1931-06-19

PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata) (Translation): In yesterday's Hansard at page 2777, the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) charged me with having raised the war cry in the course of the last election. Such tactics is like beating the air. The harder the minister beats the air, (dur en l'eau) the more we have the impression that he is chastising himself. The minister was wrongly informed. His statement is contrary to the truth, I strongly deny it and ask him to withdraw his charge which is unfounded.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine):: I never charged the hon. member with having raised the war cry, but I said that the Grit organization in the province of Quebec raised that cry through two official party organs which were distributed in almost all the houses of the voters in that province. I did not accuse my hon. friend personally; I accused the organs, and if he will read Hansard he will find that is exactly what I said.


Mr. POULIOT:: I shall accept the minister's statement after the speech delivered yesterday by the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret).



NATURALIZATION ACT AMENDMENT


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: With the consent of the house, I move:
That Bill No. 3, intituled an act to amend the Naturalization Act be referred to a special committee consisting of Messrs. Bury, Cahan, Ernst, Euler, Macphail (Miss), Rinfret and Smoke, with power to send for persons, papers and records and to report from time to time.

The names mentioned in this resolution have been agreed upon by the representatives of the three parties in the house.


Mr. RINFRET:: Is it the intention of the Secretary of State to refer also to a special committee, perhaps to the same committee, Bill No. 24, to define Canadian nationals and to provide for loss or renunciation of Canadian nationality?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: That will have to remain for further consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. SPEAKER:: I suggest that the Secretary of State move that order No. 14-
House in committee on Bill No. 3, an act to amend the Naturalization Act.-The Secretary of State.
-be now discharged, as Bill No. 3 has by the motion just passed been referred to a special committee and not to committee of the whole.
Mr. CAHAN moved that order No. 14 be
discharged.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. F. TOTZKE (Humboldt):: I should like to ask a question of the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the farmers of Saskatchewan are somewhat concerned regarding appendix XII of the Stamp commission report which sets out comparative pool and open market prices covering the years 1924 to 1931, will the Prime Minister state whether the appendix referred to was included in the original report?


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: My attention has been drawn to the
matter. As I understand it, the appendix was an exhibit filed with the commission, and it was to be included in the report of the commission, but there is upon that appendix some printing which draws inferences that may or may not have been warranted, and that should not have been there. The diagram itself is not a matter of great importance; the objectionable feature is the printing that was put on it, I think by the grain exchange, in connection with certain propaganda, and it should not have been put upon the copy that was printed. That is my understanding of the situation. Either it can be taken from the report, or if any reprints of the report are made, that printing will not appear upon the appendix.

City of Ottawa Agreement



FORTY-MINUTE RULE INTERPRETATION OP STANDING ORDER 37-REPLY1 TO MOTION OF WANT OF CONFIDENCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: I should like to make a personal explanation. Yesterday I gave notice that I might desire to discuss further standing order 37, concerning the limitation of speech. I wish to say now, as a matter of record, that after hearing the remarks made about the matter yesterday and others that have come to my notice since, I have come to the conclusion that the matter is an involved one and no practical result can be reached at this stage of the session. I therefore wish merely to say that I do not intend to press the point further, but perhaps I may take it up at some future session.



JUDGES ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 40, to amend the Judges Act.
Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: Will my hon.
friend explain the amendment?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: It is a very simple one.
It is a change in the tense used in the language of the bill. The bill provides:
If any judge of a superior court .... may be hereafter appointed.
The change made by the Senate is to substitute "has been" for "may be," and I think it will serve the purpose better.
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.



CITY OF OTTAWA AGREEMENT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 80. to authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Agreement with city of Ottawa extended for one year.
Mr. MAROIL:: As a resident of Ottawa for many years I should like to ask the minister as to the progress of the negotiations with
the city for a new city hall. I must congratulate the minister, upon having given his approval to a boulevard towards the Perley home. I am sure the minister wants to do what is right, and as there is intense interest being taken in this question in Ottawa at the present time, if the minister could give us any information I should appreciate it very much.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I regret to say that I am not able to make any definite statement with regard to the situation respecting the city hall. There has not been recently any conference between representatives of the city and the Public Works department, and I am. not sure that the city itself has actually decided what it wants to do. Of course, we are willing to receive the city's representatives at any time and discuss the .matter from every standpoint. This bill, however, has no relation whatever to that subject. It simply provides for the payment to the city of Ottawa of the sum of $100,000, covering payment for certain services rendered -the supply of water. The old agreement expired on the first of July last year, and unless this bill is passed there will be no authority to pay the city for the year that expires on July 1, 1981. This is the same amount that has been paid foT some years. The city think that they should receive a larger amount than this and have made some representations accordingly, but no agreement has been arrived -at. The passing of this bill will permit negotiations to continue covering the subject matter of this bill as well as other ma/tters such as my hon. friend mentions.


Mr. SPENCER:: Is this agreement made from year to year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No. This agreement was originally made for a period of years, and has been extended once or twice. The present bill extends it for one year only.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I just wish to say that I agree with my hon. friend the member for Bonaventure when he says that the suggestion which the minister made to the civic authorities is a very good one. I would like to express my hope that the city will see its way to follow out the wishes of the government in the matter.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved the second reading of Bill No. 87, to amend 'the Root Vegetables Act.
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Albemi):: This bill is not among those mentioned last night as to be taken up to-day. I think some explanation should be forthcoming.


Richard Bedford Bennett: My hon. friend is right, and unless the house consents we will not proceed with it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no objection to going on except that I understand my hon. friend from Melville (Mr. Motherwell) wishes to say a word on this bill. We might pass the second reading and let the bill stand in committee.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, and any explanations can be given in committee, if that is satisfactory to my hon. friend (Mr. Neill).
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
Mr. BENNETT moved that the house go into committee on the bill.
He said: Owing to the fact that my right hon. friend opposite agrees that we advance this bill another stage I have made the motion to go into committee in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), who has been called out of the chamber.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Marking of packages.
Alan Webster Neill: Explain.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a bill providing for the grading of potatoes.


Mr. YOUNG:: Radishes?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, that is left for my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young). The former statute provided for the grading of old potatoes only, not new. This bill removes that anomaly and provides for grading both old and new.


Mr. BROWN:: The purpose of the bill,
which on the face of it appears so simple, undoubtedly is to bring under the grading provisions those new potatoes that come into the country very early in the season. I would judge therefore that this bill is but a further indication of the protective measures of the present government. I think I have interpreted the bill correctly.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I was just wondering what new conditions had arisen which would make the grading of new potatoes advisable at this time. Some years ago it was thought that we were crowding this grading proposition as fast as the country would accept it. Probably the country will never accept this further advanced step, or it may be that there are new conditions which render the step advisable. I wonder what those conditions are. I must explain that I am not opposing the bill but I am curious to know what new circumstances have arisen which make it necessary.


Alan Webster Neill: I think we are discussing the wrong section. I may call the attention of hon. members to the fact that section 2 deals with the grading of new potatoes but section 1 has nothing whatever to do with that matter. As will be seen by the side note on the bill, section 1 deals merely with the marking of packages. Section 1, if passed, would do away with the marking of packages. The reason given for the repeal of the section is that this particular matter is provided for by section 3 (d) of the act. I have not the act before me at the present time because I did not anticipate the matter would come before the committee to-day. When we reach section 2, I should like to make some remarks concerning the grading of new potatoes.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, the truth is that the Minister of Agriculture moved, by mistake, the	second	reading	of	the bill.According to	the list	I gave	the	house lastnight this bill was not to be considered today. However second reading was given, and at a later stage my right hon. friend indicated that the bill might at the present time be advanced a further stage. The result is that we are now in committee on the bill. I must state that I	am not	aggravating my hon.friend by becoming Minister of Agriculture as well, although in several particulars I am sure I could	improve upon	the	knowledge
concerning radishes evidenced by the hon. member from Weyburn (Mr. Young).
I would therefore move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again in order to satisfy the very laudable curiosity of the ex-Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Motherwell) who used to be a great proponent of grading, in fact, he was so much so that there was considerable difficulty experienced in securing inspectors to inspect the graders. However, at this time there is no desire to go further.

Redemption Loan


William Richard Motherwell: I had not anticipated that my right hon. friend would ask the committee to rise and report progress.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It would be improper
for me to attempt an explanation in respect to the bill. This is merely an instance in which a mistake was made; fortunately it was not mine.
Progress reported.



NATURAL RESOURCES-ALBERTA

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 84, to amend the Alberta Natural Resources Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. T. G. MURPHY (Minister of the Interior) moved the second reading of Bill No. 85, to amend the Saskatchewan Natural Resources Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 88, respecting Dominion Agricultural Credit Company, Limited.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved the second reading of Bill No. 89, to amend the Trust Companies Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Limitation of amount.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: The only change is the
substitution of "seven" for "five"?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Quite so. As the hon.
gentleman knows, there are a number of companies, the larger ones in fact, under provincial charter, but the dominion has always exercised jurisdiction in respect of the borrowing powers of these companies and of
companies that owe their creation to dominion legislation. It has been thought desirable to increase the authorized borrowing power from five to seven times the amount of the company's unimpaired, paid-up capital and reserve.


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

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the governor in council be authorized to raise by way of loan under the provisions of the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, an amount not to exceed in the whole the sum of seven hundred and fifty million dollars, for paying or redeeming the whole or any portion of loans or obligations of Canada, and for purchasing and withdrawing from circulation matured securities of Canada.	[DOT]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is in the terms that such resolutions usually are. It provides for an authorized borrowing up to $750,000,000. The last authorization given by the house was at the instance of the late Mr. Robb, for that sum. The result of the conversion loan is that our borrowing powers are practically exhausted, and it is thought desirable in view of the fact that between now and 1934 there remains about $800,000,000 to be taken care of-a portion of which is due in England and will be retired by a sinking fund to the extent of $50,000,000-to secure authority that will enable re-financing to take place, if thought desirable, between then and now. The resolution merely meets the situation to the extent of $750,000,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Any comment or explanation might be reserved until the bill is before the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: And will be in fact.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 100 to authorize the raising by way of loan of certain sums of money for the public service.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Royal Canadian Mint



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the establishment of the Royal Canadian Mint as a branch of the Department of Finance, and to make provision for the payment of salaries and for superannuation and retiring benefits of members of the staff of the Ottawa mint on the coming into force of the proposed legislation.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton) in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, this resolution is for the purpose of introducing a bill which will provide for the transfer of the administration of the mint from the Royal Mint, London, to the Canadian government under the Department of Finance. Provision is made for the changes that are incidental in connection with such a transfer, such as superannuation, arrangement of salaries and so on. The matter has engaged the attention of the government for some time, and last fall I took it up with the Chancellor of the Exchequer in London. This legislation is the result. If it meets with the approval of the house, when the bill founded upon the resolution has been introduced and given second reading, in committee I shall be glad to give such particulars as members may require. No useful purpose would be served in taking up the time of the house to do so now in the light of the resolution, which does not furnish details.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I agree
with the right hon. gentleman that any comment might be reserved until the bill is before the committee. Meanwhile I want to say that I endorse very strongly the principle of this legislation.
Mr. LaVERGNE: May I add, Mr. Chairman, that I think the purpose of this legislation is in accordance with the spirit of the constitution. Our coin should be minted in Canada, and should be bilingual according to the traditions of the British Empire and in consonance with the spirit of our constitution. Bilingual coinage is in circulation in South Africa, in Switzerland and in Belgium. I think our coins should be distinguished from those of the republic to our south, whose pennies and five-cent pieces particularly we are copying to a very great extent. Our coins should be bilingual, in accordance with our constitution.

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 101, respecting the establishment of the Royal Canadian Mint.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



REVENUE AND AUDIT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act be amended to provide for the appointment of a comptroller of the treasury with duties, salary and tenure of office as prescribed, and to secure a more unified and adequate control over administration of the act and of financial receipts and expenditure.
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Chairman, I think it would best suit the convenience of the committee if we were to pass the resolution and give the bill founded upon it first reading. On the second reading I wovdd propose to give the house a short resume of just what is involved. Briefly, it contemplates the centralizing in the Department of Finance of the financial control of the business of the country.
I have a large amount of detail which I shall be glad to furnish the house either on the first or second reading, but to do it twice I think perhaps would be regarded as unnecessary. If it is thought desirable I might give it now, but my idea was to secure second reading of the bill and refer it to the committee on banking and commerce in order that they might discuss the details of the measure and determine whether or not adequate provision has been made for every contingency which might arise. It may amaze the committee to know that there has been substantially no change in the general accounting principles governing the conduct of business in Canada since 1878. The officials of the department have been giving much attention to the matter, and it is one about which I have rather a strqng opinion, which I shall be glad to give to the house when the second reading of the measure is being sought.
At the moment the statement contained in the resolution is a very general resume of what is involved. The comptroller of the treasury, and the control of the whole expenditure of all the departments of the public service in Canada-

Revenue and Audit Act


Ernest Lapointe: Will that comptroller
have new duties altogether, or will his duties be what are part of the duties of the Deputy Minister of Finance to-day?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That question could be properly answered by saying both. He will have some new duties, and he will not to any appreciable extent discharge the duties of the Deputy Minister of Finance. He will coordinate the accounting of all the departments under a central control, and provision is made in the bill founded upon the resolution for the position of the auditor general to be more clearly defined. Perhaps hon. gentlemen will recall that the auditor general at the moment is a statutory official, whose salary is provided by statute in part only, and in part in the estimates. This bill will render him entirely free from the estimates and provide for his salary to be a charge upon the consolidated revenue fund, which was thought to be very important fifty years ago but which, in recent times, has not been so regarded.
I can do one of two things; I am entirely in the hands of the committee. If the committee desires I will go into the matter in detail now or upon the second reading.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I think the second reading would be better.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I should think so, and perhaps it would be the more proper time, because then the principle of the measure is involved. With that understanding, I merely move the resolution.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I should like to ask a question now which it might not be possible to ask on the second reading. Will the new comptroller of the treasury be responsible to the government of the day as such or to parliament? The reason I ask the question is that in some of the provinces, as my right hon. friend knows, the comptroller general is only responsible to parliament and not to the government of the day.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I thank my hon. friend for raising that point. The position of this official is not quite that of comptroller general. The Minister of Finance would be directly responsible to parliament, and the *comptroller general would be an official of that department for whom, of course, the minister must be entirely responsible. I quite appreciate the point to which the hon. gentleman refers; I think he will find it dealt with in a manner which will be satisfactory to the country.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Bennett thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 102 to amend the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Public Works-roads and bridges, $173,250.
Mr. BERTRAND:: When this item was
last under discussion I asked the minister for some information regarding the workmen employed by contractors in the interprovincial bridge between Hawkesbury and Grenville. Can the minister give an explanation now of the shortage in wages paid these men?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Since this item was under consideration on the former occasion I have investigated the matter and ascertained the facts to be as follows. Under the contract the contractor was bound to pay a fixed schedule of wages, but for a part of the time he did not fully comply with the contract in that respect. The matter was checked up by the Department of Labour in the regular course. They do this of their own motion from time to time, as we give them a list of the contracts. I am informed by that department that one of its representatives went to the work and interviewed the contractor and labourers, and that an arrangement was made which appears to have been satisfactory to all concerned at that time. The arrangement was that the contractor should continue the work during the winter months, at some greater expense to himself, thus furnishing employment which otherwise would not have been available, and that he should carry on that work although the funds were not available in that way also providing work. The Labour department seemed to be well satisfied with that arrangement and it has, I believe, been carried out. Since the last meeting of this committee, however, I have issued instructions to the deputy minister to get in touch with the Labour department and to have a representative go over the whole situation again with a view to seeing that the contract was complied with in respect to work remaining to be done. We reserve the right to decide whether full justice has been done in the matter.

Supply-Public Works


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Am I to understand that the schedule which was included in the contract given to the contractor is not going to be fully observed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, quite the
contrary. Unless the Department of Labour and the Public Works department can be satisfied that labour has been fully compensated and taken care of, either directly, in the wage schedule, or in some other way, which provided work at a time when it would not otherwise have been available, then the matter will not be satisfactory to either department.


Mr. HEENAN:: Surely the minister is not serious in that statement.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes; he is
very serious.


Peter Heenan: Well, I am surprised that he is. I have never heard of such a thing in my life. The specifications were prepared and included in the tenders which were called for this pubEc work, and every contractor who bid on the work had specifications before him and knew what wages were to be paid. And then some department of the government or some officer of the government makes a different arrangement. I have never heard of such a thing. You might just as well say that any department or officer of the government can change any specification after the contractor has received the contract. The minister shakes his head. What is the difference between wages and any other specification that might be in the contract? I have under my hand the Labour Gazette of October, 1930, in which the government advertises to the world the wages that were being paid on that job. I shall not read them all, but it provides for engineers, carpenters, masons and so on, down to labourers at forty-five cents an hour. After the contractor has bid, declaring that he will carry out the specifications, some department or the government itself cannot alter that in any way.
I can see this point in the minister's argument; there might be same extenuating circumstances as between the government and the contractors. The contractors might be requested to undertake and might carry out works at an untimely season. If that be true, the wages of the men ought not to be reduced in order to compensate the contractors. The government ought to compensate the contractors in respect of any extenuating circumstances. If the minister will just think the matter over, he will realize that the men's 
wages ought not to be reduced from those specified in the contract, in order that the contractor may be induced to proceed with the work at an unseasonable time. If any compensation is coming to the contractor, it should come from the government and not from the men. We have had cases of a similar character. Just before the Conservative government went out of power, I think it was in 1921, there was a case similar to this in Quebec where a contractor was called upon to build a dry dock, and owing to the war and the increase in wages some extra expense was involved. But the government took into consideration those extenuating circumstances and paid the contractor some additional money. Could, however, anyone imagine that a department or the government would reduce the wages of the men in order to compensate the contractor? The minister ought to take that into consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The government did not ask the contractor to proceed with the work. He himself, after consultation with the labourers, with their full approval, largely for their benefit, and to compensate for the smaller amount which had been paid, agreed to continue the work and to give them employment at a time when it was not otherwise advisable. The government did not request, and knew nothing about it until after the arrangement had been made. This matter was adjusted through the Department of Labour, and as I say the matter is still under review with that department, with the deputy minister, with a view to seeing that labour is fully taken care of in respect of this contract.


Mr. VENIOT:: If the government did not
consent to the carrying on of the work, the contractor went on without the government's knowledge. Was the work laid out by the engineers of the department before the contractor undertook to carry out the contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They did not
ask him to carry it out during the winter; he had the option of continuing or stopping.


Peter John Veniot: The contractor had begun
the work before the winter season came on. It was up to him to continue or to stop it during the winter season.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was up to the contractor.


Peter John Veniot: It was no business of the
department to ask the men to accept lower wages.

Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The government did not ask the contractor to proceed with the work.


Peter John Veniot: Then they did not care
whether unemployment was relieved or not. If I am not mistaken, from information laid before the committee the last time this item was under discussion, the wages paid to the common labourer amounted to forty-five cents an hour. The contractor began the work by paying thirty-five cents; later on that was increased to forty cents and continued at that figure. If that be correct; if a contractor who tendered for and received a contract on the basis of forty-five cents an hour for labourers, is allowed to begin by paying thirty-five cents and later is forced to pay forty cents and is allowed to keep it there, he is making a profit of five cents an hour on every man he engages on that work. He calculated that it would cost him forty-five cents an hour for common labour and he has been allowed to engage common labourers and to keep them at work at forty cents an hour. There was no attempt on the part of the department, when the contractor was paying only forty cents an hour, to make him live up to the agreement of forty-five cents until the attention of the department was drawn to the matter and even then the rate was allowed to remain at forty cents. Does the minister mean to say that is the way to carry on a work of that character? The regulations distinctly state what shall be done; it is definitely set forth that the rate of pay for common labourers shall be forty-five cents an hour. The contractor undertakes to carry out that schedule; he tenders on that schedule; he knows exactly what the labour is going to cost him per hour. Yet the department allows him to continue paying forty cents an hour and to make five cents an hour profit on each labourer. If there are 100 men working the contractor makes a profit of $40 daily, and yet he is allowed to proceed and to take his profits out of the labouring men instead of taking his chances under his tender of making what profit he can by paying legitimate wages in regard to which he signed a contract and gave a bond. He put up a deposit; he gave a bond, but he is not carrying out that contract, and yet the minister allows him to continue.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The matter is not closed. It is still under review. The work is not completed and there is plenty of time to deal with the contractor and hold something in reserve.
22U0-1791


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister deal with the contractor along those lines?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I said before, the matter will be considered in all its aspects with the cooperation of the Department of Labour which is primarily responsible for the carrying out of that particular part of the contract. The matter will be disposed of fairly to the men. That is all I can say.


