1931-06-02

[Stage Direction]
Second report of select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills.-Mr. Stinson.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State) presented the second report of the special committee appointed to consider and report on Bill No. 4, to amend the Copyright Act.
Mr. Cahan moved that the report be concurred in.
Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I did not understand that there was to be a motion today for concurrence in the report of the committee charged with investigation into the Copyright Act. There are some provisions which hon. members ought to have the opportunity to study.


Mr. CAHAN:: Concurrence in the report simply provides for printing so that it may be distributed to hon. members. There will be ample opportunity for discussion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY ('East Edmonton) presented the third report of the select standing committee on standing orders.
Mr. Bury moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, I understand arrangement has been made among the different parties of the house that owing to the fact that to-morrow is the anniversary of the King's birthday, there should be no sitting of this house. I therefore move, with the consent of the house:
That when this house adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Thursday next at three p.m.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Fisheries) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 78, to repeal the Biological Board Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. RHODES:: Mr. Speaker, it is proposed to reorganize the work of the board by placing directly under the control of the department and the minister, the executive and administrative work which hitherto has been conducted by the board, thereby leaving to the technical officers more complete freedom and time to attend to the purely technical questions the consideration of which constitutes the main function of the board. The introduction of this bill is the first step towards the work of reorganization.

C.N.R.-Guarantee of Securities


Mr. DUFF:: I understand that the present bill provides for the repeal of the old act; will a new act be introduced?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes; as discussion on the bill proceeds our intentions will be disclosed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
in 1931
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 79, respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1931.
He said:	This bill, Mr. Speaker, is to
authorize the Canadian National Railways to issue securities to cover $68,500,000 being the amount of the estimate of the railways' deficiency in their needs above their earnings for 1931; really the estimates of the Canadian National Railways.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 68 for the relief of Ruth Rosenberg-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it was understood that at this session opportunity would be given to discuss changes in the tariff that were made at the last special session. Hon. members will recall that at the time there was not opportunity to discuss the changes. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) if it would' be possible to have the tariff changes proposed yesterday printed in a manner which would enable us to make comparisons with the original tariff. I should like to enlarge that request, if I might, and ask if we could have, in a form which would permit of comparison, the tariff as it was before the special session of 1930, with the changes of the special session indicated in a parallel column, and the proposed changes of this session in another parallel column. That would place

before us in their entirety the changes which the present administration are making in the tariff. I believe it would expedite discussion in committee to have particulars in this form and it seems to me to be a reasonable request. I would suggest that the information be brought down in the form of a blue book specially prepared, which would be available to all hon. members and to others desiring like information.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, I will draw the attention of the Prime Minister to the suggestion of my right hon. friend when he returns to-morrow. I think myself the request is quite reasonable, but I will mention it to the Prime Minister.



SOCKEYE SALMON FISHERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) with respect to the sockeye salmon fisheries treaty which was signed last year by the government of this country. Has the treaty been signed yet by the United States government? If not, is there any likelihood that it will be?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the treaty in question has not been ratified by the Senate of the United States, nor have we had any intimation from the United States government as to whether this will be done or not. Inasmuch as we have received no notification to the contrary, we must assume that it is their purpose ultimately to ratify it. I do not know that at the moment I can give any better answer to my hon. friend.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved the third reading of Bill No. 41 to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution.
That it is expedient to authorize the Minister of Public Works, on behalf of His

City oj Ottawa Agreement
Majesty, to enter into an agreement with the corporation of the city of Ottawa to extend the period of the existing agreement with the corporation for one year from 1st June, 1930.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: This seems to
me an appropriate moment to direct the attention of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works to the discussion which has been taking place with respect to the rebuilding of the Ottawa city hall. If the government is taking up with the city the renewal of the agreement between the government and the city, I hope my hon. friend will keep in mind the plan of park development which in a general way has been approved by this parliament, and which is in accordance with the views of the federal district commission, as to the improvement of the city, and not permit within a certain area which has been set apart for further park development any rebuilding or extension of existing buildings. The agreement between the city and the government with respect to what is now known as Confederation park contemplated that no rebuilding would take place within the area outlined in the correspondence. Inasmuch as there appears to be a difference of view on the part of some of those concerned with civic affairs with respect to the obligation of the city in the matter, it ought to be made clear by the minister that at least the federal government expects continued cooperation between the city and itself along the lines on which the improvements already made have been undertaken.
To make clearer my meaning, I might say that the previous administration would never have consented to ask parliament for a sum of money sufficient to permit of the expropriation of the old Russell house and Russell theatre and the other buildings in that vicinity and also for the money necessary for the expropriation of the block between Wellington street, Sparks street, Elgin street and the post office, if the object had been simply that of providing a new site for a city hall within a park area. The intention was to create in the heart of the capital of Canada a large central park which would serve the city as well as the capital, because the two are indistinguishable, but which also would have its relation to the whole improvement of the capital. The government was careful in its interviews with the civic authorities at the time to point out that a
scheme of the kind could only be carried out provided there was cordial cooperation between the city and the government. The city undertook to widen Elgin street, to expropriate certain buildings on that street and also to remove certain buildings in the vicinity of the city hall. Part of that undertaking has already been carried out, there are parts which have not as yet been attended to. There is in the correspondence a reference on the part of the city to a conditional approval b3' the citizens. This had reference to expropriations as they might be made from time to time. I understand that with respect to the widening of Elgin street a by-law was submitted which the citizens approved. I understand also that the citizens approved of the tearing down of Knox church and of the expropriation of that property by the city, so that the citizens already have given implied approval of the general scheme of which these particular expropriations form a necessary part.
Since these expropriations were made, as hon. members know, the city hall took fire and was partially destroyed, and at the moment the city fathers are considering whether they should rebuild and make extensions on the existing site or whether they should secure another location and erect elsewhere a new city hall. I hope the government will be firm in having the civic authorities understand that parliament, when it appropriated moneys for the expropriation of the properties mentioned, and the citizens when they approved of the iby-laws for the widening of Elgin street and the expropriation of Knox church, had in mind the general scheme and the undertaking by the city that they would not rebuild in that area, or extend any of the buildings at the time located there, but that as these buildings came down, their sites would become available for the further development of the general park scheme already approved by this parliament and the civic authorities ini office at the time the first expropriations were made.
I am sure that any agreement made by the government with the city, which will appropriately and adequately recognize the obligations of the federal government to -the city, will meet with the general approval of parliament. I do not anticipate any difficulty over the agreement- that may be ultimately reached. I believe, however, that it would be in accordance with the will and the wish of the people of Canada generally that the scheme which has been carefully planned and already considered by the city and by the federal district
City of Ottawa Agreement

commission should be carried out, and this would seem an appropriate moment for the minister to emphasize that point of view in any discussion with the city fathers.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: May I ask a question? Two or three times the right hon. gentleman referred .to some understanding between the previous government and the city, with regard to Confederation park and any further building in that area by the city. Would he be good enough to say whether there was any agreement or understanding between his government and the city authorities in regard to the city hall, or any other buildings which might be owned by the city in Confederation park, and if so, what was the agreement?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: An exchange of letters took place between the government and the city authorities and the federal district commission. These communications will make quite clear what the understanding was. I have not the communications with me at the moment, but I will be glad to have them placed on the table of the house, and I know the government have copies of them. The whole purpose and understanding is made perfectly clear in those communications. There can be no doubt that the government of the day would not have asked parliament to vote sums of money for the expropriation of that particular area, the old Russell house, the Russell theatre, and the other buildings, spending two or three million dollars on those improvements, if it had not been distinctly agreed by the city that they would cooperate in the large scheme of making a central park.


George Halsey Perley: Distinctly agreed in writing?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, the communications were in writing. They set forth what was agreed to in the several interviews between the government, the federal district commission and the city. There is one phrase in the correspondence which, I understand, has given rise at the moment to some comment. It is to the effect that the city will cooperate to the extent to which the taxpayers approve, or something of the kind. Naturally they must have the approval of the taxpayers in whatever they may do. The intention or meaning of that phrase, however, was not that the scheme as a whole should be presented to the taxpayers of Ottawa to be approved by them; it was that as particular by-laws were necessitated under the city's method of procedure, those by-laws would be submitted. Of course, if the by-laws were

defeated, the city would find it impossible to proceed, but as I have said, they did submit a by-law having regard to the widening of Elgin1 street, and a further by-law, I think it was, it may have been one and the same, with regard to the expropriation of the Knox church property. The citizens approved of those by-laws, and at that time the citizens had the whole park scheme before them. So I think, impliedly, the citizens already have given full consent to the general scheme. The one point that was made clear at the time was that no new buildings should be permitted to go up within that area. The city itself, I believe, has to give a licence or some permission to enable any buildings to be erected.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: A building permit.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Yes, and it was understood that no building permit would be given by the city within that area, and that as buildings fell into disuse their sites would become available as part of the park area. But for that undertaking the government and the city alike, would have been simply improving the properties of the very few individuals who have a bit of property in that area, giving to each of them a very special building site.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With regard to this resolution, I notice that an error has been made in the date. It dhould be for one year from July 1, 1930, instead of from June 1, 1930.
The object of this resolution is to authorize the introduction of a bill which contains special provisions with respect to matters in which both the city of Ottawa and the Dominion of Canadh are represented. The agreement was entered into in the year 1920, and was approved by an act of parliament which is chapter IS of the statutes of that year. Most of the terms of that agreement are of comparatively little interest now, but provision is made for an annual payment to the city of Ottawa as compensation for water supply for fire protection and for street sprinkling and sprinkling in parks and driveways. The amount provided in the agreement of 1920 was $75,000, which Was later increased to $100,000. That agreement of 1920 was extended in 1924 for one year, and in. 1925 for a period of five years, expiring on July 1, 1930. The passing of this resolution, and of the act to be based upon it, will authorize the payment to the city of Ottawa of $100,000 for the year expiring on July 1, 1931, for these

Prisons and Reformatories
services. That is the effect of the resolution and of the bill which will be 'based upon it.
With resipect to the suggestions made by my right hon. friend (Mr. Mackenzie King) as to the agreement between the city of Ottawa and the Dominion of Canada with regard to the park area, 1 wish to thank him for the information he has conveyed to me. I may say that I have studied the correspondence pretty carefully and have obtained information from every other available source that would throw light upon those negotiations. There is no formal agreement, but I think the objects and purposes are fairly and completely disclosed by the correspondence. As I interpret it, the construction or rebuilding of a city hall in that area would be a violation of the spirit, and I think of the letter, of the correspondence. I may say that this act and this agreement have no reference whatever to that question, but I shall be pleased to study it from every standpoint and to give careful consideration to the suggestions made by my right hon. friend.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sun-bury):: Does the minister desire to amend
the resolution?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, the date
should be changed from June 1, 1930, to July 1, 1930. It is July 1 in the bill.


Mr. MANION:: I beg to move the amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. ELLIOTT:: Did I understand the minister to say that certain terms of the old agreement were not required in the new agreement which is being entered into? As I understand the resolution, it simply authorizes the renewal for one year of the previous agreement, and I take it that is all the bill will provide for.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is perfectly correct in that assumption. As I pointed out, it is a question of the payment for this year of $100,000.
Resolution as amended reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Stewart (Leeds) thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 80, to .authorize an agreement between His Majesty the King and the corporation of the city of Ottawa.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 72, to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1-Roman Catholic females may be sentenced to reformatory instead of prison or gaol in Nova Scotia.
Hugh Guthrie: Under the present law, so far as it relates to Nova Scotia, a transfer from a prison to one of these Roman Catholic homes shall take place only under the direction of the provincial secretary of Nova Scotia. The new section provides that it shall in future be left to a judge of the supreme court, or a judge of the county court within his jurisdiction, to make such transfer. That is the only change in regard to Nova Scotia.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Roman Catholic females.
Hugh Guthrie: This section merely provides that any woman convicted in the province of New Brunswick may be sent to one of the homes of the Good Shepherd. In the former act it was only within the city and district of St. John, and they wish to have that restriction removed to make the section apply to the whole province of New Brunswick.


Mr. JACOBS:: Does that mean that crime is extended from St. John to other parts of New Brunswick?


Hugh Guthrie: No.
Section agreed -to.
On section 3-Imprisonment in the Good Shepherd reformatory.


Hugh Guthrie: This section is drawn to make it conform with a similar provision in the act respecting Nova Scotia. There were discrepancies between the two sections. With the enactment of this, the same provision will apply in both provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Section 4 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
2228	COMMONS
Bankruptcy Act-Motor Car Insurance

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 73, to amend the Bankruptcy Act.
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: Before this bill is read the second time, and inasmuch as it deals in certain respects with conflicting jurisdictions under provincial and dominion statutes, I would take this opportunity of referring the minister to an anomaly in section 121 of the Dominion Bankruptcy Act, dealing with the rights of wage-earners under that statute. Section 121 reads:
Subject to the provisions of section one hundred and twenty-six as to rent, in the distribution of the property of the bankrupt or authorized assignor, there shall be paid, in the following order of priority:-
First, the costs and expenses of the custodian and the fees and expenses of the trustee;
Secondly, the costs of the garnisheeing, attaching, execution or judgment creditor (including sheriff's fees and disbursements) coming within the provisions of subsection one of section twenty-five and subsection three of section twenty-nine;
Thirdly-*
This is the point I want to emphasize: Thirdly, all wages, salaries, commissions or compensation of any clerk, servant, travelling salesman, labourer or workman in respect of services rendered to the bankrupt or assignor during three months before the date of the receiving order or assignment and all indebtedness of the bankrupt or authorized assignor Under any Workmen's Compensation Act;
I would refer the minister to section 125 of the act and suggest that he read it in conjunction with the foregoing. This section reads:
Nothing in the four last preceding sections shall interfere with the collection of any taxes, rates or assessments payable by or levied or imposed upon the debtor or upon any property of the debtor under any law of the dominion, or of the province wherein such property is situate, or in which the debtor resides, nor prejudice or affect any lien or charge in respect of such property created by any such laws.
And now I should like to direct the minister's attention to one of the provisions of the British Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act, which is similar to other compensation acts in the different provinces. Section 46 of the Workmen's Compensation Act of British Columbia, which is similar to practically all of the acts of the different provinces, makes the claim for rates, dues, assessments, and so on, a claim the payment of which is in priority to everything excepting a workman's lien for wages.
Section 143 of the British Columbia Companies Act provides that for three months fMr. Guthrie.]
prior to a seizure wages shall come before a bondholder's claim. There are innumerable instances throughout the statutes where this principle of three months' priority is established, and in this connection I would refer particularly to section 72 of the Dominion Winding Up Act. As the Dominion Bankruptcy Act is now established, there is conflict and uncertainty with regard to wage earners. Judgments of the courts have maintained that the claims allowed by workmen's compensation boards should ibe paid pari pfissu with the claims of the wage earners, but my hon. friend will appreciate that a workman's lien is not always filed in time. The Bankruptcy Act provides that there shall be a stay of proceedings by all creditors once an assignment in bankruptcy has been made or an order declaring bankruptcy has been isued, in which event the workman must go to the court for leave to proceed and often the delay occasioned puts him out of time because the lien must be filed within thirty days of the date of the last work being done.
I suggest to the hon. minister that this is a good time to consider the advisability of amending the present sections of the Bankruptcy Act. My first suggestion is that section 121 should be amended to read as follows:
Subject to the provisions of section 126 as to rent, in the distribution of the property of the bankrupt or the authorized assignor, there shall be paid in priority to any claim for principal or interest, in respect of any mortgage, bond or debenture issue or any other claim whatsoever, all wages, salaries, commissions or compensation of any clerk, servant, travelling salesman, labourer or workman in respect of the services rendered to the bankrupt or assignor during three months immediately preceding the date of the receiving order or assignment, notwithstanding anything in this act to the contrary otherwise provided, and following the payment of the said claims for wages there shall be paid in the following order of priority:
First, the costs and expenses of the custodian and the fees and expenses of the trustee;
Secondly, the costs of the garnisheeing, attaching, execution or judgment creditor (including sheriff's fees and disbursements) coming within the provisions of subsection one of section twenty-five and subsection three of section twenty-nine;
Thirdly, all indebtedness of the bankrupt or authorized assignor under any workmen's compensation act;
Fourthly, claims resulting from injuries to employees of the insolvent debtor to which the provisions of any workmen's compensation act do not apply, but only upon moneys paid or payable to the insolvent estate by persons or companies guaranteeing the insolvent debtor against damages resulting from such injuries.
Section 125 would have to be amended accordingly, to read as follows:
Nothing in the four last preceding sections, except the provision for the payment of three

Bankruptcy Act-Motor Car Insurance
months' wages, salary, commissions or compensation, as provided in section 121, shall interfere with the collection of any taxes, rates or assessments payable by or levied or imposed upon the debtor or upon any property of the debtor under any law of the dominion, or of the province wherein such property is situate, or in which the debtor resides, nor prejudice or affect any lien or charge in respect of such property created by any such laws.
I refer the minister to a decision in British Columbia in the matter of the Campbell River Mills Limited, in bankruptcy, which has placed the payment of the wage earners' claims behind tihe workmen's compensation board and behind the holders of debentures. My only motive in making these suggestions is to protect absolutely the three months' priority of wage earners, and I would appreciate if the minister would consider the adoption of the proposed amendments.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Is it the
intention of the hon. member to put the three months' wages priority ahead of everything including vested mortgage debts or bonds secured by trust deeds already vested before tlhe wages accrued?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
the intention.


Richard Burpee Hanson: It would
make it that much more difficult for business people to hire money on mortgages. To-day the salaried employees are in a preferred position, which is as it should be, but if they are put still farther ahead I think it would be going just a little bit too far. This matter should have the earnest consideration of the house before we make any sudh move; it should be considered with all [DOT] its obligations, implications and ramifications.


Samuel William Jacobs: Mr. Speaker, the Bankruptcy Act became law, I think, in 1919, and was put through by the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) when he was Solicitor General. Since that time there have been many amendments and modifications made to the act. There is scarcely an hon. member who practices law who has not at one time or another brought in some little pet amendment of his own and managed to get it through. At present we have three or four amendments of that kind before the house, and this might be an opportune time to have a general revision of the act.
There are nine provinces, each one having its own particular insolvency law. There was a very drastic revision made for the province of Quebec when Sir Lomer Gouin was Minister of Justice, the object being to bring the Bankruptcy Act in line with the Civil Code
and Code of Procedure of that province. We have in the province of Quebec a bankruptcy act which differs from that of the other provinces and with which we are pretty well satisfied. We have gone along now for the last ten or eleven years and there have been many bankruptcies, in fact some of the boards of trade and other finacial institutions think there have been too many. Unfortunately I was the party who first introduced the bankruptcy bill into the house. At that time I think I had more influence with the government than I have to-day because I succeeded in placing it on the doorstep of my friend the Minister of Justice, who adopted it as his own child. Notwithstanding that, whenever a political meeting is held in the province of Quebec many of my opponents still give me credit for that act. Sometimes I am successful and at other times unsuccessful in making them believe that it was the present Minister of Justice, who happens to have the same political views as they themselves, who was responsible for the bill.
It seems to me that the minister should frown upon these amendments which come in from session to session. They are not properly studied, having in mind the general idea of the Bankruptcy Act. The British North America Act permits the federal authorities to legislate upon bankruptcy. The amendments suggested by the hon. member for Vancouver Oentre (Mr. Mackenzie) are amendments which he desires to have put through particularly for his own province, but where the act is a federal act the lawyers practising in different parts .of the country ought to know what the law is ftom the federal point of view. If we have to adopt the particular views and rules governing provincial legislation on bankruptcy, we are back to where we were before 1919. I recognize the fact that in the province of Quebec we have, so to speak, taken the bit in our teeth and incorporated in the federal law our own particular law. But, after all, the laws of the province of Quebec are radically different from those of the other provinces, and it seems to me that the English law governing bankruptcy, upon which this act is based, ought to be satisfactory to all the English-speaking provinces regardless of whether they are in the east or in the west.
I wish to suggest to the Minister of Justice that there should be a general revision of the Bankruptcy Act when everyone interested could appear before a select committee which would deal with the question, and then we
2230	COMMONS
Bankruptcy Act-Motor Car Insurance
would have some scientific treatment of the whole of the Act. We ought, if I may suggest this to the Minister of Justice, to allow all these bills to amend the Bankruptcy Act at this session) to remain in abeyance, appoint a committee to study the whole matter and then introduce a complete and revised bankruptcy bill which would meet with the views of at least a majority of the people in this country.


