1931-05-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the second report of the select standing committee on standing orders, as follows:
Your committee have had under consideration the fifteenth report of the clerk of petitions, presented to the house on Wednesday, 20th May, together with the petition of the government of the province of Quebec; praying for the passing of an act respecting the construction of a bridge over the river St. Lawrence, between the island of Orleans and the coast of Beaupre, within the said province.
Evidence adduced before your committee shows that final approval authorizing the construction of the above named bridge was not obtained until 15t,h May. Immediately following such approval steps were taken to present

petitions to the parliament of Canada; such action, however, was effected after the expiry of the time fixed for recovering petitions in this house.
Your committee therefore recommend that standing order 92, in relation thereto, be suspended and the said petition be received.
Mr. BURY moved that the report be con-lurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That on and after May 25, next, and all subsequent Mondays till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motions for the production of papers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this notice of motion stands in my name as of May 18. In view of representations that have been made to me I would like to move that the date be changed from Monday, May 25, to Monday June 1 next, so that next Monday will be the last day for private members' legislation. Owing to the interruption of one Wednesday and the desirability of affording ample opportunity to private members I move, seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That on and after, Monday, June 1, next and all subsequent Mondays till the end of the session, government notices of motion and government orders shall have precedence over all other business except questions and notices of motion for the production of papers.
Motion as amended agreed to.



VOCATIONAL EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to-morrow to consider the following proposed resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to provide for the promotion of vocational education in Canada, and to appropriate the sum of $750,000 per annum for fifteen years for such purpose, payments to be made conditional upon agreements with the respective provincial governments.
He said:	His Excellency the Governor
General, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the favourable consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: Before the orders of the day are
called may I say that at page 1844 of Hansard I observe my colleague the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) stated last night that he had communicated certain information to the Border Cities Star and that they appeared to be satisfied with the granting of a radio licence to another applicant. As a matter of fact when that statement was made I was not present in the house. I desire to inform the chamber at this time that a representative of the Border Cities Star, Mr. H. A. Graybill, the local representative of that paper, saw me in my office in this building and objected to the licence being granted. Having ascertained when the communication was sent out to the successful applicant I did not communicate further with my colleague and he was not fully cognizant of the fact when he stated no objection had been made by the paper. Mr. Graybill has sent me a telegram reminding me of that communication. If I had been present last night I would have been able to communicate the information that he did make a protest to me accompanied, as he was at the time, by a local representative of the paper.



WORLD WHEAT CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. E. SPENCER (Battle River):: I
would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would be prepared to-day or next week to make a statement respecting the wheat conference being held in London, England?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The daily press gives a record of what transpires from day to day at the conference. At the close of each day's business the High Commissioner has sent a communication which in no sense has amplified what has appeared in the press. When the conference closes I shall be glad to give the house any information I may receive in connection with the conference.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING PROPRIETY OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS APPEARING ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Right hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):	Recently on a
matter of privilege I drew attention to the appearance on the order paper of certain questions which to my mind should not have been permitted to be placed on the records of the house. To-day one of these questions continues to appear on the order paper. It is under date May 15, and is question 23, asked by Mr. Lafleche. It is as follows:
1.	During the term of office of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, as Speaker of the House of Commons, were certain pieces of furniture, the property of the state, transported to his summer residence, at Point an Pic, Quebec?
2.	If so, what were said pieces of furniture?
3.	Has said furniture been returned?
4.	If so, at whose request?
5.	Who paid for the transportation of the said furniture?
To any one not familiar with the facts the question I have read would, I submit, leave the impression that certain furniture had been taken by the former Speaker from the House of Commons to his summer residence, had been brought back to the speaker's apartment in the city and that transportation had been paid by the state. To-day the Hon Senator Lemieux called upon me at my office and asked me to make the very positive statement that at no time was any furniture taken from the Speaker's apartment to his summer home during his term of office or at any other time, and of course that there was no transportation of furniture one way or the other at the expense of the state. If the question in the form it is put were not protected by the privileges of parliament it would constitute a libellous statement.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: It is equivalent to such.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Oh, no.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Any person
reading the question would consider it a very serious reflection upon the character of the former Speaker of the House of Commons. I do not think it should be allowed to remain on the order paper, particularly in view of the statements I am now making to the house in the name of the former Speaker as to the true facts of the case.
In the same connection, to indicate the injustice of these questions, simply as questions, I would say that yesterday a question was answered relating amongst other matters to the automobile used by the former Speaker. One would have thought from the wording of the question that the automobile used by the former Speaker had been the property of the state, whereas, as a matter of fact, the answer to the question made clear the fact that the automobile was the personal property of the Speaker himself. It was

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
purchased by the Speaker himself. Meanwhile owing to headlines in the press arising out of the question a different impression has gone abroad, one which the reply may never serve to overtake. Similarly there has been a question regarding the payment of servants of the former Speaker. The hon. Senator Lemieux advises me that before he assumed the office of Speaker he obtained from the Sergeant at Arms a memorandum with respect to the staff of His Honour the Speaker and the perquisites of the office generally and that during his term of office he acted entirely in accordance with the memorandum then given to him, a copy of which I have in my hand at the present time. As Your Honour knows in former years the residence of the Speaker was part of these houses of parliament. After the fire which destroyed the then House of Commons and incidentally the residence of the Speaker, His Honour the Speaker made use of a private residence as the residence of the Speaker, but was allowed some equivalent for service and the like. If a definite allowance were not given, certain perquisites were allowed with respect to servants and other incidentals in an attempt to equalize the position of the Speaker as it had existed formerly when the premises of the Speaker were connected immediately with the House of Commons. As regards servants employed, the then Speaker was but following the traditions of the house since we have had a parliament. It is a great shame that questions of the kind, which through what they carry in the way of innuendo reflect upon one who was three times elected speaker of this house, should be permitted to be circulated through the press, and I would ask that certainly as respects the one question which remains Your Honour give instructions that it be deleted from the records of the house.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that you or anyone else has the right to delete from the order paper of parliament any question that affects the expenditure of public moneys. One may doubt the propriety of putting the questions, but three of them touch the expenditure of public moneys. The Auditor General's report will indicate who got the moneys and what they were spent for, and the circumstances may be inquired into by the public accounts committee. It may not be desirable-and with respect to that I think perhaps there is a little difference of opinion between the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Mackenzie King) and myself-to make inquiries by way of questions as to these expenditures when the method for doing so

is provided through the public accounts committee, where it may be determined what moneys have been expended in connection with the maintenance of the Speaker's quarters and the circumstances under which they were so expended. I would certainly think that that was a matter which being in the Auditor General's report should be dealt with before the public accounts committee.
Question 23 has now been answered by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I do not think it is a proper question, for another reason altogether-that there is nobody I know of who would be in a position to answer it except the former Speaker himself, unless it be some official of the House of Commons.
In that regard it may be explained that there was some feeling in this country last year in connection with the attitude of the former Speaker of this chamber, who retained the exercise of his powers as Speaker even after he had become a senator and who participated in the campaign which culminated in the election of July 28. I can readily understand the curiosity of people, whether legitimate or not, to determine if the former Speaker, having been appointed to the upper house of this parliament, was continuing to exercise control over the expenditures of this house. That question has been seriously raised in this country, and the return that was furnished the other day indicated-there is no dispute about it-that the former Speaker of this house, now Senator Lemieux, did continue to exercise control over the expenditures of this house until the meeting of parliament in September last. Under those circumstances that answer is part of the records of parliament that he so controlled those expenditures. It is said that the statute enabled him to do so. It may be that that is the proper interpretation of it. I am not expressing any opinion at the moment. I had my attention directed to it by several correspondents who wanted to know who was Speaker of the House of Commons and how control and direction of the staff should be continued by a gentleman who had been removed from our midst and appointed to the upper chamber.
I would point out that the question in the form it is asked is not libellous. It does not insinuate or assert that public moneys have been spent; it asks if certain pieces of furniture were taken to the summer residence of the Speaker.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is untrue.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The right hon. gentleman says it is untrue. I say the question is asked; there is no assertion made that it is so.

Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The form of the third question "has said furniture been returned?" would lead anyone to assume that the furniture had been taken.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely you must read the second question with the first. I am bound to say with the right hon. gentleman that I would prefer that the question had not been there, but I do not think it is a question that can be summarily disposed of in that way. I will give the reason why-the further question, "Who paid for the transportation of the said furniture?" My right hon. friend says that that question and question No. 3 are not sufficiently inquisitorial, that they are statements rather than questions, and with that view I confess I do not wholly disagree except that the questions should be read together as a whole. I quite agree the question as a whole should be now dropped from this order paper. I feel that the third and fifth questions should be preceded by the words "if so." Those questions, in terms, are not different from the questions which appear in courts of equity on interrogatories. I certainly think that the question can properly be dropped, but I desire to say very emphatically that there is no uncertain view held by many people in this country, and I am one of them, as to how the direction of the expenditures of this house and its administration could be carried on by one who had ceased to be a Speaker and had become a senator, and who immediately after actively participated in an election campaign and made a speech, the offensiveness of which will never be forgotten by many people.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not desire to intervene in the discussion as to the propriety of this particular question, but my right hon. friend the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) having referred to certain comments which may have been made because the former Speaker continued to exercise the duties of his office after having ceased to be Speaker, I may say, in justice to Senator Lemieux that he did so after having secured the opinion, of the Deputy Minister of Justice and of the law officer of the House of Commons as to the interpretation of the statute, and I have seen both those opinions.
Mr. LaVERGNE : May I ask my hon. friend if he has forgotten the wonderful campaign which was waged in the province of Quebec against a former Speaker of this house with respect to a victrola?


Ernest Lapointe: I will not enter into a debate with my hon. friend on that.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) having on behalf of the former Speaker of the house answered the question, it perhaps had better remain on the order paper until it is called in its order, when the answer to the first question will of necessity dispose of the second, third, fourth and fifth questions. That in my view would be more desirable than to have the question removed from the order paper as if someone was ashamed of it.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Of course, I
defer to your wishes, Mr. Speaker, but I do think a question worded in this way carries with it an innuendo and should not be allowed on the order paper for that very reason. All that is desired in the way of information can be obtained by a question that does not carry any innuendo. I should rather hope that the hon. member who has asked this question (Mr. Lafleche) would take advantage of what he h'as heard to-day and request that it be immediately withdrawn.


Richard Bedford Bennett: We have not reached it yet.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is apparent that the
various sections of the question might have been worded in a different way. The first section of the question is:
During the term of office of Hon. Rodolphe Lemieux, as Speaker of the House of Commons, were certain pieces of furniture, the property of the state, transported to his summer residence, at Pointe au Pic, Quebec?
If the answer to that is " no," the answer to the other four sections is also "no," and that would be the end of the question. But since the question has not yet come on to be answered before the house in the ordinary course, I think we had better not anticipate it.



IMMIGRATION ADVERTISING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I should like to draw the attention
of the government to the fact that in the English papers advertisements are still being inserted by the Dominion government for boys and men to come to this country to be placed on farms, with free passage offered. I have quite a number of these advertisements, which I do not care to read.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think, Mr. Speaker, I can say that
these advertisements are being continued under contracts which were made by the previous administration and which as yet have not lapsed. In the one case into which I inquired I found a contract for a year,

Judges Act-Railxoay Commission
which had not been fulfilled. If the hon. gentleman will send these advertisements to the department, I will have inquiries made to ascertain if they are not in the same position.


Peter Heenan: My intention was to
direct the attention of the government to the fact so that if there were any contracts which had been entered into by any government, they could carry out their policy and cancel those contracts.



RAILWAY COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 40 to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Annuity to judge appointed as chief commissioner or assistant chief commissioner of railway board.
Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice if an appointment will be made in the near future to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Mr. Vien. The province of Quebec is not represented on the board at the present time. I have had urgent letters from my constituents in regard to this matter, and I think an appointment should be made very soon.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: I am not personally
familiar with the situation in that respect, since it comes under the Department of Railways and Canals. This amendment is merely to provide for the position of chief commissioner or assistant chief commissioner, when a judge is appointed to one of those offices. I understand, though, that my hon. friend will not have long to wait until an announcement is made that all the vacancies are filled.


Charles Marcil: I make the request because Mr. Vien was assistant chief commissioner of the board, and I think some appointment should be made in the very near future.


Ernest Lapointe: I am rather in favour of this bill, but I would ask my hon. friend if some similar provision did not exist previously. I understand that when Mr. Justice Killam was made chief commissioner there was some arrangement by virtue of which he was granted his pension after the expiration of his term.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it has been done in the past by special vote. The idea of this amendment was 'to make at a permanent arrangement, because I think it is realized that the position of chairman of the board is one that an outstanding judge could fill with great satisfaction, and it would be rather a hardship on the judge to ask him to leave the bench and forego his pension which would be the situation without this legislation.


Mr. POWER:: I pointed out to the minister previously that provision had been made for a similar case in the Pension Act. Is this amendment couched in similar terms?


Hugh Guthrie: I think so.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.



APPEAL FROM CHAIRMAN'S RULING

[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Mont-magny):	Before	going into committee of
supply, Mr. Speaker, I wish to state as a matter of privilege that last night in the committee of supply a point of order was raised by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), on which point I ruled. From that ruling an appeal to the house wfis taken by the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). I have put my ruling in writing, and I now hand it to you, Mr. Speaker.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: This is not a question
of privilege. When the house rises at eleven o'clock, the business then being transacted stands at that point, to be resumed at the next sitting. When eleven o'clock came the chairman of committees was in the act of reporting an appeal from his decision, which could not be taken up at that time. If it is desired by the right hon. gentleman who made the appeal that we go on with it, we shall proceed, otherwise it might be dropped. I presume from the fact that the deputy speaker has presented his ruling in writing that it is the desire of the right hon. member to proceed with the appeal.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you would read to the house just in what form the matter is stated.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The written ruling is as
follows:
Whilst the committee of supply was considering the following resolution:
162: Hudson Bay railway and terminals- construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost at $2,500 (revote, $1,375,000), $6,000,000.
Mr. Mackenzie (Vancouver) introduced in the debate the question of the construction of railway branches to the Pacific coast by a Peace River outlet.

Appeal from Chairman's Riding
The chairman ruled the discussion out of order as irrevelant under section 2, standing order 58, which reads as follows:
(2) Speeches in committee of the whole house must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration.
From this ruling Mr. Mackenzie King appeals to the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With all deference, I am not quite sure that, as drafted, the statement expresses what was primarily the point in my mind. When the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), spoke on the question of the Peace River outlet, he distinctly stated that his reason for so doing was that it was part-


Hugh Guthrie: Let us settle this matter, Mr. Speaker. There is an appeal to Your Honour and there is no discussion allowed. The question must be put without discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am rising as a matter of right with respect to the interpretation which the chairman has put upon the point in appeal.


Hugh Guthrie: That, I submit, should
be done if at all in the committee.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The matter has been referred by the chairman to the Speaker, whose duty it is to submit it to the house in the language reported to him, and to put the question whether the decision of the chairman shall be confirmed.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: But I submit, Mr. Speaker, that as submitted to you the language of the reference does not cover the point against which the appeal was made.
Mr. LaVERGNE: I do not wish to contradict my right hon. friend, but if he looks at Hansard he will see what transpired.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On a question of privilege I have the right to state to His Honour the Speaker whether or not, in my opinion, the statement as drafted by the Deputy Speaker in good faith has caught the significance of the objection I raised.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	The words of Hansard
are there.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The words of Hansard will bear me out.


Hugh Guthrie: Hansard is our guide and the Speaker must decide according to the record. If His Honour wishes to take time to examine Hansard, well and good; the record is there.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I must rule the question
not debatable. I was in doubt only as to whether the house wished to go on with the appeal. If it does, I will put the question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I suggest that it might be well for Your Honour to examine Hansard before the question is put. I do not think that the language of the statement as drafted does express the real point at issue when the objection was raised.


Charles Gavan Power: May I suggest, with all
deference to Your Honour, that the Deputy Speaker, the chairman of committees, should now return to the chair and there, from his seat, as chairman of committees, submit the reference in order that it may be decided by the committee whether or not the reference so submitted was the one which it was proposed to place before Your Honour. That, it seems to me, would be the advisable course to follow.
Mr. LaVERGNE: It was my duty to put the question in writing the moment it was submitted.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest that the Deputy
Speaker might submit the reference to the committee with a view to ascertaining from the committee whether that reference was the one on which it was desired to appeal.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The authority is quite
clear:
From the chairman's decision no appeal should be made to the Speaker.
In case of an appeal to the house, it is the duty of the chairman to leave the chair immediately and report in writing the point of order which he has decided. The Speaker must then submit the matter to the determination of the house in language reported to him and put the question, "That the decision of the chairman be confirmed." No discussion is allowed on the appeal. Should the Speaker be absent, the chairman takes the chair of the house and another member takes the chair of the committee for the instant and makes the report of appeal to the Acting Speaker, who will at once submit the question to the house for its decision.
In my opinion, it is not competent for the Speaker to go behind the question as submitted to him by the chairman of committees. I will now put the question: Is it the pleasure of the house that the decision of the chairman be confirmed?	**


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: In my opinion the ayes have it.
Decision of the chairman confirmed.



DEPARTMENT OF RAILWAYS AND CANALS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
Hudson Bay railway and terminals: construction and betterments, including E. B. Jost at $2,500 (revote, $1,375,000), $6,000,000.
Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: When the committee adjourned last evening I was asking the Minister of Railways a question. Before I supported this item of $6,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway and terminals, which involves a national system of transportation I wanted to know whether he would indicate to the house what the policy of the administration will be in regard to the Peace River outlet.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: The chairman has already ruled that question out of order.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I am not discussing it; I am merely asking a question.


Robert James Manion: I am willing to answer the question, but I understood the chairman to have ruled the whole discussion out of order.


The CHAIRMAN:: The house has sustained my decision, whether it is sound or not.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Two or three times the minister has intimated that he would be prepared to discuss the Peace River outlet when we came to the railway estimates. We are now considering the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals, and I submit that somewhere in these estimates there ought to be some item in relation to which we might find it possible to discuss the Peace River outlet. Inasmuch as the discussion of the Peace River outlet, which in our opinion has a bearing upon this item now before the committee, has been ruled out of order, will the minister indicate where, in these estimates, an opportunity will be afforded to proceed with that discussion.


Robert James Manion: The question will come up when the estimates of the Canadian National Railways are under consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should the discussion stand until then? This railway might be built by the government as a national undertaking, just as it was said the Mafeking railway would be built. I submit again that there ought to be some item in these estimates under which it would be possible to discuss the Peace River outlet, and it should come, in my opinion, within the items presented by the minister in relation to his own department.


Robert James Manion: The estimates of the Canadian National Railways come under my department, and when they are being put through the house the question of the Peace River outlet can be discussed. The Peace

River outlet is a matter which at the present time :s being considered by the Canadian National Railways in association with the Canadian Pacific Railway. It is distinctly a railway matter. The item now before the committee is, on the other hand, of a different character; it has to do with the Hudson Bay railway and terminals. I have no objection to discussing the other question, but the ruling has been given that the Peace River outlet shall not be discussed in connection with this item. In the course of answering a question last evening in reference to the subject I was myself ruled out of order by the chairman, and naturally I do not wish to be ruled out of order again.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I understood the ruling of the chairman to be given on a point of order raised by the minister himself. Now the minister graciously intimates that he has no objection to making a statement on the situation. Do I understand, then, that he withdraws the point of order he raised last evening?


Robert James Manion: 
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I presume
the survey was made for both companies?


Robert James Manion: No, it was made by the
Canadian Pacific Railway Company.


Charles A. Stewart: Working
on their own behalf?


Robert James Manion: It was made by that company at an expenditure of some $200,000, and the company has its own suggestions in that regard.


Charles A. Stewart: I was under
the impression it was made for both companies, but my hon. friend assures me it was for the Canadian Pacific Railway alone.


Robert James Manion: A couple of years ago a
report was made by the two railways jointly, which report was tabled in this house, not by myself but by the late government. Then there was a survey made by the provincial government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That was made by the provincial government, with the two railways cooperating.


Robert James Manion: Perhaps that is so, but
at any rate it is a provincial government report, because it has never been returned to us. It is in their hands and they are dealing with it. Then there is the survey made by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company on their own behalf. The three reports have to be coordinated, if we may use that word, or brought to some common relationship before any decision can be arrived at. I think it would be talking at a loss to discuss this matter, at least until after the proposed conference is held between Sir Henry Thornton, Mr. Beatty and myself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: In view of the fact that the Canadian National Railway cooperated with the Canadian Pacific Railway and the provincial government in regard to that one survey, it should be tabled, because it involved an expenditure of federal money.


