1931-05-01

CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES MARCIL (Bonaventure):: May I. ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) whether he has received a request from some eighteen officials and emplo3'ees of the Canadian National Railways at New Carlisle, many of them fathers of families and old employees, who have been dismissed from the service; and whether it is possible for him to do anything for the relief of these people? I understand that they have appealed to the minister, and I know that in the kindness of his heart, if he can do anything for them, he will do so. I would like to know if any steps have been taken in that matter.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I do not remember having received any representations on their behalf, but even if I should, it is a matter, of course, for the management of the railways, over which I have no control at all. I shall be very glad, however, to pass on any representations that come to me.



COLLIN'S BAY PREFERRED PENITENTIARY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Miss AGNES MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):: I would like to ask the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Guthrie) who has been appointed as warden of the preferred penitentiary at Collin's Bay.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: No permanent appointment has yet been made. The acting warden is Mr. Jackson.



SMITHFIELD BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. A. FRASER (Northumberland):: I should like to ask the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) if it is the intention of his department to replace the Smith-field bridge on the Murray canal which collapsed in August, 1930.


Robert James Manion: I do not remember anything about the matter, but I shall be very glad to look into it and give an answer later.



WHEAT MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Has the government received any invitation to the meetings of the eastern European nations to discuss the marketing of wheat, and if so, will the government be represented at those meetings?
Hon. H. II. STEVENS (Minister of Trade and Commerce): I presume the hon. gentleman refers to the meeting in London? If so, and he will put his question on the order* paper in a precise form, I shall be glad to answer it. At the moment I cannot quite get the import of his question.


Edward Joseph Garland: A despatch appears in this morning's papers to the effect that meetings are being held by the Little Entente, at Mr. Briand's suggestion, to discuss wheat marketing in Europe. As the markets there affect the welfare of this country, I wondered whether the government was prepared to be represented at those meetings either in an advisory or observational capacity.


Mr. STEVENS:: There is no possibility of our being invited, and certainly we should not be represented unless we were invited. Up to the present there has been no invitation. I presume that it is a meeting of certain groups preparatory to the London meeting, but I have no information with respect to the matter.


Mr. POULIOT:: But Mr. Ferguson enjoys looking through the keyhole.


Henry Herbert Stevens: Mr. Ferguson will look
after himself all right.
1172	COMMONS
Judges' Act-Railway Commission
REMOVAL OF RIPPLE ROCK On the orders of the day:


Mr. WILFRED HANBURY (Vancouver):: I would like to ask if the report prepared by the engineers investigating the removal of Ripple rock has yet been handed in, and when it will be tabled.


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: I have not yet received the report.
WINNIPEG VETCRAFT SHOP On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford): Before the orders of the day are called I have a question for the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Mac-Laren). The question is of some concern to the returned men of Canada and to veterans' organizations. I understand that we have seven vetcraft shops in Canada, one for the maritimes, at Halifax; one for Quebec at Montreal; two for Ontario, one at Toronto and one at Hamilton; and two for British Columbia, one at Victoria, and one at Vancouver. The one for the three prairie provinces at Winnipeg was burned last July. The matter was to be investigated, but up to the present time no action has resulted and there has been a great deal of uncertainty, and the returned men of the three western provinces would like to know what is the exact situation. My question is simply this:	Will the
minister take into consideration an investigation of the vetcraft shop in Winnipeg with a view to reestablishing it on a larger basis, or if that is impossible, will he consider the cases of the men affected, about 150 in number, and make them 100 per cent pensionable?


Hon. MURRAY MacLAREN (Minister of Pensions and National Health):: That question involves several questions. I can answer it partially by stating that the matter was investigated, and some time ago an answer was given to the effect that it was not proposed to restore the building that had been destroyed. Certain arrangements were made for the men who had previously been engaged there; something like two month's pay, I think, was given. There is no objection, however, to further consideration of the matter. These matters never really receive final consideration.
INQUIRY FOR RETURN On the orders of the day:


Hon. P. J. VENIOT (Gloucester):: I desire to draw to the attention of the Minister of
[Mr. Stevens.!
Public Works (Mr. Stewart), so that it might facilitate the business of the house when the estimates for New Brunswick are under consideration, that certain letters have not been brought down in Reference No. 6, which was laid on the table the other day. The missing letters include one from G. M. McDade, the member for Northumberland, also a letter appointing Mr. Albany M. Robichaud, agent for the Department of Justice, to procure certain deeds in connection with the work reported on in this file, together with his reply, also a letter accompanying the deeds. These letters have not been produced. I would ask the minister to look into the matter and to complete the file by producing the missing letters.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will take note of what the hon.
gentleman says, and have the matter checked up.



SALE OF GASOLINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. YOUNG (Weyburn):: I would
ask the Prime Minister if any steps have been taken to compel oil refineries to supply oil and gas to cooperative organizations which are willing to pay for it.


Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: That would rest entirely within the
jurisdiction of the provinces.



RAILWAY COMMISSION


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Judges Act be amended to provide for an annuity to any judge of a superior court of Canada who is or has been, since 1st January, 1931, appointed chief commissioner or assistant chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Will the
minister explain?


Hugh Guthrie: This resolution provides
for an amendment to section 27 of the Judges Act, adding a clause to protect judges who may be appointed to office other than upon the bench of the superior courts of Canada At times it is desirable to appoint judges to other positions, such as to the Board of

Soldier Settlement Act
Railway Commissioners of Canada. I think7 experience in the past has shown us that eminent judges who have served in the position, for instance, of chief commisisoner oi the railway board have rendered veiy valuable service to the country; I mention Mr. Justice Killam, the late Mr. Justice Mabee, and the recently retired Chief Justice McKeown. Section 27 of the Judges Act provides:
If any person become entitled to a pension after the first day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty, under this act, and become entitled to any salary in respect of any public office under His Majesty in respect of his government of Canada, such salary shall be reduced by the amount of such pension.
Should it become desirable to appoint a judge of one of the superior courts of Canada to the position of- chief commissioner or assistant commissioner of the railway board, such appointment might endanger the position of that judge in respect to the retiring allowance which he has already earned. The intention of the amendment is to cure this defect by providing that the section which I have just read shall be amended so that the status quo of the judge in respect of the retiring allowance which he has already earned shall be preserved. He will continue in his new appointment, and at the end of his term in that appointment will receive the retiring allowance which he would have received if he had continued as a judge. The bill which has been prepared and will be introduced if this resolution is adopted mentioned the two positions of chief commissioner and assistant chief commissioner of the Board of Railway Commissioners of Canada, and it is drawn so as to enable the country to utilize the services of eminent members of the superior courts of Canada without reducing the allowances to which otherwise they would be entitled.


Charles A. Stewart: I believe
that in the case of Judge McKeown who has just retired the pension was extended to the amount of salary he drew as chairman of the railway board. At his retirement that provision came into effect. Does this mean that while the incumbent in office is in receipt of a pension as a retired judge he will draw the salary of the commissioner plus the pension?


Hugh Guthrie: He will draw the salary
of a chief commissioner. However, his time spent as chief commissioner will count as if he had still continued to be a judge. That is what it amounts to.


Mr. HEENAN:: In other words, he will
not lose his right of pension?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, that is right.
: Mr. STEWART (Edmonton): In the event - of a person not having served the full term up to the age of seventy-five years, or in the event of serving only fifteen years and being appointed to a position of this character, will his term as commissioner count for retirement purposes? I believe the age of seventy-five years is the maximum at which a judge may serve ?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, his term served as
commissioner will count just the same as if he had served as a judge.


Richard Bedford Bennett: By statute the railway
commission is a court of record.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Guthrie thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 40, to amend the Judges Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



SOLDIER SETTLEMENT ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Immigration and Colonization) moved that the house go into committee to consider the following proposed resolution:
That the Soldier Settlement Act be amended to abolish the soldier settlement board and provide for the transfer of its powers, functions and privileges to an officer to be called the director of soldier settlement, who shall be paid such salary and at such rate per annum as the governor in council shall fix and allow.
Peter John Veniot: I would like to have an explanation of this resolution. Perhaps we could have it in committee, but if the minister is in a position to give it, I would prefer to have it now. I see that the governor general in council shall fix the rate per annum of salaries. Why is this salary not fixed under the Civil Service Act?


Mr. GORDON:: In answer to the hon.
member I reply that this department of the government never operated under the Civil Service Act. There may be arguments advanced why it should, but at the present time the government, through my department, is endeavouring to reorganize the soldiers settlement board with a view to cutting down the expense of administration and, I believe, to giving greater service and having greater efficiency in the administration of the board and of its funds.


Peter John Veniot: I have no objection to the motion going through, but we will have a better chance to discuss it in committee.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Supply-Public Works

Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Gordon thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 41, to amend the Soldier Settlement Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury) in the chair.
Public Buildings-Generally
Experimental farms - replacements, repairs, improvements, etc., $50,000.
Flags for Dominion public buildings, $5,000.
Military buildings-repairs, fittings and additions, $50,000.
Military	hospitals-repairs, improvements
and alterations, $99,000.
Public buildings-generally, $40,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the member for Assiniboia (Mr. McKenzie) asked for certain information in connection with the public buildings at Deloraine, Areola and Watrous. I have the information now and will place it on Hansard:
Deloraine
Site, $1,500; contract for building, $24,903; fittings and lock boxes, $2,279; grading and sidewalks, $1,000; clock, $1,000; contingencies and superintendence, $2,218.-Total, $32,900.
Population in 1930, 760; postal revenue, 1929-30. $5,369.78; customs revenue, 1929-30, $5,640.18.
Areola
Estimated cost of site, $200; lowest tender for building, $27,870; fittings, $3,000; grading, $2,000; contingencies and superintendence, $3.000-Total, $36,070.
Population in 1930, 700; postal revenue, 1929-30, $5,279.51; customs revenue, nil.
Watrous
Estimated cost of site, $8,000; buildings, $24,000; fittings, $3,000; grading and sidewalks, $1,000; contingencies and superintendence, $2.000-Total, $38,000.
Population in 1930, no figures; population in 1921, 1,101; postal revenue, 1929-30, $7,209.53.
It will be seen that the revenue from Areola is the smallest of the three and the cost of the building the highest.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Public Works department called for tenders for the construction of a veranda on the post office building at Riviere du Loup. I am informed that two tenders were received, one from Charron and Anctil for $255, and the other from Philippe Blier for $295. Will the minister inform me why no tender was accepted?
[Mr Veniot.]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have sent for the information and will give it to my hon. friend a little later, if that will suit him.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister. May I ask if the failure to proceed with the work is due to the action of Mr. Dube, the defeated candidate for Temiscouata county?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I would say not.


Jean-François Pouliot: Has he the government patronage in Temiscouata county?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No gentleman has the patronage for any of these counties.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the hon. minister insinuating that (he Tory candidate in Temiscouata is not a gentleman?


Mr. YENIOT:: Is there anything in the item of $50,000 for experimental farms for additional buildings at Fredericton?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no specific appropriation for any building; it is just a general item to cover needed repairs, wherever those repairs may be found to be required.


Peter John Veniot: Has the department received any request from those in charge of the experimental farm at Fredericton for additional buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot say
definitely; but in all probability if conditions warrant repairs there we have some representations about them and they will be considered.


Mr. DUFF:: Last night I asked the minister how much money was spent under this item. Can he give me any information now?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was all spent.


Edward Joseph Garland: If I remember correctly, there was a vote in last year's estimates for an elevator at Lethbridge, but I do not see anything in these estimates with respect to it. Is the building completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The elevator at Lethbridge was not constructed by the Public Works department. It is under the control of the Department of Trade and Commerce.


Edward Joseph Garland: The Public Works department have nothing to do with it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is my information.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like again to direct the attention of the minister to Ripple

Supply-Public Works
rock on the west coast of British Columbia. This rock is a menace to both Canadian and American boats going to Alaska and the northern ports of British Columbia. For many years representations have been made urging that the rock be removed, and I understand the department have had their engineers investigating with a view to ascertaining the cost and recommending the removal of the rock.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but it does occur to me that as we are dealing with public buildings at the present moment, the proper time to discuss Ripple Rock would be when we are considering the items for harbours and rivers, and when probably I would have more information available.


Edward Joseph Garland: Is it the general policy of departments to erect public buildings under other departments than that of public works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are other departments that to a certain extent construct buildings for themselves. I have in mind the Department of Justice, and the Department of the Interior as far as Indian affairs are concerned.


Edward Joseph Garland: I think we should put them all under the minister and give him some more work.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, Etc. Ottawa public buildings and grounds-
Elevator attendants, $125,000.
Departments generally-char service including $150 to E. Snowden for firing the noon gun, $458,000.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $497,000.
Light and power-including roads and bridges, $175,000.
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $700,000.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau Hall, including grounds-improvements, furniture, maintenance, etc., $60,000.
Telephone service, $124,500.
Water, $61,000.
Dominion public buildings-
Dominion immigration buildings - repairs, improvements, additions, furniture, etc., $25,000.
Dominion quarantine .stations-maintenance and repairs, $15,000.
Fittings, general supplies and furniture,
[Stage Direction]
Heating, $443,000.
Light and power, $302,000.
Rents. $1,850,000.
Salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc.. $1,210,000.
Supplies for caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc.. $60,000.
Water, $80,000.
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water service and caretakers' salaries, $28,000.
1 ictoria, B.C. - astrophysical observatory (Little Saanich mountain) - maintenance, repairs and improvements, $4,000. - Total, $6,336,500.
Wilfred Hanbury: Can the minister give me some information as to the area, the rentals, and in what buildings offices are rented in the city of Vancouver for the federal
services?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand my hon. friend wishes a list of the buildings in Vancouver, with their locations and rentals. In the list I am going to give the figures iepresent the annual rentals:
Postal A, C.P.R., $2,607.
Post Office Storage, C.P.R., $2,805.
Postal B, Orange Hall, $4,440.
Postal D, T. Edwards, $3,600.
Postal F, J. A. Campbell, $1,800.
Sidewalk area (90), city of Vancouver, $5.35.
Sidewalk area (Winch), city of Vancouver, $140.20.
Tunnel and right of way, city of Vancouver, $33.60.
Letter Carriers (Harrisdale), Masonic Hall, $2,400.
Fumigation shed site, C.P.R., $24.
D.S.C.R., Independent Vancouver Storage Company, $1,800.
National Defence, Horse Show Bldg.. $9,000.
National Defence (1255 Pender), Seaforth Club, $2,100.
National Defence, 1117 Seaton st., $1,800.
National Defence, Navy League, $4,800.
National Defence, D. King. $2,700.
National Defence, E. J. MeFeeley, $3,480.
Naval Service, Vancouver Yacht Club, $1,800.
Radio (Marine and Fisheries), A. E. Auston Co., $900.
Radio Garage, W. Dan-35 Pender, $96.
Mines and Met., H. Shanoley, $1,080.
Steamboat Inspection, H. Shanoley. $2,400.
P.O. Letter Carriers, Dr. Gorlich, $720.
Government Telegraphs, St. Francis Hotel,

Radio (Garage), A. P. Galbraith (Robson st.). $60.
Marine Pilots, B.C. Mining Bldg.. $960. Pensions and National Health (Tribunal), B.C. Mining Bldg., $1,800.
Holleyburn Post Office, J. Lawson, $2'40. Indian Affairs, Metropolitan Bldg.. $1,992. National Defence (Aviation), Merchants Exchange, $540.
Pensions and National Health (Vetcraft), Provincial Government, $1,200.


Wilfred Hanbury: Could the minister inform me which of these offices have beep moved during the past nine months, from what buildings they were moved and to what buildings they moved and on whose recommendation the move was made?
lire
Supply-Public Works-B.C.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I have not that information here. I can secure it for my hon. friend.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia
Argenta-wharf reconstruction, $10,500.
Celista-wharf reconstruction, $4,000.
Chemainus-renewal of float and approach, $1,700.
Columbia river (below Burton)-improvements to diversion work, $1,500.
Eagle bay-wharf, $2,500.
Fraser river-improvements-under contract,
[Stage Direction]
Fraser river (lower)-operation of snag boat, $30,000.
Fraser river-contribution towards protection work at Canoe pass, the municipality of Delta to contribute a like amount-under construction, $2,000.
Fraser river-contribution towards protection work at Matsqui, the provincial government, the municipality and the C.N.R. each to contribute a like amount, $3,500.
Ginols-wharf repairs, $1,800.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $30,000.
Kaslo-wharf reconstruction-under contract,
[Stage Direction]
Magna Bay-wharf reconstruction, $7,000.
Minnekliada-wharf reconstruction, $1,600.
McDonald's landing - wharf replacement, $1,500.	[DOT]
Nanaimo-crib, $6,600.
New Masset-wharf repairs and float, $1,100.
Penticton-breakwater, $1,900.
Port Haney-wharf extension. $3,700.
Port Moody-wharf repairs, $6,000.
Saanichton-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Seymour Arm-wharf repairs, $3,300.
Sidney

wharf repairs, $3,800.
Stewart - wharf improvements - under contract, $2,500.
Vancouver-Stanley park-foreshore protection, $8,000.
Victoria-wharf repairs. $3,100.
Victoria harbour-dredging-under contract, $20,000. .
William Head-quarantine station-to complete repairs to wharfs, $14,000. - Total, $294,600.
Wilfred Hanbury: I would now like to
direct the question to the minister which I asked a few moments ago, with regard to Ripple rock. I should like to ask him if he can tell me when the information will be available as to the cost of removing this rock, and when the recommendation of the engineers will be brought down. This is a very serious matter to all the shipping interests of the Pacific coast, whether the shipping has to do with the northern part of British Columbia or Alaska; it is a matter of interest not only to Canadian but to American shippers as well. It has been a menace there for a number of years, and unless it is removed some day we will have a very serious accident and the Canadian government will be

responsible for permitting that menace to-remain as it is to-day. I would ask the minister to give this matter his very serious consideration; I hope the report will be tabled at any early date and that he will take steps to see that this rock is removed at once.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of course my
hon. friend will notice that no immediate action is contemplated, because no provision is made in the estimates for this work. I am not very familiar with the matter except that I know there is rather an acute difference of opinion as to whether this suggested action should be taken. However, a report is in course of preparation, I believe, and when it is received it will be available to my hon. friend.


Wilfred Hanbury: Just in connection with
the minister's statement that an acute difference of opinion exists, I would suggest to him that fully ninety-five per cent of the shipping people of British Columbia desire to have this rock removed, and I would say that fully ninety per cent of the population of British Columbia desire its removal. I do not think the different opinion which is held by five per cent or ten per cent of the people interested should interfere with action being taken in the. matter.


Mr. PLUNKETT:: The hon. gentleman
may be speaking for his constituency in this regard, but I wish to enter a protest on behalf of my constituency on Vancouver island in regard to the removal of Ripple rock. There may be a decided opinion in the constituency represented by my hon. friend, but there is an equally decided opinion on Vancouver island in regard to this matter. The commission which was appointed to consider the matter was composed of engineers who were asked originally to consider a bridge. Then they were asked to consider the removal of an obstruction to marine navigation. Navigation has been going on for over sixty years, and although the obstruction has been there no lives have been lost upon Ripple rock. I do not want hon. members, in the consideration of this question, to start something on the Pacific coast which may come into conflict with maritime rights by the division of Vancouver island from the mainland. I will say nothing further on the subject at the present time, but when the report is brought down I purpose to have a great deal to say, and I shall not be in accord with the hon. member who has just made his representations to the house.

Supply-Public Works-B.C.


Mr. REID:: It is hardly necessary for me to tell the minister how important the Fraser river is. I rise now to bring to his attention a matter which is agitating the people there to a considerable extent, and that is the question of a modern lightship at the mouth of Fraser river. The government is spending thousands of dollars to put the river in first class shape for shipping. It has been examined by mariners, and they lay the blame for many accidents on faulty lighting. Has an application been made to the minister's department in connection with a modern lightship for the river?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a matter which is under the jurisdiction of the Marine department. I shall draw the hon. member's question to the attention of my colleague.


Thomas Reid: I shall be pleased if you will have this done. With regard to dredging, has the minister received an application for dredging for airport purposes at Lulu island?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a civic airport?


Thomas Reid: Yes; and that also is a very important project, many thousands of dollars having been spent there. In view of the fact that the Post Office Department is advertising from one end of Canada to the other, to induce people to use air lines, some consideration should be given to the development of that project, and it cannot be accomplished unless there is dredging.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So far as I know, the Public Works department has not yet [DOT]embarked on any expenditures on air ports.


Mr. NEILL:: Ripple rock, which hon. gentleman have been discussing, happens to be situated in the district I have the honour to represent, and I approve the government's decision to delay action until they get a scientific report from the engineers whom they have appointed to make that investigation. I would ask, however, why that report is not available. The investigation took place months ago and I have seen in the British Columbia papers what purports to 'be a summary of the report. If it is available on the street corners in Vancouver it *ought to be available to the department and to the members of this house. What has become of it?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: With reference to Ripple rock, I have already intimated that the report has been received at my department, but it has not yet been studied and I do
not know whether it should be laid on the table of the house. We shall study it and in a few days we shall probably be in a position to say whether it is available to the public.


Alan Webster Neill: May I ask the minister why it cannot be available? The report was got out by government engineers with reference to a matter of public concern, and there is a doubt in the minister's mind whether he will let us know what is in it. We have already been promised bv the Minister of Public Works that it will be available as soon as it is brought down. We now find it is in the possession of the Marine departmenU-I do not know how long they have had it. I would ask now along what lines of thought it could be argued that the report should not be available to the public?


Alfred Duranleau: Sometimes public
questions may arise which might make that course inadvisable.


Alan Webster Neill: Why, in this instance?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not say there is any reason against it, but I say that the report has not been studied yet and I do not know whether it will be advisable to lay it before the house.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I would ask a further question: What further period of incubation will be required before it is decided whether it should be laid on the table?


Alfred Duranleau: It will not be long.


Wilfred Hanbury: I have here a copy of the Vancouver Province of April 24, which carries this headline:
Engineers ask removal of Ripple rock. Work may be postponed a year.
Evidently this information has been given outside the house, or else the papers as usual are making statements for which there is no foundation. But if the newspapers have information the members of this house are at least entitled to the same information.


Alfred Duranleau: The undertaking is
considerable, and though no information was given by my department, so far as I know, I do not think that this work can be done this year on account of the large expense involved. I am sure that no information was given by my department.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: What item are we discussing?


Alan Webster Neill: We have a right to finish the present discussion, having taken it up. The minister's remark now is to the effect that he does not think, under present financial con-
Supply-Public Works-B.C.

ditions, that the government would be justified in proceeding with the expense this year. I agree with him. But are we to take that as an intimation that the report was favourable to the removal of the rock?


Alfred Duranleau: The report has not been studied yet and I should not like to make a statement which would not be absolutely accurate. If my hon. friend is anxious to see the report, he may see it.


Alan Webster Neill: This afternoon?


Alfred Duranleau: I cannot say this afternoon, but if the hon. gentleman will come to my department I am sure my officials will be pleased to let him see the report.


Alan Webster Neill: Thanks.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is that invitation extended to myself as well?


Alan Webster Neill: Oh, no.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose so; I do not
see why it should not be.


Mr. MUNN:: While this is not in my riding, a great many people there are interested in the shipping. This rock is a real menace to navigation. I know, because I have passed there many times. It is true there have not been accidents, but there might be a serious accident any day, and I think the government would be well advised to consider having the rock removed. If they cannot do it this year, possibly they could include an item in the estimates next year. I might say in this connection that the people in Victoria are hoping that some day they may get a railway across to the mainland. Anyone familiar with the circumstances will tell you that it is an impossibility.


Thomas Reid: The minister, in replying to my question regarding the air port, said he was not interested in it.


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: I did not say we were not interested; we are interested in everything. I said we had not yet made any expenditure.


Thomas Reid: This is a question of dredging where thousands of dollars have already been spent. The property was acquired to develop an air port for the Pacific coast and the dredging is necessary to complete this undertaking. Dredging comes under the minister's department. There is one item here of 830,000 for harbours and rivers generally. What is contemplated there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the same amount as was available last year. It enables
[Mr. Neill.)
the department to do small amounts of dredging where this is found necessary, as well as other smaller work. There is no particular appropriation for it.


Wilfred Hanbury: Before this item carries, I would like to have the minister give the committee some explanation of the reduction in the vote for harbours and rivers generally.
Mr .STEM7ART (Leeds):	That reduction
will be found to prevail generally throughout the items of the Public M7orks department; there has been a reduction all along the line. All I can say is that it is in keeping with such a program.


Thomas Reid: There is an item covering
Vancouver, Stanley park, foreshore protection, $8,000, and I would like to know why, if money can be spent for foreshore protection around Stanley park it cannot be spent on improvement works on the Fraser river. There are many cases where the foreshore erosion has been caused by the operation of the dredges, and I would like to know why the Fraser river is being neglected.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a continuation of a program undertaken some years ago and is really the completing of an obligation which this government found resting upon it.


Albert Edward Munn: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to object to any item in the estimates so far as British Columbia is concerned, but I would remind the hon. minister that I have made several applications covering what is practically upkeep work in connection with wharves and floats. As a business man, I would not recommend the spending of money unless I was satisfied it was necessary, but I have not had even a five cent piece. Whether or not that is a slam at the people who sent me down here in good faith, I do not know, but it has made me feel very badly. I would not like to think that just because I am here in opposition, the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) or the government intends to starve these people out. I have received many applications for appropriations to carry on what is practically upkeep work, and every hon. member knows that in the case of any property, whether it is a barn, house, bridge, wharf or float, it is necessary to keep it up. Personally I will not suffer because there is no item in the estimates, but my constituents will and I am sorry for them because, as I said before, they sent me here in good faith.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that irrespective of the side of

Supply-Public Works-B.C.
the house upon which he or any other hon. gentleman may be sitting, their requests will receive careful and serious consideration. I would like to introduce my hon. friend to a few of the hon. gentlemen sitting behind me, who have used much stronger language than he has. Their complaints have been bitter that there is nothing in the estimates for them, but I can assure my hon. friend that although he sits on the other [DOT] side of the house in that respect he is in very good company. I would ask him not to be too pessimistic over some of these items he has in mind as I believe many of them will properly come within the general vote and it is quite possible we may be able to take care of some of them in that way. The hon. member has sent me particulars of some of these items but I shall be pleased to have a complete list.


Albert Edward Munn: With the minister's permission I will give the particulars so they will appear on Hansard and my constituents will know that I have kept them in mind.
I have asked for a wharf at Hoods point and Cowans Point on Bowen Island. Boats arrive at these points every day but no accommodation is made for them. They are forced to unload their cargoes of freight and passengers by means of rowboats. A great many people spend their summer on this island and they are forced to come ashore in rowboats. These wharfs have been promised but nothing has been done as yet.
A wharf is needed at Alert Bay. There is a private wharf at this point but no government wharf and the people are forced to pay wharfage charges.
Repairs are needed to the wharf at Roy. This is a very small matter but it is very urgent.
A float is needed at Donley's landing; this is a small matter but it is particularly urgent because a boat calls there nearly every day. A large amount of fish is shipped to Vancouver and general merchandise from Vancouver to Donley's landing and this construction would cost only about two thousand dollars.
A float is needed also at Refuge cove, and another at Lund. All these items would nor total more than $15,000, but if I could have got half that amount or perhaps two or three thousand dollars, then I might have kept quiet. I want to thank the hon. minister for his suggestion that perhaps later on some ot these items may be included in the supplementary estimates.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, I can certify
that the items mentioned by the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn) are
needed. I have a much larger list in the same category, but I do not intend to put it on Hansard. I will take a chance this year on what the minister has said, that he will not play the game of politics but rather treat these matters in a businesslike way and where the work can be shown to be really necessary it will be done. In my opinion the vote for "harbours and rivers generally" in British Columbia, which this year is $30,000 as compared with $75,000 last year, will prove to be entirely inadequate. The amount voted last year was not sufficient, but it would go a long way because I understand the items covered by this general vote are only those for which an expenditure of about $1,000 would suffice. I do not know why the engineers of the department advised the minister to vote this lesser amount, because I know it will be absolutely inadequate. This is not a matter of new work, as are the items demanded by the ravenous wolves behind the hon. minister.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not call
them ravenous wolves.


Alan Webster Neill: That was the inference.


An hon. MEMBER:: They are all over
there.


Alan Webster Neill: Well, the aforesaid claimants, then. This is not new work, it is repair work and if it is not carried on this year it will cost the government more money at a later date when these works go all to pieces-I will not use a stronger word. Instead of only the cost of repairs, the government will be faced with an expenditure for complete renewal.
Many of the items I have in mind cover floats and in their construction it is not possible, from an engineering viewpoint, to use creosoted logs. In the case of wharves, where creosoted piles can be used, it is found that they last from fifteen to twenty years, but in the case of floats where they do not and cannot use creosoted timber, the teredos attack at once. I have known of a case where a new float was put in in the month of August and by September of the year following it had practically gone to pieces because the teredos had eaten it to such an extent. We will suppose that the average life of a float is about five years; certainly it does not exceed that. You put in a float costing, perhaps, $2,000. Something goes wrong with it. Perhaps the anchor is pulled through a ship knocking up hard against it, or one log may have decayed sooner than the others, and repairs are required costing, say, $250. For the lack of that shoenail, not only is the whole thing imperilled and its decay hastened, but the people have to go without the use of
11S0
Supply-Public Works-B.C.

that float while that condition is allowed to continue. I was sent a photograph of a float which showed that in the approach, in that portion that extends between the float and the shore, one of the logs had given way, and the thing was standing up on its edge. The ship always calls at that point during the night, and this photograph that was sent me showed a woman, in a delicate condition of health, crawling along on her hands and knees on the ridge pole of this thing to catch the steamer on her way to hospital. They said that that was the result of temporary repairs, which would have cost about $200, not being made at the right time. What I was going to point out was this: Not only does that result obtain, not only is the life of the float shortened, but the people do not get the use of it while that sort of thing is going on, and instead of having the use of a float for five years, perhaps they get only three years' use of it. I know one float in particular-I am not accusing this government especially because the same thing happened under the previous government-where, due to the engineer's neglect to have small repairs made at the right time, the float has been used for only six months in the last eighteen months. The teredos do not suspend their activities in the meantime. Decay is going on and the life of the float shortened. If you take six months out of the short life of a float due to the neglect to make temporary repairs at the right time, it. is a very expensive game indeed. Therefore I say that it is cheaper in the long run to make the repairs at the right time than to let the thing go. The people then have the use of the float and the ship can come in, instead of the people having to go out in open boats for a distance of perhaps ten miles in the almost perpetual rain that falls around some of these western islands in the winter months. This item of $30,000 is largely used for these floats. The vote has been cut down from $75,000 last year to $30,000, and apparently in view of this reduced appropriation there is going to be a great deal of neglect of these small floats, with the ultimate result that it will cost far more to replace them in the end. It can hardly be possible that any government, even on the grounds of the most dire economy, would let these floats and wharves be absolutely abandoned, some of which have been in existence for twenty years. They will have to be maintained eventully, and it will be real economy to vote a sufficient sum to maintain them as we go along. Like the hon. member for Vancouver North, I can say that there is not a single item in this list which 
applies to my district, and I have not uttered a word of complaint about' it, although I could spend a long time in doing so; but I am particularly anxious about this general vote. It will be heavily called on, and not only with regard to my district but other parts of British Columbia, the amount is absolutely inadequate for the purpose for which it is voted.


Albert Edward Munn: One of my colleagues has
asked me what a float is. I take it for granted that the Minister of Public Works knows, but perhaps some other members of the house do not. First they take several logs and plank them over, and then this float is anchored. The teredos will destroy those logs within two or three years, necessitating repairs practically every year. Hon. members can therefore see how rapidly decay works. These floats are used for steamboat landings, and it is absolutely necessary that they should be maintained in repair for that purpose.