Hon. PETER HEENAN (Kenora-Rainy River):: I heartily endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie). Wages should take priority over all other claims in a case of bankruptcy. When a firm goes into bankruptcy, probably the last people who know anything about the matter are the workmen in that Concern. Others have their legal representatives, and they are fully apprised of what is about to take place before it actually happens. But the poor workingmen who are in the employ of that firm have no legal representative; they are working in good faith and their wages should have priority over all other claims. Will the Minister of Justice take this point into consideration?


Hugh Guthrie: This discussion is hardly appropriate under the proposal that is introduced by this bill. I realize, however, perhaps as well as anyone in the house, the difficulties, the diversities and I might also say some of the anomalies that are met with in the bankruptcy law in this country and its administration in the various provinces. During the short time that I have occupied the position of Minister of Justice, I have received a great many communications from judges, trustees in bankruptcy, receivers in bankruptcy, legal bodies and associations, chambers of commerce, boards of trade, credit men's associations and the like, all suggesting various changes in the Bankruptcy Act. There is a good deal of force in the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs) that the time is fast approaching, if it is not already here, when there should be something in the nature of a general revision of the act. Upon the whole, 1 think the public feel that the act has worked well, but there are some difficulties that will have to be smoothed out. It is rather a serious problem to undertake a law for nine provinces where there are provincial jurisdictions which, in many respects, appear to be somewhat conflicting. I have not attempted such a revision during the present session. I have tabulated all the suggestions and all the proposed amendments, and the only amendment which the government has in mind at this session is the present one as incorporated in this measure, to protect in-
jured parties in respect of insurance in regard to motor accidents, accidents either to the person or to the property of others. I am, however, keeping before me the question of a general revision of the ant, and perhaps by next session I may be in a position to introduce such a bill.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Has the
minister had an}7 general request to abolish the law?


Hugh Guthrie: No, I have not.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
On section 1.-Proceeds of liability insurance policy on motor vehicles applied to claims against debtor.
Samuel William Jacobs: Was there any request by
any province for the passing of this section?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, directly by the
attorney general of Ontario and the judges of the supreme court. One of the judges of the court of appeals, who was appointed a commissioner to inquire into the matter of automobile insurance, largely drew the section. Then from the province of Manitoba from certain associations there, a similar request has come. I assume there must be in Manitoba some provincial law similar to that passed at the last session by the province of Ontario. I cannot at the moment recall similar requests from any other provinces, but a committee of legal men throughout Canada have been writing on the subject, and they have expressed approval of the terminology of this section.


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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
['Mr. Speaker, I desire\nto move, seconded by the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair):\nThat the petition of John Doherty, and others, of the cities of Sarnia and Windsor, Ontario, praying for the passing of an act to incorporate the Sarnia Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.']
Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the
chair for the house to go info committee of supply, I wish to discuss a matter of national importance, namely, the urgency and necessity of the construction of a trans-Canada highway. Before I proceed with my remarks,
I want to make clear that although this problem is contentious in some of its angles, at least it should be kept out of the political arena for the very good reason that during the last election the question was brought up by the party now in power and the

Trans-Canada Highway
present opposition as one of their projects, a project that has been accepted by the people of Canada as a whole. I had expected that some reference would be made to it in the budget, or that certain amounts of money would be placed in the estimates for carrying out such an undertaking, and on account of the unemployment situation, particularly in Ontario, I was very much disappointed that there was no provision for it in the estimates and no mention of it in the budget, although in the speech from the throne an allusion was made to the project and the intimation given that aid would be granted to highways.
When, in the early part of this session, I was speaking in the debate in reply to the speech from the throne I was interrupted by the hon. member for West Algoma (Mr. Simpson) and asked why last year I voted against certain resolutions dealing with the construction of the trans-Canada highway. I wish to say to the house that in northern Ontario particularly a peculiar situation exists. There is no highway commission functioning in that section of the province and any money voted by this parliament, unless specially ear-marked for special purposes, would not be used for highway construction. I am not going to criticize the provincial authorities because I believe the department which has oontrol of the roads in northern Ontario has been doing a practical work in that section of the province. I repeat that any money voted by parliament under what is known as the Kellner resolution would never have found its way into northern Ontario for highway purposes. I make allusion to the fact that although this parliament voted millions of dollars during the 1919 session to relieve unemployment not a single dollar of the money found its way to northern Ontario. Orders were sent to the effect that not one dollar would be spent north of the Severn river. I make that statement to the house so that hon. members will fully realize the situation as it exists in the section of the country I have the honour to represent.
To make my point clearer to hon. members, may I state that in northern Ontario for the last fifteen years we have been discussing the question of the trans-Canada highway. On several occasions I acted on municipal boards, and in that capacity attended many good roads conventions. On one occasion I was sent to the city of Toronto to discuss that allimportant question. The question of a trans-Canada highway was again brought forward very forcibly during the confederation
anniversary year, and I believe it was a citizen from the province of Nova Scotia who wanted to call the road the Confederation highway.
Again referring to the Kellner resolution, I want to say to the house that it did not deal directly or indirectly with any moneys to be voted for the construction of the trans-Canada highway. At this time I shall refer to the words of the mover of the resolution, the then member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner). On page 424 of Hansard, 1930, I find the following resolution moved by that gentleman :
Whereas the need for establishment of highways is greater than in 1919;
And whereas in that year the dominion government recognized its responsibility in this matter by a substantial grant, 'which grant is now exhausted;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability that a further substantial grant be made to cover the next five years' development of highway construction.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, there is not a single allusion, not one word concerning the allocation of moneys towards the construction of a trans-Canada highway. No matter what meaning we may wish to read into that resolution there is no expression to the effect that moneys shall be paid for the construction of such a highway. At this time I shall quote some of the statements by the mover of the resolution. He said:
Mr. Speaker, when this resolution was introduced last year, considerable criticism was offered to the wording of it, and an amendment was introduced providing that the federal government should proceed to construct a transcontinental highway. After due consideration I have decided to leave the wording of the resolution in the same form as it was last year. It is my opinion that under that resolution federal aid could be given to the provincial governments for building roads, or a transcontinental highway could be built, whichever the house decided was more advisable.
I repeat my previous statement that there is not a single allusion to a trans-Canada highway in the Kellner resolution. The mover of the resolution proceeded to say:
Probably the first question in connection with the resolution is whether it is good business to engage or to assist in the construction of highways in Canada.
At this time I wish to read from Hansard of March 10, 1930, page 449, a question by the then hon. member for Assindboia (Mr. McKenzie) and the reply thereto by the hon. member for Acadia (Mr. Gardiner):
Mr. McKenzie:	Then the hon. gentleman
agrees that this does mean a trans-Canada highway? .

Trans-Canada Highway
Mr. Gardiner: Certainly not; I am merely replying to what has been said. As I was saying, my hon. friend stated that he would be more favourable to a grant of money for building roads within the various provinces.
I shall now refer to the remarks of the hon. senior member for Halifax (Mr. Black) as reported at page 454 of Hansard, March 10, 1930:
In looking at this resolution I find that it is somewhat general, but following the discussion to-day it would seem that a very great deal of attention had been paid to a national highway across Canada. I think the discussion has centered largely upon that point. Probably the intention of the resolution was not so much that alone as that a grant should be given to each of the provinces.
I now wish to read to the house the remarks of the present Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) as reported at page 435 of Hansard of the same year:
Not long ago I was with a deputation that waited on the provincial government of Ontario regarding unemployment, and the Minister of Lands and Forests stated in writing-it was published but I could not find it among my papers to-day-that the provincial government was quite willing to cooperate with this government in the building of that section of the highway extending across the gap of which we are speaking at the present moment.
I have made these quotations to' support my contention that in the years 1929 and 1930 there really was no resolution dealing directly with the construction of a trans-Canada highway. I will admit that there was a resolution oy the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Kellner) dealing with grants to provincial governments for highway construction. At the time of tihe Kellner resolution I made the statement to the house that if the government would implement the construction of the trans-Canada highway I would vote for the resolution. I have made the statement, however, that no matter what money is voted by this parliament, unless it is particularly sar-marked for the construction of a highway through northern Ontario, that section of the country will receive no benefit from such an expenditure.
There are three angles from which the matter of the construction of a trans-Canada highway may be discussed. First there is the federal viewpoint, then the provincial and lastly the regional. Before I proceed further with my remarks I shall recall to the attention of hon. members of the house who were present during the last parliament the attitude of the Liberal party at that time, and its attitude towards expenditures from the federal treasury for matters of national importance. During' the last general election campaign the then Prime Minister, the present 
leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) was asked by me personally before prorogation about the attitude of the Liberal party concerning the construction of a trans-Canada highway. He replied that realizing there were provincial complications, and that the matter of the construction of the trans-Canada highway was primarily provincial in character, on account of the intended interprovincial conference that was to be held in Ottawa during the coming fall, discussion of the problem would be left until that time. He stated that the agenda for the conference would include the discussion of the subject of highways. He meant that he was in favour of giving grants to the provinces to subsidize a work of this nature. At the present time the onus and full responsibility for the construction of the trans-Canada highway falls upon the government now in power. May I at this time quote from statements made last year by some of the sponsors of the trans-Canada highway. At this time I direct the attention of hon. members to the remarks of the present Prime Minister as they appear in Hansard at page 459:
I am wholly in accord, Mr. Speaker, with the terms of the resolution, and I believe the principles which governed in 1912 and 1919 are principles that are as applicable to-day as they were then. The conditions under which highways are being constructed bring that construction, not without but wholly within the British North America Act, so far as the dominion is concerned. My friend the minister has challenged not so much the competency of this parliament to grant moneys in any way that we may desire-
And then there was an interruption by Mr. Dunning. So hon. members will see that there was no obstacle thrown in the way by the present Prime Minister of Canada.	Statements were also made to the government then in power about the financial situation and the necessity of reducing taxation and national debt. In this connection I desire to quote to the house from a speech made by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Irvine) on March 10, 1930, which will be found in Hansard of that year at page 468:
I would suggest also to the Prime Minister that if we cannot pay our war debts and at the same time look after the natural expansion of Canada and attend to the interests of the people, then let the war debts go. I would rather let the war debts go unpaid than let the interests of the people go unattended to. If the Prime Minister will look at the number of people who pay income tax as compared with those who do not pay, he will get an idea of who is receiving the money that w'e have to provide for war debts. He will find that the many are paying the few. If we are going to devote the entire revenue of Canada to the payment of war debts, and neglect the building of roads and the other undertakings that he

Trans-Canada Highway
lias mentioned, then I say it is in the interests of Canada to disregard war debts and look after the business of the people. I cannot charge the Prime Minister with creating those war debts, of course, but I believe they were unnecessary. Therefore I suggest to the Prime Minister that he use the credit of Canada in the coming years instead of permitting other people to use it, that he use directly by the power he has, and not charge interest to the people of Canada for the use of their own credit; if he will do that he can easily get enough money to build this national highway in a very short time out of what he would save in interest.
This statement was made by one of the sponsors of what we call the Kellner resolution who fully realized the financial position of the country, and the house voted unanimously for the resolution. The hon. member went as far as to say that realizing the financial situation, the house should adopt the Kellner resolution and cancel the war debt.
During the last election, as I said before, in northern Ontario as well as in most other paTts of Canada, the Conservative party went before the electorate and promised that if they were returned to power they would construct the connecting link so that we migjht have a trans-Canada highway from coast to coast. There was no mention made of any financial or provincial objection to the proposed undertaking; none whatever. That is why I repeat my contention that the responsibility rests not only on the government but on both sides of the house, by reason of the present unemployment and the urgency of building the connecting link of a trans-Canada highway between east and west, that we should go ahead with the project, not regarding it from any provincial viewpoint, but as a great national undertaking. I want to put before the house one or two advertisements published by the Conservative party during the last election campaign. The Conservative Association of the city of Ottawa published the following advertisement:
What Canada needs is a policy to provide jobs. A policy that will build a national highway across Canada instead of forcing motorists to use American roads to get past the great lakes, with the result that they now leave in the United States the money which they spend by the way instead of spending it for supplies in Canada, as they would do if Canada had a through road, and thus solve the unemployment situation.
I call the particular attention of hon. members to that paragraph, that 'the purpose of the undertaking was to relieve the unemployment situation, because I intend to show in a few moments that the unemployment situation in northern Ontario to-day is as acute, if not more acute than it was a year ago, and on that score alone I submit
the house should realize its responsibility towards the people who to-day cannot find employment. By their verdict last July the people of Canada in a very distinct manner told this house that they were absolutely in favour of the construction of the trans-Canada highway. Every newspaper in my section of the country, and I believe in other sections of Canada, so interpreted the result of the election. Undoubtedly it was understood that the promise then given would be implemented. The election Campaign was conducted in my section on the desirability of such a highway being constructed, and I think every candidate in northern Ontario, whether Liberal or Conservative, was in favour of the project. For instance the Northern Tribune, an independent paper, contained the following despatch:
The national highway was definitely promised by Mr. Bennett during his campaign, and early consideration of it will undoubtedly be given, in view of its close relation to the problem of unemployment which loomed so large in the campaign.
There was also a press despatch sent from Ottawa on September 11 by Arthur E. Moysey and Company, private wire, which I quote from the Porcupine Advance published in the town of Timmins. I do not know where the sender of the wire received his information, but it is very definite. This is the despatch:
Work within three weeks for between 25,000 and 30,000 unemployed and sustenance for twice that many dependents will be provided, Premier R. B. Bennett believes, by the $20,000,000 relief resolution which he introduced to-day in the House of Commons. Declaring that the government proposed "work, not charity" for the unemployed, the premier informed the house what the $20,000,000 would do. It would be used, he said, to complete the trans-Canada highway, to cover the excess costs in the construction of federal, provincial and municipal public works and possibly of railway branch line construction and for any necessary assistance to the marketing of the products of lands, forest, sea and mine.
This was a clear cut statement and similar in its terms to other statements contained in the newspapers of this country at the time. The Kapuskasing Tribune, making allusion to the undertaking under discussion, says:
There is general agreement that measures will be passed to provide work for unemployed, and foremost among these is the Canadian highway, which would absorb labour in eight of the nine provinces and be a definite investment that would pay for itself. The paralleling of the Canadian National Railways transcontinental line from Quebec city to Winnipeg by the highway would also have the effect of stimulating the revenues of the government-owned railway. Canada is now called upon
Trans-Canada Highway

national issue, because every citizen of this country is directly or indirectly interested in the construction and the routing of this highway. For the sake of discussion I will divide the highway system of Canada into three sections: first the eastern system, comprising Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and parts of Quebec and Ontario; second, the central system, which is the link to be constructed in northern Ontario, and third the western section which will comprise the three prairie provinces and British Columbia. It has been said in the past that the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick were not particularly interested in the construction of a trans-Canada highway for the very good reason that the highways of the three provinces are linked up together, but in Quebec we have a different situation. It will be necessary to construct hundreds of miles of new highway from Quebec city towards Cochrane and Winnipeg, and in Ontario we have the same situation. As I stated a few moments ago, in southern Ontario we have the best system of highways not only on the continent but, I was going to say, in the world. In northern Ontario, however, by reason of the size of that section of the province, the sparseness of the population and the lateness of settlement, there exists a situation which. demands the attention not only of the different localities directly interested but of every citizen in the country.
I shall deal briefly with the local situation, but before proceeding to do so I desire to discuss for a moment or two the three highways going westward. I believe the province of Manitoba will have access to the borders of Ontario this year. The province of Saskatchewan has its own highway system east and west, and in Alberta the situation is different from what it is in either Saskatchewan or Manitoba. On the western slope of the Rocky mountains in that province a connecting link of the highway has to be constructed. And the same applies to the province of British Columbia.
Coming back now to the local issue, I trust that the facts I shall place before the house will provoke some discussion. I would make an appeal to all the chambers of commerce in this country because, as I have said, every section of Canada is directly interested in the routing of the highway, particularly so far as northern Ontario is concerned. It is surprising to me that there have not been more pronounced activities on the part of the chambers of commerce of Toronto, Montreal, Halifax, Winnipeg and the other large centres of population. I believe that a solution of
fMr. Bradette.]
the problem will be more quickly arrived at if these larger centres will consider the situation from the point of view of northern Ontario and the whole of Canada.
In northern Ontario the people along the north shore of lake Superior maintain that the trans-Canada highway should go through their section. We contend-and we have logic, distance, and economic considerations on our side-that the highway should parallel the Canadian National railway from La Reine on the Quebec border straight to Winnipeg. But until such time as the people of Canada as a whole undertake to deal with the situation, it will be difficult to find a solution.
At present there are in northern Ontario three schools of thought with regard to the routing of the highway. First of all there are those who favour the north shore routing, which would represent a distance of approximately 585 miles of new road to be constructed. This will run from Sault Ste. Marie to Nipigon, following closely the north shore of lake Superior. Needless to say, the north shore route is backed up by the people all along that section. A distance of 60 miles of road has already been constructed; it extends from the Sault to Batchawana bay. It may be contended by some that, inasmuch as the majority of the population is in the southern section of northern Ontario, the highway should be routed through that section. But we must not overlook the fact that, with development, there will be undoubtedly a much larger population in the northern section in the near future than there is at the present time in the southern section.
There is another school of thought in regard to the routing of the highway. There are those people who believe that the proper route should have the Mississagi valley as its objective. This is a distance of 650 miles of new road to be constructed. I believe that route was first recognized by the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson), and it is sponsored by Chapleau and other towns along the Canadian Pacific railway. It starts some 30 miles east of the Sault and runs north of the Sault and on to Oba. The route connects with the road system and follows the western sections. There is no doubt a3 to the advantages of this route. It would avoid the rocky country and provide a highway system for all the population from North Bay to the Sault. Its construction would be cheaper and it would traverse a section of country rich in wonderful scenery and excellent fishing and one capable of great agricultural development. The important feature of this route is that it provides a basis for

Trans-Canada Highway
compromise between the north and the south. In a resolution I have on the order paper I make allusion to the fact, which is recognized, that eventually alternate routes will have to be constructed; and needless to say, whatever section of northern Ontario has the advantage of the initial route will be at least twenty years ahead of the other. It will take that length of time for the second section to catch up with it.
Then there is the Cochrane or northern route, a distance, from Hearst to Winnipeg, of 519 miles. This will run directly west, and it is a route that will have to be considered. I had some interviews with the premier of Quebec and others living on the western slope of the province. They want to have a direct highway connection with the trans-Canada highway, and the only direct connection that can be afforded will be by way of the Mani-waki road west of the city of Hull and by the Mont Laurier road which will give direct connection with Montreal, going by lake Victoria, and on towards northern Quebec. Such a route will shorten the distance from. Montreal to Winnipeg 150 to 225 miles, and therefore this aspect of the situation must be considered in any discussion of the routing of the trans-Canada highway.
I will now discuss as briefly as I can the merits of the different routes which have been mentioned. I do not wish to be partial, but I need hardly say that, seeing that I belong to the northern section of Ontario, I am naturally in favour of the northern route. I think, however, that I can prove that our section of northern Ontario affords the most favourable facilities for road-making of any section of the country. When I say this I am not casting any reflection on the efforts made in the past by those who have favoured the north shore route. In my opinion, in view of the high cost which would devolve upon the government, and considering the present financial condition of the country, that route must be regarded as impossible. Let me repeat, however, that we in the northern section of the province are willing at all times to come to an honest compromise with other sections of Ontario. We have in that northern part of the province 85 per cent of the entire area of Ontario. We consider, therefore, that we are favourably situated in relation to the route which the highway should take.
Let me discuss the merits of the different routes under five heads:	First, distance;
second, cost; third, possibilities for settlement; fourth, tourist attraction, and fifth, political expediency.
So far as distance is concerned, the northern route is 250 miles shorter, going in the direction of Quebec city, passing Cochrane on the way to Winnipeg. As to cost, I have reliable information from official sources to prove that the cost which the route I advocate would entail, would be less than the others. The northern section of northern Ontario is partly a flat and rolling country, with well forested land and on which there can be found gravel and sand suitable for highway construction; and in from two to four years, at a flat rate of $20,000 per mile, the road could be constructed. This would include cuts, fills, bridges and so forth. It would not make as considerable a demand on the federal treasury as the other routes proposed.
As to the possibilities for settlement, anyone familiar with the situation on the north shore knows that settlement is absolutely impossible in that section of the country, while in the northern section of the province 80 per cent of the land, we know, is capable of settlement-and the settlements in the clay belt are a proof of that statement. As regards attractiveness to tourists, I believe the three routes I have discussed are on a par. The northern section is a paradise for tourists and even at the present time, without means of communication in some sections, we have thousands of visitors from the United States -I had almost said from every part of the world-who go into that part of the country and spend months in the summer and winter time hunting and fishing.
There is one more point to be considered. The statement was made by the chairman of the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario commission that steel will be laid to Moose Factory. Every schoolboy and schoolgirl in Canada and the United States, when looking at the map of the North American continent, sees this great inland waterway called the Hudson Bay, sometimes referred to as the Mediterranean of the North American continent. There is no doubt that every citizen, whether of the United States or Canada, has a desire to visit at least once in his life that wonderful inland sea. The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway will soon have the steel extended as far as Moose Factory, on James bay, the most southerly point on the Hudson bay. The Timiskaming and Northern Ontario Railway is contemplating the building of a large hotel at Moose Factory in order to provide accommodation for the expected tourists, who in my opinion will

