why in respect to some new works to which reference has been made expenditures were not carried on: because it was felt-I have a very strong opinion about it- that as some of these works could not be completed before the end of this month, no start should be made upon them, the moneys voted being wholly insufficient for the purpose. So instead of calling for tenders and letting contracts, we decided we would do the best we could under the circumstances

then existing, and I do not believe that there is any member of this house who will say that if the right hon. gentleman opposite and his friends were in power and confronted with the same situation he would not have extended the contract for the same purpose, to enable the contractor to complete his obligation within the time mentioned and to take care of the problem of unemployment.
My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power), who has referred to the order in council, knows perfectly well that the order in council read this evening was not the order in council to which reference was made this afternoon, nor was there in point of fact any new contract made. There was merely an extension of time granted, the only change made being in the date fixed for the completion of the contract by March 31, 1931. If there has been any violation of the principles of responsible government or representative institutions it certainly has not been in this case, because all that was done was to permit the contractor to go forward and finish his work, and he had to finish it by March 31 anyway.


Charles A. Stewart: Is it finished?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know, it is
not finished.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	The	contract will go on.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh yes. It will continue.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	My	right
hon. friend would take the position that the government are in duty bound to let that man finish the whole contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: If they extend the time
for completion by order in council, which has always been done.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	My	right
hon. friend was arguing the opposite to-day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.
Mr.	STEWART	(Edmonton):	Until	this
contract that was entered into in 1921 is completed, the government will feel under obligation to allow the contractor to complete the contract.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Not beyond the time fixed for completion, unless there is an extension.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not wish to delay the committee further. We have now got what we have been looking for all day. The Prime Minister has been kind enough to produce the contract, and so far as I am concerned I am perfectly satisfied. But I desire to point out

Supply-Public Buildings
that we now find that this vote of $2,000,000 is authorized under some specific instrument, namely, a contract that was entered into, or an extension of contract if the right hon. gentleman prefers it that way, on September 30, 1930. That puts an entirely different face on the situation. First we were told that there was no new contract. We were told that there was an order in council, and then we were told that there was no order in council. We were told that is was an old contract which had been in existence since 1921, that it had been let in our time, and then we found that it was let under the Conservative regime. We are now told that there have been three or four different extensions of the contract, and the last one that was made was made since the right hon. gentleman came into pow'er. That puts an entirely different construction upon it, and shows that we were at any rate amply justified in insisting upon having the fullest information.
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Ville Marie-public building-further amount required, $14,370.


Jean-François Pouliot: When an amount is voted and not spent, does it lapse or is it applied to another item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: It lapses.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Sturgeon Falls - public building - further amount required, $1,373.95.
Peter Heenan: Would the Prime Minister or the Minister of Public Works state the rate of wages that the ordinary labourers were paid on this work at Sturgeon Falls?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Forty cents an hour, I
am informed.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Will these rates apply
to all works done by the federal government? I refer to the rate of forty cents an hour for common labour.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I cannot answer that
question, because the fair wage clause is inserted in contracts and my hon. friend knows
the meaning of it as well as I do.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan:	Dominion public buildings-[DOT]
improvements, repairs, etc.,-Further amount required, $3,500.
Mr. TOTZIvE:	What public buildings
come under that item?
Richard Bedford Bennett: There was an appropriation for repairs and matters of that kind of $17,000. The expenditure amounted to $3,500 in excess of that sum.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will the right hon.
gentleman give us the names of the places affected?


Richard Bedford Bennett: There are many places
where small repairs were made; I have no names here.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Alberta - Delia - public building [DOT]- further amount required, $2,000.
Charles-Philippe Beaubien: There is no over-expenditure in the province of Manitoba, some of the money voted by the last parliament having not been spent?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ottawa public buildings and grounds-
Elevator attendants-further amount required, $2,700.	.
Departments generally-char service-further amount required, $23,300.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance-further amount required, $17,000.
Water-further amount required. $2,250.
Rideau Hall-amount required to complete payment for additional furniture and furnishings, including the purchase from the retiring Governor General of the Chinese gallery, $15,000.
Dominion public bnildings-
Fittings, general supplies and furniture-further amount required. $5,000.
Light and power-further amount required, $40,000.
Supplies for caretakers-further amount required, $12,000.-Total, $117,250.
Charles Gavan Power: I would like some explanation concerning the purchase of the Chinese gallery. Would the Prime Minister tell us whether or not that is an expression of good will so that we may sell our wheat to China?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That item represents a
sum which the government agreed to pay Their Excellencies for the Chinese gallery at Rideau Hall and the furniture at the citadel which was not taken away. The Department of Public Works had the articles appraised before it was agreed to make the contract in question. Inasmuch as it was felt that a sum would have to be expended for the purpose of furnishing that particular part of Rideau Hall, and considering that the price was reasonable because of the fact that the pieces were of very great value, the contract was closed and the arrangement made.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was the appraiser a
Chinaman?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I do not know.
Supply-Public Buildings