Peter Heenan: I do not think the minister is going far enough in saying that the matter will be considered. We have sufficient evidence now to show that the contractor never intended to live up to his contract with respect to the payment of wages. I was not aware of this until the ex-Postmaster General made his statement. The contractor commenced by jpaying thirty^five cents an hour notwithstanding the fact that his contract calls for forty-five cents. Apparently some officer of the Labour department checked him up and then he paid forty cents an hour. I can readily understand the difficulties in connection with fair wages oil any public contract. I have had sufficient experience to know that in practically every contract that is let there is a dispute between the contractor and the men. The men do not seem to feel they are getting enough, while the contractor says that if wages are any higher he will fail on the contract. We used to have what is known as a general fair wage clause which we would incorporate in our contracts, permitting the Minister of Labour to raise or lower wages according to the prevailing rate. When the bill in respect of the eight-hour day and fair wages was being put through in 1930, I, as Minister of Labour, at that time explained on the floor of the house that in order to be fair to all concerned we would place a schedule of wages in the specifications. So the schedule of wages is a part of the contract, just the same as any other specification. I think the idea is fair for this reason. There were in this case five or six contractors. They went to the office and looked at the specifications and saw what they had to bid upon. They saw that they had to pay a scale of wages of forty-five cents an hour, and they bid accordingly. But the man who got the contract, immediately he started work, reduced the wages below the rate he had bid upon. That is not fair to the other contractors who were denied the contract because their tenders were a few hundred or a few thousand dollars more. It is not fair to the other
2S20
Supply-Public Works

contractors, to the workers, or to the government. I submit that the minister should at once say that in view of the fact that this contractor entered into a contract to pay forty-five cents an hour, which agreement was announced publicly, if any man on that work has received less than forty-five cents an hour, the government will make up the difference out of moneys due to the contractor. That is the usual practice in the Labour department and in the government generally when we find contractors not paying the prevailing rate of wages, we would simply hold the amount from the contractor and see that the men were paid the difference between what they had received and wThat they should have received. If I were in the minister's place I would not hesitate a moment to see that, these men who were paid less than forty-five cents an hour get the difference. This government is obligated to that.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I thought the minister was going to state that 'he would see that the men received the forty-five cents an hour. A moment ago the minister said that the work was carried on during the winter. Would he give the date when the contractors concluded tlheir work last fall?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think I have the exact date when work was discontinued, but I know that the contractor continued on longer than he proposed to do under ordinary conditions. I may say that all the adjustments have been made except with respect to labour, which was at the rate of thirty-five cents an hour. I understand that the matter was decided after consultation with those who are principally interested, the labourers themselves, and that it was adjusted to their entire satisfaction. However, as I have said, the whole matter is under review, and I think my hon. friend can trust the Minister of Labour of this government to see that the interests of labour are taken care of. Instructions have been given in that direction. We are just as much concerned about doing justice to labour as is the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River himself. The work is not yet completed.


Peter Heenan: I quite agree that the Minister of Labour in the present government, or for that matter any minister of labour, is or ought to be as much concerned with the interests of labour as any member

on this side of the house, but we have the Public Works estimates before us at the present time, and the minister has already admitted'that this contractor was paying thirty-five cents instead of forty-five cents an hour. The argument would have been ended long ago if the minister had stated that if any men had received less than the amount agreed upon he would see that they got paid the difference. The very fact that the minister hesitates to do that makes some of us think there might be some difficulty in that regard. The purpose of the Fair Wage Act is to protect workmen from the very thing which the minister says occurred in this instance, where a contractor owing to some circumstance or other, a great surplus of labour, for instance, or some other excuse he might trump up, and many excuses are trumped up, would gather the workmen on the job around him and say: Now, boys, I cannot go along under this condition, or that condition, but if you will take five cents an hour less we might be able to consider it. It was to protect the workmen from that very thing that the Fair Wage Act was passed, so that no employer of labour after malting his contract coadd go ahead and make an arrangement of his own with his employees with respect to wages. That can only be done through the Minister of Labour under the general fair wage clause, but once the rate of wages of labour is put in the contract with the specifications, not even the government -has any right to change it, because the contract is let subject bo those conditions. So I say that the minister should not hesitate for a moment to say that the government will see that any of these men who have been paid a copper less than forty-five cents an hour will be paid the full amount due them under the contract.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: When this matter was
up on the estimates before, the Minister of Public Works said that a new rate of wages of forty cents an hour had been fixed by the Minister of Labour on February 13, 1931. In spite of the fact that the Labour Gazette mentions that the men employed on this construction at Hawkesbury were paid forty-five cents an hour, the Minister of Labour readjusted the rate at forty cents an hour, and if the workmen accepted the proposal of the Minister of Public Works to leave the matter to the Minister of Labour for his consideration, it is easy to understand that his answer

Supply-Public Works
would be that he had considered it and given his decision on February 13, that the men would be paid only forty cents an hour.


Peter John Veniot: He has no right to give
such a decision.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I have his letter in
my hand.


Peter John Veniot: But he has no right to do
it.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: Following the matter
up, I was surprised to hear the minister state that the men were satisfied with the new arrangement because they kept up a correspondence with the Minister of Labour, and even with the Prime Minister, and also the Minister of Public Works. I draw the attention of the Minister of Public Works to this point. The last time this matter was under discussion the minister said that he did not know anything about it until it was mentioned on the estimates. A few moments ago he stated that as soon as he learned the facts he took the matter up with the Department of Labour. Notwithstanding that, on March 2. 1931, the following letter was sent to Mr. Bazinet, the secretary of the labourers' organization which the men had formed in order to protect their interests. Mr. Bazinet had taken the matter up in the first place with the Department of Labour, in the second place with the Prime Minister, and in the third place with the Minister of Public Works. The Minister of Public Works replied as follows:
Ottawa, le 2 mars 1931.
Cher Monsieur,-
J'accuse reception de votre lettre du 26 fevrier, an sujet d'une reclamation concernant lea gages payes aux travailleurs engages a la construction du pont entre Hawkesbury et Grenville.	.	.
Je remarque que vous avez deja ref ere cette reclamation an ministere du Travail, mais sans resultat satisfaisant.	a
Je regrette ne pouvoir vous etre utile dans vos presents griefs, car cette question de gages est essentiellement du ressort du ministre du Travail.	.	.
Votre tout devoue,
H. A. Stewart.
M. Romeo Bazinet,
Casier postal 73,
Hawkesbury, Ont.
I will translate for the information of the
committee.
Ottawa, March 2, 1931.
Dear Sir,-
Your letter of 26th February received about a claim made by the workers concerning the construction of the bridge between Hawkesbury and Grenville. I take note that this claim has already been made and sent over to the Minister of Labour without any satisfactory
result. I regret that I cannot do anything to help you in this case, as this matter comes essentially under the Minister of Labour.
Yours truly,
H. A. Stewart, Minister of Public Works.
Mr. Romeo Bazinet,
P.O. Box 73,
Hawkesbury, Ont.
Bearing in mind the correspondence, namely, their letters to the Minister of Labour of February 13. the letter to the Minister of Public Works of February 26, and his reply on March 2, it is very difficult for me to believe that these men were satisfied with a wage of forty cents per hour. They lodged their claim first in one place and then in another. The statement by the Prime Minister was to the effect that the matter would be referred by him to the Minister of Labour. The interest taken in the matter by the men, and their correspondence in connection with it. show that they have maintained their claim and have approached all departments where they might expect satisfaction. In spite of that, the information came to me during the session and only a few hours before the estimates of the Department of Public Works were brought down, that they had not received satisfaction. Those men had expected to receive justice and to be paid the wages to which they were entitled.
Before I bring up another point will the Minister of Public Works be kind enough to assure this committee that these men will, some way or other, receive the difference between the wages paid them and the rate they were supposed to receive on the construction of the Hawkesbury-Grenville bridge.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My understanding is that to some extent they have received an actual cash payment which does not completely fulfil the schedule of the contract. Then, as I have stated, they were given work at a season of the year when the contractor otherwise would not have been operating. This work was carried on to their advantage and they were perfectly satisfied with the settlement made. The contractor did carry on the work when he was not bound to do so, at an extra cost to himself, with the object of helping these men, compensating them, and giving them work when it was not otherwise available. He carried the extra cost himself. These are factors which, in the final adjustment, I think may fairly be taken into consideration. I again assure my hon. friend that when the final settlement is made the Department of Labour will be satisfied that justice is done and the Department of Public
Supply-Public Works

Works, in view of all circumstances, will see that an equitable arrangement is made between the parties.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Is it a fact
that when this contract was let there was a stipulation therein to the effect that the workmen should receive forty-five cents per hour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas McMillan: What circumstances have transpired to change that contract? I do not see that there should be any quibbling in this matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is nothing in the contract to change it, and as a matter of fact, the Department of Public Works has not changed it. The contractor is under an obligation in respect to these men. The Public Works department have seen that with respect to the greater number of the men full justice has been done and that they have been paid on the regular schedule rates.


Peter John Veniot: Forty-five cents per hour?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Forty-five cents was for only one scale, and of course there were other branches of labour paid at other rates. Some men were paid less and some more, but they were all on contract schedule.


Peter John Veniot: Did the contractors pay to other classes of workers a less wage than was called for? Did they begin paying less than the proper rate?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some of them were paid less, but the contractor has been compelled to pay in full.
* Mr. HEENAN: I was more or less willing to let the item pass on the assurance given by the minister that the matter would be further considered. As the discussion continues however I can very plainly see that there is no use of giving further consideration because the argument of the minister is to the effect that these men have been compensated in some other way or that they have been satisfied. The peculiar part of this case as in many other cases is that the contractor had been forced to pay men receiving higher wages what he had been robbing them of, or stealing from them. On the other hand, however, the poor common labourer who has no organization whatever to look after his interests, who has to fight his own battles and who, if he does not take what is given him is kicked off the job, is not given the same consideration. It is his battle we are fighting at the present time. As these poor labouring men have, generally speaking, no 
organization to fight for them they can be protected only by this parliament. I happened to be Minister of Labour when data were collected and specifications prepared in connection with this particular contract. Nine contractors bid on the work and all of those contractors could see what they would have to pay if they accepted the contract. The second to lowest tenderer got the job. I think the lowest tenderer was a gentleman who did not put in a deposit cheque, and for that reason the second lowest received the job. I have not made any computation but I am satisfied that the contractor who got the job will save the difference between his bid and that of the next higher tenderer from the money he has actually been stealing from the working men. The department adopted the principle of putting a fair wage schedule in the specifications so as to be fair to the contractors, the labourers and the government, and in order that the department would know what the work would cost. It is quite evident the gentleman who got this contract never intended to carry out the specifications with respect to wages because the minister admits that not only did he not pay the prevailing rate of wages to the labourers but he did pay the prevailing rate to the higher classed partisans until he was forced to do so. The schedule of wages was placed in contracts so that there would be no further argument from labourers, men or contractors as to the wages which should be paid. Once the contractor signs, neither the Minister of Labour nor any member of the government has the right to allow that contractor to take from the men what belongs to them. The minister has stated that the men had a meeting with their employers. The fair wage clause was inserted in contracts, in order that contractors would not be allowed to intimidate the men or to manoeuvre around to beat down wages below the prevailing rate. In this instance the contractor has "got away with it." From the documentary evidence produced by the member for Prescott (Mr. Bertrand)-which I did not know anything about-it is quite clear the government is considering whether or not-in fact I might put it stronger, and say that the government has actually allowed the contractor to justify the reduction in wages. In effect the government has allowed him to rob the working men, and to that extent he has gained an advantage over the other contractors who bid on the contract. If there are any extenuating circumstances in favour of the contractor, and he is entitled to any extra compensation, it should be paid to him by the government and not be made good at

Supply-Public Works
the expense of the working men. As I said before, in Quebec a contractor was forced to pay a higher scale of wages, and although under the contract we were not obliged to compensate him, after consideration of the circumstances we did so. I think the minister ought now to assure the committee that these men will not be taken advantage of. After listening to his argument, I for one do not want to see this item passed. I do not wish to hold up the minister, for I think he wants to be fair, but he ought to assure the committee that these men who were paid wages lower than the rate specified in the contract will be compensated.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I desire to assure my hon. friend that I have no sympathy whatever for a contractor who attempts to defraud or take advantage of his men, either skilled labour or ordinary labour. With regard to the skilled labour in respect to which the contractor did not live up to his contract in the first instance, he was compelled to comply with it fully, and has made his payments accordingly. He has not paid some of the ordinary labour the full rate of wages required by the contract. But there is this distinction between the two classes of labour. The skilled labourers were not taken on later and the work was not continued for their benefit; therefore they had to be compensated in full. I think my hon. friend could imagine a case in which a contractor, after it had been pointed out to him by the Department of Labour that he was not complying with his contract, and that he had to settle the matter on the basis of that contract, might make an arrangement which would be perfectly fair and reasonable, and which would be to the advantage of this ordinary labour that had not been compensated in cash, by agreeing to continue that work when otherwise, having the right to stop it, he intended to stop it. With a view to being fair to this common labour and of compensating the men in full for his failure to pay them the specified rate of wages in the past, he might continue the work under circumstances that were advantageous to them and in the end would make good to them the five cents that had not been paid to them in the past. If that were done, and if I could convince my hon. friend that it was a fair, reasonable, decent and above board arrangement, then I think he would be satisfied, and I believe if he were Minister of Labour he would feel justified in assenting to such an arrangement. Because after all the concern of the Minister of Labour is the protection of labour, the seeing that labour gets its fair compensation, and if the
effect of what has been done is to secure them that result, and if I could convince my hon. friend that that was so, then I think he would see that full justice had been done.
The Labour department seems to be of opinion after investigation that a full measure of justice has been done in that way. As I have said, we are reviewing the whole situation, and I will take it up again with the Labour department. Then if I am convinced that full justice has not been done I will see that full justice is done.


Peter Heenan: The minister says, addressing his remarks to me, that I probably could imagine a case where men had not received the full benefit of a contract, and then later that some arrangement had been made-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some other compensation had been paid.


Peter Heenan: -and that I might be satisfied, I cannot imagine as Minister of Labour that I would be satisfied in such circumstances. Where men were engaged under contract at a rate of wages that would enable them to earn a certain amount of money, say, in three months, I do not see how you could compensate them by saying: you can work four months and receive the same amount of money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not make any such proposition.


Peter Heenan: I am now interpreting the minister's idea. I think this case will stand repeating until we get some assurance from the government that these men will be paid the money that they actually have been robbed of. These men were engaged under a specified rate of wages, and in accordance with the Fair Wages Act that scale of wages was posted upon the job, so every man could see what he was going to get. That scale was also published in the Gazette of October. I cannot conceive of any minister, whether of labour, public works, or of any other department of government, after having discovered that the contractor was actually withholding money wrongfully from those men, thinking that he could make any arrangement with that contractor except to say to him: you pay those men the full wages that you have been withholding from them. I have had some experience along this line. I recall a case in Calgary, in connection with the Ghost river water power development. We had not as much control over the contractor there as the government has in this case. There the contractor had failed to pay the specified rate of wages, and he had to reimburse the men, $20,000 just before Christmas of 1930, being
Supply-Public Works

the back pay due to them. I think in the province of Quebec we secured another reimbursement of back pay. In view of ail these circumstances t'he minister ought to give the committee an assurance that if he is satisfied these men have not been receiving forty-five cents an hour, he will see to it that they are paid at that rate, and that all the arrears are paid up. I would again point out that the fair wage policy was adopted by parliament for the specific purpose of avoiding the very thing that the minister now advocates-of an employer saying to his men: Now, we have a great surplus of labour and much unemployment, winter is coming on, and we want to shut down the works, but if you will take five or ten cents an hour less, well, we will go on with the work. That is why the fair wage clause was passed by the parliament of Canada, to eliminate any such bargains. This contract is made according to the fair wages and eight hour day law; it is more than an ordinary contract. Consequently these men have not the right tc take the contractor to court; this is the only court to which they can appeal, and having appealed to it we should see that these men get justice. They should receive the full amount of their wages; they should get every red cent according to the contract. As I said before, if there are any extenuating circumstances; if the contractor was out an extra amount of money or put to any extra expenditures, it is up to the government to compensate the contractor. That extra amount should not be made up from the wages of the men.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Will
the ex-minister tell us why they cannot take the contractor into court? I am interested in that point.


Mr. CAYLEY:: Do I understand that during the first part of this work the ordinary workmen were paid the contract wage and that later on, when the weather became colder and they were about to quit work, their wages were reduced?


Peter John Veniot: No, they were paid only
thirty-five cents an hour.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Yet the contract was
awarded at the forty-five cent rate.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: The minister has explained why the labourers were not paid forty-five cents an hour; he has said that the Department of Labour compelled the contractor to pay the full rate of wages to the skilled labourers. That was previously unknown to me; only the labourers brought their case to me.
iMr. Heenan.]
I cannot let this statement pass, because if I did so the labourers in Hawkesbury would surely hold me to account. I have gone down quite frequently to see that work; I live quite close to it, and I may say that this construction was undertaken in August in order to get the benefit of low water in the fall. Last year we had a splendid fall, and it is probably true that the contractor carried on his work more than was required under his contract, but he did so under very favourable conditions. I might say also that last fall the water was lower than it has been for many years. When the contractor took over the work surely he was aware of the water levels in previous years, and knew what he might expect. The labourers have endeavoured to do the best they could; they have done the most work they could each and every day. They were enthusiastic and anxious to see this bridge completed, because it is very necessary between Hawkesbury and Grenville.
It may be that in one way it was to the advantage of the workmen to have this work carried on, but who was favoured most in this case? As I say, the labourers did perhaps more than an ordinary day's work; they do not complain but only ask for their reasonable wages which they were supposed to receive. I do say that under those conditions they are entitled to the contract rate. To repeat the question I asked the other day, when we first discussed the matter:	Are
the Minister of Labour and the Department of Public Works looking after the interests of the contractor as against the interests of the .labourers? That is the great question at home to-day, and it has caused a great deal of anxiety.
If this case is to be studied again, there is very little hope for these men, because as I said before, on February 13 the Minister of Labour decided that forty cents would be enough for those labourers. On March 12 the Minister of Public Works wrote that he could not do anything for them, that the Minister of Labour was the only person who could help. These men have no chance to put their case before any other body; they have brought the matter to the attention of the Department of Labour, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Public Works, and now must we go back and tell them that because the contractors continued their work under favourable weather conditions last fall, they are to be deprived of five cents an hour of their wages?