Wilfred Hanbury: With respect to the item of $8,000 for foreshore protection of Stanley park, I understand that this amount is voted annually? What is the total amount that will be required to complete this work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount of $8,000 is required to extend the retaining wall a distance of approximately 570 feet. The wall was commenced in 1922-23, has a base width which is variable, depending upon the height of wall, the average height of which is from seven to eight feet, with the top width two feet, with a granite coping eight by fifteen inches. It is built of granite, rubble boulders, with grout of Portland cement. The proposed work is requested by the Vancouver harbour commissioners and by the district engineer, to prevent erosion of the bank caused by the wash from steamers passing through the Narrows at high tide.
The appropriation in 1930-31 was $8,000, and the expenditure $7,990.81. The work already done is as follows:
Du: at a
During
1922-23, 1.053	i feet	of	wall	was	builtof $9,991.51. 1923-24, 800	feet	of	wall	was	built.of $7,964.07. 1924-25, 700	feet	of	wall	was	builtof $7,999.29. 1925-26, 830	feet	of	wall	was	builtof $7,999.98. 1926-27, 397	feet	of	wall	was	builtof $6,016.04. 1927-28. 514	feet	of	wall	was	builtof $7,994.24. 1928-29. 500	feet	of	wall	was	builtof $7,790.19. 1929-30. 375	feet	of	wall	was	builtof $7,974.96. 1930-31. 535	feet	of	wall	was	built
During at a cost
at a cost During at a cost of S7,990.81. Total feet built. 5,704. Total cost, $71,721.09.

Supply-Public^ Works


Wilfred Hanbury: What will be the total
cost of the construction of that wall?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is another section remaining to be done, and the probable cost of completing it will be $8,000 or 810,000 in addition to the present vote.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is the information
I wanted. I would call to the attention of the minister that that work carries a very high percentage of man power; the percentage of material is very small. It is work that a great many people who have no other trade can do, and I would suggest to the minister that as a measure of unemployment relief he might consider placing in the supplementaries a further sum for that work which could be expended during the present year or during the winter, if necessary, because the work could be done in the winter on account of our climatic conditions. The work has been done by day labour. We cooperate with the parks commissioners at Vancouver.


Wilfred Hanbury: I am suggesting that
with a view to unemployment relief this work might be done this year rather than next year, and an item be provided in the supplementaries for that purpose.


Alan Webster Neill: I would like to pay a tribute to the enterprise of the engineering department in making a new departure in connection with these floats. During the last year a couple of small scows were built to take the place of floats with the idea that if the experiment proved successful they would adopt the policy. The scows can be built cheaper than the ordinary float. They are built of plank and although they are not creosoted by pressure they are painted with creosote. The creosote is not put on under pressure but is heavily painted and tarred. Unlike the floats the scows have the additional advantage that once a year they can be drawn out of water, retarred and repainted with creosote. If the experiment is successful the use of these scows will enormously decrease the cost which would have been necessary with the use of floats. Of course there is the expense of once a year pulling the scow out, but that is nothing compared with the cost of making a new float. I would like to give credit to the engineering branch of the Department of Public Works for inaugurating an experiment which I hope will be successful.


Wilfred Hanbury: I wonder if the minister would tell me why appropriations totalling $358,260.16 were not spent?


Thomas Reid: I notice some items in connection with protection work. Some applications
for protection work have come from the constituency of New Westminster. The farmers in that district are as heavily taxed as farmers anywhere in Canada, paying from S6 to $8 per acre. I quite agree with the minister that protection work cannot be done on all rivers, wherever erosion takes place. In many cases however on the Fraser river due to the work of the dredges, erosion has taken place. 1 wonder if the minister would give me the assurance he gave the hon. member for North Vancouver (Mr. Munn) that when the supplementary estimates are brought down consideration will be given to applications.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Consideration will certainly be given. I do not know that I promised the hon. member for North Vancouver that anything would be included in the supplementary estimates. I madte no such promise to any hon. gentleman, but I will consider the requests which have been made. In answer to the question of the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Han-bury) I would say the information for which he has asked covers three pages. I am afraid that to read it at the present time would be encumbering the records of Hansard.


Wilfred Hanbury: I will be quite content if the minister would furnish me with a copy of the information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dredging-Maritime provinces, $350,000.
Dredging-Ontario and Quebec, $350,000.
Dredging - Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $50,000.
Dredging - British Columbia, $150,000.- Total, $900,000.
Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman, under the
heading "dredging,-maritime provinces" I see the amount is reduced from $675,000 to $350,000. As I distinctly understand the government is attempting to cut down expenditures from a standpoint of economy, it is not necessary for the minister to explain the reason the expenditure in this instance has been decreased. Referring more particularly to the province of New Brunswick I would say to the minister that with only $350,000 for the maritime provinces generally I do not see how it is possible for the department to get along with that amount of money and at the same time do justice to the industries, especially the fishing industry, in the provinces of Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island or New Brunswick. At this time I intend to speak particularly of the province of New Brunswick; the representatives of Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island may at a later

Supply-^Public Works

time deal with their provinces. In the county of Gloucester, which I have the honour to represent I know of several wharves which lately have been constructed in the interests of fishermen to afford protection. Unless some dredging is done it will be impossible for those fishermen to avail themselves of the protection and accommodation provided by the wharves. For instance there is the harbour of St. Simon where there are about seventy-five or eighty fishing vessels; I do not refer to boats but to fishing vessels; in addition there are fishing boats. It may be said quite truly that for a long time they have got along without this protection. They have it now however. The intention was that last year some dredging would be done in St Simon harbour. Out of the $650,000 or $675,000 voted for dredging in the maritime provinces generally, in the estimates of dredging work to be done in these harbours made by the engineers the harbour of St. Simon was included. Nothing was done. I understand that the department was short of dredges and perhaps could not have the work done. I am told that dredges could not be procured to do the work last year in St. Simon harbour Then there is Lower Caraquet harbour where dredging is absolutely necessary. The wharf there is 1,700 feet long. It was built eight or ten years ago and there is a constant gathering of silt coming down the different rivers emptying into Caraquet and St. Simon bays. That silt has the effect of filling up the bay. In the main channel and along the sides of the wharf beginning at a point 150 feet from the head of the wharf and running to the shore, it is impossible for fishing vessels to avail themselves at the present time of the protection the wharf otherwise offers. Then there is Shippigan gully. That point is the main entrance of about 200 fishing vessels coming from the cod fishing banks. At the present time they go through Shippigan gully whereas some years ago they had to go around Miscou point and Miscou island. Some fifteen or twenty years ago the government conceived the idea that by a system of breakwaters constructed at the entrance to Shippigan harbour and some small dredging operations the channel might be utilized and kept in proper condition for fishing vessels. The result was that after dredging had been done the strength of the current practically kept open the entrance to Shippigan harbour so that vessels drawing 14 feet of water came through that harbour instead of going around a distance of about 30 miles. A slight shifting of sands on the outside of Shippigan gully has caused the formation of a bar and ha.s 
diverted the channel from the outside, leading into the gully channel and into the harbour. Last year representations were made by me and it was intended that a large bucket dredge would be procured. The suction dredges were not fitted to do the work in the exposed section of the bay. That meant that out of the $675,000 a certain portion would be spent to try to widen the channel and take away the bar. That has not been done. In addition to that $10,000 was voted last year for the dredging of what is known as the Lameque basin. That amount was to be spent under contract, not under government dredging work. No tender has been asked for and the vote is in the estimates this year.
May I point out to the minister that this S10.000 was provided to dredge the basin between two wharves to give protection and better accommodation to a fishing fleet of some 65 or 75 vessels and boats. I had before me this morning a report from the Department of Fisheries giving a list of bounties paid to persons engaged on fishing vessels and fishing boats. On just a few of the islands in the vicinity of Tracadie-I am referring particularly to Miscou and Shippigan -about 1,000 men received bounties for fishing in boats and vessels of 15 tons and upwards. With that large fishing fleet in operation there can be no doubt of the necessity of further dredging for their protection, and I think the minister would be well advised to have the matter looked into between now and the time the supplementary estimates are being prepared, to see if something cannot be done to add to this appropriation in order to meet the conditions to which I have referred.
I see an appropriation under harbours and rivers of $75,000 for breastworks and breakwaters at Tracadie harbour. 'The contract was let last year, and the work is being proceeded with. Suction dredge No. 12-I think that is the number-worked there last year until ice formed. I understand orders have been given to stop further dredging. Owing to the closing down of the lumber industry in that section-an industry on which a great many of our people depended, and did not engage in fishing-those people now have to resort to fishing and agriculture for a livelihood. The harbour is landlocked and it would cost $1,000,000 or more to enlarge the old entrance. Therefore it was decided b3r the engineers to close the old entrance and dredge a channel from the village to and through the outer beach. This would open lip a channel which 30 years ago had 20 feet of water in it, but subsequently was allowed to close

11S3
Supply-Public Works
up. The Department of Public Works are building breakwaters and breastworks so as to open this new channel into the straits of Northumberland. When the harbour is improved, as it will be under the plans laid down, it will develop to a greater extent than ever before the fishing industry in that section of New Brunswick. As I say, the dredging has ceased. I am told by the minister in a letter which he addressed to me a few days ago that it was not thought necessary that this dredging should be continued any further until such time as the breakwaters were completed. There empty into Tracadie harbour two large rivers, and the silt from tht>se rivers will fill in the channel already dredged, but if the dredging was continued through the outer beach the current would keep the new channel clear of silt in the future. I would ask the minister to look more carefully into this dredging. It was reported on favourably by the engineers of the department, and was started when the construction work was commenced. To my mind it is absolutely necessary that the dredging should be continued, and if operations are resumed now they will get through the beach by the fall. At present the dredge is idle and it will take very heavy spring tides to get her out of that landlocked harbour. It is evident that later on she will have to dredge herself out through this beach. If it was necessary to use the dredge elsewhere I would not urge any objection, but it seems to me futile to leave her idle in Tracadie harbour while this essential work is necessary. I think provision should be made in the supplementaries to add to the appropriation [DOT] an amount at least sufficient to allow the dredge to carry on for the next four or five months.


Thomas Reid: 
Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say that any curtailment in the program of dredging the Fraser river or any other river is due to the necessity of bringing our expenditure into relation with the moneys that are available. My hon. friend may not think the curtailment is justified in all cases, but we have to do the best we can with the funds available, and we shall continue to do so. As to how and where dredging work should be done, of course we are guided by the advice of our engineers. There is no other way in which we can proceed. My hon. friend's complaints will be referred to the engineer, who will make an investigation, and if he finds mistakes have been made they will be avoided in the future.


Thomas Reid: I am glad to hear the minister say that these matters will be looked into.


Mr. STITT (Selkirk):: Perhaps it would be in order for an hon. member on this side of the house to point to one of the mistakes which have been made in regard to the dredging items now under consideration. I have here a voluminous file with regard to a situation in the constituency of Selkirk, which has t'o do with practically all of lake Winnipeg. At the present time, under the departmental estimate, two dredges out of the three on lake Winnipeg have been laid up. The crews are idle; the men are waiting for work, and the work is waiting to be done. The water is lower in lake Winnipeg than it has been in history, but we are to have nothing done.
I would just like to direct these facts to the attention of the minister, because if I do not do so I will be afraid to go home. At the mouth of the Red river there is a wharf used by Messrs. Brown and Rutherford, a large lumber manufacturing company, but at:
Supply-Public Works

the present time because of the low water they cannot use that wharf. I believe recommendations and investigations have been made by the engineers with regard to a harbour of refuge up at George's island, about 170 miles north of where the Red river enters lake Winnipeg. This harbour of refuge has been under construction for very many years; a good deal of money has been expended on it, but last year I understand the navigators were not able to enter the harbour at all. I understand further that on one occasion one of the government vessels had to go around the island five times in order to avoid shipwreck. If this work is not proceeded with; if matters are left as they are, and if one of these vessels is wrecked this year with loss of life, I would not like to go back to Selkirk and have it stated that I did not make adequate representations in this house with regard to the situation.
I am receiving communications day after day in regard to this matter. Just this week I learned from the town of Riverton, which is the only naturally protected harbour in the northern part of the lake, being situated at the entrance of the Icelandic river, that the vessels in that port are not able to get into lake Winnipeg at the present time; they are practically isolated, and all navigation and transportation is at a standstill. I have letters and telegrams in my possession from Conservatives, from Liberals, and from nonpartisan associations. I have a telegram here, which I received on April 15, from the associated boards of trade of Manitoba, which reads as follows:
Understand two lake Winnipeg dredges being laid up. All available equipment urgently required to facilitate navigation, and urge you make suitable representations to the department.
That is from the Manitoba associated boards of trade, and is signed by E. G. Gilliat, secretary-treasurer. I have other telegrams, from the Selkirk board of trade, from Mr. James McLenaghen, the local member of the Manitoba legislature, and from others. I also have a letter which I believe was forwarded to the minister, from the secretary-treasurer of the town of Selkirk.
Now let me deal with another feature of the situation. If this vote cannot be amended at the present time and we must wait until the supplementary estimates come down-I hope the minister is listening to me-it will mean that we must wait until almost July, which will mean that two months will be lost, during which time no work can be done. These works are essential; they are absolutely neces-

sary, and the failure to carry them out is not only imperilling navigation but allowing trade to stagnate and adding to unemployment. I simply want to make this statement in conclusion. that if the members of this house and the government tvant to write my political obituary, they are going at it the right way.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to my
hon. friend from Selkirk I can only say that the condition which he has outlined to-day he has very vigorously and in complete detail laid before me previously. The condition which he mentions with respect to lake Winnipeg unfortunately seems to prevail generally. There is low water in the great lakes, and we have demands from many places on lake Erie and lake Ontario for dredging. We are trying to meet the emergency as best we can with the funds available.


James Herbert Stitt: The minister stated
that I had laid the question before the committee in detail. I have not done so. There are many other matters to which I could refer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said it had been laid before me in detail.


James Herbert Stitt: I do not want to
take up more of the time of the committee, but let me emphasize once more that if we wait until the supplementary estimates come down, much time will be lost. If we cannot make some arrangement whereby this work can be carried on immediately, a very serious situation may develop in Selkirk, for which no government and no member of parliament will want to assume responsibility.


Mr. BOWMAN:: 
Wilfred Hanbury: What dredges are owned by the government in British Columbia? I am referring particularly to tidewater.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have four- Ajax, Mastodon, King Edward and Fruhling.


Wilfred Hanbury: Will all this equipment be tied up or will some of it be used?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation will not be sufficient to keep these dredges in operation unless it is supplemented in some way. The probability is they will all be laid up except the King Edward.


Wilfred Hanbury: There is need for dredging in British Columbia and the equipment is available. The government is spending money on these dredges and the equipment; it pays watchmen for the purpose of looking after them. We have men looking for work and I' would suggest increasing this amount in order to keep the equipment in operation and provide work, which is badly needed. Depreciation is going on to an extent greater almost than if the dredges were operating, and I cannot agree with a policy which would tie up government equipment under the present circumstances.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I ought to inform the hon. member that the Ajax has not been in operation for several years, and the Mastodon has also been idle for a considerable time. Of the remaining two it is proposed to lay up one.


Mr. FRASER (Cariboo):: What amount of money has been provided for dredging on the Shuswap lake in the interior of British Columbia?


Mr STEWART (Leeds):: No specific
amount is provided for that work and it is not really proposed to operate there this year.


Mr. MacLEAN:: The vote is largely reduced and I take it for granted a number of dredges
will be laid up. What is the program for Prince Edward Island dredging in connection with work at Egmont bay, where a new wharf was constructed the year before last for the benefit of fishermen? A dredge was operating there last season and did part of the work but was removed before the work was completed. Is it possible to carry on that work this year or in the near future?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Our program for dredging in Prince Edward Island is under consideration and we are seeking to adjust it to the funds available so as to produce the best results.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Ontario - Sarnia *- harbour improvements-* under contract, $63,000.
Mr. GRAY:: In connection with this item of $63,000 for Sarnia, is this for harbour development proper or it is for the public dock at Sarnia?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount is required to provide for work now under contract with the Detroit River Construction
Company for the construction of a wharf and to provide for paving in and around the existing warehouse, and to construct a warehouse for the general use of the public.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Have any representations been made to have the length of the wharf as originally planned extended.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. We have had that under consideration, but we do not propose to proceed with the extension just now, even though we think it would be well justified.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec, $1,100,500.
Mr. POWER:: I see an item of $7,900 in connection with wharf repairs at Grindstone. What does this item represent and what is the report of the engineer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item is required to take care of certain construction work at this point for urgent repairs to the outer end of the wharf which was seriously damaged by a storm on October 26, 1930. The money is required for renewal of stringers, and other necessary work. The traffic is heavy, amounting to over $1,000,000 annually, and the population is 3,000.


Charles Gavan Power: What is the necessity for the expenditure of $4,800 at St. Francois Sud?
11S6
Supply-Public Works


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The work was requested by the district engineer in a report dated November 30, and is required to repair the damage done to the wharf and freight shed by a fire which occurred on the night of November 6, 1930.


Charles Gavan Power: In what county?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Montmorency.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like the hon. minister to give me some information with regard to the wharf at Riviere du Loup. The other day the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) said that I should have had more works done by the previous government, but he knows that the late government treated my constituency with all fairness. May I ask what amount was voted last year for the repairs of the wharf at Riviere du Loup?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation for 1930-31 was $22,109.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was it taken for granted by the minister bhat the work would be carried on by the same men who had worked in previous years?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was it decided by the department that this work would be carried on by day labour instead of by contract provided that the same men who had been working for the previous years would continue to work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All I know is that this work was started in July last by day labour. Although this item amounted to $22,100, this work was started by day labour by the former government.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was it understood that that work was to be done by day labour instead of by contract because the men who had worked previously had performed that work to the satisfaction of the department, and that if it should be necessary to have bhe work done otherwise it would be done by contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that the hon. gentleman with his knowledge of local conditions recommended that this work should be done by day labour; it was started on that basis and has been continued.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, but the minister escapes my question; he skates all around it. My question was a short and clear one; I would like to know if on account of the work done by these men it was decided by the department to have the work continued this year by day labour instead of by contract.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That matter was taken up before I took charge of the department, and I do not know just what was the moving consideration of my predecessor in starting this work by day labour.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was there any memorandum in the files to that effect? I am sure a definite decision was made by the former minister, because he told me at that time that if the work was to be done by new men he would have it done by contract instead of by day labour. Do I understand the minister to say that the amount voted last year was $22,i00?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: And how much of that was spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The information I have is that that amount will total $15,100 when the accounts have all been received up to the end of the fiscal year. I understand there is a revote of $7,000 in this item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Upon whose recommendation were these men dismissed and replaced by others?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend it was not upon his recommendation.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister is one of the ablest lawyers I have ever argued with, but he does not answer my question; I am asking him for a name and for nothing else.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not
remember. It was done in the ordinary course of events; my hon. friend knows just how and why these things happen.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the minister desire
me to hold him responsible for the whole thing? I would like to know just who was at the bottom of this. I would like to know-just who asked the minister to appoint new men in the place of the old.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend I am not seeking to avoid any responsibility whatever in connection with the action taken. This action was perfectly regular, natural, customary and normal in every way, and I am sure it was just such action as my hon. friend would have taken had he been in my position.


Jean-François Pouliot: But I would not have
hidden anything from the committee; I would have told whether it was Tom, Jack or Charlie. Is the minister insinuating that there

Supply-Public Works
was no gentleman looking after the patronage in my constituency? I would like to know who the person is, whether gentleman or otherwise, who asked for the dismissal of these men.
An lion. MEMBER:	It might have been
a lady.


Jean-François Pouliot: If it was not a man, it must have been a woman, but not a lady. I would like to have an answer from the minister.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure the hon. member there is no woman in this case.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask the minister again,
with all the suavity and politeness I possess: will he please tell me who that man is?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say
that there is no man in the case at all.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is it not a fact that those men who had been doing such good service were dismissed at the request of Mr. C. E. Dube, the mayor of Riviere-du-Loup and the perpetual Tory candidate in Temiscouata county?


Mr. STEW  ART@(Leeds: I have no doubt that these men had rendered excellent service before July 28 but it was found that their services were not as necessary after that date as they had been before.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask again if those men
who were working in July were dismissed at the request of Mr. C. E. Dube, the perpetual Tory candidate in Temiscouata county.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend they were not.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were new men appointed on the recommendation of the same Mr. Dube, whether he can be described as a gentleman, lady or anything else?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The foreman
made a selection of the new men, but I do not know upon whose recommendation or upon whose advice he acted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am getting nearer and
nearer to an answer. Who recommended the appointment of the foreman?
'Mr. STEWART (Leeds):	The district
engineer was instructed to look around and obtain a first class foreman.


Jean-François Pouliot: Who recommended that
man to the district engineer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not
know.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister be kind enough to tell me what instructions he gave to the district engineer in that respect, or to the chief engineer in order that he pass those instructions on to the district engineer, or to the deputy minister to be given to the secretary of the department and then passed on to the chief engineer, so that the latter might communicate with the district engineer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Being rather
inexperienced when I came into the department, I gave instructions to the officials that in matters of this kind the usual course should be followed.


Jean-François Pouliot: What is the usual course?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not know.


Jean-François Pouliot: Am I to assume from the unwillingness of the minister to answer my question that that is all the information I can get? This is a very serious matter and I am trying to find out just what has been done. The employees to whom I refer had been working there for some years and had been doing their work to the entire satisfaction of the department. Although the work was done by day labour it is a rather surprising fact that the expenditure was always kept within the vote for that purpose. Last year there wras a change in the personnel of the day labourers employed on that work. According to information that I have received from a reliable source, a certain man was appointed as foreman upon the recommendation of Mr. Dube, the defeated Tory candidate in Temiscouata. He took the place of the foreman who had previously been employed on that work. What happened was a real scandal. There is no reason to laugh about it, because money was stolen from this country by the last foreman who had to pay it back to the department afterwards. I would ask the minister if he has kept on file in his department the original pay lists which were sent by that foreman to the district engineer-the original pay lists, not the revised ones.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Anything that was ever on file on the department is there still. Instructions have been given to the district engineer to investigate this alleged irregularity to the bottom. When I get his report I purpose handing the matter over to the Department of Justice for whatever action may be necessary.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is very satisfactory, but I wish to stress the fact that that man was a very lazy fellow and unable to do
Supply-Public Works

his work satisfactorily. He was appointed, as everyone knows, on the recommendation of the defeated Tory candidate in my county.
I have been told by reliable people-I cannot state whether or not it is the fact, and that is why I am asking for information-that this foreman paid a few dollars to some men in order to receive from them their pay cheques, when they had not been working on the job. These men were supposed to receive a sum from the foreman in consideration of their handing their cheques over to him. That is one version. Another version is that he put on the pay list the names of men who had never worked there at all. I know that some people who had been working on the wharf were not paid in full and they complained to the district engineer. The district engineer showed them the pay list, and this is the story which they told when they came back to their home town. After seeing the pay list they said, "How is it that those names appear in the list? This and that man never worked with us," and so on. They said that there were ten or fifteen names on the list of men who had not done any work at all on the wharf. That is a scandal, Mr. Chairman. There is something else. That foreman is publicly accused of having stolen from this country quite a substantial sum of money.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: Would it not be fair, now that the minister has promised an investigation, not to press the matter further in the house where this man has no chance to answer?


Jean-François Pouliot: I will tell my hon. friend, whom I like very much, that I am simply according to the minister the treatment I would like to receive from him. I am giving him information.


Finlay MacDonald: But he has promised a full investigation.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, but he
was unwilling to tell me who had recommended that foreman. He would not say yes or no, and my people are anxious to know who is at the bottom of this thing, who recommended that man who gave such unsatisfactory service to the government. I do not wish the Department of Justice to do any harm to that man. He has a large family, and has paid all or part of the money, but I do not want to see such things happen again either in my constituency or anywhere else. This is only fair. It may happen that people do things that are wrong, but I have never been hard on them because I believe more in the New Testament than

in the Old. I believe in charity, and although a large family is not an excuse for wrongdoing, it sometimes explains certain acts.
There is this further fact; that man was very seldom on his job. Nearly every day I saw him motoring in and around the city of Riviere du Loup. He even motored to Notre Dame du Lac on Sundays with his family at the expense of the government. I have been told that there have been four chauffeurs who were supposed to carry the men to their work and back home in the evening, as had been done in previous years by only one. Those chauffeurs were pretty numerous, and some were taking this foreman and his family on joy rides all around the county at the public expense.


Mr. McGIBBON:: How many years has
that been going on?


Jean-François Pouliot: It happened only after
the 1st of August, after this man was put in charge. It was never done before to my knowledge. If it had been, and I had heard about it, I would have written to the then minister and asked him to stop it at once. This is a serious matter, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to implicate the minister at all. I gave him before all the information I had, and it was necessarily incomplete. That is why I asked him who had recommended this man.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have told my hon. friend that I do not know who recommended to the district engineer the appointment of this foreman. I can only repeat that, although my hon. friend is probably correct in his inference. I want to say that my hon. friend did give me this information, and we had some information of a similar nature before that. An investigation was started promptly. It is not yet finished. I know that a certain part of the money has been refunded. The district engineer has instructions to investigate the matter to the bottom.
I am not concerned with the past, and I do not want to enter into any recriminations, but it might be interesting to tell my hon. friend that in connection with two cases in the department I have information beyond a doubt that under the former administration work was paid for when work was not done. That has been admitted, and a cheque returned to the department, with no valid excuse whatever being given. The matter has been handed over to the Department of Justice. I have information that in another case, while the election was in progress, men were paid for their time while attending

Supply-Public Works
political meetings. At the expense of Canada they were taken in trucks from place to place to attend political meetings. But, as I say, I am not concerned particularly with the past. I am, however, anxious and determined that the administration of the Public Works department, so long as I am responsible for it, shall be clean and creditable to this government and creditable to the House of Commons. I think reflections upon the government reflect also upon the House of Commons, and I welcome the information my hon. friend has given me. I want to say to him and to every hon. member of the house that if irregularities come to light, matters of dishonesty anywhere in Canada in connection with the department over which I have the honour to preside, I shall be pleased, if information is furnished me, to make investigations and prosecutions regardless of party connections.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thank the minister very much for his very satisfactory explanation. I wish to add that with full knowledge of what has happened, in my constituency to my knowledge such a thing has never happened before. May I state to him, as I stated on a previous occasion when I was making recommendations to the department, that I do not want' the minister to deal harshly with anybody. Very often I have helped men who had voted against me and from whom I had nothing to expect. They were only acts of a humane nature, and the only reason I have spoken as I have is that I want things done properly in my county. Whether the minister decides to spend 8100,000 or 825,000 in my constituency, I want the expenditures to be made for the actual purpose for which they are intended. Up to last August I do not think the department had any complaint about the work done in my constituency. I have taken the trouble to recommend people who were worthy of recommendation. Hon. ministers previously at the head of the Department of Public Works would be in a position to inform the hon. gentleman in that respect.
Last year a substantial amount of money was voted to put metal sheeting on the wharf at Riviere du Loup, for the purpose of protecting the wharf against the strong currents at the head of the wharf between Riviere du Loup and the St. Lawrence river. That work has not been done. Payment for it was provided for in the 822,100 voted last year. May I say that the work done in my constituency after the present government took office last year was done by very lazy fellows who seemed to require five or ten minutes to drive a single nail. I do not know what happened
in other places, but it happened that way in my constituency. They were doing no work; they were prolonging the job only in order to get more money from the department. My constituents understand very well that the party in power can appoint their own men to do work. However, I would ask the minister to give definite instructions to his officers so that good work may be done in the future. Last year the Tory candidate said that the money was not all to be spent last year because certain sums were required this year to build an extension to the wharf. As I am not a civil engineer, I do not know whether that extension is desirable or not, but I believe sincerely that the money voted for that purpose should have been spent along the lines first suggested by the department. Instructions in conformity with the wishes of the department should have been given to the district engineer and through him to the foremen. I hope the money revoted this year will be spent to complete the work begun last year. If that sum is not sufficient I would ask the minister to have more money appropriated in order to have the work completed fully by next fall, as it was primarily intended to be completed last fall.
Again I thank the minister for his courtesy and I would repeat that I do not want him to deal harshly with that man. I mentioned this particular case because of the fact that since a few years ago some very disreputable things have been done in my constituency. I hereby notify the hon. gentleman accordingly.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: It seems to me that the constituency of the hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat has during this session been very well advertised. I think if the minister would build a station at Riviere du Loup we might proceed more quickly with the work of the committtee.
I would like to ask the minister how it happened that a work valued at $22,000 was done without a contract. My understanding of these matters is that any piece of work involving a sum of money over $5,000 must be done by contract. Here we have an item of $22,000 done by day labour. It is all very well to say "I recommended' that in order to give certain people work", but I would like to' know if people would not have got work if there had been a contract.


Charles Gavan Power: That is the trouble, they got work under contract. That is the kick.


James Dew Chaplin: Work can be done cheaper the other way, and the work referred to as being done by day labour could have been done by contract.
Supply-Public Works


Eugène Fiset: I would ask the minister to refer to a vote contained at page 38 of the estimates, "Rimouski-harbour improvements-the Foundation Maritime Limited to contribute one-third of the cost of pier extension-under contract. .


James Dew Chaplin: I would like the minister to answer the question why this work was not done under contract.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to the hon. member for Lincoln I can say only that he is correct in his interpretation of the Public Works Act. It is provided specifically that for any works exceeding in value $5,000 tenders should be asked and the contracts awarded in pursuance of those tenders. However there are a few exceptions and apparently the hon. member for Temiscouata was able to convince the minister of the day that this work could be done more advantageously by day labour. Representations were made to that effect and as has already been explained the work was begun by day labour under a former administration.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. gentleman if that work will be done by contract or by day labour?


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: The work having been begun by day labour and having been carried on to a stage at which a contract could not be let, it will be continued by day labour.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to say to my hon. friend from Lincoln. Although he knows we all like him, I am sorry that the word ''grouch" is not parliamentary because I would have used it this time. However I do not understand that he is complaining about my utterances in the house. I have always been very polite to him and if I have had to urge upon the government the necessity of 'building a new station at Riviere du Loup it is because the station is not yet built. If the station had been built I would have thanked the government on behalf of my people and it would have been unnecessary to make a speech in that connection.


James Dew Chaplin: "A" speech.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I suggest to the hon. gentleman that at the next Conslrvative caucus he might tell the government-


The ACTING CHAIRMAN (Mr. Hanson, York-Sunbury):: I would remind the hon. member that we are discussing the appropriations for harbours and rivers in Quebec, not railway stations. He must confine his remarks to the item before the committee. fMr. Chaplin.]


Jean-François Pouliot: What I wish to say can be said in a sentence. Before the hon. gentleman from Lincoln brings the matter before his party caucus it might be well for him to insure his life.


Eugène Fiset: With reference to the vote on page 3S of the estimates to which I called attention a moment ago, are the Foundation Company going to be compelled to pay the one-third that they have agreed to pay for the work? The minister will recall a petition he has received from the chamber of commerce of Rimouski, supported by the seven navigation companies operating between Rimouski and the north shore, asking that the channel be enlarged 400 feet and deepened 22 feet. Of course, I quite understand that with the present necessity for economy the government is not asking for any appropriation for these works. But would it not be possible by using a government dredge to take off the hog's-backs that have developed in the deep channel and so enable the navigation companies to bring their vessels up to the wharves to be loaded? I do not think-the cost would be very high, and it could be paid out of the general vote for dredging. No doubt the minister realizes how important it is to have this work done at the earliest possible date in the spring. The boats of these seven companies operating between Rimouski and the north shore provide the lower St. Lawrence with a local market, the importance of which cannot possibly be exaggerated. The whole north shore within the last ten years has developed so rapidly that the former population of 500 has now become about 20,000. This population has to depend upon supplies coming from the south shore, and Rimouski being the main port of the lower St. Lawrence, the minister will understand how important it is not .to interrupt the good work which has been carried on in years past. I hope he will be able to instruct his deputy to detail one of his dredges to undertake the dredging that is necessary to give a uniform depth of 17 feet to the channel, which it was when first dredged.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With regard to the payment by the Foundation Company of their agreed portion of the cost of the work,
I am advised that the obstructions which he mentions do not interfere with their ships coming into the wharves.


Eugène Fiset: I am sorry to hear the minister's statement. One of the reasons why I am asking for this dredging is that the company's' boats draw nearly 16 feet, and at

Supply-Public Works
low tide cannot reach the wharf. I think it was part of their contract that they would pay one-third of the cost provided the channel was kept dredged to a uniform depth of 17 feet.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The latest information we have is from the manager. He was in the office recently and said that he is quite satisfied with the conditions there.


Eugène Fiset: Then, so am I.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no reason why any further dredging should be done before they are paid.


Eugène Fiset: The Clark Shipping *Company intends to operate a very large boat called the North Shore, and she will call at Rimouski. This boat can hardly reach the wharf at low tide. The dredging to be done does not amount to much. It is necessary in order to remove the hog's-backs that have formed there. Of course, the minister is aware of the representations from the chamber of commerce at Rimouski, the Clark Shipping Company and Price Bros., asking for a combined vote to dredge the larger channel 400 feet and at the same time the Rimouski river. Of course I understand that for reasons of economy the minister has not been able to give favourable consideration to the request, but I hope it will not be lost sight of.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will be carefully studied.