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I hate to use the expression "I told you so," but hon. members must recall that two or three years ago the right hon. gentleman and his friends while sitting in opposition took serious objection to further expenditures on furniture, trappings and draperies for Rideau Hall and the Quebec citadel.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is neither for
draperies nor trappings.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: It is for furniture.


Richard Bedford Bennett: One of two things had to be done; either the furniture in the buildings had to be purchased or other furniture bought.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, some reference was made earlier in the evening to myself as a lawyer. I would like to ask the Prime Minister a constitutional question: Under the constitution can the government pay the Governor General the moneys set down under this item?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am advised the Governor General can be paid after he has ceased to hold that office.


William Duff: By whom?


Richard Bedford Bennett: He shall have ceased to be Governor General on Saturday.


William Duff: Was not the contract made by the Governor General when he was acting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The contract was made with his representative. I am advised such representative was perfectly icompetent to make the contract and the money will be paid after His Excellency has ceased to be Governor General.


Mr. YENIOT:: Could not this item stand until the general estimates are considered without doing an injustice to His Excellency?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Under the circumstances I think it would be unfair to let. the item stand.
Mr. MEBjCIE.R. (St. Henri): Does the Prime Minister think the new Governor General will want the Chinese galleTy?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I feel there will be no difficulty in disposing of the furniture.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. Bennett.l
New Brunswick	v
Fairhaven-wharf repairs-further amount required, $2,218.12.
Clarence Joseph Veniot: Was this work done under *contract or by day labour?


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is referring to the work which cost $2,218.12. This amount is required as a balance due on repair work to the wharf at Fairhaven. The work was performed under contract.


Peter John Veniot: That was under contract?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario
Cobourg - harbour improvements - further amount required, $48,995.40.
Port Elgin - breakwater repairs - further amount required. $2,909.93.
Sarnia - harbour improvements - further amount required, $11,770.
Sault Ste. Marie-harbour improvements- further amount required, $56,556.58.-Total, $120,231.91.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not rise
to object to the items but I should like to direct your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that it is customary to call the individual items. If we are allowing them to pass in this collective fashion it is simply in order to save time. The practice however is not to be taken as a precedent when we come to the general estimates, or for any future time.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The right hon. gentleman is quite correct. However, I have been asked to call out the number only.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I agree with the remarks of the right hon. leader of the opposition.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Item No. 29, is it the wish of hon. members that I read the whole item?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
British Columbia
Comox-wharf repairs,$2,200.
Fraser River-In full and final settlement of claim of Coast Quarries Ltd., Vancouver, B.C., in connection with their contract No. 15,942 for section 5 of the north jetty at Steveston, B.C., $12,260.16.-Total, $14,460.16.