Thomas McMillan: I do not think one member of the committee wishes to hold up this item, but it seems clear that the

Supply[DOT]-Public Works
contractor received the forty-five cents an hour, and there is only one way to adjust it; these labourers should be given the sum they were guaranteed under the contract. If the minister will be frank and decide the matter in that way, the item will go through at once. It will only be doing justice.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the case were quite as simple as my hon. friends seem to think it is I would have no difficulty whatever. If this were simply a case in which the contractor had deprived the men of five cents or ten cents an hour, and if that were the whole story, I would not hesitate a moment; I would say he must pay the men. Unfortunately that is not exactly the situation. That was the condition of affairs some months ago when the matter came to the attention of the Department of Labour and the Department of Public Works. At that time the Department of Labour took it up on behalf of the workmen and secured an adjustment which resulted in a considerable disadvantage to the contractor and in an advantage to the men, notwithstanding what my hon. friend says about the favourable season. There was the additional cost of carrying on the work and other disadvantages to the contractor which I think to some extent must be taken into consideration.
That introduces a factor which my hon. friends seem to wish entirely to eliminate. If that were not true, I assure hon. members that I would not hesitate a moment to order payment by the contractor on the basis of the contract. It is only because I think that point should be given some consideration, as to whether there has been some advantage given the workmen which in some measure compensates them, that I do not take that step. If in the final analysis and after a careful review I find that is not the case, I shall not hesitate to order the contractor to pay these men the full amount. I say this, Mr. Chairman: The whole situation will be reviewed in the light of representations made by hon. gentlemen here, and I think hon. members can trust us to do full justice to everyone.


Peter John Veniot: When did that work begin?


Mr. HANBURY:: As I understand the
minister, he is suggesting that the rate of pay was varied in order to provide employment at an unseasonable period of the year. Am I correct in that understanding?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; the work
was continued.


Wilfred Hanbury: The work was continued
during an unseasonable period in order to create employment. As I understand it, in September last this parliament passed a measure of unemployment relief. That legislation enabled the government to go to the contractor in such a case as this and reimburse him for any loss he might sustain by reason of carrying on works at such a period. But I cannot see any justification for the carrying on of such works at the expense of the workmen. The government have authority to pay the workmen out of the unemployment relief fund. I wish the minister would reply to the question that has been asked, as to whether or not the government could have proceeded in that way.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The government had an entirely different scheme for the relief of unemployment. All this money was expended in cooperation with the provinces and municipalities, and no money was available for carrying on work such as my hon. friend suggests.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister will admit that the government had the right to expend money under the Unemployment Relief Act. They could go to the Canadian Pacific or Canadian National Railways or take any other means necessary to provide work. The government had the right to do that. Yet they allowed this man to vary the contract in order that the men might purchase jobs for themselves during a period when they would not otherwise have had employment. That is what the minister is suggesting.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not suggesting that at all.


Wilfred Hanbury: The workmen are entitled to receive the wages which they were guaranteed under the schedule. But there are other considerations. There are the other contractors who tendered on the jobs, and I say that the fact that this contractor went on under conditions which he did not anticipate at the time he accepted the contract does not for a moment justify the government in varying the contract. If the government think that the labourers were paid too much, that the schedule was not drafted on a proper basis, it is quite possible to conceive that this might be so. But if that is their view of the matter, the workmen are none the less entitled to the full wages which they should have been paid. The government should see that they are paid their full wages, or else ask the contractor to return to the treasury the difference involved. May I ask the minister what amount is involved in the difference?
2S26
Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe the
amount involved is approximately $3,300.


Peter Heenan: Surely the minister is not going to allow an act of this parliament, with respect to the eight hour day and fair wages, to be nullified for the sake of $3,300. The minister must see that if we allow this situation to go unchallenged, the fair wages and eight hour day provisions, adopted in 1930, are not worth the paper on which the act is written. If we include specifications in a contract, and stipulate the amount of wages the workmen are to be paid under that contract, in accordance with the law of this country, and then establish a precedent, that some minister of the crown or some officer of the government may go and make with the contractors a bargain different from the specifications, then we might as well throw our fair wage legislation into the ocean. Last year we passed an act of parliament, which is now a law of Canada, whereby we provided that the last court to which workmen might apply for redress should be this parliament. These people are now asking for justice. The wages that were to be paid them were specific, and they were included in the contract. The contractor was caught robbing the men to the extent of the difference between thirty-five and forty-five cents per hour. The Minister of Labour has apparently taken a certain view of the matter:	he says that
forty cents is sufficient or satisfactory.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No-forty cents plus the continuing of work and the affording of employment at an unfavourable season.


Peter Heenan: I do not care what the
plus is. Where is the Minister of Labour given power to permit the contractors to pay less than the specified wages on condition that they do something else? If the Minister of Labour made a mistake-and he could make a mistake; I made mistakes myself when I was minister-then the government of which he is a member ought to compensate the contractor. But the workmen should not be allowed to suffer. Speaking for myself, I would rather stay here until Christmas than allow this item to pass if the men do not receive an assurance that they will be fully paid. We are establishing a precedent whereby the minister, after certain specifications are drawn up and a certain scale of wages has been stipulated, may change the whole thing and have a different course followed. That is something to which we on this side cannot subscribe. When I was Minister of Labour and we adopted a

specified scale of wages, incorporating it in the contract, I gave the workmen the assurance that they would be paid that minimum rate of wages-not the maximum but the minimum. The contractor was at liberty, if he wished, to pay anything over and above the wages specified; but the minimum rate of wages had to be paid. Nor have the men themselves any right to enter into any bargain different from that which the government has made. If the workmen themselves, for some reason or other, were asked by the employer to take less than the wages provided in the contract, they would have no right to agree to anything of that kind. I may tell the minister of one instance that occurred when I was minister. Under a certain contract the contractor actually had the men come into his office one at a time and sign a slip to the effect that, notwithstanding the fair wage clause, they were willing to work for so much, thereby waiving any subsequent recourse. After that job had been completed and I received knowledge of this, I had the contractors pay the men the wages they had taken from them. In this instance the government has actually seen the contractor withhold proper compensation in wages from the workmen engaged on a public contract and employed under a dominion law respecting fair wages and the eight hour day. Yet the minister says that the matter is under consideration. It would be the easiest thing in the world for the minister to make up his mind that if some specification in the contract had not been carried out he would see to it that the contract was observed in its entirety. He can have the men paid their wages in full. And if the contractor has been put to any extra expense, then the government should compensate him instead of leaving the labourers to suffer.


Mr. ILSLEY:: As I understand the minister's position, it is this: that either he or the government can step in and balance advantages against wages. The specifications of the contract provide that the men are to get forty-five cents, and they can decide that it is all rigiht for the contractor to pay forty cents and have the extra 5 cents made up by some other benefits or advantages to the workmen-in this instance, employment. The Minister of Public Works, as a lawyer, must-know that this position is absolutely untenable, and if this precedent is established we are going to get into frightful trouble in the future. It means that when we make a schedule providing that the contractors are to pay forty or forty-five cents per hour, a

Supply-Public Works
contractor can bid on the contract, planning -as apparently this company did

that he will pay only thirty-five cents and then go to the Department of Labour and say, "Yes, but we made up the other five or ten cents by giving the men work when they could not get it. And this advantage is equal to five cents an hour." I have no interest in this case, but I have listened to this discussion and I say that an absolutely vicious precedent is being created in what the government is undertaking to do now. If this precedent is invoked in the future it will completely destroy the fair wage provisions of the act. If you can do what is being done here, the contractor can work the men ten hours instead of eight hours and say it is all right, inasmuch as they are getting some compensating advantage. The Minister of Labour can override the statute laws of the country and permit men to work ten instead of eight hours, if this principle is to be recognized I have listened as carefully as I could to the discussion and at one time I was impressed by the Minister of Public Works. But on analysis, it seems to me the precedent that is being laid down in this case is absolutely vicious. I cannot see that the government or the minister has any alternative in this case than to say that the men are to be paid the wages which were put in that schedule in the contract. You cannot be estimating, appraising and valuating advantages, placing them against wages, and letting them go to the men in lieu of wages. If we do that, we have not any Fair Wage Act at all.


Mr. VEXIOT:: At what time was this work done?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some time in October.


Peter John Veniot: Where was there any advantage to the labouring man to give him work at that time? Every possible advantage was to the contractor to carry it on then, but even at that early date he cut the wages from forty-five to thirty-five cents an hour and was allowed to continue. Had he begun the work by paying forty-five cents an hour, and later on in the cold weather, finding ha could not continue the work to advantage, had he gone to the department or the minister and said:	We cannot carry on the work
to advantage at this season of the year; we have been paying the men forty-five cents an hour, but we are prepared to carry it on at a little disadvantage to ourselves provided that the matter can be adjusted by a lowering of wages, that would have been a different proposition. But this contractor, in competition with other tenderers, tendered on a basis of forty-five cents an hour. No sooner did he receive the contract than he cut the schedule down to thirty-five cents an hour and the department allowed that. But if the work was begun in October, in the river where this bridge crosses no ice forms earlier than December which would be of disadvantage to a contractor. All the advantage would be on his side to have his piers and abutments constructed to such an elevation as to be beyond the freshet level in the spring of the year. Everything was to the contractors's advantage that the men should work during the frosty season. Where is there any great disadvantage to a contractor doing construction work in the winter time with all the modern improvements and heating apparatus which they have? Some of the finest buildings in the Dominion of Canada were constructed in the winter when we have twenty-five to thirty degrees of frost. Contractors consider it an advantage, with modern appliances, to be able to carry on work of this sort to a certain point so that in the spring of the year they may press it forward. This is particularly true of bridge construction across rivers where there are heavy freshets in the spring of the year. We know last fall was one of the best seasons in the vicinity of Ottawa and up through Prescott county on account of the low level of the water. Under the conditions that obtained in this case, the advantage was all on the side of the contractor and not on that of the workmen, but he took advantage of the men because the department allowed him to pay them thirty-five cents instead of forty-five cents an hour. When later on he was checked up, he forced the men to accept forty cents an hour.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Did the contractor approach the department, telling them that he would not be able to pay the schedule of wages under which he accepted the contract? Was the matter then discussed with him and was he permitted to carry on under the new schedule?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was no
approach to the government with a view to having it consent to any reduction in the schedule of wages. This was done by the contractor apparently on his own authority and without the approval of either the Department of Labour or the Department of Public Works. I have listened with interest to the discussion; I think I understand the spirit of the committee in regard to the matter, and I am willing to say that it will be reviewed and justice done to these men.
2S2S
Supply-Public Works


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: There is only one justice-observe the law.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then it is quite clear what it is.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: For some years, as the minister knows, I occupied the position of Deputy Minister of Labour. For a time also I was Minister of Labour. During that period the kind of thing that is reported in this instance was being suggested every now and then to the department by contractors. Over and over again the request was made that the department agree to allow the rates to be reduced on the understanding that upon agreement compensation would be made in other respects. The reply invariably made was that it would be unfair to other contractors who had tendered on the assumption that they would have to pay the scale that was fixed and was before them at the time they tendered. That is a strong position for the department to take, and I do not see how any contractor can complain if he had before him the schedule and made his tender on the basis of the rates set forth therein. Moreover, the schedule is there to protect labour against the sort of pressure contractors are able at times to exert. The minister's assurance is, I believe, sufficient to cause us to believe that he will be able to see that the contractor complies with the law.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I accept the suggestion of my right hon. friend. I am glad he has given me that information, but I want to say that neither the Department of Public Works nor the Department of Labour was approached with any view to consenting to a variation in conditions. As soon as a variation was found to exist, the Department of Labour undertook to have it adjusted and to do what they thought at the time was fair and reasonable, and they brought about what they believed to be a fair and satisfactory adjustment to all the labourers. That, however, does not appear to satisfy the committee, and all I can do is to review the matter and see that justice is done to the men, either by seeing that they get the full wages or by keeping back a certain amount from the contractor.


Peter Heenan: I am glad the minister has agreed to uphold the fair wage policy of the Dominion of Canada. The minister may have thought for a time that we on this side of the house were unreasonable, but I want to assure him that the stand we took was not because some $3,300 was at stake, but because the
[Mr. H. A. Stewart.1
whole principle of the fair wage policy was at issue. Had we allowed this to go through. I think the minister can readily see where a contractor, in cooperation with an officer of the crown, could easily arrive at what might be considered a fair and reasonable basis under certain circumstances. It ought to be made quite clear that now that we have an act of parliament and that the specifications are placed before the contractors for their bids, there is to be no deviation from that so far as wages are concerned. I am glad the minister has agreed to see that these men will get a square deal, and I want to thank him for taking that position.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be just
as zealous as my hon. friend would be in seeing that the rights of labour are protected. The only complication is the one that I have mentioned over and over again, namely, that it was supposed that an adjustment which was fair and reasonable under the circumstances was made. This, however, does not seem to meet with the approval of the committee, and I accept the suggestion.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: I am pleased to hear the
minister is going to reconsider the question and definitely promises to see that justice is done, in accordance with the principle that underlies the contract. This will be an assurance that in future contracts will be carried out to the letter and that the poor labouring man, who has to depend upon a few odd days' work, will not be deprived of his rightful wage. I am sure the labourers throughout the dominion will take fresh courage and be more satisfied and perhaps more appreciative of parliament than sometimes we think they are.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I thank the minister
very sincerely for his words of satisfaction to the men in Hawkesbury. There is another class of men engaged on that work who are not included in the scale of wages in the contract. I refer to the crib men. Probably the minister has had complaints about the rate of wages paid to them. I have been given to understand that they were paid as labourers, although they received the rate which the labourers should have had, forty-five cents an hour. These crib men are doing work surely of a higher type than ordinary labourers, and should be entitled to a higher rate of wages. Their work is very dangerous, building cribs over the Long Sault rapids. There is no mention of their wages in the schedules, and I am not laying any complaint on that ground, but I do say that they have not been paid the full wages they should have received in view of the nature of the work

Supply-Public Works
they are doing, and I would ask the minister to take their case into consideration when he is considering the ordinary labourers. I think he will probably find that something more should be paid to these crib men.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will look into the matter and see if we have been complying with the different schedules. We will consider whether there should be a classification for that kind of labour.


Elie-Oscar Bertrand: I thank the minister
very much.


Thomas McMillan: I should like
to add my word of thanks to the minister. I know the situation in which he is placed and I believe he is disposed to do justice in the matter.


Charles Marcil: Some time ago I asked
the minister if he had any information from New Brunswick and Quebec regarding an interprovincial bridge over the Restigouche between Quebec and New Brunswick. He informed me that, an order in council had been passed by the New Brunswick government but that no news had been received from Quebec. Is the minister in a position to say whether any progress has been made in that regard?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am pleased to
be able to tell my hon. friend that yesterday I received from the Minister of Public Works of the province' of Quebec a copy of a statute passed at the last session of the legislature in which provision is made for funds for this interprovincial bridge. There was simply a covering letter enclosing a copy of the act, but no other representations.


Charles Marcil: Would the minister be
good enough to let me know if there will be any progress made in this matter, or what further steps must be taken?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There would
have to be further action in concert by the two provinces before we should feel justified in taking the matter up any further. It is not our disposition to force the provinces into expenditures.


Charles Marcil: I suppose this was a notice
given by the province of Quebec that the legislation had been passed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Is this Hawkesbury bridge
a toll bridge?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Cable ship, $75,000.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: What is proposed in connection with this item? I see the vote is the same as last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend I think knows that some negotiations were proceeding for the purchase of a cable ship. The matter is still in the same stage, with nothing definite concluded. This is to provide an amount which may be applied towards either the construction of a new ship or the purchase of one.


John Campbell Elliott: Has my hon. friend any particular ship in mind at the present time? Are there negotiations pending in regard to the purchase of any particular boat? That was the case some time ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are no negotiations pending and we have no particular ship in mind. I am not sure whether the ship my hon. friend had in mind is still available. Inquiries are being made.


John Campbell Elliott: My recollection is that a year ago a contract was practically completed for the purchase of a ship, but it was required for use for some time to come. Have the parties been relieved of that contract, or is there any change in the position in that respect?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They have not intimated that they are in a position to deliver the ship yet.


John Campbell Elliott: May I just say to my hon. friend that it struck me at that time that it was a particularly good deal for the department? While I have not very clearly in mind the details of the contract, my recollection is that a sufficiently definite contract had been entered into to be enforeible at the instance of the department. The boat that was in contemplation was by far the best value that we were able to get figures on at that particular time, and if the contract is en-forcible I think it should be enforced.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was for the purchase of the Henry Holmes. The matter is still under consideration.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: What cables will this ship look after?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All our cables along the Atlantic coast and in the gulf of St. Lawrence.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Supply-Public Works
[Stage Direction]
Telegraph and telephone lines-Quebec- Magdalen islands telephone service

general repairs and improvements, $1,800.
Reconstruction of north shore St. Lawrence telegraph system from Outardes falls eastward -under construction, $10,000.
Quebec quarantine system-general repairs and improvements, $1,000.
John Campbell Elliott: I see quite a change
between the amount voted last year and the amount asked this year. For instance, $1,800 is being asked this year for general repairs and improvements to the Magdalen islands telephone service as compared with $5,000 last year. What is the reason for the reduction?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: From year to year the requirements with respect to repairs vary. Sometimes sections have to be renewed. In some years storms will do severe damage. The repairs required necessarily vary from time to time, and we are jurt asking enough to provide for the requirements of the year.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Where are these telephone lines that the dominion government is interested in?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are in isolated sections where communication is difficult. We have lines along the St. Lawrence, in the maritime provinces, in the west, in outlying sections generally.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Are they for governmental
use?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For public and governmental use. There is a system of tolls on them.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: There is an income derived from them?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


John Campbell Elliott: It strikes me that the reduction this year is greater than one would expect. Altogether about $13,000 is being voted this year as compared with $32,000 last year. I should think in the natural order of events the repairs for one year would hardly bear that relation to those of the previous year; that in one year the necessity for $32,000 would be anticipated on account of storms, and in the next year only $13,000. I do not see how my hon. friend can keep the lines in repair with that expenditure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend must remember that this is a year of economy, and so far as possible the expenditures are being cut down.


John Campbell Elliott: So was last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We are cutting down expenditures as much as possible and not making avoidable extensions.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: This service is not given
to all the provinces. For instance, I notice Ontario is not included. Will the minister tell me why certain provinces are given service while others are not?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are one
or two minor services in the northern part of Ontario, and one at Pelee island. It is not the policy of the government to enter into telephone services where they may be provided by private capital. It is only where the investment of privafe capital would not be warranted and would not be compensated that it is necessary to give public service.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Is the government
in all cases retaining the present services, or is it turning any of them over to private capital?
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds):	From time to
time we have had proposals for the sale of portions of our lines where services are of a private nature. In the past I believe some of the lines have been sold, and from time to time there are propositions with respect to certain lines. At the present time however there is nothing under serious consideration.


James Shaver Woodsworth: The policy of the
government would not be in the future to turn over these lines to private enterprise?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not in
a position to say that in all cases the statement by my hon. friend would be correct, because some of the services could be just as well provided by private interests, and if a loss to the dominion could be avoided a change might be made; we would be justified in discontinuing such services.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I was going
to speak to this matter when we came to the estimates for the province of British Columbia, but I suppose my remarks would be equally applicable here. I am sorry to find there is a disposition on the part of this government, as there was on the part of the late government, to hand over the larger lines to private corporations. The minister has just said it is not the policy of the depar-ment to provide services where such services may be furnished by private companies. That might not be a bad practice in regard to new services, but when services exist I think they should be kept.
There is no question at all that last year the government seriously considered selling

Supply-Public Works
portions of the British Columbia lines, because it is within my knowledge that men presumably authorized by agents of the department visited the different telegraph offices and asked questions which, had they not been asked under the authority of the government, would have been considered impertinent. In British Columbia we have the British Columbia Telephone Company, a very powerful telephone corporation operating under some sort of blank charter which I believe is almost unequalled in Canada. In British Columbia that company can do almost as it likes, and the government is almost its only competitor. I may say that the British Columbia Telephone Company is very powerful and wealthy. I have some of their bonds, and I wish I had more. That is no reason however why they should be allowed to play hog with the telephone or telegraph services of that province. The government of course, maintains a telegraph service as such


The CHAIRMAN:: I must call the hon.
member to order. The remarks of the hon. member would be in order under item 209.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, the subject
was introduced under item 207.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no
objection to my hon. friend continuing.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, so that there may
be no difficulty, I shall direct my remarks to conditions in the provinces of British Columbia and Quebec. If the minister has no objection and the committee is willing, what shall it profit a man to raise an objection at this stage of the game?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Because the chairman has to sit here and listen to it.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, Mr. Chairman, shall
I sit down and repeat two minutes later all I have said?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I suggest the
hon. member be allowed to continue.


