1931-04-24

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) :: Mr. Speaker now that the standing
committees have been set up it becomes possible for me to move seconded by Mr. Guthrie:
That the Auditor General's report for the .Tear ending March 31, 1930, and the public accounts for the year ending March 31, 1930, be referred to the select standing committee on public accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed His Honour the Speaker and Messrs. Barber, Bertrand, Bourassa, Boyes, Butcher, Carmichael, Charters, Chevrier, Cotnam, Dubois, Factor, Ferland, Fontaine, Fortin, Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon, Girouard, Guthrie, Hepburn, Jr vine, Jones, Lafleche, Larue, LaVergne, Mar-oil, McGillis, McGregor, McIntosh, MacMillan (Saskatoon), Peck. Perley (Sir George), Pouliot, Quinn, Rheaume, Short, Rinfret, Smoke, Stirling, Thauvette, Thompson (Simcoe East)! 1 hompson (Lanark), White (London), Wright, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker m the direction of the library of parliament, so far as the interests of the House of Commons are concerned, and to .act on behalf of the House of Commons as members of a joint committee of both houses of parliament on the library.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house will unite with them in the formation of a joint committee of both houses on the subject of the printing oi parliament, and that the members ot the select standing committee on printing namely, Messrs. Anderson (Halton), Baribeam Belec Boulanger, Brasset, Buckley, Campbell, Charters, Desrochers, Dubois, Edwards, Embury, Esling Factor, Fortin, Girouard, Gott, Gray, Hay, Heaps, Howden, Lucas, MacLean (Prince) Maloney Marcil, Matthews, McKenzie (Assini-bma l Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Munn Murphy Peck, Perley (Qu'Appelle), Perras, lickel Porteous, Price. Quinn, Rheaume. Rin-Iret, Roberge, Rowe, Ryerson, St-Pere, Short, 
Simpson (Simcoe North), Spankie, Spencer, Spotton, Stewart (Lethbridge), Taylor, Te-trault, X erville, Wilson, Wright, will act as members on the part of this house, on the said joint committee on the printing of parliament.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Richard Bedford Bennett: That a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their honours that this house has appointed the Honourable the Speaker and Messrs. Ahearn, Barrette, Black (Halifax), Bourassa, Carmichael, Cayley, Garland (Carle-ton) Hanbury, Howard, Howden, Lafleche, Maephail (Miss), Neill, Ryerson, Senn, Spankie,
* pence, Sproule, Wilson, a committee to assist His Honour the Speaker in the direction of the restaurant so far as the interests of the Commons are concerned, and to act as members of a joint committee of both houses on the restaurant.	.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to ask
the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, whether the government has taken, steps to ascertain the accuracy of a report which appears in the papers of to-day of a speech made, or purported to have been made, in England last night by the Honourable High Commissioner of Canada in London, and whether the speech has had the authority and approval of the Prime Minister or of any member of the administration. The despatch to which I refer appears, among other papers, in the Montreal Gazette of to-day, and the Gazette's report is as follows:
Ferguson Warns British Leaders
Dominions Will Outstrip Mother Country If Cooperation Lacking, He Says
(Canadian Press Cable)
London, April 23.-"Unless you are very careful how you treat us it will be only another generation before we take your place as leaders in industry and as economic leaders of the world." With these words, Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, Canadian High Commissioner to London, concluded an appeal to Great Britain to "take the dominions by the bands and negotiate with them." Mr. APRIL 24, 1931
Privilege-Mr. Stitt (Nelson)
Ferguson was speaking at the annual dinner of the Association of the British Chambers of Commerce here to-night.
He sometimes thought he declared, that owing to Great Britain's tremendous success through the centuries, when the world came to her as its financial centre and commercial leader, Britain had built up through the generations a feeling that she was more or less self-sufficient. It had not been realized that with the coming of war and destruction of the world's economic fabric, other nations had been rapidly growing in power and become powerful competitors of Britain.
"Where are you going to look for support if you do not turn to members of your own family?" he asked. "They are pressing to be permitted to sit down at the family table and work out problems on which your prosperity and happiness depend. Unless you are very careful how you treat us it will be only another generation before we take your place as leaders in industry and economic leaders of the world."
"Canada has the territory; the natural wealth and the right spirit, but we want from Great Britain to-day more capital and a helping hand. The time of depression will shorten if you will take the dominions by the hand and negotiate with them. The people of Britain and Canada want to come closer together and no government will stop them," Mr. Ferguson said.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I read the report in the
press to which the right hon. gentleman has referred and which he has read to the house.
I have not thought it necessary to ask for a verification, nor for a copy of the speech delivered. There was no antecedent discussion of the speech, nor was the ministry advised of the purport of the remarks that were to be made by the High Commissioner. In due course the government will be advised, and if it is desirable that the house should be informed, it will be informed.



PRIVILEGE- MR. B. M. STITT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. B. M. STITT (Nelson):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I rise to resent, as I think every member of this house and western members in particular should resent, an imputation contained in the leading editorial of this morning's Ottawa Journal. I will read that editorial, which is as follows:
Canadians presently engaged with pencil and paper figuring out how much they owe the treasury for income tax, and wondering what governments do with all the money, might profitably study a return tabled in parliament on Wednesday. It had to do with the Hudson Bay railway. With its cost.
The Hudson Bay railway, as everybody knows, is not yet finished. Thus far, however, its financial story is this:
Cost of the l'oad up to February
28, 1931	$30,997,136	44Cost of Port Nelson terminals.	6,240,200	86Cost of Churchill terminals..	7,256,846	51Cost of Hudson strait expedition	1,323,809	51
Cost of radio direction finding
work	 349,678	23
Total cost to date.. .. $46,167,671 55
Forty-six millions gone-and the end not yet! Even this year, when economy is vital, and when the government is harrassed to make ends meet, there is $6,000,000 more in the estimates for this craziness.
We have two costly transcontinental railways hauling grain east and west. We have spent hundreds of millions on canals and harbours. We have spent lavishly to ship wheat through St. John and Halifax, through Montreal and Quebec, through Vancouver and Prince Rupert. We talk of the St. Lawrence deep waterway.	Yet, while spending and
building and talking that way, we have gone on putting $46,000,000 in a road whose steel ends with ice-floes and amid wolves and seals.
It is an extraordinary study in folly.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Will the hon. member
for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) shorten up the matter if possible?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker; I was just leading up to my point. There is an imputation here that members who are supporting this project do not know a tramp steamer from a mowing machine. That is the point in the next paragraph I am leading up to, and I resent it. That paragraph reads:
The advocates of this route, most of whom wouldn't know a tramp ship from a mowing machine, and who probably think that the nautical term "port" is something to drink, now tell us that, ships or no ships, the road will pay for itself. Look, they tell us; look at all the wonderful minerals along the road, and the timber, and the marvellous fishing in the Hudson bay!
There is another paragraph here which is not correct, and which with your permission I will read:
Not a pound of grain has yet gone out over the Hudson bay route. Not a pound will go out this year, or next year.
Surely that statement is incorrect, when we remember the statements made by the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) to the press.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: What is the point about
which the hon. member wishes to complain to the house?


Bernard Munroe Stitt: I am leading up to the point. I think this is a breach of privilege; I think it is an insult, and I will conclude
Copyright Act

by simply stating that I resent it and disagree with every word of the editorial. I sincerely hope every member of this house will rise in his place and record his disapproval of this article.
TRANSPORTATION OF LIVE STOCK On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS McMILLAN (South Huron):: Before the orders of the day are called I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir), based on a communication I received from him and for which I thank him. This question is in regard to the transportation of pure-bred live stock, and this is what the minister says:
The Minister of Agriculture has authorized payment by the Dominion live stock branch oi freight charges on a limited number of carload shipments of cattle purchased from breeders and farmers within the Dominion and shipped as follows:
From any point of loading in the Dominion of Canada, including points in the prairie provinces, to any railway point in the prairie provinces.
Will the provisions of these regulations be extended to live stock farmers of Ontario and Quebec, and the other provinces as well?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Does the hon. gentleman want to
know whether the farmers of Ontario and Quebec will be able to sell cattle for this purpose, or does he wish to have the freight paid within these provinces?


Thomas McMillan: The last portion of this statement is to the effect that cattle may be shipped from any point of loading in the Dominion of Canada, including points in the prairie provinces, to any railway point in the prairie provinces. My question is whether this provision of these regulations will be extended to the live stock farmers of Ontario, Quebec and the other provinces.


Robert Weir: I would like the hon. gentleman to put his question in writing, and I will be glad to give full information.
UNEMPLOYMENT CONFERENCE On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is true that his administration intends to call a Dominion unemployment conference, and if so, how soon that conference will be held.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The hon. member will be advised when the event happens, if it does happen.


Edward Joseph Garland: I have in my hand a despatch from Alberta intimating that the premier of that province stated recently in Lethbridge that an unemployment conference would be called by the Dominion later on in the present parliamentary session. I am sorry the Prime Minister has not seen fit to vouch for the accuracy of Mr. Brownlee's statement.
MR. W. A. WILSON On the orders of the day:


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: I should like to ask the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) whether the services of Mr. W. A. Wilson, agricultural produce marketing agenl, have 'been dispensed with.


Robert Weir: Would the hon. gentleman put this question on the order paper?



SURVEY OF NATIONAL PORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. P. J. A. CARDIN (Richelieu):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Minister of Finance, or the Minister of Marine, if they would place on the table of the house a copy of the order in council appointing Sir Alexander Gibb to make an investigation into the harbours controlled by harbour commissions.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think there was no order in council passed; there was merely a direction by correspondence. I will look it up and the correspondence will be brought down.
COPYRIGHT ACT AMENDMENT On the orders of the day:


Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa):: I desire to direct the attention of the Secretary of State to a statement which appears at page 902 of Hansard for yesterday. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) was speaking about the copyright matter and said:
.... I believe there are in the bill certain sections which we shall have to drop in order to put our legislation into full conformity with the decisions of Rome.
Mr. Cahan:	We do not recognize the decisions of Rome.
I should like to ask the Minister if he would tell us what he meant by "the decisions of Rome , because as far as I know there is no

Government Employees
Compensation
authority in Rome to give decisions in any matters of copyright, nor is there any such authority in Berne, which is probably the place meant by the minister. Would he tell the committee what these decisions are?


Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: I was simply replying to the hon. gentleman. There was a small committee which was, I understand, at one time sitting at Rome, and which at other times, I understand, sits at Berne. That committee, without any authority and without any jurisdiction, from time to time presumes to send out circulars in which it purports to give legal opinions upon the provisions of the Berne convention and latterly upon the provisions of the Rome conventions. I have received these opinions from time to time. They are not authoritative; they are not the findings of a judicial authority; they decide nothing. And so far as I am concerned I refuse to regard their decisions as anything else than the opinions of gentlemen who are without any jurisdiction in the matter.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 9, to ratify and confirm certain agreements respecting the joint use by Canadian National Railways of certain tracks and premises of Canadian Pacific Railway Company at Regina.
He said: Perhaps I should explain to the house very briefly what this bill refers to. An agreement was made in 1912 between the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian Northern Railway for the joint use of passenger and freight facilities in the city of Regina. Later, I think in 1926, that became applicable to the different subsidiaries of the Canadian National Railways. But in 1930 the agreement was supplemented by certain sub-agreements with reference to office space and various other minor details, which changed the form of the agreement. This bill is introduced on behalf of the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways to ratify that agreement, making it, as was the original agreement, for a period of ninety-nine years. Both companies desire it, and so far as I know it involves nothing of a controversial nature.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 37, to amend the Government Employees' Compensation Act.
Mr. HEENAN:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. MANION:: Might I suggest to my hon. friend that we allow the bill to get into committee, where it can be more easily discussed. The principle is acceptable to the whole house.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Definitions.
Peter Heenan: The minister very properly requested that we should go into committee forthwith inasmuch as there is not an hon. member in this house who is opposed to the principle of the bill. Undoubtedly we can better discuss it in committee. When the resolution was before the house last night we had not the advantage of having the bill before us. Now that the bill is before the committee I find that what I feared last night is the case: the bill does not cover the points which I brought up. I trust the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin) is not taking up too much of the minister's time.