Mr. REID:: Would the Prime Minister
give particulars regarding the second item in this estimate?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, I will give the hon.
member the information he desires. The statement reads as follows:
In full and final settlement of claim of Coast Quarries Limited of Vancouver, British Colum-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
bia, in connection with their contract No. 15.942 for section 5 of the North Jetty at Steveston, British Columbia, $12,260.60.
This amount of $12,260.16 is asked to be provided in full and final settlement of claim of Coast Quarries Limited of Vancouver, British Columbia, in connection with their contract No. 15,942 for the construction of section No. 5 of the North Jetty at the mouth of the Fraser river at Steveston, British Columbia.
In memo of November 25, 1930 chief engineer Cameron states as follows:
Under authority of order in council of August 16. 1928, contract was entered into with Coast Quarries Limited of Vancouver. British Columbia, for the construction of Section No. 5 of the North Jetty at the mouth of the Fraser river, at Steveston, New Westminster district, British Columbia.
Contract was dated October 1, 1928, and called for completion April 1, 1930.
The contract provided for the supply and placing of rock to form a continuation of the existing Steveston North Jetty. The length of the section No. 5 proposed to be built was 5,000 lineal feet, and the estimated quantity of material under the contract was 41,300 tons of 150 lb. rock at 1.724 per ton; 106,200 tons of 500 lb. rock at 1.674 per ton which involved an estimated expenditure of $249,127.50.
Final estimate was forwarded March 24, 1930 and paid. It certified to
24.093 tons at $1.724	 $ 72,610 42
105,164 tons at $1.074	 176,149 70
and involved a total earning of.. $248,760 12
Which, it will be observed, is within a few dollars of the amount mentioned in the estimate.
In transmitting that final estimate I observed that Coast Quarries Limited had filed a claim for additional payment. This report deals with that claim. The contractors' solicitor, J. E. Bird, of Vancouver, wrote on February 3, and 13, 1930 setting out the grounds on which the claim was based. These letters were followed by numerous interviews in Ottawa with W. A. Bickwell of the contracting firm, and with district engineer Worsfold who was in Ottawa on departmental business.
The amount asked by the contractors as additional compensation isfor extra dolphins	$ 3,036
for rock dumped by hand 10 August to
31st December 1929, 43,700 tons.. ..	17,480
for rock dumped by hand 31st December 1929 to completion 17,000 tons.. 6,800

A report to council was prepared February 26, 1931 recommending that an amount of $12,260.16 be paid the Coast Quarries Limited.


Thomas Reid: What was the date of settlement?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The report to council by the department was made February 26, 1931.
An. hon. MEMBER: Was this settlement accepted by the contractor?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The department determined on the report of the engineers that this was all they would pay, and so advised the contractors. This item is for that purpose. I am advised that they would have liked to get something more, but they cannot get it.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Before these public works items are passed, could the minister give the house the amount of money voted at the last regular session for public works that was not expended? If I understood the Prime Minister correctly a short time ago he said that no contracts that were entered into, for which money was voted by the late government, were cancelled by the present administration. I wish to say that, speaking for my own county,
I know of two contracts that were entered into but which were cancelled and the work under which was never carried out.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Would the hon. gentleman bo good enough to give the names?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: One public work was the Summerside wharf, amounting to $7,500. Not only was the contract not carried out, but the cheque of the contractors was kept at Ottawa until just about a month ago, when it was returned to them. They were told then that the contract had been given to another party, and as far as I know that party did not even put in a tender for the work. These men were given a small cheque to pay the interest on their deposit cheque, which has been held here since last July. I think in all fairness, when money was voted at the last regular session of parliament, when there was unemployment in the county and a special session of this house was called during which $20,000,000 was voted for unemployment, that the $25,000 which was voted for the county of Prince should have been spent, especially when tenders for these works were called for and accepted. That amount of money would have been a great help to the farmers, fishermen and labourers of that county last fall, when unemployment was rife. Instead, the cheque of the contractors was held here and the work never was proceeded with. I submit further that if the government, for political reasons or otherwise, did not wish to allow the contractors to go on which those contracts, they had plenty of time to call for new tenders and to allow some of their own men to get the contracts and proceed with the work. We worked for years in the house to get those votes through, and they were very important. One concerned a harbour for poor fishermen along the shore. They have been fighting for that harbour for thirty or forty years. The item was supported by the Minister of
Supply-Public Works

Fisheries and put through this house, and the contract was awarded. The work was never proceeded with, and I want an explanation from my good friend the Minister of Public Works as to why the deposit cheque was held here at Ottawa for four or five months and the work never proceeded with. I think the government has some explaining to do to square itself with the people of that county with regard to these two contracts.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The information the hon. gentleman seeks will be supplied in due course, either when the main estimates are under consideration, or through answer to a question put on the order paper. It is obvious that the information is not available at the moment. It will be supplied, in the one way or the other, by the Minister of Public Works. I may say that I am advised that there must be some mistake in my hon. friends appreciation of the facts.