223S
Trans-Canada Highway

be coming in by hundreds and thousands. The Hon. W. F. Finlayson, Minister of Lands and Forests of the Ontario government, has stated that within a very short period there will be constructed a highway from Cochrane to tidewater on James bay, and many people are going to make use of this highway to visit this north country in order to fish or hunt, and to enjoy its wonderful and invigorating climate during the summer and winter months.
To some people it may seem to be wrong to ask for a large expenditure of money for this purpose, but the same argument was used only a few years ago when it was suggested that the Timiskaming and Northern Ontario railway should be extended. The results obtained by that extension have been a revelation, not only to the province of Ontario but to the dominion as a whole. The northern section of the province has proved to be a treasure house for the whole of Canada. This is the opinion of Mr. Wharton Shaw, as expressed in an article which appeared in MacLean's Magazine of March 1, 1930.
I realize the position in which any government is put in trying to choose a route. If the southern route is adopted, the northern Sections of the province of Ontario will be left without communication westward for at least twenty years to come. The northern is the shortest route, running west from Hearst along the Canadian National railway to Richam and I believe that the solution of that important and complicated problem will be found in my proposed resolution, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, all moneys voted for that purpose will be spent on a fifty-fifty basis, on the La Reine, Cochrane, Hearst, Nakina and Sioux Lookout section on the one band and the Sault Ste. Marie, Fort William, Port Arthur and Kenora, on the other.
Because of the physical obstacles to be surmounted, it is almost impossible to consider the construction of the north shore route, but I believe two alternate routes should be constructed at the same time. The people of Canada are entitled to a solution of this problem in a manner which will satisfy every section of northern Ontario. The construction of this highway should be considered in the same manner as are similar projects in the United States. Their highways are built on a direct line and take into consideration the needs not only of the tourist but of the truck traffic.
We in the northern section of northern Ontario are ready to come to a sincere and reasonable compromise on this question. I believe the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson) stated a few months ago

that the Mississagi route would be a good compromise between the northern and southern sections of the province, that route to meet the Ferguson highway at Oba on the Canadian National railway, about 55 miles from the town of Hearst, and then continue in a southwesterly direction to Port Arthur and Fort William. I do not believe that that would be a fair compromise as the proposed route would not go far enough west to take in Nakina and that section of the country. The population there is not large at the present time but it will increase. We should join with the other section west of Long Lac so as to include Nakina.
Every hon. member should be interested in this problem because every section of the country is interested. This is not a regional question, it is one which affects the country as a whole because every person, and particularly the motorist will be interested in travel over this route. I believe it was stated in this house two or three years ago that the geographical division of Canada was a monstrous anomaly, but the people of Canada do not realize the wonderful heritage they have in northern Ontario. We used to think that that section of Canada was practically a barren country, but I repeat that it is really the treasure house of Canada in land, in mines, in water powers, in forests and all kinds of undeveloped resources. A statement was made by Hon. Charles McCrea, provincial Minister of Mines, speaking in Hamilton during the last election, that for every dollar invested in northern Ontario a return of S10 was received, and I agree absolutely with that statement.
I believe the construction of this highway would foe a great step in the direction of bringing about solidarity within Canada. It may surprise some hon. members to know that to us in northern Ontario, Winnipeg, as far as news is concerned, seems as far away as is Russia. We are in touch with municipal activities in the cities of Toronto and Hamilton and other centres of population to the south of us, but we hear nothing of Winnipeg unless it is in connection with a strike or something of that kind. I do not desire to prophesy, but I cannot help predicting that within a very short time millions of prosperous contented people will be found in this section of the country. There are enormous undeveloped natural resources and the construction of this highway would provide one means of development. I do not make this appeal from a partisan point of view. This parliament stands before the tribunal of public opinion to see to it that we be given what was promised last July.

T ram-Canada Highway
Another angle to this problem is the unemployment situation. Mayor Ralph Webb of the city of Winnipeg has stated that he has been bringing pressure .to bear upon this parliament to bring about the construction of this trans-Canada highway in order to give employment to twenty-five to thirty thousand men for at least three or four years to come. Before this session is completed a sufficient sum of money should be voted to provide for the construction of this link between the east and the west. Such a course would bring about unity and a better understanding among all sections of this country, and greatly help in the solution of the unemployment situation which is getting more and more serious and certainly deserves the immediate attention of this house.


Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, may I add a few words to those already said by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). He has presented the case in a very able manner, not from a political but from a national point of view, and it is from that point of view I desire to discuss .this question. During the last campaign this matter was one of the subjects of discussion, and I desire to refer to a statement made by a member of the Ontario government. Hon. W. F. Finlayson, the provincial Minister of Lands and Forests, is quoted in the Sudbury Star of July 12, 1930, as follows:
The trans-Canada highway is a national, not a provincial undertaking, the minister declared, and should be carried out by the federal government.
That is what the Minister of Lands and Forests said. On Wednesday, July 16, 1930, the Sudbury Star reports a speech of the present Prime Minister, at Quebec, as follows:
Hon. R. B. Bennett, speaking in Quebec, reiterates his adherence to the plan for building a national motor highway across Canada.
The Conservative leader is bound to make many friends with this program. There are plenty of desirable national undertakings for Canada to carry out, but few of them are more important than the building of a modern, adequate, wide motor road from Halifax to V ancouver. In Ontario and Quebec, much of the existing highw'ay could be used for this purpose. The big pull would be through northern Ontario and the west.
The northland is greatly interested in the question of a through highway. This part of the province is developing fast, and to give it further impetus, it should be connected up with east and west, giving easy access to travellers, both Canadian and foreign. A trans-Canada road constructed through Sudbury and the region to the west would open up large possibilities, and the expenditure involved would in time be returned a hundred-fold.
This highway must come, and it must come as a federal undertaking, perhaps with a
certain amount of provincial and municipal assistance. The manner of its financing, however, is not nearly as important as the building of the road. It should have been started a year or more ago. Every moment that it is: delayed Canada loses the undoubted benefits that would come from such a project.
After the Conservative papers saying at that time that the trans-Canada highway was such a necessity and had been so much delayed by the Liberals, it is surprising that they talk so little about it to-day, and apparently find it not so very useful. I am always quoting the Sudibury Star which is a Conservative paper in my home town. The Sudbury Star of August 6, 1930, said:
The hoard of trade is preparing a fight to have the trans-Canada highway through Sudbury.
These are the wbrds I want to emphasize.
With the election of the Bennett government, pledged to call a special session of parliament to deal with unemployment, the probability of the trans-Canada road being started this year is considered likely.
I want to show that although agriculture and the butter question were discussed during the last election, tjhe subject of a transdanada highway was the main issue in my constituency. I might quote the Sudbury Star of August. 9, 1930, in a despatch from Cochrane,, as follows:
Mr. Wright (President of the Northern Ontario Associated Boards of Trade) writes from Englehart that "certain developments have taken place recently which must of necessity bring the matter again prominently to our attention, and he urges the local boards to prepare for the discussions which he expects on this question and which may lead to a direct presentation of the case for this part of Ontario to the federal authorities.
Hon. W. A. Gordon, member for South Timiskaming, Minister of Immigration and Mines, has spoken frequently on the subject of the trans-Canada highway, which he claimed was an important issue from the point of view of the people of his riding.
I hope the Minister of Immigration has not changed his mind since then. Let me cite the opinion of the hon. member for East Algoma (Mr. Nicholson). The Sudbury Star of September 3, 1930, reports a letter written by tlhe hon. member for East Algoma to Mr. Wright. I am not going to read the whole article, but this is the point which the hon. member for East Algoma brought out:	,
Points to be considered. I advocate this route-
He was talking of the Mississagi route.
-as against the route around the north shore of lake Superior, for the following reasons: In the construction of a trans-Canada highway four things should be kept definitely in mind:
Trans-Canada Highway

1.	The desirability of linking up the whole
country in one unit from a transportation standpoint.	.
2.	The most effective means of developing the country.
3.	To provide a route that will make it
possible and convenient for the tourist and trans-Canada traveller to visit the largest and most attractive area in the most convenient way.	_	.
4.	The most economical way by which all of this can be accomplished. Almost any route that might be decided upon from east to west meets the first point raised.
Let me quote the Sudbury Star of September 17, 1930:
The benefits accruing to a municipality through having an aggressive board of trade have been aptly demonstrated in the vital question of the construction of the proposed trans-Canada highway, which has been agitating the northern Ontario centres during the last few weeks, and which is one of the most important problems affecting the vast stretch of country north of the Canadian Pacific Railway that has been in the public mind for a long time.
Without a board of trade, it is doubtful if any active steps would be officially taken in a matter of this kind. The project does not come within the province of a municipal council, although, if the latter were not over-occupied in purely civic problems, they might, in a measure, divert their attention to through roads.
He proceeds to explain the necessity of a trans-Canada highway. I rise on this occasion just to add a few words to what has already been said by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). I want especially to emphasize that if we ask, regardless of partisan views, for the immediate construction of this trans-Canada highway, it is to relieve the unemployment situation which is so bad at the present time. In my constituency unemployment is becoming worse every week. I want to mention in particular the town of Sturgeon Falls, with a population of 4,000 which for twenty-five years has depended for its livelihood on the operations of the Spanish River pulp industry which is now the Abitibi Pulp and Paper Company. This company, however, closed its doors seven or eight months ago. Charitable contributions have reached their limit; the municipality can do no more; the provincial contributions have also reached their limit, and now it is the federal government's turn to step in and do something. Therefore I ask for the construction of this trans-Can-,-ada highway, mostly for the relief of the un-[DOT]employment situation. I might congratulate ;the municipalities and the provincial government for having tried last fall to do something to relieve the unemployment situation. But what has been d'one for the relief of

unemployment, in the district of Sudbury, particularly around Malttawa and Sturgeon Falls has been altogether impractical, and the methods which have been adopted were far from being profitable for the country. Large pieces of road have been built in the middle of winter whereas in the spring the same work could have 'been done in one-tenth of the time with one-quarter of the money. It is my opinion that such work should have been begun early test spring, because at such time it could have been done much more advantageously.
I have a further reason for suggesting the immediate construction of the trans-Canada highway, because the expense involved would be well justified. To my mind such construction would constitute a good piece of business. Referring to the tourist trade in Canada the Ottawa Journal of May 22, 1931, contains the following report:
In 1930 almost five and a half million United States automobiles crossed into Canada, and both Ottawa and Washington estimate that in the neighbourhood of $400,000,000 was put into circulation in the dominion as a result.
Northern Ontario being a more undeveloped country, needs such a road for its further development, and at the same time that section of the oountry would receive its fair share of the tourist trade. Up to the present time many of the Canadian people have been under the impression that American tourists have come to Canada simply to quench their thirst. I think that is an erroneous view; the vast majority of tourists enter Canada to enjoy the beauties of our country. Undoubtedly a great many of them would be drawn to northern Ontario if the road now under discussion was built. Northern Ontario would share to. a considerable extent in the $400,000,000 referred to in the Ottawa Journal.
I shall not add anything further about the necessity for the construction of the trans-Cafiada highway, but would strongly urge the government to consider the matter and to take action immediately. The construction of such a highway is a vast undertaking and before it could be undertaken engineers would have to survey the whole rouite, which undoubtedly would involve a work lasting some weeks and probably months. If the route is not now decided upon, construction work may not be initiated this year. I hope the government will take immedia te steps to decide upon a rouite, have it surveyed and give work to thousands of men as was promised during the election campaign.

Trans-Canada Highway


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: My hon. friend
is undoubtedly aware that two or three routes have been suggested. Which of these routes would he favour?


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: The different routes
have been outlined by the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Naturally every one would like to see the road pass through his own home town. The hon. member for North Timiskaming urged that the road should pass through his district, and similarly I wish to have it pass through mine; but I have no hesitation in saying that hon. members on this side of the house are above politics in ithe matter and will leave the routing to the decision of the provincial and federal governments. We would accept their decision gladly and would like to see the work proceed immediately.


Peter Heenan: I would like to add to the remarks
of the hon. members for North Timiskaming and Nipissing concerning the construction of a trans-Canada highway. Owing to the fact that the government has definitely promised to build a national highway I am disappointed that we have not heard some pronouncement concerning its construction. Undoubtedly during the last election campaign the present administration made definite promises with respect to the building of a highway through northern Ontario. The hon. member for Nippissing has referred to a statement made by the Minister of Lands and Forests for Ontario at a smoker held in the town of Sudbury during the last election campaign wherein he stated that the highway now under discussion was a federal obligation. The St. John Telegraph-Journal of July 1, 1930, contained the following statement made by the present Prime Minister at St. John, New Brunswick:
We say that the federal government under our administration will build a great national highway in Canada.
No statement could be more definite than that.
The London Free Press of June 25, 1930, contains the following statement made by the Prime Minister at Cobourg on the preceding day:
"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 that the undertaking must be accomplished by the hands of the federal government.
To my' mind that statement regarding the building of a national highway is quite definite.
The Ottawa Morning Citizen, in an issue the date of which I have not been able to ascertain, published the following extract from a speech delivered by the present Prime Minister at Ormsitown:
A national highway was required for agriculture, to connect the east with the west; to this national highway his party was pledged.
I could refer to many other quotations of a similar character, but I do not think I should burden hon. members. Undoubtedly they are fully seized of the fact that the Conservative party, the Prime Minister in particular, placed themselves definitely on record during the last election campaign to the effect that a national highway would be built at the instance of the federal government. I think a definite pronouncement should be made to ease the anxiety of the people of northern Ontario as to whether or not the federal government is going to build or assist the provinces in building a national highway. An announcement to that effect has not been made by the present administration.
I spoke on this matter at some length in the course of the debate on the address in reply to the speech from the throne, and I do not propose at this time to repeat what I then said. But I think it is well that we should ask the government to make some definite announcement which would at least put an end to the anxiety of the people and also stop the political manoeuvering of a few persons in northern Ontario who have delayed the building of the highway for so many years. I think probably a brief history of the highway might be useful in order to enlighten some members of the house who may be interested in it.
My official connection with it commenced in the town of Dryden in 1919 when I became a member of the Ontario legislature. At that time delegates from every town and hamlet between Winnipeg to away east of the head of the lakes met and formed an organization known as the Central Canada Colonization and Highway Association. The president of the association was, and is to-day, a leading Conservative in northern Ontario. In fact he was the defeated candidate in the provincial election of 1919. If I took the time of the house to read the names of the officers of the association, hon. members would realize that most of them are leading Conservatives
Trans-Canada Highway

in that section of the country. So this was not a political organization in any sense. The executive met, formulated a memorial and presented it to the Ontario government in March, 1920. A couple of paragraphs will indicate what the association had in mind at that particular time. After declaring that Ontario should construct the highway piece by piece the memorial proceeds:
The Manitoba government is prepared to complete its portion of the road just as soon as the Ontario government defines the meeting place, and the Manitoba engineers are waiting to do the work in conjunction with your engineers. The necessity of this point being defined is important, and if this has not already been done, we trust that you will immediately take steps to have it completed.
It will be observed that members of the association had already met the Manitoba government and had received an assurance from them that they were prepared to do their part of the work. The memorial proceeds by resolution:
That this executive is of the opinion that the Ontario government should map out its road building program so that the Winnipeg to head of the lakes highway be completed within five years, and that, during 1920 the road from Kenora to the Manitoba boundary should be completed, also 42 miles of road from the head of the lakes be provided by the building of 34 miles of new road and the gravelling of 13 miles.
The memorial further says:
We, therefore, ask that during the year 1920 the provincial government in Ontario complete the work as outlined in resolution No. 1 hereinbefore.
That was the attitude of the people in the portion of the territory in which I reside. Mr. Pitt of Dryden, as president, presented that memorial to the Ontario government in March 1920. Work was started and got fairly under way, and, as requested, there was a survey made from Kenora to the Manitoba boundary, the right of way was cut and grubbed and some grading done. In 1923, as we well know, there was a change of government in Ontario, and thereupon the work, for some reason or other was practically shut down. We urged on the new government of Ontario the desirability of carrying on the work that had been started in 1921, and we find the Hon. James Lyons, stating at the head of the lakes, as reported in the Fort William Times-Journal of May 30, 1924:
Completed in three years. The policy of the government is to open up northern Ontario roads as speedily as possible. The highway through to the Manitoba boundary will be a direct line from Fort William north of Rainy River and Fort Frances and will be completed

within three years. The road eastward towards the Soo will be undertaken at once, and will be completed within the next seven years, it is hoped. Not only will engineers be on the route, but work will be commenced within a few days.
I have read sufficient to show that a very definite pledge was made to proceed with the construction. Notwithstanding that pledge nothing was done, and as a matter of fact the road is still uncompleted. At that time we had other highways under consideration, and surveyors were blazing a trail across from the Canadian Pacific Railway to the town of Sioux Lookout, but that work, too, was suspended. In answer to a letter of mine the Hon. James W. Lyons, then, Minister of Lands and Forests, wrote me under date of March 4, 1924:
Your letter of March 3rd, with petition regarding the Canadian Pacific Railway Sioux Lookout road received, and have to advise that this matter will be given consideration along with the other real needs of the north, but it will probably be the first to the middle of April before any decision is made in the matter.
That is a road that connects up with the main highway we are now discussing. Every conceivable excuse was made by the Ontario government for not proceeding with the highway. At one time they stated that the Manitoba government had not put itself on record as willing to meet the Ontario government at any particular point; but I myself accompanied a delegation to Winnipeg along with the president of the association that I have referred to and, Colonel Schnarr, president of the board of trade of Kenora, and others and in conjunction with members of the Manitoba legislature we secured a definite promise from their government to meet the Ontario government at mile post 24. In addition, before the Bracken government came into power we had Mr. McPherson put h:s government on record in the matter in a letter to the mayor of Keewatin, and no doubt this will be of interest to some hon. members. This letter is from the office of the Minister of Public Works, Winnipeg, under date of August 10, 1921, addressed to N. J. Hansen, mayor of' Keewatin, Ontario.
Re: Ontario-Manitoba Highway Hear Sir:
1 beg to acknowledge receipt of your communication dated August 8th inquiring as to the location of the connecting proposed route of the Manitoba-Ontario highway at the Ontario border.
I have had this matter under consideration for some time, and after due consideration and consultation with our reclamation branch it is agreed that the vicinity of mile post 24, or in other words at or about mile post 24, will be satisfactory from the standpoint of this province.