Robert James Manion: I am listening to my hon. friend.


Peter Heenan: I am a pretty hard man to listen to.
I hope the government will take into consideration the suggestions which I made last evening. The compensation act which governs Dominion employees is not fair or equitable, as I have already pointed out. The same wages and salaries are paid to all Dominion employees in like employment all over the country, but when accidents occur and they are disabled or lose their lives, then we differentiate in the treatment accorded. For instance, if a Dominion employee is injured in the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia or any of the western provinces, he receives 66| per cent of his wages up to a maximum of $2,000, or, about $111 per month. If an employee similarly employed in New Brunswick is injured-I think it is the same in Nova Scotia-he would receive 55 per cent of wages up to $1,200.


Robert James Manion: Just as a matter of information, is it not 60 per cent in Ontario?
944	COMMONS
Government Employees Compensation


Peter Heenan: No, 66f per cent from Quebec west. The employee injured in New Brunswick would receive 55 per cent of $1,200, or $55 per month as maximum remuneration. I contend that equal treatment is not accorded to our federal employees. If a Dominion employee should be killed in any province from Quebec west his widow would receive $40 per month, while in New Brunswick she would receive only $30-I mention New Brunswick because I have some knowledge of what is done in that province-and I believe the amount paid in Nova Scotia would be $35 per month.
There are other inequalities in the act which could be referred to, but I do not desire to take up the time of the committee in discussing them. I approve of the principle of the bill and I thank the hon. minister for bringing it before the committee. However, I would reiterate that there was some difference of opinion with respect to the bill prior to the last elections, and that is one of the reasons why it was not presented. I want to take the position now as I did then, that this bill does not give equal treatment to Dominion employees or their dependents in the event of injury or death in the course of duty. I do not know of anything more discouraging or more productive of dissatisfaction than the unequal treatment of employees working for one employer, whether that be the Dominion or .provincial government or some industrial institution. It is not fair to pay the widow of a man killed in one part of the country only $30 per month, when the widow of a man killed in another part of the country receives $40, nor is it fair to pay $111 per month to one employee who has sustained injury while another receives only $55 per month. I am sure that the ingenuity of the government and especially of the Minister of Railw'ays can conceive of some amendment to this bill which would eliminate these inequalities and which could be presented before the bill passes the committee stage.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, I do not desire to quarrel with the hon. member in regard to the attitude he takes on this matter; he probably has good grounds for his argument, but the fact remains that this is the same bill as his own government introduced last year and which was not proceeded with. This is the same bill as was drawn up by the representatives of the different provinces in this Dominion. I explained last evening that before this bill was presented to me for presentation to the house a meeting was held in my office at which the Minister of Labour 
(Senator Robertson), representatives of Ontario and Quebec, certain officials of the different departments and myself were present. The representatives from Ontario and Quebec spoke for the whole Dominion of Canada, and they agreed to the bill as it is drawn up.
While that is all true, the fact remains that there are some inequalities existing in regard to the matters referred to by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Keenan). The passing of this bill will add at least $70,000-that is a very rough estimate-to the cost of the administration of the act, or 15 or 20 per cent, and the government feels that it is a move in the right direction. The hon. member admits that himself. We feel that it is going sufficiently far in these times without adding further to the cost. After this bill has been in force a year or so there is no doubt that we can then consider alterations or amendments to the act, but, speaking for the government, I should prefer at the present time not to offer any amendment unless it be of a technical character.


Mr. RALSTON:: Mr. Chairman, would the hon. minister give the committee the meaning of the definition of "employee" given in subsection (a) of section 2, reading as follows: while performing duties or services by virtue of being appointed, certificated or licensed by His Majesty or by a minister of the crown acting in any capacity other than on behalf of His Majesty,


Robert James Manion: That part of the section
refers to those who are not actually paid by the government. For example, a pilot would be appointed by the Dominion government but would be paid out of fees received from the ships which he pilots. There are other cases, such as harbour masters, who are paid by fees. It refers to all those who may be appointed by the Dominion of Canada but who do not receive their compensation direct from this government.
I quite understand the difficulty of following this section because it is a rather involved sentence. The part which my hon. friend read has reference to the preceding part of the section, which reads:
but does not include persons who are permanent members of the military, naval or air forces of Canada,
who have a special method of insurance of their own. Perhaps the words "it does not refer to" should have been repeated, so that the remainder of the section would read:
it does not refer to persons who are caused personal injury by or whose death results from accident while performing duties-

Government Employees Compensation
and so on. My hon. friend will understand that it is a matter of direct payment; if they do not receive payment direct from the government, then they are not subject to the benefits of this act.


James Layton Ralston: I read the first part of
the clause, but I wanted to find out just exactly the classes referred to, and the hon. minister has been good enough to give me certain examples.
My hon. friend said something else in reply to what was said a few moments ago by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. I understood him to say that the provinces agree.
I do not see much difficulty in that regard. As I understand the matter, the compensation assessed is really paid by the Dominion, and the provinces have not much interest in such an agreement. The point is really whether the federal employees in the various provinces are satisfied with the arrangement which is made. My hon. friend has suggested that this is somewhat similar to or perhaps textually exactly the same-I do not know-as an amendment which was suggested last year; but what has been said by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has a good deal of force, as my hon. friend has admitted, inasmuch as these employees are all federal government employes and if there should be any inequality, it can only be on account of the differences in wages or salary, because, as I understand the matter, under the compensation acts of the different provinces the compensation is based on a percentage of the wages or salary. Would it not be advisable, while my hon. friend is doing this, to make a clean job of it and fix a certain percentage of salary for all federal government employees. If the salaries are the same, there is no reason why a man in Nova Scotia should receive one amount for compensation and a man in Ontario, another? The fact that the provinces have agreed does not help very much; neither does the fact that the representatives from Quebec and Ontario have agreed help very much, because the other provinces have a different scale of compensation. I join with the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River in urging the minister to consider the possibility of fixing the scale of compensation for all federal government employees on an even and uniform basis, having regard to the fact that all have a common employer.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is quite right; perhaps I should not have said that the provinces agreed inasmuch as they have not very much to say about the matter, as we are paying the bills. But when he says 22110-60
that the people who will not be satisfied will be the federal government employees, I am afraid, as he well knows, having been a minister for quite a long time, that we would be in difficulty if we endeavoured to satisfy all the federal government employees. The proposal, however, that my hon. friend and the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River make is a little difficult of administration, and it would also cause an inequality. It is difficult of administration for this reason; if, for example, we pay in New Brunswick, using the province mentioned by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, a different scale of compensation from that which is paid by that province under its compensation act, we would have to have some machinery set up here to handle that ourselves, because otherwise we would be complicating their efforts in New Brunswick. Secondly, while it is true that under the present act as it stands there may be some inequalities due to the different rates of compensation paid by the various provinces, if we pay the same throughout the Dominion, we must have inequalities in any case, because we would be paying to Dominion government employees in New Brunswick and some of the other provinces a greater rate of compensation than is paid to provincial government or industrial employees. Therefore, either way we are going to establish inequalities. We take the attitude, I think fairly, that this is a move in the right direction; indeed we have taken the excellent example of the late government which last year introduced this bill just as it is to-day.


Peter Heenan: No.


Robert James Manion: I am informed that it is exactly the same bill and in the same form as that introduced last year as far as the terms are concerned.


Peter Heenan: The bill was not introduced.


Robert James Manion: Well, the resolution, if
my hon. friend wants to argue on a technicality. As it is a move in the right direction, I think we can take a chance for a year, and if there be some inequalities that cause dissatisfaction, we can amend it next year. I do not think at the present time we should add to the liabilities of the Dominion which are heavy enough. We do not wish to assume any heavier financial responsibilities than we have taken in this bill. It must be remembered that after all we are adding to the advantages of the employees themselves; those employees who

946	COMMONS
Government. Employees Compensation
are covered in this bill had no compensation previously. They pay nothing for it; it is a gift to them, and so it is an advantage to them which they did not have in the past.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: Does the federal government administer this fund, or is it administered through the provincial com-oensation boards?


Robert James Manion: Through the boards.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Then
there must be some agreement between the provinces and the Dominion. I am quite in sympathy with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth. But I can see a great difficulty. For instance, in New Brunswick a royal commission is now at work considering whether the rate of compensation shall be increased from 55 per cent where it has stood since 1918. I should like to point out that the trades and labour council of New Brunswick are asking, not for 66J per cent, but for 75 per cent. I do not say that they are going to get that, but I would be surprised if they did not get some increase. If the royal commission should report to the legislature or government of New Brunswick that it is desirable to grant 75 per cent, the whole scheme is going to be a lever to raise the rate of compensation throughout the Dominion to 75 per cent. I do not think employers of labour are ready to go that far. They may not think 55 per cent is large enough. But this bill is a step in the right direction, and we had better leave it alone until the provinces themselves arrive at a uniform rate of compensation. I know employees of the Dominion government welcome this bill. Those outside of the railways have not had any compensation heretofore.


James Layton Ralston: My hon. friend is mistaken. Compensation is awarded all the time to government employees. The minister will correct me if I am wrong. This is only to correct a comparatively few cases in which there is no similar employment in civil occupations to that which can be found in federal government service.


Richard Burpee Hanson: My understanding was that the compensation applied only to the railway employees. I am glad to hear that it has a wider application. Federal government employees, however, who are at present not under the act, are going to be brought under it by this bill. The question of inequality is bound to arise and
(Mr. Manion.]
exist just as long as there are inequalities in rates of compensation paid by the various provinces. Until those are settled on an equitable and uniform basis, this bill ought to go through as it is.


Mr. DUFF:: Am I right in assuming that the Dominion government does not pay this money directly to the employees, but that it goes to the different workmen's compensation boards in the provinces when they send in their bills?


Robert James Manion: That is right with the exception of Prince Edward Island. Last night I think I gave a wrong piece of information to the hon. member for Gloucester; I was not sure about Prince Edward Island having a compensation board. It has not. Every other province has. In the case of Prince Edward Island we have a referee there who handles the matter for us; in his case he sends in the accounts, medical, hospital and compensation, for the man injured, and we pay the bill directly from the Department of Railways and Canals at Ottawa. In all the other provinces the provincial compensation boards pay the bills, render us accounts plus about 5 per cent for administration, and we pay their accounts.


William Duff: Is the money paid to the workmen's compensation boards of the different provinces or to the individuals?


Robert James Manion: The workmen's compensation boards.


William Duff: If that be the case, I certainly think we should not set a standard here. Our rate should be guided by the percentage paid in each province.


Robert James Manion: That is what we are doing.


William Duff: If we establish a standard here, whether it be 65 per cent or 75 per cent, or whatever it be, every employer of labour and provincial government will get into trouble, because people will want to raise the standard in their own province.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: I am sorry, but I do not agree with the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough. I take very strongly the ground that the governing factor is the wages paid to the employee. The governing factor in that particular case, the wages of the employee, is the same all over Canada. Why in the world should less compensation be paid in case of injury or death in the maritime provinces than if the accident had happened in British Columbia? I can assure the minister that he will have nothing but trouble until the federal

Government Employees Compensation
government themselves fix rates of compensation and make them universally applicable throughout Canada. It would be a very simple matter to do. All the provinces have rates of compensation fixed now. The Dominion government could easily adopt a scale of its own and pay compensation to every employee throughout the Dominion according to that scale. While I am in entire sympathy with the idea that every employee should come under the provisions of this act, at the same time I can assure the minister and the government that they will have nothing but trouble until this matter is adjusted on a basis of equality from one end of Canada to the other.


William Duff: The best thing for the federal government to do would be to set up a workmen's compensation board of their own.


Charles A. Stewart: No, I am
not suggesting anything of the kind. The matter can be i handled very simply. The boards are there, and all that is required is a scale set up by the federal government. There is no necessity at all for setting up a federal compensation board.