William Duff: The hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) has made a very serious assertion with regard to the Department of Public Works. He has stated that a contract was cancelled and that the Minister of Public Works or his officials entered into a contract with new contractors without calling for tenders. I think we should have some explanation of this matter before going any further.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sure the hon. mem-eer for Antigonish-Guysborough realizes that this has nothing to do with the item under consideration. We are considering the British Columbia item now.
Mr- DU FI : As the deputy speaker would say, it is a matter of principle.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We are now considering the British Columbia item.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The reason I brought it up on this item is because we are now considering the public works for the various provinces, and there is no estimate for Prince Edward Island. If I brought it up at all I had to bring it up when we were considering the public works estimates. The only other estimate on which I could have discussed it was the dredging estimate, and I might have been shut out under that. I am willing to let the matter stand for now, but we should have an explanation why these contracts were handled in this way.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public works-roads and bridges-Dominion roads and bridges generally-further amount required, $10,100.

Interprovineial bridge over Ottawa river at Hawkesbury, the Quebec government to contribute one-third of cost of construction only, the Ontario government to contribute one-fourth of cost of construction and to pay annually one-fourth the maintenance costs-further amount required, $28,300.-Total, $38,400.
Mr. BERTRAND:: How much money has been paid to the contractors on the Hawkes-bury-Grenville bridge so far, and how much money has been collected from the provinces of Ontario and Quebec?
Mr. BliNNEFl :	The amount earned by
the contractors is 896,340; the amount paid by the Dominion government is $35,926, and by the Quebec government $32,114. The balance due is $28,300. Of that amount of $28,300 asked for, the provincial governments will eventually refund their portions.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I would like to ask also if there will be a further sum in the main estimates with regard to this bridge, because there is additional information I would like to secure.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, there must be another estimate because the contract is outstanding for $150,000.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Then there will be another amount in the main estimates?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
PRIVILEGE-MR. LaVERGNE
Mr. ARMAND R. LaVERGNE (Mont-magny) :	I rise to a question of privilege.
My good friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) said this afternoon that I was owner and director of a paper in Quebec called Le Franc-Parler. I wish to say that while I write in that paper I neither own nor direct it. My hon, friend also cast a sort of aspersion upon me, implying that I might be a partisan. I understand that so long as you do not lay flowers at my hon. friend's feet you are supposed to be a partisan, but I appeal to the loyalty of my hon. friend from Quebec South:	he knows better than anyone else that I am not a partisan.
Charles Gavan Power: I
hate to detain the house at this late hour, but may I be allowed to explain why I was under the impression that the hon. gentleman was particularly interested in this newspaper to which he refers. I have here a section of the newspaper in question bearing the following:

Privilege-Mr. LaVergne
''Le Franc-Parler"
Arm and LaVergne, C.R., M.P., President. [Vice-President de la Chambre des communes] Eugene-11'. Dussault, Directeur.
Hormisdas D. Langlais, Administrates. Public par la Compagnie "La Publication Laurentienne, Limitee" 105, Cote de la Mon-tagne, Quebec, P.Q. Tel. 2-6203.


Richard Bedford Bennett: What is the date?


Charles Gavan Power: December, 1930. However,
if the house is not convinced, 1 could possibly make-


Mr. SPEAKER:: I do not see that the
representation now being made to the house by the hon. member constitutes a question of privilege. It can be made on the proper occasion. The deputy speaker addressed himself to what was plainly a question of privilege, which is not a matter for debate.


Charles Gavan Power: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a
question of privilege.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is all very well for
an hon. member to say that he rises to a question of privilege, but if in fact he is not doing so he should not rise.


Charles Gavan Power: I quite agree with your
honour that perhaps there has been too much of that sort of thing in the house, but I wish to state my point.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Up to the present
moment the hon. member has said nothing that affects privilege.


Charles Gavan Power: My point is that my word
has been brought into question by the deputy speaker.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I cannot accept that. The hon. member did suggest that the deputy speaker was a director of or was interested in a certain newspaper, but the deputy speaker has just stated that he is not. Surely that is an end of the matter.


Charles Gavan Power: I am explaining why I
made the statement I did.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand that the
hon. member has done so.


Charles Gavan Power: I wished to read from the
newspaper in question to make my point still clearer and in order to explain to the house why I stated that the deputy speaker was connected with this newspaper-was a director of it. I propose to read a letter published in the paper. Surely I am entitled to explain my position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was December,
1930.


Charles Gavan Power: This letter-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must disagree with the
hon. member. He has not spoken to a question of privilege and in what he is now saying he is not addressing himself to a question of privilege.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Tuesday, March 31, 1931