Trans-Canada Highway
I trust that this will meet the requirements of the situation at the present time, and as I understand the Ontario Minister of Lands, Hon, Mr. Bowman, is to visit your district very shortly, this will be in the nature of an assurance as to the location of the proposed road.
I am in receipt of correspondence from Mr. Wydeman, of the Kenora Examiner and Mr. Cornish of the Canada Colonization and Highway Association, and copies of this letter are being forwarded to each of these gentlemen.
Yours faithfully,
C. T>. McPherson, Minister of Public Works.
So there was no doubt in our minds that there was a definite arrangement between the two governments to meet at mile post 24. Indeed, in 1926, one of the Conservative candidates for the provincial house, Mr. J. P. Eamgey, issued a statement to the electors in which he said:-
If elected, I propose to join forces with the members for Rainy River, Fort William and Port Arthur for the rapid completion of the portion of the trans-Canada highway from Fort William west; and for the construction at once of the highway to Fort Frances to tap at that point the great tourist traffic from the United States which is waiting to flow this way.
So the government candidate had no thought whatever that this highway would be built only on condition that the federal government contributed anything to it. As a matter of fact, until the approach of the last federal election there never was a suggestion from any point that the federal government should contribute one red cent to the cost of the construction of that highway through that portion of the country. Mayor Webb of Winnipeg, a very pronounced Conservative, took issue with a Liberal during the campaign of 1926, and in a letter to the Fort Frances Times under date of August 26, 1926, he said:
We must all work together and the man or women or any political party or any organization that in any way, shape or form, tries to create or breed friction, deserve to be shown by the people at large that they will have nothing to do with them whatsoever.
Neither of the parties at Ottawa have anything to do with the local problem of a highway between Winnipeg and Kenora, or in the great development of this wonderful area.
So here we have a very pronounced Conservative taking a Liberal to task because he suggested a federal contribution. Of course it is true that Mayor Webb changed his views during the last election and joined with a good many others in misrepresenting the position of the Liberals, and particularly my own position, in connection with the trans-Canada highway.
A few moments ago I quoted Mr. Lyons, who was Minister of Lands and Forests in
1924. As hon. members will recall, Mr. Lyons resigned and was succeeded by Mr. Finlayson. In the Kenora Examiner of September 16, 1927, we have this statement by Mr. Finlayson:
The government propose, after the completion of the Ferguson highway, this year, to devote more money and attention to the roads in the northwestern part of the province. The development from Port Arthur and Fort William to the Manitoba boundary requires attention, and during the next year or two the roads in this section of the province call for very considerable improvement.
Then we have ex-Mayor Toole, of Kenora, another very pronounced Conservative-and in passing I might say one of the most decent Conservatives in northern Ontario-speaking at a banquet in honour of Mr. Finlayson at Kenora. Mr. Toole was selected to present to Mr. Finlayson the views of the people in that part of the country with respect to many matters. In connection with the highway, I find the following comment, in the Kenora Examiner of August 26, 1927:
Why can we not have a road to Dryden? Why should we not be connected up with that part of our own district? Only about forty-five miles of construction are needed to link us up to that thriving agricultural section who need the road as much as we. Dryden and Kenora, two good towns, and many smaller communities cut off from each other. Hon. James Lyons, on a visit some years ago, promised it; yet the road is not built.
You have said that a road from the south would bring in foreign wealth, not only tourists but some ready to invest as well. Much of the country around Toronto itself was built up by visitors who were quick to see an opportunity. Money expended on highways here will bring enough tourists to give returns that not only pay for maintenance but construction as well.
The automobile has revolutionized everything in the last few years. We hear of roads being built all around us, but so far only twenty-two miles has been built for Kenora. We in this district are loyal to Ontario, but to-day unfortunately there is much dissatisfaction against the government for the lack of progress in this section.
Those are the words of one of the leading Conservatives of that section of the country. Anyone who knows Mr. Toole will agree that he is one of the most far-seeing gentlemen in northern Ontario, and a man who is always boosting his district. Then we had the president of the Central Canada Highways Association, Mr. Alfred Pitt, who was invited to address the Kenora Rotary Club. He is reported in the Kenora Examiner of November 30, 1928, as follows:
Well, we spent a good deal of time and money, and finally Mr. Lyons started what now is the road to within twelve miles of the Manitoba boundary.
Trans-Canada Highway

Of course, he is wrong in that statement; that road was started before Mt. Lyons was Minister of Lands and Forests.
And so soon are things forgotten, I have heard it claimed that Ontario and Manitoba had not agreed upon a meeting place. This is not so. The surveyors of the two provinces did not meet with the precision of the Simplon tunnel, but came within measurable distance of each other. There need be no difficulty here. The point is settled, although some newspapers, not going editorially deep enough into the facts, seem to forget that.
So that we have Mr. Pitt almost despairing of the possibility of getting this highway, and taking some of the editorial writers in that part of the country to task. I am sure I do not need to mention who they are. One particular gentleman who was a candidate- in fact, he was the legislative representative in Ontario-never writes an editorial on the highway, lately at least, without misrepresenting the whole situation. And that, I may say, is one of the reasons why to-day he is not a member of the Ontario legislature for that riding.
I shall read presently an extract from the Dryden Observer of July 17, 1930. Apparently the whole aspect of this matter has changed. Every speaker in the Conservative ranks taking part in the election campaign in northern Ontario-this was particularly the case in my own riding-endeavoured to misrepresent my position. I have the records of their statements. The whole aspect of the situation, I say, has changed. In the campaign it was no longer a provincial undertaking. Even some of the gentlemen whom I have quoted, who had stated that it was a provincial undertaking with which the federal government had nothing to do, whether that government was Liberal or Conservative, took a different attitude in 1930, declaring then that it was a dominion undertaking. These gentlemen changed their opinion, saying that it was a federal obligation and that the highway would never be constructed until there was a change of government at Ottawa. Let me quote from a writer in the Dryden Observer of July 17, 1930:
Premier Howard G. Ferguson, in his effort to make political capital in the present compaign, tells us he is ready to go fifty-fifty with the federal government in the cost of construction of the highway in this riding, and he and his henchmen, among them Hon. Wm. Finlayson, who was here recently, attack the King administration for not accepting this offer and permitting the work to proceed, thereby affording employment. Manitoba, the prairie provinces and British Columbia each went ahead with their sections and completed . them without delay. But Premier Ferguson holds out for fifty-fifty split.
r&4r. Heenan.]	; i [ i
I placed on the order paper a motion which was carried by the house, asking for the correspondence between the government of Ontario and any member of the federal government; and while there were returns from every department of the federal government, there was not one syllable, not one line of communication as between the two governments indicating any request for assistance or for a fifty-fifty split.
The election was fought in our part of the country chiefly on the highways. The Conservatives gained two seats in that part of the country mainly on the promise of that highway, and I am glad now to be in a position to supplement what was said by the hon. member for N'orth Timiskaming (Mr. Bradetite), and the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). With those hon. gentlemen, I would ask the government to implement their promise and to do so immediately. It is a shame to think that in a beautiful country such as we have in northern Ontario we should be denied a highway to enable the people to Communicate with the rest of the world. Moreover, ithere are people outside looking for scenic beauty, a lovely country such as we have there, with delightful lakes, forests, fishing and game of all kinds. These people are anxious to spend some of their money there and they cannot because of the political manoeuvering of about six gentlemen or so up in my part of the country. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, in view of the definite pledge made by the Conservatives in my riding during the campaign, and the different promises, as I have outlined them, made by the present Prime Minister, that the government should make some pronouncement as to whether or not they intend to carry out these promises. They should let us know whether they are going to proceed with the construction of that highway as they pledged themselves to do or whether they have changed their minds and intend to make a contribution to the provinces by way of assistance. Whatever course they follow, whether by contribution to the provinces or by undertaking the whole thing themselves, they will have my support.
As regards the route from the head of the lakes to the Manitoba boundary, the question is settled as to the roulte. The people themselves have agreed upon the routte and have so represented to the Ontario government. Whether they sent copies to this government, I do not know. But the present federal government ought not now to seek further excuses on the ground that there are representations from different parts of fbe country

Immigration Act
with regard to the question of route. No matter what representations are made, the government is responsible to the people for the route they should tlake, and I would suggest that they shoulder that responsibility and establish the route. I am satisfied that if they did so the people in northern Ontario would get behind them and accept whatever route they selected.
While speaking of routes, there is no doubt in .my mind that before many years there will be demand's for more highways than one in northern Ontario. I am satisfied that if the route should go north the people in the other section of the country will feel that there should be another route; similarly, if the highway is built in the south there will be required before long a northern route. We have two or three routes from the city of Toronto to Hamilton. All through old Ontario you can choose various routes wherever you want to go, and these highways have been built in large part out of the revenues provided by new Ontario. The revenues from mining, fishing, game, forests and water-powers have all contributed to the building of these highways through old Ontario, and I was very much surprised during the last provincial by-election to read that Mr. Mc-Crea, a gentleman who I am sure knows what he is talking about, made the statement that, at this very moment, for every dollar the Ontario government places in northern Ontario it get back ten dollars. If that is true -I do not happen to have his speech here, but I can get it-that is all the more reason why more consideration should be given to the north than it is receiving at the present time. And even if it is noit true, the province of Ontario and this government, now that it is under obligation to carry out its promise in this regard, should give greater assistance to that sparsely settled country in accordance with their pledges.


Mr. D. J. COWAN (Port Arthur-Thunder Bay):: I wish to intervene in this debate
for a few moments inasmuch as the route of the trans-Canada highway would of necessity pass through the district I have the honour to represent. The members of the government, particulary those from northern Ontario, in the past have been in favour of the construction of a trans-Canada highway and at all times have endeavoured to promote the possibility of having that route constructed as early as possible. I do not think there is any argument as to the advisability of the construction and the early commencement of it. Confederation became possible because of the construction of a
trans-Canada railway, and in the world of transportation the motor has become a very important item. It would seem to me that the unity of Canada would be promoted if a motor road were constructed across this country, and particularly is that true of northern Ontario.
I do not propose to discuss this issue at great length, except to say that in the communities of northern Ontario we have not a municipal organization. There are no township or county organizations which would contribute towards the cost of this highway, it must be borne either by the provincial or by the federal governments, or by both. It is a matter which can be discussed properly in this parliament; it is a national matter, and for that reason I say that the government now in power should give it its earnest consideration.
Knowing the attitude which this government and the members of the cabinet have taken in the past, I have no hesitation in saying that this is one policy which should be carried ou.t very shortly.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess



[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 62, for the relief of Gordon Aaron. -Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 63, for the relief of Rita Margaret Mary Longmore.-Mr. Heaps.
Bill No. 75, for the relief of Barbara Wallace Barlow.-Mr. Factor.
Bill No. 76 for the relief of Ray Finkel-stein.-Mr. Factor.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. A. HEAPS (North Winnipeg) (for Mr. Woodsworth) moved the second reading of Bill No. 44, to amend the Immigration Act.
Hugh Guthrie: Will the hon. member
explain? The sponsor of the bill is not present.


Mr. HEAPS:: In the absence of the sponsor of the bill, I might say a word or two in explanation. The purpose of the bill is to prevent the government from deporting people who have resided in this country for more than ten years. As regards the purpose of the measure, I think it will have the general support and sympathy of members in all parts of the house. Although I
Immigration Act'

am moving the second reading of the bill, there are one or two aspects of it to which I wish to refer. There is no doubt that the motive behind it is of the very highest, but if the bill passes in its present form, there will be one or two anomalies.
A person having come to this country say from a certain part of Europe, and resided here for a period of five years becomes a naturalized citizen, and is then entitled to the full rights of citizenship and cannot be deported even though the government may desire to deport him. Under this bill a person born in Great Britain and coming to Canada, and who on account of his British citizenship would not have to become a naturalized citizen of the dominion, could be deported, whereas one who comes from the continent of Europe and resides here for five years cannot be deported. Consequently, if the bill passes as it is worded, certain anomalies might be created which would not be in the best interests of Canada.
My own view, however, on this question is that the whole matter is one almost entirely of administration. Persons who have resided in this country for a given number of years ought not to be deported, as has happened quite frequently during the past few months. I think the reason which motivated the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in introducing this measure, is the fact that during the past few months certain persons, most of whom had been born in Great Britain and had resided here for quite a number of years- in some cases as long as eighteen or twenty, if my memory serves me aright-and to whom quite a large number of children were born in this country, have been deported. In one case the mother of a family was tom away from her children and deported to the old country. That class of deportation does not do Canada any good. We have in this country sufficient of the milk of human kindness to allow people to remain here when they become sick and infirm after they have probably given of their best to Canada. I do not think any government, federal or provincial, can offer as an exouse for deportation the fact that having resided within the dominion for a number of years and and raised families, the persons concerned have unfortunately become sick. I have seen persons who have come to Canada, who have had the misfortune to contract certain diseases and who at very short notice have been deported. We. ought at least in some oases to be very careful before we order deportations. I know it is extremely difficult for the government to refuse to act when they have been re-
quested to do so by the provincial authority, but on the other hand the. federal government has certain responsibilities and I think a statement ought to be made by the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) that in the case of proposed deportations, nothing should be done where people have resided in this country for a period longer than five years. A ten-year residence is too long a period because, as I pointed out before, a person who comes here from the continent of Europe can become a naturalized citizen after five years, and then that person is not deportable. I believe those who come here from Great Britain ought not to be in a less favoured position than those who come from other parts of the continent of Europe. Consequently, while I am in favour of the principle underlying the bill as introduced by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think if we had a declaration of policy on the part of the government, it might carry out this purpose for which this bill has been introduced.


Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: While I am in sympathy with the general purpose of the bill, there are certainly some drawbacks to its passing in its present form. From time to time we see in the paper a report indicating that the "brutal government" or the "brutal Immigration department," as it is described, have deported a number of people. We always see, in big letters, so to speak, the deportee's side of the case. He has been deported; he is not particularly pleased with the country that is throwing him out, and he is not especially scrupulous in regard to the statements he makes. On the other hand, the government, for reason, does not rush into print and publish the department's side of the case. It is only from a spirit of humanity that they do not wish to inflict this greater publicity upon people who certainly are always deported for some cause. The consequence is that public sentiment is aroused in many cases in favour of the deportee, whereas if the truth were known, there would be no sympathy whatever. I had a number of these cases explained to me a few weeks ago, and the reasons given were certainly such as fully to justify deportation in every case. In nearly every instance the original trouble with these men or women who are deported is that they obtained entrance into this country by deliberate misrepresentations accompanied on many occasions by false affidavits. I heard of a case where an epileptic child three years old was brought into the country. No reasonable doctor who would make a hurried

Immigration Act
examination when the child was taken off the ship could detect that the child was subject to epileptic fits. As a matter of fact when the examination was made it may have been asleep. The child was said to be only eleven months old, as was borne out by its general appearance, and gained entry into the country under false pretences. After the child had been allowed in the discovery was made that it was subject to epileptic fits which as time went on became of a more serious character. Some years later the child was deported. In such a case is there any reason why thi3 country should be saddled with the maintenance for life of such an individual who deliberately broke into this country or got in by fraudulent representations made on its behalf?
Then there are cases where a man does not accidentally come under the provisions of deportation, but deliberately, fraudulently and with full knowledge of the law lies himself into the country. I have nothing to say against the second clause of the bill, which provides that no immigrant with a previous residence here of ten years shall be refused reentry into Canada by reason of his absence from the country. There are a large number of criminals in Europe, sometimes conditions get too hot for them; they have to come over here and they secure entry by false pretences. Although they may have broken the law they may manage to keep clear of it for a period of ten years, and if they escape that long we cannot do anything with them. Obviously we do not want to encourage that class of people to come to Canada.
The first section of the bill applies not to aliens only, but to "an immigrant." If such immigrant becomes naturalized he cannot be deported. Therefore it should apply only to aliens, although the wording is "immigrant" and that might be held to apply to someone other than an alien. As an illustration I would point out the practice of the insurance companies. An insurance company insures a man's life for a long period of years. On the application for insurance the insured makes certain statements. The policy does not state that if he is not caught making a false statement in one, two, five or ten years he will be cleared of responsibility. The man dies when he is ninety years old and if it is found that he made a deliberate, material and wilful misstatement in his application his insurance policy is liable to become void. If insurance companies are as particular as that we might do well to follow a similar practice in relation to immigrants.
Then there is the question of orientals coming into Canada. Some years ago we passed an act prohibiting the immigration of Chinese labourers. A registration system was put in force whereby within a certain time every Chinaman in the country had to be registered. It was discovered that many of them had come in illegally. When an attempt was made to check up and to register their names, where they had come from and on what boat they had come to Canada, it was discovered that a number had come in illegally by faking passports and by other false means. The ages appearing on some of the passports were obviously incorrect. While the situation wa3 remedied at the time in regard to Chinese, it was not improved regarding Japanese. When Japanese go back to their own country on a visit they have to obtain a passport or certificate from this country before leaving. When they apply for a certificate their record of entry is investigated, the time they came and how they came, and if it is found they obtained entrance illegally, even although they are British subjects, they can go away if they like but cannot return. Surely that is a desirable arrangement, because undoubtedly there has been a good deal of abuse of what was known as the gentleman's agreement in connection with Japanese.
To my mind the general spirit of the proposed bill sponsored by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is one with which all members must be in sympathy, but before the bill is passed in its entirety it ought to be sent to a committee for further investigation.


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration) :: This bill constitutes a very radical
departure from the immigration laws which have been on the statute books of this country for a great many years.	As the
language indicates, the bill contemplates that mere residence in Canada renders the person incapable of deportation. I have sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) in the matter. I sympathize with those who happen to be in trouble or suffering affliction, and it is unfortunate that under the provisions of our law we find it necessary on occasions to cause the deportation of offenders to their countries of origin. I have a great deal more sympathy however for those who were born in Canada or came here legally and have a legal right to remain, and it is for their protection that the law stands in its present form. It may be said that at times the administration of the act is unduly harsh. From time to time cases have been discussed in the
224S
Immigration Act

public press in connection with which it is alleged mistakes have been made. I am not by any means prepared to admit that mistakes have occurred,-if the records were searched the facts might be found to indicate the contrary-but if mistakes have occurred in connection with the deportation of people who have no right by law to remain in Canada the number of such cases is negligible having regard to the total number of cases so dealt with by the administrative officers of the department. The present bill if passed would render almost ineffective the provisions of section 3 of the Immigration Act. In order that the meaning of the section may be impressed upon the minds of hon. members I shall take the liberty of reading it. Dealing with prohibited classes the section reads:
No immigrant, passenger or other person, unless he is a Canadian citizen, or has Canadian domicile, shall be permitted-
At this point may I interject that my hon. friend from North Winnipeg made a mistake, no doubt unintentionally. He is wrong when he says that a British subject legally entered into Canada can be deported after residence in this country of five years. That is not correct. He is just as free from deportation as is anybody els^


Abraham Albert Heaps: No, I said a person entering this country who became naturalized after five years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They cannot be deported
unless they have contravened some provision of the Narcotic Drug Act.