Robert James Manion: Probably it will be tabled a little later on. I have been in communication with the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Hanson) and with the hon. member for Peace
River (Mr. Kennedy) to whom I stated that I have been in touch with the provincial government but so far they have not given me a copy of the report.
I have no desire to delay my own estimates, but I would like to take up a matter raised last evening by the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell), in connection with the choosing of Port Nelson as the terminal of the Hudson Bay railway. In replying to an inquiry made by the hon. gentleman I stated that I understood that the responsibility for the choice of Port Nelson was upon both former ministers, Mr. Graham and Mr. Frank Cochrane. The hon. member contradicted me and said that he understood it was upon Mr. Cochrane alone, and without being very sure of my ground and not wishing to put Mr. Graham in wrong, I more or less subsided and agreed with him. However, since last evening I have looked up this matter and I would like to make two or three quotations from Hansard of 1912 and 1913, which will show that the responsibility was upon both these hon. gentlemen. I think it only fair to the memory of Frank Cochrane to show that the responsibility for the choice of Port Nelson was shared by Mr. Graham. I will quote only the relevant passages from Hansard, and my first quotation will be from Hansard of March 21, 1912, page 5763, as follows:
Mr. Graham: If I remember correctly, the information I had, it pointed to this-that Nelson harbour would be by far the best so far as the railway is concerned and the railway operations.
Mr. Cochrane:	Yes.
Mr. Graham: No question about that.
And Mr. Graham continues:
I prophesy that Port Nelson will be the harbour. I know that my hon. friend knows that it is a mistake to prophesy, but prophesying about harbours-well, of course, that is different.
And then Mr. Cochrane continues:
As to the port, as I have already said, I hope to be able to make a decision in a couple of months. Port Nelson as the hon. gentleman (Mr. Graham) says would be much preferable for one reason, at least-it is 85 miles shorter.
In Hansard of 1913 there are some quotations of Mr. Frank Oliver, now an officer of the railway commission, which show that he took the attitude that Churchill was the better port. I will not read these quotations, but for the information of hon. members they appear on page 10940 of Hansard of 1913. The following appears on page 10947 of Hansard of 1913:
Mr. Graham: Lest my silence might be construed that I have lost faith in this work, I
1880	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
may say that I have still faith it will be a practicable and profitable undertaking and if I had not I would not have committed the country to the expenditure.
And again:
I always favoured Nelson from the information I had in the department, and that view seems to be confirmed.
And again:
If the traffic is to assume any dimensions at all-and unless the department were satisfied it will, they would not go to the expense of having very costly terminal facilities there-if the traffic is to assume any proportions a good harbour is necessary, and from the information in the department the best harbour is to be found at Nelson-
And Mr. Graham continues:
-but it has always been my opinion that it will be open for between three and a half and four months.
I do not think I need to read any further. I am not doing this for any political reasons, but only that justice be done to both former ministers of railways, Mr. Graham and Mr. Cochrane.


Peter Heenan: Assuming that when the
national highway is built it will come under the Department of Railways and Canals, and there not being any provision in the estimates for this work, would the minister tell us at what point in the estimates or upon what item we will be permitted to discuss the matter?


Robert James Manion: So far as I know there is no item in the estimates dealing with a national highway.


Mr. RHODES:: It could be done on the
motion to go into supply.


Peter Heenan: I do not believe the minister caught correctly my remarks. Assuming that this matter will come under the minister's department as it did in former days, and there being no provision for an item, how can we discuss this matter of a national highway?


Robert James Manion: There is no item in the estimates which deals with this matter but if my hon. friend wishes to ask me a question about it I shall be pleased to answer it. If the national highway is built it will not be built by this government, but probably by the provincial governments with contribution being made by the federal government.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the committee should revert to the item covering the Hudson Bay railway.


Peter Heenan: We are not finished-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I ruled last night against the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) and I cannot allow any discussion
which is not relevant to the item.


Peter Heenan: I appreciate your authority, sir, and your intention to conduct the business of the committee according to the rules, but a discussion has taken place upon the ruling of last night after which the hon. minister very kindly got up and gave the information which the hon. member for Vancouver Centre desired.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not want to be too strict but-


Peter Heenan: I hope there is no desire to keep information from the members of the committee, because there are other ways of getting it.


Robert James Manion: May I suggest to my hon. friend-


Peter Heenan: The Minister of Railways is as anxious to see the development of a national highway as I am.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: We cannot discuss the national highway on this item.


Peter Heenan: I am not discussing it. I want to say to the Deputy Speaker of this house that he ought not to rule until someone asks for a ruling.


Robert James Manion: This item might be discussed on the miscellaneous vote.


Mr. REID:: Has the minister any information as to what the rates on grain will be from Fort Churchill to Europe?


Robert James Manion: That question has been gone into by the officers of the department and by some of the steamship officials of the Canadian National Steamships, who have met in my office. I cannot give any conclusive answer but I can say that some steamship companies have indicated that they would be willing to send ships into Fort Churchill and carry grain from there to Europe at a rate somewhat higher but not extravagantly so than the Montreal rates. But of course the whole question is made more complex by the fact that insurance enters into it to a very marked extent, because of the insurance rates were very high, it might counteract any advantage accruing from the shorter haul from the prairies via Churchill to Europe. I do not think an intelligent answer can be given to my hon. friend until later in the season when we have made arrangements perhaps for some private company to take grain via that route.

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
I may assure him that we are doing the best we can to have a private company handle the whole proposition. May I say at this point that unless some private company does this, and unless we can give a proper estimate of what the cost will be, this will not be a fair test of the port. Of course a shipment this fall will not be a fair test, but it will be the best we can do this year. Any action by the Canadian government itself in absorbing the necessary charges involved in the trial shipments would not constitute a fair test of the route. I can assure my hon. friend-perhaps that is all he wishes-that we have the matter in hand; we are working on it and we shall endeavour in plenty of time before the test is made in September, to have arrangements entered into whereby a shipment or shipments will be made from Churchill.


Thomas Reid: Does the minister think this
will be the means of diverting much of the Canadian freight that at present goes through t'he United States?


Robert James Manion: Of course, the whole question depends upon what the ultimate rates will be. If the rates are lower than the present competing rates, naturally a good deal will be diverted. If the rates should happen to be higher, it is natural that the diversion will not be great. Only time can tell what the rates will be and what the answer to my hon. friend's question will be.


Mr. GARDINER:: When Fort Churchill
was finally decided upon as a port, I understand that certain expropriation proceedings took place with regard to particular lands. Have those expropriation proceedings been completed and payments made?


Robert James Manion: It was in 1927 that expropriation proceedings against the so-called Beech property at Churchill were instituted and a test case to determine the compensation to be offered went before the Exchequer court at Winnipeg in 1928. The decision of the Exchequer court, rendered on March 24, 1929, established a value of $30 a lot. The result of that has been that to date 45 owners have accepted that amount of compensation and have given the crown title to 156 lots out of a total of 1,406 lots. We have received many protests from people who bought the lots at a much higher price when they were put upon the market by Mr. Beech and his associates, but the judgment of the Exchequer court is final and fixes the compensation at $39 a lot. When I was at Churchill last year I saw the property and I know something of real estate values or perhaps I should say,
lack of values, because I went through a boom or two myself, and I think the award of 830 a lot was very generous.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I presume the balance of the lots will be turned over to the government in due time?


Robert James Manion: I have just received a
letter from one of the owners stating that he is not willing to turn his lots over. However, they have been expropriated and the only question remaining is what compensation shall be paid the former owners. When that has been cleared up such property as is not required for Dominion public works will be handed back to the province of Manitoba as part of the crown domain.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The delay will not hold
up development of the port?


Robert James Manion: They are so far away from the port that no interference at all will be caused.


Robert Gardiner: How far away are they?


Robert James Manion: About three and a half to four miles from the docks.


Mr. HEAPS:: Towards the ocean or the
other way?


Robert James Manion: Well, the ocean is all
around. I would say the other way.


Mr. COOTE:: Does the government own
all the townsite of Churchill?


Robert James Manion: The land has all been
given back to the province of Manitoba with the exception of the Beech property, a strip along the railway running through the town, and the industrial sites on the water front. The strip. 250 feet wide, on each side of the railway, the industrial sites along the water front, a lot for the wireless and a few others, including the Beech property, required for various purposes by the government are still owned by the Dominion government, but outside of these they have all been turned over to the province.
Mr. BEAUB1EN:	Has the Beech estate
received payment for those lots?


Robert James Manion: For the lots which they
have been willing to accept settlement for on the basis of the Exchequer court award, but some of the Beech heirs have refused to accept the award, which carries interest at 5 per cent from the date of expropriation. Of course there can be no settlement with the former owners until they accept the award and give title.
1882	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Mr. SANDERSON:: Approximately how
much will it cost to complete the terminals and the road after this appropriation is expended?


Robert James Manion: This vote of 86.000.000 this year will largely complete the terminals, except perhaps 8700,000 or S800.000 that will have to be expended next year to put the finishing touches upon the works.


Frederick George Sanderson: It will be ready for
business?


Robert James Manion: It will be ready for business to a certain extent this autumn, and by the following autumn it should be complete.


Frederick George Sanderson: How much was spent on Nelson?


Robert James Manion: About 86.200,000.


Mr. McINTOSH:: How much of that
86,000,000 or more was salvaged?


Robert James Manion: I do not imagine there was much salvaged. Whatever they could float or bring into Churchill was brought, but I do not suppose it would amount to anything like half a million dollars. I am only guessing; I do not know for certain.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: As a member for a northern riding of Saskatchewan I am pleased to hear the minister is doing his best to complete the road as an operating unit, to build up the harbour facilities and to provide storage facilities at Fort Churchill for western grain and other goods. It seems to me that a very important matter and one which has been brought to the attention of the minister is the insurance rate across the north Atlantic and the price which it will cost to take the grain from Fort- Churchill to the markets of the old world. It is not necessary to say that western Canada, especially Saskatchewan and Manitoba, is at the present time, taking just as big an interest in this problem as it has done for the past ten or fifteen years and will until this route has been absolutely tested and the result given to the farmers and citizens generally of western Canada.
Last night I heard an hon. member speaking about the number of days which the port has been open during a certain number of years.
I believe that those tests of the past ought to give place to the tests that will take place in the future. It is what we shall find to be the facts during the next four or five years, after shipping has commenced from that port, that will mean something. These figures are all right, but what the west wants now is a real test of that route. The west wants not only the facts concerning the route and con-

lerning that port in particular but we want, to know everything possible regarding shipping conditions across the north Atlantic to the ports of the old world. We want the essence of these facts in connection with western development fully made known. While I am on my feet I would like to ask the minister if he has given any consideration to the question of holding a suitable official celebration when Churchill port is opened?


Robert James Manion: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Some of the hon. members on the other side of the house seem to 'become excited whenever the port of Churchill is mentioned. I think they had better get their sentiment boiled down because they will have plenty of opportunity to get excited from now on as the development of the port proceeds.


Mr. PRICE:: What did your government do?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What did it not do? I am asking if the minister has given any serious consideration to the matter of holding a suitable celebration when the port of Churchill is opened?
By that I do not necessarily mean a western celebration but one of a national character. When the port is opened the attention of all the people of Canada should be concentrated upon it, because in connection with that port, so far as the west is concerned, history of far reaching importance is going to be made. I do not know whether or not the minister has considered the question I have brought to his attention. We westerners look at the port from a national point of view. We do not look at it just from the standpoint of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Regina, Saskatoon, Prince Albert, North Battleford or any other area. We take a national view, and it is from that aspect that we wish to have it tested. We want the minister and the government of the day to do their utmost to bring about a one hundred per cent development of this port because westerners are looking forward to the day when the new port will play an important part in building up the purchasing power of western Canada and help to develop to a greater degree than ever that portion of the Dominion.


Robert James Manion: I have tentatively decided that to carry on to a successful conclusion the work at Churchill this fall in time to make even a test shipment of grain, will necessitate the very best efforts of our engineering department and contracting companies. For that reason any celebration or

Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay
official opening of the port would be more fittingly held in 1932. In other words if we endeavoured to do too much this summer we would perhaps be accused of delaying the test shipments we hope to get out this fall. Great effort will have to be put forth to get the test shipments out because the contract for the erection of the elevator does not call for completion until September 15 and there are not many days between that date and the close of navigation in those regions. Therefore there would not be very much time left to come and go on. For that reason I think it would be wise to leave anything in the nature of an official celebration or opening until the following year. I think that would meet with the approval of all hon. members.
I would like to clear up another point. Various companies have applied for industrial sites and for rights to ship certain goods through the port of Churchill. Some of the applications have been made for advertising purposes. The companies in question wish to be the first to ship goods through that port. Other applications are made on commercial grounds. However, owing to the amount of work which will have to be done between now and September 15 we are making a general rule that these companies will have to wait until 1932. If we allowed private corporations to use the port and interfere with it probably we would not be in a position to get out the test shipments this fall. We do not wish to be accused of delaying the test shipments; if possible we would like to get them out.


Ernest Lapointe: Probably the Mafeking cut-off will be built in another year and a shorter route will be available?
Mr. MeINTOSH: I am thankful to the minister for his explanation in connection with the question I asked concerning the official opening of the port. I think he Is well advised to hold the opening over for another year; next year would be a very suitable time. My point is however that when the official opening is held it should be made an outstanding event.


Mr. VALLANCE:: May I ask the minister if it is the intention of the government to allow any private grain companies to establish elevators at that port, or if it is the intention to keep the port open for public elevators only?


Robert James Manion: Up to the present time we have had no applications from any private companies to establish elevators at the port. Until applications are made we will not have to make a decision on that point. If the matter came up I do not know to what conclusion I would come. Frankly, I have not given any thought at all to the question; it will have to be decided when it comes before me.


John Vallance: Before the matter concerning elevators is decided there should be some discussion in the house.


Robert James Manion: Why not have it now?


John Vallance: I thought it would be better to have the discussion when we were considering the estimates of the Department of Trade and Commerce for the grain commission under whose control I suppose the elevators would be?


Robert James Manion: No. The elevator we are building at the port is under the control of the Department of Railways and Canals. Ordinary supervision carried on by the Board of Grain Commissioners for all elevators in Canada naturally will be effective in connection with the elevator at Churchill. The management of the elevator however and the general operation of it will be under the control of my department.


John Vallance: Is not the licence issued from the Department of Trade and Commerce? Have they not control over it through the grain commission?


Robert James Manion: I do not know about the licence. The Board of Grain Commissioners have a supervisory right over all the elevators in Canada. They supervise the operations of all elevators from the standpoint of seeing that everything is carried on according to law. However the erection and operation of an elevator may be carried on either by a private company, by the government, by the Department of Trade and Commerce or by the Department of Railways and Canals. My hon. friend knows as well as I do that there are many private elevators as well as those under the Department of Trade and Commerce and the Department of Railways and Canals.


John Vallance: The licence would have to be granted through the grain commission?


Robert James Manion: I do not know about that.


John Vallance: There should be ample
opportunity given in this house to discuss the necessity of keeping Churchill free from private elevators. In connection with the operation of the new Canada Grain Act as consolidated at the last regular session of parliament, those of us who spent a great deal of time on the matter would like to see Churchill left with nothing but public elevators so that we could check up the other ports which have both private and public elevators.
1884	COMMONS
Supply-Railways-Hudson Bay


Mr. MULLINS:: There is a private company at Winnipeg which is very anxious to build a stockyard. It is not so anxious about elevators as is my hon. friend. We are prepared this year to make a trial shipment out of Churchill and I hope the minister is making some arrangement whereby a stockyard will be provided to help out the situation regarding freight rates to European markets. Another hon. member sitting on this side of the house and myself were living in western Canada when this road was started by Hugh Sutherland many years ago and we are very anxious to see the completion of port facilities for the betterment of the movement of grain as well as live stock out of western Canada.


Robert James Manion: It is not possible this year to provide facilities for the shipment of live stock. I repeat what I said a minute ago in answer to my hon. friend on the other side of the house that we are going to find it difficult enough this year to get out the last movement of grain and there will be no opportunity to ship live stock. The success of the port of Churchill however does not depend on trial shipment this year of grain or live stock. Its success depends on shipments in the next year and in years to come. In 1932 there will be ample opportunity for my hon. friend and his associates to build stock yards there, and we shall be very glad to have him come along with a proposition. We will certainly give it our very best consideration.


Henry Alfred Mullins: May I say for the benefit of the minister that if he will permit a trial shipment this year to show that the route is feasible, the farmers will go more into live stock so they will be ready for 1932. I am getting along in years, and I do not want to wait any longer. I have waited 45 years to see the completion of this road.


Robert James Manion: It is impossible for us to provide shipping facilities for live stock this year. I regret this, but it is simply out of the question to attempt it. My hon. friend says he is getting along in years, but nobody thinks he is; everybody thinks he is a young man. I have not the slightest doubt that he will be with us in 1932 and help us to ship live stock out of Churchill.


An hon. MEMBER:: He is looking younger than ever.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Is any restriction put on
the number of people allowed to go into Churchill?


Robert James Manion: Yes; no one is allowed to go into Churchill, except by permit and we are issuing permits only to those who are going there to work or to points beyond Churchill on business.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. Our's lock: rebuilding, $435,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice the
estimates of the department are under three headings; railways, canals, miscellaneous. May it be understood that under canals we are at liberty to discuss any canal the administration of which is under the department directly or indirectly?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I should think under this or any other item of canals my right hon. friend could discuss the subject.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
AVelland ship canal: construction and betterments, $3,000,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I notice that
$9,600,000 appears as having been expended in 1930-31. I assume that that total includes the $2,000,000 which my hon. friends put in the supplementary estimates to look after a new contract that they entered into themselves?


Robert James Manion: Not a new contract; a
continuation of the old contract. We spent the money after we came into power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It was a new contract to the extent of there being another agreement with the contractors.


Robert James Manion: There was no change in
the agreement. These contracts were put in force largely by my right hon. friend's administration at unit prices. The contractors simply; continued the work with our permission, and we paid them out of the supplementary estimate of $2,000,090.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They did the work first and they got the money afterwards?


Robert James Manion: Yes, just as they did under my right hon. friend's administration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I do not think so. I see the amount for 1931-32 is $3,000,000. Does the minister contemplate that there will be any occasion to spend more than that money in the present fiscal year?


Robert James Manion: May I answer first the
reference of my right hon. friend, but not in any controversial spirit. I am informed by the department that, for example, on the

Supply-Canals-Welland
Hudson Bay railway contract nearly $2,000,000 was overspent on one occasion and the late government paid it. I am not criticizing this, I am simply pointing out it has been the custom to let the work go beyond the amount voted in the estimates for the year, and it is provided for in the supplementary estimates next year. In this work most of the contracts are on a unit basis. I have a list of the contracts here; most of them go back several years. According to the advice of the legal branch of my department, the contractors could go on and complete the contracts when they will, because they are supposed to complete the work in a certain time anyhow, but generally speaking the amount of money provided in the estimates is the amount that our engineers reckon will be needed that year. But last year was exceptionally fine from the standpoint of the contractors, and they were able to get an amount of work done which would have exhausted the estimates for that year a good deal earlier than usual, and in September or October they would have laid off a good many of their men. Consequently it became a question whether they would continue or not, and they decided to continue and the extra money was provided in the supplementary estimates. This year the vote of $3,000,000 will not be sufficient to cover the completion of the canal; about another $4,000,000 will be needed for this purpose. I may say quite frankly that I am not positive from a legal standpoint as to the position of some of the contractors in that regard. Some of the contracts call for the completion of the work this year, so it is obvious that if the contractors chose to go on with their work, irrespective of our ruling in the matter they might do so, but they would have to wait until the money was voted to pay them. If they insist in going on after the appropriation is exhausted they must wait until further money is appropriated next year.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They do it at their own risk.


Robert James Manion: Yes. Some of the contractors might insist on going on, and probably we would not object so long as they were prepared to wait for payment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: That comes
down to the question of control of the House of Commons over matters of expenditure. I think the minister ought to give the contractors to understand that this is the amount *of money parliament will appropriate for this year unless he increases that amount by a sum in the supplementary estimates.


Robert James Manion: They understand that
already.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be
unfortunate if in regard to these expenditures, running into millions, it becomes the general practice of contractors to think they can go ahead and incur obligations beyond the specific amount that parliament has voted with any certainty of the moneys being paid later on. I hope the minister will keep that point in mind.


Robert James Manion: The contractors have already been notified as my hon. friend suggests. They know the amount that is in the estimates this year; they have been told so, and their position is not a bit different from what it was in previous years, because they have always been in exactly the same position, as far as I am advised. Their contract, for example, is for so many million of yards of dredging, which would take a number of years to do, and no contractor knowing he could get only $1,000,000 this year would go ahead to the extent of $10,000,000 unless he saw a prospect of getting the money within a reasonable time. This year the condition is different in this way, that the work is nearly finished. One contractor took the matter up with me the other day. He said, "1 have $500,000 worth of plant on the job at the present time, I have $100,000 of work to do to complete my contract. Am I permitted to go ahead and do this if I wait until next year's estimates for my money?" I did not want to give him a definite answer. But I think it will be generally agreed that it would be hardly fair to him or to any other contractor to tie up his $500,000 worth of plant this year or next year until he completes the work. I do not think there is anything irregular in what is being done so long as the contract price is not altered in any way; and all these prices so far as I know were established by my right hon. friend's government; we have not changed them or the contractors. I repeat, I do not see any irregularity about the contractors going on with the work if they wait for their money.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Carried to its logical conclusion, my hon. friend's argument would do away with the necessity of estimates altogether. The estimates amongst other things are for the purpose of giving members of parliament an idea of how much money is to be spent on the different enterprises each fiscal year and definitely to limit that expenditure within that period of time. It raises the larger question which we were discussing

1SS6
Supply-Canals-Welland

last night, as to the attitude which members from other parts of Canada may take with respect to these great capital expenditures in localities other than those from which they come. Here is an expenditure of 83,000,000 this year, and S9,000,000 last year, on the Welland canal, and there is an expenditure of 86,000,000 for the Hudson Bay railway. I should think hon. member's from British Columbia,, for instance, might reasonably expect that their constituents would ask, "What has become of the Peace River outlet? That is the matter of transportation which affects us. How do you justify your voting so many millions for the Hudson Bay Railway and so many millions for the Welland canal, with nothing for a much-needed addition to the transportation system of British Columbia, particularly when it has been specifically mentioned in a pledge given by the Prime Minister with respect to transportation generally?"
My hon. friend said a moment ago I might speak on the Welland canal, or at least any canal, and perhaps this would be an opportune moment to say a word with regard to the St. Lawrence waterways as another part of the large transportation scheme which has been outlined and pledged by the Prime Minister as part of the policy of the present administration. That scheme in its entirety was set out in what has been called pledge No. 5 of the Conservative party, as enunciated by the Prime Minister at Winnipeg. It reads as follows:
We pledge ourselves to the improvement of the whole scheme of Canadian transportation-
Then it divides the scheme as follows:
-northward by the completion of the Hudson Bay route, and the construction of such branches as may be necessary to render it most readily available to every part of Canada; to the Pacific slope by a Peace River outlet, and east and west by the development of the St. Lawrence waterways, and we pledge ourselves to aid existing traffic channels and to increase port facilities on the great lakes, Hudson bay and the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, and to the establishment of a national highway system.
It seems to me all those various projects should be taken together in considering the estimates, and I submit that it would be proper to discuss them together, as being relevant to each other, if there is a desire so to do. Quite clearly the scheme that is set out is a vast transportation scheme relating in part to the Pacific, in part to the Atlantic and in part to the northern region as well as to the great St. Lawrence system, and in order to have these projects properly promoted, it does seem to me that as between the different parts of Canada there must be some relativity in the matter of expenditure, so that one por-

tion will not necessarily receive more consideration than the other.
May I ask my hon. friend whether he can give us, at this stage, a statement with respect to the St. Lawrence waterways, as to what has been done by the administration up to the present time to implement the promise given that the government would immediately proceed with the St. Lawrence waterway development? I think I could give my hon. friend the exact words of the pledge in that regard. Speaking at Cobourg on June 24, as reported in the London Free Press of June 25, the Prime Minister said:
If elected we will take up the St. Lawrence waterway and complete it at once. There have been nothing but promises from Mr. King.
I should like to ask if there has been anything but promises, up to the present, from the Prime Minister.