Jean-François Pouliot: I can promise the minister that I will never criticize him for granting requests for appropriations for repairs and improvements to wharves in my constituency. May I tell him that the people on the island of Notre Dame de File have to come to the south shore by water? I understand a contract has been awarded for an extension of the local wharf. I hope the work will be done this year. There are other works required at He Verte, at Trois Pistoles, Tobin, Cacouna, Riviere du Loup, Notre Dame du Portage along the St. Lawrence, and also at Cabano. Squatteck, St. Juste du Lac and Notre Dame du Lac on lake Temiscouata. The settlers in that district have frequent occasion to travel by water, and everything that the department does to improve the local wharf facilities will have my hearty approval.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my
hon. friend that it is the intention to carry out all the works in his constituency in respect to which there are votes.


Wilfred Hanbury: In view of the great decrease in the estimates, does the minister contemplate any reduction in his engineering staff?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The answer is
no, for the following reasons. The engineering staff is engaged not only in the supervision of works that are actually being carried on but perhaps the greater part of their time is devoted to investigating the many requests for public works that come from members, which they suggest are necessary in the constituencies. The staff has been undermanned rather than overmanned. I think during the present year we will be able to check up most of the requests. I know the staff will be fully employed, and possibly we will be in better shape at the end of this year to deal with the program for next year.


Peter McGibbon: After listening to the
energetic member for Temiscouata for almost days and nights advertising his constituency, I think it is my duty to remind him and some other hon. gentlemen opposite that many of us sat to the left of the Speaker for nearly ten years when the Liberal government was in power and got practically nothing.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are getting nothing this year.


Peter McGibbon: We are quite willing to take nothing this year in view of the conditions prevailing throughout the country. But hon. gentlemen opposite seem to think they should have their hands in the till whether they are in power or in opposition. The riding which I have the honour to represent, and which is an important one from the revenue standpoint, has been literally starved for about ten years. We think it is time that members on this side of the house should have some of the requirements of their constituencies considered. W e are not pressing for appropriations this year, but we cannot understand the minds of some hon. gentlemen opposite. After having fed so freely from the public estimates for the last ten years they are still hungry, notwithstanding the serious condition of the public treasury. Now, sir, I want to impress upon the minister that there are other parts of the Dominion of Canada whose wants have been brought to the attention of his department not once but for the last ten years. I think when the time comes, when we can loosen the strings of the treasury, his first consideration should be those constituencies which have received nothing for some years past.
Mr. HANBURY':	Conservative constituencies?


Peter McGibbon: Yes, Conservative constituencies. I am one of those who believe
1192	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NB.
in being frank about these things. I took my medicine when I was sitting on the other side of the house and could not get anything; we all had to take that medicine.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman
should take the medicine he gives to others.


Peter McGibbon: I am trying to give the hon. gentleman what I had to take.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not ask the hon.
gentleman for a prescription.


Peter McGibbon: We take the ground
that we are not going to have hon. gentlemen opposite collect the fees while we write the prescriptions. I want to press very strongly upon the minister that this action be taken, and I do not think any member of this house will object to it. We are all human; we all know what we are here for and most of us are pretty good party people. We follow our party sometimes when we differ from it, because of the greater good to the country, but when the time comes, as we hope it will come, when this depression lifts and the treasury contains a little money, we want the needs of the people in those parts of this country which have been neglected looked after before there are any railway stations built in Temiscouata, or new wharves or anything of that kind.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have just a word to
say-


Olof Hanson: There is nothing before the Chair.
Harbours and Rivers-New Brunswick
Bedford-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Beresford 

 breakwater - under contract. $41,000.
Buctouche - dredging - under contract. $18,000.
Campbellton - repairs to market wharf, $5,000.
Cape Bald-breakwater repairs, $5,000.
C'ocagne-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Cumming's cove-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Halhousie-repairs to ferry wharf-under construction, $2,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $60,000.
Hopewell cape-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Lower Caraquet-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Maugerville-wharf repairs, $1,500.
North Head - breakwater extension - under contract, $113,000.
Point du Cliene-repairs to wharf and breakwater, $5,000.
Point Sapin-breakwater repairs.' $3,000.
Portage river-repairs to breakwater and breastworks, $1,000.
Richibncto cape-breakwater repairs-under construction, $3,500.
St. Andrews-harbour improvements, $10,000.

St. George-wharf repairs, $2,000.
St. John river-dredging, $18,600.
St. Stephen-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Scotehtown-wharf repairs, $4,000.
Shippigan gully-repairs to breakwaters and breastworks-under contract, $16,500.
Stuarttown-wharf-under contract. $20,000.
Tracadie harbour-breastworks and breakwaters-under contract, $75,000.
Upper Alaugerville-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Waterboro-wharf improvements-under construction, $2,300.
Welchpool-wharf repairs, $3,000.
Westfield-wharf repairs, $3,000.
White's bluff-wharf repairs, $5,000.
Wilmot's-wharf repairs, $3,500.
Wilson's beach-breakwater-wharf repairs, $8,500.-Total, $450,900.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Before this item carries
I would like to have some information. In the first place I wish to tell the minister that I am quite willing to have this resolution pass, but I should like an item to stand until I get the information requested. I am sure the minister is not in a position to give me the information in regard to those letters to-day.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was just thinking that some of the letters to which my hon. friend referred must have been from the Department of Justice. I will see that they are brought down, however.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: There is one letter in the
minister's department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will check
up what my hon. friend has said and I can assure him the letters will be brought down.


Peter John Veniot: WThen those letters are
brought down I may have to discuss harbours and rivers in the province of New Brunswick, so I would like to have one item remain open in order to enable me to do so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am quite content to do that.


Peter John Veniot: In the meantime could
the minister tell me, under the heading of Shippigan breakwater, who is the inspector there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount of $16,500, of which $9,500 is a revote-


Peter John Veniot: Could the minister just
tell me who is the inspector? I know the rest of the details.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contractor
is J. S. Parker; the inspector is A. Savoie, and the rate of pay is $4 per day.


Peter John Veniot: Is the contractor at work
at the present time?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not able
to say definitely; if he is not at work now it is expected he will resume in the near future. Work was discontinued during the winter.


Peter John Veniot: With the understanding
that one item is to remain open, say the Tra-cadie item, the remainder might pass.
Item stands.
Prince Edward Island
Belle river harbour-breakwater repairs. $1,500.
China point-wharf repairs. $2,000.
Cranberry-wharf repairs, $2,400.
Graham's pond-breakwater repairs, $1,000.
Grand river (north)-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $15,000.
Hickey's-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Lambert's (Montague)-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Miminigash harbour-breakwater repairs-[DOT] under construction, $1,000.
North lake harbour-breakwater repairs. $1,700.	.
Pownal-wharf repairs, $2,200.
Rustieo harbour-breakwater repairs, $2,700.
Sturgeon-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Summerside-wharf repairs-under contract. $8,000.
Tignish harbour - repairs to breakwater, $5,000.-Total, $50,500.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I would like to ask the
minister for some information with regard to the revote for the wharf at Summerside, Prince Edward Island. Would the minister give the names of the tenderers and the amounts of the tenders?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount of the contract was $7,380. The work under contract consists of rebuilding the eastern face of the pierhead for a length of 349 feet, with ereosoted piling, and so on. Tenders were called for in July, 1930, and the contract was awarded on September 17, 1930. The work was not proceeded with until late, and it has not been completed. The contractor is H. M. Downing and the amount of the contract is $7,380. The date for completion is February 1, 1931, which has been extended to July 1 1931.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Would the minister give
the other tenders which were submitted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The following
tenders were received, four in all: J. E. Campbell, SummeTside, $7,380; W. R. Maynard, $7,472; Everett McLeod and Duncan McKenzie, French River, $8,280; Henry J. Phillips and P. G. Clarke, Summerside, $8,770.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It was intimated, when
tenders were called for, that J. H. Campbell's was the lowest, and I think he was notified to
that effect. Later on the contract was transferred from Campbell to Maynard, and I should like to know how Mr. Downing came into the picture. It appears that Mr. Campbell was notified that his tender was the lowest; Mr. Maynard then took over the contract and sent in his deposit cheque, and it was understood that he would proceed with the work. He was ready to proceed and was waiting for orders, but those orders never came through. What I fail to understand is this:	If it is the declared policy of the department to accept the lowest tender in every ease, how was it that Mr. Downing's tender was not accepted in the first place?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am very glad
my hon. friend has mentioned this, because he made a statement some days ago when this matter was up in connection with the supplementary estimates. At that time the information was not available, but I have it here now. Under date of August 5, 1930, authority was granted to accept the lowest tender, namely that of J. E. Campbell ot Summerside, for the work mentioned. Under date of August 5, the hon. member (Mr MacLean) wired the deputy minister of Public Works as follows:
Request from Campbell on July 29 to withdraw tender for railway wharf Summerside wire if request has been granted.
To which the following reply was made by the deputy minister under date of August 5:
Department can allow Campbell to withdraw tender railway wharf Summerside only provided deposit is forfeited or whatever portion thereof necessary to make up amount of next lowest tender which is seventy-four hundred seventy-two dollars fifty cents if second tenderer now willing to take contract at price of his bid.
On August 7, Mr. Campbell wired that he had arranged with the next lowest tenderer, namely, W. R. Maynard, Northam, Prince Edward Island, to take over contract at his figures, and stated he was forwarding his, Mr. Maynard's, deposit cheque. The hon. member for Prince Iso wired on August 7 to the same effect and was advised that the Campbell cheque would be returned as soon as the next lowest tenderer's deposit was received. Mr. Campbell's security cheque of $738 was returned to him on August 22, 1930; there being no interest as it was sent to the Department of Finance on July 31, 1930. Mr. Maynard's cheque for $738 was received and sent to the accountant on August 15, 1930, and to the Finance department on August 21, 1930. As no action was taken upon Mr. Maynard's offer to take over the contract, the returning of his security
1194	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
deposit was overlooked. Mr. Maynard's security deposit was returned to him only on February 24, 1931, by a cheque for $747.22, which covered the amount of the deposit of $738 plus $9.22 for interest. I believe my hon. friend said his deposit cheque had not been returned to him. It was returned with interest.


Charles A. Stewart: Did the
second tenderer tender at the same price as the first?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was ultimately arranged that he should take it at the lower price. It had been suggested to the department that Mr. H. M. Downing, contractor, Summerside, would take over Mr. Campbell's contract and an order in council was passed under date of September 15, granting authority to award the contract to Mr. Downing at the price of the tender of Mr. Maynard, namely, $7,380. Instructions were accordingly issued, but to accommodate the early fall shipping of potatoes the commencement of the work was held over until the close of navigation, when weather conditions were unfavourable to the carrying out of the contract. The date set for the com-jdetion has been extended from February 1, 1931, to July 1, 1931, as work cannot be satisfactorily carried out in Summerside harbour owing to heavy ice conditions during the winter months. That was the condition of the contract when I came in.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: There was only a difference of $90 between the tenders of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Maynard, and for reasons which I cannot explain-Mr. Campbell had other interests-they agreed that Mr. Maynard should take it over. The department wrote to Mr. Maynard and told him to forward his deposit cheque, which he did; and, as the minister has stated, that cheque was held at the department from last July, or possibly it was earlier than that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was returned
with interest.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Yes. But during all that time this gentleman thought he had the contract and was waiting every day to proceed with the work.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He may have
thought he was going to get it, but he cannot have thought that he had the contract. He had no notice from the department that the contract had been awarded to him.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Why did they tell Mr. Maynard to forward his cheque? He must have been notified that the cheque was accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I shall have to put a
motion on the order paper asking for the correspondence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I wish the hon.
member would do so.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The minister has told
the committee that Mr. Downing got the contract by order in council. What I should like him to explain is this: If Mr. Downing's tender was the lowest in the first place, why was not the contract given to him, if it is the policy of the government to accept the lowest tender?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Campbell's
was the lowest tender-$7,380. And when he withdrew, then-


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Mr. Maynard took it over.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was given to
Mr. Downing.	.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Why was not Maynard
allowed to proceed with the work?


Peter John Veniot: The department asked
Maynard for his deposit cheque and he sent it on, and after that the other man came down to Maynard's price.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the lowest tenderer withdraws his tender the practice of the department is, I believe, to award it to any person who will take it for the amount of the lowest tender. They feel free to do so.


Charles A. Stewart: This is
rather a curious procedure. The tender of the lowest tenderer is accepted; his cheque is in the hands of the department; and then an arrangement is subsequently entered into between two contractors whereby the original contractor transfers the contract to the second party. If the department had refused to take on the second party, one could understand the transaction. But the cheque of the second tenderer was accepted. The contract was to be apparently at the same price as the original tender which was accepted by the government. What has happened since that, when the cheque is retained, and another party enters into the arrangement and receives the contract -that is the information we are after.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Every tender is accompanied by a cheque, and when the contract is disposed of it is returned. In one case apparently the return of the cheque was overlooked.


Charles A. Stewart: I am not
inquiring about that. I am asking why the

Civil Service Act-Returned Soldiers
second cheque was accepted by the department and retained by them. It was definitely understood that the original tenderer, a man named Campbell, was not prepared to go on with the work. A second tenderer comes on the scene; Campbell's cheque is returned; the cheque of the second tenderer is retained, and he subsequently finds out that another man has the contract. The work is being performed by a third party. That is what we do not understand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At the lowest
tenderer's price.


Charles A. Stewart: That does
not enter into the transaction at all. The cheque of the second tenderer was accepted by the department. It was clearly the intention to give the work to Campbell if he performed it, and evidently an arrangement was made with one Maynard, who was the second tenderer, at the same price for which Campbell had tendered. His cheque was accepted, and now we discover that a third party has entered into the arrangement, who evidently had tendered at a much higher price.


Peter John Veniot: Did Downing tender previous to-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Originally Mr. Downing did not tender.


Peter John Veniot: Which makes it all the1
worse.


William Duff: Were new tenders called for
by advertisement?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was all arranged between the parties and the price was satisfactory.


William Duff: How did Downing get the
contract; how did he enter into the picture if he had made no tender?
Mr. STEWAR1 (Leeds):	The lowest
tenderer asked to be allowed to withdraw his tender.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Mr. Chairman, the situation is this: Mr. Campbell was the lowest tenderer and he was advised to that effect. He decided that he would not accept and Maynard being the next lowest tenderer, he and Campbell agreed that Maynard would take the contract at the original lowest tender price. The department signified their willingness to that arrangement and the contract was transferred to Maynard and he was requested to send in a deposit cheque, which he did. The departement may say that no contract was entered into, but I claim that that action was equivalent to entering into a
contract. A man had been advised by letter from the department that his tender was the lowest and had been accepted. He was asked to forward his cheque, which he did, but we now find that Mr. Downing has been awarded the contract, a gentleman who never tendered in the first place and who never entered into the picture until February last, when Mr. Alaynard was notified that Mr. Downing had the contract. These facts should be brought out because we should know whether or not the department is going to follow the practice of awarding contracts after a tender has been accepted and the deposit cheque received and held for many months. After that procedure has been followed, is the department going to permit another man to submit a tender without advertising for new tenders? I think the committee and the country should have a full explanation of the whole thing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend has not quite correctly got the facts. The cheque of the second tenderer accompanied his tender; there was no cheque sent in as my hon. friend suggested. The cheque tvas retained and then returned with interest.


Finlay MacDonald: He was never notified.
Progress reported.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed, at eight o'clock.



CIVIL SERVICE ACT AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. O. L. BOULANGER (Bellechassc) moved the second reading of Bill No. 18, to amend the Civil Service Act (returned soldiers! preference).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Air. BOULANGER:: The first matter with which this bill deals is to amend section 29 of the Civil Service Act. Paragraph 4 of section 29 reads:
In all examinations for entrance into the civil service the persons named on such special list who are found to possess the necessary qualifications, shall be named, in the order of merit, on the list of successful candidates above all other candidates; and all other persons who have been on active service overseas on the military forces or who have served on the high seas in a seagoing ship of war in the naval forces of His Alajesty, or of any of the allies of His Alajesty, during the Avar, who have left such service with an honourable record, or whoi 196	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Returned Soldiers
have been honourably discharged, or when any persons who have served as aforesaid have died, owing to such service, the widows of such persons, and who, in either case, obtain sufficient marks to pass such examinations shall, irrespective of the marks they have obtained, be named in the order of merit, on the list of successful candidates next after any candidates who are on the special list mentioned in subsection 2 of this section and above all other candidates.
That means that all veterans, not merely of the Canadian army but of all the allied armies who took part in the Great war, have a preference over all other candidates in civil service examinations. I claim that we were a little too generous when we passed that section. It would have been all right to grant a preference to Canadian veterans, but not to the veterans of any of the allied armies. According to the law as it now is, veterans of the Serbian army or of the Roumanian army or of the American army or of the Japanese army or of the Portuguese arms' or of any other army which took part in the great war on our side can claim a preference in civil sendee appointments over the civilian Canadian candidates.


Robert James Manion: Does my hon. friend know of any case-I ask for information-where any veteran outside of the Canadian army has been given a preference over civilian candidates?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: No, not of my own
knowledge, but it is possible there might have been such cases.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I know of such cases, and
could name them.


Robert James Manion: What army did they belong to?


Peter John Veniot: They were veterans of the
imperial army.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: All that is necessaryin order that veterans of any of the allied armies may qualify for the preference under section 29 of the Civil Service Act is to show that they' have resided in Canada for three years. As I said in reply to the minister, I personally do not know of any, but there must have been such cases.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Is it the
declared object of this bill to cut off the preference to veterans of the British army-?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Yes. The intention
is to restrict the preference to veterans of the Canadian army. Under the law as it stands, ridiculous cases may arise. Take the case of a Russian who fought on our side during the war in the Russian army. He

comes to Canada, resides here three years, and takes the civil service examination; and although we have severed all relations, trade, diplomatic and otherwise, with Russia, this Russian veteran is given a preference over the civilian Canadian.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Why not?


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The object of the
bill is to restrict the preference with respect to veterans to those who served in the Canadian army. That is the first object of the bill. By Canadian veterans is meant Canadian veterans as defined in the Canadian Nationals Act, chapter 21 of the revised statutes, which defines what a Canadian national is. Section 2 of chapter 21 of the revised statutes provides :
The following persons are Canadian nationals, viz.:

(a)	any British subject who is a Canadian citizen within the meaning of the Immigration Act;
(b)	the wife of any such citizen;
(e) any person born out of Canada, whose father was a Canadian national at the time of that person's death, or with regard to persons born before the third day of May, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one, any person whose father at the time of such birth, possessed all the qualifications of a Canadian national, as defined in this act.
The Canadian Nationals Act refers to the Immigration Act, and section 2 of the Immigration Act, chapter 93 of the revised statutes, provides:
In this act, and in all orders in council, proclamations and regulations made hereunder, unless the context otherwise requires,
(a)	"alien" means a person who is not a British subject;
(b)	"Canadian citizen" means
(i)	A person born in Canada who has not
become an alien; _	.
(ii)	A British subject who has Canadian domicile; or
(iii)	A person naturalized under the laws of Canada who has not subsequently become an alien or lost Canadian domicile:
Provided that for the purpose of this act a woman who has not been landed in Canada shall not be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship by virtue of her husband being a Canadian citizen; neither shall a child who has not been landed in Canada be held to have acquired Canadian citizenship through its father or mother being a Canadian citizen.
Further on in the same act domicile is defined as follows:
"Domicile" means the place in which a person has his home, or in which he resides, or to which he returns as his place of permanent abode, and does not mean the place where he resides for a mere special or temporary purpose;	.
Canadian domicile can only be acquired, for the purposes of this act, by a person having his domicile for at least five years in Canada after having been landed therein -within the meaning of this act.

Civil Service Act-Returned Soldiers
The purpose of the amendment, therefore, is to restrict the soldiers' preference in civil service appointments to Canadian veterans, and Canadian veterans are those defined as Canadian nationals: that is, all veterans who enlisted in the Canadian army and who at the time they made application to enter the civil service were Canadian citizens, having resided in Canada for at least five years.
I wish to point out at once that the object of the bill! is not to do away with the preference in favour of Canadian veterans. We wish to keep the preference in favour of Canadian veterans. I cannot make that too clear because some misrepresentation or misstatements have appeared in the press as to the object of the bill. The abject of the bill, I repeat, is not to cut off the preference to Canadian soldiers as regards appointments to the civil service. The only restriction made by the bill is to apply the preference to Canadians only, excluding the veterans of armies other than that of Canada. That is the chief object of the bill.
The next object of the bill is to amend section 33 of the Civil Service Act. The first paragraph of section 33 of the act as it stands reads as follows:
No person shall, without the authority of the governor in council, be admitted to any examination unless he is a natural born or naturalized British subject and also has been a resident of Canada for at least three years.
The amendment proposed by the bill is to change the term of three years residence to a term of five years. I believe this change would be in accordance with our whole system of granting Canadian citizenship to aliens. As the law stands at the present time a residence of five years is required before a man is granted Canadian citizenship. Within five years of his entry into Canada a man can be deported. A man cannot be naturalized as a Canadian citizen unless he has resided in Canada for a term of five years, and he is not granted the right to vote unless he is here for a similar period. I respectfully submit that the same requirements should apply when application is made for a position in the Canadian civil service. If it is proper to stipulate a period of five years before a vote is allowed, if it is right that five years' residence must be established before a person may become a citizen of this country, then a similar period should be necessary before a person obtains a position in the public service. That is the purpose of the second amendement.
A further amendment is offered by the bill. A sort of abuse has crept into the administration of the Civil Service Act in regal'd to the requirement of three years' residence. The 22110-77
act states that a man may not make application for a position in the civil service unless he has resided three years in Canada. Exceptions to the rule can be made by the governor in council. We want to restore the law to its former strength, because in that regard abuses have entered into the administration of the act. At the present time instead of exceptions being made by the governor general in council or the cabinet, they are being made by the Civil Service Commission without any reference to the cabinet, by virtue of a regulation which the Civil Service Commission passed some years ago. Regulation No. 11 reads as follows:
11. In cases where, after due publicity, the commission has been unable to secure an adequately qualified applicant with the necessary three years' residence in Canada, persons may be admitted to examination despite the fact that they have not resided in Canada for three years, provided they are otherwise qualified under the law and regulations.
I submit it is illegal by regulation to amend the statute as has been done in this case by the Civil Service Commission. Last year at my request a return was made in this house showing a list of persons who have been admitted into the civil service of Canada without complying with the provision of the Civil Service Act regarding residence. This list is amazing. If I had time I would like to read the return to the house and let hon. members judge the abuses which have arisen out of regulation No. 11 of the Civil Service Commission. Since the regulation has been in force some nineteen or twenty prison guards have been given positions in Canadian penitentiaries without having resided in Canada for three years. All sorts of positions such as that of telegrapher, caretaker, stenographer and so on have been granted to aliens who have not resided in Canada for the requisite period. I am sure the government has no knowledge of those exceptions. They were made by the Civil Service Commission by virtue of the regulation I have just read.
A little insignificant paper published in Montreal has tried to make political capital out of the information I secured last year. They have even stated that I was able to secure the information this year on account of the change in the government. I want to make it very clear to the house that the report was tabled during the regular 'session of 1930 and is dated April 28 of that year.
What has taken place in connection with penitentiaries has taken place also in the aviation and radio services. Many employees have been given positions who have not resided three years in Canada. It is the wish

1198	COMMON'S
Civil Service Act-Returned Soldiers
of hon. members who favour this bill to have these exceptions cease. If an order in council has to be passed every time an exception is demanded, more difficulty will be experienced and the abuse to which I referred a minute ago will not continue. Surely it is possible to find men in Canada who will act as prison guards and chiefs of services. Members of the Civil Service Commission should not have such matters left in their own hands. If exceptions are to be made to the Civil Service Act they should be made in each case by the governor in council and by the cabinet; they should not be made by chiefs of services, heads of branches or civil service commissioners. The Montreal paper I mentioned a minute ago blamed the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) and the former minister of Marine (Mr. Cardin) because prison guards had been allowed into the service without complying with the qualification as to residence. I am sure neither of those gentlemen had any knowledge that such a condition of affairs existed and that appointments to positions in the civil service of Canada had been made without regard to the provision of the act respecting residence.
In as few words as possible I have tried to outline the objects of the amendments embodied in this bill. I believe the spirit of the bill is in accordance with the Canada first policy of the present government, and I am sure the government will approve the bill and support it. I trust therefore that the Civil Service Act will be amended as the proposed measure suggests. Not only are we for the Canada first policy but we are also for Canadians first and especially should that policy apply in the matter of the filling of civil service positions. Certainly that is one place where Canadians should be first.


Hon. J. L. RALSTON (Shelburne-Yar-mouth):: I want to say only a few words in
connection with this bill. My fear about it is that it may be the thin end of the wedge with regard to the returned soldiers' preference. For some time there has been provision on the statute book for a preference to ex-service men. While there have been resolutions on the order paper dealing with the matter, this is perhaps the first bill which has attempted to alter the preference given, and for that reason, along with another one I am going to mention, I feel I must oppose the first section of the bill. The other reason is that practically ever since the Civil Service Act was passed we have given a preference to veterans of the allies. The recognition of imperial veterans has gone so far that under our pension act, we equalize the pensions TMr. Boulanger.]
to imperial veterans in this country who were residents here at the beginning of the war in order that there may be no discrimination, and that in respect of British subjects who may have been on the same field of battle and who live in Canada side by side there shall not be a difference in the compensation paid to them on account of their disability.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Does the hon. member know of any country associated with us in the war that gives a preference to Canadian soldiers :n its civil service?


James Layton Ralston: I have never made any
inquiry. I can only deal with the situation as we have it and discuss the principle which we have adopted. That principle is that there shall not be any discrimination between Canadian and imperial veterans-if they lived in Canada before the war-in regard to pensions. We have contributed directly from the treasury in order to see to it that these British comrades living in Canada shall receive pensions equal to those received by Canadian returned soldiers. They have enjoyed the same preference under the Civil Service Act, and it seems to me that now to begin to discriminate between them is a mistake. I know my hon. friend has the highest motives in introducing his bill. He feels, as no doubt many others do, that if a Canadian veteran is an applicant for a position, and an ex-service man from Great Britain or one of our sister dominions is also an applicant, the Canadian should be given the preference. But for a long time we have laid down the principle of equality, and have given effect to it. I think it is hardly worth while to begin to change now-and I cannot support the first section of the bill.
With regard to the other section, I have a good deal of sympathy with what the hon. member saj's in support of it. He has indicated a situation that is not by any means desirable. It does seem to me that if the positions he refers to have to be filled by those with less than the required three years' residence, there must be something seriously wrong in the administration of the Civil Service Act. If he could see fit in some way to separate these sections so that his bill would not involve taking away the preference to certain returned soldiers, but would remedy the other conditions that he speaks of, I should be very glad indeed to support it. But I do not want to go to the length of supporting a bill which would require a residence of five years for a civil servant who may come from Great Britain. Perhaps my hon. friend has

Civil Service Act-Returned Soldiers
noted that there is before the house at the present time a bill, No. 24, defining Canadian nationals, and it may be that his second section will not fit in very well with the provisions of that bill if it is adopted.
Might I suggest to the hon. member that he allow his bill to stand until bill No. 24 has been considered, and see if it is not then possible for him to get our support for the second section of his bill. I wish I could support the measure as a whole for I know his zeal and earnestness in introducing it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in agreement with the remarks of the hon. gentleman (Mr. Ralston) who has just taken his seat. I appreciate that we should not impute motives to the hon. gentleman who has introduced this bill, but I cannot help thinking it is aimed directly at the imperial veterans in this country who saw service overseas. I cannot see any other purpose in bringing forward the bill if that be not the governing motive. In my part of the country a number of these imperial veterans are settled, and I should hate to think that, even though they had lived here for a long period of years, they were not eligible for appointment to the civil service. For that reason and for the reasons stated by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmoutb, I am opposed to the bill.
As to the second section, I cannot understand how the Civil Service Commission can have any legal authority to make regulations admitting to examination any person who has not been a resident of Canada for at least three years. Section 5 of the Civil Service Act provides:
5. The commission may make such regulations as it deems necessary or convenient for carrying out the provisions of this act, including regulations governing the performance by the commission of its own duties hereunder.
All such regulations shall be subject to the approval of the governor in council and shall be published in the Canada Gazette.
That means, if it means anything, that the Civil Service Commission has authority only to make regulations which will not be in contravention of the provisions of the act. If I understood the hon. member correctly, he said that the commission have made a regulation which is in contravention of section 33 of the act. I submit that any regulation so issued could have no force or effect. The regulations contemplated by section 5 are only such as may be regarded as administrative, and before they can have any force in law they must be approved by the governor in council and published in the Canada 22110-771
Gazette. While I have not had an opportunity of looking up the regulation to which the hon. member refers, I cannot conceive of any regulation-


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The hon. gentleman
will find it in the explanatory notes.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
read that, but I am directing attention to the powers of the Civil Service Commission. I submit that under section 33 and section 5 the commission has no power to make any regulations which will in any way override the act itself. It may be that the commission have attempted to do so, in which event their attempt is a nullity in law, and I am satisfied that the governor in council, if properly advised, would never ratify such a regulation.
Referring again to the first section of the hon. gentleman's bill, I think this is, as so well expressed by the hon. member for Shel-burne-Yarmouth, the thin end of the wedge to cut down the returned soldiers' preference. I submit this country is committed to the principle of that preference. It has been on the statute book since 1918, and this is the first time I have ever heard of any proposal to withdraw or restrict it. I for one am against the proposal to cut down the soldiers' preference, and I hope the house will reject the bill.


Charles A. Stewart: As I understand the bill, and I hope I am correct, it does not attempt to interfere with the preference granted to Canadian soldiers. But we are more than twelve years away from the war, and I think it can be said without fear of contradiction that the Canadian government, quite irrespective of party, has given preferences to British soldiers and soldiers of the empire which are not duplicated in any other dominion or in any other part of the empire. To say now that a British soldier who has come to Canada within the last three years shall have the same preference as a Canadian soldier hardly seems fair. Mark you, I am not desirous of taking away the preference from the Canadian soldier; I am very much in favour of it, but to say that a British soldier who has resided in England since the end of the war and who has come to Canada within the last three years shall enjoy the same preference as the1 Canadian soldier, both as against civilians in an application for a civil service position, is I think going a considerable distance. I do believe the preference should be retained in its entirety as far as the Canadian soldier is concerned, but I do not think it should go beyond the provision sug-
1200	COMMONS
Civil Service Act-Returned Soldiers
gested in this bill by my hon. friend, namely that recipients of this preference shall have resided in Canada for five years. That seems to me an eminently fair proposal. Our own Canadian soldiers have had that preference since 1918, as was pointed out by my hon. friend, and I think the time has come when young civilians growing up in the country have a right to some, consideration over those who have come to Canada and taken up their residence among us but have not been here for five years.
That is my position in regard to this bill. I do want to see that preference retained as far as the Canadian soldier is concerned; a right which he has enjoyed since 1918, but it seems to me we are over-generous in our treatment of the men who have come among us within the last few years in giving them a preference over our young civilians who have grown up in the country.


Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: Mr. Speaker, in regard to this bill I think that to interfere with the present act would be skating on very thin ice. I think the act as it now stands is generally satisfactory; at least I have never heard any complaints in regard to it, and I have been connected with soldier organizations ever since. I came back from overseas. I would very much prefer to have the mover of this bill bring forward something in the way of memoranda or resolutions from recognized soldier organizations. To me this smells very much like something originating with the Native Sons of Canada or something like that, although I may be mistaken. I am a Canadian of the third generation; I stand for Canada first of all, but we must also remember that we have an empire citizenship as well as 'a Canadian citizenship. I think the government would be well advised to leave the act alone.


Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I regret very much that I am
unable to support the bill which the hon. member (Mr. Boulanger) has submitted to the house. I think the first question the house should ask itself is this: What was the motive behind the returned soldier preference when it was first enacted by the Canadian parliament? My interpretation of that gesture is that it was an expression of appreciation of the sufferings that were endured by those who, during the war, had been on the side of the allies and were then, or at a future date might be, domiciled in Canada. I wish to say further that if a mistake exists to-day, that mistake was made when the preference was first given in regard to all the allies of the Canadian forces. It is a well
fMr. C. A. Stewart.]
known fact that the numbers of those outside of Canada who served in our allied forces, and who come to Canada, are getting less and less as year follows year. We must also remember that to-day in the Dominion of Canada we have an organization known as the Imperial Veterans, which is a full-fledged portion of the Canadian Legion. On the other hand the Canadian Legion, representing practically all the organized veterans in the Dominion of Canada, is a component part of an empire-wide organization known as the British Empire Service League.
If my hon. friend had endeavoured to restrict this preference to British subjects he would have received a certain amount of support from me. But since Canada has been responsible for this generous expression during all these years; since our present immigration policies practically restrict immigration; since those who were privileged to participate in the war are getting older and older and their ranks are thinning out every year, I do not think it will be any burden or any hardship if we extend for a few years to those old veterans of at least the other portions of the British Empire the generous recognition that Canada was good enough to make on their behalf when this act was first passed by parliament.