Abraham Albert Heaps: After a citizen of Europe
has been here for five years and become naturalized, is he still subject to deportation?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Only if he contravenes
the provisions of the Narcotic Drug Act, as far as my recollection serves me at the moment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: But in no other event can
he be deported?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I do not think so.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Then there is discrimination between such naturalized aliens and the British born.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Not at all. If a British
born person legally enters Canada and resides here for five years and acquires Canadian domicile, he is just as free from deportation as the Canadian-born. This section continues:
-or has Canadian domicile, shall be permitted to enter or land in Canada, or in case of having landed in or entered Canada shall be permitted to remain therein, who belongs to any of the following classes, hereinafter called "prohibited classes"-

Now, this bill if passed in its present or in any other form having the same effect would destroy the purpose of the section that I am now quoting after the immigrant has resided in Canada for a continuous period of ten years. These are the prohibited classes:
fa) Idiots, imbeciles, feeble-minded persons, epileptics, insane persons, and persons who have been insane at any time previously;
That is, previously to their entry.
(b)	Persons afflicted with tuberculosis in any form or with any loathsome disease, or with a disease which is contagious or infectious, or which may become dangerous to the public health, whether such persons intend to settle in Canada or only to pass through Canada in transit to some other country: Provided that if such disease is one which is curable within a reasonably short time, such persons may, subject to the regulations in that behalf, if any, be permitted to remain on board ship if hospital facilities do not exist on shore, or to leave ship for medical treatment;
(c)	Immigrants who are dumb, blind, or otherwise physically defective, unless in the opinion of a board of inquiry or officer acting as such they have sufficient money, or have such profession, occupation, trade, employment or other legitimate mode of earning a living that they are not liable to become a public charge or unless they belong to a family accompanying them or already in Canada and which gives security satisfactory to the minister against such immigrants becoming a public charge;
(cl) Persons who have been convicted of, or admit having committed, any crime involving moral turpitude;
(e)	Prostitutes and women and girls coming to Canada for any immoral purpose and pimps or persons living on the avails of prostitution.
(f)	Persons who procure or attempt to bring into Canada prostitutes or women or girls for the purpose of prostitution or other immoral purpose;
fg) Professional beggars or vagrants;
(h) Immigrants to whom money has been given or loaned by any charitable organization for the purpose of enabling them to qualify for landing in Canada under this act, or whose passage to Canada has been paid wholly or in part by any charitable organization, or out of public moneys, unless it is shown that the authority in writing of the deputy minister, or in case of persons coming from Europe, the authority in writing of the assistant Superintendent of Immigration for Canada, in London, has been obtained for the landing in Canada of such persons, and that such authority has been acted upon within a period.of sixty days thereafter;
Then the section specifies other persons who are prohibited immigrants, and whose entry into Canada cannot be permitted by the exercise of any discretionary power by the minister or by council because of the statutory prohibition. Now, the effect of this bill from one angle is simply that people of these prohibited classes who enter Canada and whose condition, physically or mentally, or whose past record is unknown to the immigration authorities, and continue to live

Immigration Act
here for ten years, cannot be deported to their country of origin. I do trust, and I feel, that this house will deal with all matters of immigration from a dispassionate, nonpolitical standpoint; for I am afraid that probably in the past-and I am not charging any one political party or any one government-I am afraid that in the past there has been a tendency at times to forget the supreme importance of seeing that the population of this country is kept clean. That is the business of government. I may be charged with being too harsh in the enforcement of the law, but if we divest ourselves of the right to deport those who introduce themselves into Canada against our immigration law, then we have taken a step which, I am sure, we shall deeply regret.
Now, the first paragraph of the proposed amendment provides that immigrants who have completed ten years continuous residence in Canada shall not thereafter be liable to deportation. If this becomes law it would be impossible to deport the most undesirable aliens who succeeded in entering Canada illegally, provided they did not come under the notice of this department until after ten years continuous residence. For instance, a criminal who entered illegally and after five years residence was convicted of a serious crime involving a sentence of over five years, could not be deported if the proposed amendment becomes law, because part of his residence in Canada would be spent in a penitentiary. It may be that the sponsor of the bill did not foresee what might follow the adoption of this subsection, but it is obvious that that W'ould be its effect. Under the act as it now stands such a person cannot acquire domicile irrespective of the period of residence in Canada, and therefore would be subject to deportation.
I believe that a further effect of this proposed amendment would be that aliens convicted of infractions of the Narcotic Drug Act could not be deported. Anyone who has had experience in dealing with cases under that act know very well with what facility addicts can hide their real condition, and they will succeed in doing so for years until the drug has made such inroads on them mentally and physically that their failing becomes apparent. From that angle again I submit that this bill should not pass in its present form, or in any other form which would take away from those charged with the administration of the law the right to deport people of that character. A large number of people who have been resident in Canada over ten years are deported from time to time to their country of origin by
reason of their contravention of the provisions of the Narcotic Drug Act. The ' adoption of this bill would divest us of the right to take such action. In a word, the proposed amendment wipes out one of the most important protective features of the act. Any addict who procured entry into Canada, and remained here for the time contemplated by the bill, could continue here and we would have no recourse.
I do not want to labour this point just now, I hope to take it up later in t'he session, but it is important that we should retain this right of deportation. No one likes the work of deporting people because they are mentally defective or for some other reason less than I do. It is not a pleasant task, as I am sure those who have preceded me in the administration of this department will readily admit.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Hear, hear.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: My hon. friend says, "hear, hear"; at least I can expect a good deal of sympathy from him. When we in this parliament exercise the right, which is vested in us under the British North America Act, of encouraging new .people to come to Canada, we undertake a . considerable responsibility. Let me make myself abundantly clear; we have attracted to this country splendid people of all races, people who will be an honour to Canada, and who to-day are an honour to this country. At the same time, however, I am afraid we have within our foondaries many people who, under a system of careful selection and a proper immigration policy, never would have been permitted to enter Canada.
When migrants become mental cases in Canada, who has to take care of them? The federal government does not take care of them ; their care falls upon the municipalities and the provinces. The provinces have expended millions upon millions of dollars for the care of these people. The province of Ontario, with which I am most familiar, has invested some S38,000,000 of capital and expenditure in institutions to take care of the sick and afflicted. A great burden is cast upon the people of that province by reason of the mental cases that have been induced to come to Canada by the federal government. Therefore I say when we come to consider an amendment which will have the effect of divesting us of our right to return to the country of origin those prohibited cases who come to Canada, we must consider adopting a course that may easily result in casting a further burden upon the provinces and muni-
Immigration Act

cipalities which have nothing to do with attracting those very people to Canada.
I do not think this parliament should take any such step. During the course of the administration of the act, and particularly at such times of depression as these, which tend to bring out in bold relief matters that in more normal times would be dealt with and passed by as commonplace, it is very necessary to have no maudlin complex. Our great neighbour to the south has many thousands of cases with which the Department of Immigration is dealing every day, who, if we let down the bars, would -be sent to Canada where they have no right to come. At times there are occasional cases which get into the press. I should like to say to those who represent the press here that while at times they have been just a little bit caustic with respect to the course I have had to adopt in certain cases, yet in the main I compliment them upon the way they have treated the department with respect to the administration of this most difficult statute.
My hon. friend from North Winnipeg has referred to some cases in which a hardship would appear to 'have been occasioned. I cannot call to mind at the moment any such case which has not been reviewed, not hastily by an officer at the border, but by a board of inquiry, where evidence has been taken under oath, and frequently an appeal has been referred to myself. I have under my hand cases which have been reported in the press, and I must say that the hon. member for Comox-Alberni is quite right when he suggests that for reasons of humanity the department has been reluctant to publish the names of the relatives of the persons concerned, or the details of these matters. It would only add to the misery of those who have suffered enough by reason of having to lose one of their fatuity. There are very few cases where the relatives are not entirely satisfied that the deportee be returned to the country of origin, and that happens daily. It does not happen in Canada in the same percentage by any means as it happens in the United States of America.
It is not my purpose to discuss immigration matters at length at this moment, though I could continue for some time. However, I would ask the sponsor of this bill to review very carefully the effeot the adoption of the bill would have, and to study and weigh very carefully the extent to which it takes away from the administrative officers of the Department of Immigration the power to deal with cases which may arise from time to time. The question is whether we should divest 
those who are administering the laws of this country of the power to get rid of dangerous undesirables, no matter how long they have lived in Canada.


Alan Webster Neill: Will the minister allow a
question before he finishes? Would he mind saying a few words with regard to subsection 2, which seems to have some merit, and which seems more free from the objections he has taken to the prinople of the bill?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I thought I had conveyed the 'idea I had in mind without dealing separately with the two subsections. Subsection 2 provides that no immigrant who has resided in Canada for a continuous period of ten years, and who leaves voluntarily to reside elsewhere on the continent of North America, shall be refused reentry by reason of such absence. In my view this suggested amendment has little effect, if any, on the Immigration Act as it now stands. Absence from Canada does not create any disability on the parlt of a 'person desiring to return. It merely places the person back in the position he occupied when he applied for admission originally.


Alan Webster Neill: But possibly the law may
have been changed since he left.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That may be so, and with all respect, I think that is as it should be. If we were to adopt a law which would make our country, with all its advantages, available ait all times to all persons during good times; which would let them drift into another country when perhaps we would do well to have everyone of courage remain here, and encourage them to drift back wdien things have returned to normal, I think that would not be a desirable provision in any law of this country.
I do not know that I can add more to what I have said. Any general discussion of immigration I should prefer to postpone until some time later in the session.


Samuel William Jacobs: With a good deal of what my hon. friend the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) has said. I am in agreement. I think it would be a dangerous thing on the part of parliament to agree to the passing of this bill in its present form. The minister enumerated the prohibited classes who would get relief were this bill to become law. I do not think there is any member of this house who wants that class of person in this country. We do not want people who are in the habit of taking narcotics; we do not want people who live on

Immigration Act
the proceeds of prostitution, and so forth. We want to keep this country clean. If there is anything of that kind going on, we have, I suppose, to maintain laws for the purpose of seeing that it shall be restricted to our own naturalised or native-born Canadians. We should not in this respect have free trade with the rest of the world.
There are, however, a number of cases in which, in my opinion, the Immigration department should not enforce such harsh rules as they are doing at the present time. I have customs cases in mind. For instance, a man will be arrested for having contravened the Customs Act; he is sent to gaol and immediately upon his release he is ordered deported. Well, under our system of civilization as at present constituted, we do not look upon customs offenders as criminals of the most hardened type. Nelson's rule applies today as well as at the time of the battle of Trafalgar: "England expects every man to do the duty". And when you get people who are not accustomed to our laws, people who are not brought up to them in the way we have been, a little lapse from "duty" sometimes ought to be overlooked by the department in its Christian charity. I have in mind a case of that kind where a man, after serving a short time in prison, was released. In fact, he was considered to be an offender in whose favour there was something to be said, and he was released before the time fixed by the court. Upon his release he was forthwith sent back to Czechoslovakia or Austria, the country of his birth. I do not think that man did any worse than many Canadian citizens have done. I do not say we ought to indulge in the habit of "doing" the customs, but there are numbers of people, respectable members of society, who do; and yet they are not looked upon as criminals.
With regard to insane cases, I am against any law which would permit our already overcrowded asylums to receive more people. We have a sufficient number of insane, of imbeciles and idiots and others of that kind in this country for the necessities of our population, and if we have not, we can grow them here. But to hold out the hand of fellowship to an insane person is going a little too far, and I am strongly against letting down the bars in cases of that sort. I know that in many cases insane people have been permitted to come here-cases in which it would be a great hardship to deport them afterwards, the entire family may be already resident in this country when one of them develops insanity. It would be a very harsh thing to deport that person, probably a child of tender years, necessitating the return of the mother with it. It would break up the family. In cases of that kind where representations are made to the department and a bond is given that the person concerned will not become a public charge and that the cost of maintenance of that insane person will be met by the family, they are allowed to place the patient in an asylum and nothing more is heard of the matter. In that connection I may say that the Jewish Immigration Aid Society, the Federation of Jewish Charities of Montreal, Toronto and other cities, invariably, when cases of that kind occur, give the necessary bond to the department, and when that is done the department is prepared to see that the family shall not be broken up in the way I have indicated. I know of dozens of cases of that kind, and I can proudly say on behalf of my people that there is not a single case in the whole dominion which we have brought to the attention of the department where they did not concur in our request and allow the party to remain in Canada on our giving the necessary bond. Where the family could not provide the bond, the charitable societies I have mentioned have seen that it was done. So that we have no complaint against the department on that score; we have always received fair treatment from them. In many cases however they have not permitted persons whom I have considered proper immigrants to come into the country, because they did not wish to overload the quota with our people.
I should like to see some relief granted to those persons mentioned in paragraph 2 of the amendment. It does seem to me that the mere fact that a person who has lived in Canada ten years, goes to some other country and finds it not what its press agent said it was, should not prevent his coming back to Canada. In the first place thkt person has had the experience of ten years in this country, associating with the salt of the earth such as we are. That ought to be counted unto him for righteousness. He has been here ten years, knows something of the country, and has gone farther and fared worse. He would make the best sort of citizen and I think he should be allowed to come back. Yet the very fact that he has gone away, that he has committed the unpardonable sin of leaving Canada to see whether he could better his position elsewhere, puts him in the class that precludes his coming back. We have spent tens of thousands of dollars for the repatriating of large numbers of people resident in the New England states. Those people have come back and all kinds of celebrations have taken place to welcome the return of the prodigal; everyone was de-
Immigration Act

lighted to take part. Now when a case of the sort mentioned in the bill occurs the opposite takes place, and the party not only is not welcomed but is met at the border by an immigration officer in brass buttons and told that he cannot come into this country at all. It does seem to me that the fact that he has lived ten years in Canada ought to be sufficient proof that he is fit to be in this country, and I do suggest that some attention be given by the Immigration department to the question. We are getting no immigrants at all at the present time. I am not prepared to say whether that is a good or bad policy on the part of the government. This is not the time to discuss that question; we shall probably have an opportunity to take it up later. But, as I said before, I agree with this part of the bill: that is, to keep out the prostitutes, the pimps and the drug addicts and to allow in those people who had lived here for ten years but who went away in an honourable effort to improve their position. A distinction ought to be made, and I am sorry the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has not made that distinction. The sheep ought to be separated from the goats; I am for the sheep every time, but as for the goats I am not going to take up the cudgels on their behalf.


Mr. WOODS WORTH:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Immigration-


Mr. SPEAKER:: In accordance with the rules of the house, if the hon. member speaks now he will close the debate.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: I have not spoken as yet.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order may I point out that technically the hon. member has spoken inasmuch as he moved the second reading of the bill through the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps).


Samuel William Jacobs: By the unanimous coifsent of the house I think we ought to hear the hon. member.


Mr. STEVENS:: Nobody is objecting to hearing him.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The sponsor of the bill was represented and my first impression was that he had been spoken for, but I think in view of the fact that the hon. member for North Winnipeg has been substituted as the sponsor of the bill, it would be only fair to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to speak in the ordinary course and not to close the debate.
[Mr. Jacobs.!


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out "that no one is objecting to the hon. member speaking, and it would be entirely wrong to leave an impression on the records of the house that such objection had been taken.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, may I point out that I had some cases to present to the house and have not had the opportunity as yet of presenting them. My colleague was under the impression that if he did not take up this bill it would go to the foot of the list, and he therefore took the action he did; but I have not had the Opportunity of saying one word upon my bill.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order: I rose merely for the purpose of seeing that there was a proper observance of the rules of the house. If my hon. friend were permitted to speak at this stage it would have the effect of altering the rules and permitting an hon. member to make three speeches on the second reading of a bill; he could make the first speech by proxy, then he could speak in his regular turn, and then again in reply.
Mr. NEIIiL: Mr. Speaker, would you please give the rule under which it is suggested that we can make speeches for each other by proxy?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Will Your Honour rule as to when a man may speak in this house by proxy?


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Speaker, had the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre been in his place he would have moved1 the second reading of this bill; as he was not in his place, the bill should have stood, (but by courtesy another hon. member was allowed to move the second reading on his behalf. We all want to hear the sponsor of this bill address the house, but we must recognize that we have rules and if they are to be broken I do not know where we will land.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) be a little more explicit as to his idea of how the rules are being broken?


Hugh Guthrie: The bill would not have been read the second time in the absence of its sponsor, but iby courtesy we allowed another hon. member to act for him. That member then takes the place of the mover, otherwise the bill would not have been before the house on this occasion.

Trans-Canada Highway


Pierre Édouard Blondin: My intention is to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to speak now not as the sponsor of the bill but as a member of the house speaking on the bill. As sponsor of the bill he has been superseded by the hon. member for North Winnipeg, who will have the right to reply at the close of the debate.


Mr. FACTOR:: The debate will soon be closed anyway.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for the question?


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, it is impossible to hear in this corner of the house, but do I understand correctly that I am to speak now?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No one objects to the hon. member speaking now.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, in the two minutes left at my disposal I desire to say that I introduced this bill in order to meet, if possible, some very outstanding cases in which I think the general body of citizens of this country recognize that substantial injustice has been done. If the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) is correct that these particular amendments would make it very difficult for the department to carry on its work of protecting this country, then I should have expected that the minister would himself suggest amendments to meet the present needs. The best thing to do would be to refer this matter to a committee, but that has not been done.
In a number of cases coming before the public there has been obviously a considerable measure of injustice. There was the case which occurred on October 16, 1930, at Hamilton, where an Englishwoman who had been a resident of Canada for eighteen years, an epileptic and the mother of three children aged seventeen, fourteen and twelve years respectively, was deported. Another case occurred in London, Ontario, where an epileptic who had been seventeen years in Canada was ordered to be deported but was allowed to remain after investigation had been made. Another case occurred where a married woman, an epileptic, the mother of four children was deported after being in Canada for sixteen years.
It is quite true that these cases come within the prohibited classes and I presume that under the present legislation referred to by the Minister of Immigration these people were not able to establish domicile even although they had been in this country from fifteen to
twenty years. After these people have been in this country for so long a period the home in the old country has been broken up; new ties have been formed in this country and there should be some fixed term to govern such cases. That is the purpose of the first section of my bill.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to the discussion of the motion to go into supply.


SARNIA PORT HURON VEHICULAR TUNNEL COMPANY
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: Mr. Speaker, before you leave the chair and if I am in order-


Robert James Manion: The discussion on the
motion of the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) had not been concluded.


Frederick George Sanderson: If I am not in order, His Honour will so advise the house, but I have consulted the Clerk of the House and-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I understand the hon.
member desires to make a motion in connection with a private bill. This is merely a formal matter, and he has the right to do so with the consent of the house.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, I desire
to move, seconded by the hon. member for North Wellington (Mr. Blair):
That the petition of John Doherty, and others, of the cities of Sarnia and Windsor, Ontario, praying for the passing of an act to incorporate the Sarnia Port Huron Vehicular Tunnel Company, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the select standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing order 92 in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Guthrie (for the Minister of Finance) for committee of supply.
["Mr. Speaker, as it is\neleven o'clock I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.\nProgress reported."]
Robert James Manion: When the house rose at six o'clock we were discussing the motion to go into committee of supply, and the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette) had introduced the question of the trans-Canada highway. The discussion had proceeded at some length during the afternoon and he and a number of others had taken part.
I do not intend at this late hour and late

Trans-Canada Highway

period in. the session to delay supiply, but I believe there are a few points which should be brought out and which I shall attempt to do in a very few minutes. The hon. member for North Timiskaming spoke in a very moderate tone, and I shall copy him in that regard. He pointed out that there was a great deal of unemployment in northern Ontario, a fact of which I am well aware. But it must be remembered that the unemployment in northern Ontario is largely the result of the over-expansion of the pulp and paper industry which, to put the situation mildly, is not in a very good condition in the Dominion of Canada. My own city of Fort William and the neighbouring city of Port Arthur are today suffering grievously from unemployment just as are other sections of northern Ontario, of which my hon. friend spoke. Therefore I am entirely familiar with the conditions that exist in that section even though it is early summer.
The hon. gentleman suggested that in order to relieve this unemployment the government should go into the question of aiding or cooperating in some manner with the province of Ontario in building a trans-Canada highway. In a trans-Canada highway, I, like most people who live in northern Ontario, have been interested throughout. Long before we occupied these seats I put myself on record on a number of occasions, both in the house and elsewhere, as being favourable to the building of a trans-Canada highway. I realize, as the government does, the importance of highways for the encouragement of the great tourist industry, because it is really one of our industries to-day from which we profit a great deal, particularly during the summer months. Unfortunately, however, on the eastern end of northern Ontario, the (section whence my hon. friend comes, there is a good deal of difference of opinion as to the route which should be followed by that trans^Canada lighway. Into that controversy I do not in-:end to enter as I come from the western end md we have enough troubles of our own there without my dealing with any of the differences of opinion of the people on the eastern end. Therefore I shall not offer any suggestions as ,o what the decision should be. At the same time, as my hon. friend and others pointed out, the fact remains that there is a very strong difference of opinion as to the northern or the southern or the central route which might be followed by the trans-Canada highway across that portion of northeastern Ontario.
In the discussion this afternoon both the hon. member for North Timiskaming and the

hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) used the argument that it has been stated by the Hon. Charles McCrea that the revenues from northern Ontario were about ten times the expenditures in northern Ontario, and they quoted a speech which he made. I do not question the quotation in the least, but I should like to point out that I have no doubt what Mr. McCrea meant was not that the government of Ontario was receiving in revenue ten times as much as it was spending in northern Ontario, because many times I have seen the contrary proven, not only by ministers of the government that is in power at the present time, but by the Hon. Harry Mills who was a minister from my city in the government of Mr. Drury and who, I remember well, gave me figures some years ago when tie question came up, to prove satisfactorily to me that much more was being spent in northern Ontario than was being derived in taxes from that section. Although I have not seen the speech referred to, no doubt what Mr. McCrea meant in that regard was that, there was taken from northern Ontario in timber wealth, mineral wealth, in the wealth of fisheries and so on, much more than was spent there by the province of Ontario in the development of that section. Therefore it is not quite logical to argue that because the wealth is taken from there, the province of Ontario gets it, and consequently should spend it on a road through that section. I mention this simply to clear up what Mr. McCrea meant, because I do not believe he would take the attitude that they have received ten times as much in revenue from that section as they have expended in it.
What I wish to point out particularly- and I do this in the kindliest spirit and in justice to this side of the house-is that the hon. member for North Timiskaming who introduced this question this afternoon is highly inconsistent in the attitude he takes now as compared with that which he took when he was on this side of the house supporting the government of my right hon. friend the present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King), because not only in 1930 but in 1929 resolutions were introduced into the house by the then member for Athabaska, Mr. Kellner, distinctly advocating the spending of money by the dominion government in assisting the provinces to build roads. I have not under my hand the resolution that was moved in 1929, but that moved in 1930 is, I believe, practically the

Trans-Canada Highway
same with some slight modifications. The principle behind both was the same. To avoid misunderstanding I shall read the resolution as moved last year. As reported at page 424 of Hansard of March 10, 1930, Mr. Kellner moved:
Whereas the need for establishment of highways is greater than in 1919;
And whereas in that year the dominion government recognized its responsibility in this matter by a substantial grant, which grant is now exhausted;
Therefore be it resolved, that, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability that a further substantial grant be made to cover the next five years' development of highway construction.
That resolution was discussed very fully last year; a similar resolution was discussed very fully in 1929, and while in it he did not distinctly say that he advocated the construction of a trans-Canada highway, that was the basis of every speech that was delivered, including that of the hon. member who moved the resolution. I spoke upon the resolution last year, and I also spoke upon the one of the previous year. Every member who spoke upon it-although I have not read the speeches recently, I remember the discussion quite clearly -took the attitude that the purpose of the resolution was to a large extent the building of a trans-Canada highway. This was not contradicted by anybody at that time. Rather strangely, both last year and the year before, that resolution moved by Mr. Kellner, which in principle advocated the building of a trans-Canada highway by assistance given to the provinces by the dominion government, was voted down by a solid Liberal vote. If one cares to look up the vote in 1930-I have not looked up the 1929 vote-he will find that both the hon. member for North Timiskaming and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River were among those who voted against that resolution. I am not saying this in any spirit of recrimination, or with any special desire to embarrass them, but I believe these facts should be made known to the house.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member is not a lawyer, but he is a good doctor. Can he find in that resolution any mention of a trans-Canada highway? I should like the hon. member to read some of the observations of the mover of the resolution.