Robert James Manion: I think there has been 3 good deal besides promises from the present Prime Minister; I think he has done a great work so flar since he came into power.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking now of the St. Lawrence waterway.


Robert James Manion: As far as the St. Lawrence waterway is concerned, as my hon. friend well knows, this is an international and a national-provincial matter. It is also a matter for the state of New York. All these different parties are interested, the provinces, the state, the Dominion, and tihe federal government of the United States. I cannot tell my right hon. friend, as he well knows-because he was Minister of External Affairs for a long time-anything about communications passing between the government at Washington and my right hon. leader, but such communications have passed, according to my information. I cannot say as to the exact position of the matter, -but I understand that arrangements still remain to be made between the two governments, and perhaps between the state of New York and this government or the state of New York and the federal government of the United States. There are these different understandings to be brought about before anything can be done.
So far as the actual construction of the canal is concerned, I would say it has not progressed very much since we came into power, and las far as that promise goes, my right hon. friend knows very well that once arrangements are made it will take some eight to ten years at least to complete the canal. This is too important a question, I should think, on which to arrive at a decision in the course of a few months. A vast amount of

Supply-Canals-W elland
money is involved, and I am sure my right hon. friend will agree that sufficient time should be taken to see that proper arrangements are agreed upon before any final decision is made. I do not say this in any spirit of recrimination, but my right hon. friend had the matter under consideration, and he dealt with the United States for a long time. I remember asking him several times in regard to the status of that question, and in the nine years my right hon. friend was in power not a great deal of headway was made. We have been in power only nine or ten months, and if hon. gentlemen opposite will have a little patience with us we will do our best to carry out every pledge the right hon. Prime Minister made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: All that my
hon. friend has said with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway involving international problems and the like is exactly in accord with what I said, and is the reason I gave as explaining why, up to the time at which I was speaking, greater progress had not been made. The present Prime Minister, however, took issue with that method of proceeding-I thought at the time most unwisely-and stated he would proceed at once. I thought he would have been well advised, in view of the great responsibilities which lay before him in connection with the many promises which were made, if he had said quite frankly that this was a vast undertaking, with a great variety of considerations of the kind which my hon. friend has just mentioned, which would take a little time to work out, but he did not do that. The Prime Minister said that the government of the day had not been proceeding with the matter because they did not wish to do so. The Prime Minister spoke at several places with regard to the St. Lawrence waterway. For example, at Winnipeg on June 9, he said:
Has anything been done to the St. Lawrence waterway? Why?
He continued:
Because it was the business of the government to do it and the government did not choose; they did not dare.
That was not the reason. The reason that more progress was not made was exactly the reason mentioned by my hon. friend, and I think in his reply he may possibly have been quoting from what I said. The Prime Minister, however, said it was because the government did not wish to go on with it, and elsewhere he made similar statements. Speaking at Cobourg, on June 24, as reported in the
22110-120*
London Free Press of June 25, the Prime Minister said:
If elected, we will take up the St. Lawrence waterway and complete it at once. There have been nothing but promises from Mr. King.
Then at St. John, as reported in the St. John Telegraph-Journal of July 1, he said:
We offer you the St. Lawrence waterways; the Chignecto canal is a possibility, yea, even a probability.
The right hon. Prime Minister made all these pledges with regard to the waterway. He said the work was to be proceeded with at once. If I understand the minister aright to-day, he is telling us on behalf of the administration that he is unable to make any announcement about what has been done up to the present time. He says there may have been some corespondence between the government and Washington, but I imagine there has been no more than one exchange of communications. Beyond that I do not think the minister could indicate anything else, and it is nearly a year sance this promise was made.


Robert James Manion: My right hon. leader is Minister of External Affairs, and whatever communications are had with Washington naturally would pass through his hands. He has not made any public Statement, and any other statement of his naturally would not be for publication. So I am quite sure my right hon. friend has an opportunity any day, on the orders of the day, to ask my right hon. leader as to further communications with Washington, as he has done already on one or two occasions. Of course there is this to remember, that the criticisms my right hon. leader aimed at the right hon. leader of the opposition during the election had to do with lack of action over a period of nine years. It is hardly the same thing to criticize him for lack of action over a period of nine months. There is a difference of some twelve hundred per cent in the two periods of time. I hope everything will be satisfactorily arranged and the canal built, not at once, but within a reasonable time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend forgets that during the period of nine years all the ground work was carried out and everything done in preparation for immediate action. There had to be international commissions and advisory bodies both in the United States and Canada to go over the preliminaries of the whole project. All of that work was successfully cleared up in the period in which the previous administration
i'88S
Supply-Canals-W elland

was in office. The whole ground was well prepared for immediate action. The heavy spade work has been done and now is the time for action.


Robert James Manion: If all the work was cleaned up, as my right hon. friend says it was, then it was cleaned up just before the election, because my right hon. friend is more enthusiastic about it this afternoon than he was before. I read his speeches during the election and it was only late in the campaign, if at all, that he took any particular interest in the St. Lawrence canal. Most of his statements were of doubtful interpretation so far as that canal was concerned. I will admit that my own leader made a definite statement and I am very desirous of seeing all his promises kept. And I think we shall be in power long enough to keep them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: With respect
to my statements in the campaign, I admit that I was very cautious in what I said, because I appreciated the magnitude of the project and the many considerations involved. But the Prime Minister was not cautious; he went straight ahead. He just went the limit in everything, and that is what is a matter of concern to us all now. We wish to see how far it will be possible to carry out these universal promises with regard to all sorts of projects.


Robert James Manion: Give us a little time and
we will carry them all out.


Mr. BROWN:: One thing is clear: the
minister and his government have departed from the position taken at the Winnipeg convention with respect to the canal being all Canadian.


Robert James Manion: I do not know how my
hon. friend can be so sure that we have departed from that position since we have not yet built the canal. I do not see how he can be so sure of his ground. Until the [DOT]canal is built, it seems to me, it is a little difficult to say whether it is all Canadian or American.


John Livingstone Brown: Perhaps I might put it in
the form of a question, but I take it, from the reference which the minister made to the necessity for negotiating with our neighbours to the south, that the government had departed from the position they took at the Winnipeg convention.


Robert James Manion: May I point out that
we could not build even an all-Canadian canal without such negotiations, inasmuch as these are international waters.


John Livingstone Brown: We all know that.


Robert James Manion: Then I do not see what
sense there is in my hon. friend's question.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: To do the
Prime Minister justice, I should like to quote what he said with reference to the cost of this canal, as an additional reason why there should not be delay. Speaking at Winnipeg on June 9, the Prime Minister said:
The money for the construction of the waterway can be secured without ultimate cost to Canada. It could be built and operated without danger to our sovereign powers, and with every safeguard to provincial rights. It will not lessen the merits of competing roads but will be complementary and helpful to them.
Apparently, therefore, the Prime Minister had already looked into all these matters. He had ascertained the cost and concluded that there would be no injury to any competing system. It was all clear sailing. That was on June 9 last. This is May 22, nearly eleven and a half months after that statement was made. It is nearly a year. At that time the project could be carried through without cost to Canada and without injury to any competing system. As I say, it was all smooth sailing. I think my hon. friend ought to tell the Prime Minister that when we ask him, as we will next week, what progress has been made, he should be prepared to give us a little information. There is another point I wish to bring to the minister's attention. I do not see in the estimates anything in regard to the Chignecto canal. At St. John the Prime Minister said that the Chignecto canal was "a possibility, yea, even a probability." Will my hon. friend tell us which of the two it is at the moment?


Robert James Manion: I will say it is a possibility at any rate. I do not like to put my right hon. friend right so often, but he is wrong in saying that there is nothing in the estimates for the Chignecto canal. It may not be in the main estimates, but there is an item ot $10,000 for the Chignecto canal commission. It is the same item which my right hon. friend had in his estimates to cover the commission which he appointed, and it will cover the commission which we shall appoint. It is vote No. 176 in the miscellaneous items.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Has the minister's recent visit to Washington anything to do with the St. Lawrence question?


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend opposite asked a question of a similar character

Supply-Canals-Welland
on a former occasion and my leader did me the honour of replying. I should know by now what my visit to Washington was all about; it was a pleasure trip. I had a very pleasant time.


Peter Heenan: Now that we have the St. Lawrence canal completed, I desire to return to the Welland canal for a moment. In view of the fact that Canada has now put all its contracts and all its employees on the eight hour day basis, and inasmuch as the employees on the Welland canal work anywhere from ten to twelve and thirteen hours a day under the old contracts, would the minister take into consideration the amending of these contracts so as to permit the Welland canal to be completed under the provisions of the eight hour day law?


Robert James Manion: The only trouble with my hon. friend's question is that he is wrong in point of fact. They are all on the eight hour dlay and have been for a considerable time.


Peter Heenan: I am very glad to hear it. That is one thing in regard to which I do not mind being wrong. May I ask this question: In the event of some of the employees on the Welland canal being found to be working more than eight hours a day, have I the minister's assurance that he will see to it that they are put on the eight hour basis?


Robert James Manion: Throughout the different branches of my department we are gradually putting all employees on the eight hour day basis. There are some employees who work more than eight hours a day-watchmen, for example. But we are gradually putting them on the eight hour schedule.


Peter Heenan: I think my hon. friend
was in error in his reply to my first question, and I can well understand how he might be wrong. The Dominion government's own employees'are on the eight hour day; I think that is what he meant. But the contractors' men are not on that basis. My point-and I want to make it as clear as I can-is this. Under the old contracts they would not work under the eight hour day provision which was adopted last session. That standard applies only to the employees working under new contracts. Now, it would cost the government something extra to change the contracts with a view to having the employees who are now operating under the old contracts put on the eight hour day schedule. I would point out that inasmuch as Canada was a signatory to the peace treaty, and inasmuch as we have adopted an eight
hour day, the government might consider the reconstruction of these contracts with the object of paying the contractors the additional amount required to enable them to put their employees on the eight hour day basis.


Robert James Manion: I am informed by the officers of the department that the employees of practically all the contractors are to-day working on eight hour basis. There are a few exceptions. That js what the chief engineer informs me at the moment. As a matter of fact, however, many of (the contracts are about completed. They were made largely by the late government, so that-


Mr. ELLIOTT:: There can be no objection to them.


Robert James Manion: Well, so far we have not found them objectionable. We have been quite content to carry them on. So far as I am concerned, we shall endeavour to see that the men are all put on the eight hour day basis; and until the chief engineer informed me of the exceptions I was not aware of any. I am told, however, that there are some men who are on a nine hour day. Of course, as my hon. friend points out, the contracts were entered into on a different basis and I do not think we have a right to break them. However, I will look into the matter. That is the best I can say.


Peter Heenan: The minister has not caught my point. I am not critical in the matter, and I appreciate the fact that the minister could logically continue the contracts as they stand. That is not the point I am making at all. The contracts were made by another government and at that time the eight hour day was not in force in Canada. Should the contracts be changed, naturally the government would have to pay the contractors a sum to cover the extra outlay, but inasmuch as Canada has now adopted the principle of the eight hour day, I think the government could very well consider having this principle put into effect in respect to the rest of this work. Had I been over on those benches, which I fortunately am not, I would have recommended to my colleagues that this great national undertaking, the Welland canal, might very well be completed on the eight hour day principle. It would not cost very much, and I think for the honour of Canada the principle should be adopted in relation to what still remains to be done.


Robert James Manion: I can assure my hon. friend that any new contracts entered into will be on an eight hour day basis. I do not like to remind my hon. friend of the fact that he
1S90
Supply-Canals-W elland

was minister of labour for quite a few years and during his time they were working these hours. He had an opportunity to make the alterations which he now proposes, but since he did not I will take this matter into consideration.


Peter Heenan: I am afraid the minister has not caught my point, which may be due to my method of speaking. It is true that the contracts were entered into by the late government, and it is true also that I was minister of labour for four years, but my hon. friend will realize that you cannot do everything at once.


An hon. MEMBER:: You admit it now, do you?


Peter Heenan: During the four years I was minister of labour increases were made in the wages paid to the men on that work. The eight hour day law did not come into effect until May 8, and had the late government 'been returned to power I am satisfied that they would have been willing to spend some extra money to place these men on an eight hour day basis. The contractors could be called together and told that the government would reimburse them for any extra outlay involved.


Robert James Manion: To my mind the Welland canal has cost enough, the total of 8129,000,000 for completion being quite a large amount for a country like Canada to have to pay for one canal. I will give the usual consideration to the proposal made by my hon. friend, but I do not feel like promising to increase the cost of the canal.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Of that total of S129,000,000, how much yet remains to be appropriated?


Robert James Manion: About $4,000,000, after the item for this year.


Mr. LUCAS:: When is it expected the canal will be completed?


Robert James Manion: It will be completed next year after the $4,000,000 in next year's estimates has been expended. The estimates for this year will complete the canal sufficiently to permit some of the larger boats to pass through. In fact, last fall some fairly large boats were allowed to go through for special reasons, and the same thing will happen this year.


William Thomas Lucas: Is that figure of $129,000,000 the total for the whole work?


Robert James Manion: Yes.
[Mr Manion.l


John Livingstone Brown: Does the minister know
what was the original estimate?


Robert James Manion: I do not remember, and my officers say they do not remember, but it was considerably less than that.


Henry Elvins Spencer: Was it not somewhere
around $50,000,000?


Robert James Manion: I have a hazy recollection
of that amount, but I cannot confirm it at the moment.


Peter Heenan: The extra cost for the
last year in connection with the eight hour day would not be very large. Would that total of $129,000,000 be taken into consideration in the event of Canada and the United States joining together on this undertaking?


Robert James Manion: I think it would be.


Peter Heenan: In that event would it
not be a fair thing to have the United States pay a portion of these wages for the rest of the year?


Robert James Manion: We will give that matter
consideration.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: After the
present government came into power I understand there were a number of dismissals of employees from the Welland canal, and a number of new employees taken on. Would the minister indicate how many employees lost their positions because of the change of government, and how many new appointments have been made?


Robert James Manion: While my officers are
looking up that information perhaps we can go on with some other discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Under the
general heading of transportation I would like further to refer to the specific pledges made by the Prime Minister. Speaking at St. John, New Brunswick, on June 30, my hon. friend gave his pledge for a national highway. He is reported in the St. John Telegraph-Journal of July 1, as follows:
We say that the federal government under our administration will build a great national highway in Canada.
Speaking at Cobourg, on June 24, he is reported in the London Free Press of June 25, as follows:
A national highway for Canadians. A highway in Canada, not through some other country. A highway in which you can leave Cape Breton and arrive in Vancouver without going into any foreign land. Mr. Bennett declared the undertaking must be accomplished by the hands of the federal government.

1S91
Supply-Canals-W elland
Then at Woodstock, New Brunswick, on July 1, he is reported in the Ottawa Journal of July 2, as follows:
Connecting as it would the east with the west, old-time maritimers now residing in western Canada could return to their homes by passing entirely through Canadian territory. The people of the east, too, would visit the west, the Conservative leader went on, and the highway would provide a source of cheaper transportation for farm products.
I assume this matter would come under the Department of Railways and Canals. Perhaps the minister would advise if anything has been done since those pledges were given or rather since the present government came into office towards beginning work on this highway, and if so, what is the extent of the work thus far accomplished?


Robert James Manion: Some negotiations have
been carried on between the Dominion and the province.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Which province?


Robert James Manion: The province of Ontario,
for example. While my right hon. friend is right to a certain extent in saying that this matter would come under my department, it would be merely a grant to the provinces concerned and I am afraid I cannot give my right hon. friend very much information. I am quite sincere in saying that I do not know of any grant having been made as yet and I do not know of any work having been done. I do not think any work would be done by this government because in all probability the work would be done by the provinces concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is the minister making a statement of policy? That is very important, because up to the moment I have understood that this national highway would be a federal project carried out by the federal government. The minister now says that this work will be carried on by means of grants from the federal treasury to the different provinces.


Robert James Manion: I am not announcing a
policy in regard to this matter, I am stating simply that my conception is that a certain proportion of the work done would be paid for by the Dominion government. We have no roadway construction officers, either in my department or in any other department of the government. Highways are distinctly within-if I may repeat-the jurisdiction of the provinces.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: They
were not last fall.


Robert James Manion: I do not think anything
was said which would indicate that we intended to take from the provinces any of their rights.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Prime Minister said:
The federal government will build a great national highway.


Robert James Manion: I do not think those are the Prime Minister's exact words. That is a newspaper report of what he said. My hon. friend surely is not stating that any man's speech is reported in toto in any of the newspapers. A newspaper reporter, reporting a speech, puts it into his own words.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: These are direct quotations.


Robert James Manion: Some of them are, but
many of them are not. I was not saying what was in the Prime Minister's mind, but I was saying simply what was in my mind, that a trans-Canada highway would be built by means of grants to the provinces and in association with them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Surely the
newspapers will not come in for all the blame.


Robert James Manion: I am not blaming them.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon friend knows, I think, what is called the platform of the Conservative party, the pledges that they made.


Mr. COTNAM:: Let the right hon. gentleman tell us about the Liberal platform.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I can understand why my hon. friend would like to hear about anything but his own platform.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I should like to hear about the Liberal platform.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend had better pay attention to his own field and leave others alone for the present. In regard to the Conservative party platform as given out at Winnipeg, in the fifth pledge in which the appeal was made to the electorate, the concluding words were, starting at the beginning of section 5:
We pledge ourselves-*
Then the last sentence of all:
-to the establishment of a national highway system.
These are words that I do not think even my hon. friend will repudiate. They are the words that appear in the specific pledges of the Conservative party.


Robert James Manion: That does not say the construction of a national highway system. The
Supply-Canals-Welland

construction must be controlled by any province or an association of the provinces, and it could easily be carried on just as I suggested. I know of no remark in any election speech where the Prime Minister said that he was going to build a trans-Canada highway. He was going, I presume, to encourage the establishment of a trans-Canada highway; but, for example, would it not be the utmost folly for the Prime Minister to propose, where there are good roads crossing certain provinces, to build another road?


Charles Gavan Power: That is just what he said.
He said: We will do it. He said: We want action. We wish it would come.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is more
anxious for action now than he was when his own party were in power.


Charles Gavan Power: I am endeavouring to get action. If my hon. friends opposite would only prod their leaders as much as I did mine when we were on the other side, we might get action.


Robert James Manion: I am willing to admit, in justice to my hon. friend, that a number of times he took issue with his party.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend has, as he says, given us his conception of things. I know that he appreciates the significance of the doctrine of cabinet solidarity, and that as a minister he can speak only as a minister. He cannot as Minister of Railways and Canals announce one policy which is his own conception and leave in reserve another policy which might be that of the government. I want to ask the minister now as a minister of the crown, a member of the present administration: Are we to understand that the policy of the government with respect to a national highway is only to make contributions to the provinces; that it is not in any sense a national undertaking, using that phrase in the sense of a federal undertaking in a large way?


Robert James Manion: My right hon. friend and
leader makes any necessary statements of policy on behalf of this government when it is a straight matter of policy. It does not affect this vote at the moment, and I have stated my conception of what the Prime Minister meant by what he said. My right hon. friend has apparently stated his conception. We both have a right to our opinions in regard to the statement made by the Prime Minister. If we differ, it is our privilege to do so. My right hon. friend and leader will in due course announce the policy of the government or whatever action he intends to take as to implementing the pledge concern-

ing a trans-Canada highway. I have given my own interpretation and may I suggest to my right hon. friend that he is more particular now about ministers giving personal opinions than he was when he was in power. I remember on a number of occasions ministers of the then government, saying that they were expressing their personal opinions. I am not expressing a personal opinion; I am stating a conclusion, and I think I am right in my conclusion as to what my right hon. leader meant. I am saying simply I am not at the moment making statements of policy for the government, because this question does not affect my department, so far as I know, or the estimates under discussion.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I gather from my hon. friend's words that the matter has not been considered in any manner sufficient to enable the minister to put forward the policy of the government.


Robert James Manion: Nobody knows better than my right hon. friend that what is discussed in the cabinet cannot be stated in the house.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Once a policy is settled in a cabinet, any minister of the crown is at liberty to state it.


Robert James Manion: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Why should he not do so? I never before heard of a government where every minister except the Prime Minister, was muzzled as regards statements of policy. Surely my hon. friend had better think twice before he makes that assertion; otherwise there will be no chance for anyone except the Prime Minister to announce a policy on anything.


Robert James Manion: Nobody on this side is
muzzled. When my right hon. friend said that once a cabinet decided on a policy, every minister was at liberty to state it, I said no. I meant that there are times when a ministry decides on a policy which is not to be made public for the time being.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has this one
been decided upon but not to be made public yet?