Alan Webster Neill: Probably we ought to pass an act in the matter, so as to make my remarks thoroughly legal. I shall now continue my remarks concerning the service in British Columbia. The government have a telegraph service and as in the remote places they cannot afford to pay telegraph agents, that service depreciates into a telephone line but gives a very practical service to those remote points. Then as soon as the government has pioneered and spent a large amount of money introducing these lines, when the population grows and a possible source of profit is developed, the British Columbia Telephone Company comes along and proposes to buy the line. While the service is still operating under a loss to the government the British Columbia Telephone Company buys the lines. The argument advanced by the government and to this house is, "Well, we were losing money; we had a chance to sell and we got rid of it." In several cases the fact has been demonstrated that while it might have been all right for the government to get rid of the lines, such a transfer was not in the best interests of the people concerned, because the telephone company took advantage of the situation to make such changes as they thought fit.
I shall now discuss another aspect of the situation. The government may say, what about our employees? In reply the British Columbia Telephone Company says with a wave of the hand, "we will take over your employees." They say, "we will certainly take care of your employees." "What about pension?" "Oh yes, we will give them their pensions too." But if hon. members would look into the matter they would find that so far as the company is concerned pension arrangements are entirely optional. They may give a man what they wish; there is no agreement upon which he may depend. Neither is there any guarantee that after a man has been taken over under such a deal he may not be fired within the next three months. I remember this matter being discussed last year before the late Minister of Public Works. At that time he said he was not going to recommend the sale of profitable lines, but that sales would 'be made where lines were unprofitable.
It is not fair to the telegraph department All departments of government are expected to operate in a businesslike manner. When the estimates are brought down we may come to the conclusion that there has been slack management. Why? Because the more profitable lines have been sold to private companies and the government has been saddled with the unprofitable ones. Such an arrangement is not fair either to the government or to the people. Private telephone companies will not put in lines unless they see sticking out in front of them a good substantial profit. The public may howl and cry as much as they like, but the private companies look after their own interests. They will not undertake pioneering unless
2S32
Supply-Public Works

there is good profit in view. I know of a ease where a man wanted to have a telephone extension extending a distance of only 200 yards from the main line. In that particular instance he guaranteed-


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: This man wanted to have a
telephone extension-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This discussion is not relevant, the rule regarding discussion in committee of the whole is very strict.


Alan Webster Neill: I have about finished with
that particular phase of the matter.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Alan Webster Neill: I think, Mr. Chairman, you
will allow me to indicate my line of argument.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry I cannot.


Alan Webster Neill: I refer to the item before
the committee. I am warning or advising the government not to be in a hurry to sell its lines. We are talking about telegraph lines, and I am warning the government-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We are not talking
about selling lines; we are talking about repairs. There is no item before us in connection with the sale of telegraph lines.


Alan Webster Neill: I think the government and
the minister have an understanding of the situation. I shall yield to Mr. Chairman's supreme sense of-what shall I call it?-perhaps I had better not make use of any definition.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Saskatchewan and Alberta telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements, $21,500.
Mr. GERSHAW:: In future will this work be done by provincial governments, in view of the fact that the resources are turned over to the provinces?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As long as we maintain telephone lines in use we must keep them in a reasonable state of efficiency. Now that the provinces, as it were, are taking up their own housekeeping, I should be very glad if they would take over these lines.


Frederick William Gershaw: Are these lines in connection with the natural resources?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They are located north of Edmonton and run into the thinly populated area there. I am told they are charged on those lines for the service given.


Mr. BUCKLEY:: Who is agent at Fort
Vermilion, Alberta?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We do not carry a list of all our agents in the voluminous information which we have.


John Francis Buckley: At page 852 of Hansard I asked the minister who was telegraph agent at Fort Vermilion, and he advised me that one Reginald Lee had been appointed, and that the position would be advertised in June for permanent appointment. Has any advertisement been issued for the position?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The advertisements are issued by the Civil Service Commission and the appointments are made through that organization. When we are notified of an appointment we install the appointee.


John Francis Buckley: Has the minister asked the superintendent at Edmonton not to make any appointment, or has he requested the Civil Service Commission not to advertise the position for the time being?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not aware of any such request.


John Francis Buckley: I should like to read a letter from the superintendent at Edmonton. It is as follows:
Edmonton, Alta., 13th May, 1931.
A. Bowtell, Esq.,	[DOT]
Mooswa,
Alta.
Dear Sir:
Having reference to your letter of the 10th instant, regarding the agency at Fort Vermilion: I beg to say that, contrary to what you state, the position at that point will not be advertised in June, as it is the intention of the department to leave the present incumbent in charge there until some later date. When this position is advertised, you will be duly advised.
Yours truly,
J. D. Noel,
Division Superintendent.
I am referring to this matter, because on April 22, 1931, I asked the minister this question:
Was any application for this position received from one Arthur Bowtell, who has been in the service of the department for the last twenty-four years?
To that question the minister answered, "No." Then I asked:
What length of service in the department has the new appointee?
The minister's answer is:
None previous to appointment.

Supply-Public Works
I have before me some correspondence which indicates that Bowtell made application for this appointment no later than November 24, 1930, but his application apparently never reached the hands of the department here, otherwise I would have had a different answer to my question. I wish to know whether the department are going to take into their service someone who has had no experience in the department at all, and so deprive a man who has been in the service of the department twenty-four years; in fact he is the senior man in Alberta.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the appointment is made by the commission, as my information is, then it is usually made by promotion. The position is thrown open to any applicants, and those possessing experience would naturally have a preference I should think.


John Francis Buckley: That is my very point. Here is a man, Reginald Lee, who has been appointed to the position without previous experience at all. In 'Contrast to this we have Arthur Bowtell who has been in the service twenty-four years, but is refused the appointment. Is this the practice of the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appointment, as I understand it, is not with the department. The department have no control over the Civil Service Commission. The commission advertise the position and make the appointment according to merit.


John Francis Buckley: I understand that all
temporary employees are apointed by the department, not by the Civil Service Commission. Am I correct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
is quite right. If it is a temporary appointment it is made by the department, not by the commission.


John Francis Buckley: Here is Lee, who has
been appointed by the department temporarily; while Bowtell, who has been in the department for twenty-four years is still seeking a permanent position.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He will be available as an applicant for permanent appointment when the matter comes before the commission. Temporary appointments cannot last long.


John Francis Buckley: Will he receive a preference over any employee who has had no previous experience and has never been in the department before?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should think the commission would take his previous experience into consideration in making the appointment.


James Shaver Woodsworth: What does the
minister mean when he says "temporary appointments cannot last long?" Anyone who has been in this house for any length of time knows that temporary appointments sometimes continue over many years. In this case we have a temporary appointment that apparently has continued for twenty-four years. I do not know anything about the case, but I do not like to see a statement of that kind go unchallenged.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The statement
was made that this gentleman had been in the employment of the department a long time. I do not know how long he was there. We have a number of temporary appointments made years ago before the Civil Service Commission came into being, and undoubtedly those have been continued over a long period; but under the commission if an appointment is made temporarily it is for a comparatively short time.


Mr. HEAPS:: The plain inference to be
drawn from the discussion is that politics entered into the appointment. Apparently in this case, as in others throughout the country, one man, a Liberal, was dismissed, and another man, a Conservative, put in his place.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must remind the
committee once more that the item under discussion is for general repairs and improvements to Saskatchewan and Alberta telegraph and telephone lines.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Cannot we discuss Mr. Chairman, who is going to make these repairs and improvements? They have to be done by the hand of man.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes.


Abraham Albert Heaps: We have the right to know who is responsible for the repairs and improvement.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
quite right, but on this item he cannot discuss what men are appointed as permanent or temporary employees.


John Campbell Elliott: I submit, Mr. Chairman,
that if the department are adding to a line and appointing a man to a position that had not been occupied before, that appointment would properly come under this item.

Supply-Public Works


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly. But that is not what the hon. member (Mr. Heaps) was discussing. He was discussing the general question of the department appointing a man as a permanent or a temporary employee. The appointment of permanent employees comes under the Civil Service Commission, that of temporary employees under the government.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If I understand-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am sorry, but the
rule says the discussion must be strictly relevant to the item before the committee.


John Campbell Elliott: There is a definite appointment under consideration.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But it does not come under this item.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: With due deference, Mr. Chairman, surely the appointment of a new telegraph agent has reference to this general item that is now before the committee?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It must
be, otherwise how could-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the hon. gentleman
would read the item he would see that he is mistaken.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have
read the item several times.


Peter John Veniot: Would the minister give
us details of the item?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I object to my hon. friend from Gloucester (Mr. Veniot) interposing. I think a very important principle is at stake.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I am ready to listen
to further discussion before I give my ruling on the point of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My point of order is this, Mr. Chairman, I understand your ruling to be that under item 208, Saskatchewan and Alberta telegraph and telephone lines, general repairs and improvements, this committee cannot discuss the substitution of a temporary employee who has been in the service for twenty-four years by the appointment of another man who has had no experience whatever. I submit that under this vote we can discuss the personnel used by the department for carrying out their im-
 '
provements and repairs. With all due deference, sir, I contend that it would be ridiculous to exclude the personnel from a discussion of the very item we have under consideration, repairs and improvements. I shall be compelled to appeal from your ruling.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: As my hon. friend
states it, he is quite right, but that is not the point.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I understand the chairman to agree with the hon. member that we can discuss the appointment of the personnel to administer these repairs and improvements but that we cannot go further and discuss the general principle of how these appointments are to be made. With all deference I submit that we cannot intelligently discuss the one without the other. The two are indissolubly joined together, and without both you cannot make an intelligent argument.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Of course I am not carrying it to extremes.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The whole committee is agreed that we should discuss the appointment of these men.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not want to carry it to such an extreme that we cannot have an intelligent discussion, but the rule is that speeches in committee of the whole must be strictly relevant to the subject under discussion. I cannot allow under this item a geneiul discussion of the Civil Service Commission, or whether a man is a temporary or permanent employee. If it is relevant to the item undoubtedly it can be discussed.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can we not discuss who is being employed under this item, and why?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, if it refers to repairs and improvements.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Can we discuss who is to be employed and why, under this item?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is not for me to decide yet.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If it is for me to decide I will say we can.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I cannot decide until my hon. friend goes on.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want to know before I proceed.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend knows I cannot decide in advance whether or not he is going to be in order.

Supply-Public Works


Abraham Albert Heaps: I want to know if we are free to discuss under this item who is being employed and why.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes, under this item.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Tha't is all we were discussing. I was asking whether this is a case of a man who has served for twenty-four years being put out, perhaps because he was persona non grata to the defeated candidate, and a good Conservative put in his place.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There seems to be some misapprehension about this matter. This is not a case of a dismissal and an appointment; it is a case of a new office being established and a temporary appointment being made. The position will be filled by the Civil Service Commission in the regular course of events.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Where is 'the new officer being appointed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Fort Vermilion.


Peter John Veniot: Of course I know this is carrying out the Civil Servive Act; the temporary appointment can be made for a certain time and then the position is advertised. The person temporarily appointed remains in the position until the Civil Service Commission appoints a permanent official, but is this official appointed in connection with the carrying on of the general repairs and improvements?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Peter John Veniot: Then in connection with
what?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The operation of the office.


Peter John Veniot: But the office looks after the improvements and general repairs.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, the linemen and the staff do that.


Peter John Veniot: But it all goes through the office.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It does not go through this office at all.


Peter John Veniot: Not through the office to which this individual is being appointed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Peter John Veniot: Then give us the details.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend asked for those details, and I intended to give them to him. This item of $21,500 is required for general repairs and improvements to tele-22110- 180J
graph and telephone lines in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and is made up as follows: General repairs and renewals to lines, $19,300; repairs to office buildings, S2,025; contingencies, $175.


Peter John Veniot: What is the name of the new office?
^ Mr. STEWART (Leeds):	It is the Fort
Vermilion office. That line has been completed, and an office is being opened at Fort< Vermilion.


Peter John Veniot: For what purpose?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For the purpose of operating the line.


Peter John Veniot: Carrying on the operation and looking after the line?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not looking after it but operating the line for the reception and transmission of messages.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I understand from the information given by the minister, largely drawn out toy the hon. member for Athabaska, that a new office is being opened in the north country and that a person named Arthur Bowtell put in an application to fill that position, he being senior in that sort of work in Alberta, having put in twenty-four years of service. Instead of Bowtell getting the position a new man has been appointed temporarily. I have known Arthur Bowtell for the last fifteen years; I know him to be a very capable man and I have never heard anything against his work as a civil servant. It seems to me there is a real hardship being done here if he is put aside, although a senior man, in favour of a man who is entirely new.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He will have the opportunity of applying for this position when a permanent appointment is made.


John Francis Buckley: I should like to direct the minister's attention to the fact that at page 852 of Hansard, in answer to a question of mine, he stated that this appointment would be advertised in June. The letter which I read previously from the superintendent stated that it is not the intention of the Civil Service Commission, or of the department, to advertise this position at all, but that Mr. Lee is to be carried indefinitely. I presume he may be kept there for twenty-four years, as Mr. Bowtell has been employed. I want to know when this position will be advertised.
Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is still June, and I can only say to my hon. friend that I will look up the matter. I want to assure him that there is no intention of carrying any temporary appointment indefinitely.


Peter John Veniot: If I understand this matter correctly, a man with twenty-four years experience has been passed over in favour of a new man in the matter of this temporary appointment, and the minister lays down the policy that the individual who has not been appointed but who has twenty-four years ^ of service, will have an opportunity of applying under the Civil Service Act and passing qualifying examinations for the position. There was no one more strenuous in his opposition to that very policy than my hon. friend when, in 1929, he and his friends kept me on the gridiron for so many days. My conduct in doing the very same thing on one occasion led the Minister of Public Works and others to condemn me and say I was playing politics, using my office as minister of the crown to give political preference to friends as against others whom they thought should have received first consideration. They said I was not carrying out the principles laid down in the Civil Service Act. To-day we have the Minister of Public Works, who almost crucified the former Postmaster General, if I may use that expression, doing the very same thing. Have I not reason to-day to look with suspicion upon the acts of the Minister of Public Works? If I was wrong in doing what he is now doing-and he condemned me in 1929-where has he the right to do it to-day?


Albert Frederick Totzke: He is a Tory minister.


Peter John Veniot: Oh. If something is a
crime when a Liberal does it and it becomes a virtue when a Tory minister does it, then I can see the reason.


An hon. MEMBER:: Were you wrong in
1929?


Peter John Veniot: I felt I was right, but I
was condemned. If I was right in 1929, and he is right now, then he cannot justify his condemnation of me at that time. It served his purpose in 1929 to arouse political feeling against the Postmaster General, and it serves my purpose now to give him back a dose of the same medicine he gave me. I want the public to know how inconsistent this Minister of Public Works is now compared with his consistency as an ordinary member.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
my hon. friend the Postmaster General-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: (Mr. Bucklej'.]


Peter John Veniot: I don't want to be Postmaster General in that government.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
my hon. friend is justified in making any complaint as to my attitude towards him. Any criticism I had to make of him I think I stated fairly, and I kept well within the facts. Now, what are the facts in this case? In this case a temporary appointment is to be made-


Peter John Veniot: Is made.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Is made; and
there is in the employ of this branch a gentleman who my hon. friend thinks should have been appointed to this position temporarily. He now has the position; he has been there for a number of years. This is not in the nature of a promotion. Suppose this department had temporarily appointed this gentleman to this position, and when the Civil Service Commission came to fill the position in the ordinary course, as they must, and this gentleman applied for it, he was found to be beyond the age or, in some other way, was not entitled to receive the position, and did not receive it, and the position from which he had been taken was filled. Where would he be? He would be absolutely out. In the meantime he retains his position. The permanent position is open to him for application and if he is qualified for the position he will get it.


Peter John Veniot: You had no right to put
him in temporarily.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He is not put in temporarily; someone else is put in temporarily.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



CONSIDERED IN COMMITTEE-THIRD READINGS

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Rita Margaret Mary Longmore.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 68, for the relief of Ruth Rosenberg. -Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Barbara Wallace Barlow.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 76, for the relief of Fay Finkelstein. -Mr. Factor.

Private Bills-Beaupre Bridge

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 60, for the relief of Florence Marshall.-Mr. Lennox.
Bill No. 91, for the relief of Mary Ann Ventura.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 92, for the relief of Beatrice Marie Dumaresq.-Mr Casselman.
Bill No. 93, for the relief of William Henry Rees.-Mr. White (Mount Royal).
Bill No. 94, for the relief of Emily Hughes Macculloch.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine):

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 62, for the relief of Gordon Aaron.-Mr. Heaps.
On section 1-Marriage dissolved:
James Shaver Woodsworth: I do not want to discuss the merits of this particular case, but I should like to take this opportunity of directing the attention of the committee to the fact that there is no provision whatever in these divorce bills for the custody or the support of the children and no provision whatever for alimony. It seems to me it is absurd that we should simply grant divorce without making any provision along these lines. I just want to express myself in this regard. What I say as to this case applies to all.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed ISLAND OP ORLEANS-BEAUPRE BRIDGE
The house in committee on Bill No. 77, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the St. Lawrence river between the Island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, in the province of Quebec.-Mr. Dorion.
On section 1-Construction of bridge authorized.
Mr. CHARLES-NAPOLEON DORION (Quebec-Montmorency) (Translation): This bill which bears No. 77 purports to allow the government of the province of Quebec to construct a bridge across the St. Lawrence river between the Island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre. A few days ago the house passed a bill No. 22 similar to this one. The preamble of bill No. 22 and its clauses 1, 2 and 3 are absolutely identical to clauses 1, 2 and 3 oi bill No. 77. By this bill the government of the province of Quebec undertakes to construct this bridge at its own expense.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): Will it be a toll or free bridge?
Mr. DORION (Translation):: According to the bill passed by the Quebec legislature, a toll may be collected from those who cross this bridge, exception is made, however, for farmers transporting their farm products. They are exempt of all tolls.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I do not think the committee should pass this bill because it does not agree with the promises made by the provincial member for the county of Quebec which my hon. friend represents in the House of Commons. This bridge is going to be a toll bridge. It was promised in my presence and in the presence of the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency that this bridge was to be free of tolls. This bridge was promised by the provincial member for the county of Quebec, Mr. Taschereau, at the election of 1921, as a free bridge, on one condition, namely, that the electors of the county of Quebec would vote Liberal. My hon. friend was present and he knows what I am stating is true.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I am Stating the facts.


Albert Frederick Totzke: We did not understand what the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency said.
Mr. LaVERGNE : I will tell my hon. friend what the hon. member said. He said that this bridge was to be built by the province of Quebec over the St. Lawrence river between the north shore of the Island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre. This bridge is to be free under certain conditions to farmers, but is to be a toll bridge for others.


Mr. RALSTON:: And the hon. gentleman is opposing that.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	Because it does not
adequately fulfil the promise made ten years ago.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is
non-partisanship ?


Albert Frederick Totzke: Perhaps this is on a par with the promise made by the Minister of Marine.
Mr. LaVERGNE: No, I was there, and the provincial member for Quebec county was there. I was candidate in the county of Quebec at the time, and I was defeated by that bridge.