Robert James Manion: I have not time to do so. The hon. gentleman spoke for the better part of an hour or longer and he had plenty of time to read them himself.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: The hon. member should be fair. He should read the remarks of the mover.


Robert James Manion: I make the statement that the then hon. member for Athabaska and practically everybody else who spoke on the subject, took the attitude that the resolution referred to the building of a trans-Canada highway. I shall not attempt to read sentences from the speech of the then hon. member for Athabaska on that subject, but I intend to read some of the statements made by certain leading members of my hon. friend's party which was then in power. It is true that neither my hon. friend from North Timiskaming nor my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River spoke on the question, although they voted against the resolution. I wish now to quote from the remarks of the Hon. Mr. Dunning, the then Minister of Finance:
I think, Mr. Speaker, it is the obligation of hon. members of this house when they bring forward resolutions of this kind, imposing as they would, if implemented, a load upon the dominion treasury, to tell the house the amount of financial obligation involved in carrying into effect the terms of the resolution proposed.
A little later on I find the following:
I cannot vote for this resolution, first, because of what I have previously stated; second, because the movers of it and those speaking in support of it do not indicate what the financial _ load shall be upon the dominion, nor do they indicate in the resolution any principle upon which division should be made between the provinces which are to be served by it; and, finally, because I believe this dominion has at the present time, in connection with water transportation and air transportation with its tremendous responsibility with respect to railway transportation, with the need that exists for progressively reducing her public debt and reducing taxation, plenty to take care of without going, by grace, into the field of provincial responsibility and handing out money to another authority for a purpose which is really their own.
I have read the statement of Hon. Mr. Dunning, the then Minister of Finance. I shall now direct the attention of hon. members to the remarks of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), because he was one of the few private members of the house who spoke on the question. This leader of the Liberal party spoke as follows:
It is rather dangerous to deal with such a delicate matter as this. I believe there is in the constitution nothing that empowers the federal parliament to approve such a resolution. Moreover, if parliament votes in favour of such a resolution, many provinces may complain that the federal government is infringing on provincial rights.
There is the old story of the British North America Act. Let me now quote one or two sentences from the speech of my right hon. friend the then leader of the government, at
Trans-Canada Highway

present leader of tlie opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King). He said:
If, after federal needs are supplied, if after we have reduced some of the public debt and have reduced some of the taxation of the people of this country, we have money left that we do not know what to do with, with respect to any of our federal obligations, there will be time then to go into one or other of these numerous projects which hon. gentlemen opposite wish us to indulge in.
He closed his remarks by saying:
. We will do well, I believe, in the interest of provinces and federal government alike, each to have regard to our respective jurisdictions, and not to venture too frequently beyond them in making contributions from one treasury to another in a manner never contemplated by the constitution of our land.
The right hon. gentleman gave various reasons, but I believe the quotation I have given contains the gist of his argument. The other day in the house, on another matter, he took a similar attitude, to the effect that it was not the duty of the Dominion of Canada to contribute in a general way to the various provincial projects that might come up at various times. In fact on one occasion he said that giving money to the provinces for certain reasons was a vicious principle, because, as he pointed out, the federal authorities did not have control of the expenditure of that money. I think I am quoting my right hon. friend correctly in that regard.
The hon. member who spoke first this afternoon was more emphatic during the election in the north country. I have before me a paper called The Northern Tribune, published in Kapuskasing, Ontario, and according to this paper-which I am informed is Liberal-he is stated to have called this whole resolution "clap-trap." I shall read one sentence from the editorial page of this paper of July 18, 1930.
In his public speech at Kapuskasing yesterday afternoon Mr. Joseph Bradette, retiring member for North Timiskaming and Liberal candidate for reelection, issued a sweeping challenge to anyone to prove that he had voted against the trans-Canada highway in parliament; and he twice referred to the House of Commons resolution involving that highway as a "clap-trap political resolution."


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Hear, hear.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member may
have his own way. I have read the resolution, however, just as it was printed in Hansard, and it must be obvious to all hon. members that the intention of the resolution was to assist in the building of a trans-Canada highway.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: It had nothing to do
with it at all.


Robert James Manion: I do not wish to enter
into a political argument of any serious nature with my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River. However my hon. friend was in the same unfortunate position so far as this resolution was concerned, because he voted with the hon. member for North Timiskaming against Mr. Kellner's resolution in 1930. I have not looked into the records to see whether he voted that way in 1929. but I imagine if he was in the house he would have voted the same way. However the hon. member was a member of the then government for at least four years, and apparently he did not find it desirable nor did he see the absolute need for the building of a trans-Oanada highway. For that reason I suggest he is not in a position at the present time to twit us so early in our regime with breaking pledges. I suggest that the hon. member for-


Peter Heenan: I did not accuse my hon.
friends of breaking pledges; I asked him to fulfil them.


Robert James Manion: Probably my hon. friend
did not accuse us to-day, but on former occasions he has accused the present government of breaking pledges. Whether he did it to-day or yesterday matters not; he has done so on a number of occasions. I must say to my hon. friend that it would appear he is much more enthusiastic now about the building of a highway than he was when he was a member of the government which had the power to put such legislation into effect. I would add further that my hon. friend was a representative of northern Ontario at that time. At the present time not only is he more active in promoting the trans-Canada highway than he was when in power, but he is more active in connection with the eight hour day than he was when in power. He is much more active concerning unemployment insurance than he was when in power. I might add that the bill he has introduced this session concerning the vote of the people in the district of Patricia was introduced last year. He withdrew the bill at that time however when he could have pushed it through had the other members of the then government been standing behind him. So that it would appear that the hon. member is much more enthusiastic now about many of these questions than he was when he was in a position to put his enthusiasm into effect. I make these statements in no unkind way, because I suppose as members of an opposition we are a little less responsible than when in power. Perhaps we are much more-

Trans-Canada Highway


Peter Heenan: I do not wish to interrupt my hon. friend, but I think he ought to be fair.


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Peter Heenan: I would remind him that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River when Minister of Labour did put the eight hour day into effect on all government works.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Oh, oh.


Peter Heenan: He did get his-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The 'hon. member is
out of order in interrupting.


Peter Heenan: I wish to say-


Robert James Manion: The hon. member did put part of the government employees on the eight hour day, but the fact remains that a great many are not working under those conditions and were not on the eight hour day during the whole time my hon. friend was Minister of Labour. It would appear that he is more anxious now to have the eight hour day enforced than he was when he was Minister of Labour. I do not dispute the fact that he brought in legislation by which contractors doing government work were instructed to put their men on the eight hour day.


Peter Heenan: The day that the eight
hour day legislation-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead.


Peter Heenan: The day that the eight
hour day bill became effective every employee of the dominion government working for contractors went on the eight hour day.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Bosh.


Peter Heenan: The day we introduced
that bill we also passed an order in council which put every employee of the dominion . government service on an eight hour day.


Robert James Manion: No, my hon. friend did
not do any such thing. There was an order in council that government employees might be put on the eight hour day. As a matter of fact to-day there are many government employees who are still working much longer than eight hours each day and they were working much longer than eight hours each day during the whole term of office of my hon. friend. I pointed out the other evening that the present government was gradually placing employees under the eight hour day, but my hon. friend had four years in which to do so and moved only in the dying days
of the last parliament after he had been minister for four years. Undoubtedly his action was a preelection move.
I do not think it is fair that this government should be accused of being inconsistent and of breaking pledges when as a matter of fact it has been in power only about ten months, and the government with which my hon. friend was connected was in power nine years and made no move to build the trans-Canada highway. So hon. members behind the right hon. gentleman should hesitate to find very much fault with us for moving a little slowly with respect to what is a very big undertaking. I point out on behalf of the government that the question has not been overlooked, it is under consideration, and that we hope to arrive at a satisfactory solution in due time. But I do not believe that any government that has been in power ten months should be expected to have implemented all its pledges within that time. And I submit that no government has implemented so many of its pledges within such a short time of attaining office as has the government of my right hon. leader.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the attitude of the Liberal party while in office towards these various grants in aid to the provinces, I think the record of the party, as shown by the votes of this house, and in other ways will disclose a perfect consistency, although I am quite prepared to admit that that consistency may have been maintained at a certain political loss. Evidently at this session of parliament we shall be called upon to consider conditions not dissimilar to those prevailing at the time the Liberal party came into office nearly ten years ago, and should it involve more in the way of political loss, I for one will continue to be consistent in regard to the attitude taken at that time, because I believe it to be the only attitude which in the end is going to serve adequately to meet the needs and to serve the highest ends of our dominion and of the provinces in the administration of the various matters assigned to them respectively by the constitution.
To make clear the position of the Liberal party in these matters, may I say that when we came into office we were faced with a deficit of $80,000,000 or $90,000,000. The year before there had been an even greater deficit. It was apparent to the administration that something would have to be done in the way of effecting economies if there was to be any

225S
Trans-Canada Highway

reduction in the public debt and in taxation, and, I might say further, if there was to be any revival in business through the improvement of the credit of the country. The new administration surveyed the field very carefully, and decided that in one particular economies not only might be made, but should be made, namely, with respect to many of these matters in which the federal government was voting sums .of money in aid to the provinces in addition to the subsidies guaranteed to them by statute in accordance with the provisions of the constitution.
.Now, let me make this point perfectly clear, because my own position and that of the party has been very much misrepresented. It has been said that I have been opposed to subsidies being voted by the federal parliament-subsidies to the provinces and subsidies generally. Far from being opposed to subsidies being voted by this parliament to the provinces, I believe it is the method laid down by the fathers of confederation as the one whereby the financial arrangements in the nature of adjustments as between the provinces and the dominion should be carried out. At the time of confederation the fields of administration and of .revenue were divided as between the dominion and the provinces; each was given its own particular services to perform, each the sources from which they were to derive the revenues to carry out their respective duties. As I mentioned the other day in speaking on the same subject, for purposes of adjustment, in order to effect equality as between the different provinces, it was decided that a certain sum on a per capita basis should be paid by way of subsidy each year from the federal treasury to the provinces, and the provinces were to be free to use their respective subsidies with regard to any matters that came within their jurisdiction in any way they liked.
I submit when the fathers of confederation adopted that particular method of financing as between the dominion and the provinces they meant it to be followed and to be the exclusive method. They did not contemplate that in addition to subsidies agreed upon as a result of conference and settlement of differences there should 'be made from time to time further special grants from the federal treasury to the provinces for provincial purposes. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) the other day, I think, said that under the line I had taken in speaking on some other question I would be opposed to subsidies being voted, for example, to the railways. This parliament has voted subsidies to the railways and for steamship services and

the like. I am not opposed to that. Transportation in general and in connection with trade and commerce comes within the jurisdiction of the federal government, and if parliament wishes to aid transportation by subsidies it has a perfect right so to do, and no exception can be taken to such action. What I take exception to is voting grants in aid to provinces for particular services assigned to the provinces in addition to the subsidies which are determined by statute. The subsidies are arrived at as the result of an agreement between the provinces and the dominion; and when that agreement has been reached it is implemented by a statute of this parliament, with the result that moneys paid are known in their entirety and definite in amount.
What is the effect of that? One effect is this, that it precludes political parties from seeking to gain political advantage through an appeal to the electorate of the provinces for their support, on the understanding that if returned to office grants in aid in addition to the regular subsidies will be given from the federal treasury to the provinces. I need not remind the house of the extent to which that practice was followed in the last campaign-the practice of promising the provinces that if they would support hon. gentlemen opposite they would receive grants in aid for all kinds of purposes from the federal treasury. I refrained from making a single promise of the kind, and I maintained that position in order to be consistent with the attitude I had taken all the time I was in power. I did so, because I believed it to be the the only right attitude to take in regard to the finances of the country. Where aid is confined to subsidies fixed by statute the only appeal that can be made politically on such a score would be that if returned to power the particular party making the appeal would increase all the subsidies of the provinces. Would anyone think of making an appeal of that kind to the electorate of any province? There is not an hon. member who [DOT] would dare do it. But what is the difference between making an appeal to the electorate of provinces for their support through promising that if returned the party will increase the subsidies of all the provinces, and promising grants in aid in addition to the subsidies provinces are already receiving? I think that is perfectly clear. I feel very strongly that to make appeals to the electorate on the basis of grants in aid in addition to subsidies, is a very dangerous political method for any country to begin to follow. Where is it going to end? It was started on an unexampled scale during the last campaign; it will be repeated

Trans-Canada Highway
in the next; and if it is going to be followed by hon. gentlemen opposite in regard to aids to highways, and other services that may appeal to them I would remind them that there are other groups in the house prepared to make grants in aid apply to many things that hon. gentlemen opposite would not be prepared to support, and who will be prepared to make their voices heard to that end.


Robert James Manion: It is started to-day by
my right hon. friend's supporters.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, I will
tell my hon. friend where it started. The question I am now asking is: Where is this method going to end if it once becomes the accepted practice? My hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) said that it commenced with "hon. gentlemen opposite."


Robert James Manion: I said to-day it did.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg my hon. friend's pardon. I thought he referred to the practice of making grants in aid to provinces in addition to subsidies fixed by statute.


Robert James Manion: No.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The practice
of making grants in aid in addition to the subsidies to the provinces began in 1913 under the administration of that day, when a grant was made for the advance of agricultural instruction. The first payment under the act was in 1914, the last in 1923, and there was a special vote in 1924. Between 1914 and 1924 a total of $10,900,000 was voted by way of grants in aid of agricultural instruction.
Under our constitution the provinces have the duty of advancing agriculture, and in particular agricultural instruction. We in this parliament have a similar duty with respect to agriculture. I submit that when the fathers of confederation gave jurisdiction both to the provinces and to the dominion with respect to agriculture, they expected the provinces and the dominion respectively to meet whatever they needed in the way of expenditure on those services from revenues which they raised themselves. It was never contemplated that, this federal government having the duty of furthering agriculture, and the provinces having a like duty with respect to agriculture, the federal 'treasury would meet any part of its obligation or any part of the obligation of the provinces by giving additional sums to the provinces in the nature of gTants in aid in addition to the subsidies which the provinces would receive and would be free to use as they deemed best. I, imagine that if agriculture had not been menltioned as a subject in which both the provinces and the



[Stage Direction]
dominion had jurisdiction, the government in office in 1913 would have hesitated to adopt a different principle from that previously followed. I have not had time to look up the debates, but I feel pretty sure that they will disclose something to the effect that agriculture, came within the respective jurisdictions of this parliament and of the provincial legislatures, and that therefore it would be quite proper, in respect of agriculture, f-or this dominion to assist the provinces, in addition to what was given them by subsidies, by a special gran/t in aid of agriculture.
Mr. MALONEY:: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate
to interrupt my right hon. friend, but perhaps he would allow me a question. Being so opposed to federal subsidies of all kinds, I should like to ask him why, as Prime Minister, with his party following him, he was so anxious, to claim credit for the old age pension law, under which the dominion made a contribution to the provinces of 50 per cent of the cost in connection with the payment of old age pensions?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: If my hon.
friend will just allow me time I will answer the question. I am taking up this matter, not I hope in any too partisan a spirit, but rather with a view of helping to make clear in the minds of hon. gentlemen on all sides of the house what really is fundamental in this question, regardless altogether of what may have taken place in the past. I am quite prepared, when the time comes, to take my responsibility for pant of what was done, but now we are at the beginning of a new parliament and we are faced, as a parliament, with a pretty serious financial situation which has to be met. I think the time has come when hon. gentlemen should seek to meet the situation in exactly the way the Liberal administration sought to meet their problem when they came into office, a problem very similar to the one existing to-day, and one which I am happy to say was met thereby with a considerable degree of success.
As I have said, the Agricultural Instruction Act was the first passed in 1913. It made provision for a grant of $10,000,000 for a period of ten years. There was an additional supplementary vote of $900,000, so that altogether the provinces were given $10,900,000 on that score. The next grant in aid made to the provinces was under what was known as the Employment Offices Coordination Act, passed in the year 1918. This was to aid and encourage the organization and coordination of employment offices. Under that act $150,000 was to be given annually to the several
22(30
Trans-Canada Highway

provinces in addition to their subsidies, and up to the present time under that act the amount of $2,183,016 has been paid to the provinces in addition to what they were receiving under their regular subsidies.
Here again I think one of the factors entering into the situation was the fact that we had a federal Department of Labour and also provincial departments of labour, and it was felt that a coordination of one phase of the work along such lines would serve a useful purpose. But there was another reason which I feel sure was even stronger and which hon. members will recognize at once as being perhaps a sufficient excuse at that time. This was the period just at the close of the war, in 1918, when large numbers of men were returning from overseas to be reinstated in civil life. Part of the duty of reinstating these men was an obligation which this federal government had assumed, and I have no doubt that the members of parliament of that day felt that by taking this course, by voting additional amounts, grants in aid, to the provinces, they would be helping fulfil their own obligation as well as helping to meet the additional burden which in this connection would suddenly be placed upon the provinces.
In the next year, 1919, the third act in the nature of a grant in aid to the provinces was passed by parliament. It was the Canada Highways Act, 1919, to encourage the construction and improvement of highways. The first payment under its provisions was made in 1921, and the last payment in 1928. Altogether, the sum of $20,000,000 was provided by that act, and the $20,000,000 paid under that act to the provinces, was again in addition to the amount they were receiving in subsidies. I am sorry the hon. member for South Winnipeg (Mr. Rogers) is not present; I think he was in the house and a member of the government when that act was introduced, and if I am not mistaken he mentioned at the time that one reason, among others, why this parliament was embarking upon grants in aid to the provinces for highways was the large number of unemployed there would be in Canada for a number of years succeeding the war, and it was felt that work would be afforded returned soldiers by the construction of the highways. That was one of the reasons given, and it was one of the reasons why parliament at that time passed that act.
Then in the same year, 1919, the Technical Education Act was passed, providing for the expenditure of $10,000,000, over a period of ten years, for the promotion of technical edu-

cation in Canada. The first payment was made in 1920, and up to March 31, 1931, an amount of $8,769,284 had been paid to the provinces under that legislation. I will say something more about that when we come to the technical education measure at present before the House, but at the moment I simply want to place on record the sum which has been paid to the provinces in grants in aid under this heading. In addition to the grant I have mentioned, there have also been special grants passed since 1920 to assist the provinces in combating venereal diseases. These appropriations have totalled the sum of $1,622,849.
In 1920 there appeared for the first time, under grants in aid from the federal treasury, a sum to provide for the relief of unemployment. Under that heading, to March 31,1931, the total paid was $1,845,600. In addition there is the $20,000,000 which was appropriated at the last session of parliament.
Now we come to the question of old age pensions. A measure was introduced in 1927 which provided for the payment on old age pensions account of half the amount paid by the provinces. The first payment was made in 1928, and up to March 31, 1931, there had been paid from the federal treasury towards the old age pensions paid by the provinces, the sum of $8,159,455. In answer to my honourable friend who asked me why the Liberal administration took credit for that measure, I would say that credit was taken for the reason that the Liberal administration introduced the measure. The Liberal administration fought for many years for an old age pension act, and care 1 think was taken to make it clear that an amendment to the British North America Act would be required before this federal government would have power to administer an old age pension scheme. It was recognized that an amendment to the British North America Act would take some time, and for that reason the government of the day adopted the method of agreeing to give these grants in aid to the provinces on condition that they would carry out a scheme framed by the federal government which would be similar in all the provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: A vicious principle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The principle, from a financial point of view, was unsound. I am quite prepared to concede that. But I will go a step further and say that, in my opinion, this parliament ought to remedy the unsoundness of the principle, not by discontinuing to vote money for old age pensions, but by assuming the entire obligation, one hun-