Robert James Manion: I am not attempting to
make anything public at the present time; all I am attempting to do is to reply to my right hon. friend. My right hon. leader is quite capable of answering the questions of my right hon. friend, and I would advise him, when he gets an opportunity, to ask my leader

Supply-Canals-Welland
what he meant by such and such a statement. I do not wish to be turned into an interpreter of the views of my right hon. leader, because I might, like my right hon. friend, interpret them wrongly.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend is becoming more and more like his leader. Each time we ask a question of him we get a lecture in reply, but we do not get much in the way of information.


Robert James Manion: I am sorry if my right
hon. friend looks upon this as a lecture; I did not mean it in that way.


Peter Heenan: Let me quote these words of the Prime Minister, which I think are emphatic enough to give us an idea of the policy of the government. Speaking at St. John, New Brunswick, on June 30, he :s reported in the St. John Telegraiph-Journal of July 1, as saying:
We say that the federal government our administration will build a great national highway in Canada.
That seems to be emphatic enough. The minister just a few moments ago said that he had not read any words of the Prime Minister to the effeot that he would build a national highway, but the Prime Minister in that statement, made it very emphatic. Speaking at Cobourg on June 24, as reported in the London Free Press of June 25, he said:
Mr. Bennett declared the undertaking must be accomplished by the hands of the federal government.
There are two statements within a few days of each other.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I rise to a point of order. The item under discussion is the Welland Canal. The hon. member is surely out of order in the discussion that is taking place at the present time.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman, before you give your ruling, may I say I notice there was no question of order raised until we had pinned the Prime Minister down to an emphatic statement in regard to building a national highway.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The item under discussion is the Welland canal and the discussion on a national highway is out of order. One way to enlarge the discussion of an item is to amend it; or an hon. member can move an amendment on the motion to go into supply.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I draw your attention, Mr. Chairman, to the fact
that I was careful to ask the minister whether
under this particular heading we might discuss these matters that are alleged to be part of the great transportation policy of the government, and the minister agreed. The question of a national highway is one part.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: But if an hon. member raises a point of order, I am Obliged to decide it.


Peter Heenan: Why did he not raise the point of order before we had pinned the Prime Minister down to a definite statement?


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I think the discussion has gone far enough.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Hon. members may laugh. The ex-Prime Minister has been talking all afternoon about broken promises, and his preelection speech of last summer, but the public did not listen to it. Surely no hon. member knows more about broken promises than my right hon. friend does. I suggest to him that if he goes back to his own campaign speech of 1921 he will find a trail of broken promises all the way across this continent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to
my hon. friend that in the last nine months I have learned more about broken promises than I had known in all my life before.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The right hon. the leader of the opposition talks about broken promises. Up to the present time the government has had no opportunity whatever to implement its promises. If the ex-Prime Minister had been as anxious during his nine years of office to carry out his promises we would not have the situation in Canada with which we are faced to-day.


Mr. POULIOT:: The hon. member would
interest us much more if he would tell us whether he is a member of the Klu Klux Klan.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I rise to a question of
privilege. I would ask the hon. member for Temiscouata to explain exactly his meaning, or withdraw the statement he has made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I spoke English.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: But it was very doubtful English. If the hon. member calls it English I would like to have an explanation of his statement.
Supply-Canals-Welland

mi


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend did not understand my language, surely he cannot object to it.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I do object to the language, and I ask the hon. member to withdraw his statement. I do not know anything about the Klu Klux Klan, and I have no connection with it.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all I wanted to
know. I am satisfied with the answer made by the hon. member.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Mr. Chairman, I ask the
hon. gentleman to withdraw his statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend finds
that the statement I made has been injurious I shall gladly withdraw it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend from Temiscouata knows very well-


Jean-François Pouliot: Excuse me; if my statement is not injurious how can my hon. friend complain of it?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member knows that if he makes a statement which is not correct he must withdraw it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. I think the
hon. member for Temiscouata had better withdraw his statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said I was satisfied.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member
from Temiscouata ought to withdraw the statement.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand the ruling of the chairman to be that an hon. member suffers injury when he is accused of belonging to the Klu Klux Klan? If that be the ruling, I think there should be an appeal therefrom.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend is a
good lawyer. I shall leave it to him whether or not there has been any injury to the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is fiery language.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: The hon. member has
made a statement -which is not in accordance with the fact.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: And I request that he be asked to withdraw his statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I asked a question, only.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: No, I say the hon. member made a statement.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall gladly withdraw
what I have said if my hon. friend finds it injurious to be called a member of the Klu Klux Klan.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Mr. Chairman, I am not
satisfied with that.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend does
not find the accusation injurious there is no reason to withdraw my statement.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I ask the hon. member
for Temiscouata to withdraw his statement without reservation. He made a statement which in fact is not correct.


Jean-François Pouliot: All right, I shall withdraw i't, but in due course I shall put the question to every hon. member from the three western provinces sitting to the right of Mr. Chairman I am satisfied that the question should be withdrawn. We will be given an opportunity to distinguish the black sheep from the white sheep; probably there will be more black sheep with white shirts.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: A point of order has
been raised which it is my duty to decide. I am not master of the rules, but to my mind the rule is very clear that-


Peter Heenan: May I speak?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes.


Peter Heenan: I asked the minister at what stage of the estimates we would be given an opportunity to discuss the national highway, and he very kindly agreed that it would be discussed under miscellaneous items.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: With unanimous consent of the committee.


Peter Heenan: If at a later time we are to be deprived of the right we should have it now. At a later stage my leader asked another question the answer to which brought out the point that we were to discuss the highway at this time. The highway has now been discussed for about an hour. I am content that further discussion should be postponed until miscellaneous items are reached. I take it however that the deputy speaker is likely even at that stage, even with the consent of the minister, not to allow us to proceed with the discussion.


Robert James Manion: To clear the matter may I say my hon. friend did not ask me when we would discuss the national highway, and neither did the leader of the opposition. My hon. friend asked when an opportunity would be given to discuss the Chignecto canal, and

Supply-Canals-W elland
I said that opportunity would be afforded under miscellaneous items. I have no control over the order of business in the house. However, I have no information in my department so far as the national highway is concerned.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam) raised a point of order and it is my duty to make a decision thereon. It is against the rules to discuss any subject under the sun when the committee is considering a particular item. If there is no item upon which certain discussion may be had which hon. members desire to enter upon, they will have the opportunity to propose an amendment when the motion is made to go into committee of supply. If there is no such motion and no particular item in the estimates to which the subject can be related, the discussion must not take place.


Peter Heenan: Surely when an examination of the estimates before the committee discloses the fact that certain work is required for which no item appears, the question ought to be allowed as to why no provision for it has been made in the estimates.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Not under the present rules. The hon. member could move the adjournment of the house or an amendment to the motion to go into supply.


John Livingstone Brown: Hon. members would be
faced with an objection similar to that raised by the Prime Minister the other day when the hon. member for New Westminster introduced his amendment. Hon. members will recall that the Prime Minister was angry because the hon. member for New Westminster introduced an amendment to the motion that the house go into committee of supply.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I can only say that
I have made my ruling.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: If my hon.
friend wished to discuss the trans-Canada highway an opportunity would be afforded him under a notice of motion which now appears on the order paper under the name of the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette).


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We have no guarantee that the proposed resolution will be reached.


Peter Heenan: If the Minister of Railways and Canals has not charge of this highway, who would have charge?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member is
out of order.


Peter Heenan: I am learning more this
afternoon about the rules of the house than I have ever learned before. How can I ask any hon. member on this side of the house what the policy of the government is and where the money would come from to build this highway? My hon. friends have made the trans-Canada highway a plank in their political platform, and if they are ashamed let them get up and say that they did not mean their statements to be taken seriously.
I do not think rules of the house should be used to protect a minister of the crown in connection with statements he has made concerning the trans-Canada highway. The minister has said that the matter is one of provincial concern.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I think the hon. member is out of order. The Chairman made a ruling, but the hon. member continues to discuss the point in question.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Yes.


Peter Heenan: On the point of order I
would like to ask the minister a question.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: Have some of the provinces decided not to go on with the national highway?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Peter Heenan: Are we not going to proceed with the highway?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for
North Renfrew has raised a point of order and I think I must decide in his favour. I must request hon. members to confine their discussion to the item under consideration.


Mr. BRADETTE:: Under what department will the trans-Canada highway come?


Robert James Manion: I cannot tell my hon.
friend that. If there is no item, apparently the highway does not come under the estimates of any department. Hon. members have the opportunity to speak to the matter on going into supply, and it is their privilege to discuss the matter at such a time.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: According to a report
in the newspapers the Minister of Railways and Canals stated in Fort William last winter that some money was being spent by the federal treasury for the construction of the trans-Canada highway.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.
1S96
Supply-Canals


Robert James Manion: I contradict what the hon. gentleman has said. He had better quote the statement. I object to such a statement being put in my mouth. I do not recollect making it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It was said in connection with work on the trans-Canada highway.


Robert James Manion: That is a provincial undertaking.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It is provincial and federal. I will quote the words.


Robert James Manion: You had better quote them. Mr. Chairman, the right hon. leader of the opposition asked me some time ago about the number of men who had been dismissed from the Welland canal since we came into power. The list I have shows 31 dismissed out of a thousand or more.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: How many new appointments have been made?


Robert James Manion: Of those dismissed some were replaced and some were not.


Charles Gavan Power: What about the Trent canal? Mr. MANION: One man was dismissed. Item agreed to.
Ohambly, improvements, $55,500.


Mr. RHEAUME (Translation):: May I ask the hon. Minister of Railways and Canals to kindly give us the details as to this amount of $35,500?


Robert James Manion: The details of this item, Mr. Chairman, consist of: a wharf at the upper end of St. Johns, $14,500; a guide pier at the lower entrance to Chambly, $13,000; a roadway in the parish of St. Joseph de Chambly, $28,000; total $55,500.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Is the minister in a position to state when the work at St. Johns will be carried out?


Robert James Manion: When the water in the canal is low enough the work will be begun.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: You have in mind to fix it up this fall?


Robert James Manion: Oh, yes.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Trent, improvements (revote), $116,400.
Robert Gardiner: Will the minister give particulars of this item?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The improvements are made up of many items. I will read them:
1.	Gate building plant, Peterborough (revote, $5,500), $8,500.
2.	Dredging (revote, $3,000), $12,700.
3.	West lower entrance wall lock No. 19, Peterborough (revote, $2,000), $5,000.

4.	New 120 cubic yard dump scow (revote,

5.	New hull for dredge Fenelon; also new dipper and tapered grooved drum (revote, $3,000), $5,500.
6.	Drilling and blasting to deepen existing channel above Bobcaygeon (revote, $5,000), $7,200.
7.	Steel fixed spans to replace Ops bridge, Lindsay (revote, $30,000), $30,000.
8.	New hull, boiler and engine for tug J. B. McColl, $9,000.
9.	Concrete superstructures for wharves, $2,500.
10.	Construction of concrete dam at outlet of Little Bob lake, $1,400.
11.	Construction of concrete dam at outlet of Contains lake, $3,850.
12.	Rebuilding timber dam at outlet of Little Bear lake, $2,000.
13.	Rebuilding timber dam at outlet of Stormy lake. $1,000.
14.	Rebuilding and repairs to Reservoir lake dam (revote. $5,000), $5,000.
15.	Dam at lock No. 25 (revote, $15,000), $15,000.
16.	Changeover for marine railway winch house. Swift rapids. $2,000.
17.	Removing obstructions from prism, $1,000.
18.	Gas range lights, Washago, $750.
19.	Miscellaneous surveys, investigations, etc. (revote, $1,500), $2,000.-Total, $116,400.


William Thomas Lucas: What has been 'the total cost of the Trent canal up to the present time?


Robert James Manion: The capital expenditure so far on the Trent canal since confederation amounts to $19,000,000.


William Thomas Lucas: I presume the work has all been completed and that this expenditure is for repairs?


Robert James Manion: No, the work has not yet been completed. At the west end of the canal there is a 10-mile stretch that is not completed 'though comparatively fair-sized boats are passed by means of marine railways. This vote is for necessary repairs and changes here and there.


William Thomas Lucas: Is there any estimate of what the uncompleted work would cost?


Robert James Manion: Yes, $3,000,000.


Robert Gardiner: What is the traffic?


Robert James Manion: A good many boats use the canal, but I am informed that most of them are pleasure boats, although there is some small volume of freight. I have a comparative statement of the traffic for 1028, 1920 and 1930, showing the number of lockages. I am informed that each lockage represents a boat. For 1928 there were 17,486 lockages; for 1929, 16,705; for 1930, 16,098. I may say that each lockage would mean a boat going through at least one lock, and it might go half way or clear through the canal.
1S97

Supply-Riviere du Loup Station


William Thomas Lucas: Is there any revenue to the government from this canal?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The revenue for the year ending March 31, 1929, was $95,378; for the year ending March 31, 1930, $95,934; for the year ending March 31 last, $97,447. The expenditures amounted to $286,000-about three times the revenue.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Welland ship canal, improvements, $157,450.
Robert Gardiner: I should like the minister to give the reason for this separate item.
Mr. MANIO'N:	I quite understand the
question, because I remember asking it myself when I saw the item. This is rather a complicated matter, but for the sake of information I may tell the committee that there were three canals, the original Welland canal, the late Welland canal and now the Welland ship canal, which is the new, enlarged canal. This has to do with the Welland ship canal, for such things as docks and improvements of that kind. I will give two items, which almost entirely account for this amount. There is a wharf at Homer, just outside St. Catharines, costing $50,000, and a wharf at Welland costing $100,000. Those wharves will be used by the various boats going up and down the canal, which pay dues which I am informed give a very good return on the money invested.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: maintenance and operation, $321,100.
Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a few remarks to make with regard to two orders which have been issued by the railway board. The first order is No. 45205. On May 1, 1929.
The general manager of the Atlantic region of the Canadian National railways wrote the secretaiy of the chamber of commerce of Riviere du Loup stating that the Canadian National railways were willing to build a station at that point. There is also a letter from the principal assistant to the president of the Canadian National railways,- Mr. Hummel, dated May 28, 1930, which appears in Hansard of March 31, at page 528. There is also a letter from Mr. Fraser to the joint secretary of the railway board, dated July 12, 1930. I have only a translation here, but in the letter it is stated that in the Canadian National Railways budget there is an item for the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup. There was also a letter from Mr. Rand, general counsel for the Atlantic region of the Canadian National railway,
stating that they were anxious to have the work proceed without undue delay. That letter, dated July 14, 1930, also appears in Hansard of March 31, at page 481.
Tenders were received at Moncton on August 26. The order of the board appears at page 614 of Hansard for April 15. I note that this order is dated August 9 of last year, after my hon. friends came into power, and that order was in accordance with the general policy of the Canadian National Railway. On September 19 the minister told the house the matter was under consideration, and nothing was done until October 7, when the Canadian National Railways notified the tenderers that their cheques would be returned to them owing to the fact that the Department of Railways and Canals had refused to sanction the construction of the station. That letter also appears in Hansard for March 31, at page 531.
I wired the Minister of Railways on October
14,	a few days after the refusal to construct the station had been announced. That telegram appears in Hansard for March 30 at page 421. On the following day I received an answer, which appears on the same page of Hansard. Then on November 3 of last year a resolution was passed by the city council of Riviere du Loup, which appears in Hansard of April
15,	at page 615, and which was acknowledged by the minister as follows:
(Translation) I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 4th inst., also of a certified copy of the attached resolution.
The construction of the new station at Riviere du Loup will bo a question submitted at the inquiry, at the same time as other requests of a similar nature. Your town was not specially signalled out when the subject came up.
I especially draw' the attention of the house to this remark.
It was intended to construct a number of public buildings at various places in the district, however the work was not proceeded with owing to the decrease in business.
I thank you for having drawn my attention to that resolution.
I have the honour to be,
Yours sincerely,
The Secretary-Treasurer, City of Riviere du Loup, Riviere du Loup, P.Q.
(Signed) R. Manion.
That resolution was also sent to the Board of Railway Commissioners, who answered on November 6 that the matter would be investigated.
On December 9 the assistant chief engineer of the operating department of the Canadian National railways wrote an interesting letter to Mr. Alistair Fraser, assistant general counsel for the Canadian National Railways. I might refer for a moment to the wire from
1898	COMMONS
Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
my hon. friend the Minister of Railways under date of October 15, in which he says that necessary repairs to the station have been sanctioned. At the time the minister came to that decision there was an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners approving the plans for a new station. This was a new policy inaugurated by the Minister of Railways, in contrast with the general policy of the Canadian National railway in that connection.
In answering the resolution of November 3, which has appeared in Hansard, Mr. Hazen, of the Canadian National railways reported as follows to Mr. Alistair Fraser:
With reference to your letter to Mr. Appleton of the 14th ult., enclosing copy of resolution passed by the city council of Riviere du Loup and forwarded to the board of railway commissioners, regarding our station at that point, and your memorandum to me of the 5th inst., file 723-6, asking to be advised as to what answer should be file with the board.
It is quite correct that the railway called for tenders for a new station at Riviere du Loup, but these were entirely too high, and it has therefore been decided to thoroughly renovate the present structure in order to meet the requirements of the travelling public.
Dealing more particularly with the various points raised in the above mentioned resolution, I would advise as follows: Paragraphs 5, 6, 7 and 8 (size of station and hygienic conditions).
The present structure, with certain interior revisions, is considered to be large enough for present traffic conditions, and the hygienic conditions complained of will be rectified by completely renewing, with modern equipment, the toilets and lavatories including the installation of tiled walls and flqprs, hot water, and improved lighting facilities.
In the public waiting-room terrazzo floors will be installed, lower parts of walls tiled, and upper parts plastered, together with improved lighting facilities.
Upstairs, it is the intention to remove the sheathing from the walls, and replace same with lath and plaster; new hardwood floors will be installed, and all toilet and lavatory fixtures to be renewed along modern lines. The exterior of the building will have the brick-work cleaned and pointed, and woodwork painted.
The building, as a whole, is structurally sound, and it is considered that its complete renovation, both interior and exterior, with slight revisions, in the layout, will make it in all respects a station entirely in keeping with the requirements of the community, and in first-class condition from a hygienic standpoint.
Paragraphs 12, 13 and 14 (unemployment relief program).
No item was included in our agreement with the government for the relief of unemployment, to cover any work at Riviere du Loup station.
It is the intention to carry out the improvements outlined above at the earliest possible date, and it is felt that when same have been completed there will be no cause for further complaint.
Sgd. H. T. Hazen,
Assistant Chief Engineer, Operation Dept.
[Mr. Po'jliotd
This time, apparently, the Canadian National Railways have changed their policy in accordance with the policy of the Minister of Railways in respect to this matter. I waited some time and on January 15 I wired as follows to the secretary of the railway board:
(Translation)	Riviere du Loup, P.Q.,
January 15, 1931.
The Secretary,
Railway Commission,
Ottawa, Ont.
Your letter, December 24. F36455 Riviere du Loup station, letter Hazen to Fraser, December 9 does not include construction of cellar. Repairs not sufficient. New building required from every viewpoint.
What was amazing in the report of the railways was the statement that "when the proposed repairs were completed there would be no further cause for complaint." But that memorandum made no mention of any cellar nor of improved foundations and so forth. The railway board answered my telegram on January 16, saying that they would look into the matter. On December 27 I had written to the minister asking for some information about the work to be done and on January 19 I wrote him as follows:
Riviere-du-Loup' P.Q.,
January 19, 1931. Honourable Dr. R. J. Manion,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.	.
Dear Doctor Manion,-
T beg to thank you for your favour of the 14th instant.
Following my letter of the 15th inst., T draw again your attention to the fact that the proposed repairs to Riviere-du-Loup station are inadequate on account of the fact that that building has no cellar and that the sewer system is in a very bad condition.
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Franqois Pouliot.
On January 26, 1931, the railway board forwarded me a letter from Mr. Alistair Fraser, general counsel of the Canadian National Railways. That letter, dated January 23, 1931 reads:



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS LEGAL DEPARTMENT

[Stage Direction]
Montreal, January 23, 1931.
Refer to file No. 723-6 P. F. Baillargeon, Esq.,
Acting French Asst. Sec'y.,
Board of Railway Commissioners,
Ottawa, Ont.
File 36455-Appln. of the C.N.R. for approval of plan showing proposed new station at Riviere du Loup, Que.
Dear Sir:-
Replying to your letter of the 16th instant; there is already a cellar under Riviere du Loup station measuring 39 feet 6 inches in length by 23 feet 6 inches in width, located under the

Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
second-class waiting room. The floor area is slightly over one-third of the area of the whole building and is ample to take care of all purposes.
This basement is used for furnace, coal bin. and battery room, and when recently inspected was dry and in good condition.
Yours truly,
Alistair Fraser.
But in the spring and fall there is considerable water in that cellar, which is only about one-third of the floor area of the building, as the railway officials admit.
I wrote to the railway board, telling them about the condition of the cellar, of the foundation and of the sewerage system, and they answered me again to the effect that they were taking the matter into consideration.
On January 30, Dr. Lessard, director of the Board of Health of Quebec, wrote to the secretary of the railway board, and the letter will be found at page 482 of Hansard. The report attached to that letter has not been given to this house and I will take the liberty of reading it:
(Translation)
Emile Nadeau, M.D.,
Associate Director,
Provincial Health Bureau,
Parliament Building,
Quebec.
Sir,-
I have the honour of submitting to you the report of the inspection on the cellar and sewer system of the Riviere du Loup station, as requested by your letter dated the 21st inst.
Cellar: It comprises a space of 40 feet in length by 23J feet in width and 6i feet in height, on an average. The walls and floor are made of cement. The ratio of the area of the cellar with that of the building which is properly _speaking the station (128 feet in length by 27£ in width) is 1 to 4; the remaining part of the station is on an average 2 feet above the ground. In the cellar are located the furnaces, the coal-bunker, a room for wet batteries, a very large chimney, three brick pillars, a staircase and the various pipes in connection with the sewer and heating systems.
Four shafts 21 feet by 2 feet each, on an average, provide light to the cellar; there is a door for the coal; there does not seem to be any means of ventilating the place, according to the station staff, in the spring, during the rainy season, water filters through to the cellar.
Sewer system: the main pipe lies at one end of the cellar, on a level with the floor. A drain in the cement floor carries the water to the said main pipe, of which the intake end is not closed, this unfortunately allows noxious gases to escape through the cellar.
Two other drain pipes-A.B.-are connected with this main pipe, as shown on the sketch.
The pipe A drains the urinal, a toilet room and a sink; we are told that very often this drain pipe is blocked up, owing to the fittings being badly done.
The pipe B which drains a number of water closets has nothing noticeable except it is hard
to repair, owing to there being only a space of 2 feet, on an average, between the ground and the floor of the station almost throughout its length.
We noticed that when we inspected the place there was a leak in the water pipe.
In brief, I doubt that one can say there is a cellar, when its space covers but one-fourth of that occupied by the building, the sewer system moreover is really defective.
(Signed) J. C. Beaudet, M.D.,
Medical Officer
Riviere du Loup, Jan. 28, 1931.
On February 4, I drew the attention of the railway commission to the report prepared by Doctor Beaudet and forwarded by Doctor Lessard, and the last paragraph of this letter reads as follows:
(Translation) I suppose that you have forwarded these documents to the Department of Railways. I would be very obliged, if you would kindly forward to my address a copy of the answer you will receive, at your earliest convenience.
Acknowledgment of letter received by the railway commission, February 12, 1931:
We have not so far received an answer from the company, and as you request, I shall be very glad to forward you their answer as soon as possible.
Another letter to the railway commission, dated February 5, 1931, to inquire whether the commission had received an answer from the Department of Railways. Acknowledgment of letter received February 7:
(Translation) I shall be glad to forward you a copy of the answer we shall receive from the railway company with reference to the last report of the inspection of the station by the medical officer of the provincial health bureau.
I remain.
Yours respectfully,
P. F. Baillargeon, Acting Associate Secretary.
On February 16, 1930, I wrote to the minister, as follows:
Riviere du Loup, P.Q.
February 16, 1931. Honourable R. J. Manion,
Minister of Railways and Canals,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Dr. Manion,-
Following our previous correspondence, I have sent you last week the third instalment of the story of the intrigues made by some people to prevent the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup.
You wired me on October 15th ult., that the necessary repairs to the station had been sanctioned.
I regret to say that the proposed repairs are wholly unsatisfactory because there is a 6-foot cellar in only one-fourth of the building and the repairs do not include the construction of a cellar nor any improvement in the present sewer system.
1800	COMMONS
Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
This is why I take the liberty to herewith enclose copy of a letter from Dr. A. Lessard, Director of the provincial Board of Health, to the Board of Railway Commissioners and of an additional report on the sanitary condition of the station by medical officer J. C. Beaudet, M.D. May I add that the foundations of the buildings are in a very bad shape.
I am sure that those facts have never been brought to your attention by the Canadian National Railways.
Therefore it is my duty to ask you to kindly reconsider the decision of the department regarding the immediate construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup.
On February 19, I wrote as follows to the secretary of the railway board:
(Translation) Pursuant to your letter dated February 7, would you be kind enough to let me know what answer you received from the Canadian National Railways with reference to the last report of the inspection of the station by Doctor J. C. Beaudet, of the provincial health board?
On February 20 I received the following letter:
(Translation) I wish to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 19th inst. in connection with the business herein mentioned and I must say that we have not yet received an answer from the railway company with reference to the inspection of the station by Doctor J. C. Beaudet, of the provincial health board.
As stated in my letter of the 7th inst. I shall be pleased to forward you a copy of the answer expected from the railway company.
On February 23, 1931, I wrote to the hon. minister as follows:
Dear Doctor Manion,-
Pray find herewith enclosed copy of my letter of February 16th and of the enclosures,
As you have wired me on October 15th ult. that the necessary repairs to Riviere du Loup station had been sanctioned and as the proposed repairs by the Canadian National Railways do not include the construction of a cellar therein nor any improvement in the present sewer system nor repairs to the foundation, be kind enough to let me know at your earliest convenience if it is your intention to reconsider the decision of your department regarding the immediate construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup.
Hoping to hear from you soon and with anticipated thanks.
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Frangois Pouliot.
Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the hon. member is reading too fast for the Hansard reporters.


Jean-François Pouliot: I shall hand them over the text. It is to save time that I am reading fast.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: It is contrary
to the Rules of the House to hand over the text to Hansard.


Jean-François Pouliot: 
An hon. MEMBER:: How is he as a minister?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not ready to express an opinion; I am on the fence.


Ernest Lapointe: There is a moratorium on that.	[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: As my hon. friend the former Minister of Justice has said, there is a moratorium on that.
After reports were duly made by people who were perfectly independent of anybody, the statement of the board of health being that it was a very unsanitary building, dangerous to the health of the people, and a disgrace to a promising city like Riviere du Loup, it was then agreed by the railway to erect a new and decent building. All that was settled. I understand the members of the cabinet are jointly and severally responsible for what is done by one of them. My hon. friend the Minister of Railways is not responsible for this as an individual, but he is responsible for it as a member of the cabinet. I do not blame him for that refusal.


Ernest Lapointe: Whom does the hon.
member blame?


Jean-François Pouliot: I blame his colleague the
hon. member for Argenteuil, but in fact, as the other members of the government share the responsibility of that hon. gentleman, they will have to be all blamed together. I do not wish to be as cruel as that. I wish

Private Bills

to have fair play. I do not understand how the Board of Railway Commissioners could have for the same reason rescinded not long ago a decision that they had given on the 9th of August. They rescinded it in order to conform to what had been said by the hon. gentleman that improvements would be made to the building. I have read to the committee the letter of the Canadian National Railways under date of March 3 in which they mentioned the proposed improvements. They make reference to no improvement to the cellar, no improvement to the foundation, no improvement to the sewer system. As a member who is proud of his constituency and who wishes to be fair to his people- and I shall have an opportunity before the end of the session to tell the Minister of Railways and Canals that I have been just as fair to the Conservatives as to the Liberals in my constituency-I ask him in the name of all my constituents that this injustice be rectified. What has been done is most unfair, and in the name of all my constituents, independently of party, I ask him kindly to see to it that the Canadian National Railways adhere to their first proposal, which would give fair treatment to the people of Riviere du Loup.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman has
apparently intentionally talked until two minutes to six o'clock so that there cannot possibly be any reply.


Jean-François Pouliot: The matter will come up again. I spoke as fast as possible, and I thought I could conclude. My hon. friend will have the whole evening in which to reply.


Robert James Manion: I want to have it on Hansard so that my hon. friend may not be misunderstood.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is quite right.
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 READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 21, respecting the Montreal and Atlantic Railway Company-Mr. Turnbull (for Mr. Pickel).
[Mr. Pouliot.l

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 15 respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway-Mr Willis-Mr. Casselman in the chair.
On section 1-Line of railway authorized.
Mr. JOSEPH A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):	Before this clause is passed 1
should like for a few moments to make certain observations in connection with it. Through this bill the Canadian Pacific Railway asks permission to construct a certain line of railway. Clause 1 of the bill is as follows:
The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called "the company," may within two years after the passing of this act commence to construct a line of railway from a point on the company's railway between Breslay station and its terminus at Place Viger in the city of Montreal, county of Hochelaga, thence in a generally northerly direction through the counties of Hochelaga and L'Assomption, to a connection with the company's railway at or near L'Epiphanie, all in the province of Quebec.
The distance between Place Viger and Breslay Stations is about five miles, figuring in a direct line. By the railway it takes twenty minutes to go from Place Viger to the Mile End station, which is in my division, and I would say that the Breslay station- which by the way is the new station under construction by the Canadian Pacific Railway Company at the northern extremity of Laurier-Outremont-is possibly one mile farther away than the Mile End station, making the distance between the Place Viger station and the Mile End station six or seven miles. The railway company may construct this line at any point over this distance of six or seven miles. The northeast section of Montreal has a sufficiency of railway lines, and we who represent the people in that section of the city, which is very densely populated, are opposed on general principles to the construction of any further lines. Speaking more particularly of my own division, I wish to emphasize the fact that there are no vacant lots in the northeast section of Laurier-Outremont. The Canadian Pacific Railway is doing a good work in the construction of the new Breslay station on Park avenue and Jean Taillon streets; much benefit will result in the furtherance of the development of this northern part of the city. I understand the station is to cost about a million and a half dollars, and that it is a handsome structure which when finished will reflect credit upon the part of the city in which it is located.

Canadian Pacific Railway BUI
The question of building this line came up before the railway committee on Wednesday and Thursday of this week. Certain amendments were offered to the bill but were not accepted by the committee. The company submitted a plan on which was indicated the probable line the railway would take. The plan of construction has not yet been prepared, and before the committee the company had no definite plan to offer. As I have stated, the company merely indicated on a map the general direction in which the line was to be constructed. On the plan presented appeared a line in heavy red ink about three-quarters of an inch wide was all that indicated the location of the new line. Mr. Flintoft, the attorney for the company, was asked if that red line indicated any particular point on the present railway line between the Place Yiger station and the new Breslay station from which the new line would start. He answered that as yet no plans had been prepared but that the map before the committee simply showed the general direction in which the line was to run, and that the company did not know at which particular point the new line would start. I suppose if the Canadian Pacific Railway is spending over a million dollars for the construction of a new station in the north end of Montreal it intends to use it to the greatest extent possible. The Breslay station is in a direct line immediately south of the station at L'Epiphanie in the county of L'Assomption where the projected line is to join the main Quebec line of the Canadian Pacific Railway. If the company takes the shortest distance between Breslay station and L'Epiphanie the line will pass right through the heart of Laurier ward in my constituency, one of the most thickly populated sections of the city of Montreal, with the result that the property owners in that section of the city will have their property ruined because this is to be an elevated railway. The company, through its attorneys, stated before the railway committee on Wednesday that it was not its intention to build an underground or depressed line owing to the cost of such construction, but that it was its intention to build an elevated road. This means that the property adjoining the projected line will be of no value and we shall be faced with a situation similar to that which confronted us in connection with the construction of the new terminal facilities of the Canadian National Railways, which involved elevated lines into the city of Montreal. As representing one of the divisions of that section of the city, I am strongly opposed to the passing of this bill until such 22110- 121J
time as the plans are submitted to the committee in order that we may know the exact location of the line. As I said at the outset, the Canadian Pacific Railway has other lines in that section of the city, and it could very easily make use of its existing lines in the construction of this short cut to Quebec. We are all in favour of shortening the line to Quebec, which is one of the heavily travelled lines of the Canadian Pacific into the Montreal district. I understand that by going directly through l'Epiphanie there will be a saving of some fourteen miles. It is only natural that the company should desire to shorten its line, but there is no reason why the same serious situation as arose in connection with the Canadian National Railways should be created in this case, and I submit, Mr. Chairman, that the committee should not pass this section until such time as plans are submitted showing the exact location.
I am availing myself of this opportunity to express my dissent in the hope that the electors in that part of the city which I represent will be made aware of the intention of the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and will in turn voice their dissent to the construction of the proposed line. I repeat, I hope the committee will not pass the section.
Mr. ST-PERE (Translation): Mr. Speaker, the few remarks which I intend to make with reference to clause 1 of Bill No. 15, will be, so to speak, but a repetition or a second edition of those that I made before the railway committee, Wednesday last.
Clause 1 reads as follows:
1. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company, hereinafter called "the company," may within two years after the passing of this act commence to construct a line of railway from a point on the company's railway between Breslay station and its terminus at Place Viger in the city of Montreal, county of Hochelaga, thence in a generally northerly direction through the counties of Hochelaga and L'Assomption, to a connection with the company's railway at or near L'Epiphanie, all in the province of Quebec; and may within five years after the passing of this act complete the said line of railway, and if within the said periods respectively, the said line of railway is not commenced or is not completed and put in operation the powers of construction eon-iferred upon the company by parliament shall cease and be null and void as respects so much of the said line of railway as shall not then have been commenced or completed, as the case may be.
The fact that said line will follow a certain route in the county of Hochelaga obliges me to oppose the adoption of this clause. I wish to state, sir, that the county of Hoche-
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Pacific Railway Bill
laga and especially that part of my riding which includes Hochelaga and Prefontaine wards, is at present diagonally crossed from the southwest to the northeast by the Canadian National line which runs between Moreau street station and the city of Quebec. This line in use for a number of years runs through church and school areas. Let me point out that it is a serious impediment to traffic, a constant danger to pedestrians and school children, that religious and school authorities, property owners and residents of these two wards of my constituency in Montreal, strongly oppose the building of this line -either as a level, overhead or underground line. It may be somewhat of a surprise to hon. members to hear the member for Hochelaga protesting against the construction of this new railway because many think that a new line almost invariably contributes to the prosperity of the district it crosses. I must say that we think differently and following instructions forwarded to the member for Hochelaga on behalf of property owners, tenants, and the authorities previously mentioned, nothing in the world will induce me to vote in favour of such a clause.
There is another railway which crosses the centre of Prefontaine ward. This overhead line was built by the Canadian Pacific railway and has never been in use owing to the protests made at the time by the city council of Maisonneuve. This line which passes through the centre of this section, like those located south of Ontario street, has been for a number of years detrimental to the erection of new buildings. It was greatly responsible for the depreciation of property in that part of my constituency, and the pillars of this overhead line are a constant danger to automobiles.
Mr. Speaker, owing to the protests which I received, because of the vague wording of this clause, which does not specify the starting point of this line, I must, on behalf of the residents of that section of my constituency, acquaint the house that in order to comply with the objections raised by my constituents, I shall be obliged to vote against clause 1 which requests the construction of a new line which will be, so to speak, but a branch of the present one.
At the last meeting of the railway committee, I was somewhat astonished when a letter received from Mr. Fairweather, of the Canadian National Railways, was read, offering, as a solution for this new difficulty, to allow the Canadian Pacific the use of the present Canadian National lines. May I remind Mr. Fairweather that, in 1929, when the Palmer scheme was discussed in the railway 
committee, Mr. Brown, chief engineer of the Canadian National, gave his word so as to meet my wishes and that of one of the councillors of that section of my constituency, that the freight passing over the Canadian National line in Hochelaga and Maisonneuve would only be put in the sheds at night when the building of the central terminal of Lagauchetiere street would be completed. Can we suppose that this pledge will be carried out if the Canadian Pacific Railway accepts the offer just made by Mr. Fairweather? Then, what would become of the pledges given to the member for Hochelaga and the councillor of the Prefontaine ward when the Palmer scheme was discussed in 1929? The people are at present opposed to the freight being put in the sheds during the day, because this delays the traffic of motor vehicles at the numerous railway level crossing gates which are almost invariably closed. Can one reasonably suppose that my constituents will accept such an arrangement? I therefore oppose, on their behalf, the building by the Canadian Pacific Railway of any new short branch between Montreal and "Epiphanie," if this line is to cross the wards previously mentioned. As stated before I strongly object, because such a line would depreciate property, prevent landlords renting their houses advantageously, because it would be a constant source of danger for pedestrians and school children, would delay traffic, and finally because far from contributing to the general prosperity of these two wards, it would be a burden for that eastern section of Montreal included in my constituency. For these reasons I shall vote against clause 1 of Bill No. 15, intituled An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway.
Mr. DENIS (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, not being a member of the railway committee, I had not the opportunity of studying and discussing this clause which gives to the Canadian Pacific Railway company the right of constructing a railway from a point located on the main line, between the Breslay station and the terminal at Place Viger station. I wish to strongly protest against clause 1 because the construction of this line would only serve the interests of that railway company and in no way those of citizens residing in the various sections that said line is to cross. This railway will be built through the centre of Montreal and will cross the best sections, Laurier-Outremont, my constituency (St. Denis) and also Hochelaga and Maisonneuve, counties which are at present well provided for. I therefore do

Canadian Pacific Railway Bill
not see any good reason for authorizing the Canadian Pacific to build this line of railway.
Neither can I understand why the company, in its request did not specify the exact starting point; it only mentions "a point located between the Breslay station and the Viger station." Why not specify the exact starting point of this line and thus avoid creating uneasiness among those who object to having their section crossed by a railway which would depreciate the value of their property. As representative of the county of St. Denis, wholly settled and inhabited by a population which has made great sacrifices to comfortably house themselves, I must protest in order to safeguard the interests of the citizens of my constituency preferably to those of the Canadian Pacific company. I would not like to see a railway cross diagon-alljr my county, from the northeasterly boundary to the southwesterly one passing through the beautiful parish of St-Edouard, then across the lovely parishes of St.-Am-broise and St-Jean-Berchmans. I ask hon. members of this house, to fully consider this clause and to reject it. The clause under discussion is not couched in precise language and we should not, by our vote, give a blank signature to this company which will use it to destroy the sections which form a beautiful background to the city of Montreal. In the northern and southern parts of Montreal we have sufficient railways to provide for the population. If the Canadian Pacific Railway needs to shorten its line between Montreal and Quebec, it seems to me that it could come to an agreement with the Canadian National Railway Company, so that trains might utilize the new line which the latter w-ill build in the northern section of the city, instead of disfiguring the picturesque and artistic appearance of Montreal, as well as depreciating real estate in that part of the city. For all these reasons, sir, I strongly protest against this clause and I must ask hon. members of this house to withhold their approval from a move tending to depreciate sections which are an element of beauty, greatness and prosperity for the city.


Mr. ROBITAILLE (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to associate myself with my fellow-members, as the representative of the lovely county of Maisonneuve which is situated at the extreme eastern end of the Montreal island.
The proposed railway would no doubt cross the county of Maisonneuve, although its location is very indefinite. The Canadian Pacific Railway Company intends, according
to this bill, to construct a line from a point-located between the Yiger station and that-of Breslay, thence mostly in a northerly direction. The north is not specified, whether it be the magnetic or true north; however, if the starting point be near the Viger station, the whole centre of Montreal will be crossed in a northerly direction, if on the other hand, the starting point is near the Breslay station, it will be impossible for the line to take a northerly direction in order to reach the county of 1'Assomption, it would necessarily cross the county of Terrebonne. I therefore contend that the committee cannot accept clause 1 in respect to the building of a line through the city of Montreal.
The section of my constituency which would be crossed by this proposed line is partly urban and partly rural.
There is already the proposed railway line of the Canadian National which is to cross that part of my county, however this railway will not extend as far as that of the Canadian Pacific because the Canadian National line would be built towards Longuie-Bointe so as to join the main line there, while the Canadian Pacific Railway seems to want to build much further north and would thereby cross prosperous farms and thus be very detrimental to farmers. The committee should not accept such an indefinite clause. Let the railway company submit its plans to us and we may judge then whether our people can approve this scheme. I would be pleased to second the efforts of the Canadian Pacific Company at this time of depression,-if the construction work began soon it would certainly relieve unemployment,- however, for the reasons given it is impossible for us to accept clause 1 as at present worded.
The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Cowan, Port
Arthur): Shall the section carry?
And the yeas and nays having been called:


Robert James Manion: Before you take the vote, Mr. Chairman, I should like to say a word. I thought some other hon. members were going to speak, or I should have been on my feet before you called for the yeas and nays. I have in my hand a letter from the Canadian National railways which was read before the committee, at which I had not the opportunity of being present because I was out of the city. The attitude of the Canadian National railways is expressed in this letter, written by the counsel of the Canadian National railways to the counsel of my department:

Canadian Pacific Railway Bill
For the information of the minister and of the railway committee. I have to advise you that the Canadian National does not propose to appear to offer opposition to Bill 15, entitled, "An Act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company."
We desire to suggest, however, that the territory, through which will run the very indefinitely described line specified in section 1, is or will be served adequately by lines of the *Canadian National now existing or under construction and that what appears to be economic waste on proposed new construction can be avoided by securing through running rights (the same as they gave us at Port Arthur) if the same be necessary, over the national lines.
In other words the Canadian National itself is not opposing this line, therefore from the standpoint of the two railways there is no reason why anyone-I am speaking now to justify my own vote, because I intend to vote for the bill-should vote against it. But may I say that I sympathize with my hon. friends who have spoken representing that section of the city of Montreal which will be affected. They do not wish their whole city cut up by various railway lines. I also sympathize with the idea expressed in this letter that we should not permit unnecessary duplication of railway lines. We all know that that sort of thing in the past has to a large extent brought about the sad condition of railway affairs in Canada today, and it should be the duty of all members of this house and of all citizens of Canada to avoid as far as possible any further duplication.
Therefore I undertake on behalf of the government to suggest, in writing, to the Board of Railway Commissioners that before the plans of the Canadian Pacific Railway are approved by the board-which must be done in connection with all plans of that kind -the board give an opportunity to the city of Montreal and other interested sections of *Quebec to appear before them and show [DOT]cause why the Canadian Pacific Railway, if it builds this line, and the Canadian National Railway, in connection with lines it has built or is about to build, should get together and obtain common running rights for the two roads over the one line. That appears to me the sensible position to take.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: That is a good
explanation; the bill was explained that way in committee.


Robert James Manion: This bill did come before the committee, as the hon. member says, though I was unable to be present. The committee accepted it, but in view of the fact that the government are quite willing to .take that attitude towards the two railway

companies and ask the board to give an opportunity to all concerned to show why unnecessary duplication should not take place, and why the two roads should combine and receive common running rights, I think this bill might pass.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Are they not bound to give that opportunity in any case?
Mr. MANION; No, I do not believe so. However, to avoid any misunderstanding I will put myself on record as suggesting to the board, on behalf of the government, that this opportunity be afforded.


Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: There was a suggestion in the committee that the bill should be amended to make the city of Montreal and other interested districts parties to the case, but that suggestion was not accepted.


Robert James Manion: If the government requests the Board of Railway Commissioners to give Montreal and other interested districts an opportunity to appear in this matter, the Board of Railway Commissioners would hardly dare take any other course. I suggest that under these circumstances, the committee, in view of the fact that the Canadian National Railways are not opposed to the bill, and in view of what I have stated on behalf of the government, accept the bill. I do not think there will be any difficulty whatever if these two railways get together and share running rights on terms suitable to both and approved by the Board of Railway Commissioners.


John Vallance: I was a member of the railway committee where this bill was discussed, and I think I ought to say a word or two. I was not able to follow the hon. gentleman who spoke in Frenoh, but I did follow the hon. member who spoke first. He reechoed the objections which were raised in the committee, the most serious of which was the fact that the city of Montreal was not a party to this application. It was pointed out to them, however, that under the Railway Act, as administered by the Board of Railway Commissioners, it was obligatory to hear all who made representations regarding any application for a charter. It has been suggested that the line is indefinite. Well, I have followed with interest, both before and after I became a member of this house, the granting of charters here, and a't no time have I ever known of a railway that was surveyed and a definite route plan kid down before the charter passed through this house. This line is in exactly the same position. As

Private Bills
to whether it should be an elevated railway or underground, or a surface railway, that is a matter of policy within the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners, who will suggest to the Canadian Pacific Railway just where the line should go. This bill was thoroughly discussed in the railway committee, and in order to be consistent I shall certainly have to support it.


Mr. WILLIS:: As sponsor of the bill I might say a word with reference to the objection of the city of Montreal. Mr. Flintoft, the solicitor for the Canadian Pacific Railway, has already written the city of Montreal, agreeing to furnish them with plans, maps and all other material necessary to enable them to be heard before the board. The city of Montreal is therefore safeguarded. As has been said, this bill was before the railway committee. There were two hearings and the city of Montreal was represented by its solicitor and, as well, by the mayor. I might read the section of the Railway Act which is of importance in connection with this discussion:
Provided that any complaint made to them-
That is, the Board of Railway Commissioners.
[DOT]-shall, on the application of any party to the complaint, be heard and determined in open court.
Objection has been made that in some Canadian National case this was not done; but, as I have stated, the Canadian Pacific Railway, in this instance, has agreed in advance that this course will be followed. I am not personally concerned with the bill; I am merely sponsoring it. As a matter of fact, I live thousands of miles away from Montreal. I do think, however, that the bill ought to go to the proper tribunal, the Board of Railway Commissioners, for consideration.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall section 1 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.
Section agreed to on division:	yeas, 60;
nays, 14.
Sections 2 and 5, inclusive, agreed to.
Bill reported.



KETTLE VALLEY RAILWAY COMPANY

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 14, respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company

Mr. Stirling-Mr. Cowan (Port Ar-thur-Thunder Bay) in the chair.
On section 1-Line of railway authorized.
Mr. NEILL:: Will the hon. member in
charge of this bill tell us the length of the line and give us some reason-probably there is one-for the fact that the charter appears to have been extended sixteen times in thirty years?


Mr. STIRLING:: This bill seeks permission to construct a line of railway about eight miles in length on the west side of Skaha lake. The Kettle Valley Railway southerly from Penticton was interrupted by Skaha lake and traffic has been carried on the lake by scow since 1912 or 1913. There is a considerable amount of traffic developing in the southern part of the valley and it has proved most inconvenient to carry all of that service on the lake by scow. The hon. member for Comox-Alberni is not quite accurate in saying that there have been ten extensions of time. The time extensions for this particular piece of work have been three in number: chapter 140 in 1913; chapter 46 in 1915; and chapter 54 in 1918. The other references in the bill, do not apply to this particular piece of line.


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

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 48, respecting The Algoma Central and Hudson Bay Railway Company.-Mr Simpson (West Algoma).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni) moved the second reading of Bill No. 43, to amend the criminal code.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to ask that the bill be read a second time; I asked that you might call it nine o'clock, as it is hardly possible to express my views in five minutes. When I was speaking the other night on the introduction of this bill I said that I would not press the second reading, but I hope that members did not understand by that that I would not move the second reading. My idea was that an opportunity should be granted to obtain the views of both those opposed and those in favour of this amendment. Even during the short time this bill has been on the order paper I have received a lot of valuable dlata
1938	COMMONS
Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
from business firms and associations, which I think might be properly laid before the house. Unless I gave the figures the house would not realize the extent of the evil referred to in this bill. One business men's association in Winnipeg reports that in one year one-third of their members received 70,000 bad cheques aggregating a total of over 85,500,000. That statement alone would show the necessity for a bill such as the one I am sponsoring. If time would permit I should like to read some of the comments both for and against this bill.
Canada is behind other countries with legislation of this kind. A number of other countries have a specific method of dealing with the matter, whereas this country proceeds under the criminal code section dealing wth obtaining goods under false pretences, and which has been found to be quite inadequate to meet the situation. It is nine o'clock, Mr. Speaker.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
Miscellaneous-Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada: maintenance and operation, $321,100.
Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the minister was to give me some information.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend spent some time before six o'clock dealing with a proposal to build a station at Riviere du Loup. May I suggest to him once again that the committee is fully informed on that question, and the matter will be given consideration. The hon. member seems to have the impression that Riviere du Loup is the only place in Canada which has been denied a new station. As a matter of fact, over $8,000,000 worth of additions and betterments of one kind and another for the Canadian National Railways -which sum was voted last year in the estimates-have had to be postponed. In other words, the railway station at Riviere du Loup, which was to cost between $75,000 and $80,000-we will take it at $80,000, to have a round figure-is exactly one per cent of the works which were deferred last year by the railway company; it is just one in a hundred. The hon. gentleman therefore has no right to feel that Riviere du Loup was treated so much worse than many other parts of the country, since projected expenditures aggregating between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000 were similarly delayed. rMr. Neill.]
The other evening my horn, friend asked what had become of the money which, as he said, had 'been voted; why was it not spent on the Riviere du Loup station? Recently he wrote a letter to the Ottawa Citizen in regard to the same question. Let me tell him what became of the money. It was used for some other purpose by the national railways. The national railways have had, in the past at any rate, power to switch moneys voted for one purpose to another. This is a power which has not, as a matter of fact, been possessed by the Canadian government itself, and I do not mind saying quite frankly I do not believe the Canadian National Railways should have this power to any great extent, and certainly not to the extent they have had it in the past. I believe that when appropriations are passed in the house the money so voted should as far as possible be spent upon the item for which it was voted, or it should not be spent at all. Unfortunately, however, that has not been the case heretofore, and I repeat that in the past year between $8,000,000 and $9,000,000 that were voted for certain pur-posese were used for other purposes than those for which the money was voted. I come back again to tell my hon. friend that the case of Riviere du Loup was merely one of those estimates, totalling between SS,000.000 and $9,000,000 which were voted by the House of Commons last year and which were switched to other purposes. I have endeavoured to answer the hon. gentleman's question as propounded in the house a few days ago in regard to what became of the money and I have tried to show him that Riviere du Loup was treated no worse than many other sections of the country.


Peter Heenan: Riviere du Loup has a very good representative here, and I wish I could fight for my riding as my hon. friend does for Riviere du Loup. While unfortunately Riviere du Loup is not in my riding, I want to point out to the minister that an amount of $1,500,000 was paid out of the unemployment relief fund for the purpose of encouraging the railroads to proced with a program of work which the railroads felt they should not have proceeded with ordinarily for, as the minister said, probably one, two and in some cases as long a time as four years. This was done for the purpose of talcing care of unemployment. Does it not seem bad business to go on with and spend $1,500,000 on work that will not be required for three or four years when they could have spent $50,000, $60,000 or $75,000, I do not know how much, in one portion of the country

Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
where a station has been burned down, and thus enable the commerce of that section to be handled properly?


Robert James Manion: Let me correct my hon. friend. The station at Riviere du Loup was not burned down. In any case the works in regard to which the government gave this one and a half million dollars to meet interest charges, were works proposed by the Canadian National and Candian Pacific Railways themselves. A meeting was held in my office, later in the office of the Minister of Labour, and railway officials were present. An understanding was reached that they would submit a program of works on which the government would pay the interest for a year or a year and a half in view of the fact that the railways were doing the work in advance of the time that they would ordinarily have done it. The railway officials went away, worked over their plans and later submitted them; but I regret to say that among the works which they proposed to do, they did not include the station at Riviere du Loup to which my hon. friend refers. It was never discussed: it was never proposed, and so far as I know, it was never thought of. The matter was not brought to my attention at all. We agreed to the works which the railways themselves proposed, and which they said were the most suitable ones to carry out under the conditions imposed.


Peter Heenan: I quite appreciate the fact that neither the Minister of Railways nor the Minister of Labour could think about the station at Riviere du Loup when the railways presented their program of work; but, on the other hand, it might have occurred to someone that the amount required for this station had already been voted under a previous administration, and it is strange that not knowing anything about the territory the railway companies could plan a program of work to. relieve unemployment in other parts of the country when they could not spend in my hon. friend's riding money already voted for work to be done in it. I take it for granted that there Was unemployment in that riding.


Olof Hanson: The same thing applies to Prince Rupert. Last year an estimate was passed for $250,000 for an hotel. Since then the national railways found it necessary to spend money in Vancouver, so we are still hoping for $250,000 to replace the corresponding amount that they have spent in other parts of the country.


Jean-François Pouliot: I appreciate very much what the ex-Minister of Labour has said.
He is a former railway employee, and if next summer he visits Riviere du Loup, I am sure he will receive an ovation from the people connected with the railways and, indeed, from all the people of that district. I also thank the Minister of Railways for his kind words to-night. I am glad to see that he is in a good humour at this sitting.


Mr. GOTT:: Will he get an ovation too if he visits Riviere du Loup?


Jean-François Pouliot: That depends on what he will do in the future. If my hon. friend visits us, we shall find a nest for him.


Eccles James Gott: Another one than that which the hon. member has for himself.


Jean-François Pouliot: A bird should not speak;
it should sing. The Minister of Railways said that the railway officials did not discuss the question of a station at Riviere du Loup when the matter of unemployment relief came before him. The question of the station at Riviere du Loup was before the minister. At the time it was decided, the hon. gentleman was not present, and the acting minister was the hon. member for Argenteuil. But according to the report of the Dominion director of unemployment relief at page 4:
On September 30, 1930, by order in council P.C. 2292, the Minister of Labour was authorized to enter into an agreement with the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and the Canadian National Railways, whereby there would be expended by these railway companies the sum of approximately $25,000,000 in the performance of certain works, and the purchase of certain material over and above the normal expenditure of the said railways, such works to be commenced immediately and to be completed within the ensuing fifteen months.
The date of the order in council-please note it, Mr. Chairman, because it will interest you-is September 30, 1930. Then, an agreement dated October, 1930, was signed by the Minister of Labour and the Canadian National Railways. Clause 1 of that agreement reads as follow's:
Now therefore, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: First to assist in relieving unemployment the company will undertake and carry on to be completed on or about December 31,	1931, the works more
particularly described in the schedule hereto attached, or such other work-
And I would ask hon. members to take note of the w-ords "other work."
-or works in lieu thereof as the parties hereto may agree upon at the estimated cost of $5,654,748 as set forth in detail in the said schedule.
There was also an agreement signed by the Minister of Labour and Mr. Humphrey, for the vice-president of the Canadian Pacific

Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
Railway, on October 14, 1930. The order in council was passed on September 30, and the agreement between the Minister of Labour and the Canadian National Railways amounting to several million dollars was dated October 1. The agreement between the Minister of Labour and the Canadian Pacific Railway was dated October 14. I would ask the committee to note that the refusal of the minister to sanction the construction of a new station at Riviere du Loup took place on October 7.
I have before me an interesting letter sent on November 6 by my hon. friend the Minister of Railways to the city of Riviere du Loup. A resolution was passed by the city council on November 3 and is recorded in Hansard, to the effect that a suggestion should be made to the Minister of Railways that some moneys be taken from the unemployment fund to complete the difference between the amount voted by parliament and the lowest tender, an amount approximating six or seven thousand dollars. That resolution was passed by the city council of Riviere du Loup and was certified to by the secretary treasurer and the mayor. I should explain that the mayor is the perpetual Tory candidate in my constituency. Naturally the Minister of Railways was very much surprised to see the name of that gentleman on a resolution asking for money. Naturally the minister was surprised that a resolution should be signed by the mayor of Riviere du Loup asking for money for a new station from the unemployment fund. The minister should have known that that gentleman was in Ottawa on October 7 when the Minister of Railways refused to sanction the building of the station. I think my remarks will explain the illuminating letter from the Minister of Railways and Canals to the city council of Riviere du Loup, which says:
Yotre cite ne fut pas proposee d'une maniere speciale lorsque la question fut presentee.
The English translation is, "Your city was not represented in a special way when the question came before us". I congratulate the hon. gentleman on this letter. He wrote when under the influence of indignation, and undoubtedly he was very much surprised to see that the man who blocked the building of the station was interested in one of the tenderers who could not secure the contract. As the gentleman I have in mind could not secure an advantage for his protege he blocked the whole thing so that the community at large would suffer. He was not the right man to go before the minister and ask him to act in accordance with that resolution. As

the mayor of Riviere du Loup he was bound to sign the resolution. He could not go before the people and show his game by saying, "I will not sign it, because on October 7 I blocked it". The minister said plainly not only to the secretary-treasurer of the city of Riviere du Loup but through him to the whole community, that if the city had been represented in a special way the matter could have been arranged. It was not necessary to propose it to the minister. The only course was to let the matter follow its natural course. That would have been done if no obstacle had been put in a previously smooth path.


Eccles James Gott: Did the hon. member say "icicle"?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not paying any attention to the hon. gentleman.


Eccles James Gott: The hon. member got the cold shoulder, so he must have said "icicle".


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend makes a noise but that is all. When I was young I used to hear the noise of fire crackers, and that noise meant as much as the noise now made by my hon. friend.
I shall now read the last paragraph of a letter appearing in Le Saint Laurent on December 31, 1931.
In closing your remarks, you say you are interested in the welfare of our city and you contend that I had sufficient influence to undo in two months what you allege it took you six years to accomplish. You thereby admit that you cannot get the present government to accede to your wishes. Do you wish to prove that you have really at heart .the interest of our city? Resign as member. In a month I shall have replaced you, and I promise that the station will be built within two years, not a sketch of it, but the building itself. I promise to do more in two years than you have done in six. According to your contentions which are often wrong, I have enough influence to prevent the construction of the station. Then were I a member, would I not have enough influence to build the station?
Yours truly,
Chs. E. Dube,
Mayor.
In that letter he boasts of being spoken of as having enough influence to block it; would he not have enough influence to build it? Is it not the kind of log rolling which was condemned by the Prime Minister in his Brandon speech during the campaign?


An hon. MEMBER:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, just a minute. Our
people suffered discrimination, and I tm fighting against it as one should fight against discrimination shown in any constituency. At first I asked the board of health to make a

Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
thorough investigation of the matter. That was done by independent people who had not the interests of any political party at heart. They said that the building was dangerous, absolutely unsanitary, and reported accordingly to the railway company. In a second report the board of health condemned the station completely and finally the Canadian National Railways agreed to build a new station. As I have already explained, the reason it was not built before was because the Atlantic region of the Canadian National railways had for many years suffered a deficit. The blame for the deficit was placed on freight rates. For this reason they postponed the matter until last year, when after the report of the board of health had been received they deliberately "put the item in their own budget.
Now, I wish to pay my tribute to one who was a most distinguished Minister of Railways-the Hon. Mr. Dunning. At my request, as I have already explained, he had the Canadian National Railways Act amended in order to put the old Intercolonial railway on the same basis as any other part of the system and so bring it under the jurisdiction of the board of Railway Commissioners. And it was due to him that the matter was definitely settled by the railway board after the board of health had submitted its report.
This afternoon I read the reports which had been exchanged between the railway board and the board of health. The repairs approved by the railway board-it changed its mind, having first disapproved those repairs- are most unsatisfactory because they do not cover the foundations and the building of a cellar, The doctor who made a careful inspection of the whole building reported that there is a space of only two feet between the soil and the floor over three-fourths of the area of the building, the sewer system passes underneath the floor, and microbes and cockroaches abound. This creates a situation so dangerous to health that I think it would be a fine place for the headquarters of the Klu Klux Klan. Hon. members will realize that any repairs to the present structure could not possibly be satisfactory. The proposed repairs approved by the- second order of the railway board are entirely inadequate and unsatisfactory. In a word, the only thing to do is to build an entirely new structure.
I congratulate my hon. friend the Minister of Railways on having had the courage to say that he does not approve of the way the Canadian National Railways switch-a good railway expression-money appropriated for a definite purpose to some other purpose. It cannot be done with the ordinary government estimates, and it should not be done by the Canadian National Railways, because the
Audit Act, by virtue of which the estimates are voted for governmental purposes, applies also to the estimates voted for the Canadian National Railways.
I cannot resist the pleasure of saying a word on the question of economy. We all understand that as business is at a standstill at the moment the earnings of both railways have been seriously affected; in fact they are much less this year than they were last year or the year before. But what about the expenses? The item for the building of the station was 877,136 and it was included in vote No. 323 of last year, amounting to a grand total of 851,600,000. My hon. friend the minister said that last year betterments amounting to 88,000,000 were postponed. That may be the ease, but the right hon. Prime Minister, speaking as Minister of Finance just before the conclusion of the financial year on March 31, declared to this house that not only the total amount of vote No. 323, 851,600,000, had been spent, but also 811,000,000 that we voted this year to try to fill the hole. This gives us a total in round figures of 862,600,000. Besides that we have the grant to the Canadian National Railways, as stated in the report of the dominion director of unemployment relief, amounting to 86,654,748. There is also another item of more than 85,000,000 I cannot understand this cry of economy, Mr Chairman, because the greater portion of that money has been spent somewhere else;-the Minister of Railways does not know where, I do not know where, the Prime Minister does not know where, and you yourself, Mr. Chairman, do not know where. My hon. friend the minister said that the money had been spent for another purpose. What was that purpose? He does not know.


Robert James Manion: I do know. I would ask my hon. friend to make his own speech and not put words in my mouth.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the hon. minister
kindly tell me?


Robert James Manion: I told him a minute ago. It was spent to pay interest on the funded debt due the public, which interest the Canadian National Railways did not earn sufficient to pay. The Canadian National Railways expected to have a deficit of 88,000,000 or 89,000,000 in respect of interest to the public; instead of that they had a deficit of something like 829,000,000 on that account, and they had to use other moneys, including the money for my hon. friend's station, to pay this interest.


Jean-François Pouliot: It confirms what I said, but it does not tell me where the money is
1912	COMMONS
Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
gone. It might have been spent in British Columbia, it might have been spent at Fort Churchill-


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps at Long Lake.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, perhaps it has gone to Long Lake.


Eccles James Gott: Will the hon. member permit one question? In view of the fact that he has consumed six hours in discussing this station, will he kindly tell the committee whether he is in favour of building a station there or not?


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend might better employ his time making a six hour speech to defend the rights of his constituents than constantly heckling members in this house. By so doing he would be serving a much better purpose and would be more favourably judged by his own constituents.


Eccles James Gott: Where did you get that information?


Jean-François Pouliot: From the press.


Robert James Manion: Might I ask my hon. friend a question? What is his object in delaying the proceedings of the house as he has done? Does he think we do not understand that he wants a station at Riviere du Loup? What is the object of continually harping on the question until he is looked upon as a pest, not only by this side of the house but by the other side as well? The situation has become such that everyone begins to leave the chamber when he gets up to speak; everyone is tired of hearing about Riviere-du-Loup. That is the position with his own party as well as with hon. members on this side. The hon. gentleman has made the position clear; he wants a station at Riviere-du-Loup, but I can tell him that he is going the wrong way about it. I do not intend to be bulldozed by the hon. member;
I do not intend that any of us shall be forced to do something by the hon. member. It may be said that we cannot interfere with the Canadian National Railways, but we have to supply the money, so we should have something to say about it. I say to my hon. friend that he is taking the very attitude which will prevent his constituents from getting the station for which he pretends he is working so hard; he is taking the very attitude which will result in his not getting the station at all. I might as well be frank; the hon. member may as well know that now. and his constituents might as well know it also.


Peter Heenan: I do not think it is fair
for the minister to take that position. The hon. gentleman is sent here to represent a constituency, and he appears to think that the house is not yet seized of the importance of the necessity for this station. I do not think it is fair for the minister to say that if the hon. member represents the needs of his constituency, that fact will make the minister revengeful and he will see to it that the hon. member does not get the very thing he requires. I would have rather thought the minister might have taken this position, that in view of the representations which have been made, he would indicate to the railway company and to the government why the hon. member should get the station as soon as possible.


Robert James Manion: I might inform the hon.
gentleman that long ago when the hon. member for Temiscouata spoke on this matter for about the eighth or ninth time, I told him I would give it consideration, and I told him that if there was less talk there probably would be more station. At that time the hon. gentleman was kind enough to thank me for what I said, but since then he has brought up the matter another eight or nine times and he has become a nuisance. Some of the members of this house want to get on with business. We do not want to be delayed here, and neither do the friends of my hon. friend. They do not wish to be tied up here all summer just because of the Riviere du Loup station. Riviere du Loup will get a fair deal just as the other parts of the country will get a fair deal. The hon. member has taken up hour after hour of the time of the house dealing with this station. We understand what he wants; we know that Riviere du Loup would like, a station, but Riviere du Loup has wanted a station for many years. The hon. gentleman was elected in 1924; his own party was in power until 1930, but he did not find the matter so very important during that time. We have been accused of giving many promises, but all he got from his own party was a preelection promise, and he did not get the station built.
The hon. member has made it clear that he wants a station. The matter will be given consideration, but certainly we are not going to be bulldozed by the hon. gentleman, and I am tired of sitting quietly by and having him hold up the entire business of the house. That is all he has been doing on every possible occasion, not only in connection with my estimates, but on every other occasion when he could possibly interject the Riviere

Supply-Riviere clu Loup Station
du Loup mutter. I might as well be quite frank about it. I want to be courteous to all hon. members of the house, as I think I have been, but I am getting tired of being courteous when the hon. gentleman himself does not show courtesy in return.