Wilfred Hanbury: You perished in the attempt.
2S3S
Private Bills-Beaupre Bridge

Mr. LaVER'GNE : I perished in the attempt. That year the bridge was promised for the following spring, but we did not get it. The following winter we had a bridge, but it went Out in the spring, and for the last ten years this bridge has been coming up at every election, federal and provincial. I have no objection to the bridge provided it is free, as promised by the provincial member for Quebec county, Mr. Taschereau. He solemnly promised the electors of Quebec county that if they would vote against the Conservative candidate he would give them a free bridge. I might add that at that very meeting where the bridge was promised, Mr. Taschereau had two things at heart: one was this bridge, and the other was his denunciation of Mr. Meighen as the father of conscription and the executioner of French Canadians.


John Livingstone Brown: Those reasons did not appeal to you.
Mr. LaVERGNE: They did not, but they appealed to the county of Quebec at that time. I say that that promise of a free bridge should be redeemed. The promise is late in coming to fulfilment, but if we are going to redeem the solemn pledge of the premier of the province of Quebec let us have the bridge that he promised, one without tolls. If we make it a free bridge, I certainly have no objection. Surely hon. gentlemen opposite are not going to force their ally or friend in the province of Quebec to go back on his own word. A free bridge was promised. That was the price of the county of Quebec, and the county of Quebec is entitled to the fulfilment of the full pledge. This bridge should not be a toll bridge, but a free bridge.


Albert Frederick Totzke: Does the hon. member suggest that we should kill the bill?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	No. Make it a free
bridge.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I had the extreme pleasure this afternoon, while the hon. member for Montmagny was sitting as chairman of the committee of the whole, of being called to order and told that no member should speak beside the question or bring in matter irrelevant to the question under debate. I regret the final remarks of my hon. friend from Montmagny for two or three reasons. In the first place, being a member of the private bills committee, I am in a position to say that there was not the slightest suggestion of partisanship introduced into the consideration of this measure when it was before that committee. It was introduced there and explained very ably by the sponsor of the bill. The bill was considered on its

merits by members on both sides of this house and was endorsed by the unanimous vote of that committee, and I suggest to my hon. friend from Montmagny that it ill becomes him at the last moment to introduce provincial politics into the consideration of a measure which is supposed to be for the benefit of the Dominion of Canada.
Air. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend is quite right. He is introducing politics; I am not. I want to see the bill improved. I am so far from introducing politics that I want the full promise that was given kept.


John Livingstone Brown: That is not politics?


James Lorimer Ilsley: I have been reading the bill and I find nothing in it about tolls one way or the other. May I ask the hon. gentleman whether it fallows, for some reason not disclosed, that tolls will be charged in the absence of anv mention of the matter in the bill?
Mr. LaVERGNE: I gather so from the information given by the promoter of the bill. We had better ask the promoter of the bill. Est-ee que ce sera un pont de peage?


Mr. BOUCHARD (Translation):: May I request the hon. member for Montmagny to read the bill before discussing it and to be less scrupulous for the Island of Orleans bridge than he was with his pledges to the constituency of Montmagny.
Mr. LaVERGNE (Translation): My learned friend should settle his contested election.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I am
pleased to inform my learned friend that it has been settled.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: This bridge will be free for farmers.
Mr. LaVERGNE: And other people will pay?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Yes.
Air. LaVERGNE: I have no objection to the bill if my hon. friend will agree to the insertion of another clause to the effect that this bridge shall not be a toll bridge.


Charles Napoléon Dorion: I might say that this hill is in exactly the same Iterms as Bill No. 22.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that passed this year?


Charles Napoléon Dorion: Yes.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.

Private Bills-Beaupre Bridge
On section 2-Submission of plans for approval.
James Shaver Woodsworth: In nearly all bills of this character which have been introduced in reeenit years there has been inserted a fair wage clause. Several years ago thiis policy was adapted so far as this house is concerned, and it has I think been carried out with regard to almost every bill of this kind which has been introduced. I understand that it was moved in the committee that a change along this line should be made, but it was voted down on the ground, I believe, that this bridge is wholly situated within the province of Quebec. I would point out that that is a very poor reason. These fair wage clauses have been inserted in the past in the case of bridges that were constructed from points in Canada to points in the United States. I admit that this is a slightly different ease, but if this corporation has to come to parliament in order to obtain a charter, it shows that we have a certain authority over the matter, and it seems to me quite immaterial whether the people who desire to build this bridge are private individuals or corporations or a government. The point is that we as a dominion house have stood for fair wages, and I think that since we are the ones who are to determine here the conditions under which this bridge shall be built, we have a perfect right, and we should insist upon it, to state the conditions which must prevail in the building of that bridge. I am not one who wishes to force anything on one province or another, but since this is not a matter within the jurisdiction of the province but one which comes within the jurisdiction of the dominion I think we are distinctly responsible for stating the conditions under which this bridge should be built. I have a clause before me which I should like to add when the proper time arrives. I presume the clause will have to be added separately, and I should be pleased if the sponsor of the bill would consent to have the clause inserted.


Finlay MacDonald: I think the rule calls for one day's
notice of an amendment to a private bill.


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, in the case of a
private bill there has to be one day's notice.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
amendment suggested by my hon. friend from Winnipeg North Centre was also suggested before the committee on private bills by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis). The amendment was not
exactly voted down by the committee but was taken into consideration by the hon. member who was chairman, and ruled out of order as being beyond the jurisdiction of the committee and parliament. If hon. members will look at Bill No. 77 they will see that so far as this parliament is concerned the legislation asked is only of an enabling character. We are merely taking care of the navigable provisions to authorize the province of Quebec, the responsible party, to proceed with the undertaking. The following qualifying phrases are found in paragraph 2 of the bill:
the government of the province of Quebec shall submit to the governor in council for examination and approval a design and drawing of the bridge and a map of the location giving the soundings accurately, showing the bed of the stream, and shall furnish such other information as is required for a full and satisfactory understanding of the subject-
And again:
*-and if any changes be made in the plans of the said bridge during its construction such changes shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council and shall not be made or commenced until it is so approved.
I am quite in favour of the principle the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre advocates. The unanimous opinion, however, of the private bills committee was that this is enabling legislation, so far as navigation is concerned, enabling the province of Quebec to go ahead with the bridge.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	To relieve my hon.
friend's anxiety, I do not oppose the bill and I shall not raise any more objections. I direct the attention of hon. members to one phrase in the bill however, reading " . . . .the said bridge shall not be built or commenced." My hon. friend may rest assured that this bridge will never be built or commenced. It is merely an election bluff.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Ernest Lapointe: We have just witnessed
another example of the impartiality of the deputy speaker. Certainly he adopts a most non-partisan attitude. I must say his attitude is very fine.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I beg to move that the following words be added to the bill as clause 3:
The employment of labour in the construction, maintenance and supervision of the said bridge shall be subject to the terms and conditions for payment of fair wages and hours of work in accordance with the intent of the fair wages and eight-hour day act of 1930, and the fair wage policy of the government of Canada (P.C. 1206), dated June 1922 and amendments thereto.

Private Bills-Beaupre Bridge


Hugh Guthrie: Has notice of the
amendment been given?


Finlay MacDonald: No.


Hugh Guthrie: This is a private bill.


Finlay MacDonald: I shall quote standing order 113:
No important amendment may be proposed to any private bill, in a committee of the whole house, or at the third reading of the bill, unless one day's notice of the same has been given.
For those reasons I am afraid the notice is out of order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: It seems to me
owing to the importance of the principle involved that the bill might be allowed to stand until such notice can be given. That privilege has been conceded by the house for some years past, and the only modification in this particular case is that the applicant happened to be Quebec provincial authorities. To my mind that does not alter the principle. We have authority in this house, otherwise the province of Quebec would not be coming to us asking for the right to build. Since we have authority it seems to me that we ought to insist that the principle of fair wages and hours of work be upheld.


Ernest Lapointe: What has that to do with navigation? We have the right to control and look after navigation. What has this to do with it? My hon. friend is absolutely wrong. The present bill is not brought forward for the purpose of granting a charter to a company to build a bridge. In this instance the government of the province of Quebec is to build a bridge and that government does not require a charter from this parliament at all. The bill comes before us as the statutes of this parliament require, that the plans for the purpose of controlling navigation should be approved. If the clause suggested by my hon. friend were adopted we would be permitting an encroachment upon the rights of the province of Quebec. I for one certainly will not accept any such clause.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	My hon. friend from
Winnipeg North Centre is certainly entitled to move an amendment or ask for delay, because this bill was introduced very late. The committee on standing orders had to be specially generous because the bill was late in being introduced, and I can see no reason
why there should be such a hurry. After all the bridge was promised in 1921.


Ernest Lapointe: My hon. friend is going
on again with his politics.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I think the request of
the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quite in order and Should be granted by the committee. After eleven years I d<o not think a delay of one more day will be harmful.


John Livingstone Brown: If the proposed amendment is so clearly out of order as has been indicated by the hon. ex-Minister of Justice, why the delay? Why not rule it out of order right now?
Mr. LaVERGNE:	That may be done.


Ernest Lapointe: I am sorry I was not
in the house when my hon. friend attacked the government of the province of Quebec.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I did not.


Ernest Lapointe: Although my hon. friend is deputy speaker of the house, he indulges greatly in politics.
Mr. LaVERGNE: A deputy speaker is not supposed to be impartial when he is not in the chair. Truth holds a greater place in this house than the opinions of my hon. friend. As a matter of fact my hon. friend was in the election campaign when Mr. Taschereau promised the bridge in question, and he endorsed that promise.


Ernest Lapointe: Our impartial deputy
speaker! Come on into the chair.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	And our impartial ex-
Minister of Justice!
Bill reported.



AMERICAN LUTHERAN CHURCH-CAN ADIAN DISTRICT CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendment made by the Senate to Bill No. 52, to amend the Board of Management of the Canadian district of the Evangelical Lutheran Joint Synod of Ohio and other states, and to change its name to the "Board of Management of the Canadian district of the American Lutheran Church."
Motion agreed to; amendment read the second time and concurred in.
[Stage Direction]
Companies Act-Auditors

[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead) moved that the house go into committee on Bill No. 33, to amend the Companies Act (Auditors).
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Auditors not to be directors or officers-exception.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the sponsor kindly explain section 1, Mr. Chairman?


Mr. HACKETT:: This bill has been before the banking and commerce committee, where it had to run the gauntlet of the department of the Secretary of State and was amended.


Mr. GARDINER:: What was the nature of the amendment?


John Thomas Hackett: It is not a very radical
one. It has to do with a change of the wording rather than the substance of the bill.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: This is the amendment:
All the words including "provided" are struck out and replaced by the following:
Provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any private company, nor in case of any company whose shares, bonds, debentures or debenture stock are not offered for public subscription.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I may say
that this bill was before the department of the Secretary of State, and I understand the Under-secretary of State appeared before the banking and commerce committee. In the opinion of the officers of the department there was no objection to this amendment if it applied only to private companies within the definition of the act, or to any other company which does not offer its bonds and shares for public subscription. The representations made to the department of state were to the effect that in many private companies the auditor was appointed by the shareholders and was also made a director. It was felt that in respect to private companies there should be no prohibition of an auditor being also one of the directors, because in his dual position he might be enabled the more efficiently to audit from day to day and week to week the affairs of the company.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, the Secretary
of State (Mr. Cahan) says that the practice of the auditor being also a director of the company is not objectionable provided it is restricted to a private company. But is there any particular reason why any auditor should be trusted to treat his relations
and friends in a different manner from that in which he would treat the general public? Let us suppose a case like this: Two men are in partnership, and perhaps their wives are included as shareholders in order to make the required number. One of the men acts as auditor. That is quite satisfactory as long as his partner is privy to the books and can at any time satisfy himself as to their cerrectness, but one of them dies. People do go wrong, and let us suppose that the remaining partner sets out to rob the other shareholders. He is allowed to continue as auditor, which was all right when his partner was alive, but after his partner dies he can do anything he likes and there is no protection to the widow or other private shareholders. If it is right in one case to protect the public it should be right, I think, to protect also the individuals who may happen to be shareholders in private companies. The woman, lacking business experience and knowing that her husband had confidence in his partner, might suppose it would be all right for him to continue. I know she could legally demand another auditor, but she would shrink from doing so because it would mean the breaking up of their friendship and of the partnership. I should like to hear the opinion of the Secretary of State in connection with a case of this kind.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I should think that was a very exceptional state of affairs. The number of shareholders in private companies is limited, and the shareholders not only elect the directors but have the duty and responsibility of appointing the auditor. I should think in that case if they wished to have an auditor-who must, I think, be a chartered accountant-and have the right to sit on the board of directors in order to watch the proceedings of the company, there is nothing in that dual situation which would be prejudicial to the interests of the shareholders as a whole. I do not think that case is likely to arise, where two partners form the company. There must be a certain number of shareholders anyway in a private company, not less than five and not more than fifty, I believe.


Alan Webster Neill: In British Columbia only three shareholders are required.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: This is not the British
Columbia act; this is the dominion act. It has been represented to me also, Mr. Chairman, that a number of companies, of which the shareholders and the chief investors are resident in Great Britain, are operating in this
2S42
Companies Act-Auditori

country under private charters. The membership is restricted. They are not seeking any subscriptions to bonds, shares or stocks of any kind, but in the past, until the last amendments to the Companies Act were passed, they usually engaged a firm of chartered accountants in the city of Toronto, if operating there, or in the city of Montreal if operating there, and then one of these chartered accountants, representing and appointed by the English investors, acted not only as auditor of the company but also was elected by the shareholders to sit on the board of directors as representing their large financial interests. It has been represented that an auditor occupying that dual office can far more efficiently and effectively represent the British investors than would be the case if he were merely an auditor who had the right twice a year to look over the books of the company and audit them for the foreign investors. In order to enable some of these English companies to incorporate subsidiary companies in Canada for the purpose of representing them and carrying on their business in this country, it seemed to me advisable to permit that change in the law.


James Layton Ralston: I wonder if the chairman would be good enough to read the amendment again.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I will read the clause and then tell the committee when the amendment starts.
Subsection 3 of section 123 of the Companies Act, chapter 27 of the revised statutes of Canada, 1927, as enacted by section 35 of chapter 9 of the statutes of 1930, is repealed and the following is substituted therefor:
(3) Neither the auditor of any company nor any partner nor associate in any accounting or auditing company or business with the said auditor shall be capable of being appointed a director or officer of the company;
Then the amendment follows:
Provided, however, that this subsection shall not apply to any private company nor in the ease of any company whose shares, bonds, debentures or debenture stocks are not offered for public subscription.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The bills on our files do not contain the amendment just read by the chairman.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I was
just going to raise the same point. The substance of the bill is contained in the amendment sent in from the committee on banking and commerce to this house.


Alan Webster Neill: It has been substantially
changed.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: If I may explain, the bill as introduced contained a proviso which was not satisfactory to the officials of the state department. They suggested a substitute proviso, which now appears in the amendment of the standing committee.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My objection is this: I have never seen that amendment which has been agreed upon by the banking and commerce committee and the state department; I never heard it until it was read by the chairman this evening. I do not think it is fair to ask the committee of the whole to discuss on its merits an amendment we have never seen. I maintain the whole essence of the bill is contained in that proviso.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: It should be reprinted.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
what I think, so I would ask that the bill be reprinted, containing the proviso as mentioned to-night, so that hon. members may understand it.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Then I will move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, and in the meantime this bill may be reprinted.
Progress reported.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 46, to amend the criminal code (regarding bail).- Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton South).-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Bail.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, when this bill was last under consideration by the committee I think it was generally agreed that the bill should be passed with a slight amendment, and I promised to have an amendment prepared and submitted. I move that section 1019 be amended by striking out the words "the trial court" and substituting therefor the words "any judge of a superior court," and by inserting after the word "in" in the second line the words "his or." The bill as drafted provided that bail could be granted by the trial court or the court of appeal, and the amendment strikes out the words "trial court" and inserts the words "any judge of a superior court," which will of course include the trial judge if he is a judge of the superior court. If that amendment is adopted I would ask

Bankruptcy Act
2S43
my hon. friend who introduced the bill to let (he bill stand. It is the intention of the government to introduce a general bill dealing with certain amendments to the criminal
code-


Ernest Lapointe: This session?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, next week. There are half a dozen minor amendments we intend to bring forward, and rather than have two or three amending acts to the criminal code we thought we would incorporate this amendment in the bill I am about to bring in. If the committee, therefore, will allow the bill to stand now, with that amendment included, I will undertake to incorporate it in the bill to be introduced.


James Layton Ralston: Just for the sake of information, in the definition clause of the criminal code is "superior court" defined? I ask that because "superior court" is used both in Quebec and in Ontario.
Mr. GUTHRIE- Yes. I read the definition the last time the bill was before the committee.


James Layton Ralston: So long as the term
"superior court" appears.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, June 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 34, to amend the criminal code (trade marks)- Mr. Geary.-Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Forgery.
An hon. MEMBER:: The sponsor of the
bill is not here.


Alan Webster Neill: Is it the desire of the government to let the bill stand?


Hugh Guthrie: I apprehend that the
provisions of this bill will be included in the bill which I propose to introduce next week. I would therefore ask that the bill stand on that account. This bill, as I explained the other night, is brought in at the request of almost all the provinces of Canada and of all boards of liquor commissioners. They are anxious that it become law, and I think it is right that it should. I move that the committee rise and report progress.
Progress reported.



BANKRUPTCY ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead) moved the second reading of and concurrence in amendments made by the Senate to Bill No. 28, to amend the Bankruptcy Act (priority of claims).
Ernest Lapointe: We do not know what
the amendments are.


John Thomas Hackett: The change is merely
grammatical. The last clause of the provision as it left this house read:
And all indebtedness of the bankrupt or authorized assignor under any workmen's compensation act.
Instead of coming after the amendment, that has been put in ahead of it. There is no substantial change. The amendment also inserts the word "the" and makes the word "commission" plural.


Ernest Lapointe: They added an "s" at
the end of the word.


John Thomas Hackett: That is all.
Motion agreed to; amendments read the second time and concurred in.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Saskatchewan and Alberta telegraph and telephone lines-general repairs and improvements, $21,500.
John Francis Buckley: Is it the intention of the department to close down, either immediately or in the near future, the government telegraph line between Lloydminster and Lindbergh?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not heard anything about it. I shall make inquiries to find out whether the superintendent has made any report to that effect.


John Francis Buckley: I should like the deputy minister to be here to advise the minister, because I believe he is in possession of more information than the minister in this matter. As I understand, there is now a telephone line to Lindbergh. There is also a telegraph line on the Canadian National railway and therefore there is no necessity for the government
2S44
Supply-Public Works

line. I understand, further, that it is the purpose of the government to close out this line. I should like to get some information in this respect.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
is inquiring about a line between Lloydminster and-


John Francis Buckley: Lindbergh, named after
the celebrated aviator. Probably it will appear in the books of the department as Mooswa.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry, but the deputy says he has no information further than I have. I should like to have my hon friend's views as to whether the line should be closed.


John Francis Buckley: I understand the practice of the department to have been this. As the province of Alberta develops northward and the dominion telegraph lines become unnecessary owing to competition with any of the railway companies or with the Alberta telegraph and telephone lines, such lines are closed, and development of telegraph lines up north proceeds, as was done in this case. They have now opened up a new telegraph line at Fort Vermilion, the very line we were discussing this afternoon. There is no necessity of a telegraph line at Mooswa or Lindbergh, owing to the fact that the railway is there, and there is no reason why the railway should be in competition with the government line. It is at this particular point, Lindbergh, where Mr. Bowtell, the man whom I mentioned this afternoon, is now employed. There is no doubt that that telegraph line 'will be closed within the next few months and Mr. Bowtell will be without a position. That is why I brought the matter up. What I want to know is this: If this line is closed, will the minister give me his definite assurance that Mr. Bowtell will be taken care of, and if necessary, appointed to one of the positions on this new telegraph line at Fort Vermilion?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be very glad to consider my hon. friend's representations, to investigate and to find out the circumstances, and whether they permit the taking care of this official as suggested. It is not our desire to maintain unnecessary or competing lines, and if the service is being well cared for, we shall endeavour to dispose of the line to the best advantage.