Trans-Canada Highway
dred per cent. This government should take over the whole scheme and itself pay out the money. That is the position that should be taken; that is the proper way to remedy what there is of unsoundness in the principle.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: That is an extension of the vicious principle.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No; on the contrary, it is getting rid of what is vicious. I wish my hon. friend to follow me in this. The principle of old age pensions is a thoroughly sound one. The hon. gentleman may never have to receive a pension, but no doubt he knows of a good many people who, after a life of severe toil, are in dire need and most deserving of such assistance on the part of the state. Obviously the principle is thoroughly sound. I have always taken that position and have fought strenuously for it; and to get that principle recognized by parliament I was prepared to go so far as to support a grant in aid, which I am perfectly frank to admit was, from the point of view of financing, an unsound method. Now I say, let us recognize that the principle of old age pensions itself is perfectly sound and involves an obligation which the federal parliament should assume. Let us undertake to administer the Old Age Pensions Act from Ottawa and have all the moneys which are necessary for the payment of those pensions voted by this parliament. But let this parliament control every dollar of expenditure in connection with the administration. The principle that is unsound-and it appears in the budget speech delivered in this house yesterday by the Prime Minister-is that this parliament should vote seventy-five per cent of the moneys necessary to pay these pensions without having any control over this vast expenditure beyond that of simply handing the cheques for total amounts to the provinces to deal with as they see fit. That is not a sound principle of financing; and no one, I believe, has uttered words in that respect more eloquent, more emphatic, or more logical, tharr the present Secretary of State did in a speech which he made in this house not very long; ago with regard to old age pensions. I agree entirely with what he said in that respect. The body providing the money should be the one to control its expenditure.
The list cited comprises practically all the more important grants in aid from this dominion to the provinces. The figures I have quoted-and they do not give all the expenditures to date-amount to a total of $57,911,259. That is what has been spent practically within a period of ten years in grants in aid to the provinces towards the few services I have mentioned, all of which Services it was agreed at the time came within the purview of the provinces themselves. How much has the dominion paid to the provinces in the way of subsidies over a like period, say the last ten years? I regret I have not the figures here-I thought I had them; but it will be found that the subsidies under the statutes amount to a little more than double that sum-something like $150,000,000. That, roughly speaking, is what has been paid to the provinces in subsidies in a .period of about ten years.
I ask hon. gentlemen opposite to consider this question: Do they for a moment believe that the fathers of confederation would ever have made provision for the payment in ten years, from the federal treasury to the provinces, of the sum of $150,000,000 or whatever the amount may be, with the knowledge that half that amount in addition would be voted by parliament in the way of grants in aid to be paid at the same time from the federal treasury to the provinces? One has only to consider these figures in such a relationship to realize how farreaching and how far from the original mark the whole practice is becoming. Here, with the permission of the house, I should like to insert, in the form of a table, the statistical data I have just given:
Federal Grants in aid made by the Dominion to the Provinces in addition to annual subsidies provided by Statute
Statute	Object	First Payment	Last Payment	Provision	Expended to March 31, 1931Agricultural Instruction Act, 1913. (Special Vote 51, 1924)	For the advancement of agricultural instruction.	1914 1924	1923	$ cts. 10,000,000 00 900,000 00	$ cts. 10,900,000 00Employment Offices Co-ordination Act, 1918.	To aid and encourage the organization and co-ordination of employment offices.	1919	150,000 00 annually.	2,183,016 00Canada Highways Act, 1919..	To encourage the construction and improvement of highways.	1921	1928	20,000,000 00	20,000,000 00Technical Education Act, 1919. (Extended 1929 b) 1934.)	For the promotion of technical education in Canada.	1920	10,000,000 00	8,769,284 00
Trans-Canada Highway

Federal Grants in aidinade by the Dominion to the Provinces in addition to annual subsidies provided by Statute -Con.
Statute	Object	First Payment	Last Payment	Provision	Expended to March 31, 1931Special Annual Vote	To combat veneral diseases..	1920	$ 1,800,000 (total appropriation.)	$ cts. 1,622,849 00Special Votes prior to 1930....	To provide for the relief of unemployment (Labour Department).	1921	1,845,000 4,431,655 (Total Dominion commitments to Mar. 31: 14,842,962) 8,159,455 00Special Vote, 1930	To provide for the relief of unemployment.	20,000,000	Old Age Pensions Act, 1927...	To pay half the amount paid by provinces, towards Old Age Pensions.	1928	No fixed amount.	57,911,259 00
tional sources of revenue to draw upon, our sources are relatively fewer, notwithstanding that our obligations are increasing in a way never dreamed of at the time of confederation. Read the Prime Minister's speech of yesterday with respect to the outlays of this present government for expenditures which it cannot control. The first one amounts annually to around $125,000,000, interest on public debt. Most of that amount is due to the vast expenditures in the period of the war. Come next to the pensions bill. I cannot recall the figures at the moment, but they run into many millions-$55,000,000 annually, an hon. member says. That money this parliament has to provide. I might mention others, but these perhaps are sufficient to give some indication of the obligations that have arisen from the war.
Now, can any hon. gentleman name a single service of this dominion government to which the provinces have contributed one dollar? The provinces contribute nothing to our necessities. They are making no grants in aid from their treasuries towards the vast obligations which have suddenly fallen to this parliament to provide for in addition to all the other expenditures which the federal treasury must bear. So far as the federal government is concerned, there are many services which can be carried out only from a federal point of view and which are being denied the people to-day on the score that we have not enough money to provide those services. Hon. gentlemen will recall what was said yesterday in regard to the air mail and the carrying of mails-an obligation on the federal -treasury. Yet we are told that this development, which [DOT] is one that can be undertaken only by the federal government, must be proceeded with slowly and with caution, if indeed it is not

But while these grants in aid to the provinces have been increasing in this way, the provinces -themselves have been taking advantage olf new Sources of revenue, sources of which they never dreamed at the time of confederation, sources which this dominion has left exclusively to them. Take, for example, the question of liquor control, the sale of liquors. The provinces derive very large revenues from this source. Then there is the inheritance tax, another source of revenue not thought of at the time of confederation, and one from which the provinces obtain considerable sums. Again, there are motor licences from which very appreciable revenues are secured. And there are other sources of revenue which I am sure will suggest themselves to hon. gentlemen. I might mention, as another, the revenues derived from hydroelectric power. All these are sources of revenue which the provinces to-day enjoy to the exclusion of the federal treasury; and in addition thereto, with revenues derived from many other sources, they have the subsidies which this dominion votes year after year under statute.
The Prime Minister yesterday in his budget speech drew attention to the fact that the federal government had lost considerable revenue th-rougih the recent transfer of natural resources to the provinces. In other words, we have yielded to them, in addition, revenues which formerly we ourselves enjoyed. One hias only to reason -the matter ouit to see where this dominion is going to find itself in the matter of debt and taxation, while the provinces are being thus relieved and assisted. We are going deeper and deeper into debt to help relieve their situation. As -their situation improves our own is becoming deplorably worse. While the provinces have these addi-

Trans-Canada Highway
to be abandoned in part, because we have not the money with which to carry it on. On the other hand, we find the postage rate on letters increased from 2 to 3 cents, a part of which increase goes to make up payment of these very grants in aid paid to the provinces in addition to the regular federal subsidies. When
one stops to reason it out one soon perceives the wisdom of the course which the Liberal party pursued while in office and which it is continuing to follow to-day. Let me give a figure or two to show what the dominion in addition has been doing in the relief of unemployment among returned soldiers.
Table showing additional payments from Federal Treasury on account of unemployment relief and pensions
Statute	Object	First Payment	Last Payment	Provision	Expended up to March 31, 1931To provide for the relief of unemployment (Pensions and Natioi al Health).	1920	$	% 7,452,763 452,225,122
1917			
					
					459.677,885
					
To this should be added Loans on Housing.	To encourage the erection of dwelling houses.	1920	1924	25,000,000	23.500.000 10.600.000 still owing
An act was passed to provide for the relief of unemployment, which act is being administered by the hon. Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MacLaren), and under special annual votes there has been paid under its provisions the sum of $7,452,763. If this dominion had not desired voluntarily to admit that obligation and had wished to review the matter, the federal government might have made out a pretty good case in favour of the provinces looking after all unemployed. However, the government did not attempt to do so, and very rightly and wisely so, but they said:	We will make the
returned men our special responsibilities and the sum I have mentioned has been paid out in that connection.
The Pension Act was passed, I believe, in 1916, and the federal government has paid out in pensions the sum of $452,225,122. Every pensioner is a resident of some province as well as being a resident of the dominion and that money flows into the provinces from the federal treasury. I ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) why this government at the present time should be considering grants in aid for the provinces for any purpose when they have bills of this kind which they are unable to meet out of the very heavy taxes which are being raised at the present time?


Robert James Manion: That action was taken because some of my right hon. friend's supporters brought it up this afternoon.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am speaking of the pledges which hon. members opposite made and which they are beginning to endeavour to redeem. Another experiment was
made in the way of loaning money to the provinces for housing in order to encourage the erection of dwellings. An act was passed in 1920 for that purpose and under that act the sum of $23,500,000 has been loaned to the provinces. Of that amount $10,600,000 is still owing to the federal treasury. Before we grant further aid to the provinces in addition to subsidies we had better secure back the money which we have loaned for provincial purposes. Surely that is a sound principle in financing, and any opposite course cannot but be unsound.
When the Liberal administration came into office we found that we were faced with a heavy debt, that we were unable to balance the budget, that taxes would have to be increased, that economies would have to be practised and we therefore adopted the policy that we would not continue grants in aid to the provinces in addition to subsidies. We decided to continue grants in aid in matters which came under the federal jurisdiction, but not grants in aid to the provinces in addition to the regular subsidies to which they were entitled. We saw quite clearly that once a grant in aid was voted for any length of time to a province it would be very hard to discontinue it. What is done over a period of years becomes in the eyes of the province in the course of time a right for all time thereafter. That being the case we served notice on the provinces a considerable time in advance saying that when the period fixed by the statute expired the grant would not be renewed.
With respect to technical education the total amount of the money provided by the act had not been used at the end of the ten-
Trans-Canada Highway

year period, and we introduced an act to allow any province which had not taken full advantage of the amount to which it was entitled, still to have that advantage provided it came in under the provisions of the act within, I think it was, the next five years. Care was taken to give the provinces plenty of time to readjust their finances. We remained firm in the position we had taken, in order to save the federal treasury too great a burden.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) yesterday made what I consider an unfair reference in his speech on the budget when he sought to leave the impression that the large obligation which the country is being faced with at the present time was in part at least a legacy from- the previous administration. The previous administration sought to economize on these very matters of which I am speaking, and did economize. In the one thing we are now discussing we put an end to grants in aid to the provinces in addition to subsidies, and by taking that course we have been able to save hon. gentlemen opposite many obligations which they otherwise would have now to meet. It was a difficult stand to take. I think hon. gentlemen in the ministry opposite know enough already of what political pressure can be brought to bear, and what it means to resist demands to spend money out of the public treasury for one particular purpose or another. During the time the Liberal government was in office we steadily resisted that pressure in regard to these matters. The votes which we gave in parliament were not votes against technical education or votes against highways, they were votes in accordance with the principle which I have endeavoured to explain, namely that grants in aid to the provinces in addition to subsidies were not in accordance with the spirit or the intention of the constitution, that they were not a sound way of financing, that they were not justified in the financial crisis with which this country was faced but were only putting an additional load upon the federal government at a time when its load was so heavy that it was impossible to reduce taxation. We stood for this principle throughout our term of office and may I say that when it camd to a general election there was every cause, had the first consideration been political rather than national and patriotic, why we might have yielded and said: We will be prepared to renew these grants. We stood firm and I have not the slightest doubt that we are in opposition to-day very largely because of the stand we took. The price to be paid for power is too great, if it means so far as government is concerned, that power has to be purchased by the adoption of principles which (Mr, Mackenzie King.]
are unsound in matters of finance. I would much rather be on this side of the house today because of having taken the consistent attitude which we did while in office and throughout the general campaign, an attitude which we intend to continue to take throughout this parliament in the interests of the people of this country, an attitude which will help in the reduction of the public debt and in the reduction of taxation, than be on the other side and faced with having to meet a lot of promises which it is impossible to fulfil.
_ May I repeat to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals that there is no inconsistency between the attitude taken by the hon. members whose names he has mentioned with respect to the votes which they gave while the late government was in office, and their assertions to-day. In the course of the recent elections the Prime Minister and his supporters-I believe my hon. friend was one of the most vigorous of his associates-pledged to the people of this country that if they were returned to power they would construct a national transcontinental highway. That was a matter of policy of the hon. gentlemen opposite; it appeared in the Conservative platform and was mentioned in innumerable speeches made by those Who are to-day in the ministry. We understood at the time that pledge was made, and I think the country also understood, that what was contemplated was a federal highway which would 'be administered by the federal administration and not another grant in aid to the provinces; it was to be a federal highway which would be constructed and maintained by the federal administration. If the federal government is to go into the highway business, I submit that that is the only basis upon which it should act. A national highway should be looked upon in the same light as a national railway, a link between the different provinces of the country, another form of transportation in addition to railways, air service and the like, a national service carried out by the federal government in a national way, so that the moneys that are spent on that national highway will have to be raised by the government that is administering the highway and receiving credit for so doing. Any other method is simply to increase further these grants in aid in addition to the subsidies that are being given to the provinces. What hon. gentlemen inquired about this afternoon, what the country still wishes to know and what it has not yet been told by my hon. friend or any other hon. gentleman opposite, is whether the gov-

Trans-Canada Highway
226.5
ernment of Canada intends to implement that pledge with respect to a national highway or not. There was no reference to it in the budget- speech of yesterday, and no speech has been made on the other side which would appear to countenance that project as a federal undertaking. The question which the electors are asking themselves to-day is this: Is the pledge of a trans-Canada highway which was made so vigorously throughout the campaign and which played such an important part in its result, to be carried out?
I confess I would be much more ready to forgive honourable gentlemen opposite for not carrying out a few of their pledges than I would be to commend them for endeavouring to do so under present conditions. The budget brought down yesterday must surely give occasion to pause on the part of those who today are administering the affairs of the country. The Prime Minister says that he is hopeful that he may raise revenues sufficient to balance the budget. I doubt very much whether he is even hopeful; I think his words were more than guarded in that connection. Indeed, I think in what he said he left it pretty plain that there was a grave doubt whether the revenues of this year would by a long way equal the expenditures of this year. In these circumstances I would say to the government that I believe the people of Canada will thank them if for a time they will now remember that they are no longer in the thick of a general election -but that they are in -their first year of office and may be continuing there for some little time, and if they will devote their time and attention to seeing how they can save money for the federal treasury rather than to devising means whereby they can expend it, especially where -the expenditure is on something which lies altogether outside the jurisdiction of the federal parliament. That is the position of the opposition in regard to these matters, and it is the position which we intend to continue steadily to take during the time we are here. We take it because we believe, in so doing, we are taking the stand which the people of Canada wish to have taken at this time.
We are not opposed to technical education; we want to see technical education promoted, but we believe that vocational education is primarily the business of the provinces. There are, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) said the other day, other forms of technical education in the nature of scientific investigation and the like, which we believe fall under federal jurisdiction, and when I come to speak on the measure I think I shall be able to point out to my honourable friend where this parliament appropriated $3,000,000 for scientific research buildings and equipment in this very year and last year combined, and is appropriating $500,000 annually on scientific investigation conducted solely by the national research council, to say nothing of what the government is doing departmentally in other ways. It will be found that we are doing our part at the present time with respect to technical education. So I repeat that we are not opposed to technical education, but we believe that the provinces should do their part and raise for vocational education the money that is necessary for it, and that we should do our part and raise the money necessary therefor.
We are not opposed to highways, or at the proper time to a national highway scheme. We are opposed to giving grants in aid in addition to their regular subsidies to the various provinces for highway purposes. If the government opposite undertakes as a part of their policy a national highway project, federally administered they will find our attitude different from what I have expressed it to be in regard to grants in aid to the provinces. But they must assume it as a federal obligation from first to last. Similarly with regard to old age pensions, we are not opposed to old age pensions; we believe old age pensions should be a part of the social insurance scheme of this country. But we think it should be a national scheme; it should be administered nationally, 100 per cent of the money raised and the entire scheme administered by the federal government. We say that the present government ought immediately to take steps to have the British North America Act amended so as to make possible federal administration so that when the time comes to pay the old age pensions 100 per cent, we shall not be met with any constitutional obstacle to the administration of the scheme in its entirety by the federal government. Similarly with regard to other matters, agricultural instruction and the like, it must not be said that we are ' opposed to those things. All we are opposed to is to departing in any particular from the spirit of the constitution and embarking on a course which may lead us any lengths in the direction of extravagance, of debt, of increased taxation, but which will certainly not lead to an improvement of conditions in this country at a time when improvement is so greatly required.


Mr. PETTIT:: May I ask the right hon.
gentleman a question? I do not ask many questions in the house. In regard to old age pensions, did he not say-and it is my clear recollection he did so, and Hansard records it -that it was unconstitutional for parliament
Trans-Canada Highway

to grant old age pensions to the extent of 100 per cent; that the provinces must of necessity, by reason of that fact, contribute to old age pensions? Did he not say that in opposition to speeches of members on this side who were then on the other side of the house?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad my hon. friend has raised the question because it indicates that apparently even yet I have not made clear, to him at all events, exactly my position as it is now and as it always has been on that question. As my hon. friend has just said, I did make the statement that it was not constitutional for the dominion government, under the British North America Act as it now stands, to administer an old age pension scheme 100 per cent.


George Hamilton Pettit: The right hon. member
now says they should.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly, I say they should; I say the British North America Act should be amended so as to make it possible for the federal government to undertake the administration of that scheme. When the scheme was being launched and it was uncertain how many provinces were likely to take advantage of an old age pension scheme, there was some justification, not on grounds of sound financing, but on grounds of moving forward a stage or two a much needed measure of social reform, for the federal government making a contribution to the provinces to enable them to begin doing something which they alone individually could do but which we believed to be in the national interest to have done in a general way. But now that most of the provinces of 'Canada have made it apparent that they believe in old age pensions; now that the amount that is being contributed by the dominion to the provinces is to be no longer 50 per cent, but 75 per cent of the total outlay, we say that the time has come when the federal parliament should seek to have the British North America Act amended so as to make it quite clear that it will be within the jurisdiction of this parliament to administer an old age pension act, and that hon. gentlemen should proceed to fulfil their promise, if they intend to fulfil it, with the obligation upon themselves of not only raising what is necessary in the way of revenue for the purpose, but also doing what is necessary iby way of administration and control of the expenditure of moneys which they themselves have raised.


George Hamilton Pettit: May I ask just one more
question? The right hon. gentleman stated that the provinces did not contribute one cent to the -national exchequer. Does he not

admit that the provinces throughout the dominion contribute very materially to the national exchequer in proportion to their population in connection with the importations of goods and the duty paid on them?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: When I speak about the provinces contributing, I am speaking of the treasuries of the provinces making contributions to the federal treasury as against the federal treasury making contributions to the treasuries of the provinces. My hon. friend has spoken about goods imported and what is paid in customs duties. Prior to this year quite a large sum of money has been raised in that way, but I am afraid -after this new budget goes into effect there will not be very much money raised out of customs -revenues, and therefore anything that comes from the provinces, even in regard to what my hon. friend has in mind, wiE Ibe very small. The very thing which he has in mind, however, was the reason why the fathers of confederation undertook to give from the federal treasury a subsidy to the -provinces. When confederation was formed, there were those who wished to allow the provinces to continue to raise revenues by tariffs. It was agreed a dominion could never be formed on that basis. The provinces were unwilling to -raise all their taxation by direct taxes, and' a compromise was reached whereby whatever revenues they were to raise were to be raised by direct taxation, but that they would -receive by way of adjustment a certain subsidy upon a per capita basis which would tend to equalize arrangements as between the different provinces. They were to get this particular sum by giving up their right to raise taxes by indirect taxation, and the very subsidies that we are paying the provinces to-day are bein-g given to them -for that very reason.