Mr. COWAN (Long Lake):: The hon.
member for Kenora-Rainy River said the hon. member for Temiscouata is here representing his constituency and that he has a right to take up the time of the house in presenting the needs of his constituents. I am here representing my constituency, and I am not representing it when I listen for hours to such twaddle as the hon. member has been presenting. I cannot possibly represent my constituency if I listen to that sort of thing, and I am not going to sit here if that kind of thing goes on. I have other things to do.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. member for Long Lake will come to my constituency and make that speech, I will be elected until I am a hundred years old. Now I wish to tell you something in French, Mr. Chairman. This is a verse by that great poet Racine, as follows:
Je crains Dieu, cher Abner, et n'ai point d'au-tre crainte.
I will translate that verse into English for the benefit of the Minister of Railways or for anyone who tries to bluff me in this house.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is the expression the minister used when speaking to me the other day. The English translation is:
I fear God, dear Abner, and I fear no one else.
I give that as a warning to everyone who tries to prevent me from presenting in this house the desires and wishes of my constituents. I have never been afraid of anyone in my life.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: And I can lame anyone who shows lack of manners in a debate. I have always treated people fairly, even those who are ashamed of what they do in the darkness. 1 have treated everyone in this house fairly; no hon. member can say that I have not given him a fair deal when discussing any matter with him.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The hon. member will please get back to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, I will come back to the item under discussion, and I want to give this explanation as a foreword to what I am going to say about the Riviere du Loup station. The point is this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, it is not carried, and hon. members are wasting time in saying so, because I am going to have a fair deal.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will give everyone a fair deal.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The hon. member must discuss the item before the chair. We are not here to discuss private or personal grievances. We must discuss the item before the chair and nothing else.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Might I ask whether I will be allowed to discuss the two orders of the board of railway commissioners?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Certainly.


Jean-François Pouliot: The first order was dated
August 9 of last year, just two days after my right hon. friend the Prime Minister came into office. It was an independent ruling of the board, based on the desire of the Canadian National Railways to conform to the suggestions or orders coming from the board of health of the province of Quebec. This is easy to understand. That order mentioned the fact that the plans for the building of a new station at Riviere du Loup had been approved and had been recommended by that city. It was said at that time by the present Minister of Railways that it was a bluff, that it was just a promise before the election. An amount of 877,136 was voted by parliament, tenders were called for and the lowest tender amounted to something less than $84,000. Under those circumstances the railway could not build the station without asking for the approval of the minister. This is a former Canadian government railway, the Intercolonial line. The minister had to give his approval, which was required because of that difference of S6,000 or $7,000 between the amount voted by parliament and the lowest tender. The tenders were received on August 26, about two weeks after the date of the first order of the board. According to correspondence which appeared in a weekly publication in my home town, tenders were received at Moncton, but no action was taken with respect to them for some time. The matter was held up by the department.
1911	COMMONS
Supply-Riviere du Loup Station
Now, the Minister of Railways will admit that, so far as this whole question is concerned, I have always treated him with the utmost courtesy. I have never said anything offensive to him in the matter, and when we assembled here for the special session I put a question on the order paper, inquiring whether anything was going to be done and asking whether a tender had been accepted. At that time, in the middle of September, the minister intimated that no action had been taken, the matter was "under consideration". Afterwards he went away, and in his absence the perpetual Tory candidate came to Ottawa and interviewed Rome of the ministers. A report of that gentleman's interviews with these ministers was published. He said that he had met my good friend the Minister of Marine, whom, incidentally, I congratulate upon his election to the distinguished office of batonnier of the Bar Association of Quebec. I tendered the hon. gentleman my good wishes and I am glad that he has been selected to fill the office. And now, to proceed, the gentleman whom I am discussing at the moment also interviewed my good friend the Postmaster General and my other good friend the Minister of Public Works. But the point is, he did not see the Acting Minister of Railways, nor did he get in touch with the Minister of Labour. He did not see the two gentlemen whom above all others he should have interviewed in order to get some money under the Unemployment Relief Act. That explains why the Minister of Railways, when coming back to Ottawa, was in a position to write to the city of Riviere du i/oup, stating that the matter had not been submitted to the government in due course. It explains the whole situation, Mr. Chairman. I submit that, after one of his colleagues had made a decision, the hon. gentleman should either have requested the Prime Minister to censure that colleague or himself have resigned from the cabinet if he did not accept the decision.
The thing was very cleverly done. Those people from Riviere du Loup came here to see the minister. I asked the Minister of Marine the other day, and also the Minister of Public Works, whether anything had been said to them, or to the hon. gentleman who at the time was Acting Minister of Railways, with reference to the amount of each tender. No one answered me; but, as I say, the thing was cleverly done. These people did not see the Minister of Railways nor the Minister of Labour, because they wanted to return to Riviere du Loup and say, "The matter has been decided by the government and we had nothing to do with it."
[Mr. Pouliot 1


Robert James Manion: May I say that the mayor of Riviere du Loup saw me on more than one occasion with reference to the matter, and he has done more than my hon. friend is doing at the present time towards getting the station.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend may be
right, but let me say this. If it is a fact that the perpetual Tory candidate in my county has met the Minister of Railways in this matter and requested the building of a new station, and if my hon. friend has not seen fit to grant that request, it is obvious that that gentleman has very little influence with this government. But, Mr. Chairman, my hon. friend the Minister of Railways cannot speak in that way. He was not in Ottawa when that man came here. He was out of town, and what he says now is therefore only hearsay. I inquired of the Minister of Marine, the Minister of Public Works and the Postmaster General: Is it not a fact that through someone in your department that man ascertained the amount of each tender and that, when he realized that his protege could not get the contract, he said, "you should not build the station on any consideration because my friend could not get it." There was no answer.
Now that is the whole story. After the Minister of Railways had taken that position and decided that the repairs should be done instead of having a new station built, what happened? He persisted in his request that the Canadian National Railways should change their policy, with the result that we have these stupid reports which are placed on Hansard and which make no provision for a cellar, for improving the sewerage system, nor for solidifying the foundations of the building. These reports cannot be acted upon. No repairs can be done to the building for the simple reason that a new building is absolutely necessary. But after the railway board had decided that plans for the building of that station should be approved, they changed their decision; they rescinded their first order in view, it seems to me, of the decision of the Minister of Railways. It would seem, therefore, that there has been logrolling not only with the Canadian National Railways but also with the Board of Railway Commissioners, which is a tribunal that should be independent of both parties.


Robert James Manion: 
Armand Renaud La Vergne: I think the last remark of the hon. member with respect to the Board of Railway Commissioners should be withdrawn.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not say it with regard to the Board of Railway Commissioners as a rule; I say it with regard to. the board in this special connection. But I remember very well the time when my hon. friends were on this side, and I have some recollection of what they used to say with respect to the railway board. I do not think they should be so touchy when we say what is true. There is something that should be noted in this connection, Mr. Chairman. When the chamber of commerce of Riviere du Loup, when the city council of Riviere du Loup, when the board of health made representations to the Canadian National Railways to put up a new building, they represented that it was necessary because the present building was in very bad condition. Those are the reasons why the first order was passed. And curiously enough the second order makes reference to exactly the same representations made by those public bodies. Now, with the same reasons before them, the board rescind their previous order and decide that the first plans should not be approved. This shows interference and logrolling.
I regret very much, Mr. Chairman, to have been obliged so many times to bring this matter to the attention of the house. I have repeatedly intimated that the moment I received a favourable reply from the Minister of Railways I would cease discussing this matter. But I have been misrepresented in the house; my views have been given a false interpretation. I have pointed out that it was not a question of economy that accounted for the treatment which Riviere du Loup has been given in this matter, for the reason that most of the money has been spent elsewhere. This was a matter which depended on the action taken by the Minister of Railways, and yet during the course of the debate the minister has said that the Minister of Railways has nothing to do with it.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member's time has expired.


Jean-François Pouliot: When a speaker is interrupted in committee the forty-minute time limit continues from that interruption.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must resume his seat and then rise again to continue.


Jean-François Pouliot: I sat down while the minister was speaking. I do not wish to be unfair to anyone, but I stand by the rules of the house. If the hon. minister had not interrupted me while I was speaking, my tune would be elapsed, but as he did interrupt me I can go on to the conclusion of my speech.


An hon. MEMBER:: Go on.


Jean-François Pouliot: They say to go on.


An hon. MEMBER:: You might as well go on.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman-


An hon. MEMBER:: Now, you tell the story.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Peter Heenan: I am sure the question I am going to put to the minister will please my hon. friend. I understand there are at present two vacancies on the Board of Railway Commissioners.


Robert James Manion: Three.


Peter Heenan: As labour has been represented on the board, is it the intention of the minister to fill one of the present vacancies by appointing a representative of labour?


Robert James Manion: The chief commissioner retired, Mr. Vien retired and Mr. Lawrence died, making three vacancies at the present time As to filling one of those vacancies with a representative of labour, I do not think any undertaking was given at the time of Mr. Lawrence's appointment that another appointee would necessarily be a man from the ranks of labour. I do not know that there is any binding obligation in that respect. However the question is under consideration. No one has been chosen for the position, and when that matter is decided this phase will be considered.


Peter Heenan: If it were known that a representative of labour was to be given one of these positions it might be well to give the labour bodies an opportunity to make a recommendation. I do not mean that the government would be obliged to accept their recommendation, but they should be given the opportunity.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend happen to know whether that was done the last time?


Peter Heenan: I cannot say.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I will now conclude my remarks by reading a report of a speech made by the Prime Minister.
1916	COMMONS
Supply-Riviere du Loup Station


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must confine his remarks to the item before the committee.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Board of Railway
Commissioners is a judicial body to advise the railways as to what should be done in order to best serve the travelling public. Does the chairman rule that the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, which are rather brief, would not come under the item now under discussion? They are as follows:
Again declaring his opposition to amalgamation of Canadian Pacific and Canadian National railways, Mr. Bennett said he had just heard a new canard to the effect that if elected he would appoint one of the Canadian Pacific railway officers to the presidency of the Canadian National. "Can yon imagine anything so ridiculous?" he asked. "I want to say that the Conservatives in power


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I must ask the hon. member to confine hfs remarks to the item before the committee, otherwise I shall have to invoke paragraph 2 of standing order No. 40.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will sum up my remarks in order that everyone may understand this matter but I cannot speak to those who are blind because they will not see, or to those who are deaf, because they will not hear.
The city of Riviere du Loup has been discriminated against; that is what I object to, and it should be clear to anyone over seven years of age. The minister has said: the matter must be decided by the Canadian National Railway officials, and he stated in this house-you will not get it. I know now where that refusal comes from; it was first decided by another member of the cabinet, and then the minister says: You will not get it. He is trying to frighten me, but he knows very well that he will not succeed. What will happen, Mr. Chairman, is this: the matter will be explained to the electorate of this county, along with other similar instances and that will be sufficient to bring my hon. friends to their senses. They will be taken out of power and when the Liberals are returned at the next general elections-


An hon. MEMBER:: Another pipe dream.


Jean-François Pouliot: -the Canadian National Railways will then revert to their old policy, that of taking care of the small centres and providing more work for the unemployed, thereby decreasing the number in the larger centres. The hon. minister stated the truth when he said that he was opposed to the building of a station at Riviere du Loup.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I desire to correct the hon. gentleman. I did not say that that city would not get a station; I

pointed out that the h'on. gentleman would not get a station by this method.


Jean-François Pouliot: There was no threat in what I said, I was simply pointing out what I wanted done for the people in my constituency. If it is not done, all right; the people will then be able to judge the whole thing. [DOT]


Mr. RALSTON:: Earlier in the evening while a bill regarding some railway project in Miontreal was being discussed, the hon. minister stated that he would write a letter to the Board of Railway Commissioners to ask them to give an opportunity for certain interested parties to appear before them. The hon. minister, perhaps inadvertently, let fall an expression which I do not think he would like to remain on Hansard in its pristine sense. He stated that if he wrote that letter he was sure the Board of Railway Commissioners would not dare to do anything else than to accede to the request contained therein, and give an opportunity to these parties to attend the sitting of the board. I am afraid there is a tendency to think that the board is some sort of adjunct to the government or some department of the government. Let me remind my hon. friend-he knows it as well as I do, and I am sure he will take these remarks in the spirit in which they are given-that the Board of Railway Commissioners is a court of record and, as I remember the Railway Act, it acts only on the direction of the government when an order in council has been passed and a special question has been referred to it. Otherwise, the board acts on its own initiative or upon the application of the parties interested in the matters before it. I do not think it is well to have it get abroad in this country that a government or a member of a government can write a letter and thereby' have the Board of Railway Commissioners take a certain course in connection with their judicial functions. I say that only because it seemed to me that the assurance which the hon. gentleman gave to the hon. gentlemen interested in this bill appeared to be more of an assurance than it really was, because my hon. friend has no more power-I say this with all due respect -to write to the Board of Railway Commissioners and influence their decision with regard to who shall appear before them, than any other hon. member. The very foundation of the jurisdiction of the Board of Railway Commissioners lies in the fact that they are a court of record and a judicial body', and they take cognizance of matters before them just as the supreme court does.

Supply-Railway Commission


Robert James Manion: I do not remember using
the word "dare," but I would not deny using it. I pointed out that the Board of Railway Commissioners was a judicial body, and I realize it is such, as my hon. friend has said. What I meant to say and what I have no doubt I did say was that whatever government asked the Board of Railway Commissioners that before they gave a decision in regard to a bill they should hear the interested parties, the Board of Railway Commissioners would not ignore that request. I repeat the statement. I do not see that it is in any way a hint or suggestion or implication that in any way the government or anybody has any control over the Board of Railway Commissioners; but just as a government can submit something to the exchequer court, for that matter, in the same way a government can and so can an ordinary citizen-and I do not say my hon. friend is not right in suggesting that the Minister of Railways has no more power with the Board of Railway Commissioners than he has-* suggest to the board that in justice to all the parties concerned they should hear the evidence of various people before they render a decision. I see no harm in and I stand by the remark I made a little while ago in regard to that bill. I do not suggest the board is in any way, shape or form under the jurisdiction of the government or anybody. It is a judicial body. But certainly not only has a member of the government, but so has a private citizen the right to approach the board and ask that certain evidence be heard.


James Layton Ralston: On account of the
rapidity with which my hon. friend speaks, he may not have been aware of the fact, but I have no doubt he will find he used the word "dare"-that the Board of Railway Commissioners would not dare.


Robert James Manion: I meant it in justice to
all concerned.


James Layton Ralston: I want to emphasize that for a moment. A court of record does not listen to representations, particularly by letters, from parties outside. I think we ought to get the idea straight, that the Board of Railway Commissioners is a judicial body, and while we may write letters to them and they out of courtesy may receive them, we have no right to think they act on that sort of thing. I still hold to what I said previously in regard to my hon. friend's remarks, that we cannot give much assurance to anybody by saying that a letter will be written to the board and expect the board to act upon it. They act under the statute. The 22110-122
statute does not provide for their acting on the request of anybody, no matter who he
is.


Robert James Manion: But the humblest citizen
in the country has the right to write to the board and ask that he be heard on any case, for example, in regard to a railway crossing.


James Layton Ralston: Surely, when he is the
party interested.
Mr. MANION; The government is certainly in no worse position than that of the humblest citizen.


Thomas Reid: If a ruling is given by the
Board of Railway Commissioners; if on a further appeal the same ruling is upheld, directing a railway company to comply with a certain order, and if that railway company does not comply with it, what procedure would one have to take to compel the railway company to comply with the order of the board? This is a serious matter.


Robert James Manion: The Board of Railway
Commissioners is in exactly the same position in regard to that as any other court that renders a judgment. The board can, I presume, order the railway to discontinue its services until it carries out the judgment of the board. So far as I can see, it has all power with the law and the law officers behind
it.


Thomas Reid: I do not think the minister
understands me. If an order is issued, and the railway company does not comply with it, to whom can we appeal to make the railway company comply with the order?


Robert James Manion: To the Board of Railway
Commissioners.


Thomas Reid: Again?


Robert James Manion: Yes, and point out to them that the railway company has not obeyed the order as rendered by the board.


Mr. ILSLEY:: A little while ago the minister made a statement that I should like to have explained. He said that the management of the Canadian National Railways has the power to switch money from certain specific purposes for which it is appropriated, to other purposes. I understood him to say that was a practice that should not be permitted in the future. I understood the case to which he had been referring was the application to payment of interest due the public of money appropriated for certain construction. Did they switch appropriations from one purpose to another on any considerable scale? Has that been the practice in the past?



Supply-Railway Commission


Robert James Manion: The management, of the
railways, in making their request for money to whatever government is in power, put in a round figure, but they give to the government, or to the Minister of Railways on behalf of the government, the details of how they intend to spend that money. Those details are not brought down in the house, but they are before the Minister of Railways, and through him before the government.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Before the railway committee, too, are they not?


Robert James Manion: Yes. The estimates that
will foe tabled shortly will be before the select standing committee on railways and shipping, owned and operated by the government, and we can go into them. While they are before the house or a committee of the house, the detailed items are not gone through seriatim as they are for the Department of Public Works or my own department. At the same time, there is quite a bulky list of works to be performed out of the moneys to be obtained from the government. It has been the practice in the past that, instead of adhering even closely to those items, the railways have been permitted to switch or divert certain amounts from one item to another. They have been quite within their rights in doing so, although I believe that last year the Deputy Minister of Railways proposed that any suggested switch of more than $200,000 had to go to the government to be dealt with by order in council, and that any under $200,000 had to be sanctioned by the deputy minister, who of course would consult with the minister of railways of the day. Last year, even with that rule in force, large amounts of money were diverted from one object to another. In this case there was an amount of $28,000,000 for additions and betterments in last year's estimates as brought down to the house by my predecessor. Of that $28,000,000, only $20,000,000 was spent for those purposes; the balance of 88,000,000 was spent, but not for additions and betterments; it went into the pot, so to speak, and was used to meet the deficit on the railway, to help to pay interest to the public which in their estimate they had figured at $8,000,000, and which in reality amounted to 829,000,000. Therefore, that amount of $8,000,000 which parliament had passed for additions and betterments was not used for that purpose, but was switched-I am continuing the use of that expression-and used for the purpose of paying interest due to the public. In addition to that the government had to bring down a supplementary estimate to provide the balance.


Frederick George Sanderson: I should like to ask
the minister a question in regard to the three vacancies on the Board of Railway Commissioners. Has he any assurance to give the committee that in the appointment of the three, at least one and perhaps two will be appointed to represent the agricultural interests of the country on the board?


Robert James Manion: My deputy informs me that Mr. Stoneman is a farmer. I think my hon. friend is somewhat confused, as are a great many people throughout the country. On one occasion my hon. friend drew my attention to a petition or a representation made to him. That petition was made not in regard to the Board of Railway Commissioners but in regard to the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did draw the attention of the minister on one or two occasions to some facts concerning the board of directors of the Canadian National Railways. At the present time however I am directing his attention to the vacancies on the Board of Railway Commissioners. In connection with those vacancies will he consider the matter I have mentioned?


Robert James Manion: As Mr. Stoneman is already on the board, consideration will not be necessary.


Charles A. Stewart: He is a
farmer.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member for Edmonton tells me that Mr. Stoneman is a farmer, and my deputy verifies the statement. I must say that I did not know it myself. Owing to the fact that there is a farmer on the board it will not be necessary to have two. The -board has only' six members, and to my mind it would not be necessary to have two agricultural representatives.


Henry Elvins Spencer: The agriculturists represent fifty-four per cent of the population of Canada. Have we not a right to expect more representatives on the board?


Robert James Manion: I do not think so. This is a judicial body; its business is largely judicial in character, and it is not supposed to -represent particular classes. It so happens that Mr. Stoneman is a representative of agricultural interests, so that one out of six on the board is an agricultural representative. I think the industry of agriculture, therefore, is sufficiently represented on the board.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the occupation of Mr. George 'Spencer of [DOT] the railway 'board? What is his age and when will he be superannuated?

Supply-Railway Commission


Robert James Manion: I cannot give the information to my hon. friend, but my deputy informs me that Mr. Spencer is the chief operating officer. My hon. friend knows that there is no direct supervision of the Board of Railway Commissioners by the minister. He is simply the liaison between parliament and the Board of Railway Commissioners in regard to estimates, and that sort of thing. I am not very familiar with the personnel of the board.


Jean-François Pouliot: For a long time the state of the railway fences in eastern Quebec was very bad. The Canadian National Railways said that on account of their deficit they could not improve the fences. A similar condition prevailed in regard to ditches. For that reason a considerable number of animals were killed by the trains and a great many lands were flooded in the spring. That is why the law has been changed in order to place that part of the Canadian National Railways under the jurisdiction of the railway board. For a time some improvements and repairs were made to the ditches and fences, but there is much yet to be done. May I ask the hon. gentleman if it will be possible to have these repairs completed within a short time?