William Duff: In other words, if an employee of the Public Works department in Ottawa comes down to a town in Nova Scotia and works alongside a local man in that particular town, and both are injured while at work, then under the scheme proposed by the hon. member for West Edmonton one man would receive a different rate of compensation from the other. I say that until we have a federal compensation board and pay compensation direct from Ottawa, we must take the scale that prevails in the different provinces. In Nova Scotia, for instance, by an amendment to the Workmen's Compensation Act the fishermen of the province were brought under the act, paying their money direct to the government, and the government paying out the claims. About three years ago the government decided they could not afford to carry the fishermen any longer, at rates which the fishermen could afford to pay and the result was that the fishermen had to go to an insurance company in London and arrange for cover. The London underwriters stipulated that they would pay compensation to injured fishermen or for fatalities through the workmen's compensation board of the province of Nova Scotia, according to the rates set out in the Workmen's Compensation Act. The fishermen and the insurance company came to that agreement, with the result that while the government of Nova Scotia does not collect money 22110-60J
direct from the fishermen, it is paid by the fishermen to the insurance company, and the fishermen are paid the rates of compensation set by the board. In the present case, if the federal government simply pays the money over to the workmen's compensation board, it would never do for employees of the government to get a different rate of compensation from the ordinary employees of any other concern in any of the provinces.


Peter Heenan: That is where my hon. friend and I entirely disagree. Surely we should try to treat all the employees of any particular industry in an equitable manner, and as the Dominion government is an employer of workmen in certain districts, I say that it should treat its men similarly, in the matter of compensation for injuries, throughout the whole Dominion.
What my hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough suggests is that the Dominion government should agree to subscribe funds to those provinces that are backward in the matter of providing workmen's compensation. In other words, he suggests that Dominion government employees who are working at the same rate of wages in the provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia as Dominion government employees working in Ontario, Quebec or the western provinces, should be treated differently in the matter of compensation in the event of an accident. I do not believe that this house will agree that the men should be treated differently in the matter of compensation in the case of an accident in Nova Scotia or New Brunswick as compared with an accident in any other part of the country. I do not wish to repeat myself too often but I think it is worth while for me to repeat this: If a railway mail clerk should be disabled at his work in Quebec or in any province west of Quebec he would be entitled to obtain compensation at the rate of $111 a month so long as he was disabled, while if he became disabled in the province of New Brunswick or Nova Scotia he would be entitled to draw only approximately $55 a month.
The Minister of Railways suggests that the government will be spending $70,000 or more under this act. I would point out that that amount will only be spent in the case of injuries to employees. I think there is a better way to save that money, and that is that we should refrain from disabling workmen working for the Dominion government. The labour men would rather Tefrain from collecting compensation because they do not wish to be injured; but in the event of their being injured I claim that they are entitled to as much compensation in one province as if the
94S	COMMONS
Government Employees Compensation
injury had occurred in another and that in the event of their being killed the widow and dependants are entitled to just as much compensation as the widows and dependants receive in other parts of the country. I appreciate the action of the government in bringing down this measure as prepared by the late government. That measure was not gone on with for reasons that I do not wish to disclose at this particular time. The resolution which was introduced last session was by no means satisfactory to me, and the amendment before us is not satisfactory, although I accept it as a step in the right direction. But I do not see the use, to borrow a phrase from my hon. friend the Minister of Justice when he was leading the opposition, of taking so many bites at a cherry. We have shown that there are inequalities in the Dominion public service, and I think that we should amend this measure. I do not want to offer an amendment; I do not even want to suggest one because I know that the ingenuity of the minister and his officers is quite equal to bringing in a suitable amendment. If I recollect aright, at the present time Prince Edward Island has no Workmen's Compensation Act, but there is an act of the Dominion parliament making provision for a referee in Prince Edward Island to base the compensation for injured Dominion employees on the basis which obtains in New Brunswick. So that precedent has already been established. I can easily conceive of a simple amendment to this bill which would provide that in cases where employees are disabled or killed in New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island they or their dependants would get the same rate of compensation as they would have been entitled to had the accident happened in Ontario or Quebec. If we cannot get such an amendment from the government I am perfectly ready to support this measure, but I would still plead with the minister to take my suggestion into serious consideration and see if he cannot bring in an amendment to give equal treatment to all Dominion employees in all parts of Canada.


Mr. MacLEAN:: Mr. Chairman, I desire to endorse the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) because I know from personal experience that what he has referred to is causing considerable dissatisfaction in the maritimes at the present time. Last year the legislature of Prince Edward Island enacted a compensation measure, but whether it is in operation yet I do not know. But I do know that two years ago compensation for railway employees was based on the New Brunswick Compensation Act. I know of one case where the

widow of a trainman was receiving compensation under that act; after a couple of years her compensation was cut down, and the reason given for the reduction was that she had been put under the Nova Scotia act. I know this created a great deal of dissatisfaction at the time.


Richard Burpee Hanson: If she was under the Nova Scotia act they could not place her under the New Brunswick act.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know they did reduce her compensation, and that was the reason given for the reduction. That is why in Prince Ediward Island the legislature was asked to put through a compensation act. It seems to me only fair that the same rate of compensation should apply to all government employees, no matter what province they may be in. I cannot agree with my hon. friend from Antigonish (Mr. Duff) who states that the suggestion made by the hon. member from KenoraHRainy River would interfere with the compensation acts of the various provinces.


William Duff: I am right just the same.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: Each province has its compensation act for local purposes, but every Dominion employee should receive the benefit of the Dominion act. May I ask the minister, does this measure apply to men in the government merchant marine?


Robert James Manion: I don't think so.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They are under a different company.


Alfred Edgar MacLean: I know of the case of a young man on one of the government merchant marine boats who lost his sight in the service, but is not in receipt of compensation. Is there any possibility of bringing the government merchant marine under this legislation? I repeat that I support the position taken by the former Minister of Labour, that the same rate of compensation should apply to all government employees.


Mr. NEILL:: Mr. Chairman, speaking, if not for, at least from British Columbia, I must support the attitude taken by the member for Antigonish-Cuysborough (Mr. Duff). The member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Heenan) says he does not want to precipitate a condition where a government employee in one province would be paid more or less com- * pensation than a government employee in another province. As a member from British Columbia I am more concerned with this aspect-I do not want government employees

Government Employees Compensation
in British Columbia to be paid more or less compensation, particularly less, than other men in British Columbia. I can see that British Columbia is going to be the goat if the system proposed by the member for Kenora-Rainy River were put into effect. If I remember rightly, the rate of compensation paid in British Columbia is 62J per cent; someone on the other side has said that in New Brunswick it is 55 per cent; some other province may have a lower rate. Now, if we leave the minister to strike a percentage rate to apply to all Canada, he will be almost sure to strike an average, and that average naturally will be less than the highest rate now prevailing; consequently British Columbia, having at present the highest rate, will be at a disadvantage. Therefore I support the attitude taken in this particular instance by the minister.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman I am not impressed by the solicitude of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River for our departmental employees having regard to the fact that he was Minister of Labour in the former government from 1926 down to August last. Neither am I impressed with his repudiation of his own child. This is an attempt to do something which he failed to do when he was Minister of Labour and I would suggest to him that he had better leave well enough alone. There has been a certain amount of misrepresentation, or perhaps I should say misinformation, as to the attitude of the workmens' compensation board in New Brunswick. The rate of compensation in New Brunswick is 55 per cent, with a maximum compensation of $1,500 a year; which is somewhat different from what the hon. gentleman stated. I do not know what the rate of compensation is in Nova Scotia, but I imagine it is at about the same level as the New Brunswick rate. Any attempt under this bill to pay the Canadian National Railway employees in New Brunswick a higher rate of compensation will have the effect of immediately raising the rate of compensation payable to all employees in that province, and I tell him right now that the payrolls of New Brunswick will not stand any such increase, especially in the pulp and paper business with the companies finding it difficult to pay wages under prevailing conditions. Let me tell him something further: there is a reflex action to this question, which perhaps he appreciates, namely, that a higher rate of compensation inevitably reacts on the scale of wages paid. I do not think this is just,
but I know it so works out in practice; and the men themselves know it. I suggest that the hon. gentleman had better leave well enough alone and not repudiate his own offspring.


Peter Heenan: I had not intended to say anything further, Mr. Chairman, but the remarks of the member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) require some answer. It is quite evident that he has not been listening to the Minister of Railways, or he would have heard him state that this bill is practically the same bill as was introduced last session by the King government.


Richard Burpee Hanson: But you
were Minister of Labour six years and did not get the bill through.


Peter Heenan: Therefore the member for York-Sunbury is admitting that we did something.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You made a gesture.


Peter Heenan: For the hon. member's
information I may say that one reason why the bill was not proceeded with was that inequalities were discovered in the bill by the Minister of Labour.


Richard Burpee Hanson: You are
just finding it out.


Peter Heenan: For the further information of the hon. gentleman let me say to him that I welcome the introduction of this bill and I am going to support it.


Richard Burpee Hanson: So am I.


Peter Heenan: But I reiterate that to
treat employees in one industry in a different way in the different provinces is neither fair nor equitable. I am not going to enter into-a discussion as to the position of the pulp and paper mills of Ontario or New Brunswick further than to say that I do not think the pulp and paper industry of New Brunswick is very much different from the industry in Ontario and I helped to get some of the pulp and paper mills located there. They secured from the provinces valuable timber limits and water powers in consideration of erecting and operating pulp and paper mills for so many months in each and every year and employing so many hands. No pulp and paper mill in any part of the country is performing that obligation, so I have not very much sympathy with the plea that they cannot stand any increase in wages. The way to economize in compensation is to refrain from disabling too many workmen.
950	COMMONS
Government Employees Compensation


Richard Burpee Hanson: I agree with that.


Peter Heenan: I knew my hon. friend
would. He has a big heart, just like myself. One would imagine he came from Ireland instead of New Brunswick.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I came from a better place.


Peter Heenan: There is no better place
on the face of the earth. I repeat, the pulp and paper mills might economize by not making so many widows through their eagerness to speed up the work of their employees. The compensation boards of Ontario and Quebec, I understand, have been consulted in this matter with respect to its legal aspect. Would not my hon. friend consent to leave this matter to a committee, so that the Dominion employees might have an opportunity to make their representations in that regard?


Robert James Manion: I do not think there is
anything to be gained by letting it stand. The government have brought forward this measure; they had the advantage of having the previous government bring forward the same bill and while I do not know that political recriminations get one anywhere, particularly when one is in power, at the same time while my hon. friend was Minister of Labour these people who are now going to get compensation, including the widows of whom he spoke, received nothing. Now they are going to get fairly good treatment under this bill. I do not mean that any treatment can compensate for the loss of a husband-at least, some husbands-but at the same time it is some form of support. Speaking for the government, I must say that my hon. friend's proposal will simply delay the bill and delay the time when these people who require compensation will get it, because so far as the government is concerned the act is ready to go through, and unless it is held back altogether we are going to put it through. These people will receive compensation when they deserve it.
I am not satisfied at the present time to change the proposals in the act, because I have given them very serious consideration. We understood before we brought in the bill the differences which exist, but there are also the points made by the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough, the hon. member for Comox-Alberni and the hon. member for York-Sunbury. Those points are important. I do not believe it is our duty to set up a discrimination in the province itself, and that is what we should be doing if we adopted the suggestions proposed by my hon. friend. I

say, with all due respect, that we would like to pass this bill as it stands. It is our proposal and I cannot agree to any changes in it unless something is shown to be of much more importance than the points already made. I am very anxious to put through the bill, for the benefit of the people who need compensation.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
minister examined the possibility of a universal rate, to be administered by the compensation boards of the various provinces, based on the wage scale of the federal employees?


Robert James Manion: I am informed that if we tried to do that we would have to set up another organization here in Ottawa to administer it ourselves. That is the Information I am given, I think we have enough departments here at Ottawa now.


Charles A. Stewart: I agree.