Mr. M. N. CAMPBELL (Mackenzie):: I
should like to say just a word or two in opposition to this bill. I am opposed to it and to the underlying principle on which it is based. This seems to me to be an attempt to discriminate between two classes of Canadian citizens, those who were born in Canada and those who were born in other lands. We might carry that principle a little further and say that only those men or women who were born in Canada are eligible to sit in this house. How many men would that eliminate from among us to-day? Some of our most esteemed citizens were born outside this country. I know that a principle of that kind would eliminate a great many of my colleagues, and I say it is a vicious and wrong principle.
I read an article in the newspapers a few days ago containing the text of an address delivered by the hon. member who introduced this bill. He was appealing to the Sons of England and the Sons of Canada and other organizations of that kind to drop their different organizations and all become Canadians. I thought there was something very inconsistent in the hon. member making that appeal while at the same time he is trying to discriminate between these two classes of Canadians. Therefore I say I am opposed to this bill.

Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly


Mr. S. C. ROBINSON (West Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say just a few words about this bill. I am in hearty agreement with the previous speakers who have expressed themselves as being opposed to it. As an hon. gentleman has said, we are skating on thin ice if we pass this bill; it will create the impression in the other parts of the British Empire that Canada is discriminating against those men who fought side by side with the Canadians in the war. The members of the Canadian civil service who were born in other parts of the British Empire are just as faithful and as loyal as native born Canadians. As another hon. member has said, the number of veterans who come to Canada from other parts of the empire is getting less year by year, and will not be long before the civilians will be able to have their turn at civil service appointments. I know that in my county, when war was declared the first men to throw down their tools and join the army were those from the old land, and it was the same in the workshops of Detroit. Furthermore, the adoption of this measure would create an ill feeling among those in Canada of English, Scotch and Irish birth, and would draw a line, as it were, between them and the Canadian-born. I hope the hon. member who sponsors the bill will see his way clear to withdraw it.
Mr. J. L. DUGUAY '(Lake St. John) (Translation) : Mr. Speaker, I wish to add but one word in support of the measure of the hon. member for BelleOhasse (Mr. Boulanger). I fail to see how this bill can be unfair to Canadians of foreign extraction. Canadians, like other nations, took equally part in the great war, and gave a good account of themselves. If all the Canadian veterans had work, I readily would understand that the bill of the ihon. member for Beilechasse would be unnecessary. However, there are too many of them unemployed and needing the assistance of the goveAment. I think that we should all favour this measure; for my part I shall give it my entire support.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Are there any other hon. members who desire to speak?


Mr. GROTE STIRLING (Yale):: Before
the hon. gentleman proceeds to answer the remarks which have been made, I should like to call attention to the fact that this, after all, is an extremely important matter. The house is but a thin one this evening and only those hon. members who have had their attention particularly drawn t.o this matter have had time to give it deep consideration. I suggest, therefore, that it would be well not
to proceed further to-night but to give all hon. members an opportunity of reading what has passed this evening pro and con, and I beg to move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre) moved the second reading of Bill No. 19, to amend the Criminal Code (unlawful assemblies).
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


James Shaver Woodsworth: As indicated in the marginal note, this bill is intended simply to provide a safeguarding clause to ensure that the general nature and character of speeches upon public affairs must be the ground for regarding any meeting as unlawful. Legislation of this kind would seem to be almost unnecessary, and yet during the past few months in a number of our cities there have been occurrences that seem to make it highly desirable that some safeguarding clause of this character should be enacted. For example, within the last few months in the city of Toronto there has been considerable trouble between the police and various organizations that have tried to hold public meetings. Let me quote from a very respectable organ, Toronto Saturday Night, the following, which appeared in its issue of January 31, 1931:
Police Madness in Toronto. Chief of Police Draper and the Senior Police Magistrate, Judge Emerson Coatsworth, the dominant factors on the Toronto Board of Police Commissioners, have recently declared open war on a host of intellectual and spiritually minded Canadians. They have attempted to suspend the laws protecting free speech and free assemblage in the ease of a band of gentle idealists known as the Toronto Branch of the Fellowship of Reconciliation.
Again:
Toronto's police authorities use the word "Communism" as a bugbear to defend every foolish act they commit, though we doubt if they could give an intelligent definition of what they mean by that word. Seemingly all pacifists come under the broad classification which leads them to tag Rabbi Eisendrath and Dr. Bland, and Dr. Ernest Thomas as "Reds."
A little later on:
Popular indignation, which extends to tens of thousands of people who never heard of the Fellowship of Reconciliation until the present month, was ably voiced in a protest signed with the approval of Sir Robert Falconer, sixty-eight professors, lecturers and instructors of the University of Toronto, who declared that



COM MOXS

[Stage Direction]
Criminal Code-Unlawful Assembly
attempts to nullify or restrict one of the proudest heritages of the British people (i.e., free speech) were "short-sighted, inexpedient and intolerable." In the opinion of Saturday Night they are worse than that, they are criminal. If free speech is to be suppressed, the doom of a free press is in sight.
Discretion forbids that we discuss in detail what would happen if our Lord should suddenly appear at a public meeting in Toronto and recite the Sermon on the Mount.
These are pretty strong words coming from Toronto Saturday Night. May I say that even the communists, who are the parties primarily aimed at, have their rights. I need not repeat what I said in the house the other night, that I am not a persona grata with the communists. But I believe that every group of citizens have certain rights in this country and we are not well advised to take such measures as would in any way impair that freedom of speech which we in British countries regard as a fundamental right. On January 24, 1929, the board of police commissioners of Toronto passed a resolution with regard to a public hall at the corner of Queen and Berkeley streets which decreed:
That as a condition of continuing the licence, all addresses thereafter should be in the English language, being the only language understood by the police officers.
A most extraordinary situation that. Since the police officials understood only one language, every Canadian must conform and speak nothing but English. We in the west have not only the English and French languages, but hundreds of thousands of our people speak Ukrainian, Hungarian, German, Yiddish and so on.
An hon. MEMBER:: And Scotch.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes I am sorry to have missed that; and Gaelic too. These people hold their meetings in these languages, and so far we have had complete freedom in this respect. But here we have Toronto setting a precedent, the police commission taking the ground of refusing to have meetings conducted in any language but English-and simply because the Toronto police know only one language. Further than that, the resolution states:
It is the undoubted duty of this board to sustain the actions of the police in preventing disorder and sedition.
Now, the police are there to arrest a man, if necessary, and then charge him. If he has said something seditious, let him by all means be condemned on that ground. But I submit that it is no business of the police to prejudge whether or not a man is talking 
sedition or is likely to talk sedition. Yet that is the ground taken by the police of Toronto, and this precedent is being followed in other cities.
I might add that this rule set forth in the resolution of January, 1929, was extended to other halls, and similar notices were posted therein. Very curious consequenses ensued. For example a certain workers choir, Freiheit, attempted to engage Hygeia hall. In fact, they had engaged it but the engagement was cancelled. There was a good deal of trouble about the matter, because these workers were not communists and had engaged the hall in good faith. But suddenly they found the licence cancelled. After the trouble that arose in connection with this incident the people in charge of the hall added to the contract a clause to the effect that the contract was subject to permission in writing from the police commission. It is an extraordinary interpretation of our laws when Canadian citizens can enter into contracts only on condition that such contracts are subject to the ruling of a police commission. A choir, a dramatic society or anything of that kind may make an attempt to secure a hall but find that they are unable to do so. There have been a number of cases of this nature. This particular organization-the Fellowship of Reconciliation-attempted to secure a hall in order that it might be addressed by a very eminent gentleman from New York, one of the leading professors in one of the largest theological seminaries in New York, and they were informed that although they had made preliminary arrangements with this gentleman they could not rent a hall. The owners were unwilling to take a risk with the police, the police having said that that organization should not have a hall.
Might I say that this same organization a few months ago had asked the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Macphail) to speak, but they were unable to secure a hall. The police were not particularly opposed to the hon. member, but they were opposed to the organization which had invited her to speak. I understand the same thing is true more recently with regard to the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland). He was in Toronto addressing the Canadian Club and was asked to speak before this same organization. But no hall could be secured. That seems to be a ridiculous situation.
This organization, which has been referred to by the Toronto Saturday Night, appealed some months ago to the police commission.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
Doctor Salem G. Bland was one of the speakers on that occasion, and according to the Mail and Empire of January 24, he said:
We charge that the police commission has tried to be court and judge. We do not criticize police actions against those who break the law. What the Fellowship of Reconciliation does protest against is that a policeman, high or low, should take the law unto himself and decide in advance whether a meeting is going to be lawful or not. What right has he to judge beforehand?
Rabbi Eisendrath, a well known and respected citizen of Toronto, made the following
statement:
The Fellowship of Reconciliation likewise protests against so preposterous and injurious a statement as emanated from two members of the police commission that in seeking the fulfilling of its program wholly in consonance with the aims and ideals of the internationally known and fully accredited Fellowship of Reconciliation, its well meaning efforts were construed as being motivated by a "thinly disguised communism."
However, may we further point out that it is not merely our personal grievance alone which brings us before you; but likewise we appear on behalf of others who have suffered more keenly than ourselves through what we believe to be an unlawful exercise of police authority. We cannot feel free unless the same freedom is accorded to all. Nor can any rectification of the present attitude toward our own society content us unless the same liberty be guaranteed to the humblest and most helpless, the most friendless of our fellow-citizens, however mistaken and unpopular his views may be.
The communists, against whom this police regulation was primarily directed, had been forbidden by this regulation to use either public halls or the public parks, and when they tried to speak on the public streets they were told to move on, thus being effectively prevented from using the streets. In this way they have been barred from any hall, any park or any street, and I submit that that is altogether a new policy to be adopted by any British country except possibly during the stress of war times.
During the last elections Colonel O. M. Biggar found it necessary to write to the mayor of Toronto with regard to complaints which had come to his notice in connection with the breaking up of meetings which were being held in connection with the elections. It is quite true that the candidates were communistic candidates, but it is no crime to be a communist, even though many of us may not see eye to eye with them. The speakers were regularly recognized candidates in these elections, and that being so they had certain rights under the electoral laws of this country
and Colonel Biggar pointed out those rights. His letter reads in part as follows:
I would, I think, be neglecting my duty if in transmitting Mr. Cohen's letter I omitted to point out the extreme gravity of his allegations. If these are true it would appear that there has been established in Toronto what can only be properly described as a police tyranny entirely outside the law, and that they should be true would be incredible apart from the absence of any satisfactory denial or explanation of the allegations made by Mr. Cohen in his previous communications. The real question raised by these and Mr. Cohen's present letter is the question whether in Toronto the police are enforcing the law or are persecuting persons who hold opinions of which they disapprove by the confiscation of printed matter found in their possession, by physical violence, by the misuse of licensing powers, and by threats of the institution of criminal proceedings for which there is no foundation.


Mr. SPEAKER:: The hour for private and public bills having expired, the house will revert to committee of supply.

DEPARTMENT OP PUBLIC WORKS Harbours and Rivers Prince Edward Island
Belle river harbour - breakwater repairs, $1,500.
China point-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Cranberry-wharf repairs, $2,400.
Graham's pond-breakwater repairs, $1,000.
Grand river (north)-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $15,000.
Hickey's-wharf repairs, $2,000.
Lambert's (Montague)-wharf repairs, $1,500.
Miminigash harbour-breakwater repairs- under construction, $1,000.
North lake harbour-breakwater repairs, $1,700.
Pownal-wharf repairs, $2,200.
Rustico harbour-breakwater repairs, $2,7GC.
Sturgeon-wharf repairs, $2,500.
Summerside-wharf repairs-under contract,

Tignish harbour-repairs to breakwater, $5,000-Total, $50,500.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: When the committee rose at six o'clock I was discussing the contract for the wharf repairs at Summerside. When were the tenders advertised, by what date had they to be in, and when were they opened?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They were due on July 25, 1930. The lowest tenderer was Mr. Campbell.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Before six o'clock the minister stated that Mr. Maynard, to whom the tender was transferred, had not been requested to send in a second deposit cheque. Was the first cheque from Mr. Maynard returned, and did he submit a second deposit cheque?
1204	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.___


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Maynard's cheque was sent in about August 7. On August 7 Mr. Campbell wired that he had arranged with the next lowest tenderer, Mr. Maynard, to take over the contract at his figure, and he stated that he was forwarding Mr. Maynard's deposit cheque.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Was that the original cheque which Maynard sent in?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
happened to the original cheque sent in by Maynard?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Maynard's cheque for $738 was received and sent to the accountant on August 15, 1930.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about the cheque that accompanied the tender on July 25?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That would be for a different amount, $747.


William Duff: Quite right, but what happened to it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was apparently returned to him.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: When?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Maynard's cheque for $747.20, which was his first cheque, was returned to him in February, 1931.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I think there is a little confusion. The situation is this: Mr. Maynard, Mr. Campbell, and the others, tendered at the same time, each one sending in a deposit cheque. Mr. Campbell was told that his tender was the lowest. Naturally the other deposit cheques would be returned. What I wish to know is the date Mr. Maynard's first cheque was returned to him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the exact date, but it would be returned in the ordinary course promptly after the lowest tender was accepted. That made it necessary, I presume, to send in a second cheque.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is the point I am trying to bring out. I am taking Mr. Maynard's position. The contract was transferred to him from Mr. Campbell, and the fact of his sending in a second deposit cheque at the request of the department, was equivalent to the department entering into a contract with Mr. Maynard to proceed with that work. That is proven by the fact that the two cheques are out. Mr. Maynard's first cheque was for $747 odd, his second was for the amount of Mr. Campbell's

tender, $738. So that proves conclusively that the transfer was made to Mr. Maynard in good faith, and that he was asked by the department to send in a second deposit cheque. This he did and complied with all the regulations required by the department. That was equivalent, I say, to accepting his tender, and he was under the impression that he was to proceed with the work.


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: The sending of the cheque was arranged between Mr. Campbell and Mr. Maynard themselves, not at the request of the department, or with its approval. No doubt both Mr. Campbell and Mr. Maynard hoped that the contract would be awarded to Mr. Maynard; but this matter was arranged between themselves. AVhen the cheque came in the matter was given consideration. There were other applicants, and the contract was awarded to another party, to the lowest tenderer.


Peter John Veniot: But not to a party who had been a tenderer previous to that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Quite right.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: We find that this man Downing received the contract without submitting a tender. If that course is to be followed by the department, it will simply destroy the whole tender system. When the department is confident that the lowest tenderer can carry out the work in good faith, I think in all fairness he should be allowed to proceed with the work, but if the department is going to allow outside men to come in and submit a bid on' the work after the tenders are made known, and without advertising for new tenders, I say it is absolutely unfair for the department to accept such a bid. The different tenderers were men of standing in the community, any one of whom would have seen that the work was well performed. In my opinion Mr. Maynard should have been allowed to proceed with the contract. I would like to know upon whose recommendation Mr. Maynard's tender was dropped and Mr. Downing's bid accepted. I think it is only fair that that information should be given.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Arnett, my hon. friend's opponent, recommended Mr. Downing, and Mr. Downing put in a tender or offered to do the work for the amount of the lowest tender. The contract was awarded to him by order in council, I want to point out to my hon. friend that this all arose from his request that the lowest tenderer be allowed to withdraw his tender. If he had-


Peter John Veniot: Oh, no.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.EJ.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If he had kept out of this and had allowed the lowest tenderer to complete his contract, there would have been no trouble whatever.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was the
beginning of all that took place afterwards. I want to remind my hon. friend that in all our advertisements for contracts there is the provision that the lowest or any tender is not necessarily accepted. The right is reserved to the department to award the contract to any person or firm it sees fit.


Mr. VALLANCE:: No tender was accepted
at all?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, it was.


Robert James Manion: The lowest tender was
accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, in the regular course.


Robert James Manion: And he refused to carry
it out.
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): The trouble arose because the lowest tenderer refused to carry out his contract, and my hon. friend asked that he be relieved.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: You did not relieve him?
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): Yes, we did.


Peter John Veniot: No, you didn't.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, we did.


Peter John Veniot: No, you didn't.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You did not call for new tenders.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, but we relieved the party who had been the lowest tenderer. Instead of having him forfeit his deposit we relieved him and succeeded in placing the contract with another reliable contractor at the amount of the lowest tender, so that there has been no money lost to the public. There would have been no trouble such as occurred if the lowest tenderer had not aslced that his tender be withdrawn. Then he and the seoond tenderer endeavoured to arrange between themselves that the second tenderer should have the contract. My hon. friend endeavoured to bring that about. This all happened between August 5 and August 10. Then another gentleman came into the picture and offered to do the work for the amount of the lowest tender, and he got the work. That is the whole story.


Peter John Veniot: How did he know?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
thinks somebody else should have had the contract.


Peter John Veniot: No, not at all; I objected
to the way it was done.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I have no apology to
make to this house or to the country for sending a telegram asking that Mr. Campbell be relieved of his tender. The telegram speaks for itself. Mr. Campbell found himself in a position where he could not carry out the tender. He was called away to take charge of a cargo in connection with a vessel he owned. He approached Mr. Maynard and asked him if he would take over the tender. Mr. Maynard agreed and the department was quite willing to cooperate and facilitate the putting through of the arrangement. For that reason the department was not losing anything on the transaction. There was only $90 between them in the first place, and the arrangement was worked out between those two gentlemen. As to any attempt to fasten anything upon me personally regarding any telegrams that may have been exchanged, I want to tell the minister that in that regard he cannot succeed. In the second place the minister states that Mr. Campbell was released. I want to tell him that Mr. Campbell was released on only one consideration, namely, that he forfeit his tender or else get some other person to take it over. He had to do one of three things: forfeit his deposit cheque, perform the contract, or get someone to take over his tender. Faced with the necessity of doing one of the three things, Mr. Campbell arranged with Mr. Maynard to perform the work. Notwithstanding anything the minister or his department may say, the fact remains that at a later date another gentleman entered into the picture who had never submitted a tender in any shape or form when the tenders wnre called for. As the minister stated before six o'clock, Mr. Downing was awarded the contract by order in council. The whole thing boils down to the fact, as the minister has just stated, that action was taken on the recommendation of my opponent in the last contest. My hon. friend= v/ere afraid that someone who might be of Liberal persuasion would benefit in some degree; probably it is for that reason they were so anxious to see their own friends get the patronage. Men were refused work on the wharf in that town last fall, when they most needed it. Then my hon. friends called a special session of parliament to vote 820,000,000 for the relief of unemployment, yet for party reasons they would not allow this
1206	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
work to go on and money to be spent. Under cover of secrecy they went to the extent of allowing a tender to be submitted and accepted.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract was awarded on September 15; there was no delay, There was no desire to escape responsibility, and as I have explained, the work was not then undertaken as it would interfere with shipping at that wharf. The contract is now in force and the work is proceeding.


Peter John Veniot: Oh, yes.


William Duff: Why would the contract be awarded only on September 15 if Mr. Maynard's first cheque and the other cheque went back in July and Mr. Maynard sent in a second cheque on August 15.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is a comparatively short period between August 15 and September 15 to consider a contract, to get it before council and to have it dealt with.


William Duff: I am afraid my hon. friend does not understand me.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, I do.


William Duff: I do not think he does; if so, he is trying to draw a red herring across the trail. These tenders were received about July 25.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


William Duff: Between that date and August 15 Mr. Maynard's tender was returned to him by the Department of Public Works. That must have been early in August. The first deposit cheque was sent back to him and the department agreed with him that he was to send in a second deposit cheque, which arrived in Ottawa on August 15. Why was not the contract decided upon until September 15? Was the contract not given to Mr. Campbell early in the month of August, not in September at all? What date in August or Jul}' was this contract awarded to Mr. Campbell?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend will see that a month is not a very long time to elapse between the-


William Duff: That is not the point at all. The minister is getting away from my question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Considering the fact that a new government had just come into office I do not think a month should be considered a very long time between the tender and the awarding of the contract.


Peter John Veniot: Apparently they were new to the tricks.


William Duff: The minister has not answered my question. I do not think he is trying to answer, because I do not think he can. I say that the tenders were received on July 25. Shortly afterwards Mr. Maynard's cheque was sent back to him by the department. That was the first cheque he sent in when he tendered for S7,400. That tender turned out to be the second lowest. Now then, on August 15, Mr. Maynard again sent in a cheque. I want to find out if it is not a fact that the department decided that Mr. Campbell was to receive the contract long before, or at least some time before, August 15.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Campbell
took the contract on the 5th or 6th of August, and after that he withdrew. Subsequently it was arranged between himself and Mr. Maynard that the, cheque should be sent in.


William Duff: A few minutes ago the minister told this committee distinctly that the contract was not awarded until September 15.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I referred to the second contract. There was one contract awarded on August 5.


William Duff: But the minister said it was not awarded until September 15. Now that I have pinned him down he admits it was awarded on August 5.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not wish my hon. friend to be under any misapprehension.


William Duff: Sit down-I have the floor.
This afternoon when the question first came up and the minister was asked who tendered for the work, he gave the name of Mr. Downing. Mr. Downing never tendered, as the minister had to admit later on; but at first -as Hansard will show, unless it has been changed since six o'clock-he gave the name of Mr. Downing. That is the first blunder he made. Now he says this contract was not awarded until September 15, but when I nail him down he has to admit that the tender was awarded to Mr. Campbell on August 5. If that is true, why does the minister now say the contract was awarded on September 15? To whom was the contract awarded on September 15? Was it awarded to Mr. Downing? No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly, to
Mr. Downing on September 15.


William Duff: Why, then, did the minister
keep Mr. Maynard's cheque from September 15 until the month of February if the contract was awarded to Mr. Downing on

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
September 15? Is that a way to treat a man in business who has to go to the bank to borrow money to put up his deposit with the department and pay $9.41 interest on it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend will agree with me that no minister can personally supervise the return of cheques and attend to all the office details of his department. I had nothing to do with the cheque. That it was not returned was due to some oversight in the office. I ask my hon. friend to accept that explanation. It should have been returned sooner, there is no doubt about that.


William Duff: I will go a little further. Has the minister on his files any correspondence -he read some telegrams that the hon. member for Prince sent and tried to show that the whole trouble arose because of those telegrams has he on his file any letters from Mr. Campbell agreeing to transfer the tender for the contract over to Mr. Maynard? Or any correspondence from Mr. Maynard to the department, and any correspondence from the department to Mr. Maynard, either before they received his cheque for' the second deposit or afterwards in acknowledgment?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have a note
here that on August 7 Mr. Campbell wired. That is the date the new government came into office. There seems to have been a good deal of activity between the 5th and 7th of August.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: And a
lot afterwards.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On August 7
Mr. Campbell wired that he had arranged with the next lowest tenderer, Mr. W. R. Maynard of Prince Edward Island, to take over the contract at his figure. I think my hon. friend will agree that that could not have been done with the approval of this government. He also stated that he was forwarding Mr. Maynard's deposit cheque. Mr. MacLean also wired on August 7 to the same effect, and was advised that Mr. Campbell's cheque would be returned as soon as the next lowest tenderer's deposit cheque was received.


Wilfred Hanbury: Why keep him waiting
so long?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Campbell's
security cheque of $738 was returned to him on August 22nd.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Will the minister kindly repeat that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. MacLean
also wired on August 7 to the same effect, and was advised that Mr. Campbell's cheque would be returned as soon as the next lowest tenderer's deposit cheque was received.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That
was from the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I presume so.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is
conclusive evidence that Mr. Maynard's tender had been accepted by the department.


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: No, that is just what was hoped for by the member who was wiring in, and no doubt also by Mr. Maynard himself; but it never was accepted. There has been no breach of faith, everything has been done regularly. The contract has been awarded to a capable contractor at the price of the lowest tender, simply because it was the lowest.


Peter John Veniot: He was not a regular tenderer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He was subsequently.


Peter John Veniot: He never tendered.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He did not
tender in answer to the advertisement, there is no doubt about that.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How did the man who ultimately got the tender know what price to put in unless someone in the department told him?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was perfectly well known down there what the lowest price was.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
date was the deposit cheque received from Mr. Downing?


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: Some time before the contract was awarded, before September 15, I think.


Wilfred Hanbury: Has the minister the
deposit cheque from Mr. Downing?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We never enter into any contract without it.


William Duff: The minister has been good
enough to read a letter or telegram from Mr. Campbell in which it is said they arranged for the contract to be transferred from Mr. Campbell to Mr. Maynard. He also told us about Mr. Maynard sending in his cheque on
120S	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.El.
August 15. What did the department do in regard to correspondence after they received that cheque if they did not agree _ to the proposition? I should like the minister to read the answer of Mr. Maynard or of Mr. Campbell when he sent in that cheque.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the
file of correspondence.


William Duff: You had better send and get
it before this item passes.


Mr. McLURE:: Did Mr. Campbell give
any reason why he did not want his tender to go into effect?


An hon. MEMBER:: The government
changed.


Winfield Chester Scott McLure: There must be some reason why Mr. Campbell asked for the return of his deposit.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All I have is a
telegram from Mr. MacLean, the member, requesting that Mr. Campbell be allowed to withdraw his tender. I do not know anything more about it than that.


Mr. MYERS:: I think the whole trouble
perhaps arose out of the fact that on the 28th July last there was a change of government.


Wilfred Hanbury: You bet it does.


John Howard Myers: It may be interesting to the committee, Mr. Chairman, to know that down in Prince county, and especially in Summerside, the hon. member for Prince (Mr. MacLean) and Mr. Campbell and possibly Mr. Maynard and company, had been used to running things pretty much their own way. After the 28th of July, when they saw they could not run things just in their own way any longer, and when Mr. Campbell saw that he had a tender that might squeeze him a little financially, and there might not be the same possibilities that there were before of getting a few little extras tucked in, the hon. member for Prince thought it very wise to have Mr. Campbell withdraw his tender. That is the whole story, and the reason why the contract was not proceeded with in September is well known to any man who lives in Prince Edward Island and especially to any man living in Summerside. The reason was that you could not interrupt the shipping and take the space on the railway wharf at Summerside when the shipments of potatotes for Cuba were being prepared; they wanted the space to load the ships. Mr. Downing is just as good a contractor in Summerside as
[Mr. Duff.l
Mr. Campbell ever was; he is just as good a contractor as Mr. Maynard ever was, and the work will be done honestly and just as well without the supervision of the hon. member for Prince county.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Hon. gentlemen across the way might just as well make up their minds that this is not carried. This matter will end up in the public accounts committee if hon. gentlemen do not come across with the proper information.
My hon. friend from Queens has come to the rescue of the minister. He has insinuated that there was some crooked work going on when the Liberals were in power in connection with contracts down there. I want to tell this committee that never in all my experience of ten years in dealing with the Department of Public Works have I seen anything approaching what has transpired in connection with this contract. I defy the hon. member for Queens, the minister in charge of the department or any of the district engineers to put their finger on one item in connection with which I have ever interfered with any contract. Hon. gentlemen opposite must not measure other people's corn by their owm half bushel. The whole matter did not arise because Mr. Campbell was afraid he would be squeezed by the department.; it came about in this way: As I have said, Mr. Campbell was called away and could not attend to the work, and the contract was supposed to start right away. He arranged with Mr. Maynard to take over the contract, which was done in good faith. Mr. Maynard submitted his deposit cheque, which was conclusive proof that the department had agreed to the contract being transferred to him. That contract should have been proceeded with right away; that was the time when the work was positively needed for the fall shipments, but it was purposely delayed, when there was a change of government, in order to give their friends a chance. If the government had wanted to play fair with the people they would have advertised for new tenders. There was lots of time; they said they could not proceed with the work, so why could they not have advertised for new tenders and treated the people fairly?
. No; that would not have suited the purpose of our hon. friends. My hon. friend from Queens is backing up the minister in this matter; I hope he will not go on and do that sort of thing down in his own county. The whole matter came about in this wav: Hon. gentlemen opposite wanted t-o switch that tender to a supporter of their own. a gentleman who went out on every platform and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
campaigned the country against me in support of the Conservative candidate. That man steps in and gets a reward, at the last moment, after the whole thing was arranged with Mr. Maynard. His reward was getting the contract, under the secrecy of the department. Now I should like to know from the minister if any correspondence has been exchanged with the district engineer at Charlottetown 'in connection with this matter.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As far as I
know there has not been any correspondence, although I have not the file here.


William Duff: I think it is very important,
in order to clear up this matter, that the minister should have this item stand and go on with something else until he gets the correspondence from the department with Mr. Maynard, or as a matter of fact all the correspondence. He has given us telegrams from the hon. member for Prince, and he has also read other correspondence. In order to complete this matter and show exactly where it stands, I think it only fair that we should have the correspondence, which in my opinion will show conclusively that when the government, the Minister of Public Works or his department received the second deposit cheque from Mr. Maynard, they accepted the offer of Mr. Campbell and Mr. Maynard to transfer the contract to Mr. Maynard.
My hon. friend from Queens said the whole trouble was that we had a change of government in July, 1930. He is quite right; I agree with that. Open confession is good for the soul. Why, for instance, did the two members for Queens appear so anxious to sit cheek by jowl with the minister when this little matter of $8,000 came up? Of course we are glad to see them moved further up on the front benches, but why are they there in connection with this matter? They must know something about this transaction. I am not one of those who does not believe that to the victors belong the spoils. I believe in that; I believe that when a Conservative government is in power their friends should get the preference, and I believe that when a Liberal government is in power the Liberals should get the preference. But my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works got up this afternoon and, with a long face, told how he was going to run his department. With crocodile tears running down his cheeks he said, "As long as I have the honour to be Minister of Public Works I will see that the lowest tenderer gets the contract." He said everything done in his department would be fair and aboveboard.


Finlay MacDonald: He did not say that.


William Duff: Yes, he did say the lowest
tenderer would get the contract and that his department would be run on that principle, and I am also reminded that the minister said he would carry on the department honestly. Is this carrying on his department honestly? If the minister would get up and say that the man who received the contract was a good Conservative and that he was advised, either by the member for Queens, the defeated candidate in Prince or some other Conservative to give this man Downing the contract, I would take off my hat to him. But when he acts the hypocrite and says he is going to try to run his department honestly and give contracts to the lowest tenderers, I say we have a perfect right to show him up.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not
see the occasion for the hilarity with which some hon. members appear to view this matter. If the Department of Public Works has decided that for the future tenders are to be ignored unless they are put in by Conservatives, then let us know it.


Robert James Manion: Tenders are not ignored.


Charles A. Stewart: As I understand the situation, Mr. Downing never tendered at all. The tenders were put in by Mr Campbell, Mr. Maynard and some others. Some transaction took place between Mr. Campbell and Mr. Maynard, and it is very clear from the evidence as it appears here that Mr. Maynard was to carry out that contract. His cheque was accepted by the department for that purpose. In the meantime, however, the government changed. If the government are willing to admit at once that they do not propose to give employment or to allow tenders to be accepted and carried out because of the political persuasion of the tenderer, then we will know the position we are in, because subsequent events point to the fact that this contract was given by order in council to an ardent supporter of the government, without his putting in any tender, at the same price of course as the tender put in by Mr. Campbell and subsequently turned over to Mr. Maynard. That is the complaint I want to lodge, and I must say that I am surprised to find that the hon. member for Lincoln has not been protesting. He was protesting this afternoon about another matter, but he is very silent to-night. If the policy is to be that these contracts are to be given only to political favourites, what is the use of
1210	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
a Liberal tendering at all? This is an innovation, I am bound to say, in the administration of the Department of Public Works.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: Hon. gentlemen may jeer as much as they like, but the principle should be to accept the lowest tender, provided the tenderer is capable of carrying out the work. And I have not heard that Mr. Maynard was not capable of performing his contract. If there was some reason why he could not carry out the contract, some valid reason, something might be said for the transfer of the contract to Downing. But evidently that is not so. Two hon. gentlemen who represent seats in Prince Edward Island now appear to give us the impression, on this side of the house at all events, that no longer is the advice of Liberal representatives to be taken. Theirs is to be taken. I have no objection in the world to that, but I do say that if the department enter into a contract, having accepted a tender, there should be some valid reason for its refusal to observe that contract; because, in all fairness-


Robert James Manion: The lowest tenderer refused it himself.