John Francis Buckley: The minister will
appreciate the fact that that is not satisfactory to me at all. This is a man who has been in the employment of the department for twenty-four years. The department is closing up this
[Mr. Buckley.)
line and opening up a new line further north. According to the minister, they appointed one Lee, who had not had a day's service with the department prior to his appointment, and Mr. Bowtell will probably find himself without a position. What I want to know definitely from the minister is this: Is this man Bowtell going to be taken care of, or is this man Lee to be given the position .in priority to Bowtell?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a matter entirely for the Civil Service Commission.


John Francis Buckley: Very well. I will put this question on record once again. This is my question which appears on page 852 of Hansard of this year:
Who, if anyone, has been appointed government telegraph agent at Fort Vermilion, and upon whose recommendation ?
The minister's reply was:
Reginald Lee has been appointed temporarily, pending the appointment of a permanent operator, on temporary certificate issued by Civil Service Commission. The intention is to bulletin this position as a permanent one next June to all employees of the division.
I shall now read a letter -written to the superintendent of the government telegraph service by Mr. Bowtell. It reads:
Lindbergh, Alberta, May 10, 1931. Mr. J. D. Noel,
Superintendent Government Telegraphs, Edmonton, Alberta.
Dear Sir:
Having reference to the appointment of a permanent agent at Fort Vermilion, some time in June. I beg to say that I would like very much to secure this position. I do not think my ability as an operator will be questioned by you concerning the above-mentioned office, considering the positions I have held at various offices, on this line since 1907.
If my application should be received and I am senior in the service, I would be pleased to have your assurance that my application will meet with your approval for the position of agent, at Fort Vermilion. Things are going along very well here and we are doing our best to keep down expenses re the upkeep of our line. An early reply to my request will be greatly appreciated.
Yours truly,
A. Bowtell,
Mooswa, Alta.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: In all courtesy I should like to remind the committee that this is not pertinent to the item under discussion.


John Francis Buckley: The position that is included in item 208 is the position of agent linesman, and the item covers expenses of the upkeep of this particular line. Part of the duty of the agent is to look after the upkeep of the line.

Supply-Public Works


Armand Renaud La Vergne: If I remember aright,
the hon. member for Gloucester this afternoon asked for the details of this item, and this was not covered.


John Francis Buckley: 
Armand Renaud La Vergne: If the committee
agrees, nobody objects.


John Francis Buckley: I shall now read the
reply to the letter I have just read, of the division superintendent at Edmonton. It reads:
A. Bowtell, Esq.,
Mooswa, Alberta.
Dear Sir:
Having reference to your letter of the 10th inst., regarding the agency at Fort Vermilion: I beg to say that, contrary to what you state, the position at that point will not be advertised in June, as it is the intention of the department to leave the present incumbent in charge there until some later date. When this position is advertised, you will be duly advised.
Yours truly,
J. D. Noel,
Division Superintendent.
What I want to ask the minister is this: Is the department going to request the Civil Service Commission to advertise this position, and if so, when?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that the Civil Service Commission will be asked to fill this position in the regular way, and this will be done right away.


John Francis Buckley: That is quite satisfactory to me, if it is done "right away".


Peter John Veniot: I understand that the Civil Service Commission is to be asked to fill this vacancy right away. Who occupies the position now?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Reginald Lee
is occupying it temporarily.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister please
explain how he was appointed temporarily?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: By the district
superintendent.


Peter John Veniot: According to the Civil
Service Act, the district superintendent has no authority to appoint.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Seeing that he is in charge of the district, surely in opening a new office he has authority to make a temporary appointment to carry on until a permanent appointment is made.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad that the minister is now laying down that policy to follow. That is not the policy which he laid down for me to follow in 1929. Linder the Civil Service Act, the district superintendent has no right to make an appointment. I followed the policy that the district superintendent had that right until in 1929 the hon. member included in his vote of censure of my department that very action of mine. Afterwards, when the matter was carefully looked into, although I was convinced at the time that I had the authority, or that such appointments could be made through my deputy or the district superintendent, I found that the act was interpreted so that this was not the case. Therefore, for following the procedure which I had supposed to be the proper interpretation of the act, and which the minister himself is now following, I was chided very often and severely by my hon. friend. I obtained a ruling by the Justice department, who stated that when a vacancy occurs, a temporary appointment must be made in this way: the recommendation must come from the superintendent of the district. His recommendation must pass through the deputy minister to the minister and then be forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. The Civil Service Commission then issues a temporary certificate for three months which is renewable every three months until such time as a permanent appointment is made. The present minister of Public Works, then a private member of the house, took upon himself to chide me, reprimand me; in fact, he went even so far as to include this in a vote of censure or want of confidence, but he comes before the committee to-night and admits having violated the law just as I did.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The district
superintendent, when he finds that an appointment is required temporarily, makes a recommendation.


Peter John Veniot: That is not what the
minister said before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: His recommendation goes to the Civil Service Commission and they make the appointment temporarily.


Peter John Veniot: That is not what the
minister said in reply to my first question.
Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is the same
thing. The district superintendent makes the recommendation.


Peter John Veniot: Let me read what the
minister read to me. I am reading from the act:
Every deputy head shall notify the commission of every vacancy in any position in his department immediately after the vacancy occurs, and whenever such vacancy is to be filled, the deputy head shall request the commission to make an appointment.
The commission shall thereupon appoint the person whose name stands highest upon the commission's list of eligible persons for the class in which the position is found and who is willing to accept the appointment; in case there is no such list for the class-
There was not in this case:
-the commission shall forthwith hold an examination and, if necessary to prevent any serious interference with the public business, but not otherwise, may fill the position at once by making a temporary appointment as prescribed herein.
That is the law which the hon. gentleman himself read to me in 1929, and claimed that I was not carrying it out. I am free to admit that I was not carrying it out because I did not place that same extreme interpretation upon it that he did, but later on, to avoid any doubt and to place myself strictly within the four corners of the Civil Service Act I obtained a ruling from the Justice department-, and since that time I always followed that ruling. Perhaps the Department of Public Works followed it in this case. What brought me to my feet to make this protest was this: When I asked the minister how the appointment was made, he said, by the district superintendent, and not by the Civil Service Commission, and that in his opinion the superintendent had a perfect right to make these temporary appointments. Surely, he said, the superintendent has a right to make a temporary appointment when a vacancy occurs. I say that is contrary to the practice that w'as laid down for me to follow in 1929, and that is what brought me to my feet tonight. You know, the chickens come home to roost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend is under a misapprehension.


Peter John Veniot: Not at all. That is always your excuse.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think he is
under a misapprehension, due perhaps to an imperfect and incomplete statement made by myself, which I want now to amend because I have further information here. The district superintendent assigned this man temporarily

to this position, and reported it to the superintendent here, Mr. Sims. Mr. Sims then applied for a civil service certificate in favour of that man.


Peter John Veniot: What date?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: February 14. Here is his letter:
In view of the above, this office is applying for a temporary certificate in favour of Mr. Collier covering period December 13, 1930, to January 23, 1931, and a temporary certificate in favour of Mr. Lee is also applied for covering period January 24 to May 24, 1931. When transportation opens up in the spring and it would be possible for an employee and his family to travel to Fort Vermilion this position can be advertised as a permanent position and bids received from the present employees of the division.
Letter to Civil Service Commission is attached hereto.
So this was done by the Civil Service Commission. I should have told my hon. friend that.


John Francis Buckley: Why did the district
superintendent at Edmonton say in June that it was not the intention of the Civil Service Commission to advertise the position but thai the present incumbent would be held in office for some time? Was that authorized by the minister?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot answer
that. There is nothing here to justify that statement.


John Francis Buckley: Am I justified in assuming that the superintendent had the right to write such a letter?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He had no
authority from the - department.


John Francis Buckley: Do I understand that
the district superintendent is not required to advise the Civil Service Commission when a position is vacant?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He advises the
general superintendent at Ottawa, who in turn takes it up with the Civil Service Commission.


John Francis Buckley: Then what right has the
district superintendent at Edmonton to say that it is not the intention of the Civil Service Commission to advertise the position?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really cannot
explain that. He had no authority from the department to make any such statement.


Thomas McMillan: On whose
-recommendation was Mr. Lee appointed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That of the
district superintendent.

Supply-Public Works


Peter John Veniot: The minister states that
the certificate of temporary appointment was issued in January, good until some time in May. Has an application been made to the commission for renewal of that certificate of temporary appointment?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand
that a certificate of that character is good for six months.


Peter John Veniot: It is not good beyond the
date mentioned on the certificate. The date mentioned on the certificate was May 24, and the department cannot hold that man as a temporary appointee beyond that date until they have another certificate.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of course this is an out of the way place where they cannot get in early in the year, and the matter is just going along until conditions are favourable for the new appointee to go in.


Peter John Veniot: The department should
apply for another temporary certificate, and even if it is issued for three or six months the department need not hold the temporary appointee beyond the time the permanent appointment is made. The department is not carrying out the law, and I want the minister to know that I know he is not carrying out the law in that respect.


John Francis Buckley: I understood the minister to say that this position would be bulletined for the permanent employees of the service. The man of whom I am speaking is a temporary employee, although he has been in the service for twenty-four years. Is he to be considered a permanent employee or a temporary employee?


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: That will be for
the commission to interpret.


John Francis Buckley: Do I understand that
this man who has been in the service for twenty-four years has no opportunity now, after all these years of service, of obtaining this position?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would not say so. I should be surprised indeed if he would not have the opportunity of competing.


John Francis Buckley: I do not understand the
minister when he says that the position will be bulletined for the permanent employees. Who is and who is not a permanent employee in the telegraph service of the dominion government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is for the
commission to interpret according to their rules and regulations.


John Francis Buckley: In the telegraph service
of the dominion government, which covers a great portion of northern Alberta, are all the employees merely temporary, or are any of them permanent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My understanding of a temporary employee is one who has not been appointed by order in council or by the Civil Service Commission.


John Francis Buckley: The commission was not in existence twenty-four years ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He may not
have been appointed by order in council.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister name any position of importance occupied by a temporary appointee to which the appointment was not made by order in council? If it is not done by order in council, who makes the appointment? I can understand the appointment of charwomen, for instance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that years ago, before the Civil Service Commission came into existence, a minister had the right to make an appointment, and unless all these appointees are blanketed in or in some way brought under the Civil Service Act they are not considered permanent employees.


Peter John Veniot: Is it not a fact that in the
Department of Public W'orks to-day you have hundreds, or at all events a large number, of temporary employees who have been on the temporary staff for years? Is not that a fact?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Well, if to-day you wanted
to make those employees permanent, you would either have to blanket them in under the Civil Service Act. or have them appointed by order in council. The minister has no longer any power to make these appointments.


John Francis Buckley: I want to direct the
attention of the minister to the second question which I asked, and which appears on the same page of Hansard. It reads:
Was any application for this position received from one Arthur Bowtell, who has been in the service of the department for the last twenty-four years?
To that question the minister answered ''no.'' I have before me a letter dated Ed-
2S4S
Supply-Public Works

monton, November 24,	1930, reading as
follows:
A. Bowtell, Esq.,
Lindbergh, Alta.
Dear Sir:-	,
Having reference to your application for the position of temporary agent-lineman at Fort Vermilion, we are enclosing you herewith an application form that you will kindly fill and return to this office at your earliest convenience.
Yours truly,
J. D. Noel,
Division Superintendent.
From the answer I have received from the minister I would conclude that the application form either was not forwarded to the department or in any case was not forwarded to the Civil Service Commission. Was there any application at that time which may have come to the knowledge of the minister since before Bowtell was appointed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I should like to have time to go through the files of the superintendent at Ottawa to find out if there was any such application.


John Francis Buckley: In view of the fact the
minister is not in a position to answer the question, I would ask that for the time being the item stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon.
friend will put the question on the order paper I will have it looked into and answered in the ordinary way.


John Francis Buckley: I object to the passing
of the item until I have the information I am seeking, and the matter is definitely settled.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: All this discussion is
irrelevant. I have made that statement many times to the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection to letting the item stand in order, to secure the information for which the hon. member asks.


John Francis Buckley: I shall be quite satisfied, if the item stands.
Item stands.
British Columbia-British Columbia northern district-general repairs and improvements, $31,100.
British Columbia Vancouver island district -general repairs and improvements, $32,500.
Yukon telegraph system-general repairs and improvements, $19,300.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, with your
permission and cooperation I wish to say a few words on the second of the three items now before us, and in order to avoid trouble

I shall endeavour to centralize my remarks around the expression in the second part of the item "general repairs and improvements."
I would ask that that expression be kept in the forefront of our minds. I am referring to the item "British Columbia, Vancouver Island district-general repairs and improvements, $32,500." My remarks concerning this particular part of the vote apply with equal strength to the sections concerning the northern district of British Columbia and the Yukon district, although I may not be as familiar with those parts. I note that in each of the three items the amounts for this year are somewhat less than they were for last year. I hope that the decrease does not necessarily indicate any cheapening of the service or of the undertakings described by the words "general repairs and improvements." The service requires all the money which is being spent on it now, and I hope there will not be any attempt to reduce the efficiency by cutting down the estimate. I will go farther and say that I trust in the future nothing will be done which might directly or indirectly reduce this vote for general repairs and improvements. For instance if a line were burned down and not replaced this vote would be reduced; or if it were, sold or alienated in some way, similarly the vote for general repairs "and improvements would be reduced.
May I say that the lines to which this vote applies are highly necessary for the development of the pioneer district on the island. The country these lines serve is of a very rough nature, and offers great difficulty to road-building. For those reasons the telegraph is absolutely essential to the development of the remote places. In many of these places settlers have been encouraged by other government departments under various settlement acts to come in. There was at least a moral obligation on previous governments, and there is on this government a similar obligation to keep faith with those people by supplying them with means of communication. Such communication is absolutely essential, because in some cases the boat serving those people calls only once a month. Further, such communication facilitates the development of the fishing industry which is now reaching back to the more distant waters of the west. In the present condition of the fishing industry anything which helps "to facilitate its operations is of great benefit. I know of one place where during three months of the year $200,000 worth of fish is sold and yet there is no telegraph service to give them market news.

Supply-Public Works
I may say that application has been made unsuccessfully for such service.
Then, again, there is the more spectacular service of the saving of life, giving notice of shipwrecks and so on. Many ships have been reported by telegraph or telephone communication. Messages have been flashed along that at certain points ships have been in distress and by such communication valuable ships and cargoes, which would be valued far in excess of any sums we see in this estimate, were saved. I wish to repeat what I said this afternoon, that the government would be well advised not to entertain the idea of selling these lines.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the location of the offices of the government telegraph service in the city of Vancouver. I suggest that a much more suitable location be obtained, and that to that end the minister investigate the matter.


John Campbell Elliott: What amount was expended in British Columbia on each of these items last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation of $33,000 for the year 1930-31 was expended as follows-


John Campbell Elliott: Well, I do not wish to have the particulars I just wish to know whether or not the whole $33,000 had been expended.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, apparently so.


John Campbell Elliott: Then what about the $34,400 for Vancouver Island district?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The expenditures for the year 1930-31 in Vancouver Island district were $34,400.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister's answer indicates that in the northern district of British Columbia the whole of the $33,000 was spent last year and that on Vancouver Island the $34,400 was spent. Of course the amount asked for this year is not very substantially less than that required last year. I ask the minister, however, owing to the fact that larger amounts were expended last year, how he expects to make ends meet with a lesser amount this year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The estimate for this year is based upon a survey and examination made by the district superintendent and a report as to what he believes will be sufficient to cover the requirements for the coming year. My hon. friend will notice that the amount 22110-181
required for this year is only $2,200 less than the amount expended in the prior year. It is expected that the amount asked will be sufficient to cover the requirements for the year.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: What is the income from all these various lines?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We might proceed with something else while the deputy is looking up the information.


John Campbell Elliott: May I refer back to vote 207? There is a great difference between the amounts voted this year and last year. Of the $25,000, the $5,000 and the $2,000 what proportion was expended last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The deputy tells me that he has not any summary of these expenditures. If my hon. friend desires information in regard to any particular line I might be able to get it.


John Campbell Elliott: Last year $32,000 was voted for telegraph and telephone lines in Quebec; this year $12,800 is the appropriation. I do not want details of the expenditure, but I should like to have the proportion of the vote spent last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have a summary of the work done, but I am afraid that I have not a summary of the actual amount expended. Some lines tvere reconstructed. This is the work done in 1930-31:
All materials, including poles, wire, crossarms, pins, bolts, insulators, etc., were purchased and distributed along the north shore from Bersimis to Pointe des Monts. The reconstruction work was started from Bersimis and is completed as far as east side of Outardes river, a distance of twenty-four miles.
It will be seen that there was some new construction there. Then the telegraph system was also reconstructed from Bersimis to Outardes falls. In the prior year the work consisted of the following:
Amherst section:
Repoling and reconstructing three
miles of line	 $ 550
Grindstone section:
Labour, etc	 200
Grand Entry section:
Reconstruction of East Cape Beach,
labour, etc	 500
Grosse Isle:
Trenching three cables at East Cape and reconstructing and repoling North
Beach	 ,,	400
House Harbour section:
Labour, etc	 150
Total	 $1,800
The appropriation of $5,000 for 1930-31 was all expended.



Supply-Public Works


John Campbell Elliott: What proportion of the $25,000 was expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In 1930-31 the appropriation was $25,000, and the expenditure $24,564.75.


John Campbell Elliott: If $30,000 was expended last year, how' is it we are down to $12,800 this year for those two items?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The difference is accounted for by the extension and reconstruction of a considerable part of the line, which is not necessary this year.