Robert James Manion: I am very glad of that, and with these compensation boards already in all the provinces it seems to me that as a trial this proposal should be adopted. After all, these people will get more this year than they ever received before, and if there is some dissatisfaction this provision can be amended later.


Mr. GERSHAW:: When this bill passes
employees of this government will be under the compensation boards of the various provinces. In case an employee is injured and disabled, is he bound to accept the award of the compensation board or has he any appeal in common law?


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is a medical man; he knows that in Ontario at least, and I presume it is the same in the other provinces, an injured workman has no appeal under the law.


James Layton Ralston: The minister has said that he does not feel that he can accept any amendment unless something which he considers perhaps more important or more vital than the question which has been raised is brought to his attention. I just want to mention one or two matters which have been discussed already, and to point out to my hon. friend for his consideration either now or later on, when he comes to find out whether or not the trial of which he speaks has been successful, that the inequalities which he suggests exists to-day by reason of the -fact that we have all over this Dominion those who are employed by the federal government and who are paid rates of wages fixed without referene-c to the conditions in the provinces. That is

Government Employees Compensation
fundamental; you have a different employer, as I said before. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough suggests that you cannot have a man employed by the Dominion government receiving one rate of compensation while the employee of a civilian employer receives another rate. We have that condition to-day; for example almost every Dominion government employee is entitled to superannuation, while the civilian employee does not receive that advantage. Almost every Dominion employee is entitled to a statutory increase in salary, which is not the case with a civilian employee. Almost every Dominion employee is entitled to holidays regularly, which is not the case with a civilian employee. They are working side by side, perhaps in the same town, but that inequality exists already by reason of the fact that they have different employers.
Further than that, you already have inequality in connection with workmen's compensation. Until very lately Prince Edward Island has no provision for compensation to employees of private employers. But for some years the act we are now amending has provided for compensation in Prince Edward Island to employees of the government, notwithstanding the fact that there is no such compensation to civilian employees. So the inequality does exist, I suggest, and I suggest that where we pay our employees at a level rate of wages all over the Dominion, the compensation should be at a level rate also.
I have listened carefully to what has been said, and I feel that to some extent at least it seems as if the views expressed depend on where the speakers happen to be living. The very fact that all these people are employed by the federal government would seem to indicate that there should be uniformity and not inequality as to their compensation. I may say further that while the workmen's compensation boards are used as the machines through which this compensation is disbursed, every dollar of that compensation is paid to the workmen's compensation boards by the federal government through the Minister of Finance, and my hon. friend is in charge of this bill at the moment because his own department is really the one charged with the administration of this act, and is the conduit pipe, if I may use that expression with deference, through which these cases are presented to the various boards. The provincial boards are only tribunals after all, set up for the purpose of administering the act, and I submit it does not make any difference whatever that it happens to be a local workmen's compensation board which is doing the work, because as a matter of fact it is acting as an agent of the Dominion government.
May I say further that I do not think we are peihaps altogether seized of the fact that what is being done is not something entirely new. I quite agree that it is an improvement on the condition which existed formerly, but for years, ever since this act, which is now being amended, was passed, we have had a compensation aot for employees of the federal government. All we are doing now is to say that a certain class of these employees who were not receiving compensation before, because the words "under similar circumstances" contained in the old act did not apply in certain cases, shall receive compensation now. There are certain positions under the federal government which have no counterpart or corresponding employment in civilian life, and all we are doing by this act is to pick up these odd cases and put them on the same basis as the others. My hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River suggests that while we are doing that, without making any change in the resolution brought down previously, we might go a step further. He suggests that the government should not simply rely on what its predecessors did but at the same time should provide for a rate of compensation which will be uniform to all Dominion government employees throughout Canada.
I submit these observations to my hon. friend, notwithstanding his attitude regarding no amendments. This matter of trial is really not very impressive. We know exactly what the issue is; we know just as well today as we shall know two years hence what will happen. The question is whether federal employees will be paid a uniform percentage throughout Canada or whether the rates will be different in the different provinces. The reasons which the hon. member (Mr. Heenan) has given are, I think, impressive and might well be considered with a view to making a complete cleanup of the situation. I think the principle he has laid down should be accepted.


Mr. GEARY:: 
Charles A. Stewart: In my hon. friend's opinion would there be a conflict if the federal government fixed the schedules and the provincial boards administered the system in accordance therewith?


George Reginald Geary: I am not in the confidence of any one of the legislatures and I do not know what tribunals are set up. There are certain conditions upon which the percentage is fixed in the statute. I am not at all sure that the provincial board would feel at liberty under the present legislation to adjudicate upon a case, make an award ignoring the provision as to the amount payable, and come to the Dominion and say, " There is the award; if you can pay such a percentage it will be put through."


William Duff: At present the percentage
which prevails in Nova Scotia is paid equally to all classes of labour. Every class is given tiie same; there is no differentiation. Miners are paid the same percentage as lumbermen or any other class. Now if by this statute we fixed the rate at 75 per cent would it be fair for the Minister of Labour or the Minister of Finance to say to the provincial government, "We have fixed the rate at 75 per cent and we will use you as a conduit pipe to pay the compensation. One class of labourers will be paid 75 per cent while others will receive only 65 per cent"? If I were premier of Nova Scotia I would say to the federal government, "You pay your own money." The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River no doubt has the interest of the working man at heart. If he wants a uniform schedule for federal employees throughout Canada why should he not want a uniform schedule for all labourers in the country? 
What he should work for is to get all the provincial governments, at the first conference they have, to try to agree to a uniform rate for all employees, including those of the federal government, making it 50, 65, 70 or 75 per cent, whatever the provincial governments might agree upon. But so long as the rate in Nova Scotia is 55 per cent, or whatever it is, the rate in British Columbia is 66j per cent, and the rate in some other province 40 per cent, the only thing the minister can do is to say to the provinces: "We will put ourselves in your hands and pay to our employees any money which they are entitled to receive under your schedules."


Peter Heenan: The remarks of my hon.
friend from Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) have emphasized my argument better than I could have done it myself, because the federal government has a uniform rate of wages or salaries throughout 'Canada. Customs officers get the same rate; mail clerks get the same wages; mail carriers and preventive officers the same. The difference comes in when they are injured or killed. In the case of a mail clerk in Ontario or Quebec the maximum rate of $111 a month is paid in the event of injury, whereas in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia it is approximately $55 a month. I do not consider that fair or equitable.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The cost
of living is lower.


Peter Heenan: When I was in Nova
Scotia the cost of living was high. I may have been living high.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The rate
is $68.75 a month.


Peter Heenan: Well, a couple of dollars is neither here nor there; I would not argue with my hon. friend about a few cents. It may be lower than my hon. friend thinks.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I have
the statute right here.


Peter Heenan: And I have the amounts before me, so that what the statute says and what the workman gets are two different things. At any rate, I contend that hon. gentlemen who have spoken against my suggestion are only encouraging those provinces that pay a low compensation to maintain that attitude. They are not encouraging their provinces to come up to the level of other parts of the Dominion. I say to the Minister of Railways that if he does not accept the suggestion offered he is only encouraging these several provinces by the sea to continue payi

Government Employees Compensation
ing a lower compensation than is paid elsewhere in Canada. The precedent has already been established that inasmuch as Prince Edward Island has no compensation act and no compensation board in the event of a Dominion employee being injured or killed in that province, a referee shall be appointed to award compensation on the basis of compensation paid in New Brunswick. It is very easy to amend this bill to provide that employees of the Dominion government in any part of Canada shall be paid a compensation based on the provisions that obtain in the province of Quebec or of Nova Scotia or of British Columbia. For the information of my hon. friend from Comox-Alberni (Mr. Neill),
I am not so sure that British Columbia is the highest. If he says the rate there is 66|, in the province of Quebec and in Ontario also it is 66J-just a little bit better than even British Columbia. I still think that the minister would be doing a good thing for the public service, and I am sure it would be in accordance with the wishes of the people of Canada, if he provided that federal employees should get equal treatment not only in salaries and wages, but also in the matter of provision to meet disability or accidental death. Their dependents should receive equal treatment. The minister could very well bring in a simple amendment which would provide this equal treatment. I want to say frankly to the minister, I would prefer delaying this measure for a year rather than hare the measure go through still maintaining, as it does, this principle of inequalitj'.


The CHAIRMAN:: I would remind the
committee that it has been discussing clause 2, when in fact we are still on clause 1. Shall clause 1 carry?


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, before the
clause carries I have an amendment to suggest to the committee. It will be remembered that I brought up last night the question of compensation to lighthouse keepers' assistants. Possibly I was misled by the glamour of his language and the hon. minister's genial manner, but I got the impression that he was going to give this matter some attention. I have more than glamour to go on, because I find that in speaking upon this matter last night the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid) said:
I think the hon. member's suggestion should be taken into serious consideration.
Mr. Manion:	It will.


Robert James Manion: I mean in the future.


Alan Webster Neill: There was no qualification
or modification made. Speaking as a minister
of the crown he said: "It will." It reminded me of the fateful occasion when a man says:
"I will." The hon. minister said it would be taken into consideration, but what do we find? The bill was introduced last night and almost in his opening sentence this afternoon the hon. minister said that he would not accept any amendment unless it were of a technical character. The consideration promised must have been of a very ephemeral character.
I will not waste the time of the committee in rehashing my argument of last night, except to say this:	This is an attempt to
bring under the act the assistants to lighthouse keepers. Is there any reason why these men, paid the very lowest salary imaginable, should not come within the provisions of this act? In many cases it is the wife or minor child who acts as assistant, and an added salary is paid to the lighthouse keeper himself to include their wage. There is no question about that, one has only to look at the payroll to find that where there is no assistant the keeper receives so much, while in those cases where an assistant is kept the keeper receives a few hundred dollars more per year. When the lighthouse keeper receives an injury in the service of the country he comes under this act, but when his assistant who may be his wife or child-at times it may be an old man who is hired-is injured, no compensation is paid. The government always falls back upon the technicality that such persons is not an employee of the government but is employed by the lighthouse keeper direct.
It would not cause any conflict with any other act if the word "employee" in this section were enlarged to cover these assistants. It might be said that it would conflict with the Civil Service Act but it would not because this particular act contains its own interpretation of the word "employee." Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I beg to move to add a subsection to be known as subsection (c) to read as follows:
The word "employee" in this section shall include lighthouse keepers' assistants for whose payment allowance is made in the salary paid by the government to the lighthouse keeper.
That would not include a man who might be hired temporarily to chop wood, or for like labour; he must be a man for whom the government has provided a salary wrapped up, so to speak, in the salary paid to the lighthouse keeper.
I know the hon. minister is going to oppose this amendment, but what does he think of a case where a man might be killed
954	COMMONS
Government Employees Compensation
-as I mentioned last night, I know of an occasion where a man risked his life and was hurt to save government properties from fire-and yet no compensation is paid. These men are told to go to the lighthouse keeper for their compensation which is impossible. I do not like to think that these men are to be deprived by some technicality from receiving that compensation which the hon. minister admits is the rightful due of all employees of the government.


Robert James Manion: Mr. Chairman, in regard
to my hon. friend's comment upon my remark of last night, I meant exactly what I said, but I did not mean that this matter would be given consideration between last night and this morning. This matter will be given consideration in the future, as will also the matter brought up by the hon. member for Kenora (Mr. Heenan).
As the hon. member knows, this question has been thoroughly considered. He has called upon officials of the department; they discussed it with him, he discussed it with them and it has been fairly considered. But apart from that, this amendment introduces into this bill a principle which we cannot adopt. This bill is for the purpose of providing compensation for the employees of the government, and the men and women to whom the hon. member refers are not employees of the government.


Alan Webster Neill: They are sub-employees.


Robert James Manion: No, not sub-employees
either. They are assistants hired by the lighthouse keepers and they are not paid directly by the government.
The hon. member knows that the proper way to go about this matter is to get the Marine department to appoint an assistant, who would automatically come under the act.
I think this is a matter which should be considered by that department, and I have no doubt that it will be.


Alan Webster Neill: Has the minister ever attempted to get the Department of Marine to do anything?