Wilfred Hanbury: That is quibbling.


Charles A. Stewart: The lowest tenderer gave it up and the second lowest entered into an agreement which was acceptable.


Robert James Manion: What right had the second and the lowest tenderer to frame up a job of their own?


Charles A. Stewart: None in the world, but that was acceptable ito the department. The second tenderer's cheque was accepted, the first tenderer having disappeared. That must be evident, and the first tenderer is no longer in the arrangement. The second man's tender was accepted and there was failure on the part of the department to carry out their agreement with that second tenderer, whose cheque they accepted. Not only that, but they ignored him altogether and by order in council appointed someone else without any tender, someone who had never tendered and had made no offer to carry out the work, except that undoubtedly at the suggestion of someone else he was given the contract and is now about to carry it out. Some serious protest should be registered against this kind of procedure in connection with tenders.
[Mr. C. A. Stewart. 1


Robert James Manion: .Four men tender on a contract ; the lowest man gets it and is given it legally and rightly. The lowest tenderer then refuses to carry out the contract, and he tries to make a frame-up with the second and have it given-


Wilfred Hanbury: He was permitted by the government to make the arrangement.


Robert James Manion: He makes a frame-up with the second tenderer at the same price, and the government give the contract to a third man-


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Who never tendered.


Robert James Manion: Yes, but they give it at the lowest price tenderer in the original tender. They had just as much right to do that, ,to give it to that man, as they had to give it to the second tenderer. They had as much right and obligation to call for second tenders, complete open tenders, if they gave it to Maynard as if they gave it to Downing.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But they never called
for tenders.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends are arguing that they should have given it to Maynard. Perhaps they should not have given it to either, but they had as much right to give it to Downing as to give it to Maynard without new tenders. If they had given it to Maynard, why should not a third or a fourth tenderer come forward and say, "I would have tendered the second time if you had given me a chance, but you let Maynard have it." If they had given it to Maynard, why not to any third or fourth tenderer?


An hon. MEMBER:: Certainly.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend agrees
with that. In other words, if you gave it-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: But Downing never
tendered.


Robert James Manion: But Maynard did not
tender the lowest; he tendered second. My hon. friends are taking a very holy attitude to-night. I have sat and listened to it for some time and I am about fed up with it. I will tell my hon. friends something now-


Peter John Veniot: The fat is in the fire.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friends know
something about political tenders. I will tel! the late Minister of the Interior (Mr. Stewart) this: that I have been told in my office by Conservative contractors in this city that they went and asked in my department, when the Liberals were in power, to be permitted to

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
tender, and they would not be permitted to tender at any price. That is what I am told and I know it to be true. And what is further-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: That doesn't make it
right.


Robert James Manion: No, that would not make
it right if it were wrong. But don't take such a holy attitude on your side. I think there is a whole lot of fuss being made about a teacupful of water; there is nothing to it at all. The contract is being carried out at what was the lowest tendered price. The government is losing nothing and the people of Canada are losing nothing. The only thing is that my hon. friend from Prince-I do not blame him for fighting for his friends-is a bit sore that his friend did not get it. That is the whole thing. My hon. friends over there are not shocked. I am just as high-minded as any of them-no higher but just as high-and I am not shocked at it.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: And I know that they are not shocked. Why not forget all this hypocrisy and stand by the lowest tender where it is given?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask a question?


Robert James Manion: Yes.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Was the Minister of
Railways here this afternoon when the Minister of Public Works was telling us, with tears in his eyes, how he would administer the department?


Robert James Manion: I did not see him with any tears in his eyes. I happen to know him very well and I know that he carries on his department in an excellent manner. I know that. And ivhat is more, I have heard a good deal stronger protest from some of my friends on my side in cases where he gave the contract to the lowest tenderer. So that he has been conducting the department quite honourably. But why not cut out all this "eyewash," because that is all it amounts to, and get down to business.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman-


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Mr. Chairman-


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman-


The CHAIRMAN:: Mr. Veniot has the floor.


Peter John Veniot: Mr. Chairman-


Mr. SPENCE:: Are you defending the hon. member for Prince?


Peter John Veniot: I am astonished that the Minister of Railways should treat this question in the way he has. He says, "Why so much bother about a simple thing like, this? Why take up the time of this house? It is all 'eyewash' ". If the hon. gentleman had set an example of that kind in the last two sessions, perhaps we should think he was sincere to-day. But no man in this house took up more time than the present Minister of Railways and the present Minister of Public Works in thh twenty-one days during which they had me on the gridiron when my estimates were going through in 1929.


Robert James Manion: I didn't bother you much.


Peter John Veniot: To-night I enjoy seeing the two hon. gentlemen on the gridiron and I intend to do my part in keeping that iron hot. I wish to say to the Minister of Public Works that he has in this instance departed from the practice of the Department of Public Wforks ever since confederation.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Peter John Veniot: When I hear asses braying across the way it reminds me of the Foster horses of Nova Scotia. The practice of the department has been that where the lowest tender cannot be accepted, or where the contract is awarded to that tenderer and he signifies his desire not to proceed with the work, the department shall notify him that he stands a chance of having to forfeit his deposit. The department notified the lowest tenderer in this case when he asked that he be allowed not to proceed with the work. But they went further than that, if what the minister said this afternoon is correct, reading from his notes. Reading, not from any correspondence but from notes prepared, the minister said that they wrote to this gentleman, Mr. Campbell, that he could withdraw his tender on the condition either that he should forfeit his deposit or that he should make arrangements to meet the difference betw'een his tender, the lowest, and the next tender to his, which was Maynard's. That is what the minister read this afternoon from his notes. If that is true, then they gave Air. Campbell distinctly to understand that he had to make this arrangement. Mr. Campbell was not scheming, he was following the orders which came to him from the Department of Public Works. The minister now attempts to get clear of his responsibility by having other hon. members from Prince Edward Island attempt to place the blame upon Mr. Maynard by claiming that he and Mr. Campbell were concocting a
1212	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
scheme. Mr. Campbell acted under the instructions he received from the department, and, as I have said before, if he did not receive s-uch instructions then I have been led astray by the notes read this afternoon by the minister. Having done that, the department was in duty bound to accept Mr. Maynard's offer when it came in because they said to Mr. Campbell: Your cheque will be forfeited unless you make an arrangement to carry out this contract. Mr. Campbell made that arrangement with Mr. Maynard, who sent in the deposit cheque required under the Campbell tender. If the department did not want to accept the Maynard tender it should have gone to the next tenderer. Campbell refused to go on and then, supposing Maynard had refused to go on, the department should have gone to the next lowest tenderer or else called for new tenders. Instead of doing that, they turned down all the tenders, they refused the second offer of Maynard and never gave an opportunity to the other two men to file a tender, or if they did, we have no information of it. On the recommendation of the defeated Conservative candidate, as admitted by the minister, they went to a man who never had any intention of tendering, who perhaps did not know that tenders had been called for but who had learned in an underhand way that this contract was not to be given either to Maynard or Campbell. Through some means or other, this third man submits a tender of exactly the same amount submitted by Campbell which was the lowest of the four made.


Robert James Manion: Does not my hon. friend think that Downing failed to tender because he knew that under the late government he would have no chance of getting the contract?


Clarence Joseph Veniot: He knew that under the present government he could get anything through. It is unheard of-not unheard of, because there are examples in the past where under Conservative rule the very same thing occurred-that, tenders being called for and the lowest tenderer refusing to go on with the contract, the department should go to a man who had not tendered and ask that he put in a bid. Will the minister produce the correspondence between Mr. Arnett-


An hon. MEMBER:: AH the correspondence.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Yes, all the correspondence, but particularly that between Mr. Arnett, the defeated Conservative candidate in that constituency, and the department, wherein he recommends that Mr. Downing be given the contract. The other day the minister was

asked to produce correspondence in connection with a certain item and he replied that the negotiations had been carried on verbally. I wonder if this is another verbal case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have a letter from Mr. Downing, dated September 8.


Peter John Veniot: I asked for Mr. Arnett's correspondence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no correspondence here from Mr. Arnett.


Peter John Veniot: Then this matter should be allowed to stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am quite willing to allow it to stand; we will see what we have on the file.


John Howard Myers: The hon. member for Gloucester really deserves the thanks of the committee, as he is the only member who has spoken on this question who has really thrown any light upon it. He has given the real reason for his opposition; he knows that everything is all right and that there has been no wrongdoing.


Peter John Veniot: He does not.


John Howard Myers: He knows there is a good contractor in Summerside who is carrying on this work, but his opposition and that of other hon. gentlemen opposite would seem to indicate that they desire to punish the present Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Railways for their pranks during the last session.


Wilfred Hanbury: Does the minister propose to award contracts in a similar manner in the future?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will deal with each individual case on its merits as it comes up. Let me endeavour to place this matter straight before the committee.


An hon. MEMBER:: We have got it straight.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was proposed to construct a wharf at Summerside. Tenders were advertised for in the regular way and four were received. The rule that the lowest tender be accepted was followed, and the contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, but for some reason best known to himself he asked to be relieved of the contract and that was done. He hoped to be able to bring about an arrangement-


Wilfred Hanbury: At the request of the government.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He hoped to bring about an arrangement by which his apparent friend, the second contractor, would be awarded the contract. W ith a view to accomplishing that, he got the second contractor to send in a cheque. That cheque was never accepted by the department on the basis that a contract would be awarded; it remained in the department for some considerable time. The matter was given further consideration, and instead of adopting the course suggested by the first contractor, who had defaulted and asked to be relieved of his contract, the government selected one of three courses which presented themselves, all equally sound. One alternative was to advertise again; another was to award the contract to any other contractor who would accept it at the same figure as that submitted by the lowest tenderer. As I have said before, there appears in every advertisement-


An hon. MEMBER:: What was the third?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -the statement that the department is not bound to accept any tender. If this work could be done at the amount of the lowest tender, the department was justified in awarding the contract to any reliable and competent contractor at that lowest price. That is what was done. The public interest has been protected and not a dollar of public money has been lost. The work is in charge of a competent contractor and will be completed in due course. The minister and the department were advised by the solicitor that we were under no obligation whatever to award the contract to the second tenderer.


Peter John Veniot: What about the other two?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
that if the other two were to be taken into consideration, they would have a perfect right to ask that the work be put up for tender again. That would have meant added expense and further delay. The course that was adopted was one of three alternatives. I submit that it was sound, that it was justifiable under the circumstances, that the public interest and the public treasury have been protected. All that remains is a little disappointment on the part of the lowest tenderer and the second tenderer that they did not secure the contract. With that the public is not concerned. The public's concern is in seeing that the work is well done at the lowest possible cost, and that is the result in this case. There is nothing wrong, nothing irregular, nothing for my hon. friends to get excited about.


Mr. SANDERSON:: The minister must
admit that the gentleman who finally got the contract never submitted a tender at all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He did not submit a tender in the first instance, but made an offer to do the work, and he has entered into a contract.


Frederick George Sanderson: But did he tender in the regular way?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He made an
offer to do the work and entered into a contract. So that closes the door so far as tendering is concerned.


Frederick George Sanderson: Then he did not submit a tender in the regular way.
Mr. STEW7ART (Leeds):	There was no
answer by him to the advertisement for tenders.


Mr. McMILLAN (Huron):: Is it not the
practice of the department to hold the deposit cheque when a tenderer does not take the contract? ~
Mr. STEW7ART (Leeds):	The cheque is
held in some instances, pending other arrangements.


Thomas McMillan: How did it
come about that the department returned the cheque in this case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: After we had
made another contract with a competent contractor, who submitted a deposit to guarantee the completion of the work, we felt justified in returning the cheque to the other man.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Campbell, the lowest tenderer, who was awarded the contract, was relieved through Mr. Maynard agreeing to take over the contract, and then the department returned Mr. Campbell's cheque. That was the only reason for returning his cheque, was it not?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Thomas McMillan: Then what
other reason had you for returning the cheque contrary to the practice of the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Because we had a competent contractor prepared to carry oh the work.


Thomas McMillan: Mr. Downing had not come into the picture at that time at all. One thing is clear, and that is that in order to give the contract to a certain individual you have to throy down the practice that has alw'ays obtained of letting contracts according to tender.

12i4	commons
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.El.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not throwing down any principle that has prevailed in this department. I am determined that the lowest tenderer shall have the contract. This man was the lowest tenderer, and he got it


Thomas McMillan: He did not put in a tender at all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, but he
offered to do the work.
Mr. MeINTOSH:	Last night when the
minister was discussing the question of a public building in North Battleford he made the same statement he has made to-night, that he always accepted the lowest tender. If that is the practice of the department, how could they know in this case that the price for which the contract was let was the lowest possible price that could have been secured if new tenders had been called. If you called for new tenders, others would probably tender for the work who had not tendered before. So I cannot for the life of me see how you could come to the conclusion that this was the lowest tender. It might not be the lowest tender at all.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount of the lowest tender was well established. It was within our own estimate, and we saw no reason that would warrant our asking for new tenders.
Mr MeINTOSH: Your estimate might lead you to think that that would be the lowest price submitted, but if you reopened the question and called for new tenders, a lower price might have been bid.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We received four tenders, ranging from $7,380 to $8,770. That shows fairly good competition.
Mr. MeINTOSH: It shows good competition, but it is not the final word on the point. That is my contention.


John Livingstone Brown: 
James Layton Ralston: Did I understand the
minister to say that he had obtained an opinion from the solicitor of the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Has he that opinion?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


James Layton Ralston: Would he please read it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the
opinion of Mr. Crerar, departmental solicitor, dated September 4:
On July 25, 1930, tenders were opened.
On July 26, 1930, report to council was drafted recommending acceptance of the tender of J. E. Campbell and report sent to minister. On July 29 a wire was received from Mr. MacLean notifying the department that Campbell wished to withdraw his tender.
In connection with this I would draw your attention to the clause in the tender reading as follows:
"The security cheque or bonds will be forfeited if the person or persons tendering refuse to enter into a contract when called upon to do so. The department does not bind itself to accept the lowest or any tender."
As contractual relationship is established by offer and acceptance, I submit that in this case, Mr. Campbell was bound by his offer as represented by his tender and that from that time the crown had the option of insisting upon the specific performance of the contract; holding Mr. Campbell's security deposit and arranging for a new contract.
The second alternative was adopted, and Mr. Campbell's security deposit was then that of one liable to indemnify the crown for any loss suffered through his inability to perform the contract. Subsequently all that Mr. Maynard could do, or has done, is to submit his cheque in lieu of Mr. Campbell's and assuming the last named's liability.
No notification whatsoever has been sent Mr. Maynard which might imply that the contract in due course would be awarded to him. Under the circumstances I consider that the department is in no rvay legally bound to arvard the contract to Mr. Maynard.


James Layton Ralston: Will the minister tell me
what instigated that opinion? Was there a. letter to the solicitor asking for the opinion?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, this offer
came in in the meantime, I presume, from the other contractor, and we wished to know our legal position in regard to the matter.


James Layton Ralston: Is there anything in the
record at all as to why the solicitor was asked to give an opinion on a matter which is perfectly plain? Everybody has seen advertisements for tenders, and everybody knows that the lowest or any tender is not necessarily accepted. What was the necessity for all thi* care? Why was it necessary to get an opinion from a solicitor to tell the minister that?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.l.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is what the solicitor is there for. He is employed and paid by the department to give the minister advice on legal matters.


James Layton Ralston: Does the minister tell
me that they ask the solicitor for an opinion every time the lowest tenderer happens to ask to be let out?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Any time anything exceptional of this character turns up.


James Layton Ralston: Oh, "exceptional."


John Vallance: Yes, very exceptional.


James Layton Ralston: I think the very fact that this opinion was sought shows the real situation. On September 4 Mr. Maynard's offer was in. Apparently the department wanted to see if they had to accept that tender. Why? Mr. Maynard was going to put in a cheque. He was a man who had already contributed something to the country because of the fact that he had made a tender. That is more than Mr. Downing had done. Mr. Maynard had some rights. I do not think the Minister of Public Works would, need a solicitor to give him advice on that point. He could ask any deputy minister in any department where contracts are let and he would find that those men who go to the trouble of making out estimates, examining plans and specifications and going to the expense of preparing prices are the men who are considered by the department as worthy of consideration in case some tenderer falls down. The moment that principle is broken we lose one of the most important aids the country has in connection with the keeping down of expenditures. Men will not put in tenders if they find that after l heir tenders have been put in they are going to be hawked around the country and somebody else, who has not tendered at all, asked to take the work at their price. That is the real danger.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, that is not
right. My hon. friend is not stating the case fairly at all.


James Layton Ralston: I know the facts, and I
will state them. Will my hon. friend tell me why, in the light of the opinion he received from his solicitors, he felt it necessary to award the contract to Mr. Campbell?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Campbell?


James Layton Ralston: Yes, the lowest tenderer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract
had been awarded to Mr. Campbell by the previous government.
22110-7S.J


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon. friend agree that the lowest tenderer should have it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree in every instance the lowest tenderer should have it. I stand for that principle; I have fought for it, and the lowest tenderer has got it.


James Layton Ralston: No, no, no. On my hon. friend's own statement there is no more reason why Mr. Campbell or the lowest tenderer should have got the contract than that it should go to somebody who did not even tender. They seem to think it is all right if the price is not higher than that of the old tenderer. It has been expressly laid down by two ministers that they do not regard at ail this matter of-


Robert James Manion: No, it has not. I resent
that statement. I did not lay down any such principle at any time.


James Layton Ralston: I think if my hon. friend will let me finish it would be much better. I would ask him to let me say what he said.


Robert James Manion: Well, do not put the
wrong words in my mouth.


James Layton Ralston: I anr referring to my
hon. friend the Minister of Railways and Canals. I say I was surprised at the principle he laid down. If my hon. friend will permit me to say so, I do not think he was quite candid with the committee. I do not believe my hon. friend will find in his department that there has been, either before or since he has been there-I hope not, anyway-any case in which a contract has been given to anybody who did not tender at all.


Robert James Manion: No, but I have been told
that in my department while my hon. friend and his friends were in power, before I got there, certain Conservatives were not even permitted to tender at all. I have been told that.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has said
that- twice. He has made that statement however when neither of the gentlemen who occupied that portfolio is in the house.


Robert James Manion: That is my information.


James Layton Ralston: Since my hon. friend has
made that statement I think he should give the names, because the statement he has made '.s that these gentlemen were told that they could not tender. I do not believe it; I do not believe this house believes it, and I do not believe this country believes it.


Robert James Manion: I do not care whether my hon. friend believes it or not; it is a fact, and I can prove it.
1216	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


James Layton Ralston: I will challenge my hon.
friend to give this house and this committee the names of the contractors.


Robert James Manion: I don't choose to give the names at this moment. I will give the names on the proper occasion. If my hon. friend wants an investigation he had better start it, and 1 will give the names.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is-


An hon. MEMBER:: Start an investigation.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend surely
must be fair. I think he realizes that it is not quite fair to come here and make statements of that kind when the hon. members who were in charge of the departments are not here arid when he refuses to give the names.


An hon. MEMBER:: Ask for an investigation, that is the best thing to do.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend has used
a phrase which has been heard quite often from benches on the other side of the house. He falls back behind it with the statement that when the proper occasion presents itself he will give names. I say he thought this was the proper occasion to make the statement and therefore this is the proper occasion for him to mention any names. I repeat that I do not believe he will find in his department any case in which a man who was not a tenderer at all was given a contract. I do not believe that is so. I believe when he thinks it over, if he has not already thought of it, he will not do it in his department and I do not believe the Minister of Public Works will do it again in his. It is a bad practice. I do not see why the advice of a solicitor was necessary; it is not a question of law, but a question of practice. It is putting a premium on a practice under which men devote, time and money towards examining sites and plans, making investigation and putting in tenders, and the country receives the benefit of their competition. Then after these men have done all the work and spent their money to tender, somebody else is brought in and asked whether he will take the tender at a stated price. This government surely cannot defend such a practice, and I am surprised that my hon. friend should have risen in his place and defended it; I do not think it is good departmental practice. It is not a practice' that is common in the department of the Minister of Railways and Canals or in that of the Minister of Public Works. If they inquire from the deputies throughout the service they will find no such practice pro-
vailing. If that, practice existed there is no reason why tenders could not be advertised, a dozen answers received, the lowest price selected and then an approach made to other people to ask if they would not take the contract at the lowest price. There is no difference between that procedure and that which has been adopted in this instance.


Robert James Manion: Certainly there is.


James Layton Ralston: Under the rule my hon.
friend has read the contract need not necessarily be awarded to the lowest tenderer any more than to any of the others and if they take the attitude which has been taken tonight they will be disregarding the lowest tenderer and giving the contract to someone else at his price. If the policy is adopted whereby tenderers are left out altogether I say that lowest tenderer might as well be left out as anybody else. It is a bad practice, and there will be nothing but grief in the Department of Public Works if my hon. friend allows the practice to continue.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds!:	My hon. friend
has not stated the case thoroughly. I have great respect for him and I am surprised that he has stated the matter as he has.


James Layton Ralston: I have stated it correctly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He has left the
impression that after these tenders were in the minister hawked them about.


An hon. MEMBER:: No, no.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And rejected the
lowest tender.


James Layton Ralston: I know exactly what was done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Rejected the
lowest tender and allowed somebody else to come in.


James Layton Ralston: I did not say anything
of the kind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was the
impression I got.


James Layton Ralston: Well, my hon. friend had better read Hansard.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to assure him the facts disclosed that nothing of that kind was done in this case.


James Layton Ralston: We know what was done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Nothing of that
kind will be done as long as I have control of the Department of Public Works. The whole trouble arose in this department through a contractor, as I have stated-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


James Layton Ralston: That is old stuff.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contractor
withdrew his tender, presenting the department with a difficulty.


James Layton Ralston: No, no great difficulty


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And they
adopted a course which I think is reasonable and sound.


An hon. MEMBER:: And political.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And as I have
said, it did not result in the loss of the taxpayers money.


James Layton Ralston: But it discouraged three
tenderers from tendering again.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, not at all.


James Layton Ralston: Does my hon friend
think that Maynard will tender again?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Our good friends have not been altogether consistent. For eight or ten years I sat over where they are now, and while in opposition they were the greatest exponents of the tender system. Now, they come forward with a proposition that really destroys the tender system in this country. How did Mr. Downing get the information that this tender of Mr. Maynard's was $7,380? He must have gotten that information somewhere because he tendered to the very cent.


Mr. QUINN:: Everybody in Prince Edward Island knew the figures.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Perhaps they did in Halifax too.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The passing of the order in council made the matter public, and Mr. Campbell knew it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Which
order in council?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The order in
council awarding the contract to Mr. Campbell. His was the lowest tender. It was well known down through there .that -the contract was awarded to him .at that figure. It was in the newspapers, I am told.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: It clearly demonstrates to the house that there was something very irregular in this whole transaction.


Mr. SI  EWART@Leeds: The irregularity was in the withdrawal of the lowest tender.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: The minister cannot get away with that. The public are too intelligent
for him to put that across. It is no use trying to hide behind a smoke screen of that sort. When I first brought this matter to the attention of the house the Prime Minister said I certainly was misinformed, that no transaction of that kind could possibly happen. Now I am perfectly justified in bringing the matter again to the attention of the bouse. I think we have convinced everyone in this chamber and the people from coast to coast that we were right, and that -the system our friends are now adopting is absolutely wrong. What will happen -to tenders for rural mail routes-


James Houston Spence: Why worry about them?


Alfred Edgar MacLean: -if information is given out that the lowest tender is a certain amount, and then on the recommendation of a defeated candidate, such as my friend Mr. Arnett, a certain gentleman who never tendered at all is awarded the contract a-t the same figure as the lowest tender? I would remind hon. members that if it happens in one department it may happen in all departments. I think it is only fair to ask that this item stand, and that the minister bring down all the correspondence that passed between Mr. Arnett and the department, between Mr. Downing and the department, between the district engineer, Mr. Hyndman, and the department, and between any others and the department. When we got that information we will be in a position to pas judgment. What happened last year prevented the work being carried on at the very time the workingmen of the town needed employment. I would ask that the item stand until the further information is furnished.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have endeavoured to give the committee all the information available.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, I have endeavoured to lay everything before -the committee fully and to state the ease fairly. My hon. friend has not placed the case -before the committee in its true light. He has suggested that there has been some manipulation of the tenders, that something was done to take the contract away from the lowest tenderer and allow some other person to have it at the same figure. Nothing of the kind was done. This all happened because of the intervention of my hon. friend opposite.


John Livingstone Brown: You are laying too much emphasis on that.
1218	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He asked that the lowest tenderer be relieved from his contract. Then the course was adopted of trying to get the. work done at the same figure by a competent contractor. The alternative was selected of getting a good competent contractor instead of the second tenderer do the work. That is all I can say.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Does the minister mean to say that Mr. Maynard was not a competent contractor?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not reflect on Mr. Maynard at all, but I say that the gentleman who has the contract now is competent.


Mr.   Cowen@Acting Chair(man)? of Committees of the Whole: Shall the item carry?


William Duff: No, Mr. Chairman. The minister says he has given us all the information in regard to the matter, but within the last half hour he told me that he did not have any correspondence there might be between Mr. Maynard and the department. Therefore it was understood that the item should stand. Within the last few minutes the minister, in order to furnish some reason for his position in the matter, referred to the fact that in all the advertisements which go out for tenders, whether from his or any other department, there is a clause that the lowest or any tender will not necessarily be accepted. He is quite, right. But why is that clause inserted? It is not inserted so that when all the tenders are in the tenderers will be. ignored and an outsider, a stranger, be awarded the contract. The purpose of that clause is to enable the department to call for further tenders if they think the lowest tender is not sufflciently low. The Minister of Railways was good enough to come to the help of his colleague. He said there was a "framerup" between Mr. Campbell and! Mr. Maynard. On reflection my hon. friend will surely realize that every day in the year, any corporation-whether it be the Canadian National Railways, the Canadian Pacific Railway, or any other-after awarding a tender will allow one contractor to pass his contract over to another. I repeat, that is done every day, and there is no "frame-up" about it. That has been the practice in the Public Works department for the last ten years.


James Houston Spence: Does the other man always get it?


William Duff: Which other man?


James Houston Spence: The man that you suggest has the contract transferred to him. That is no argument.
fMr. Brown.]


William Duff: After I sit down I shall be delighted to hear my hon. friend, for he always was veiy interesting when opposing estimates from this side of the house. I say that in all kinds of business-and the Minister of Railways if he does not know it now will find it out next year-contracts are transferred from one tenderer to another.


Mr. BURY:: That was not done in this case.


William Duff: Yes.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: He asked for the lowest tender.


William Duff: That is exactly what happened. He did do it, there was no "frame-up." Mr. Campbell did not want to go on with the contract.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: Why?


William Duff: I do not know. I am dealing with my hon. friend's suggestion. What I am saying is that Mr. Campbell, after being notified that he was the lowest tenderer, decided that he did not want to go on with the contract. Mr. Campbell was perfectly justified in transferring that tender to Mr. Maynard, provided the department accepted that transfer.


Robert James Manion: That would be true if Mr. Campbell had taken the contract himself and then assigned it to Mr. Maynard but he did not take the contract; he stepped out of it and then tried to pass it on to another man.


William Duff: He did not step out of it; he could not step out of it. All Mr. Campbell 1 could have done was to forfeit his deposit in the first place.


Mr. ERNST:: No, he asked to be relieved.


William Duff: He would be a fool to ask to be relieved when he knew that by being relieved he would forfeit his money.


William Gordon Ernst: But the hon. member sitting behind my hon. friend asked that he be released.


William Duff: Yes, on certain conditions, but he could not be released unless the department was satisfied.


William Gordon Ernst: But he was released.


William Duff: I do not understand what the hon. gentleman is trying to get across. I do not believe he knows himself. I am talking particularly to the Minister of Railways, who said there was a frame-up. I say that any day in the year a contractor can transfer his

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.
tender or his contract to another person so long as the department is satisfied with the transfer. So I say there was no frame-up, because it will be shown by the correspondence when it is brought down that Mr. Campbell, as well as the hon. member for Prince, had a distinct understanding with the Department of Public Works that they were quite satisfied to have Mr. Campbell transfer his contract to Mr. Maynard. They accepted Mr. Maynard's deposit cheque and intended to give him the contract. But when some friends of the party opposite suggested something else, Mr. Maynard did not get the contract. I am not blaming Mr. Downing's friends at all. I made the statement previously that as far as I am personally concerned I would rather see a Grit get a contract than a Tory, when the Liberals are in power. I do not object to that, but why is not the minister honest enough to say that was the fact? Why does he not say, ''Some of my Conservative friends from Prince Edward Island came to me and said here was a good Tory supporter, this man Downing, who worked hard for the party, and here was a chance to give a little work." Why does not the minister say so? I would have done it if I had been in his place, but why try to camouflage the thing? That is the whole story. Mr. Maynard was to get that contract the department were satisfied to have Mr. Maynard get it, until some of my Conservative friends from Prince Edward Island came to the minister and said Mr. Downing should get the contract instead. That was why the minister sent for the solicitor that was why he wanted to find some way to crawl out. He succeeded in crawling out by doing it in this way, so it is useless for the Minister of Railways to try to get across to the public that there was a frame-up in the matter. There was no frame-up at ail it is the usual way of doing business and it is done every day in the year.


Robert James Manion: I did not use the word "frame-up"-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: You did.


Robert James Manion: Let me finish. I used the word, of course, but not in an offensive sense with regard to Mr. Maynard or Mr. Campbell.
I know nothing about them. I say that as far as they are concerned it was a frame-up to give the contract to Maynard.


William Duff: No. an understanding.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is getting
very particular about my words, but he was not so particular to-night when an hon. member on this side interrupted.
Mr. DUiFF:	I am sure the Minister of
Railways is not a bit more careful of his language than I am. He is no more courteous to members on this side of the house than I am to members on the other side, and I will not allow him to get away with that.


Robert James Manion: I was just remarking that my hon. friend was so particular as to change the word "frame-up" to "understanding" but that he was not so particular about his own language. I was going to say that as far as Maynard and Campbell are concerned, Campbell got the contract. That was quite right; he was the lowest tenderer and he was awarded the contract, just as he would have received it if my hon. friend and his friends had been in power. But Mr. Campbell refused to carry it out, and asked to be relieved. Then, after he was relieved of the contract, he wanted to have the privilege of giving it to whomever he desired.


Wilfred Hanbury: He was asked to do so
by the government.


Robert James Manion: He was not asked to do so. After refusing to carry out a contract for which he had tendered, and in regard to which he had sent a cheque to the department, he wanted to name the contractor to whom he would turn over the work.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Robert James Manion: Let me finish. Surely the Minister of Public Works had more right to name the contractor than Mr. Campbell, who had reneged on the contract which he had obtained. The Minister of Public WTorks is the man responsible to the people of this country, and when Mr. Campbell had obtained the contract by a fair tender and then asked for his cheque back, surely he was not the man to name the contractor. The Minister of Public Works was the man to do that He did name the contractor; he gave out the contract at the same figure and there was not a loss of one dollar to the people of Canada. This talk of the hon. member for Shelburne-YaTmout.h, who said that this ruins the tender system in this country, is just the same kinld of eyewash as the rest of the protests. This has no effect at all on the tender system; it will not affeict that system a particle, because the lowest tender price got the contract.


Peter John Veniot: He did not.
1220	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


Robert James Manion: I say the lowest tender
price, the lowest tenderer, got it first. He refused to carry out the contract, but it was awarded at the lowest tender price, so that absolutely upholds the tender system. 1 should like to know what right Mr. Cnmn-bell had, after reneging on taking the contract himself, to name the man who should get that contract. What right had the hon. member for Prince to name the man, for that matter?-and I say this with no disrespect to him. I do not object to him or to any other hon. member fighting for his friends, but I do not see why there should be any objection to there being a little friendship shown on this side of the house as well.


Peter John Veniot: Be honest about it.


Robert James Manion: Yes, I am perfectly honest. I say there has been no injury to the tender system and there has not been the loss of one dollar to the people of this country. Certainly the Minister of Public Works, who is responsible not only to this parliament but to the people of this country as well, was the man to give the contract, rather than the man who originally got it and then reneged on it.


William Duff: The Minister of Railways
has made the statement that Mr. Campbell refused tp carry out the contract. That is absolutely incorrect.


Robert James Manion: That is what I am informed.