John Campbell Elliott: Then the estimate this year will complete the reconstruction?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will take care of the necessary repairs and any minor extensions that we may have to make to complete what we undertook last year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous
Accounts branch-salaries of agents, clerks, travelling and contingent expenses of outside service, $26,000.	.
Architectural branch-salaries of architects, clerks of works, inspectors, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $75,000.
Engineering branch-salaries of engineers, inspectors, superintendents, draftsmen, clerks and messengers of outside service, $450,000.
For operation and maintenance of inspection boats, $20,000.
Maintenance and operation of water storage dams on Ottawa river and tributaries, surveys and settlement of land damages, $40,000.
National Gallery of Canada, $100,000.
National Monument on Connaught place, $50,000.
River gauging and metering, $30,000.
Surveys and inspections, $133,000.
Balance of expenditure for works already authorized for which the appropriations may be insufficient provided the amount for any one does not exceed $200,	$5,000.-Total,
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This is a large item, Mr. Chairman. At this point I should like to say a word or two in regard to discussion of estimates in committee of supply and as to what with all due respect, the house generally assumes, I believe, to be the attitude that should be taken by the chairman of committees in regard to the discussion of the several items. I take it the chairman will admit that somewhere within the covers of the printed estimates presented to parliament there must be in the consideration thereof an opportunity for members to discuss everything that relates to the public service of Canada. I think that is a correct assumption to begin with-that somewhere upon the items considered as a whole there

must be opportunity to hon. members to discuss any matter that is of interest to their constituents and which directly or indirectly involves the expenditure of public moneys. In regard to public works, the estimates fall under three heads: (rival government, public works chargeable to income, and public works chargeable to capital. Under the civil government vote I should think anything pertaining to the oivil service or the permanent service as related to the department could be discussed somewhere, and under public works, capital or income, all the expenditures in regard to public works generally. With respect to public works chargeable to income, as an example, the estimates fall into the following divisions: public buildings, harbours and rivers, roads and bridges, telephones and telegraphs and miscellaneous. Under each of those headings there are divisions by provinces. I submit that somewhere within each of those divisions it should be possible for any hon. member to ask the minister of the department anything with relation to the matters which, by a generous construction, would fall under those headings.
For example, consider public buildings in Ontario. I do not think the -minister or any member of the -government would contend that the opposition should be confined to a discussion of the buildings which happen to be mentioned in the estimates as those for which appropriations are being requested; under the head of public buildings in Ontario there should be an opportunity for any hon. member to make any inquiry he desires to make oi the minister with respect to public buildings in the province. Unless that opportunity were given it would be impossible for the opposition, or for any hon. -member of parliament, to get necessary information. I need not confine it to the opposition; it would be impossible for h-on. members to get the information they require with regard to their own constituencies.
We come to the last item, -miscellaneous; I would suggest that in a liberal interpretation of that word-using the word "liberal" in the broad and non-partisan sense-if there are any matters that it does not seem possible or convenient to discuss under the special headings, an opportunity should be afforded there. In What I am now saying, I have no desire Mr. Chairman to criticize any ruling, or to call it in question, but I do submit that the interpretation you have given, undoubtedly with the best of intentions and for the purpose of holding the committee down to business, to the effect that the discussion must be relevant to the item immediately under

Supply-Public Works
discussion, is not correct if you limit the discussion strictly to the particular sub-item, as I would call it, which appears under the heading. For instance, item 250 covers telephones and telegraphs in Nova Scotia. Anything pertaining to the telephone and telegraph lines of Nova Scotia, it seems to me, should be capable of being discussed there. Similarly, under the miscellaneous items, if I may so term the.m, I do not think we should be confined to a consideration only of the sub-items which happen to appear in that particular group.
I would suggest this, that if the minister who has charge of the estimates thinks questions are being asked which should not be asked, that the discussion is going too far afield, and that he is thereby being prevented from getting his supply, and should direct the attention of the chairman to that fact, then the chairman would be justified if he so believed in notifying the committee that matters were going too far afield. I do submit, however, that as long as the minister himself sees no reason why exception should be taken to the questions, latitude should be allowed for that purpose. I mention that matter now because I am anxious to see the supply voted as rapidly as possible, but if we are going to be held down in committee of supply to an interpretation of a rule in such a way that we can only discuss in a narrow and strictly limited fashion what is a part of a single item, then frankly I say the opposition will be constrained to take the view that they cannot afford to further the granting of supply under those conditions, and to govern their actions accordingly. We will simply have to hold up supply until we get the information we require, because it is only in committee of supply that we are in a position to get detailed information in regard to the general business of the country. I believe the ministers of the crown will agree with me that in stating the position in this way, I am simply giving what always has been the practice followed when we have been discussing supply in this house; the chairman has given -the widest latitude to discussion and has permitted it just so long as the minister himself does not take exception to the questions being asked or has occasion to feel that he is being impeded in getting through his upply.
I am putting forward my view at the moment in the hope of assisting the committee to get supply voted as rapidly as may be possible, and not in any critical spirit.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The committee must
understand that as far as I am concerned I 22110-1811
am quite indifferent as to the latitude of the discussion, but unfortunately there is standing order 58, paragraph 2 of which to my mind is very restrictive. The permission of the minister does not alter the order at all.


Mr. STEVENS:: Before you make any
further ruling, Mr. Chairman, I should like to make one or two observations in regard to what the right hon. leader of the opposition has just said. I think a strict interpretation of the rule is, as you have stated, that discussion must be strictly relevant to the item before the chair, but in all my experience in the house, and in the experience of the right hon. gentleman and many others, the practice followed has been to keep within reasonable bounds, and at the same time it has been customary for the minister in charge of the supply immediately before the committee to extend the courtesy to the opposition of asking questions not quite relevant to the item.
I think that has been the common practice regularly followed, but there have been times 

and I am not speaking of the present, because I confess that I believe the opposition have been very reasonable in the question of supply, certainly during recent weeks-but I have known occasions when we were on that side of the house, or in former days, many years ago, when my hon. friends opposite were in opposition, when that privilege was very seriously abused. Hon. members would deliberately talk away from the item. Of course it is the abuse of a generous practice that really calls it into question, and sometimes results in more strict rulings. I would be sorry, however, if it were found necessary to apply the rule in so meticulous a fashion that it would be impossible for the opposition to elicit necessary information with regard to matters pertaining perhaps a little indirectly to the item under discussion. I think perhaps if the committee will assist the chairman a little more by reasonably observing the rule, the chairman will not find it necessary to bring members back more strictly to the rule, because once the chairman is called upon to rule, or does rule, he must rule according to the technical interpretation of the standing order.


Abraham Albert Heaps: When was the chairman
called upon to rule in connection with this discussion?


Henry Herbert Stevens: May I say to my hon.
friend in all kindness, and to two or three others to whom the observation may apply, that there has grown up recently a tendency to talk back at the chairman, which I think is very improper. The chairman makes a
Supply-Public Works

ruling; an hon. member has an opportunity to appeal against that ruling if it seems unfair or wrong. That is the proper procedure, but sometimes during a session of parliament hon. members get a little careless along certain lines. It is not necessarily the fault of any particular member; one follows another in, shall I say, a bad example or a course which is careless, and the house gets a little loose. That makes it very difficult for a chairman.
I am quite certain the chairman of committees is very efficient, I think we must compliment him upon his knowledge of the rules and his efficiency. I am sure if the house would cooperate with him a little more, and if these old practices were recognized and not abused, we would get along very much better and there would be more harmony and more expedition of the business of the house.
I find myself pretty much in accord with what the right hon. leader of the opposition has said. I might say one other word, however. Usually there are items of a general character, and quite often matters which are not strictly relevant to a particular item under discussion are left in abeyance until the general item is reached. For instance, there is dredging generally. Then when you come to public buildings, there are some large general items that permit of wide discussion. And under miscellaneous, there are items which warrant wider discussion. But I agree with the right hon. gentleman that if the minister in charge of the estimates, whatever the department may be, is willing to give the information-and generally speaking it has been the practice to allow discussion-the committee might depart somewhat from the strict interpretation of the rule.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not going to make any contrast between the practice followed this afternoon and the practice that has obtained in former years. I think the minister was very generous in answering all questions and giving all the information he had this afternoon, and I think he will agree with the leader of the opposition and with the last speaker, that time is saved by allowing a certain amount of latitude, so long as discussion is kept within reasonable bounds. I think the minister will agree that this has been the practice. Hon. members will recollect that, whenever public buildings, in Ontario or any other province, have been under consideration, in recent years at any rate, any hon. member who felt that some particular building had been unjustifiably omitted from the estimates has been allowed to point out the fact and to air his grievance. Of course, it seldom occurred under the late

administration that anyone had a justifiable grievance to air. But the practice has been to allow fairly wide latitude. I believe, Mr. Chairman, with great respect to yourself, that time would be saved if objection were not taken to everything that might not appear to be strictly within the rules.


Mr. MANION:: In this quiet, friendly
atmosphere I wish to say something with which I think the whole committee will agree. My hon. friend and colleague will allow me to remind the committee and himself of one important matter which I have been bringing up in this house for many years. On many occasions I directed the attention of my hon. friend opposite, when he was minister, to the importance of the suggestion which I am about to renew, although I must confess I did so hopelessly. I refer to the question of the ventilation of this chamber. In common with many other hon. members now present, I have sat in this chamber for years-I have been here ever since the reconstruction of this building-and every summer I have had the same fault to find with the chamber. We swelter here simply because of the stubborn, I had almost said stupid, attitude of some engineers who have insisted upon leaving this chamber as it is. As I pointed out to the previous Minister of Public Works and to his predecessor as well, there are ways of making this chamber tolerable. At present it is not comfortable either in winter or in summer.


An hon. MEMBER:: Nor sanitary.


Robert James Manion: Well, I am not going to
say that. But certainly it is not comfortable. It is too hot in summer, and it is also too hot in winter when the temperature could easily be regulated. I submit that this could be converted into a perfectly comfortable chamber. At the present time, however, there is not a room or a corridor in the whole building that is so hot. I urge now the importance of this matter, speaking not as Minister of Railways but as a doctor who in the old days knew something about sanitation and ventilation. This chamber is constructed pretty much on the principle of a cathedral, and if the upper windows were opened we might get some fresh air. I know the present minister is a gentleman of an intelligent and conciliatory type, and I have no doubt he will get his officers to do something about it. I suggest that the upper windows be opened so as to permit the hot air to escape-and I hasten to add that I am not for a moment making any rude insinuation with regard to any of the speeches

Supply-Public Works
delivered here. I am merely suggesting that we allow the warm air, such as naturally rises in any building in which there is a congregation or an assembly, to escape, so that we might be saved the torture of a sort of Turkish bath in the chamber. I do not want to delay my colleague's estimates, but I do suggest, in all earnestness, that something be done to make the chamber comfortable. It is anything but comfortable at any time. Frankly, we have not had a ventilation system in this chamber worth a hoot.


Peter John Veniot: I would suggest that it
might be wise for the minister to examine the ventilation system in the grill room of the Chateau Laurier. There is no better ventilation in the dominion than there is in that grill room.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I wish to thank hon.
members for their remarks and to assure them that, if I appear to apply the rules rigidly, I am merely trying my best to do my duty. I shall be grateful for any suggestions from the committee, but I am bound by standing order 58. However, when it is evident that there is no objection on the part of the committee, I allow the widest latitude.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In the spirit
in which you have received the remarks of the committee, Mr. Chairman, may I submit that if you will give a broad interpretation to the word "item" we shall meet what I believe to be the desire of the committee generally. Section 2 of standing order 58 reads:
Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
We are now on item 210, which is under the heading "miscellaneous." If the opposition wished to take up time, they might ask that every one of the different sub-items under the head of "miscellaneous" be called and voted upon separately. We might be prepared, however, having looked over the estimate, to vote item 210 as a whole, if there were a broad interpretation of the term " miscellaneous," which would afford hon. members an opportunity of discussing such matters as they have not been able so far to take up. We are now on "public works- chargeable to income," and if we could take up these various matters by provinces there would be little difficulty in the way of violation of the rule on account of the discussion being carried too far. With this general understanding I believe we ought to make better headway.


James Shaver Woodsworth: In connection with the item, "national monument on Connaught place," what expenditures were made last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The original
amount of the contract was 8135,000, and that was added to for two additional figures costing $10,000. This makes a total of $145,000. There has been paid on this contract, to March 31, 1931, the sum of $94,500, so that the amount to complete the contract in 1931-32 is $50,500-say $50,000.


James Shaver Woodsworth: If there is a contract, I suppose we must go through with it. But with poor unemployed soldiers in the country, I do not think we shall need many monuments for a while.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract
was entered into some years ago under circumstances which I think thoroughly warranted it. The monument will be very creditable to the country, and when the work is complete, and these hard times are past,
I think my hon. friend will approve of it.


Peter John Veniot: Under the item "authorized by statute", are those the usual amounts voted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those are subsidies.


Mr. REID:: Before this item passes, I
should like to discuss a little matter with the Minister of Public Works, under the item: "Engineering branch-salaries of engineers".
I would ask the indulgence of the committee because it may appear that I am straying from the subject. I would have brought this matter to the attention of the minister much sooner, but I had not the information that I now have. It may seem that I shall be stretching the point a little, but I am keeping in mind the engineering branch and around that I shall try to centre my remarks.
On June 1, I put some questions on the order paper as follows:
1.	Have any of the contracts which were let last year in connection with the protection work on the Fraser river been subsequently sublet by the original contractors?
2.	If so, what are the names of the subcontractors and what portion or portions of the contract work have been sublet?
3.	Was permission granted to the said contractors before any of the work was sublet?
4.	If so, by whom was permission granted, and what was the date of such authorization?
5.	What are the names of the contractors who have sublet any of the original contracts?
The answer which the Minister of Public Works gave to that was:
No information.
Supply-Public Works

I believe I have considerable information and I should like to lay it before him because I consider it to be of a very serious nature. In fact, before I have finished my remarks I shall ask that an inquiry be held into the whole matter, so grave are the charges made in regard to some of the work being done on the Fraser river.
On September 30, 1930, a contract was let on the Fraser river for some $350,000 to the Jaynes Construction Company for work on the south jetty, Fraser river, at Steveston. They started out using a high line to place the rock there. That system failed. They subsequently sublet the work to the Kennedy Construction Company. According to the minister's reply to my question, he has no information that that work had been sublet. The information I have is that the Jaynes Construction Company is off the job entirely and that the subcontractors have undertaken it. They tried to do the work with a steam shovel, and the steam shovel failed. They then employed men, and the information which I have under my hand is that hand work was very necessary in the placing of this heavy rock. Trouble arose regarding the subcontractors having obtained this contract at a low price, figuring they could use a steam shovel and would not be compelled to employ men, but they were forced to employ men owing to the strict supervision of the work, and they also attempted to beat the men, if I may use that expression, out of some of their money. Mr. Harrison of the Labour department was called out there in an endeavour to settle this dispute. Some correction may probably be necessary before I am through, and, if so, I would be glad if the minister would make it. But the information that I have is that word was sent to Ottawa recommending that these men be paid one hour extra from September 30, 1930, up to the spring of this year. They have been paid only from January 12 or a period of three months, and they still lack three months' back pay. This subcontractor and the Jaynes Construction Company are the only companies that have tried to diverge from established practice on the river: that is, when men have to be taken out to the work and have to wait on rock coming, they are paid a certain amount for time going back and forth and waiting on the rock arriving. That has been the practice that has been followed by nearly all companies with the exception of these two.
I understand now that the shovel is again being put into use and that the men have been laid off. This is serious enough during 
these times, but the recommendation of the engineer or superintendent in charge was that this work could be done far better and the rock placed to better advantage by hand, the rock being what is termed "one-man size rock". The subcontractor, however, has taken the contract from the original contractor at such a low price that, unless he uses a steam shovel, he is not going to break even or make any money, and so he wants to use a steam shovel in preference to the men.
I have three complaints. The first is that the contractor had no right to sublet the contract without the minister's knowledge or sanction, because so much money is involved and the work is of such importance. I am informed that the original contractors have not appeared on the job since the work was sublet. My complaint is that the contract should not have been allowed to be sublet without the minister's permission. My second complaint is that these men ought to receive the extra back pay from September, 1930. My third complaint is this: that the subcontractor took the job at too low a figure is no reason why the steam shovel should be allowed to operate, and besides, the work can be done to better advantage by hand. That was the recommendation of the superintendent in charge, and the information I have, whether it be right or wrong, is that that recommendation was also sent by the district engineer to the department some time during this spring.
These are three charges, and I think they are serious enough to warrant an inquiry. This is a large contract. Not only are the rights of the men involved, but the work is so important to the Fraser river that I think the whole scheme should be looked into with a view of seeing what is going on there. The minister says that he has no information in connection with this matter. I may tell him I have been besieged with letters and telegrams. Only to-day I received a telegram from the council who are up in arms in regard to the matter, and they say they are sending me a file containing information. I have a good deal of correspondence from others and from the men concerned, and I would ask the minister to have an inquiry made into the whole matter, namely, the subcontract, the men's wages, and the question of the steam shovel.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The allegations
of my hon. friend are serious enough to warrant an investigation and careful consideration. We have not been asked to sanction any assignment of the contract, and therefore

Supply-Public Works
the matter has not been brought to our attention, neither has my hon. friend until this time brought to my attention the information which he has on his file.


Thomas Reid: I got it only this morning.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Otherwise I
might have been able to investigate the matter and give him more information. I want, however, to assure him that the chief engineer is very much interested in the work on the Fraser river; he realizes the importance of it; he has made a special study of conditions there, and we are following up very closely what has been done, with a view to securing the best result. I am not sure that we can dictate to a contractor whether he shall employ men or machinery so long as he does the work properly within the specifications and to the satisfaction of our engineer. Desirable though it might be, from the standpoint of relieving unemployment, to have the work done by hand instead of by machinery, so long as the work is properly done we have no control over the means employed, because probably the work can be done by the contractor more cheaply by machinery than by hand. But all these matters will be referred to the chief engineer who will check and follow them up, and if there are any conditions that require remedying, they will be attended to.


Mr. BARBER:: When was the contract
let?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: September, 1930.


Thomas Reid: Has the minister any information whether the district engineer at any time since the work started recommended that men be used instead of the steam shovel? These' allegations have been made to me in perfectly good faith and I should like to know whether they are correct or not. The allegation that has been made to me is that the district engineer at some time between September and the present time recommended that the use of the steam shovel be discontinued.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand from the chief engineer that some representations were made in connection with the steam shovel, that it was discontinued, and that a strike followed. I do not know what happened after that. May I say that if my hon. friend has information of this kind coming to him from time to time and will come to the office, he will get the information he requires more readily and more completely than I am able to give it here on the spur of the moment.


Thomas Reid: I realize that, and in fairness let me say that I should have been only too pleased to come to the office had I had the information earlier, but I had to send back for it and it reached me only very recently. Another point that I should like cleared up is with regard to the men's wages. Has any recommendation been made by the Department of Labour that the men's wages be made retroactive to September, 1930?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no information on that subject. It is a matter for the Department of Labour.


Thomas Reid: I am informed that the first report of the Minister of Labour was that the men's wages be made retroactive to September of last year and up until the strike took place.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that any recommendations from the Department of Labour that are calculated to do justice to the men will be enforced by the Public Works department.


Thomas Reid: May I have the assurance from the minister that a full inquiry will be made regarding this sub-contract and how the work is being carried out, and that the question of wages will also be looked into?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall ask the chief engineer to make inquiries and see what should be done.


Peter Heenan: We had a very full discussion this afternoon with respect to the fair wage and the eight hour day clauses pertaining to public contracts, after which the minister very rightly acceded to the representations made and promised that the men would receive their back pay in accordance with that particular contract. As I left the chamber, a representative of these labour men who was sitting in the gallery told me that he had knowledge of the fact that the contractor had intimated to the men that if they insisted upon urging that their rightful wages be paid they would be discriminated against, that any of them not now working would not be reemployed, and that any of them working would be dismissed. The point I want to make, and I am sure the committee will agree with me, is this, that it is about time the parliament of Canada put its stamp of disapproval upon any contractor doing business with the government of Canada who would undertake in any way, shape or form to intimidate the men on his job because they insist upon their rights. I draw this to the attention of the minister at this time because I think if there is no other recourse the

Supply-Public Works
minister and the government would be perfectly in order in advising any contractor who would take such high-handed action that no more public contracts would be granted to him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that we have no sympathy with any practices of that sort. I am not aware that anything of that kind has occurred.


Mr. BRADETTE:: In the spring of 1929.,
in the Porcupine district, between South Porcupine and Golden City, there was quite a flood on the Porcupine river. In conjunction with the provincial government officers some of the federal engineers made inquiry into the situation and some thousands of dollars was spent in 1929 to remedy the situation, which had caused quite a lot of damage to some of the people along that stream. I believe that the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works in the month of June sent a report to the department recommending that $700 be spent for the purpose of removing some large boulders from the first rapids of the Porcupine river. Luckily we had no floods this spring, but a flood situation may recur in the fall or later. For reasons absolutely unknown to me and to the people of that district, not a cent of that proposed expenditure of $700 was spent last year. I trust that the department will find it possible this year to remove those boulders which are really a menace, I will not say to navigation, but in regard to causing floods such as we have had in the past. I hope that the minister will receive these representations in the same spirit in which I make them. In 1930 when money was spent in that section of the country nobody could complain that there was any political interference with that expenditure. Very little public money has ever been spent in northern Ontario. I believe that this expenditure which I am now urging should be made at this time of the year, because later in the fall we may have to face a flood situation which we are not likely to have in the height of the summer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will take the
suggestions of my hon. friend into consideration, and if circumstances will permit and funds warrant, we will see what can be done to relieve the situation.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The funds were available last year, but I do not believe there is any need of any special fund. This is an urgent work and it would be possible for the department to go ahead and do it this year. It is only a small item, but it is very im-
portant to that section of the country. If you will look over the estimates you will find that not a single dollar is being spent for public works in my riding or in the riding of my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If I am correctly informed, there was no specific appropriation for this work last year. The cost would have to be borne out of the general vote. As to my hon. friend's complaint that no money is being expended in his constituency and in others, a good many of my friends here are making the same complaint this year, and have done so in years gone by. I think my hon. friend has had a public building recently.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That is no answer to
my question. Surely the minister does not insinuate that because a small town of 14,000 people has got a public building, we are getting more than our share.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman said that no public money had been spent in his constituency.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The information I
gathered last year was that this expenditure I am urging could be made out of the appropriation for dredging. I want to be fair, as I know the minister does. I understand that he is trying to curtail expenditure in his department, but the fact remains that there is a menace of a flood situation in that section which could easily be removed by the expenditure of a very small sum of money.
I hope, therefore, that the government will find it possible to make the expenditure this year.