Robert James Manion: The hon. member is speaking of the late government; we have not been in power very long and perhaps he will have better success with the present minister.


Alan Webster Neill: The system still exists.


Robert James Manion: There is another reason
for not allowing this amendment to pass; it is out of order because it would increase the

cost of administering this act. The hon. member knows that the rules of the house do not permit of bis moving an amendment which would entail the expenditure of government money.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: And which would impose an additional burden.


Robert James Manion: This amendment would
impose an additional burden inasmuch as it would increase the number of people to whom compensation would be paid, therefore, I submit the amendment is out of order.


Alan Webster Neill: Surely the hon. minister is
demonstrating the last resource of a lack of logic when he is forced to fall back upon that argument of increasing cost.


Mr. STEVENS:: It is a bald fact, that is all.


Peter Heenan: Mr. Chairman-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does the hon. member propose to speak on the point of order?


Robert James Manion: I brought up the point of order.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Does the hon. member (Mr. Heenan) wish to speak on the point of order?


Peter Heenan: No.	^


Alan Webster Neill: On the point of order; the matter is trivial, entailing as it does such a small expense. Hardly an amendment is moved in the house that cannot be construed as involving some expense, supposing it is only a question of writing a few letters. The Workmen s Compensation Act in a province as a matter of fact is administered on the basis of the compensation being paid, not by the government at all but by the industry. The industries are classified and each industry pays a percentage of its pay-roll. A very small contribution in the way of medical attendance is made by the employee himself. Therefore, in British Columbia, and probably the other provinces, the compensation due to an injured man is not paid by the government in any sense at all. The same principle is in vogue here, but the government in their wisdom have found it more convenient, instead of paying on the basis of a percentage of their pay-roll, to pay the particular sum, whatever it may be, assessed in each case. This, I imagine, is on the same principle as that on which they do not insure their buildings, preferring, in a broader sense, to carry their own insurance. In that sense, it is not the government that is paying this; it is the industry, so to speak; but they pay it not by a percentage of the pay-roll-which would involve

Government Employees Compensation
the argument made 'by the minister-but by a specific sum. This puts the matter in a somewhat different position from what it would be if I were asking the government to spend money directly. This thing might go on for years without involving any payment at all.
While I am on my feet, might I suggest, although I am going away from the point of ordeT, that the minister, if he is determined to defeat this amendment, give an undertaking that a case of that kind will receive favourable consideration as regards compassionate allowances to these very poor people.


Robert James Manion: I do not like hon. members taking the attitude that I am raising a point of order on trivial grounds. After all, the rules of the house are for observance, and if this is out of order, that is the reason I drew it to the attention of the Chair.
In regard to the question of compassionate allowance, the government would certainly take those cases into consideration. Bills are constantly being approved for medical attendance, hospital accounts, and so on in the case of people who have been hurt outside the provisions of the compensation act. The government always takes those compassionate ground's into consideration, and if the hon. member ever brings to my attention a case of that kind I shall be glad to sponsor it if it be a just case.


Alan Webster Neill: If the minister says "I will" to that, I shall withdraw the amendment.


Robert James Manion: I will.


Peter Heenan: As a last resort I want to make an appeal to my genial friend the Minister of Justice. I have not been able to do very much so far with the Minister of Railways except that I must admit he is willing to take into consideration the suggestions that have been made. I feel sure, if the hon. member for Quebec East were sitting on the other side in the seat of the Minister of Justice, he would listen to my suggestion. I think I can tell by the twinkle in the eye of the present Minister of Justice that he has been very sympathetic to some of the suggestions from this side. I was wondering if the Minister of Railways would not let this bill stand at least until after to-day, in order to allow the Minister of Justice to introduce an amendment along the lines suggested by the Minister of Railways, to provide that in the event of any inequality or discrepancy the government of Canada could pay out of the consolidated revenue fund to the dependents or to the injured workman, sufficient to
cover the inequality or discrepancy. I am not a lawyer, but I think I could outline in a very few words an amendment to that effect. That is to say, in a glaring case of inequality or a discrepancy the governor general in council would have power to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund a sufficient amount to make up the difference.


Hugh Guthrie: I think it would be better to put the matter in the form of an act of parliament rather than to vest discretion in the governor in council for that purpose. The facts and arguments stated by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River are worthy of consideration, but there are great difficulties in the way of carrying them out.
In regard not only to workmen's compensation but to many other questions in connection with the laws of the country, uniformity is very desirable, but we have not yet attained it. Meetings are held from time to time throughout Canada by various responsible bodies whose object is to secure greater uniformity in regard to matters of general public interest, but they have not yet succeeded to any very great extent.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Quite a little.


Hugh Guthrie: Not to any very marked extent. This is another instance where uniformity may be desirable, but is very difficult to obtain. Different conditions exist in the various provinces. There are different modes of living in the various provinces; there are parts of the Dominion, for instance in the extreme north, where special wages have to be paid on account of living expenses being much higher than they are in other parts. We cannot get complete uniformity. The effort of the Minister of Railways in respect to this legislation is to do just as much as he can under existing conditions, for a class of people who are entitled to some relief. This proposal has gone further than any other proposal that has ever before been introduced in this chamber. It may not yet be a perfect measure. Experience will show its defects more rapidly than anything else. Let us try it out for a year or two. We are all agreed that it is a long step in advance of anything we have had heretofore. Let it have a fair trial, and if defects develop, then let us remedy them; but rather than postponing action let us give the people who are not provided for now a fair chance of getting this compensation.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Canada Evidence Act
[Stage Direction]
On section 2-Compensation to be same as under law of province where accident occurs.
Thomas Reid: Paragraph 2 reads:
Provided that the benefits of this act shall apply to an employee on the government railways.-
In Port Mann, British Columbia, the railway employees have an association of their own whereby they pay compensation and sick benefits. Would this in any way conflict with or override that?


Robert James Manion: No. The railway employees are now under the compensation acts of the different provinces. This does not apply to them at all.


Thomas Reid: The employees in British Columbia have an association of their own.


Robert James Manion: This would not interfere in any way with that.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Bill reported.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Hugh Guthrie: Now.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: There is much to be said for having the different readings on different days. Occasionally there are hon. members who desire to speak on a measure who are absent on the second reading. I happen to know that there was one member who wished to speak on this particular bill but who was not able to be present to-day.


Robert James Manion: Next sitting of the house.



NORTHERN ALBERTA RAILWAYS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals) moved the second reading of Bill No. 36, respecting Northern Alberta Railways Company.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, considered in committee, reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 10, to amend the Canada Evidence Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
{Mr. Guthrie.]
On section 1-Proof of entries in Dominion books.
Hugh Guthrie: The object of this bill
is to amend and to extend the operation of section 26 of the Canada Evidence Act. Section 26 now provides:
A copy of any entry in any book kept in any office or department of the government of Canada .... shall be received as evidence of such entry, and of the matters, transactions and accounts therein recorded, if it is proved by the oath or affidavit of an officer of such department-
-that that record is so entered. All that is required is the affidavit of the proper person. The proposal is to amend that, in order to supply a sort of negative proof whereby the negative can be proved as well as the affirmative. A difficulty has arisen in this way :	Many departments of the government issue licences, and those licences extend throughout the length and breadth of Canada. Cases arise where persons are carrying on various activities without the proper licence; that is the charge. We can prove the fact of a licence by the affidavit of an officer of the department based on the records in the books of the department, but we are not able to prove that the party charged has no licence unless we send the book and the officer to the court to give evidence at the trial. We have a very large number of cases where the charge is that radios are operated without licence. It is a very expensive and a very difficult thing to have officers of the government travelling from one end of Canada to the other to produce books and prove that the party charged has no licence. Now, it is proposed by this section to allow the officer of the department in charge of the books of the department to make an affidavit that the party charged has no licence according to the records of the department, and that affidavit shall be received in the court only as prima facie evidence of the fact; it can be rebutted; but it is prima facie evidence that the man charged has not a licence. That is all that is sought by this amendment. We are able to prove the licence now by an affidavit, and we desire to prove the fact that there is no licence through a similar affidavit, and thereby save a great deal of expense to the country and a great deal of trouble to the officials.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to this bill, indeed I think it is an improvement, but I want to make the same complaint as I did yesterday on a bill introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. APRIL 24, 1931
Ticket oj Leave Act
Cahan), that there is no explanatory note. My friend the Secretary of State yesterday said there was no rule requiring such explanatory notes. I desire to refer my hon. friend to the rule. It will be found at page 348 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. It was adopted on June 14, 1923. Not only should there be an explanatory note, but the whole section should be printed as amended by the bill which is being considered, and then the new words inserted must be put within brackets. This rule is peremptory, and it is a great help to members of the house in considering a bill.


Hugh Guthrie: I was quite aware of the rule, Mr. Chairman. I noticed the omission, but this proposed subsection 2 is all new.


Ernest Lapointe: But I think the printing of the whole section would have helped members to understand the change.


Hugh Guthrie: I am sorry for the
omission and will bring it to the attention of the official in charge of these matters.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 11, to amend the Ticket of Leave Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Administration.
Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I see the
same omission in regard to this bill; the explanatory note has been omitted for some reason, and I shall call the attention of the official in charge of these matters to the omission.
This is a very simple amendment. Under the Ticket of Leave Act, section 2, it is provided :
It shall be the duty of the Minister of Justice to advise the Governor General upon all matters connected with or affecting the administration of this act.
For a good many years in practice this work has been done very largely by the Solicitor General. During the war while the War Measures Act was in force, and while I happened to be Solicitor General, an order in council was passed under the authority of
that act, transferring the administration of the Ticket of Leave Act to the Solicitor General. In 1920, I think it was, the War Measures Act came to an end. The practice has been continued more or less to allow the Solicitor General to make recommendations in regard to the cases coming under the Ticket of Leave Act. This amendment is proposed merely for the purpose of making it definite and legal that the Solicitor General may continue to do so in future. The provision of the bill now before the committee is:
It shall be the duty of the Minister of Justice, or of such other member of the government as may be designated by the governor in council, to advise the Governor General upon all matters connected with or affecting tlie administration of this act.


Ernest Lapointe: Could not this be done
under the statute to authorize rearrangement and transfer of duties in the public service? There is a statute which authorizes the governor in council to transfer duties which devolve on one minister of the crown to another minister, and I know that so far as the late Solicitor General, Mr. Cannon, was concerned it was done by order in council under that statute, which is chapter 165 of the Revised Statutes of Canada. Has my hon. friend considered that?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes.


Ernest Lapointe: And he came to the
conclusion that it was better to take this course?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes. I may say that
the officers of the Department of Justice considered it and I joined with them. The difficulty is that the Solicitor General is not a minister of the crown, he is an officer of the Department of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Quite so, and I realize
that as Solicitor General he could not do so; but in the case of Mr. Cannon he was a minister of the crown, as is also the present incumbent of the office.


Hugh Guthrie: We might have done it for the present Solicitor General, but this course was taken in order to make it clear that the duties could be transferred to any minister who happened to be a member of the government. As proposed now, any minister may be designated for the purpose. The present Solicitor General is a privy councillor; he is not what is known as a minister without portfolio, and the question has arisen as to whether he can be properly designated as a minister of the crown though he may be a member of the privy council. The privy

Salaries Act
council, of course, consists of a great many people who are not in the cabinet. The Solicitor General is in the cabinet, but in order to make the matter clear this amendment is suggested.


Ernest Lapointe: But is the point made clear in the amendment proposed by my hon. friend? The amendment says:
.... or of such other member of the government as may be designated by the governor in council.
Is the Solicitor General a member of the government?


Hugh Guthrie: He is a member of the government, but whether he can be fairly called a minister of the crown is one of the questions as to which there may be some debate. At any rate, the law officers of the Department of Justice directed my attention to the matter and I thought a simple act would put the matter straight and avoid any conflict in the future.