Charles A. Stewart: I rise briefly to state my position in connection with the matter of grants to provinces. I am opposed for reasons other than those given to-nig-ht. I believe that federal grants to the provinces constitute a direct interference with the prerogatives of the provinces and frequently lead to expenditures which they otherwise -would not contemplate. I speak in the light of experience. I can remember that some years ago grants were made in aid of highways to create employment for returned men, constituting a direct obligation upon the federal government. I am not offering a complaint except to say that considering the state in which the province of Alberta was at that time, and the fact that the federal treasury supplied

Supply-M ines
40 per cent, 60 per cent having to be supplied by the provincial government, the province was forced to build a road that was not warranted at our stage of development. I for one did not accept that grant, but after I came to Ottawa the money was spent by the provincial government at a later stage in the development of the province. I say that the principle is wrong. Education is a matter within the control of the provinces and I do not think the federal government should interfere with matters of education within the provinces. Highways are directly under control of the provincial governments, and to my mind the federal government should not step into these fields 'and, as I -have pointed out, frequently involve the provinces in expenditures that they are not in a position to meet. We ought to hold to the fields of responsibility which were designed for us. I am thoroughly in accord with the view of my leader that if we are to take over some of the responsibilities of the provinces we should take them over in their entirety, administer them, use the revenue and pay everything. Any such proposal, however, should be very carefully considered before definite action is taken.
Another vicious principle has been adopted by various parties requiring public support. They try to outdo each other in order to gain public support by offering baits bo the provinces to secure the necessary votes to place them in office. That is my chief complaint in respect to this matter. If the taking over of the old age pensions is a responsibility of the federal government, all well and good. I believe that the present government have stated that they intend to pay practically 100 per cent of old age pensions. Undoubtedly this government cannot continuously pass to the provinces this money for expenditure when they intend to meet practically to the extent of 100 per cent the cost of old ' age pensions. In connection with the building of a national highway I think the words of Hon. Mr. Dunning were eminently fair last session when he stated that, in view of the responsibilities which have been saddled upon a federal government with respect to transportation in the operation of canals, railways, air mail services and new services developed throughout Canada, we should wait for a time before embarking upon a national highway system, particularly in view of the fact that the provinces are in receipt of revenues from gasoline taxes which they are applying to highway construction.
I think we would do well, Mr. Speaker, bo keep to our own field, and to control every
dollar of taxation we raise. If in their wisdom the federal government decide to construct a national highway, -then it should take over the project and make some arrangement with the provinces to pay for wear and tear which will develop. I wish to reiterate that the holding out of the prospect of such grants as this, often results in serious embarrassment to the provinces, which may be forced to move faster than they otherwise would. For that reason I think that the principle of making grants without serious consideration is one which should not be continued.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I ask permission of the house to place on Hansard in the form of a table the various figures to which I have referred. I think it would be convenient for hon. members to have the table before -them. Also may I give the correct figures concerning subsidies to provinces, which I now have:
Subsidies to Provinces
Subsidies 1920-1921	1930-1931
(1931 estimated)	$140,472,652
Special subsidies to maritime provinces (including 1931) .. ..	6,440,000
Total	$146,912,652
Motion (Mr. Guthrie) agreed to and the house -went into committee of supply, Mr. MacDonald (Gape Breton South) in the chair.
-SUPPLY


DEPARTMENT OF MINES
[Stage Direction]
For investigation of mineral resources and deposits; of the mining and metallurgical industries, and of mineral technology; wages, expenses of testing and research laboratories, investigations by Dominion Fuel Board, including salaries and all other expenses, $300,000.
For publications, English and French, purchase of books, laboratory supplies, instruments, miscellaneous assistance and contingencies, $50,000.
To compensate J. H. Fortune for quarters, fuel, light and water supplied him as resident caretaker of the Mines branch building, Sussex street, vacated because of the necessity of utilizing the caretaker's quarters for storage and laboratory space, $100.-Total, $350,100.
Mr. COOTE:: I should like to know where
the work involved in this item is -carried on.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: This is to provide for work carried on by the Mines branch in the city of Ottawa. They carry on very wide investigations into mining in all its 'branches. In fact from my experience I very much doubt if there are any better equipped laboratories of their size on
Supply-Mines

the continent for the investigation of mineral resources, ore dressing and metallurgical research work. The services of the mines branch are available in an advisory capacity for mining in all its various branches. For instance, if a mining company becomes involved in some metallurgical trouble that they cannot solve, they frequently ask the assistance of the mines branch. The branch provides as well a very extensive service for prospectors in analyses and identification of ores. Their work is quite broad in its scope and very useful to the mining industry.


George Gibson Coote: Do the officials of the mines branch go to different parts of Canada to investigate mineral resources, or is the work all done here in Ottawa?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: From time to time
officers from the mines branch go into the field in order to keep themselves posted upon various matters of mining technology; of course, they must be very careful not to lend themselves to sealing with approval any mining proposition; but they do spend a certain portion of the year going from place to place in Canada, and sometimes out of Canada, in order to keep their research work up to date.


George Gibson Coote: Could the minister give the committee a rough idea of the amount which is spent on that kind of investigational work? Is it done to any considerable extent?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The expense of the work
in the field has never been separately set out in the books of the department, but I am told that in travelling expenses of the various technical men about $10,000 may be spent in a year. These are the divisions of the mines branch: mineral resources; ore dressing and metallurgy; fuel and fuel testing; ceramics and road materials; the mechanical section; and the Dominion Fuel Board. Of course as occasion requires the work does take the staff into various parts of the country I am sorry I cannot give the hon. member a definite statement as to what money is actually spent in the field.


George Gibson Coote: I think the department was doing some experimental work in connection with the deposits of bituminous tar sand in the north country. Would that come under this particular vote? If so, could the minister give us some information about it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The department has
opened up a bituminous sand deposit at MacMurray, and the Alberta government has carried on the separation. The deposit is still

under review by the department as to its possible value.	It 'has certain attractive
features which I do not think have yet been definitely determined. I am told several reports have been published by the department on the work already done.


George Gibson Coote: Is that work still being carried on by the dominion? I think the department did have an officer spend a good deal of his time in that area.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We are still carrying on
the field work. We have a party there this summer to determine the extent of the deposit and its possible value.


Mr. SPENCER:: I understand some very
valuable experimental work is being carried on in England in connection with the low temperature carbonization or liquefaction of coal. Has the mines branch done anything along this line?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That work has been under investigation for the past four or five years by the fuel testing division. It is being continued and the results from time to time are available for those interested in the industry. I am told that a number of reports have been made, and that one was recently placed at the disposal of hon. members.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What success has resulted?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not read the
recent reports on the work done in connection with fuels and fuel testing, so I regret that I cannot give details of what progress has been made.


Mr. GERSHAW:: When the officers of
the department do research work or give advice to private individuals or companies, do they make a charge for it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Where the advice of the
department is sought on matters of that character it has not been the custom to charge the industry anything. Charges are made for analyses of various ores submitted. One of the reasons for making such charges is that the department might easily come into competition with private assayers, and it would be unfair to them to do the work gratuitously. But generally speaking where a mining problem such as a refractory ore has to be dealt with, and the mining company finds itself in difficulty as to the method of treatment and seeks advice, the department gives its services without charge.

Supply-Mines


George Gibson Coote: May I ask whether any work is still being carried on in Ontario in connection with the peat industry, and if so, how much will be spent on it this year? Is it intended to carry on that work any longer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The investigation in connection with the peat industry covered quite a number of years. If my recollection serves me aright it was started about 1908 or 1909, and the main effort has been at Alfred in the county of Prescott. The work first was carried on under the auspices of the department; then a fuel committee was formed, and the work grew to some pretensions, at least as far as the expense was concerned.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister know
about how much has been spent on it?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes; to date there is
$352,445.71 charged against it, with certain small credits which may be taken into consideration, amounting to about $25,000 or $30,000, leaving a net expenditure of about $323,000. As the hon. member for Macleod well knows, at the time the peat was being investigated the fuel problem of this country was not a problem of the producer. It was rather a problem of the consumer, and I think in the main that invesetigation into the possibility of peat as a fuel could be justified. Errors may have been made during the course of the years, but at any rate, with the abundance of fuel available in this country at the present time and the difficulty of keeping coal mines working, I seriously question if we will continue the investigation of peat as a fuel for a long time to come. Certainly the government will not pursue the investigation further in Ontario


George Gibson Coote: It is not the intention to
pursue the investigation further this year?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I should like to ask
the minister if the government of Ontario has asked for any help, or if any help has been given, in the development of the lignite field north of the town of Cochrane, at Blacksmith rapids?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If my hon. friend means
cash advances, this government has made none. However, when those lignite fields were discovered and the development started, the department, following the policy which has prevailed for years, made an investigation from the departmental standpoint in order to add to their knowledge of that field. Also, at the request of the Ontario government,
they have carried on certain tests of those lignite fields in order to determine the fuel value. I believe the results of those tests were made public, although I am not sure about that.


Alan Webster Neill: I should like to ask the
minister if he can give us some description or summary of the work carried on last spring at the request of the government of British Columbia. There was an agreement made with the government of British Columbia to test some ten or twelve carloads of the different varieties of coal, and through the kindness of the government of British Columbia I have seen a highly technical report in connection with those tests. However, that report contained nothing of what might be called practical benefit to the ordinary man in the street. The idea was to test this coal to see what kind was best suited to be pulverized, for instance, and what treatment was best calculated to produce the best results with coal from the different mines. This is a matter of great importance to British Columbia, because I believe in this way we will find uses for the abundant coal supply which we cannot sell.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: About ten tests were made of different coals at the request of the British Columbia government, under different boiler ratings, and reports of those various tests were sent to the provincial government. I must confess that I struggled with the reports myself, and found them too technical to understand. The tests are being carried on with respect to the coals most suitable for coking purposes, and these tests already have opened up the possibility of finding customers for western coal, particularly in Manitoba.


Alan Webster Neill: I do not think there is much need for information with regard to the coking qualities of the coal, because in years gone by we have had practical demonstrations. If I remember correctly there were quite a few coking ovens at Union Bay on Vancouver island, using Vancouver island coal, and there was a coking plant at Fernie in connection with the Crowsnest pass coal mines. If we have the information both with regard to Vancouver island and Fernie, I would suggest that we do not need to conduct further experiments along that line.
I believe we should attempt to demonstrate the possibility of using British Columbia coal in pulverized form. The other day I visited the plant which heats this and a number of other buildings. Last year the Department of Public Works installed a system for using pulverized coal, and I am told that it has
Supply-Mines

been highly successful, that it is very economical and leaves practically no dust. A report in that connection would be welcomed, with some explanation as to the particular variety of coal best suited to be used in that way and so on. That would encourage its use in British Columbia and other places.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The tests along the lines indicated by the hon. member were made by the Department of Mines at the request of the British Columbia government, but as I said a moment ago the reports are entirely too technical for me. However, the reports are in the hands of the government of British Columbia for transmission to the companies concerned, and in quite a number of instances the reports were very satisfactory, though in some other cases they were not.


Mr. SPEAKMAN:: Has any further progress been made in connection with the commercial abstraction of petroleum from the oil shales in northern Alberta, where there are tremendous deposits!? This matter has been under examination and experimentation for several years.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told an investigation was made into the bituminous sands along the line suggested by my hon. friend, and perhaps he may be confusing the two matters.


Alfred Speakman: I am not speaking of the tar sands but of the oil shales-the petroleum exposure in the oil shales.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told that no investigation has been made.


Peter Heenan: In connection with the
reported find of radium in the -northwest territories, I would impress -ulpon the minister once more the importance of ensuring that the control of these deposits shall remain in Canada. I do not suggest 'that there has been any indifference or neglect on- -the part of the government, but it would be indeed a serious situation if, because they were not in a position to carry on the development of this discovery through lack of funds or of assistance from -the government, those who are engaged in this work were obliged to seek outside investment, thereby allowing aliens to obtain control of such important deposits. I understand that the Belgian government, when radium was discovered in that country, at once undertook to assist in the development of it as well as financially. This is such a precious metal, and it is so important from the point of view of -the slick, .that it seems to me we should make every effort to retain in Canada

the control of the find which has been made. This is highly important in the interests of our hospitals and of Canadian citizens generally.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Radioactive ores have
been found in Canada in a number of places and certain developments have been carried out, in Ontario particularly, and in the northwest territories. The discovery of pitchblende, to which undoubtedly the hlon. member refers, was made by prospectors in the northwest territories at Echo bay, after a great many j'ears of unfruitful prospecting. I do not think the bon. gentleman suggests that the fruits of the labour of these prospectors should be taken from them. They are the ones who have discovered the radioactive ores and they are now carrying on (their development. The mines branch have analyzed these ores and are watching the development out there with a great deal Of interest, and I can assure the eimmittee that if radioactive ores in commercial tonnages are found, of sufficient richness to justify their development, the necessary and proper steps will be taken to safeguard the interests of the Canadian people, at the same time, of course, mot dealing unfairly or unjustly with those who have carried on the work of prospecting for so many years.


Donald James Cowan: While we are discussing the vote for the investigation of mineral resources, I would point out to the minister the desirability, from the Canadian standpoint, of developing the iron ore resources of northern Ontario. To my knowledge, some fifteen years ago we had in Canada fifteen or twenty blast furnaces using, to a large extent, Canadian ores. To-day we have, I believe, only three, and during the last year not an ounce of Canadian ore was used in any one of these furnaces. To-day these furnaces import from the United States all the -ore which they are using. Last year the importations amounted to 1,000,000 tons of American ore. That cost the Canadian furnaces and the Canadian people the sum of $90,000,000, for that was the value of the ore delivered to the furnaces in Canada. That creates in the first place a very unfavourable balance of trade, because these ores have to be paid for with Canadian money. So much for that side of the picture. The obher side of the picture is the fact that iu northern Ontario and in other districts in Canada we have unlimited deposits of iron ore. It is true they are not of the same consistency as those found in the American states, but by a method of beneficiation it is felt that they

Supply-M ines
could be put on the market and used in Canadian furnaces. It is to that phase of ,the subject that I wish to direct the attention of the minister. A .commission was appointed seven years ago, in the year 1923, by the Drury government of Ontario. That commission, headed by Mr. Lloyd Harris, made a report to the effect that we had sufficient ores here and that by proper treatment they could be used; and they suggested that the Ontario government should pay a bounty on the production of those ores of so much a ton on all ores smelted in Canadian furnaces. They suggested, moreover, that, as this work would be of national advantage, the dominion government should contribute one half of the bounty. That legislation remained on the statute books for five years but no action was taken by the dominion government. I believe it was in 1929 that the Ferguson government decided to double the rate so far as the province was concerned, and suggested that the federal parliament should contribute a considerable sum !by way of assistance. That offer on the part of Ontario remains open and I suggest to the minister .that the mines branch is equipped with a proper personnel for the consideration of methods to be followed for getting this Canadian ore on the market. I wish at this time to bring this question to his attention so that the staff maintained by this government may be put to work. The matter is one of vital concern not only to northern Ontario but to the railways, for they would get the haul; and it is of importnce to labour and generally to the development of our own resources.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister will observe that this item, which is for about one-third of a million dollars is for scientific and technical research. That, as I understand it, forms a part of what formerly would come under the head of technical education. It is a branch of the work referred to by the Minister of Justice the other day as coming within what would be regarded as work of university grade. I am pointing this out to emphasize what I said a moment ago, that this federal government is doing its part with respect to one aspect at least of scientific and industrial research which is in the nature of technical education; and I trust that if I give the minister my support for this one-third of a million he will, when the time comes, back me up in what I have said in respect to that particular matter.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend from Port Arthur-Thunder Bay will find, when investigation is made, that considerable work has been done in connection with the beneficiation of our northern ores. I doubt whether it can be said that the real solution has been found, but I do say to the hon. members that no opportunity has been missed. I shall not have time to go into the matter to-night, but I may say to my hon. friends from Alberta that, in order to avoid overlapping in various activities of government research, the work in .connection with the extraction of oil from tar sands and shale has been carried on in that province by arrangement with the national research council. The Deputy Minister of Mines is a member of the board of the national research council and sits in on all discussions relating to questions of research..


Alfred Speakman: That is my understanding based on the discussion of last year.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend has seen the plant set up in the yards of the Alberta and Great Waterways railway where this work was carried on by Professor Clark. The ramifications of the mines branch are m'any, and when one considers the national research council as well it is pretty difficult to know just what is being done. I appreciate what the hon. minister has said tonight, that he has found a very efficient staff in charge , and that the work carried on has been of immense benefit to the mining industry of Canada. On one occasion we voted $10,000 for the purpose of bringing samples from British Columbia, but very little advantage was taken of that vote. That offer Was made in order to permit samples being brought here for testing purposes. The mines branch of the federal government has been of great value to the mining industry of Canada, and I agree with the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Cowan) that if a solution can be found for the treatment of Canadian iron ore it would be of immense benefit to Canada. In order to assure him, 1 will state that I know the hon. gentleman who succeeded me will not miss any chance to assist in this matter of research work.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: Did I
understand the minister to say a short time ago that no further experimental work is being carried on in connection with peat?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: No further experimental work is going on at the present time in connection with peat fuel.


Edward Joseph Garland: Will the hon. minister explain the item on page 92 of the estimates, peat specialist, $2,820?
Supply-Mines


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That gentleman is a field officer who is carrying on work in the field in connection with the investigation of peat 'bogs, but he has nothing to do with tihe technical work. Probably I should have made that distinction when I said that no peat experimentation was being carried on. No technical work in the laboratories or anything of that kind is being done.


Edward Joseph Garland: What are the duties of this peat specialist?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: He investigates peat bogs in order to keep the department advised thereof. While at the present time these sources of fuel may not be called upon or needed, yet I do not think it is desirable that the department should lose sight of the possibilities of the peat bogs; they should be treated as an insurance for the future.


Edward Joseph Garland: As I understand the minister, this vote of $2,820 is to provide for a peat specialist to keep in touch with the peat bogs. The peat bogs which are commercially feasible are fully known to the department and have been for years, and I cannot for the life of me see the sense of maintaining a specialist just to be sure the bogs do not run away. If no experimental or laboratory work is being carried on in connection with the peat bogs, why keep a man on at $2,820 per. year just to keep in touch with the existing bogs? Is he undertaking research work?


James Dew Chaplin: What other expenses are there in connection with this officer?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: There is a small amount
which is absorbed in the geological surveys branch for expenses, Outside of the use of peat for fuel there is a possibility of its being used for other purposes. The litter and humus from the Alfred bog has a fairly ready market. I believe the retention of this officer is justified.


Edward Joseph Garland: I wish the minister would justify it to me. Perhaps he can give the committee the net income derived as a result of the disposition of litter and humus? If we are spending $2,820 per year we should receive some value for it.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I am told that the total
income from the sale of these products would probably pay the salary of the peat specialist and leave a little over.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the net income?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the figures before me.


Edward Joseph Garland: That is the trouble; I doubt very much whether the net income from the sale of litter and other products would pay this man's salary. If he is rendering any useful service I am only too anxious that his salary be continued. I should not like to see him dropped from the service; possibly he could be engaged in some other research capacity, but when no experimental work is being carried on we should not retain a man simply to keep in touch with the existing peat bogs.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, as it is
eleven o'clock I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



ADJOURNMENT-BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

William Lyon Mackenzie King: Mr. Speaker,
will the hon. gentleman who is leading the house (Mr. Guthrie) advise whether it is the intention of the government to follow the practice of former years, that of having the debate on the budget 'take precedence over all other business except questions, notices of motion for the production of papers, and the introduction of bills? The Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) did not make any mention of this procedure, but I assume that was an oversight on his part and that the practice of former years will be followed.


Hugh Guthrie: I assume that the former practice will be followed, but I should not like to make a definite statement in that regard. The Prime Minister will be here at the opening of the house on Thursday and probably will announce that such will be the case.


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