Robert James Manion: I think I can tell my hon. friend that the railway act requires the railway companies to protect their lines with fences where necessary. So far as ditches are concerned naturally the railways would build them where necessary to drain their properties. If my hon. friend knows of any cases where there are obstructions in ditches or anything of that nature, I should be pleased if he would bring them to my attention. If any nuisance is created by the lack of ditches or by obstructions therein, any information given to me in that regard would be passed along to the railway authorities for their consideration.
Mr. POULiIOT: I thank the minister very much for his answer. Sometimes on account of money shortages the Canadian National Railways postpone the type of work to which I have referred, and in many instances the postponement is not made because of the lack of funds. The Canadian National Railways, even though their business is not always good, should conform to the law. It is the duty of every neighbour to see to it that fences and ditches between his and the adjoining property are kept in good order.


Frederick George Sanderson: Referring again to the vacancies on the Board of Railway Com-22110-122A
missioners, may I ask the minister when making appointments not to lose sight of agriculture, the basic industry of this country? If there is any interest which should be well represented on the Board of Railway Commissioners it is that of the agriculturists. Would the minister consider the appointment to the board of a certain number to represent that industry?


Robert James Manion: I shall gladly consider the suggestion, yes.


Peter Heenan: I hope my remarks at the present time with respect to the appointment of a representative of labour on the Board of Railway Commissioners will not be considered merely as an attempt to secure another position for labour. I am sure the minister understands, owing to his familiarity with the railroad men in his constituency, that there is no question more complex or the ramifications of which are greater than that respecting the operation of railroads. The fact that a great many railroad men who have been brought up from boyhood fail in their examinations concerning the operation of railroads shows the complicated nature of railroading, and I think the minister would be well advised to have in mind the fact that in the interests of the railway commission itself there ought to be sitting as a member of the board one who would be fully conversant with the rules of railroad operation. That is one of the reasons I have suggested to the minister that it might be well at least bo acquaint the railroad men of the vacancies on the commission so that they could make recommendations from which the minister might see his way clear to make a selection. I am sure the men who would be recommended would be fully conversant with railway operations and experts in their line. Mr. Lawrence, the former commissioner, was a man well versed in railroad matters, a man of whom railroad men were proud. It was a source of pleasure to his associates when he was taken into the commission by Mr. Meighen. I am sure a similar appointment would be in the interests of the railroads and the public generally.


Robert James Manion: I will give the matter consideration. I have had representations from labour organizations concerning various men. I do not know how many men have been recommended but I would judge I have at least a dozen names before me at the present time, almost all of whom have been recommended by labour organizations in different parts of the country.

Supply-Railway Commission


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I wish to say a few words in regard to appropriations for national railway purposes. I do not wish to delay the minister's estimates; for I should like if possible to see him complete them to-night. The minister, however, did speak rather freely in regard to the use the Canadian National Railways might make of moneys appropriated with respect to maintenance and operation. The matter is of too much importance to pass without comment, and that is my sole reason for speaking at the moment. To make clear what I have in mind, the minister will agree with me that as regards appropriations such as we are making at the moment no minister would be at liberty to take any sum appropriated for a specific purpose here mentioned and use it for some other purpose. My hon. friend agrees with me in that; it is a fundamental principle of the control of parliament over public expenditure. I submit that the Canadian National Railways is simply one branch of government; it is a nationally owned institution, and its estimates should be presented to the committee of parliament that has to consider them in precisely the same form and be governed by exactly the same principles as estimates of the departments of the government itself. It is entirely wrong for the railway management to take appropriations for particular purposes and divert any part of them to other purposes. I can understand it may be a matter of convenience to the railway management to be able to do that, but it would be entirely wrong if such a principle were adopted in regard to public funds appropriated in connection with any department of government, and I do not see why the Canadian National Railways should be made an exception in that regard. I go a step further: the fact that parliament has not quite the same control over the Canadian National Railways as it has over matters that come more immediately before it in itself constitutes a reason why in making appropriations for the Canadian National Railways for specific purposes we should be even more exacting in requiring that they be applied only to those specific purposes.
There ought to be a distinct understanding on the matter, and I suggest that the minister discuss it with the management of the Canadian National Railways and mention that the subject has been brought up and discussed in parliament. It is certainly a matter with respect to which, speaking for the opposition, I can say we fqel very strongly. The House of Commons has no more important function than that of exercising the closest scrutiny

over public expenditures, and this function can be exercised only where appropriations are made for specific purposes and applied exclusively to those purposes. I have in my hand Durell, the standard authority on parliamentary grants. One paragraph will sum up what I have in mind. I think it should be as applicable to the Canadian National Railway estimates as to our own. Durell says:
When making the grant, parliament appropriates it to the particular vote, and it cannot legally be applied to any other vote though, in the case of the army and navy,-
This has reference to Great Britain.
-transfers between votes are in certain circumstances permitted, parliamentary sanction being subsequently obtained. Generally speaking, however, the money voted by parliament is granted for a particular vote only, and it is therefore clear that the larger the number of the votes, the greater control parliament is able to secure.
The fact that in the main parliament is exercising its control over the Canadian National Railways through a committee of the house is, I sulbmit, all the more reason why the railway management should submit its estimates in as much detail as possible, the appropriation should be made as specific as possible, and nothing in the way of switching or diversion to other purposes should be permitted.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I am not often in accord with my right hon. friend, but on the present occasion with every word that has dropped from his lips I entirely agree. He has stated my viewpoint in much better language than I could express it. As to discussing the matter with the Canadian National Railway management, that was done some time ago, because I admit quite frankly I was somewhat shocked when I found large amounts switched-I will continue to use the word- from one purpose to another. I think the Canadian National Railways should be in exactly the same position as the government of Canada; and when the government of Canada has no power to spend one dollar upon items for which the money was not voted, I do not think the Canadian National Railways should have that power. I entirely agree with my right hon. friend that the practice should be stopped, and I have already put myself on record with Sir Henry Thornton in this regard. We have his assurance that the management will endeavour to keep as close as possible to the items for which they ask appropriations.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I thank my hon. friend. I hope he will be very firm with the

Supply-Railway Commission
railway management, and I can assure him that he may count on the entire cooperation of the opposition in this particular.


Charles A. Stewart: I rise to make a suggestion, Mr. Chairman. As a minister who has sat on appeals from decisions of the Board of Railway Commissioners it has been borne in on me that the governor in council is not the proper body to hear such appeals. This is no reflection on the legal attainments of the gentlemen who happen for the time being to 'be members of the government, because they do give serious consideration to the appeals that come before the governor in council, but I must say they have not the time to give proper consideration to such appeals. In looking up the records I find that usually council has ordered a reference back to the board. This causes delay that sometimes is very detrimental to the people who are interested in securing a readjustment of rates or some other matter. I suggest that the government consider the advisability of transferring these appeals to the Supreme Court of Canada, or else make the judgments of the Board of Railway Commissioners final. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that members of the government have not time to give the required attention to such appeals.


Robert James Manion: I agree entirely with what my hon. friend says in that regard. Certainly the governor in council is not a rate-making body and has not the technical knowledge to deal with appeals of this nature. But I have been informed that council has never changed an order of the Board of Railway Commissioners; as my hon. friend stated, it has always referred the case back to the board for rehearing. I suppose the appeal to the governor in council is a relic of the days when there was no board of railway commissioners. The board, I understand, was appointed in 1903, previous to which time such regulatory control of railway rates as existed was vested in the railway committee of privy council. I think my hon. friend's suggestion is worthy of consideration !by the government.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Before such a step is taken I submit the matter should be given very careful consideration. I quite agree that rate-making is such a technical matter that few laymen are competent to deal with it. But there are times when questions of rates in a large way may have a very direct bearing on public policy, on the development of certain parts of the country or of certain lines of business, and that aspect must not be lost
sight of. In other words, there are times when more than the mere complexity of rates must be considered. I for one would be very sorry to see the appeal to the governor in council dispensed with until the matter has been very carefully considered.


James Lorimer Ilsley: The matter just referred to undoubtedly is very important. The hon. member who just spoke has, if I may be permitted to say so, the proper conception of the functions of the governor in council in connection with these so-called appeals. I had occasion to look into the matter a little while ago, and I came to the conclusion that "appeal" is scarcely the proper term. The governor in council is not sitting as a court; it is not exercising judicial functions; it does not have to act on any evidence. When the governor in council hears and decides upon the so-called appeals it is exercising executive or administrative functions, and can take into account broad matters of policy as a government. We are accustomed to speak of these appeals as if they were appeals to an appellate court, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, but if that were the case of course the governor in council could not deal with them as they could be dealt with, for instance, by the Board of Railway Commissioners. There can be no question about that; members of council have neither the time, the training nor the experience to .deal with matters in that way.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Nor the
patience.


James Lorimer Ilsley: My right hon. leader adds
that they have not the patience, either, to deal with them. My hon. friend who spoke last has raised a very important point, as to whether at certain times the governor in council should not, as a matter of governmental policy, come to decisions not upon scientific rate-making principles but as executive acts. This is a matter worthy of very careful consideration before that power is taken away. I think the minister is quite correct in saying this is a relic or hang-over from the time when the railway committee of the cabinet dealt with rates. That, I believe, is historically correct, but at present these rates do not need to be determined upon judicial principles at all.


Robert James Manion: Of course no change can
be made without amendment to the Railway Act, so there will be plenty of time for consideration. At the same time, I would remind my hon. friend that while the privy council has not taken on the judicial powers, they could do so at any time.
Supply-Railways


Charles A. Stewart: But parliament always has the right to make rates, as was instanced by the Crowsnest pass rate. If it is a matter of policy for the government or for parliament to deal with a certain matter, they have all the power necessary. I merely suggested this short method of dealing with appeals, which are vexatious and which, as far as I can discover, never have led anywhere.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Miscellaneous services: including salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $48,000.
Peter Heenan: This is the item in connection with which the minister said we could discuss the national highway, but I do not propose to reopen that question. I think we spent enough time on that matter this afternoon, and there will be other opportunities to take it up. However, I see there is provision here for experts, and while it has nothing to do with the railway I was wondering if the minister would tell us whether he has received any requests from the provincial authorities for the services of experts to survey portions of this highway. Is the Dominion government helping in any way to survey the route for the national highway?


Robert James Manion: To my recollection I have had no such request, although I believe there have been some conversations. I do not wish to go into details, because my memory is hazy about the matter, and in any event the conversations were not with me. I have had no direct requests.


Peter Heenan: So far as the minister
knows, he has had no official communications?


Robert James Manion: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Can my hon. friend indicate in a word or two just what are the miscellaneous services?


Robert James Manion: There are a number of
salaries paid out of this vote, to provide for temporary assistance in emergencies if required. The amount appropriated for that purpose is $5,400, and I have the full details here. There are some general expenses amounting to $13,000; travelling expenses, $1,000; telegraph and telephone, $1,500; printing and stationary, $500; contingencies, $4,7SO, and then in regard to the Chignecto canal commission there is an item of $10,000. That amount was provided last year for the purpose of appointing a commission to investigate that canal, so there is really a revote of that amount.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is really a
small item, but my hon. friend spoke about printing and stationery. It seems to me the next item covers that. Would it not be preferable to have all the printing and stationery under one item?


Robert James Manion: My deputy informs me
that this is simply the printing in connection with this vote.


Alfred Speakman: May I ask if the
services of any of these experts have been utilized in connection with the location of the Peace river outlet, or in work of that nature?


Robert James Manion: No, not during the past
year. I do not seem to have very full details of this vote, but I do not think any experts were employed last year under this item.


Alfred Speakman: If experts had been
employed I should have liked a little information on the matter.


Robert James Manion: No, we have done nothing in that matter up to the present time.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: I should
like to take this opportunity to bring to the attention of the minister and the government the matter of a railway line in my constituency. I have had this matter before the railway company and the government for some years. There is a gap of some 36 or 38 miles extending from Handsworth and Lampman, on the Canadian National railway, in the southern part of Saskatchewan. I mentioned this to the minister some time ago, but I should like to impress it upon him once again. This is about as important in my constituency as the Mafeking cut-off is in certain parts of Manitoba. It is also a live question in the constituency of Qu'Appelle, aud the hon. member representing that constituency has been working with me on the matter. If this gap were filled in this line would not only be a feeder for the Hudson Bay railway when completed, but as it extends north and south it would be the means of distributing the coal which we have in vast quantities in the southeastern part of Saskatchewan. We believe that from the standpoint of the railway company it would be a good investment because of the quantities of coal it would be possible to haul up to the central and northeastern part of the province. My idea in bringing the matter up at the present time is to impress upon the minister the importance of this line, so that he may appreciate its significance and pass the information along to the railway company. I have given the company a good deal of data

Supply-Railways
in connection with the matter, with regard to what might be expected in the way of traffic, and as I said before I believe it would be a good investment for the railway.


Robert James Manion: This matter has been
drawn to my attention both by the hon. member who has just spoken and by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. I believe at one time I made an appointment for them with Sir Henry Thornton, and I will keep the matter before him.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Touching the completion of the railway in the riding of the hon. member for Assiniboia, it occurred to me that this might be a good time to ask the Minister of Railways a question with regard to one of the Canadian National branch lines north of the North Saskatchewan river, connecting North Battleford and Edmonton. The road runs through North Battleford on westward into the Paradise hill area about [DOT] 100 miles, and the same line runs out of Edmonton eastward about 100 miles. There is a gap of 40 miles not completed. When it is completed it will provide another through line from North Battleford to Edmonton.


Robert James Manion: Is that the one that
crosses the Saskatchewan river?


Mr. BUCKLEY:: The minister has a good many petitions with respect to this matter.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No doubt the minister
has received many petitions, and I was going to bring the matter up in the house in any event. I .thought, however, that this might be an opportune time for the minister to make a statement respecting the matter. It was the desire of the president of the Canadian National Railways to have legislation brought down this session to provide for the completion of that gap. As I say, it is merely 40 miles, and when it is completed it will be a through line. This matter is important to all that area of country. The people there are very much interested in it and a statement from the minister would be appreciated. I think we should be informed, if the construction cannot be proceeded with this year, just when the work will be done. It is imperative that we should have a statement from the minister.


Robert James Manion: I think the St. Walburg-
Bonnyville line is north of the line my hon. friend speaks of. That is being proceeded with at the present time.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There is work being
done on that line.


Robert James Manion: It was one of the lines
which, by reason of the conditions prevailing out there, we asked the railways to proceed with. This request was made with a view to relieving the situation in that district rather than because the railway considered it immediately necessary. However, it is being gone on with. With respect to the other line my hon. friend speaks of, I have had a good many representations in the matter and the best I can say is that the Canadian National Railways and ourselves will give it consideration. All these branch lines have to be recommended by the railways and after that the government has to find the money. If the railway were in a position to do the work itself, naturally the government need not come into the picture at all, except in so far as it would have to ask parliament to grant a charter. But it comes into the picture because of the need of finding money; and the finding of money, as my hon. friend realizes, is to-day not the easiest thing in the world. The matter will be given consideration at the proper time both by the railways and by the government.


John Francis Buckley: The engineers of the Canadian National Railways have already recommended the completion of this gap, which has been promised for some years. I represent the constituency, and I may tell the minister that the people are being penalized by having to pay 4 or 5 cents more for a useless back haul. And they are being penalized to a considerable extent. In answer to a question which I placed on the order paper some time ago, the minister intimated that the engineers of the railway company had recommended the completion of the gap.


Robert James Manion: I do not remember having had the matter brought to my attention by the railway; I cannot recall their having recommended it. I have asked the deputy, but he does not seem to have any recollection of it either. At the present time all the branch lines which they feel they can afford are being constructed. This is one of those that have to be considered in the future. The government is certainly desirous of building any branch lines that are necessary to relieve unfavourable conditions in the west, but I must repeat that there are so many requests for branch lines, and it calls for such a vast amount of money, that any application must be given serious consideration before the railway can proceed. As I have said, I do not remember the railway having recommended the building of this line, although I have had many representations from the people there.
Supply-Railways


Cameron Ross McIntosh: So far as the completion of that gap is concerned, I realize that it is rather difficult to get the money when it is required; I am satisfied of that. But I am also satisfied that .the line from Edmonton to the present end of steel going eastward, and the line from North Battleford to the present end of steel going westward, are both excellent-paying lines. Perhaps I had better qualify that statement and speak particularly with reference to the line running through my own constituency; the hon. member for Athabaska can speak for his own riding. Certainly the line that passes through my constituency is one of the best-paying Canadian branch lines in the west, and if the minister would look into the financial record of that line I am sure he would find that since the line was built out of North Battle-ford to Meota, and from Meota bo Edam, and from Edam to Turtleford, and from Turtleford on through to Spruce lake and the Paradise hill country-one of the most beautiful areas in northern Saskatchewan- it has proved a highly satisfactory branch line from the financial point of view. The money secured from that line by the Canadian National Railways will bear comparison, per mile, with the returns secured from any branch line in Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta. That being the case, I think we have a right to look to the Minister of Railways to take steps as early as possible bo have that gap completed. I realize, of course, that the railway must first take action, and that the line must constitute a part of its building program. But I submit that a suggestion from the minister to have the gap completed with the least possible delay would be effective, and it would undoubtedly meet with the approval of the people in that area.


Mr. GERSHAW:: Shall we have an opportunity to discuss Canadian National branch lines when the Canadian National estimates are before the committee?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Can the minister make a statement with respect to the Neidpath-Swift Current line? The road is graded and steel has been laid up to the Canadian Pacific railway tracks. We understood that construction work in connection with the freight sheds would be proceeded with this year. The newspapers carried reports some days ago that this was on the Canadian National program for this year. Is this correct?


Robert James Manion: I cannot give the information offhand. As a matter of fact, branch lines
[Mr. Manion.J
should come in under the Canadian National Railways estimates, and inasmuch as I have not those items at hand I cannot reply to my hon. friend's question. Some of the western cabinet ministers wrote me with respect to the works being carried on by the two railways, and I obtained a list of the works from the Canadian National and the Canadian Pacific. That information I forwarded, and it must be on the strength of that that the report appeared. I trust my hon. friend's information from the press is correct, but I cannot confirm it.


John Francis Buckley: At page 831 of Hansard there appears a question of mine with reference to this gap. I asked:
Have the engineers of the Canadian National Railways recommended the construction of either or both of these proposed lines?
The other line, I may say, is the branch from St. Paul, Alberta, to Brosseau. The minister's answer was, "yes, both." I may say that we have had many interviews with Sir Henry Thornton in reference to the completion of this gap and with a view to getting the freight rates equalized. We have been promised by Sir Henry that the construction of this gap will be undertaken. I might remind the minister that this line was built in 1911, and ever since then we have been hoping to see the fulfilment of the promise to have it completed.


Robert Gardiner: I wish to call the attention of the minister to the condition of affairs in western Canada. Hon. members will recall that the crop of the west was fair last year but losing prices were received. Consequently the people of western Canada lost rather than made money. We had an open winter, and whenever we have a very open winter in the west it is followed by a dry year. That is what is happening now. We have had very little rain in the west, with the result that many crops are suffering, even to the extent of being dried up altogether. No doubt if conditions in the west continue as they are the government will have to come to the relief of the farmers with large sums of money. It would be better for the government to spend the money in the construction of branch lines than to make direct relief grants. There is no doubt that next year there will be a tremendous amount of suffering in western Canada because in many parts of the country the crop has been lost this year, and in other parts they have lost their crops for the past two or three years; consequently all the reserves of the farmers have disappeared. In the event that relief has to be provided for western Canada,

Supply-Canals
I would ask the minister to take into consideration the construction of these railways rather than the giving of direct relief grants.


Robert James Manion: I can assure my hon. friend that if conditions prove to foe as serious as he indicates, this matter will be given fair and just consideration.
Mr. MUiNN:	Mr. Chairman, I join with
the last speaker in his suggestion that the government should build railways rather than pay out money for odd jobs. About a year ago the King government promised that they would start work on the Peace River outlet, and during the last campaign the present Prime Minister promised that within a year his government would start to do something on this line. By building this railway a direct return would be given for the money expended, and there is bound to be considerable unemployment during the next winter which could be taken care of in this manner. The Pacific coast is intensely interested in this Peace River outlet and we are all waiting for the promises to be fulfilled.


James Layton Ralston: Mr. Chairman, as the
hon. minister is listening to representations with regard to the Canadian National program, and apropos of what was said a little while ago with regard to the use and the application of moneys for one purpose and another, I would direct his attention to an item which appeared last year for a station at Yarmouth. Some expenditures were made, particularly for a roundhouse, but. no further work has been done. I ask the minister to use his good offices in taking this matter up with the Canadian National management. I would point out to him what he perhaps does not know, that Yarmouth is a considerable feeder for the Canadian National railways as it is for the Dominion Atlantic railway. Something over 70,000 people came into and went out of that port last year. There are two boats running between Boston and Yarmouth and furnishing a daily service in the summer months, and there is a twice-a-week boat in the summer between Yarmouth and New York. About 40,000 automobiles came into and went out of that port last year. I am sure that the minister will agree that such a fine volume of business warrants facilities in keeping with a great international port, which Yarmouth is. Yarmouth is the terminus of what was the Halifax and Southwestern Railway and is now the Canadian National, and I am sure the railway authorities must be convinced that there should be much improved passenger accommodation in the way of a new station with a view to attracting more passenger traffic to that south shore railway.


Robert James Manion: I am not familiar with
that particular question, but I will direct my hon. friend's remarks to the attention of the railway for their consideration.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Surveys and inspections, canals:	including
salaries and expenses of experts employed temporarily, $10,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not desire to delay the passage of this item, but there is only one item remaining in the minister's estimates.


Robert James Manion: No, there are five more
items.


Mr. MACKENZIE  ICING@: I wanted to reserve one for discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Pensions-J. L. Weller, $3,500.
Henry Elvins Spencer: Would the minister explain this item?


Robert James Manion: This item covers a pension to an old employee who was retired, I think in 1927. The gentleman named was chief engineer for many years and also consulting engineer for the department, and he was given a pension to carry him along.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Canals-staff and repairs, $3,000,000.
Robert James Manion: There is still one item
remaining after this one upon which any matter could be discussed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Monday, May 25, 1931