William Duff: No, he asked to be relieved
of the contract; he did not refuse to carry it out.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: I am afraid my hon.
friend is becoming a lawyer.


William Duff: No, I am only a sea lawyer.
I sometimes thank God I am not a lawyer. I am not going to allow the Minister of Railways to get away with this; when he states that Mr. Campbell, the first and the lowest contractor, refused to carry out his contract, he is making an incorrect statement. Campbell did no such thing. He could not refuse to carry out his contract without losing his deposit money, in the first place. If he refused to do the work he would lose the $738 which he sent in, representing ten per cent of the amount of the tender. That is the law with regard to public works. What Mr. Campbell did was to make an arrangement with the Department of Public Works that his tender or his contract would be

passed over to Mr. Maynard, and to that arrangement the Department of Public Works agreed.


John Howard Myers: My hon. friend is wrong.


William Duff: How do you know I am
wrong?


John Howard Myers: That was the second step he took; the first step was when he asked to be relieved of his contract.


William Duff: My hon. friend says I am
wrong, and then he admits I am right. He says that was the second step; of course it was the second step.


John Howard Myers: He should have taken the
first step first.


William Duff: Mr. Campbell certainly took
the first step when he put in his tender. His was the lowest tender, and it was accepted. That was the first step.


John Howard Myers: Then he wanted to sidestep.


William Duff: And now the Minister of
Public Works is sidestepping. Since five o'clock this afternoon the minister his given seventeen different explanations in regard to this matter, and none of them is correct. The minister admits that he has not before him the full correspondence in the matter. If he would come out honestly and say, "My friends came to me and said this was a chance to help one of our supporters" then, like the Minister of Railways, I would agree with him. We would all agree; we would be three of a kind. But when the Minister of Public Works tries to hide behind a serious mien, tells us he is going to carry on his department by giving contracts to the lowest tenderers, and then deliberately ignores all the tenderers in this matter in order to call in a friend of the party-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Again my hon.
friend is not stating the case fairly. The Minister of Public Works did not deliberately disregard the lowest tenderer.


William Duff: Oh yes, he did.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, he did not, excuse me. The lowest tenderer himself disregarded his own tender.


Wilfred Hanbury: He asked to .be let out of his contract.
* Mr. STEWART (Leeds): Not only did he disregard his tender, but he disregarded his contract and asked to be relieved.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-P.E.I.


William Duff: Was that disregarding it? He could not disregard his tender unless the department were satisfied; otherwise he would lose his $738.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) methods to meet his wishe


William Duff: Hear, hear.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) of his contract-


William Duff: Quite so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -and to get the work done at the same cost by another competent contractor.


William Duff: No, by transferring it to Mr. Maynard; that is the second step.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the whole story.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Peter John Veniot: Hon. gentlemen will not succeed in having it carried in this way. We have asked for information and are entitled to it. I know the minister is anxious to give it. He has not the information to-night and I was going to suggest, as I have already suggested, that this matter might stand until we have that information. The minister read from notes this afternoon, and that, I think, has caused all this trouble. If the minister had had the correspondence here this afternoon and had read it, the original correspondence. instead of reading from notes made up for him, he might not have left a wrong impression upon the house. Listening to the notes as he read them, I was convinced that the first tenderer, Mr. Campbell, was informed that he could give up his tender either by forfeiting his deposit or by entering into arrangements to make up the difference between his tender and the next one, Mr. Maynard's. The minister left that impression with us this afternoon, and if that is true then the department cannot get away from the fact that Mr. Maynard, and not an outsider, was entitled, under their instructions to Campbell, to receive the contract. In view of the apparent misunderstanding, from the reading of the notes and the fact that the correspondence has not been produced, I would suggest again that the minister let the matter stand for the time being and take it up when he has the correspondence here.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was reading
from the notes prepared in connection with the estimates.


Peter John Veniot: That is so.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did net have all the correspondence with me-


Peter John Veniot: I know that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -as, of course, the hon. member knows. But the case has been developed, the facts are all before the *committee, and the committee knows as much now as it can know.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I have been following the discussion with a good deal of interest and have been debating in my own mind whether the government was seeking to block its own estimates or trying to evade the bringing-down of some correspondence.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Neither.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Unless there is something to conceal, neither reason seems to be sufficient to account for the time spent in discussion since the request for the correspondence was made. I should think that the minister would find it altogether reasonable, where he has referred to a part of the correspondence, to promise to bring down the whole of it, and he might well let the item stand until he does so. My impression earlier in the day was that hon. members on this side of the house rather expected that most of the harbours and rivers estimates of the Department of Public Works would be completed to-day, and I am surprised to find that since five o'clock this afternoon the house has been discussing this one item relating to a wharf in Summerside, Prince Edward Island, and largely, for the last hour at least, because the minister has persistently refused to bring down the correspondence. That is the only reason further progress has not been made. If the correspondence had been brought down or a promise made to bring it down, the item standing meanwhile, many of the other items would have been passed long before this. The minister even yet might get through a little business between now and eleven o'clock if he would allow the item to stand and promise to bring down all the correspondence. As the matter stands now, it certainly looks as though the government were trying to evade placing some of the correspondence before the house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My right hon. friend was not in the house, and I wish to assure him that I am not endeavouring to
:	And we took
: -to relieve him
1222	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NS.
conceal anything, nior am I refusing to bring down correspondence. I will accept the suggestion and see that it is brought down, and in the meantime the item can stand.
Item stands.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia, $698,500.
Mr. RAiLSTON: There are two or three matters to which I wish to refer in connection with this vote, and they have to do particularly with works in my own constituency. In the first place, I should be glad to be given some information regarding the item of $9,000 for the wharf at Barrington passage, and also the wharf at North East Point, Cape Sable island. What are those?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With regard to Barrington passage, the $9,000 is required to provide improved docking facilities in order to accommodate the new ferry service which the provincial government proposes establishing, to handle traffic to and from Cape Sable island. The provincial government has purchased the existing ferry boat and wharves at Barrington passage and North East Point, Cape Sable island. As the present ferry and docking facilities are not capable of taking care of the traffic between Cape Sable island and the mainland, a new ferry boat is being constructed. This will require further docking facilities and improved accommodation, which will be of great benefit to 3,500 people now almost isolated from communication with the mainland.


James Layton Ralston: I wish to thank the minister for the assistance which is being given in connection with improved facilities for communication with Cape Sable island. Does this indicate a general policy with regard to assisting highway or transportation projects of the provincial government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I do not
think there is any established policy in connection with that.


James Layton Ralston: This is for the construction of docking facilities for a ferry under the provincial government, and I am only asking the minister to go a little further. I want to refer him to a matter that has been up for some time in connection with that locality. Cape Sable island, as the minister probably knows, is the southernmost point in Nova Scotia. It has on it the town of Clarke's Harbour, a very thriving, progressive town

where a great deal of business is done. The minister has on the records of the department some figures with regard to the business carried on there, particularly in Clarke's Harbour, but that is contributed to by people throughout Cape Sable island. Let me give him one or two figures. These are from a statement made by the board of trade of Clarke's Harbour in 1927, representations having been made to the Department of Public Works. In that year 10,845,000 pounds of lobster were landed, at a value of $305,000. In the cod-fishing season the production was 3,300,000 pounds at a value of $165,000. There are two machine shops, boat-building establishments, and five factories engaged in the canning of lobsters. The population in 1921 was 3,000-The island is separated from the mainland by Barrington passage, and the people who live on the island have to travel nine miles from the ferry to get to Clarke's Harbour. In the winter time they have repeatedly had the service cut off by ice. Their location on Cape Sable island gives them a stragetic position to carry on business, which is a great contribution to the fishing industry, particularly in the western end of the province. I ask the minister not only to give consideration to but to study this matter with a view to making a favourable decision along the line of what he is doing now, namely, to provide better communication with Cape Sable Island. Three years ago resolutions and petitions came in from the residents of that island, including the town of Clarke's Harbour, and the board of trade, pointing out that on account of the ice conditions in the winter communication was frequently cut off, and asking that ice piers be erected in the channel. Those representations were considered and a vote was included in the estimates. Plans were prepared for the construction of five piers altogether; two have been constructed, one entirely and the other practically completed, although as a matter of fact it does not quite show above high water. I ask the minister to complete that pier and to give earnest and serious study to the completion of the other three piers. This would facilitate winter communication and, as I made clear in a letter to the minister not long ago, it would permit the proper authorities, which would be the provincial government, to place steel upon these piers for the construction of a bridge. That project has been in the minds of the people of Clarke's Harbour and Cape Sable island for some time. The piers were designed so

Questions
that that might be done. It has been done already in other places. I have in mind Wallace Harbour and Granville Ferry as two places in which the ice piers were Used for the purpose of supporting the superstructure of a bridge. I urge that consideration be given to this matter as being necessary from the point of view of the needs of the people for communication and its benefit to the fishing industry in* that part of the country. This project should be supported by the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Rhodes) who knows the importance of the fisheries of Cape Sable island and vicinity.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend's representations and suggestions in connection with this matter will be very carefully considered, and I will give instructions to our engineers to make a study of this matter.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Bennett, the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, May 4, 1931.



QUESTIONS

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answerej} orally are indicated by an asterisk).	[DOT]

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Is the government aware that the Bell Telephone Company has an exclusive monopoly in eastern Canada?
2.	Is the government aware that said company exacts excessive rates?
3.	What remedy, if any, does the government propose, in order to relieve the ratepayers?
Richard Bedford Bennett: In regard to that question may I say that the officers of the department affected find some difficulty in making an answer which would be entirely responsive to the question. The truth however is that the answer to the first question will be no. With respect to the second question, in view of the fact that the determination as to what constitutes reasonable rates is in the hands of a court set up by this parliament, the Board of Railway Commissioners for Canada, the same answer might reasonably be given. With respect to the third question, concerning the right to take proceedings for the purpose of dealing with the question of rates, I might
say the question is in the hands of those affected. The government can say only that this parliament set up the body to which I have referred so that matters of this nature may be taken out of the hands of parliament. Possibly that is all I should say in making an intelligent answer.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: No. 1, answered.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask, for the future information of the house, if that is a proper question?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The question is withdrawn, obviating the necessity for a ruling.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-DEBT
Mr. McGIBBON:: 1.	Wliat was the debt of the national railways at the end of the fiscal year, 1922; (a) to the public at large; (b) to the government of Canada?
2.	What is the debt of the national railways at the end of the fiscal year 1930-1931: (a) to the public; (b) to the government; (c) how much of this is interest?
3.	How much of this is due to building and
acquiring branch lines:	(a) to building and
acquiring terminals; (b) how much has been spent on equipment, rolling stock, etc.; (c) how many hotels are owned and operated by the Canadian National Railways, and where are they located; (d) how much is invested in same; (e) what is the operating profit or deficit on each overhead included; (f) how much did it cost to furnish and equip these hotels; (g) what was the payroll of the Canadian National Railways, January, 1922, and what is it to-day?
4.	How much is invested in express companies and telegraph companies?
5.	What is the operating profit or loss in each, overhead included?
6.	What was the payroll, January, 1922?
7 What is it to-day, viz: fiscal year 1930-31?
8. What is Sir Henry Thornton's salary including that from all subsidiary companies, :f any?
9 What allowance is made to him for entertainment and expenses?	_
10.	How many officials of the Canadian National Railways receive salaries in excess of $25,000 each?
11.	What is the investment represented in the steamships used by the Canadian National Railways in the service between Vancouver and Victoria, British Columbia?
12.	What has been the total cost to date of the Canadian National Railways building in New York, and what is the estimated cost of the work yet to be done on this building?
13.	How much has been expended by the Canadian National Railways for materials arid equipment purchased in the United States from and including the year 1922 to date?
14.	How much has been expended on branch lines in the United States, where are they located, and how much on each line, during the above-mentioned period?
Questions


Mr. MANION:: 1.	The capital debt of Canadian National Railways at December 31, 1922, was:
Funded debt held by public	S 804,503,144 06
Loans from Dominion of Canada	$506,945,969 07
Interest on loans accrued but unpaid	 67,737,461 07	574,683,430 14

2.	The capital debt of Canadian National Railways at December 31, 1930, was:
Funded debt held by public	$1,168,565,862 63
Loans from Dominion of Canada	$604,406,239 42
Interest on loans accrued but unpaid	 322,155,901 96	926,562,141 38
Short term loans-public	 8,993,000 00
Short term loans-Minister of Finance	 46,660,541 78	55,653,541 78

Appropriations for Canadian government railways:
This represents the contra account to the amount included in other balance sheet accounts in respect to expenditures made out of public funds for capital expenditures, stores and open accounts, of Canadian government railways. The balance in the account at December 31, 1922, was $442,062,571.45, and at December 31, 1930, $403,443,934.56.
3.	Amount expended on building and acquiring branch lines during the
eight years, 1923-1930, inclusive	$ 87,662,132 61
(a)	Expended on large freight and passenger terminals (classification 10A
and 10B) during the eight years, 1923-1930, inclusive	 9,228,315 22
(b)	Expended on new equipment, additions and betterments to equipment,
less retirements, during the eight years, 1923-30, inclusive	 127,831,180 81
(c-d-e) Hotels owned and operated by Canadian National Railways during 1930:
Investment	Operating	Interest	at	profit or	on	TotalName Location	Dec. 31,1930	deficit	investment	deficitChateau Laurier, Ottawa, Ont	. .$8,535,866 99	$55,608 65	$419,274 10	$363,665 45Pictou Lodge, Pictou, N.S	.. 200,883 42	900 41	10,035 39	9,134 98Fort Gary, Winnipeg, Man	.. 2,890,206 32	69,383 73t	144,633 69	214,017 42Macdonald, Edmonton, Alta	. .. 2,224,851 48	15,475 75	111,088 14	95,612 39Prince Edward, Brandon, Man	.. 519,812 44	28,572 271	25,955 19	54,527 46Prince Arthur, Port Arthur, Ont. ..	.. 1,176,921 20	7,781 29t	58,817 87	66,599 16Jasper Park Lodge, Jasper, Alta. ..	.. 2,539,153 98	47,766 64t	118,067 46	165,834 10Nova Scotian, Halifax, N.S	.. 2,358,418 30	871 99*	58,960 46	58,088 47Minaki Lodge, Minaki, Ont	.. 1,091,354 40	50,165 57t	54,334 82	104,500 39
* From June 23, 1930. tDeficit.
(f)	The cost of furnishing and equipping the hotels referred to is included in the investment figures given, and separation is not readily available.
(g)	The pay-roll for Canadian National Railways for the year 1922 (including men engaged on Capital A/C, etc.) was $144,397,294. This does not include Central Vermont Railway. The pay-roll of Canadian National Railways for the year 1930 (including men engaged on Capital A/C. etc.) was $159,675,111.

This includes $3,218,773 for Central Vermont Railway.
4.	The investment account of the Canadian National Express, including goodwill, franchise and contract privileges, at December 31, 1930, was $3,352,213.18. The investment account of the Canadian National Commercial Telegraphs, including leased plant and equipment, at December 31, 1930, was $17,995,710.61.
5.	The net income of the Canadian National Express for the year 1930 was $290,982.54

Questions
after including $78,422.70 for interest on indebtedness. The net income loss of the Canadian National Telegraphs for the year 1930 was $115,323.33 after including $838,021.52 for interest on indebtedness.
6.	The pay-roll of Canadian National Express for 'the year 1922 was $4,081,175. The pay-roll of Canadian National Telegraphs (including men engaged on Capital A/C, etc.) was $2,529,967.
7.	The pay-roll of Canadian National Express for the year 1930 was $4,482,106. The pay-roll of Canadian National Telegraphs (including men engaged on Capital A/C, etc.) was $4,650,221. Increase over 1922 made up as fallows: $315,8S7 on 'account of the acquisition of lines in the maritime provinces (Western Union); $210,368 by the acquisition of Western Union Lines in British Columbia;
$195,140 by increase in wage rates and $1,198,859 by increase in staff other than the acquisition of Western Union lines referred t.o. In the same period the revenue increased from $3,369,162 to $6,239,429.
8.	The management state that it is not in the interest of Canadian National Railways to furnish this information.
9.	See answer No. 8.
10.	Six at .present. Will be reduced to five on July 1, 1931.
11.	For the present, the service between Vancouver, Victoria and Seattle is being operated by the SS. "Prince David" which cost $2,158,203. It is intended to place a second boat in this service in May next.
12.	$416,335.71. The work is fully completed, and no further expenditures will be necessary.
13. Materials purchased from United States			firms for use	on Canadian	National lines
the United	States:				
			New	General	
Year	Ties	Fuel	equipment	materials	Total$	$	S	$	$1923..	.. .. 697,424	2,946,196	6.328,568	3.300,000	13,272,1881924..	.. .. 1,081,445	1.507.311	684.000	3.125,773	6,335,5271925..	.. .. 354,642	1,272,273	284.285	4.561,044	6.472,2441926..	.. .. 546,617	1,326,321	-	4,371,674	6,244,6121927..	.. .. 720,626	1,618,379	4,184.462	5,053,908	11,577.3751928..	.. .. 974,626	1.205,555	61.000	5,012,937	7,254.1181929..	.. .. 687,643	1,095,108	226.204	5.368,943	7.377.8981930..	.. .. 435,169	736,792	-	3,737,454	4,909.415Materials	purchased from	United States	firms for use	on Canadian National lir	in Canada:	General	Year	Fuel	materials	Total$	$	$1923..	11.483.557	3,486.455	14,970,0121924..	5,495,227	3,717.122	9.212.3491925..	3,860,215	2,894,859	6.755,0741926..	3,813.532	2,486,522	6,300,0541927..	4.949.846	1.202,806	6,152,6521928..	3.696.723	3,357,270	7,053,9931929..	3,749.594	2.433.335	6.182.9291930..	2.797,795	1,644,857	4,442,652
14. The amount given in answer to question 3 includes $3,318,754.05 for lines in United States, viz: construction of a belt line at Pontiac, Mioh., $2,035,251.98. Acquisition of Muskegon Railway & Navigation Company, a belt railway at Muskegon, Mich., $519,621.21. Acquisition of stock control (formerly under 99-year Iea.se) of Cincinnati, Saginaw & Mackinaw Railroad, a railroad 53 miles long from Durand to Bay City, Mich., $763,880.86.


MR. G. H. BOULAY
Sir EUGENE FISET:: 1.	Has any application been received, verbal or otherwise, by the honourable Minister of Railways and Canals, or the honourable Postmaster General, or the honourable Solicitor General, from Mr. H. G. Boulay. defeated candidate in the county of Rimouski, to be nnpointed as a director of the Canadian National Railways for the Quebec district?
2.	If so, why was his application refused?
Questions

3.	Was Mr. H. G. Boulay offered a senator-ship in July, 1917, vice-IIonourable Senator L'Esperanee?
4.	Did he refuse such an appointment?
Mr. CAHAN;
1. No.
2	Answered by No. 1.
3	and 4. No information.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS-GASPE RAILWAYS
[Stage Direction]
employees
Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	When the Gaspe railways were merged with the Canadian National Railways, was there an agreement with the employees regarding permanency of employment and promotion in the service, and if so, is that agreement being lived up to?
2.	Are main line employees of the Canadian National Railways filling vacancies on the Gaspe railways, and how many have been appointed since the road was taken over?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	No agreement.
2.	No, except where, vacancies may be filled by employees from main line holding seniority rights under agreements with labour organizations. Under these agreements regular employees on Gaspe lines when taken over are protected in their positions and cannot be displaced by employees from main line, but under above agreements vacancies are filled on seniority basis. Eight such permanent vacancies filled by employees from main line since road taken over.


QUEBEC CITY-TENDERS FOR MAIL COLLECTION
Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	Have tenders been called for the collection of mails in the city of Quebec?
2.	If so, who are the tenderers, and what prices were submitted by each?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded, and at what price?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes, on 22nd May, 1925.
2.	Albert Joseph Auclair, 812,300; J. Amedee Demers, $13,000; Eugene Trudel, Jr., $13,900; Eugene Trudel, Jr., $14,990.
3.	Albert Joseph Auclair, at $12,300 per annum. Since the contract was awarded, the frequency and distance of service were increased with the increase in cost at pro rata of contract. The present contract expires on 30th June, 1933.
[.Sir Eugeni* Fiset.]


STE. ANNE DE BEAUPRE-POSTMASTER
Mr. CASGRAIN:: 1.	Is the government aware that since July 28, 1930, there has been a change of postmaster at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, county of Montmorency, Quebec ?
2.	Was Mr. Raoul Fortier replaced by Mr. Simeon Ratte, and if so, why?
3.	Were complaints made against Mr. Fortier?
4.	If so, what were the complaints, and by whom were they made?
5.	Was an inquiry held?
6.	If not, why?
7.	By whom was Mr. Simeon Ratte recommended?
8.	When did he take charge of his office?
9.	Did Mr. -Ratte pass the examinations of the Civil Service Commission?
10.	Did Mr. Ratte obtain a certificate of qualification from the Civil Service Commission?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Mr. Ratte was placed in temporary charge pending a permanent appointment by the Civil Service Commission.
3.	Yes.
4.	Was charged with active political partisanship by Mr. Thomas Maher, Quebec.
5.	No.
6.	Postmaster refused to sign declaration denying active participation in politics.
7.	By Thomas Maher, largely signed petition of residents of Ste. Anne de Beaupre.
8.	He took temporary charge on 3rd January 1931.
9.	Mr. Ratte was given a favourable rating by the inspector who interviewed the candidates.
10.	The permanent appointment has not yet been made by.the commission.



DAIRY INDUSTRY ACT

Mr. BUCKLEY:: 1.	How many informations, of which the department have record, were laid under the provisions of the Dairv Industry Act, for the years 1928, 1929 and 1930?
2.	In which provinces were these informations laid and what number in each?
3.	Flow many convictions were obtained in each province in said years?
4.	How many of the individuals convicted underwent imprisonment through failure to pay the fines imposed, and in which province, for the said years?

Questions


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	1928, 100; 1929, 134; 1930, 122.
O S- <D	0) !h
2.	Name of Province 3 2	2 3 S
O >, O >>
Op,
P. E. Island	 1
New Brunswick			1	
Nova Scotia			1	
Quebec	. .. 87	103	96Ontario	. .. 11	27	26Saskatchewan	1	British Columbia.. ..	.. . 1	1	3.	P. E. Island	. .. 1	New Brunswick	1	Nova Scotia	1	Quebec	. .. 84	102	92Ontario	. .. 10	27	26Saskatchewan	1	British Columbia.. ..	.. .. 1	1	4.	1-individual in the Province of Quebec during the year 1930.



B.C. WOOD PRESERVING CO., LTD.

Mr. REID:: 1.	What was the total amount charged to the B.C. Wood Preserving Company, Limited, in accordance with the agreement entered into with them by the government in the matter of filling in their ^property known as district lot 16. group 1. New Westminster district, map 4724 and block A, district lot 16, group 1, N.W.D.?
2.	What amounts are still owing the government by this company?
3.	Have any attempts been made to collect the balance owing?
4.	Was any money spent or authorized to be spent on the purchase of tools, machinery or materials of any kind, including cement, glass, hardware, lumber, cement pipe, or steel rails under the Unemployment Relief Act or the direct relief act by the provincial government, district municipalities or cities of British Columbia?
5.	If so, what are the particulars?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	$41,768.13.
2.	$26,768.13.
3.	Government is safeguarded as to payment by guarantee company bond.
4.	No information.
5.	Answered by No. 4.



POINTE-AU-PIC-HARBOUR COLLECTIONS

Mr. CASGRAIN:: What amount of money was collected for every department concerned at the harbour of Pointe-au-Pie in the county of Charlevoix, by the wharfinger for the fiscal years 1928-29, 1929-30 and 1930-31?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1928-29, *262.37; 1929-30, $212.90; 1930-31, $92.80.



HON. H. W, NEWLANDS

Mr. LAPOINTE:: 1.	When was Honourable H. W. Newlands appointed Lieutenant-Governor of the province of Saskatchewan and when did his term of office expire?
2.	Did Honourable Mr. Newlands send his resignation prior to the end of his term of office, and if so, when?
3.	Who was appointed administrator of the province of Saskatchewan pending the appointment of a successor to Honourable Mr. Newlands. and what was the date of such appointment?
4.	What was the date of the appointment of a new Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan to replace Honourable H. W. Newlands and when was he sworn in?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Appointed February 17, 1921-sworn in February 17. Reappointed February 22, 1926 -sworn in February 25.
2.	No. On 25th October. 1930, the Honourable Mr. Newlands offered to resign his position as Lieutenant-Governor as he wished to go away for the winter but the government granted him leave of absence for the remainder of his term.
3.	The Honourable Sir Frederick W. G. Haultain. November 1. 1930; the Honourable Sir Frederick W. G. Haultain, February 23, 1931; the Honourable J. T. Brown, March 10. 1931; the Honourable J. T. McKay, April 10, 1931.
4.	Lieut.-Col. Hugh E. Munroe, M.D., appointed March 31, 1931-sworn in April 21, 1931.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKETING AGENT AT NEW WESTMINSTER

Mr. REID:: 1.	Have the services of Mr. W. A. Wilson, agricultural produce marketing agent, been dispensed with, or is he still in the employ of the government as such?
2.	Is Mr. E. G. Saunders of New Westminster in the employ of the government?
3.	If so, by what department is he employed?
4.	What are his duties?
5.	Is he supplied with an automobile?
6.	If not, is he allowed expenses in lieu of such ?
7.	Is any cheek made of the work he is performing?
8.	What are his hours of duty?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Mr. W. A. Wilson is still in the employ of the federal Department of Agriculture as agricultural produce marketing agent in London.
2.	Yes.
3.	Department of the Interior.
Questions

4.	Silvicultural research and forest inventory investigations.
5.	Yes.
6.	Answered by No. 5.
7.	Yes.
8.	Regular office hours as prescribed by the Civil Service Commission regulations.



CAP CHAT LIGHTHOUSE KEEPER

Mr. BRASSET:: 1.	What is the name of the lighthouse keeper at Cap Chat, county of Gaspe, Quebec?
2.	What is his age, and by whom was he
recommended?
3.	Has he passed the examinations required by the Civil Service Commission?
4.	Were notices given to the public advertising this position?
5.	Does the Department of Marine know that there are some returned soldiers at Cap Chat who are qualified to occupy that position?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Jean Francois Roy is temporarily in charge pending a permanent appointment.
2.	The Department of Marine has no information as to his age. He was recommended by Mr. W. A. E. Flynn.
3.	He was examined by an officer of the Department of Marine who reported him competent to perform the duties required of him.
4.	The Civil Service Commission has been requested to make a permanent appointment.
5.	No.



*CREDIT ORGANIZATION TO ASSIST AGRICULTURE

Mr. MacLEAN:: 1.	Has an organization been formed to assist agriculture in Canada with an amount of money available for assistance to farms?
2.	If so, what amount of money is available for this fund?
3.	By whom is the money advanced for this fund?
4.	Is this assistance available to all sections and provinces in Canada?
5.	If not, why?
6.	What amount is to be given to each applicant?
7.	How is the fund to be handled and what < (institutes a legitimate applicant?
8.	Is the fund in operation at the present
time?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Perhaps this question had better be answered verbally. I have the knowledge that other members have as to the establishment of a credit organization; and that a charter has been obtained under the provisions of the Companies Act for the purpose of enabling the company to function. It might also be said that legislation was introduced into the Ontario legislature to enable certain loan companies incorporated under the laws of this province to subscribe to the

capital stock of the enterprise, which under their charters they could not have done; and that similar enabling legislation with respect to companies of that character having a federal charter will be introduced in this house so that they also may become shareholders in the enterprise. Further information will be available when the matter has developed to the stage that these oompanies are in a position to exercise their new powers and become shareholders in the credit organization. If the hon. gentleman, during the progress of the estimates, requires additional information in the light of further knowledge, it will be furnished to him.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: That is quite satisfactory.



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND ROWER COMPANY

Mr. GARDINER:: 1.	Has the government received any notice to the effect that the Beauliarnois Light, Heat & Power Company has applied to the government of the province of Quebec for permission and has been granted the right to divert an additional 30.000 cubic feet of water per second through the Beauharnois canal?
2.	Do the plans already filed by the Beauharnois Light. Heat & Power Company and approved by the government, enable the company to divert the above mentioned 30,000 cubic feet of -water per second through its canal ?
3.	If it is necessary for the government to approve of the plans of the Beauharnois Light, Heat & Power Company to allow .them to divert this additional 30,000 cubic feet of water pel-second, is it the intention of the government to approve of such plans without giving the house an opportunity of considering the said application?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The first paragraph of this question involves some consideration of provincial rights. The government has been advised that an application was made to the provincial government of Quebec and that it had been granted; that is as far as it goes. As to the second paragraph, I assume the hon. gentleman means:	Do the plans already
approved by the government enable the company to divert the water, because the plans filed are open to many interpretations? The plans approved with respect to the matter only contemplate the diversion of the quantity of the water that the company then had the right to divert. The third paragraph, as I understand it, is as to the necessity of securing approval of the government for a further diversion of water.


Mr. GARDINER:: In that part of my question I ask the government if, before approval is given, the House of Commons will be afforded oh opportunity of discusssing the matter.

Questions


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to the last part of the hon. gentleman's question, with all deference, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to see how it is a question of fact that oan be determined. The law does not impose any duty on the House of Commons with respect to the matter, but it might depend on what transpired in the course of the application. An expression of intention is impossible for the government to give now, and I do not think that in regard to policy it is required to give any response to a question of this character.



BEAUHARNOIS LIGHT, HEAT AND POWER COMPANY-DEPARTMENTAL INVESTIGATION '

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


Richard Bedford Bennett: As to question No. 11, I say to the chamber that I am in some doubt as to how far a minister should go in answering a question of this kind. A confidential report was asked for from the engineers of the department, and that report was furnished.


Charles A. Stewart: Is that the
second application?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, during the progress of the work last summer. Frankly, I do not think it is in the public interest to submit that report to the house at the moment, because it was intended for the guidance of the minister, and would certainly be privileged in a court if it were furnished to the executive of a corporation for the purpose of enabling him to determine his action. I say to my hon. friend that there is no reason why I should not give him in a general way such information as is possible, but confidential information furnished to the head of the department for the purpose of enabling him intelligently to discuss the matter is not, I submit, information that should be laid on the table of the house. That is my view at the moment; and I have been trying to satisfy myself more fully upon it, for I realize that 22110-79
under our system of government very few things are privileged. But I do regard it as not in the public interest to furnish a report that was personally asked for by myself to enable me to have fuller information on a matter with regard to which I would have to make a statement later.


Robert Gardiner: Does the Prime Minister say the question should stand?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes. I did not want my hon. friend to think it was being delayed.



CANADIAN COOPERATIVE WHEAT PRODUCERS LIMITED-BANK LOANS

Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: 1.	Is the government aware that the Canadian banks have advanced, in loans or guarantees, the sum of $68,000,000 to the Canadian Co-Operative Wheat Producers, Limited?
2.	Has the government, to date, guaranteed the banks interested in these loans in favour of wheat pools, for said amount of $68,000,000, totally or partially?
3.	If partially, up to what amount?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I ask that question 9 stand, Mr. Speaker. My hon. friend from St. Henri (Mr. Mereier) is not in his seat. As his question is framed, the answer if it were categorical would have to be "no" to part of it and "yes" to part of it. I was going to suggest to him that the form of the question might be modified so the information could be supplied.



BONAVENTURE CENSUS COMMISSIONER

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Who was appointed census commissioner for the electoral division of Bonaventure?
2.	By whom was he recommended?
3.	W'hat salary is he paid?
4.	What persons were appointed by him as census enumerators in each parish of the said county ?


Henry Herbert Stevens: This question was answered on April 29th. It should be stricken off the order paper.



CANADIAN OIL REFINERIES-EMPLOYEES

Mr. HEENAN:: 1.	Has the number of employees of Canadian oil refineries been increased or decreased since last September?
2.	If so, at w'hat points?


Richard Bedford Bennett: This is a question which the government is not in a position to answer without making inquiries. I think, Mr. Speaker, that it is not a proper question. A member might put on the order paper a question: What is the distance from here to Mars? As to this, the same sources of information are open to him as to the govern-

Questions

ment. Similarly, it would hardly be expected that the government should inquire as to the number of people employed in any particular business. In one of the departments information furnished in reply to questionnaires is regarded as confidential as it might be taken advantage of by competitors; but an analysis of the information itself has been given to the house and the country. If the hon. gentleman desires us to send out a questionnaire, we will do it for the purpose of answering the question as near as possible.