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


[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved the second reading of Bill No. 38, to amend the Salaries Act.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. LaVergne in the chair.
On section 1-Salary of Solicitor General.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Last evening the Minister of Justice drew attention to the fact that the previous administration had, by naming him in the estimates, voted an additional amount for the Solicitor General in order to bring his salary up to the figure now suggested in this amendment. I mentioned at the time that the previous administration had sought to reduce the number of portfolios rather than to increase them, and I was going to direct the attention of my hon. friend and also that of the Prime Minister, to the fact that one reason amongst others the amount was voted in that way by the previous administration was to avoid the necessity of creating an additional portfolio.
It was contemplated that the then Solicitor General would, in due course be given a portfolio in the administration, and it was the intention of the then administration at a convenient date to combine the offices of

Solicitor General and Minister of Justice. It was felt that so long as the Solicitor General was in the cabinet as a member of the Privy Council he should receive the same salary as a cabinet minister, but it was not contemplated to perpetuate the office of Solicitor General as a separate ministerial office in the cabinet.
I mention the matter at the moment because this would seem to be an opportune time for some reduction in the number of ministers. I should be very sorry to see the position of the present Solicitor General affected in any way, but by continuing the former method of making payment of the difference in salary the government would not be committing itself as it seems to me it now is to increasing the number of portfolios but would leave the way open at an appropriate time to a reduction, in the manner indicated.


Hugh Guthrie: There may be great force in what the right hon. leader of the opposition has just said, but I have a very distinct recollection of what happened when the salary of the previous Solicitor General was increased and I think my right hon. friend will remember it if I recall it to his memory. He consulted me at the time; I happened to be leader of the opposition during 1927, and he pointed out to me that the Solicitor General was going to take a great many government briefs in the supreme court and before the privy council, which would entail an enormous amount of work and save the country an enormous amount of money. I agreed, and there was not a thought or suggestion of anything else in my mind. I approved of the proposal, and I know the former Solicitor General did a tremendous amount of work-in the courts and saved the country a very large sum of money. I assume the present Solicitor General will do the same thing.
That was the only reason put to me when the increase was made. I cannot add anything to what was said by the right hon. Prime Minister last night in reply to my right hon. friend with regard to the number of cabinet portfolios. I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of a reduction, but it is not the easiest thing to bring about and I do not know that I am in a position usefully to discuss the question. It is a matter for the Prime Minister himself to consider. What my right hon. friend has said just now certainly will be brought to the attention of the Prime Minister.


Ernest Lapointe: The former Solicitor
General was made a member of the government a couple of years, I believe, after he was appointed Solicitor General, and it was

Salaries Act
only after he became a member of the government that his salary was increased to the amount which is paid all the other members of the government, and I think properly so. The same thing would apply to the present Solicitor General, who also has been made a member of the government, and my pride certainly would not be great if the minister who represents the district of Quebec in the government was not a full member of that government. He is a full member, and as long as he has to attend all the meetings of council and act as other members of the government act, I am inclined to think he should be paid this salary.
I do think, however, that the other method was preferable. The former Solicitor General was paid the increase through an estimate every year, and I think this should be done as long as the Solicitor General is a member of the government. Under this bill, however, the Solicitor General will be paid, as such, the same ministerial salarj' received by other ministers, while he may be absolutely outside the cabinet and not have to attend meetings of council or come to Ottawa or be put to the same expense and the same loss of time as the other ministers.


Edward Joseph Garland: But might
he not be of much greater use?


Ernest Lapointe: That is a matter of
opinion; my hon. friend is entitled to his own view on the point. But as the condition will be when this bill becomes law, the Solicitor General, though not a member of the government, will be virtually a minister so far as salary is concerned. I do not really object to the bill, although I do not consider it an improvement. He might have been paid the salary by an item in the estimates so long as he remained a member of the government.


Hugh Guthrie: The former Minister of
Justice (Mr. Lapointe) knows that the duties now cast upon the Solicitor General are very serious, and he will in the future save the country an enormous amount of money over what has been previously paid by taking important cases for which in former days the government has had to pay heavy counsel fees to other lawyers. In the future, as in the past, we may have to employ a certain number of lawyers outside the department, but so far as we can we will utilize the services of those who are now in the department. Apart altogether from that question, however, the burden cast upon the Solicitor General to-day in respect of the Ticket of Leave Act is becoming a heavy one. There are four thousand applications a year for clemency and they have all to be carefully considered in order that

the applicants may be fairly treated. It takes a great deal of the time of the Solicitor General, of the Minister of Justice, and of a considerable staff to attend to the applications of four thousand prisoners annually for relief under the Ticket of Leave Act. So that the office is by no means the sinecure it may have been in early days, and the salary of $10,000 is little enough for any man who has the capacity to be Solicitor General of Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The Minister of Justice has referred to conversations between himself and myself at the time it was decided to have the extra amount voted in the manner in which it has been voted. I rise just to say that his recollection is entirely correct and I am pleased that he has made mention of the circumstance. It confirms also what I have just said, that it was thought preferable to vote the additional amount to the then Solicitor General by name, because it was recognized that as an individual he possessed unusually high legal attainments and qualifications for the special class of professional service to which my hon. friend has just referred, namely, taking government briefs in the Supreme Court and before the Privy Council. But the reason that the step which is now being taken was not taken at that time was that it was by no means certain that there would always be available for the position of solicitor general an hon. member possessing like qualifications, and that for this or some other reason it might become advisable to return to the practice which had formerly existed when the solicitor general was not a member of the government. What was really contemplated at the close was that the two legal departments would be combined in one namely that of the Ministry of Justice.


Ernest Lapointe: Has the question been considered at all of making the Solicitor General, by legislation, a member of the government? As it is, we seem to consider money the only important thing. The solicitor general is not a member of the government by statute. We give him a salary, and that is very important indeed. But I am sure his pride would be better satisfied if, in addition to the salary, ministerial standing were added to the office.


Hugh Guthrie: He is now a member of the government and a privy councillor.


Ernest Lapointe: By order in council.


Hugh Guthrie: But he is not a minister of any department of the government.

Supply-Pv.blic Works-N.S.


Ernest Lapointe: He is now a member of the government because there is a special order in council making him so. But he is not a member by statute.


Hugh Guthrie: Not by statute, no.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Maloney in the chair.
Public buildings - Nova Scotia - Halifax naval establishment-new buildings, $30,000.
William Duff: Before we deal specifically with this item which has been called I should like for a few moments to discuss the matter of compiling the estimates. You will notice, Mr. Chairman, that every year the government lays on the table of the house what is known as the main estimates. This year, as usual, we have to consider a great many items contained in the blue book entitled, "Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1932". These estimates in detail will be found from page 6 to page 108 of this book. As I say, these are known as the main estimates. On page 4 of these estimates a summary is given showing the totals of the various services, to the number of forty-two. On this page are also shown the increases and decreases as they may appear in different votes. I would call the attention of the committee to a mistake which has been made, not only in these estimates but also in the estimates for past years. I am not criticizing this government any more than I am criticizing the late Liberal government or other governments which were in power before 1922. I do not know what department is responsible for the compiling of these estimates, but I think I am justified in calling the attention of the committee to the fact that the columns are not made up properly.
For instance, on page 4 there will be found a column headed "To be voted 1931-32". The second column on that page is headed "Authorized by statute 1931-32," and the third column is supposed to give the total for 1931-32. However, these are not the total estimates for the whole year but rather the total amount of main estimates as compiled and shown in the various items from page. 6 to the end of the book. The next column shows the total for 1930-1931 and is given for purposes of comparison.

But what do we find? We find not only in these estimates but in the estimates of previous years that these particular columns are not the totals of the main estimates at all; they are all the estimates for the year and consequentb", when carried out to show either increases or decreases the public is not provided with the proper information. When these estimates were tabled a few days ago by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) the. following morning the newspapers all over the country came out with the information that there was a difference in these estimates as compared with the estimates of last year amounting to 137,327,754.72. I understand why the newspapers made that mistake because they took the figures as shown in this book. However, if hon. members will glance at the book published the previous year, taking the amount of the main estimates there, shown, they will find that the main estimates were not as shown for this year, $423,722,163.35, but $399,358,101.87. I do not object to the department responsible for the publishing of these estimates showing the total estimates for the year including all supplementary estimates for the year previous and for this year, but if the comparison is to be correct, and if the public is to have the truth, then I say it is not right to show, as is shown in this book, that the estimates are some $24,000,000 more, than they should be.
What are the real facts? Instead of showing a decrease of $37,327,754, the actual decrease in the main estimates of 1932 as compared with the estimates of 1931 amounted to only $12,963,693.
I am glad the right hon. the. Prime Minister, who is also the Minister of Finance, is in his seat because I desire to ask that these estimates be compiled properly in the future. The public should be given the proper figures with regard to all the estimates.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Chairman, would it not be better to have the column headed "Total vote of 1930-31"?


William Duff: No, that would not be quite fair, because, as I said, an increase or decrease, as the case may be, is shown in the other column and it is not fair to show a decrease in the main estimates by the subtracting of the main estimates of this year from the total estimates of last year. For instance, not only do these figures include, the main estimates of 1931 but they include also the supplementary estimates passed by the Liberal government before the, house dissolved last year, as well as the seven million dollars voted about three weeks ago. If the total estimates for the previous year including the supplementary estimates were shown for

Supply-Public Works-N.S.
comparison with the total estimates of this year, that would be proper accounting. The present book shows the total estimates for the year as compared to the main estimates of the previous year, or the total estimates of last year compared with the main estimates of this year, and consequently that does not give a fair comparison.
This matter should be brought to the attention of the government for reference to the statistical department or whatever department compiles this blue book, so that a change can be made in the blue book for next year and the following years. As I said before, I am not criticizing this government because the same thing has occurred for twenty years. Instead of a reduction of $37,000,000 being shown, comparing this year with last year, the proper figure of $12,963,693 should be shown.


George Reginald Geary: If there were no supplementary estimates then it would be correct.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: As my hon. friend knows, the estimates are prepared and submitted by the Minister of Einance (Mr, Bennett) and the same course has been adopted this year as was followed in previous years. My hon. friend is assuming that there are to be supplementary estimates presented to the house which would change the total, but up to the present moment, and upon the information which we have in the estimates submitted to the house, the statement is absolutely correct.


William Duff: No, I do not agree with my hon. friend.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I would say to my hon. friend that the form of the estimates is largely if not wholly determined by an official known as the estimate clerk in the Department of Finance. This gentleman has been in the department for some years and he follows a practice which, as the hon. gentleman has said, has been in vogue for years. I think this blue book indicates correctly what it undertakes to indicate, and the public accounts disclose clearly the exact expenditures in each year. The word "revote" in the estimates indicates that an expenditure authorized has not all been made and that a portion of the money in the estimates of another year which is unexpended is -being revoted. There is no question that the figures in the estimates showing the expenditures of the past year include the supplementary as well as the main estimates and that the comparison would be complete when the supplementary estimates for this year have been tabled. The reduction of $37,000,000 is correct when the com-22110-01
parison is made as against the expenditures authorized last year, that is, the year ended March 31, 1931. It may well be that that sum will be reduced by supplementary estimates to be tabled later on and to that extent the amount indicated will be lessened, but there has been no change in the usual custom and this blue book correctly informs the house of the facts as they exist at the moment subject to the variations which may take place if supplementary estimates are tabled for a post office in Lisgar and other matters of that kind.
Mr. BEAUB-IEN: I hope the Prime Minister will not forget Dominion City. An amount of money was voted last year, but I do not see any revote in this year's estimates.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is what I thought the hon. member would say.