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: I have requested the chief engineer to look into it and see if provision can be made for it, and if possible it will be taken care of.


Abraham Albert Heaps: With reference to the item of $100,000 for the national gallery of Canada, last year I tried to persuade the then Minister of Public Works to provide more facilities for the. public to visit the gallery and museum, but I do not think I was very successful in my efforts. I understand that the present hours at which the gallery and museum are open to the public are from nine or ten in the morning until six in the evening.
I do not know whether that statement is correct, but it is not veiy far out. The whole purpose for which a gallery and museum are erected and maintained is lost when we do not give the general public an opportunity to

Supply-Public Works
visit the building. I have been there once or twice during the hours of the day, and with the exception of the policemen on duty there was hardly a soul in the whole building. I think we should follow the practice of opening the building a little later in the morning, and keeping it open until, say, nine at night, in order to give the great body of our citizens and visitors to the city the opportunity to inspect the works of art and other exhibits; for the public should get something out of the vast amount of money that has been spent on the very valuable collection at the museum. Better facilities should be afforded to the general public for visiting the building, and I can think of no good reason why it should not be kept open four or five nights a week until about nine o'clock, with the exception of the summer months. During the winter occasional social functions are held at night, when a limited number of people are allowed to inspect the recent additions to the art treasures. Although I agree that these occasional social functions during the winter are desirable, it would also be a good thing to have the building open for inspection on winter evenings for the benefit of the general public.
Further, I should like to see the exhibits in the national museum utilized to a greater extent than they are at the present time, and to that end, I think the department should consider the advisability of arranging a travelling exhibit so that the people in the towns and cities other than Ottawa, or areas where there are facilities for exhibition, may have an opportunity of seeing at least many of the works of art housed in the national gallery. It should not involve a large expenditure to do this, and I am quite sure other cities and towns in the dominion would be only too pleased to undertake the care of these treasures. I suggest that they be sent from Halifax right through to Victoria. I have no doubt that such action would be deeply appreciated by the people in all parts of the dominion.
I make only those two suggestions: First, that greater facilities should be given to the people of Ottawa to visit the institution, and secondly, that serious consideration be given to the question of a travelling exhibit of treasures of the art gallery.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree with the hon. member that the measure of value of the art gallery is the extent to which it is made accessible to and used by the public. My hon. friend undoubtedly knows that the gallery is administered by a board of trustees who carefully consider the policies and programs best
calculated to make the gallery available to the Canadian public. I understand that from time to time the trustees have made loan exhibits along the lines mentioned by my hon. friend.
Concerning the visiting hours, I have some information before me. The national gallery exhibition halls are open to the public every week day in the year from 10 a.m. to 5 p,m., all holidays included with the exception of Christmas day. On Sundays the gallery is open in the afternoons from 2 o'clock until 5 o'clock. The experiment of keeping the institution open in the evenings until 10 p.m., except in the summer months, is being tried. Thus far the evening attendance has never exceeded 10 per cent of the day attendance, but the intention is to continue the experiment next autumn. I have received this information from the trustees.
May I say that the trustees will be informed of the suggestions by my hon. friend, and I am sure they will welcome any worth while suggestions and adopt any programs that appear to be calculated to make the operation of the gallery more effective and more accessible to the public.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If the experiment of keeping the gallery open until 10 p.m. is being tried I think it should be made known. I do not think the general public is aware that that is being done. Probably it was not patronized because there was no public notice of the hours when visiting would be allowed. I should be pleased if the minister would place before the proper authorities the question of loan exhibits to the municipalities in the various parts of the dominion.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will see that the trustees are made aware of my hon. friend's suggestions.


Wilfred Hanbury: Can the minister give the committee any information as to the number of temporary employees in the Department of Public Works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would suggest to my hon. friend that we might discuss that matter when the items of civil government are under consideration.


Thomas Merritt Cayley: Coming back to the national gallery, may I ask how the 8100,000 was spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount of 8100,000 was requested by the board of trustees to provide for the operation and maintenance of workshops, supplies, upkeep of premises, purchase of works of art, management expenses, and the usua' travelling
Supply-Public Works

scholarship of the National Gallery of Canada for the fiscal year 1931-32. If my hon. friend wishes, I shall enumerate the different items of expenditure for the year 1930-31. The works of art purchased were valued at $105,560; salaries, $7,040; general maintenance, including exhibition work in Canada and reproduction of pictures for schools, $17,400, making a total for that year of $130,000.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would ask
that the committee now revert to item 194 of the estimates.
Harbours and rivers-Prince Edward Island, $50,500.


Mr. MacLEAN:: When this item was discussed on a previous occasion the minister was good enough to allow it to stand, with the promise that he would bring down certain information. The information is now before us, and I think it bears out fully the contention we made at that time, namely, that the contract in question had actually been given to a gentleman who had never submitted a tender. In this connection I do not wish to deal harshly with the minister, because the unfortunate circumstance is no fault of his. I think however the fault is that of his good friend down in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, who advised him in this matter and requested that instead of the contract being left with Mr. Maynard, the tenderer to whom it was transferred by Mr. Campbell, it be given to a man who had not submitted a tender. Possibly it is all right to give Mr. Downing the contract, but I would ask the minister to remember that there are other pebbles on the beach down in Prince Edward Island besides Mr. Downing. There were a-number of good Conservative contractors who would have welcomed a chance to tender for this work. If my good friend the minister could not see his way clear to give the contract to one of the legal tenderers, I think in all fairness to the public, and also to his own department and to lift it above suspicion, he should have called for new tenders. If he found it impossible to allow a legal tenderer to get the contract just because he happened to be a Liberal, I think in justice to the other Conservative contractors in the province he should have called for new tenders. These papers were brought down on May 5th. I find there is a letter dated April 2nd from the department to Mr. * Downing requesting him to sign a contract, but up to that time he had not done so, and there is nothing on the file produced to show that he ever did sign a contract.

I would point out that his vote was chargeable to the supplementary estimates of 1930, and my contention is that as these estimates lapsed on the 31st of March, 1930, the public works department could not enter into a contract with Mr. Downing in April of this year. I believe that as yet no contract has been entered into with Mr. Downing. Indeed I should be surprised to learn that they did enter into a contract after the 31st day of March, when, as I say, these estimates lapsed. Mr. Campbell was notified that 'the only way in which he could avoid forfeiting his deposit cheque was to have someone take over the contract. By the way, I have heard it stated in the corridors of this building, and I have seen it reported in the newspapers in Prince Edward Island, that I had requested that the contract be transferred to Mr. Maynard. I can assure my hon. friends opposite that they can find no telegram or letter from me making any such suggestion. All I did was to telegraph the department to return Mr. Campbell his cheque after the contract had been transferred to Mr. Maynard by the department. This is the telegram of August 5, 1930, from the Deputy Minister of Public Works to myself :
Department can allow Campbell to withdraw tender railway wharf, Summerside, only provided deposit is forfeited or whatever portion thereof necessary to make up amount of next lowest tender, which is $7,472.50 if second tenderer now willing to take contract at price of his bid.
The second tenderer, Mr. Maynard, did take the contract at the price of Mr. Campbell's bid, and sent his deposit cheque. That cheque was received by the department and sent over to the finance department on August 21 Mr. Campbell was certainly bound to the department when he put up his deposit cheque. That being so, the department in turn was bound to Mr. Campbell. All that happened was this: Air. Campbell withdrew, Mr. Maynard stepped into Mr. Campbell's shoes and put up the deposit cheque as requested by the department. Then he became bound to the department, and in turn the department became bound to him. I think this is proved by the following letter of August 21, 1930, which was sent by the chief accountant of the public works department to the Deputy Minister of Finance:
On 31st July last, amongst other security cheques transmitted to your department, there was one amounting to $738, given by Mr. J. E. Campbell, as security for a contract for the reconstruction of the railway wharf at Summer-side, Prince Edward Island. Since that date, for good and sufficient reasons-

Supply-Public Works
I wish the minister would listen to these
words:
Since that date, for good and sufficient reasons, it has been decided that Mr. Campbell should be permitted to transfer his contract in this matter to Mr. W. R. Maynard. Mr. Maynard has now put up a security deposit for the same amount, which is enclosed herein.
If there is anything which closes a bargain between man and man certainly that conclusively closed the deal with Mr. Maynard. The accountant requested the Deputy Minister of Einance to return Mr. Campbell's cheque. That cheque was thereupon returned to the accountant and forwarded by him to Mr. Campbell. Later on this matter was referred to council. I do not think that full information was given 'to council at the time, otherwise I do not believe they would have acted as they did. Apparently before this the matter had been referred to the solicitor of the department, because they wished to be sure they were preceding within the four corners of the a.ct. The departmental solicitor gave his opinion in this letter of September 4, 1930:
In connection with this I would draw your attention to the clause in the tender reading as follows:
The security cheque or bonds will be forfeited if the person or persons tendering refuse to enter into a contract when called upon to do so.
Then he continues:
As contractual relationship is established by offer and acceptance, I submit that in this case Mr. Campbell was bound by his offer as represented by his tender and that from that time the Crown had option of,
(a)	Insisting upon the specific performance of the contract, or
(b)	Holding Mr. Campbell's security deposit and arranging for a new contract.
What they did was to allow Mr. Campbell to arrange wiith the second tenderer. That is also pointed out in this telegram sent to Mr. J. F. Arnett by the minister himself on September 4:
Re building portion railway wharf Summer-side. Campbell arranged with next lowest tenderer W. R. Maynard, Northam, Prince Edward Island, to take over his contract at Campbell's price, namely $7,380. Maynard sent cheque for deposit required, namely $738. and Campbell's cheque was returned. If H. M. Downing whom you sugest -will forward marked cheque for $738 department will recommend contract be made with him.
Now, in fairness to everyone concerned in this matter, I would have no objection in the world to Mr. Downing getting the contract if he had been a regular tenderer. But I submit, Mr. Chairman, that it was absolutely unfair for the department to go outside of the four regular tenderers and give the contract to a man who never had tendered. I appeal to the minister in order that he may lift his department above suspicion and put the country at rest regarding the matter, that if he cannot see his way clear to award the contract to W. R. Maynard-to whom in all fairness it should be awarded-then the least he can do is to call for new tenders.


Peter John Veniot: Has the work been started?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: My information is that
the work has not been started. I know the minister will state that Mr. Campbell offered to transfer this contract to Mr. Downing. I wired Mr. Campbell when this matter was up previously, asking if he ever offered to transfer this contract to Mr. Downing. He replied:
Do not remember suggesting Downing to take over contract. How could I when I did not have the arranging of same?
That proves conclusively that Campbell never offered to transfer the contract to Downing; Campbell was completely out of the picture previous to that date and Maynard had taken over the contract at Campbell's figures. He had forwarded his deposit cheque to the department; it had been accepted and forwarded to the Department of Finance. The Department of Public Works returned Campbell's cheque and released him from all obligations, and my contention is that if Campbell -was bound, Maynard was also bound; if Campbell or Maynard were bound to the department, then in all fairness as between man and man the department also were bound to Campbell or Maynard. They admit that they were bound to Campbell, and they were a party to the transfer of the contract to Maynard, so I think Maynard was equally bound.
This matter was referred to council on September 4, but I do not believe the department gave full information to council in connection with the transfer of the contract from Campbell to Maynard. I find no mention in this order in council of Mr. Maynard. An order in council was passed on August 5, 1930, accepting the lowest tender. Mr. Campbell was notified of the acceptance of his tender, and he subsequently advised the department that he wished to be relieved. Apparently that was the information given to council by the department. I have not a copy of the letter written by the department to council asking that this order in council be passed, but I think if they had stated that Mr. Maynard had taken over the contract from Mr. Campbell, council would not have passed this order in council awarding the contract to Mr. Downing.
Supply-Public Works

I do not know whether or not I have made myself clear, but all I ask at the present time, in all fairness, is that the minister advertise for new tenders. He should give the contract to Mr. Maynard; there is absolutely no reason in the world why that should not be done. Mr. Maynard deposited his cheque in good faith, as he was requested to do by the department. Mr. Downing never submitted a tender, and it is absolutely unfair and completely destroys the tender system of this country if the Department of Public Works or any other department of government, after getting the lowest of a number of tenders, is to go outside and ask for private bids from people who never tendered at all.
In conclusion I should like first to point out that contracts for over $5,000 must be let by public tender. In this case that was not done; the minister himself acknowledges that Mr. Downing never submitted a tender. In the second place the lowest tender must be accepted. In this case, after the lowest tender was accepted, it was used by the department to get a bid from an outsider who did not tender. In the third place, this money was voted in the supplementary estimates of 1930. Those estimates had lapsed, and I submit the department could not legally enter into a contract in connection with which the money voted had lapsed. A contract cannot be entered into legally until the money is voted or revoted. This money has not been revoted, and the contract was not signed on May 5, when these papers were brought down. In addition, when the case was referred to council, as I.say the facts were not all given. It was not mentioned that Campbell had transferred his tender to Mr. Maynard. I also submit that Mr. Downing never submitted a contract and that when Maynard asked the department to send back his deposit cheque they held it until February of this year, when they wrote and stated it was an oversight that the cheque had not been returned sooner.
It is my contention that an agreement was entered into between Mr. Maynard and the department which should be carried out, and I say the department had no right to enter into a contract with Downing. Maynard was a bona fide tenderer; he fulfilled his part of the obligation and did everything the department asked him to do. I do not think any hon. member of this house will rise in his place and say Maj'nard was treated fairly. All I am asking is a fair deal, and I trust the minister will give it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In reference
to what the hon. member for Prince has been

stating, my attention has been directed to representations which appeared in the press of Prince Edward Island in reference to my remarks the other evening in connection with this matter. Apparently the inference was drawn that in some way I was reflecting upon the hon. member for Prince when I said I thought an unnecessary amount of time had been taken up in discussing the item. I think the text of my remarks will show that my criticism was directed against the minister. All that was being asked for was the production of papers, and I could not understand why an hour should be taken up in deciding whether or not those papers should be brought down. I just want to make that point clear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter John Veniot: No, it is not carried; I
want some information from the minister first. Would the minister tell the committee when the contract was sent to Mr. Downing to be signed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: October 8, 1930.


Peter John Veniot: Did he sign the contract
and return it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract
has been signed and returned.


Peter John Veniot: When?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
exactly, but we have the signed contract. It is not unusual for a contractor to delay in returning his duplicate of the contract.


Peter John Veniot: But it is unusual for a
contractor to delay five months in returning the contract. On March 20, 1931, this contractor had not returned the signed contract. Further, I am informed that it had not been returned by April 2. In spite of that, the department gave him an extension of. time in which to complete the work. The date for the completion of this work was extended to February 1, 1931, yet that contractor had not signed his contract though it had been in his possession for three or four months.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot say on what date he signed it; all I can say is he had not returned it. It might have been signed months before.


Peter John Veniot: On December 26 Downing
was notified by your department that he had not signed this contract, and he was asked as to the cause of the delay. On March 20, 1931, the department wrote him again, but he did not reply. In the meanwhile, the time for the completion of that work was extended,

Business of the House
without knowledge on the part of the department that the contract had been signed. They had no contract and therefore they had no right to extend the time for the completion of the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I assumed that the contract had been signed but that the formality of returning it had not been complied with.


Peter John Veniot: Neither the department nor the district engineer had been notified that it was signed.


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Peter John Veniot: You will get it carried all the sooner if you keep quiet. Will the minister tell me when that contract, signed, was received in the office?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Recently, within the last month or so.


Peter John Veniot: Then, when it lapsed on March 31, the department did not know that the contract had been accepted. The amount lapsed on March 31. How can the minister, before even this amount is voted, carry on under that contract, the amount for which had lapsed? The contract was not signed in time to make use of the money voted in 1930.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend has no right to say that the contract was not signed in time.


Peter John Veniot: I say that the contract, so far as the department is concerned, is not signed until the department knows that the signature is appended to it, and the contract is received and recorded in the department. Otherwise, the department cannot act upon it. The department prepared their estimates in the month of February. How could they put in a revote when they did not 'have a signed contract in the department and had no knowledge that the contract was signed, except the supposition that it had been signed and was being held by the contractor? There was no contract in the department. The minister prepared his estimates, with the revote, in the month of February. The old vote " lapsed on March 31. On that date he had nothing in the department to show that this man had signed the contract, and he did not get it until a few days ago. Yet he comes to the committee and asks us to vote this amount of money to be paid over to a contractor who has not a contract legally.
Mr. MaciLEAN: Never tendered.


Peter John Veniot: But even if he had tendered, the offer he made ends; it has gone by. It is no good, and therefore the minister will be perfectly justified in calling for new tenders. That is why I raised the point. He would be justified in calling for new tenders, and the department should do so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. gentleman will realize on reflection that if the contract was not signed and the contractor did not do the work, the money will not be paid to him. That is all.


Peter John Veniot: That is only a red herring.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish to say a word now in reply to my hon. friend from Prince (Mr. MacLean). The bon. gentleman will recall that this lowest tenderer was anxious to be relieved of the contract, and on August 28, when Mr. Arnett communicated with the Department of Public Works, he stated in his communication that Mr. Campbell would assign the contract if necessary. He had been in touch with Mr. Downing and was prepared to assign the contract to him. He did not care to get the contract so long as he was relieved.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The minister is absolutely wrong, becausp I have read the telegram, in which Campbell denies that he had any conference with Arnett or Downing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The telegram is
here, and the only inference from it is that Campbell had communicated with Downing.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: And I say that Campbell personally denied it asbsolutely.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in moving the adjournment of the house I desire to intimate that we shall take the estimates of .the Interior department and those of National Defence on Monday, followed by Public Works-that is, if we get into supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We all realize,
of course, that the Prime Minister must arrange the business as he thinks desirable. I hope, however, that he will not too long delay consideration of the ways and means resolutions. At the special session, as my right hon. friend remembers, matters were rushed through rapidly, and it would be helpful at this session to bring on the resolutions fairly early.
Business oj the House


Richard Bedford Bennett: As there are two or
three departments which have not yet been m supply, the purpose of proceeding on Monday is to get them into supply. I will expedite as far as possible the bringing in of the resolutions, but I desire to see that every department has been in supply so that we may call them whenever there is an opportunity.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can say that there will be no disposition to embarrass the Prime Minister in regard to any departments he wishes to take up.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That will help.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My right hon friend will remember, however, that I asked him whether we might have at an early date comparative tables of the various items in the tariff changes proposed and that he promised he would see that something of the kind was prepared.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I propose to make available to every member of the house an office consolidation of a copy of the customs tariff. When I last inquired, the comparative table was being prepared of the changes made this year in last year's tariff.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will they be
available?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am hoping they will
be available the first of the week. To-morrow will settle all that so far as I am concerned. I have not had time to deal with matters of that kind in the last few davs.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Monday will
be devoted to estimates entirely?


Richard Bedford Bennett: That was what I was
hoping to do-to get into supply those departments which have not yet been in, so that there might be no delay in taking advantage of any opportunity to call them.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Monday, June 22, 1931.