Peter Heenan: Stands.



CRAWLEY COMPANY CONTRACTS

Mr. DUGUAY:: 1.	Has the Crawley Company a contract with the Canadian National railways for supplying the employees working on the railroad track in the county of lake St. John with food supplies?
2.	If so, since when and on what conditions?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Crawley and McCracken Company Limited have a contract covering the boarding of certain employees.
2.	Effective from April 14, 1927, for boarding certain employees at specified rates.



SETTLEMENT OF LAND CLAIMS-C. N. R.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MaLURE:
1.	Has the settlement of the land claims for land taken by the Canadian National railways during the construction of the Lake Verde-Pisquid branch line in Prince Edward Island been paid?
2.	If so, when were payments made?
3.	To whom were payments made?
4.	Have any not been paid, and if so, for what reasons?
Mr. MANION:: 1.	Twenty-eight of the 50 owners concerned have been settled with.
2.	Payments were made between July 3, 1930, and April 30, 1981.
3.	To the fallowing: Amos J. Lane, Margaret Kelly, J. Callaghan, (per Soldier Settlement Board), Gillmore Jardine, Frank McKenna, Louis Trainor, Joseph McAdam, James Burns, Frank Quinn, James McAdam, Angus McNeill, Phillip Shea, James J. Trainor, Ambrose Boylan, John Hughes, Estate of S. R. Jenkins, James A. Hughes. Teresa McAvinn, Angus McDonald, Charles Ostridge, A. & P. McKinnon, Clarence Coffin, John W. Jay, J. D. McDonald, (per Soldier Settlement Board), John Mclnnis and Mary Gililis, Andrew McKinnon, H. F. Feehan, James A. MacDonald.

4.	Yes; 22 owners not yet paid. In 17 cases an amount was asked by owners which was considered unreasonable by the railway company. In 4 cases negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily to owner, and it is expected that settlement will be made shortly. In one case title is in doubt.



TRENT CANAL EMPLOYEES

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	How many employees have been retired from the Trent canal service since October, 1930?
2.	What are their names?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Employees retired since October, 1930. -12.
2.	Eastern division:	Thos. Black, Wtm.
Roberts; Western division: George H. Giroux. Seasonal men not re-employed: Eastern division: Arthur Curtis, John Allen, James Cruick-shanks, Bert Sullivan, Wim. Fisher, Chas. .Jarrett, Geo. Garlick, Thos. McCabe, W. J. Frankish; Western division: None. In addition to the above, other men employed for particular jobs whose services were no longer required upon the completion of such jobs total: Eastern division, 86; Western division, 40.



EX-SERVICE MEN-TRENT CANAL

Mr. BOUCHARD:: 1.	How many ex-service men have been retired from the Trent canal service since October, 1930?
2.	How many men have replaced them who saw no military service?
3.	Who recommended such dismissals?
4.	Why were these men dismissed from then-positions on the Trent canal?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Eastern division, None; Western division, None. Seasonal men not re-employed: Eastern division, Arthur Curtis, John Allen, James Cruickshanks, Chas. Jarrett. Western division, None. In addition to the above, other ex-service men employed for particular jobs whose services were no longer required upon the completion of such jobs total as follows: Eastern division, 38; Western division, 10.
2.	Replacements by men who saw no military service: Eastern division, None; Western division, None.
3.	There were no dismissals. Where labourers were replaced by others it was on the recommendation of the superintending engineer because of unsatisfactory service.
4.	Answered by No. 3.

Questions



DISMISSAL OF POTATO INSPECTORS

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Were inspectors of potatoes Welch, MacLeod, Palmer and McCloskey dismissed, if so, on whose recommendation?
2.	What are the reasons assigned for their dismissal or dispensing with their services?
3.	Were these inspectors appointed on certificates of the Civil Service Commission, and on what dates were the appointments made?


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: 1.	No.
2.	Their temporary certificates expired.
3.	Yes. G. Welch, first appointed September 19, 1927, under temporary certificate for a period not exceeding six months. Certificate extended from time to time as required; W. D. MacLeod, first appointed September 19, 1927, under temporary certificate for a period not exceeding six months. Certificate extended from time to time as required; D. S. Palmer, first appointed October 3, 1929, under temporary certificate for a period not exceeding four months. Certificate extended from time to time as required; C. W. McClosey, first appointed March 18, 1930, under temporary certificate for a period not exceeding six months. Certificate extended from time to time as required.



POST OFFICE REVENUE

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	What was the revenue of the Post Office Department for year ending March 31, 1931: (a) gross revenue; (b) net revenue; (c) details of deductions showing difference between gross revenue and net revenue?
2.	What are details of statement of expenditure for fiscal year, etc., as shown each year on page 14 of Report of Postmaster General?


Mr. SAUVE:: Details of revenue and expenditure are not yet available as books have not yet been balanced for the year, nor have all accounts for the year been received.



EUGENE FORTIN

Mr. FAFARD:: 1.	Was Mr. Eugene Fortin, of Cap St. Ignace, county of Montmagny, employed as stoker on board the C.G.S. Druid in 1930?
2.	Were his services required in 1931?
3.	If so, on what date?
4.	Is he still employed as stoker on board C.G.S. Druid, and if not, why?
5.	Was he dismissed, and if so, by whom was his dismissal ordered?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Yes.
2 and 3. He was again employed March 2nd, 1931.
4	and 5. No. He was paid off March 12th. Services terminated by order of the Minister of Marine.



SHOOTING LEASE-PASQUA INDIAN RESERVATION

Mr. WOODSWORTH:: 1.	Was a shooting lease on the Pasqua Indian reservation applied for by the Antapa club in 1925?
2.	Did the department in 1926 refuse a lease to the late D. H. McDonald of Fort Qu'Appelle and refund the rental deposits?
3.	Was the consent of the Pasqua band secured before the lease of 1928 was granted by the department?
4.	Will said lease permit the members of the Antapa club to take liquor on to the Indian reservation?
5.	Was Indian commissioner W. M. Graham a member of the Antapa Shooting Club of Regina, Limited?
6.	What action does the department propose to take in this matter?


Mr. MURPHY:: 1.	Yes.
2 Yes.
3.	No.
4.	No.
5.	Yes.
6.	No further action contemplated. Lease has issued to the Antapa Shooting Club.



PREVENTIVE OFFICES-NOVA SCOTIA

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUFF;
1.	How many preventive officers are employed in the province of Nova Scotia?
2.	Are they all full time employees?
3.	If not what are the names and addresses of those only giving part time to the work?
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	59 with salary, 10 without salary.
2.	No.
3.	C. J. MoCready, Little Bras d'Or, A. D. MacDonald, Bay St. Lawrence, J. W. Fraser, Truro, without salary, H. Horton, Shubena-cadie, without salary, S. MacDonald, Windsor, without salary, R. C. Soy, Stellarton, without salary, W. J. Thibault, Sydney, without salary, W. M. Beazley, R.C.M. Police, Halifax, without salary, J. P. Blakeney, R.C.M. Police, Halifax, without salary, F. P. Fahie, R.C.M. Police, Halifax, without salary, A. E. Rockwell, R.C.M. Police, Halifax, without salary, R. H. Scriven, R.C.M. Police, Halifax, without salary.



COUNT DE JOCAS

[Stage Direction]
Mr. DUFF;
1.	Is Count de Jocas employed in the Auditor General's department?
2.	If so, what is his position?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	Ts he a permanent employee?
5.	Has he been appointed by the Civil Service Commission?
6.	Is he a British subject?
Questions
Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Vieomte H. de Jocas is employed in the Auditor General's office.
2.	Principal translator.
3.	$2,520.
4.	Yes.
5.	Yes.
6.	Yes,



ST. HERMAS, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACTS

Mr. RINFRET:: 1.	Were contracts for the transportation of mails held by Antonin Leroux and Rosario Leroux, of St. Hernias, Quebec, on July 28, 1930?
2.	If so, have these contracts been cancelled and on what date, and for what reason?
3.	What are the names of the present holders of these contracts?
4.	On what conditions were the contracts: (a) stated in question 1; (b) and the present ones, granted?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes, on 17th September, 1930, by order of the Postmaster General.
3.	Augustin Lafond for St. Hermas No. 2 rural route and Adelard Leroux for St. Hermas and railway station.
4.	(a) St. Hermas and railway station, $600 per annum; St. Hermas No. 2 R. R., $617 per annum; (b) St. Hermas and railway station, $600 per annum; St. Hermas No. 2 R.R., $617 per annum.



DONAT H0UDE

Mr. DENIS:: 1.	Has Mr. Donat Houde, of Montreal, who was serving a prison term been liberated by virtue of the Parole Act?
2.	If so, on what date?
3.	What period of imprisonment did he
serve ?
4.	What was supposed to be the length of his sentence?
5.	For what offence was he convicted?


Mr. DUPRE:: 1.	No.
2.	Answered by No. 1.
3.	Answered by No. 1.
4.	Answered by No. 1.
5.	Breaking, entering and theft.
Countries
United Kingdom.. United States.. ..
Australia	
Newfoundland.. ..
New Zealand	
Syria



PONT VIAU, QUE.  POSTMASTER

Mr. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: 1.	For what reason was Mr. J. B. Arthur Pritneau, of Pont Viau, in the county of Laval, dismissed from his office as postmaster?
2.	On whose recommendation was this dismissal made?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	and 2. See answer on page 1081, unrevised House of Commons debates of the 27th April, 1931.



J. ARTHUR BERNIER

Mr. SEGUIN:: 1.	Is Mr. J. Arthur Bernier still in the service of the government as district inspector of customs and excise at Montreal?
2.	If not, why was he relieved from his duties?
3.	Is he at present receiving a pension?
4.	If so, what is the amount of said pension?
5.	Was an inquiry held to determine the reasons for his dismissal?


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	No.
2.	Retired on medical grounds at his own request.
3.	Yes.
4.	$2,135.21 per annum.
5.	Answered by No. 2.



RUTTER IMPORTS

Mr. BARIBEAU:: 1.	How many pounds of butter were imported into Canada from October 5, 1930, to March 31, 1931?
2.	From what countries were said importations made?


Mr. STEVENS:: 1. Canada's total quantity of butter imported from October 1, 1929, to March 31, 1931 was:
Period	Pounds
October 1, 1929 to March 31, 1930.. 35,402,261 October 1, 1930 to March 31. 1931.. 4,871,420
2. Canada's total quantity of butter imported by countries from October 1, 1929, to March 31, 1931 was:
October 1, 1929	October 1, 1930
to	to
March 31, 1930	March 31, 1931
Pounds	Pounds
1.344	215,600
55,048	15,284
800,912	2,107,840
828	-
34,543.300	2,532,696
829	-

Questions



TOBACCO IMPORTS

Mr. GOTT:: 1.	How many pounds of tobacco, raw leaf, were imported into Canada for the 12 months ending March 31, 1931: (a) from the United States; (b) from other countries?
2.	How much manufactured tobacco was imported for the same period from all countries?
3.	How much excise tax was collected on cigarettes for the year ending March 31, 1931?
Countries
(a)	United States	
(b)	Other countries-
Argentina	
Belgium	
Brazil	
Bulgaria	
Cuba	
Germany	
Greece	
Italy	
Netherlands	
Dutch East Indies..
Russia	
Spain	
United Kingdom	
(b) Other countries Total Imports..
4.	How much in excise or other taxes was collected by the government of Canada, all branches, from the tobacco industry, all branches, for the same period?
5.	How much tobacco was exported from Canada during the same period?
6.	To what countries was it exported? .


Mr. STEVENS:: 1.	Canada's imports of tobacco, unmanufactured, by countries, for the year ended March 31, 1931, were:
Pounds	$
15,092,356	4,335,903
S	4
15,552	8,232
157	53
607	273
1,179.884	923,340
3.109	1,605
10,735	5.155
50,604	18,790
68.616	81,501
83.809	76,701
306	105
5	5
74646	37.282
1,488.038	1,153,046
16,580.394	5,488,949
2.	Canada's imports of tobacco, manufactured, by countries, for the year ended March 31. 1931, were:
Countries	Pounds	$Aden	.. 16	29Alaska	.. 84	101Belgium	.. 201	1,011British South Africa	.. 100	57British West Indies-	Jamaica	.. 496	2,859Other British West Indies	.. 68	288China	.. 7,680	2,562Cuba	.. 12,955	92.429Egypt	2,681Finland	.. 54	107France	.. 715	737Germany	.. 5	7Hong Kong	6,644Irish Free State	.. 25	77Netherlands	40Dutch East Indies	25Newfoundland	.. 42	24Norway	.. 30	23United Kingdom	* * 189.450	620.883United States	.. 176.211	244,214Total Imports	.. 407,175	974,798
Questions

3. Will be answered by the Department of
4. Will be answered by the Department of
5.	Canada's domestic exports of tobacco for
Ossification
Unmanufactured tobacco-
Burley	
Bright, flue-cured	
Dark, air and fire cured	
Other unmanufactured tobacco	
Stems and cuttings (tobacco)	
Manufactured tobacco-
Cigars	
Cigarettes	
Plug and twist	
Other manufactured tobacco	[DOT] [DOT]
Total Tobacco	
National Revenue.	
National Revenue.	
the year ended March	31, 1931, were:
Pounds	S
2,357,496	417,661
1.515,363	660.544
2.021.571	403.831
156.889	23,558
576,200	4,840
1,556	3.631
282	387
15,343	8,452
247,805	50,201
6,892,505	1,573,105
6.	Canada's domestic exports of tobacco, by countries, for the year ended March 31, 1931,
were:
Countries
Unmanufactured tobacco-
To Belgium	
Canary Islands	
China	
Denmark	
France	
Germany	
Malta	
Netherlands	
Nigeria	
St. Pierre and Miquelon
Switzerland	
United Kingdom	
United States	
Pounds	$
949,829	70.213
32.510	1,300
41,999	4,457
11,070	941
110	24
10,203	575
2,418	242
133,958	9,371
16,435	657
200	61
27.649	1,217
4.820,202	1,415,103
4,736	1,433
Total Exports	 6,051,319
Stems and cuttings (tobacco)-
To United Kingdom	 20,000
United States	 556,200
1,505,594
4,027
Total Exports
576,200
4,840
Manufactured tobacco-
To Australia	
Barbados	
Belgium	
Bermuda	
British South Africa
Ceylon	
China	
Denmark	
France	
Hong Kong	
Jamaica	
Japan	
Newfoundland.. ..

28	119
120	72
57	77
318	200
17	39
7	24
227,610	33,992
4	9
4	7
5	9
1,041	707
2,525	1,277
26,480	17,506

Questions
Countries
Manufactured tobacco-
New Zealand	
Panama	
St. Pierre and Miquelon
Switzerland	
United Kingdom	
United States	
Total Exports.. ..
Pounds	$
649	905
12	15
245	263
356	488
296	363
5,302	7,499
264.986	62.671



SUMMERSIDE, P. E. I. WHARF

Mr. MYERS:: 1.	Was there a sum of money voted by parliament during the session from February to June, 1930. for the repairs or rebuilding of the railway wharf at Summerside, Prince county, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Were tenders called for this work?
3.	What were the names of the parties tendering and the amount of each tender?
4.	Did the party who secured the contract ask to be relieved of the same, and for what reasons and on what date?
5.	When was his deposit cheque returned to him?
6.	To whom was the contract subsequently given and under what conditions?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	J. E. Campbell, $7,380 (unit rates); W. R. Maynard, $7,472 (unit rates); Everett McLeod and Duncan McKenzie, $8,280 (unit rates); Plenry J. Phillips and P. G. Clarke, $8,770 (unit rates).
4.	A. E. MacLean, M.P., telegraphed on July 29, 1930, that J. E. Campbell wished to withdraw tender. No reasons given.
5.	August 22, 1930.
6.	(a) H. M. Downing; (b) On original specification and plan and at same unit rates as original lowest tenderer.



MEGUASHA-DALHOUSIE, N.B., FERRY SERVICE

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has the government entered into a contract for a ferry service between Meguasha, Quebec, and Dalhousie, New Brunswick?
2.	If so, with whom?
3.	If not, why not?


Mr. MANION:: 1.	Tenders were recently called for this service, but no decision has yet been given in regard thereto.
2.	Answrered by No. 1.
3.	The subject is still under consideration by the government.



J. 0. LEBLANC

Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: 1.	Is J. 0. LeBlanc, assistant naval secretary, in the Department of National Defence, a returned soldier?
2.	Was this man compelled to enlist against his will during the war?
3.	What is his salary?


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: [DOT] 1 and 2. Mr. LeBlanc was exempt from military service at the request of the department of naval service. On appeal the exemption was limited to 1st May, 1918, but before that date Mr. LeBlanc enlisted voluntarily. He served in Canada first in the military forces and later in the naval service until the end of the war.
3.	$3,300 per annum.



*REPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INSTITUTE

Mr. MOTHERWELL:: 1.	Has the Prime Minister or any other member of the government received any report of the proceedings of the recently held agricultural institute at Rome from the Hon. the Canadian High Commissioner in London or any ether Canadian representatives attending such institute or wheat conference?
2.	If so, will such report be tabled?


Richard Bedford Bennett: With respect to this question, I have a summary which was prepared by the department which does not go into any detail, but in looking over it I see the reason why it should not be presented to the house, although it was not intended that it should be printed at the moment since the newspapers have given as full a report as we have with respect to what has transpired. I will send a copy of the summary to my hon. friend, and if he thinks it should be tabled I will be glad to do so.



CASCONS WEST, QUE., POSTMASTER

Mr. MARCIL:: 1.	Has Mr. David Morin, postmaster of Gascons West, been dismissed, and if so, for what reason ?
2.	Was an investigation held, and if so, by whom and with what result?

Questions as Orders jor Returns
3.	Did the Post Office Department receive a petition signed by the majority of the patrons of that office, asking that Mr. Morin remain as postmaster ?
4.	Is the department aware that Mr. Morin and his mother, Mrs. (widow) Louis Morin, were postmasters in turn for thirty-four years, without any complaints being made against either of them?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2.	Yes, by Mr. Gerard Simard who found that postmaster was guilty of active political partisanship.
3.	Department received a petition bearing sixty-seven names.
4.	The departmental records indicate that the services rendered were satisfactory.
skinner's POND, P.E.I., HARBOUR


Mr. McLURE:: 1.	Did the federal government public works engineer, Mr. Hyndman, report with reference to the feasibility of the boat harbour at Skinner's Pond, Tignish, Prince county, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Was an appropriation passed during the session of parliament, February to June, 1930, for the construction of this boat harbour at Skinner's Pond?
3.	Were tenders called for this construction work ?
4.	Was the contract awarded to Mr. Andrew Martin for the construction of the above mentioned boat harbour?
5.	What other tenders were received for the construction of this work, and what was the amount of each tender?
6.	What was the estimate of the federal government engineer for this construction work?
7.	Following the election in July, 1930, did Mr. Andrew Martin apply to the Department of Public Works, Ottawa, asking for the return of his deposit on his tender, amounting to some three thousand dollars?
8.	What reasons did Mr. Andrew Martin give for asking for the return of his deposit?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1.	Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	Yes.
4.	Yes, for the sum of $31,780.
5.	Tender from Messrs. Henry J. Phillips and Peter G. Clark, $54,680.
6.	$53,605.
7.	Yes.
8.	That he made a mistake in his tender.



PREVENTIVE OFFICER SOUCT

Mr. VENIOT:: 1.	Was Preventive Officer Soucy, Madawaska county, New Brunswick, dismissed from the service, and if so, when?
2.	What was the reason assigned for bis dismissal, and if on account of political partisanship, was an investigation held?
3.	What was the nature of the report of the investigator?
[Mr. Marcil.l


Mr. CAHAN:: 1.	Eddie S. Soucie, Customs Excise Enforcement officer at St. Leonards, N.B., was dismissed by order in council dated April 23, 1931.
2.	Political partisanship. Yes.
3.	The commissioner appointed to investigate the charge reported him guilty of political partisanship.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. FONTAINE:: 1.	To how many postmasters, in the counties of St. Hyacinthe-Rouville, have demands of resignation been sent since August 1, 1930?
2.	What are the names and addresses of postmasters to whom demands of resignation were made ?
3.	Were inquiries held in each case; by whom *were they held, and what was the result?
4.	How much was paid to the inquiry commissioner in each case for his services and other fees?
5.	Who required these inquiries to be made?
6.	Was a preliminary notice sent to the postmasters in each case to the effect that such inquiry was going to be held, and what was the length of said notice?
7.	What are the names of places where postmasters were dismissed in the counties of St. Hyacinthe-Rouville since August 1, 1930?
8.	Were the dismissed postmasters replaced by persons duly qualified to fill the office of postmaster ?


QUEBEC HARBOUR COMMISSION-MR. MAJELLA MADDEN
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Is one Mr. Majella Madden employed by the Quebec harbour commission?
2.	If so, what is his occupation?
3.	What is his salary?
4.	What are his working hours?
5.	Does Mr. Majella Madden receive other moneys from the harbour commission for other services?
6.	Does he have any horses working for the harbour commission?
7.	If so, how many, and what sum of money does he receive on that account?



UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all documents, papers, memoranda and letters exchanged between any municipal corporation or other persons and the Department of Public Works since August 7, 1930. respecting the public building at Beauport, Quebec, for the construction of which funds were provided in the estimates of 1930-31, and also copy of all tenders received in connection

with the construction of the said building, and correspondence relating thereto, and copy of any reports of engineers or architects of the Department of Public Works relating to the said building made to the Minister of Public Works or to the department since January 1, 1928.



FARNHAM, QUE.-PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. HOWARD:: For a copy of all documents, papers, memoranda and letters exchanged between any municipal corporation or other persons and the Department of Public Works since August 7, 1930, respecting the public building at Farnliam, Quebec, for the construction of which funds were provided in the estimates of 1930-31, and also copy of all tenders received in connection with the construction of the said building, and correspondence relating thereto, and a copy of any reports of engineers or architects of the Department of Public Works relating to the said building made to the Minister of Public Works or to the department since January 1, 1928.



ROSS RIFLE BUILDING-QUEBEC

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all documents, correspondence, memoranda, exchanged since August 7, 1930, between the mayor of the city of Quebec, or any member of the city council or any members of parliament and the Solicitor General, the Prime Minister, the Acting Prime Minister, the Minister of National Defence, Deputy Minister of National Defence, or the Director of Contracts of the Department of National Defence, with respect to a contract or contracts entered to between the Department of National Defence and any party, firm or corporation, for the purpose of demolishing and taking away the building known as the Deakin building and the building known as the Ross Rifle building at Quebec, and also showing all tenders, prices submitted and offers made by any party or parties in connection with the said demolition and correspondence relating thereto since August 7, 1930.


Charles Gavan Power: Dropped.
Dropped.



ST. RAYMOND, QUE.-PUBLIC BUILDING

Mr. DESROCHERS:: For a copy of all documents, papers, memoranda and letters exchanged between any municipal corporation or other persons and the Department of Public Works since August 7, 1930, respecting the public building at St. Raymond, county of Portneuf, Quebec, for the construction of which funds were provided in the estimates of 1930-31, and also copy of all tenders received in connection with the construction of the said building, and correspondence relating thereto, and copy of any reports of engineers or architects of the Department of Public Works relating to the said building made to the Minister of Public Works or to the department since January 1, 1928.
Unopposed Motions jor Papers



TRANSPORTATION OF POSTAL PARCELS-MONTREAL

Mr. RINFRET:: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents, exchanged between any person and the Post Office Department, in connection with the temporary agreement made between this department and Mr. A. Laurent, for the transportation of postal parcels at Montreal; also copy of contract, for the same service, made between the department and Messrs. Gour and Richer, and cancelled on September 30, 1930.



ST. HERMAS, QUE.-MAIL CONTRACTS

Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: For a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, and documents exchanged between any person and the Post Office Department in connection with the cancellation of contracts, for the transportation of mails, held by Messrs. Antonin -Leroux and Rosario Leroux, of St. Hermas, Quebec, and the subsequent granting of said contracts to new holders.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF ACT-INSPECTORS

Charles Gavan Power: For a return showing the names, addresses and previous occupations of those who have been appointed by the federal government as inspectors for inquiring into the expenditure under the Unemployment Relief Act in the province of Quebec. Also on what terms are these men employed, at what salary and how much has been paid to each by way of salary, travelling and hotel expenses to date.



DISMISSAL OF VANCOUVEB HARBOUR POLICE

Ian Alistair Mackenzie: For a copy of all documents, memoranda or correspondence exchanged between any minister of the crown and the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners, or between the Vancouver Board of Harbour Commissioners and any other person, organization or corporation, in regard to the dismissal of the following returned soldiers from the Vancouver harbour police:	Inspector James Robinson, D.C.M.;
Sergeant Frank Waters, W. D. Cook, M.C.; J. C. Farrell, M.C.; James Davidson, M.C., and W. T. Johnston.



DOMINION AGRICULTURAL CREDIT COMPANY

Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a copy of all documents, including petition for issuance of letters patent, memorandums, agreements and all other such documents which have been filed with the Department of the Secretary of State of Canada, according to the Companies Act, for the incorporation of the Dominion Agricultural Credit Company, and all correspondence exchanged between the Department of the Secretary of State and the person or persons who acted on behalf of the said Dominion Agricultural Credit Company, in order to obtain issuance of the said letters patent.

Unopposed Motions for Papers



DEPORTATION OF ROBERT CAMPBELL

Charles Benjamin Howard: For a copy of all papers, documents, memoranda and reports in the possession of the Department of Immigration or of any other department relating to the deportation from Canada in the month of January last of Robert Campbell, a native of Glasgow, Scotland, who had been living in Canada for the past four years, and also a copy of complaints and reports which actuated the minister in taking steps to bring about this deportation.



ANTAPA SHOOTING CLUB

Mr. WOODS WORTH:: For a copy of the lease granted by the Department of Indian Affairs to the Antapa Shooting Club on the Pasqua Indian reserve, together with a copy of all correspondence, telegrams, memoranda and other data, relative to the granting of this lease and to other applications for leases on the Pasqua reservation.
dairy promoter, pictou county


Mr. URQUHART:: For a copy of all orders in council and correspondence since August 8, 1930, including letters, telegrams, memoranda, received or dispatched by the Minister of Agriculture or any other member of the government, or the Civil service Commission or any member or official thereof, or any member of parliament, or other person or persons, respecting the position of dairy promoter on the staff of the live stock branch, in Pictou county, Nova Scotia.
compensation for slaughtered animals


Mr. TETRAULT:: For a copy of all documents, letters and correspondence, in connection with indemnities to be paid by the federal government for slaughtered animals in the province of Quebec, under the system of reserved zones, since the establishment of said system; also a return showing the number and the average indemnity of the slaughtered animals by counties, and the average indemnity per head of cattle ranging from the age of one, two, three and over, for registered animals and cross-breeds.


Mr. WEIR (Melfort):: With regard to this resolution, I am informed that it will take at least two or three stenographers from two to three months to prepare the information requested. I should like it to stand, and possibly the hon. gentleman may be satisfied with a little less information.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Motion stands.



FLOWER, N.S., POSTMASTERSHIP

Charles Gavan Power: For a copy of all correspondence, reports, telegrams, petitions and other communications to or from the Postmaster General and any [Mr. Casgrain.l
other ministers, minister, or official of the government, and to or from any member of parliament or other persons or person, with reference to the service or fitness or otherwise or relating in any way to the dismissal or proposed dismissal of Leo Thibeault, postmaster at Mayflower, Digby county, Nova Scotia.


Mr.   SATJVE@: The hon. member being away, I would ask that the motion stand.
Motion stands.



SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC RESEARCH


Mr. ALFRED SPEAKMAN (Red Deer) moved:: -
Whereas; the problem of production has been largely solved, assisted greatly by the application of scientific methods and the results of organized technical research; and
Whereas; the federal government lias contributed ' to that end by the establishment of the National Council of Scientific Research, and by the financial assistance given to that body; and
Whereas; the problem of distribution, with the kindred questions of purchasing power and the exchange values of agricultural and other commodities, together with their relation to the growing problem of unemployment, are still unsolved, and demand immediate attention with systematized investigation and scientific study; and
Whereas; this can best be done at the instance of the state and by men of scientific training enabled to devote their entire time and energy to the study of this important subject;
Therefore be it resolved; that, in the opinion of this house, the government should give immediate consideration to the establishment and maintenance of some organized body for this purpose which body might be known as the National Council of Social and Economic Research.
He said: The motion which I am presenting to the house thi3 afternoon, and which is largely self-explanatory in its preamble and general wording, is one which I believe to be most timely and important. It is one which follows in logical sequence upon the motion presented by the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) some few days ago and discussed at some length on last private members' day. The motion presented by that hon. gentleman dealt with certain suggestions for the palliation of unemployment, while the motion which I am submitting this afternoon suggests a means by which we may arrive at a better understanding of those conditions by which unemployment is brought about.
The subject of the motion itself has been touched upon in previous debates and by many speakers, and it is one which is so widespread in its implications, so far-reaching in its possible consequences, so essential in

Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
its ultimate objective, as to demand on the part of every member of this house his most careful thought and his most intelligent consideration. In the preamble itself some very definite and rather sweeping statements are made, as, for example, where the statement appears that:
The problem of production has been largely
solved.
That statement, I think, may be substantiated; it is a mere statement of fact. For over one hundred years now, ever since what has been termed the industrial revolution, the minds of our greatest thinkers, the profound research of our illustrious scientists, the invention and genius of our most skilful engineers, have been devoted largely to one end-the service of production. To that end many things have been done, many sacrifices have been made. Hardy adventurers have explored the far places of the globe in order to discover new sources of supply for the raw materials required by our manufacturers. Our miners have tunnelled the bowels of the earth in order to disclose and utilize earth's hidden riches, in the service of production. And to improve its methods the lights in our laboratories have burned day and night. The roaring din of our great factories shakes the earth, and the smoke from our tall chimneys pollutes the air. Governments, corporations and individuals have expended millions in an endeavour to glean from nature her secrets and to harness nature's forces in the service of man. And in the main these efforts of man have been successful. So that man to-day has triumphed in that age-old struggle, the struggle for existence, the struggle to glean from nature her great secrets and to wrest from her those things, in and upon the earth, that are necessary for the maintenance of natural life and for the carrying-on of advancing civilization. While this is true in the case of industry, it is true also in the case of agriculture. During that century which has elapsed since the application of steam a a motive power to production, a new era has been inaugurated in the manufacturing world. We have mechanized many, if not most, of the processes hitherto carried on by hand labour. We have placed production on a world basis and, incidentally, we have met with certain difficulties in the way of the adjustment of employment in relation to wages and hours of labour. It is only of later years that the mechanization of agriculture itself has been accomplished. Agricultural production has never been controlled, nor can it be controlled, with the same
mathematical certainty as can that of other industries; it must always be subject, I assume, to certain climatic conditions. But, Mr. Speaker, while it is not controllable to the same degree, the uncertainty of control has manifested itself rather in periodic overproduction of certain commodities than it has in any definite shortage of supply. And where a shortage of supply has occurred temporarily, it has been brought about more largely by uncertainty of a profitable market than by any difficulty in production itself. I think, therefore, that it can be said without exaggeration that to-day we may produce everything that is necessary for the material needs of all mankind, and that we can produce ;t in sufficient quantities to satisfy the requirements of all our people.
When we turn to the fields of transportation and communication, which are intimately connected, we find that the same progress has been made. We have covered the earth and conquered the sea and the air with a network of transportation lines by which we are enabled to carry the products which we have brought into being and place them wherever they may be required. No one who has stood and watched a great [DOT] transcontinental silk train go thundering by but must have been impressed with the efficiency of that transportation system. The wheat from the prairies is carried without difficulty to every part of the occidental world, wherever a market may be found; the oil from Pennsylvania and Asia Minor, the cotton from the southern state's or from Egypt, the rubber from the South American forests, wool from Australia, and thousands of other commodities find their way by means of efficient transportation systems to every part of the civilized world and take their places in what we term as our economic and industrial system. This system is daily increasing the mutual interdependence of all nations and is extending more and more towards the making of all nations into one great economic unit.
In communication we have made even greater strides, quite apart from our modern postal system which follows every line of transportation throughout the world, by earth, by water and by sea. Apart from that, which in itself is a modern miracle, we may to-day converse with ease and comfort with our neighbour one mile or a thousand miles away. This is possible by means of a slender wire, which carries the spoken word and by the use of a similar wire, used in a different manner, we may flash important messages across the continent and under the oceans. By virtue of wireless, a man may speak in one part

Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
of the world and be heard simultaneously by millions in other countries. A recent illustration was the Pope speaking in the ancient Vatican and ten million sons and daughters of the church throughout the world bowing their heads as they heard his benediction. We were able to hear the Prince of Wales as he presided over the launching of a great ship in Scotland. His words were carried throughout the empire and the splash of that great ship as it entered the Clyde was reechoed around the world.
In other ways and in other directions, man has triumphed over the material and has been able to utilize those forces of nature in his service which have hitherto been uncontrolled. In looking upon these facts and knowing them to be true, one would almost imagine that the millennium had arrived and that nowhere in this world, and certainly nowhere in this country, could be found any want or any privation, could be found a single hungry adult or a single undernourished child. One would have thought that want and privation had been banished for all time, but what are the facts? In support of my statement, if support is needed, as to the wealth of the world and as to its accessibility, I might quote one or two sentences from no less a person than Sir George Paish, a man of outstanding merit. Speaking before the Canadian Club in Montreal on April 13, he made use of the following words:
The natural wealth of the world is so great that it can maintain an unlimited number of people. There is no reason for poverty or distress. We should produce the fruits of the earth for the use of all mankind and take them out of their distress.
And again:
We should use the wealth of the world for the good of all mankind. When we do this we can look forward not only to the prosperity of this great continent, not only to the prosperity of Europe, but to the prosperity of those great and heavily populated countries of the east.
What are the facts? I am not going to inflict upon the house any description of conditions as they exist. I believe that to be totally unnecessary because almost every hon. member who has addressed this house since the beginning of the session has stressed those conditions, has described them, and has outlined them in detail. While there may be some difference of opinion in this chamber as to the depth of the depression or as to the extent and the degree of the suffering which accompanies it, while some harsh expressions may have been used in respect of those who have held different opinions as to these matters, I assume that we are as one in our appreciation of the fact that things are not

as we would wish them to be and in our desire that a remedy should be found and that better conditions should be established. If there is one hon. member of the house or of the government who does not appreciate the fact that things are not as they should be, then it is useless for me to address my remarks to him because it is obvious that no words of mine would serve to convince him or to remove the scales from his eyes. But I shall go upon the assumption, Mr. Speaker, that these facts are admitted, that they are deplored and that we as a body and as individual members of this house are desirous of seeing these conditions improved. The question is: How shall we best go about it?
In asking that question, I ask a question which was indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) some little time ago, and which was summarized in an article in the Winnipeg Tribune, as follows:
Bennett Seeks Actual Cause of Depression Is Sure Riddle Can Be Solved and Advises Cheerful Attitude
"I cannot make up my mind," he said, "why this country between the lakes and the mountains should experience the depression; why people who have lived here for years should find themselves without any accumulation of goods, sometimes without the bare necessities of life."
Mr. Bennett said he had no fixed idea as to the answer to the questions which came to his mind but was determined to find it.
We are all anxious to find the answer to that question, and I suggest one method among others, which might be used in order to arrive at that understanding. It may be suggested that we have in this country many theorists who are advancing theories which in their opinion would if applied act as a universal cure-all or would remedy these conditions at one stroke, and thus bring about the millennium which we all seek. I have no criticism to offer as to these theorists, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, I hold a number of theories myself but I do not intend to inflict them upon the house at this time. I think the position taken by these theorists would remind us of a person spoken of in Grecian legend. This man possessed some very disagreeable habits but was of a hospitable frame of mind, and his desire was that any traveller passing by his abode should stay with him for the night. He had only one bed but it was his proud boast that this bed would fit exactly any traveller, however short or however tall. This he accomplished by the simple process of chopping the head or the feet off the traveller who might happen to be too tall, or by stretching upon the rack the unfortunate who happened to be too

Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
short, and in that way alii were made to fit his bed. I am afraid that that legend might be applied to some of our theorists. If their theories will not fit the facts, they are prepared to stretch the facts in order that they may fit the theories. In my opinion, and I offer it only for what it is worth, the remedy will not be found nor will a better understanding of conditions be brought about by men or women of that type of mind. I think useful suggestions could be found in many of these theories, but in my opinion this remedy will be found and this problem solved by men and women of the same types of mind as those who have solved our technical problems, men with scientific minds and possessing scientific training and men and women who are prepared to investigate all conditions, to accept all proved facts, to correlate those facts and, of equal importance, to have the courage to accept the logical conclusions of their research. I stress the necessity of courage because we find in too many cases men in public life and men in private life who will follow the truth to a certain point, but when the result of that truth comes into conflict with prejudices, preconceived opinions and ideas, they will stop right there. The truth in their mind is important, but not so important as the maintenance of their own prejudices and preconceived opinions. That frame of mind will never solve our problems.
How shall we secure the services of men of the type required, many of whom must be found throughout the Dominion and some of whom may be found in this parliament? I can only offer a suggestion without being dogmatic, but in the first place I suggest we can do this work by appointing such a council. The method of appointing that council I shall discuss later. In the second place- and this is of more importance at the moment -in the appointment of those men and in furnishing them with the opportunity of going into this matter as it should he gone into, the state should assume some responsibility. Why do I say that? As I have indicated, this parliament and government have given financial support to the problem of scientific and technical research. They have supported and maintained for that purpose a council composed of eminent men who have done excellent service. I am not decrying the work done by those men; it has been splendid. I am not criticizing the expenditure made; it is perhaps the best used money that we have ever voted, and I would be glad to see more voted for the purpose. But quite apart from the relative importance and urgency of those
two kinds of research, the research along the lines of technical science and the research along the lines of social and economic reform of which I am now speaking, I think we can logically assume it is far more a function of the state to support and assist the latter form than the former. In voting the money we do for technical research, we are but supplementing the work which is being done and well done by industry itself, by organizations and individuals engaged in industry. The reason for this of course is obvious. While the result of that research is in many cases increased services and benefit to the people as a whole, the primary object, the primary result in most cases, that is as it affects industry, is increased dividends and greater wealth to men already wealthy, and naturally they assume the work as a function of their own. But when we turn to the form of research which I am suggesting, we find that the only possible beneficiary is the state itself. The people, the men and women who may benefit by the result, are those who are today suffering from the inequalities of our present system or lack of system. That being the case, those who will benefit, the great masses of the population, are the ones who should maintain and carry on that work. They cannot do this as individuals; it must be done as a function of the state. It is important to remember that while we sometimes speak of parliament as representing the people, and of governments as governing or acting for the people, after all parliament and government are, rightly speaking, the people themselves functioning cooperatively in that way, doing cooperatively what they cannot do as individuals. I suggest, then, that the people themselves, who will be the beneficiaries, should be the people who, functioning as a state, should carry on and finance this work.
Going one step further, and assuming that the work is necessary and that the state should do it, what methods should they adopt and what should be their objective? If I have time I intend to deal a little later on with one or two specific objectives; but at the moment may I say this; so far as I can gather and so far as the facts themselves would show, almost every industry to-day, including transportation, is functioning most efficiently as a unit. Each separate unit, wherever you find it, is functioning efficiently and doing its work well. But what we lack to-day and what we have lacked ever since this system came into force has been some method of coordinating the work of those different units. We have never been able to bring about cooperation, coordination, between the different
1242	COMMONS
Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
units which function so effectively within this nation in order that as a whole the nation itself may be best served. That in a word would be the chief objective of such a council as I suggest.
When we come to the form of council, again I do not propose to be dogmatic in the matter, but I have some opinions of my own and those have been supplemented by many suggestions that I have received from this country and others. One of the most encouraging features of the situation and one that gives me greater heart in bringing up this topic to-day is the number of messages of approval and support' that I have received, messages bringing with them information and suggested ideas, sometimes from the most unexpected sources, not only in this country and the republic to the south, but in one or two countries over the seas. From these suggestions added to my opinions, I can bring forward one or two ideas in the matter. It has been suggested-and this is my own thought-we might have such a national council composed of individuals nominated from each of the great classes which form our Dominion. We could have a man representing agriculture. I am using the word "man" as including woman in the sense of the expression "man embraces woman". We could have another man representing labour, another representing the manufacturers' association, another, the transportation system, another, the bankers' association, all of those different organizations which together function as modern society. That council could then control and direct the work, point out the direction along which investigation should be carried, suggest the ideas and the general policy. They might employ a small number-a large number would not be necessary-of trained workers to carry on the actual work, and they might utilize to as great a degree as possible that splendid and efficient organization which we now have under the direction of Mr. Coats, the Dominion statistician. We would find there and we shall find too, padlocked, pigeon-holed, segregated all over the country, an enormous mass of information vital to our point, information which has never been used, which has never been correlated, and, because of that, which has never been of any great value to the country. Such a councl, functioning as I suggest, might by the use of a few trained workers, by the utilization of existing bureaus such as the Bureau of Statistics, not only amass a great deal of useful information, but correlate it, find out exactly what relation

each function bears to another, and come to some definite conclusions.
It has been suggested that such a council itself might do that work, and that might be done. As I say again, I am not dogmatic. Something along that line, although it conflicts in no way with my former suggestion, was brought forward recently by that very useful body in conference, the Canadian Council on Child and Family Welfare, representative of all social organizations in Canada, a conference perhaps as closely in touch with our social problems as any other in this country and as well fitted to make suggestions as any I can find. They urge upon the government to appoint some permanent national committee which would make investigation of all these things, which, to use their own words, would function-
-with the purpose of pooling the best knowledge of governments, industrial, agricultural, and financial interests, social and health agencies, in evolving a more stabilized system of production and distribution and of supply and demand.
I am glad to be supported in my contention by a body of that character. The council could work in that way. It has been suggested too that the functions and powers of the present National Research Council might be enlarged and strengthened to enable that body to deal with the work. While, of course, I would accept any step as being preferable to inertia, at the same time there are some serious objections to the latter suggestion. While not for a moment decrying the good work done by the National Research Council; while appreciating the value of that work and the character of the men composing the council, I suggest that human nature has not greatly changed since biblical times when it was said that no man can serve two masters but will hold to the one and despise the other. I am afraid that such a body, accustomed for years by custom, training and habits to follow along the lines of research, would subordinate the one to the other, and in this case I am afraid the newer interest would be the one subordinated.
Again may I say however, that I am not dogmatic. I hope some step will be taken with a view to amassing information that will lead to some definite conclusion. I have been asked "What could this body do? WThat line of investigation could it follow?" There again not only do I wish to refrain from dogmatism but I realize that in offering substantial suggestions one is in greater danger of narrowing than of widening the scope of

Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
investigation. Too often when specific suggestions are made they alone are followed. I might suggest, however, tentatively, some items from the long list of suggestions I have received. Among the number are the following:
Comparative production costs in respect of industry and agriculture.
Sources and extent of credit. Interest rates cost and extent of floating and bonded indebtedness, and its effect upon agriculture and industry in general.
Purchasing power, sources and distribution.
Displacement of man power by machinery in the various industries, including agriculture.
Extent of spread as between producer and consumer. How brought about. Advertising, including salesmanship, duplication of service. Transportation in its various stages.
Fluctuation in price levels both actual and relative.
Relative importance of, and returns made to capital, management, labour, in industry.
Stabilization and control of production, and relation of these to cyclical periods of depression.
Hours of labour and wages paid, in relation to production and purchasing power.	*
Concentration of financial control and production, chain store developments, retail credit and instalment buying, and their relation to prices and to cost of distribution.
Further than that there is a necessity for the securing of authentic information regarding such great world experiments as that being carried on in Russia to-day. Perhaps that is the greatest experiment in centralized control we have yet seen, and in some respects it follows in logical sequence the policy of centralization to which effect is being given in all countries. We cannot ignore what is taking place in Russia. To close our eyes to the developments in other lands, whether we like the morals of other peoples or not, is to blind ourselves to facts and to paralyze ourselves in respect to future action.
As my time is rapidly passing I wish for a moment or two to deal with some of the chief objections and difficulties which have suggested themselves to me and have been brought to my attention. First it has been suggested, with a good deal of propriety, that most of our difficulties are a reflex of world conditions and that therefore being inter-1 national in scope they cannot be dealt with by any one national body. While it is Obvious that world conditions have largely affected the state of affairs in Canada, it is
also obvious that there is some action which may be taken here. I think it was the Prime Minister who said during the election campaign, or at some other time-I am not particular when-that irrespective of world conditions there was no reason why Canada to-day, with her sparse population and her enormous wealth in natural resources, should be suffering to any great extent. I agree with him. The extent of our possibilities can be ascertained only by some method such as I have suggested. Moreover, if international action is to be taken it must be based finally upon a knowledge of conditions as they exist within each country. I think the true conditions in our country could be ascertained by a body such as I have suggested, In order effectively to carry on the international cooperation which is desirable we must have some machinery for that purpose and some body to represent Canada in an international body. Again I point to the fact that some such suggestion as I have made is necessary for a solution of our economic problem.
The next question is one which I approach with some hesitation, but it has been brought to my attention by so many people that it cannot be ignored. Suggestion has been made that politics would intervene and destroy any action which might be taken. To keep politics of some kind out of action based upon such a suggestion would obviously be difficult. While the result of technical research may be put into effect by industry, by corporations and by individuals motivated only by business considerations and prepared to accept improvements in methods no matter how they may conflict with prejudices or present habits, and anxious to use only those methods which have proved to 'be effective and from which the greatest profits may be derived, it is obvious that work along the lines of social and economic research may involve state action. To suggest that politics would prove to be an insuperable obstacle and must of necessity nullify, blight and destroy every beneficial objective which is had in view would be a tremendous indictment of our political system. I am prepared to accept that suggestion. I have not had .much experience in public life, but at least I have been in it for ten years. While in that ten years I have learned enough about the party system to dislike it even more than I did, at the same time I have come to appreciate the fact that the overwhelming majority of the individual members composing every party are just as honest and sincere in their desire to do the right thing for this country as I myself could possibly be or any

Economic Research-Mr. Speakman
other person in any part of Canada. That being so, I cannot for one moment believe that men of that type would permit politics, in the worst sense of the term, to stand in the way of the progress of this country or the solution of its problems. I appreciate of course that if a beneficial policy were outlined by such a body as I have suggested, some political party might try to grab it. Particularly would they do so if the party happened to be in opposition at the time. Of course that possibility might apply to any party because I do not know which one would be in opposition at such a time. The policy I have outlined might be used as a plank in a political platform and as an election issue. To allow our fears of such political action to stand in the way. of an attempt to effect progress would be a far more serious indictment of our political system than any language uttered by myself or any of my colleagues could possibly convey. Such action would be the most damning indictment possible, and I refuse to believe that that condition would arise.
I have endeavoured briefly and superficially, realizing the limitation of time at my disposal, to show this house that in material things and in matters of production we have worked miracles. We have accomplished what at one time would have been considered the impossible. By utilizing all nature's forces, by the inventive work of our engineers and by the research of our scientists we have conquered industrial conditions to such an extent that we can produce everything the world requires in sufficiently large quantities to satisfy the needs of every one. We can place these commodities where they are required with speed and efficiency. What is left? I think of the words of Tennyson:
Knowledge comes, but wisdom lingers.
I suggest we should adopt some means of acquiring sufficient wisdom to use the knowledge we already have so that we may relieve the existing conditions and thereby make the world better. Wisdom has lingered; we hope it will not linger again.
I have tried to indicate the logical responsibility of the state to undertake the work I have outlined. It should function for and act for the good of all the people. I have indicated some lines upon which that action might be taken and suggested some inquiries which might be made. In doing that I have done all within my power at this time; I can simply leave the matter to the good judgment of the house. I have tried to present the matter as impartially and as thoroughly as possible. I feel sure that hon. members will weigh these matters in the bal-

ance of their own judgment, if they come to the conclusion that something may be dons along the lines I have suggested to bring about the condition of affairs which should exist in this country and which we are all anxious to see, I shall expect their support. I leave the matter at this time in the hope that out of our united wisdom, and the sincerity by which from the bottom of my heart I believe we are all actuated, we will evolve some means of utilizing the knowledge thus obtained for the good of all mankind and in justification of our existence as a parliament.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Mr. Speaker, this resolution simply broadens out a suggestion made some months ago to the government by the joint legislative committee of the Railway Transportation Brotherhoods. They were dealing particularly with the question of unemployment, but suggested that this question inevitably involved larger economic issues, and that these could be settled only by the application of scientific knowledge. They proposed that there should be a scientific analysis of the human factor in industry, and pointed out that by the employment of industrial technicians and otherwise efficiency had been increased, as my hon. friend has just pointed out-that in many industrial concerns, waste had been reduced and production greatly augmented. The regularization of employment, however, the human factor in industry, appeared to be a problem transcending the individual industry and rests upon industry as a whole. It seems to me that we are justified in urging the appointment of this commission, especially in view of what has transpired within the last few weeks. The members in this corner suggested that we should have a parliamentary committee to investigate the entire economic situation; the government could not see its way clear to adopt that suggestion; and now we fall back upon an even more important suggestion, one which we decided upon some months ago -that the time had come when a commission, entirely independent of parliament, should be appointed to investigate the entire economic situation as it exists to-day.
It does seem to me, in view of the world crisis with which we find ourselves faced, that we should exercise our brains more than we are doing. A great many people are apprehensive as to what the future may bring forth. Some are afraid that there may come an entire change in our whole economic system; some would welcome that change; some are afraid that a great change might involve economic
.MAY 4, 1931	1245
Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
chaos with great suffering, such as has taken place in other countries. It does seem to me that in face of such a situation as this we ought not simply to be content to go along in our accustomed way, but rather that we should mobilize the very best brain power we have in this country and set our best men free to consider the question. It was only the other day that I submitted this proposal of the member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) to a group of business men in Montreal, and I was rather interested to observe their reactions. Most of them were heartily in favour of something of this kind. They went so far as to urge, as the member for Red Deer has suggested in his si*eech, that it might be well to have such a commission composed of representatives nominated by the great organizations that exist to-day, such as the Manufacturers' Association, the grain growers and so on; that in this way we would get the very best brains interested, the men who were in close contact with actual conditions; and, further, that by this method a certain measure of responsibility would be placed upon these men to think not in terms merely of their own individual interest, but in terms of the country at large; and still further, that the recommendations of a group so constituted would be of very great value to the government-indeed that no government would very well disregard the recommendations of a commission so constituted.
I find we are not suggesting something that is quite new. Outside the Soviet union, at least seven countries have something of this k:nd in operation, some organization that is attempting to direct the nation's industry, or its economic activities, on a nationwide scale -France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Japan. In France there is a national economic council which dates from January, 1925. The French method is that of arranging the nation into three groups -consumers, labour and capital. The delegates to the council are selected from the most representative organizations in each of these three groups, such as the national federation of production, the chamber of commerce, the general confederation of labour and so on. The total number of delegates in the council is forty-seven. The representative organizations are designated by the Minister of Labour, but the nominations for places on the council are made by the organizations themselves. The French economic council meets four times a year and each session lasts ten days. Between these plenary meetings the business of the council is carried on by a standing committee of ten and by its permanent secretariat. The council also has a number of experts who 22110-80
are associated with its work on a permanent basis. The French economic council is essentially an advisory body to the Prime Minister. In its advisory capacity it deals primarily with economic measures which are under consideration by the legislature. Any bill introduced into the Chamber of Deputies which bears on an economic question must be transmitted to the council for examination. The council then submits its opinion to the Prime Minister, who has to make this opinion public. Further, it carries on special duties of a general and technical nature for the purpose of bringing to view the permanent interests of French national economy. Its main work, however, has been the making of a survey of French economic life and the mapping of a plan for the overhauling of the national economic equipment.
Now, let me turn for a moment to Germany and summarize the arrangement that exists there. The German economic council is also based upon the idea of the representation of all economic and social groups. It resembles more an economic parliament than an advisory body. Thus the German economic council is not attached to any branch or department of the government. The committees meet periodically, have permanent staffs for carrying on their work, and call on experts or representatives of different interests when necessary. The council has not considered large general schemes, but has helped in the solution of emergency problems which have followed one another in Germany since 1920.
Without going further into these experiments which have been conducted by other nations. I will call the attention of the home to a very interesting article published in the New Republic of Wednesday, April 29 of this year, entitled A. Federal Economic Council, by Lewis L. Lorwin. Mr. Lorwin pleads that in the United States there should be a federal economic council which would enable the American people to visualize their economic life as one vast enterprise. So much is this idea of centralized planning in the air that 1 find a conference is being called by the International Industrial Relations Association in Amsterdam in August of this year. I think I might read a paragraph from the announcement of this. congress, which urges the need for scientific adjustment of economic resources, production and consumption as essential to satisfactory human relations and conditions in industry. The statement proceeds:
There is an ever growing realization of the fact that industrial relations are profoundly disturbed because neither labour nor capital can fully function in a world of unadjusted resources, production and consumption. Unemployment to-day is wide-spread through the

1240	COMMONS [DOT]
Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
world. Markets are restricted by lack of purchasing power. Productive capacity has been enhanced at an increasingly rapid rate by mechanization and the advance of technological invention. In a world of enlarged economic resources, groups m industry, whether conceived as employer-employee, labour-capital, producers-consumers, are prevented from functioning normally, that is, human relations in industry are not satisfactory. AH groups concerned in economic life are therefore compelled to ask:
Can the methods of science be utilized to achieve balance between resources, production and consumption? Can science be substituted for casualism ill the development ot economic policy? How can sufficient information be placed at the disposal of those who must form economic policy in individual companies, in industries and in nations, so that they may know all the factors in the problem of adjusting resources, production and consumption.
I do not know that one could better put the problem than it has been put in this announcement. Now I should like to speak for a few minutes with regard to the country to which the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Speakman) has already referred, the one country in which central planning has been carried out on a large scale. I refer of course to Russia. There is such a wealth Oi literature on this subject that I hesitate even to attempt to summarize the experiments which have been carried on. In order to show that I am speaking with some authority, however, I might give a list of some of the leading treatises on Russia which recently have been issued. The New York Times book review of February 1 gives these books: The Economic Life of Soviet Russia, by Calvin B. Hoover; The Russian Experiment, by Arthur Feiler; The Challenge of Russia, by Sherwood Eddy; The Red Trade Menace, by H. R. Knickerbocker; Russia's Productive System, by Emile Burns; The Five-Year Plan of the Soviet Union, by G. T. Grinko; These Russians, by William C. White.
There are other books of outstanding importance; among them are Humanity Uprooted, by Maurice Hindus; Russian Economic Development, by Maurice Dobb; The Economic Policy of Soviet Russia, by Paul Haensel; The Soviet Challenge to America, by George Counts; The Soviet Union Looks Ahead; Soviet Russia, by W. H. Chamberlin; The Soviets in World Affairs, by Louis Fischer; Seeing Red, by N. Farson.
I may say these books are in our parliamentary library and can be obtained readily by any hon. member. Just on the point we are discussing to-day I should like to quote a paragraph which I find in the report of the Institute of Politics issued in connection with ts meeting last year at Williamstown, MassarMr. Woodsworth.]
chusetts. This report contains an article by Harold Kellock on the Soviet five-year plan, and in the article Mr. Kellock says:
The object of state planning in the Soviet union is the achievement of a highly coordinated, highly balanced economy, with the incidental elimination of waste in the form of overproduction, duplication, etc. By this, I mean that the economic specialists of the state planning commission (Gosplan) attempt to assess fop the coming year or for several years, economic and social needs, likewise to assess the national resources-actual and potential- to meet these needs-resources in investment capital, in working capital, in machinery, in man-power, in skilled labour and engineers, in transport motive power and national resources, in education and to strike a balance between the needs and the resources, stressing the development in lines where it is most needed.
Ill the deliberations of the state planning commission leading industrialists, engineers, labour representatives, responsible leaders ill finance and banking, educators, trade executives and public executives make their contributions. The general layout of the country, with federal concentration of banking, transport and communications, with trade largely conducted under a federal chain-store system of cooperatives, and with industry coordinated in state trusts under a supreme economic council which acts as a sort of economic general staff, lends itself to this effort in planning.
It is not, it seems to me, a question of whether or not we like what is ^oing on in Russia. The point is this: Russia to-day is conducting what is undoubtedly , the greatest experiment that has been carried [DOT] on in the history of mankind, an experiment in planned production and distribution. We may or may not want to follow Russia, but that is not the point; the point is that to a certain extent at least 'their experiment is a success. From the material standpoint there is not the slightest doubt that a very large measure of success already has attended their efforts. So if they are successful; if (they are managing to do what the rest of the world is failing to do, undoubtedly it would be well for us to study their methods. Further, if they are successful in a competitive world they will force us to study their methods, as to-day we are being almost compelled to recognize the success which has attended them. I take it that after all the embargo which this country has placed upon certain products of Russia is an acknowledgment that Russian methods have been successful up to that point.
I should like to read just a few sentences from Mr. Sherwood Eddy's book. I quote from his book not that it is quite so authoritative on technical matters as some of the other books I have mentioned, but rather because Mr. Eddy is well known in America. For many years he was an international secretary of the Y.M.C.A., and he has been rather

Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
a severe critic of the social side of Russian life. His words, therefore, may carry a little more weight than the words of others who might be thought more sympathetic. He says:
Russia is the only country which has the distinction of bringing its whole economy- industry, agriculture, and trade; production, consumption^ and distribution, under the purview of a single economic general staff. It is called the Gosplan, or state planning commissi011-	This is neither an executive nor an
administrative body, but furnishes the general strategy and plan for Russia's whole economic h'fe- ft somewhat resembles the allied general staff, or President Wilson's war industries board. There are some five hundred experts on the central staff, headed by a governing board of sixteen.
He goes on to tell something of the achievements of this plan:
Thus far the yearly goal of the plan (Gosplan) has not only been* equalled but exceeded in most branches of industry, so that some of the goals set for 1933 had been surpassed by October, 1930. . . . Of some ten thousand engineers, technicians and skilled workers from foreign lands now working in Russia, nearly a thousand are from America, with a larger number from Germany.
Speaking of aviation he says:
Already Russia has twenty air lines covering sixteen thousand miles and annually carrying 11,476 passengers.
Speaking of coal he says:
The pre-war output of coal has already been doubled. Oil. electrification and agricultural engineering have more than fulfilled the requirements of the original plan and of the revised figures.
Again, he says:
A new chemical industry is being created.
Again:
Even this is being increased, so that at the close of the five-year period there will probably have been an expenditure of some $50,000,000,000. This means the staggering undertaking of setting aside half the national income for five years.
Or again:
Unemployment was reduced from 1,714,000 in 1929 and 1,080,000 early in 1930 until there was no registered unemployment at the end of 1930 but a real scarcity of labour in building, industry and agriculture. . . . The average working day will be 6-86 hours, or 3-03 hours shorter than in 1913.
Again:
Real wages are already 16 per cent above those of 1913, with additional benefits and social services amounting to 27-3 per cent of the total pajToll, in reduced rents and prices, free vacations, medical service, etc.
Vacations on full pay ranged from twelve days to one month. Other compensation, insur-
22110-80.1
anee, social service, rent, heat, light and food at reduced prices amount to 37 per cent added to the workers' wages. Every man works four days out of five and has seventy rest days a year.
Social insurance legislation is more beneficial to the workers in Russia in many respects than in any other country. Already more than nine-tenths of the wage workers are insured . . . . the workers are not asked to contribute anything.
And so on. I have given these figures and these statements simply to call attention to the remarkable achievements that has come largely because of this central planning which is being carried out by the Soviet government
I recognize that there is a vast difference between a central or economic planning commission such as might be established here in Canada, under the existing capitalist system, and that which exists in Russia under an acknowledged socialist system, or what is an approach to such. I know the two are very different. But we are told again and again that we do not want in this country anything of the terrible upset which they have had in Russia-that in this country' we ought to bring about our reforms by means of a gradual change. We are told that in this country we ought to adopt evolutionary rather than revolutionary methods. I am quite willing to admit that it is highly desirable that we should avoid the terrible hardships through which Russia has passed. But I urge that unless we begin making changes, then undoubtedly we shall have such a catastrophe. I think we have reached that point. As a rather prominent editor of the west said the other day, when it was being urged that we should have very gradual and evolutionary changes, "you don't bring on an explosion gradually." There -is a good deal in that. An explosion comes' suddenly, and an explosion comes because there are pent-up forces that can no longer be retained. These great revolutions that have come in the history of the world have come because governments have been too slow in making necessary adjustments.
I am supporting this motion to-day with the thought that we ought to give every possible opportunity to those who would bring about the necessary changes in an orderly fashion. Whether it is possible that the government will accede, I do not know; whether it is possible that the general public will be willing to make the necessary sacrifices, I do not know. But those of us who would like to have a peaceful transition to a new social order are under obligation to do oui best to bring about that change by peaceful
1248	COMMONS
Economic Research-Mr. Woodsworth
methods, and this is one method which I venture to advocate.
Although a great many people in this country seem to regard our present economic system as being the norm, and one that is bound to endure, I would point out that it is after all very recent in the history of the world. It is only a hundred and fifty years ago since there occurred what the historians call the industrial revolution; men gave up working with their own hands and their simple tools and flocked into the newly-established factories. That change, I submit, has meant an entire alteration in our whole manner of living; and it is only after a hundred years or more that we are beginning to feel the full effect of the change in our mode of production. For a long time it was considered by a great many of the leading economists, such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and others of their school, that this system was one which was going to bring about the millenium. The idea was this: just let us have individual competition and by some means or other all will be well. In fact, the teachings underlying that school became the basis of the platforms and policies of the great Liberal party in England. We were told that the best results could be obtained by laissez faire, so far as government was concerned. Let each individual go his own way, and, in the keen competition that would result, the weaker industry would go down, the stronger would prevail, and out of all the chaos there would come the best results for the world at large. Well, there has been in the past an enonmous amount of vaste through this method; there has been an enormous amount of inefficiency. But most of us have been willing to wait; we have said, "Ultimately good will result." I fancy, however, that we have almost reached the stage where the world cannot afford to wait very much longer. This system of unregulated competition is breaking down before our very eyes. Not only in our own country, but in almost every other country in the world we have vast armies of unemployed men and women almost on the verge of starvation, while at the same time the nations are rolling in wealth. Under these circumstances, does anyone say that the system is not 'breaking down? When we have one country competing with another in such a fashion that it would seem as if only a great war could be again looked forward to as a means of solving international difficulties, can we say that the system is not breaking down? In almost every country to-day men are wondering what is going to happen. They are beginning to realize that the system can no longer con-

tinue, even though it worked for a time. And here I want to give credit to the capitalist system, it did work for a time. There is not the slighest doubt that, because of the concentration of power in the hands of a few, those who controlled factories and finance were placed in a position of tremendous influence. For a time it seemed as if the problems of production were going to be solved. And I think that to a large extent the problems of production have been solved. But there have arisen in more recent years other problems-the problems of distribution -and these are not solved. And it is in order that we may have an opportunity of solving problems of this kind that we would urge the setting up of some sort of economic commission.
The government is a conservative government; it is not committed to the idea of unregulated competition. . The government, historically, belongs to that great party which has all along claimed that the state was supreme in matters of this kind. I cannot see .why they would not be the first to admit the principle underlying the resolution and recognize that the state should come to the rescue and organize individual industries into a system. The trouble in the past has been, especially on this North American continent, that we have followed the ideal that the government should have very little to do with business, that business should go on in its own way except at such times as it comes asking special favours of the government. I submit that the time has come when we cannot afford to allow that idea to prevail; the government must be supreme not merely in those spheres which we may term political, but in .the other spheres which we term economic.
Before resuming my seat, I should like to urge that this great country, Russia, to which I referred is to-day a constant challenge to the capitalistic countries of the world Why should we be so much afraid of the experiments which are taking place in that country. If they are good, let us watch them closely and adopt that which is good, rejecting those things w-hich we do not want in Canada. That great country of 160,000,000 people is capable of producing goods at a rate hitherto undreamed of in the history of mankind and it would seem to be absolute folly for us to adopt the ostrich-like attitude of simply sticking our heads in the sand and refusing to see what is taking place in the world around us. An economic planning commission such as has been suggested by the mover of this resolution is in line with the development of

Procedure in Taking Divisions
industry the world over. Individual competition is giving place to competition of groups. We have to-day mergers, combines, trusts and international cartels, and individual competition is no longer practicable. No, we must have still further organization. The trouble to-day is that conflict is taking place between these great mergers, these great combines and these great international industries; we are faced with a warfare between the nations in the economic sphere. It is high time that we arrived at some sort of international understanding. Only thus can we solve our problems. As a preliminary step to this, we cannot do better than to have a sort of stocktaking within our own country, following that with a mobilization of all our resources to supply the needs of our people.
On motion of Mr. Stevens the house adjourned at 4.50 pan.
Tuesday, May 5, 1931.