Mr. HANSON (York-iSunbury):: I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the amount of $123,722,163115 under the heading "total 1930-31" includes the $7,000,000 of supplementary estimates that were voted at the beginning of this session.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Duff: Three weeks ago we voted $2,000,000 for the Welland canal. If you take the amount under the heading "XIV, Railways and Canals-capital", you will find that last year the total shown is $18,279,500, whereas if you take the previous vote, you will find that the amount voted in the main estimates was $16,279,500, so that the $2,000,000 voted as supplementaries a few weeks ago is included. The same thing applies to nearly every item. My point is that to make a fair comparison we should put the main estimates for 1932 in one column and the main estimates for the year 1931 in another column. What should be done in the case of the main estimates at present before the committee is to have one column read "Main Estimates for 1930-31" and the second column read "Main Estimates for 1931-32". For instance, we can make up a true statement of all the estimates for both years now because three weeks ago we voted an additional $7,000,000 in supplementary estimates. These, however, are included in the gross totals shown in the blue book of estimates in order to indicate a greater decrease and to try to show a saving or reduction in the estimates of $37,000,000. The real saving so far as the main estimates are concerned is not $37,000,000 but $12,000,000. I cannot agree with the Minister of Public Works, because these figures are incorrect and

Supply-Public IVorks-N.S.

I certainly think it is in the interests of the country that a true statement should be given to the public. To make a proper comparison we must consider matters on their merits. We should compare this year's main estimates with the main estimates of last year, and when the supplementaries are brought down, we can compare the total both main and supplementary with those of last year. I think the Minister of Public Works practically said that this was the only estimate to be voted this year, and if so the comparison will be correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not say that.


William Duff: Just this afternoon we put through legislation which, according to the Minister of Railways, will involve an expenditure of $70,000. How are we to provide that money? What about old age pensions? I notice, according to the estimates, there is only $3,000,000 appropriated for the Welland canal. Last year the late government voted $7,600,000. Do you mean to tell me that the hon. member for Lincoln, with all the unemployment there is in the country, will be satisfied with a vote of $3,000,000 for the Welland canal? It is silly and idle for anybody to say here that all the estimates are before us at this moment. There are bound to be supplementary estimates, and members from Nova Scotia, both Conservatives and Liberals, are going to see that we have more public works provided for that province.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member has put up a straw man and then knocked him down. I did not assert that there would not be any supplementary estimates.


William Duff: What did the minister say?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend must be assuming there will not be any.


William Duff: No. Hansard will bear out my statement. The minister practically said that these estimates were correct because they were all the estimates and there were not going to be any supplementaries.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All the estimates up to now.


William Duff: Unless they are changed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In regard to the item of $30,000 for new buildings for the Halifax naval establishment, this is to provide for the construction of a seamanship instructional building as requested by the Department of National Defence. It is a revote.
IMr. Duff.]


Mr. VENIOT:: If I understand aright,
this amount was voted last year and not spent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: Now the department is
going to proceed with the work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Why was the money not
expended last year when there was so much unemployment in Halifax?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A very large
program of work was on hand last year, and the plans and all the details were not completed in time to have the work undertaken during that period. There was also some reconsideration of the work . and an outside architect was engaged to prepare plans. He was taken ill and did not get them ready in time to have the work completed last year.


Peter John Veniot: Another outside architect
could have been engaged.


William Duff: The total estimates for public buildings for Nova Scotia this year is $261,000. Last year, under the late government, $302,000 was voted in the main estimates. How much of that sum was spent last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
could ascertain that by just taking the total of the revotes this year and subtracting it. I have not done that.


William Duff: Will my hon. friend do that
for me? If he likes I shall send a pencil across to him. He is the minister. I am asking him a question.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall try to get the information.


William Duff: If the minister wants his estimates passed he will have to answer questions when we ask them. I remember in 1921 we kept one minister from nine o'clock one night until two o'clock the following night because he refused to answer questions. If the minister wants a dose of that medicine we are willing to give it to him.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to assure my hon. friend at the outset that I am prepared to answer any questions and to give all information that is available. I did not intend to be discourteous to him. I have since ascertained that the amount is $141,500.


William Duff: Not spent, or spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Spent.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

Private Bills
Halifax quarantine station-improvements, repairs, etc., $10,000.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount of $10,000 is required by the Department of Health for general improvements to the Halifax quarantine station.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Middleton-public building-under contract, $34,000.
William Duff: When was this contract awarded and who is the contractor?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount is required for the erection of a public building at the corner of Main and School streets in Middleton. The work is being performed under contract by the Gates Contracting Company, Limited, of Kentville, for the sum of $31,166.


William Duff: Were there any other tenderers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, there were four tenderers in all, as follows:
Gates Contracting Company Limited, Kentville, $31,166.
James N. Kenney, Truro, $32,435.
Rhodes Curry Limited, Amherst, $36,500.
M. C. Denton, Digby, $41,349.
The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer on January 30, 1931.


Mr. GARDINER:: What is this public building to be used for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For a post office.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Shubenacadie-public building, $21,000.
William Duff: Has the contract been awarded for this building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the contract has not yet been awarded. There were ten tenderers.


William Duff: I suppose it would not be in the public interest to give the names if the contract has not been awarded.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection because I am of the opinion that the contract has been sent down for signature. The tenderers were:
W. Rod. McDonald, $15,124.90.
James N. Kennedy. $18,800.
M. A. Condon & Son, $19,890.
Henrv J. Phillips, $19,948.
J. K. Hunter, $19,992.
Rhodes Curry Limited, $21,392.
Gates Contracting Company Limited, $21,800.
The Miller Construction Co. Ltd., $21,800.
D. K. Macaulay, $22,255.
Redden Bros., $24,700.
I recall that the lowest tenderer asked for leave to withdraw his tender, which was refused. Ultimately he wrote stating that he would accept and carry out the contract; so I presume the contract has been awarded.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 12, respecting Guaranty Trust Company of Canada.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 13, respecting Grain Insurance and Guarantee Company.-Mr. Kennedy (Winnipeg)-
Bill No. 14, respecting The Kettle Valley Railway Company.-Mr. Stirling.
Bill No. 15, respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway.-Mr. Willis.
Bill No. 21, respecting The Montreal and Atlantic Railway Company.-Mr. Pickel.
Bill No. 22, respecting the construction and maintenance of a bridge over the river St. Lawrence at Caughnawaga.-Mr. Dupuis.
Bill No. 23, respecting The Essex Terminal Railway Company.-Mr. Robinson.
Bill No. 26, respecting The Restigouche Log Driving and Boom Company.-Mr. Hanson (Y ork-Sunbury).
Bill No. 27, respecting The Subsidiary High Court of the Ancient Order of Foresters in the Dominion of Canada.-Mr. Chevrier.
Bill No. 30, respecting the St. Lawrence River Bridge Company.-Mr. Rowe.
Bill No. 32, respecting The Montreal Central Terminal Company.-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. E. MUNN (North Vancouver) moved the second reading of Bill No. 31 respecting the Burrard Inlet and Bridge Company.
He said:	I might, Mr. Speaker, offer an
explanation with reference to this bill. The special validating act which I have the honour to present to this house affects not only the city of Vancouver, but all the towns and municipalities tributary to the city of Vancouver; but it affects the city and district of North Vancouver perhaps more seriously than any other part of British Columbia,
Private Bills
[Stage Direction]
and since I have the honour to represent North Vancouver in this house, it was thought proper that I should present the bill for ratification.
On May 4, 1910, the parliament of Canada by special act gave the Burrard Inlet Tunnel .and Bridge Company the power to build a bridge across the second narrows of Burrard Inlet, British Columbia. Under this special act the plans of a bridge were approved by order in council and by the Board of Railway Commissioners after investigation and report by a royal commission of government engineers.
After fifteen years of effort the second narrows bridge was completed in 1925 with public moneys at a cost of $2,000,000. The Dominion government contributed $269,000, the British Columbia government $120,000, and the cities of greater Vancouver and the tributary municipalities the remainder.
The Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company is owned by the city of Vancouver, the city of North Vancouver, the district of North Vancouver and the district of West Vancouver.
Between November, 1925, and September, 1930, over ten million people and four and a half million vehicles used this bridge. In 1926 the traffic between the north and south shores [DOT]of the harbour was trebled and has continued to increase each succeeding year.
The legality of the construction of the second narrows bridge was attacked in the admiralty court in September, 1928. Mr. Justice Martin gave judgment that the bridge was properly and legally constructed. Appeal was made to the exchequer court of Canada in October, 1929. The president of the exchequer court of Canada confirmed the decision of the admiralty court. A further appeal was made to the privy council in London, England, which has decided the special act of 1910 did not give sufficient power to build a bridge that in any way interferes with navigation. Therefore this privy council decision in effect says:	When the parliament
of Canada gave the power to build a bridge, it never intended a bridge to be built I
Five years of progressive development have now been cut off suddenly. It is within the power of the parliament of Canada to restore it and to stand behind the orders of the governor in council and of the Board of Railway Commissioners, and the expert professional opinion of its own departmental engineers. Therefore this validating act for the second narrows bridge is now being placed before parliament this session.
The approval of parliament is asked on these grounds: First, that the bridge was built in good faith, with public money, by Cana-

dian citizens; second, that it was built with the approval of all the Canadian authorities required by law; third, that it will prevent a great waste of public moneys, and finally that it will rectify what otherwise would be a gross injustice to western Canada resulting solely from ambiguity in the wording of an act of the parliament of Canada.
A detailed history of this bridge and all facts regarding it have been sent to the Minister of Marine, the Minister of Public Works and the right hon. Prime Minister. I also have a copy which is available to each hon. member for perusal. I also had the honour to present to this house the following petition: To the Honourable
The House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada in parliament assembled
The petition of citizens of municipalities bordering on Burrard inlet in the province of British Columbia and all municipalities so bordering as signatories hereunder humbly pray:
That your honourable house may be pleased to pass an act validating the railroad and traffic bridge constructed by the Burrard Inlet Tunnel and Bridge Company in accordance with plans approved by the governor in council and the board of railway commissioners.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
Dated at the city of Vancouver in the province of British Columbia the 28th day of February, 1931.
This petition has been largely signed by the people of greater Vancouver and districts. For instance, there are the endorsements and signatures of four cities representing 300,000 people; official signatures of business firms representing 45,000 people; labour unions, associations and organizations representing 22,715 and letters of endorsement from organizations representing 2,500 people. Endorsements by the corporation of the city of Vancouver and adjoining cities and municipalities have recently been forwarded to this government. I will just refer to one, the endorsement of the West Vancouver municipal council, dated April 1, which reads as follows:
West Vancouver municipal council urge every effort be made to hasten solution of problem of Burrard inlet crossing. Loss of second narrows bridge costs municipalities interested two hundred thousand dollars per annum and personal inconvenience to five and one-half million people crossing by bridge and ferries resulting in serious loss to business connections on both
shores'	J. B. Leyland,
Reeve.
In support of this representation from the municipality of West Vancouver, I wish to quote an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Province of April 6, 1931. It says: An Appeal To Ottawa The municipal council of West Vancouver has sent an urgent telegram to the Dominion

Private Bills
government about the problem of the second narrows bridge. The council wants the government to hasten its decision, and to announce its policy at the earliest possible moment. The council recites the facts that the desuetude of the bridge has cost the north shore municipalities $200,000, and is causing daily inconvenience to the people who cross the inlet, at the rate of five and a half millions a year. We hasten to join our own appeal in this matter with that of the council's, and we are sure that therein we express the public opinion of greater Vancouver.
It is now six months or more since a log barge knocked down and sank one of the southern spans of the bridge, and put the whole structure out of commission. Since then there has been the decision of the privy council, declaring the bridge to be illegal and a menace to the navigation of the upper harbour. Since then, also, the Department of Marine has conducted its inquiry in this city, and has rendered its report to the government. We do not know what the exact loss has been to the north shore communities, but we should think the West Vancouver council's estimate of $200,000 must be moderate to the point of under-statement. As to the resulting inconvenience. it is the sober truth to say that the loss of the bridge cannot be described in those terms. It is much more than mere inconvenience for all the people of greater Vancouver; for the communities of the north shore it has proved a veritable disaster.
In the strongest possible terms, we desire to urge upon t.he Dominion government the necessity foe a decision about the inlet crossing at the earliest moment, and one helpful to the clear necessities of the case. The government's responsibility is not merely the legal one which derives from its sanction for the building of the existing structure, but it is also the practical one that nothing can be done by way of relief to the present intolerable situation except with the government's consent and help.
Ottawa is not less obligated to assist in the speedy resumption of the interrupted communications between the north and south shores of Vancouver harbour than it is to protect the navigation of the harbour. It is not too much to say that this entire community has suffered far more from the loss of the second narrows bridge in the last six months than it could possibly suffer from any probable hindrance, by reason of any bridge at all, to the navigation of the upper inlet. This is not to say that the interests of navigation should be neglected, but it is to say that the interests of communication are even more important.
I wish to call the attention of hon. members of this house to one of the many requests received from greater Vancouver, which reads as follows:
Request your consideration and support for parliamentary measure validating present second narrows bridge. Many industries north shore Burrard inlet seriously affected. Several shut down completely. Present ferry system hopelessly inadequate for industry representing sixty-two companies and several millions capital seriously handicapped in transportation to north shore. Solicit your influence in procuring speedy relief. Situation urgent. Population leaving. Unemployment aggravated.
I might say to hon. members that there is a. ferry system across Burrard inlet, connecting Vancouver city with North Vancouver, which is totally inadequate to take care of the traffic, although over $80 000 has been spent to improve it and an all-night service instituted to try to meet the situation. A few figures to show the importance of the bridge may be interesting. From 1926 to 1930, some 10,535,932 persons, 4,305,857 vehicles, 2,515 trains and 33,141 railway cars crossed the bridge. As many as 10,000 motor cars have crossed in a single day.
Traffic cannot be restored or efforts made to finance the repairs until the construction of the bridge is validated. An asset of about $2,000,000 lies idle, industries are crippled, with many shut down, and three municipalities; are financially endangered! through loss of revenue and payment of bond guarantees. Even if improvements to navigation are later required it is vital to North Vancouver and important to Vancouver that traffic be restored as speedily as possible. With proper regulations now drafted for control of shipping, a similar accident need not occur. Failure-to validate now must lead to serious unemployment. heavy loss to industry and possibly bankruptcy of the north shore municipalities. I am thoroughly familiar with the-situation, Mr. Speaker, and while there have, been some accidents in connection with the shipping I can say without fear of contradiction that if there had been proper pilots-working under proper regulations there would have been no interruptions to navigation at all. Hundreds of millions feet of logs have-been towed up the inlet, perhaps at a cost of a few cents more, but as I said before with proper pilotage and regulations these accidents need not happen. I think with the cooperation of the harbour commission, if this validating act gets through we can have those repairs carried out in a short time and the bridge put in commission so that it can be used until such time as something better can be provided.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Certain telegrams have been sent to
me with respect to this bill, which is designed to validate certain matters. It is requested that the validation be made subject to any existing claims, which is not an unreasonable thing with respect to legislation of that character. I assume there will be no difficulty in the committee considering, when the time comes, whatever suggestions may be made, [DOT]by the representatives of those affected, be-
Private Bills

fore the proper committee to which the bill will be referred. I have been asked merely to mention that on the second reading of the bill, which I now do.


Mr. MUNN:: It was not the intention to
have it made retroactive by any means.


Mr. BARBER:: As the bill stands at present, and in view of the fact that there are a number of industries located on the north arm situated in my riding that consider this a menace to shipping, I am opposed to the reconstruction of this bridge along the same lines. I will reserve any objection I have to offer until the bill is in committee. I understand that one of the departments of the government has made an investigation into the matter and I was wondering whether it would not be possible to have the report of that commission before the private bills committee when the subject is being considered. I believe it has been in the hands of the Marine department.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Mr. Munn moves,
seconded by Mr. Reid, that the bill be referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.


Albert Edward Munn: Seconded by Mr. Mackenzie of Vancouver Centre, Mr. Speaker.


Henry Herbert Stevens: He is not in his seat.
The motion cannot be seconded by a member not in his seat.
Motion agreed to and bill referred to the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines.



WILFLEY PATENT

[Stage Direction]
Mr. T. E. SIMPSON (West Algoma) for Mr. Anderson (Toronto-High Park) moved the second reading of Bill No. 20, respecting a certain patent of A. R. Wilfley & Sons, Incorporated.
Robert Gardiner: Explain.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What is the
patent?


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: If any explanation is required, Mr. Speaker, the matter will have to stand. I cannot explain it.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The second reading has
already been declared carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the second time.
[Mt. B nnett.]	[DOT]



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT


[Stage Direction]
Mr. ARMAND LaVERjGNE (Mont-magny) moved the second, reading of Bill No. 7, to amend the criminal code.
He said: The object of this bill, which is very brief, is to provide that in cases tried before a jury the defence shall address the jury after the crown has done so. As the law stands to-day, unless the defence brings forward no witnesses it must address the jury first. The abject of my bill is that, whether the defence produces witnesses or not, it shall speak after the crown attorney has addressed the jury. Without being in any way derogatory of British criminal practice as we have it to-day, I think it is only fair that a man should know just how to defend himself after he has heard the accusation against him. I have received letters from all parts of Canada commending the bill. I do not wish to comment unduly upon the administration of justice. As the law stands to-day, the defence addresses the jury, being followed by the crown prosecutor, and after that the judge delivers his charge. It will thus be seen that the defence has no rebuttal to offer to the address on the part of the crown attorney and the charge from the judge.
The second point in the bill is this. In his charge to the jury, I propose that the judge should be allowed to comment only upon law and not upon the facts. The jury is the master of the facts, as we all know, and there is no necessity, after the evidence has been heard, for the judge to comment upon those facts. The necessity for this amendment is demonstrated by the fact that in the province of Quebec in the last ten years about forty verdicts in criminal cases have been quashed for the reason that, in his comments to the jury, the presiding judge has gone, I will not say far, but altogether too far in discussing the facts. The theory is that if the judge comments upon the facts he shall expose both sides of the case. Unfortunately, however, it frequent^ happens that the moment a man appears in the dock, instead of being presumed innocent, he is presumed to be guilty, from the very fact of his appearance there on a criminal indictment, and he must prove himself innocent. Too often the presiding judge has forgotten to bring before the jury the facts in favour of the defence. The object of the bill, as I have said, is that the jury, having heard the evidence, shall alone consider the facts. They know them as

Criminal ( ode
well as the judge does; and an exposition of the law in the case is sufficient from the judge.
Prior to confederation the judges of the court of sessions of the peace in Quebec were permitted to preside at jury trials in the criminal assizes, and this bill is to permit a reversion to that system. Our civil judges are too busy and it is out of their province to preside at criminal trials. Civil law is different from criminal law and the judges of the sessions of the peace are deciding at all times questions of law in non-jury trials.
I have received many letters of recommendation for this bill from lawyers in the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, as well as from the west and the lower provinces. My long experience in criminal work leads me to believe that this bill is necessary. I might state that the only objections against the bill have been raised by attorneys in the province of Quebec.
I trust that this information will be sufficient for the house to gain an understanding of the purposes of this bill.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I am entirely opposed to this bill. It is not advisable that the judges of the sessions of the peace in the province of Quebec should be constituted superior courts with criminal jurisdiction. They have a certain criminal jurisdiction, and it is my firm conviction that their existing jurisdiction cannot be enlarged at the present time with advantage to or so as to conserve the public interest.
Section 2 of the bill would bring about a complete reversal of the procedure which has obtained in the criminal courts of England and this country from very early times. Hardships may arise under the present procedure, but I think they would be infinitely increased if that procedure were reversed. I think it is of the utmost advantage that a judge should be allowed to comment to the jury on the facts of the case. He has followed the case and he is in a position to present to the jury in clear, definite and logical sequence the facts elicited in the evidence. Within the limitations imposed by our present rules I think he should be permitted to- comment upon the facts in order that the jury may be assisted in giving the proper weight to the facts which have been adduced in evidence before them.
Mr. LaVERGNE: My hon. friend, who has a large practice, knows that within the last
ten years the decisions in nearly twenty murder trials in the province of Quebec have been quashed because of the comments on the facts made by the trial judges.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I remember one case in particular where I resented the comments upon the facts which the judge made to the jury. I thought he went to the extreme in the use of most extravagant language and I bitterly resented it, and I resent it to this day; but I still think there should be no change in the procedure of permitting a logical summing up of the facts by a fair minded judge who knows the rules of evidence and who can assist the jury in determining the weight of the evidence. It is of great assistance to the jury and is a valued help in the proper administration of criminal law.
Sometimes an incomlpetent judge is appointed, but in recent years in the province of Quebec, especially in connection with the Court of King's Bench at Montreal, it has been the custom to delegate certain judges who have had experience in the administration of criminal law to preside at such trials. After all, the competent judge is a sure safeguard for the accused and he should not be deprived of any powers which he now has in directing the ordinary processes of the court. He should be permitted to give a logical summary of the facts and thus assist the jury in coming to a proper determination. I am absolutely opposed to this bill.


Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: Mr. Speaker, as a lawyer I am entirely in favour of this bill. As explained by the hon. member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) I think it deserving of the consideration of the house. The Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) objects to the bill because he claims that a judge should be allowed to summarize the facts for the- benefit of the jury. As I understand the bill, it would not prevent a judge from explaining to the jury, shall I say in a nutshell, the facts as presented to the court by the witnesses; the judge will always be allowed to do that, but he would not be permitted to comment on the facts. The twelve jurymen are there as judges and are able to come to a conclusion; if they are not, then trial by jury should exist no longer.
I believe it to be a good idea that the order of the presentation of the facts to the jury by counsel be changed. Very often the defence makes its plea to the jury and then the case is adjourned; the next day the crown prosecutor presents his case to the jury, and then follows the charge of the judge. The
Criminal Code

jury, being human, beings and not accustomed to the proceedings, are bound to obtain a wrong impression which is not fair to the accused who, as was so well stated by the hon. member for Montmagny, is innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty. I am entirely in favour of the bill.


George Reginald Geary: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that a change so drastic as that proposed in this bill should not be made unless it is so strongly supported by public opinion as to make it almost impossible for hon. members to vote against it. For centuries almost, the administration of criminal law in the British Empire-not only in England, but in our own Dominion-has proceeded along the line now sought to be changed by the provisions of this bill. The prosecuting or crown attorney is not a partisan; he is not one whose sole object is to secure a conviction. It is well understood that the function of a crown attorney is to bring out the facts as dispassionately and clearly as he may with perfect justice to the accused as well as to the crown. The system may have broken down in individual cases, but in the vast majority of cases it stands good to-day. Under the practice as it at present exists, the accused has his chance, which is a very good one. If the crown is to be placed in the position of having last minute appeals to passion and prejudice decide the case; if the jury are to be left open to appeals that may have little to do with the facts or the law of the case, the administration of criminal law may be more likely to go wrong than it is under the present system. We might have a crown attorney who misjudged his duty, but I repeat that in the great majority of cases the administration by the crown in regard to criminal offences is marked by fairness.
As to the other point, the hon: member for Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) has perhaps indicated the weakness of his own argument. He interrupted the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) to say that in some twenty cases of trials for murder in the province of Quebec, the convictions had been upset by reason of misdirection on the part of the judge. An appeal on that ground is the safeguard that obtains everywhere and a very good safeguard it is. A judge has to be very careful in his direction, not to misdirect in any respect. Appeals may be taken to the courts where they are heard promptly, and so far as my knowledge goes-not that I have had any great practice in criminal law-such appeals are invariably considered with every

regard for the interests of the accused. I cannot say that in my province we experience any miscarriage of justice by reason of the matters to which attention is called and amendment asked for in this bill. It seems to me that it would be going against the result of experience of administration of criminal law in the empire for many years to put through this proposed amendment; we would be doing it without sufficient evidence that the law should be changed, and for my part, I think that in criminal cases, as it is in civil cases, it must be of the greatest assistance to the jury to have from a judge whose business it is to know evidence and the proper way of giving it, not merely a summing up but a comment on the evidence as it is adduced. Moreover, if you have in tihe criminal code a clause such as that which is proposed in this bill, I doubt where we would ever draw the line between mentioning fact and commenting on it, and a judge in his direction to the jury, if he touches on a question of law, must invariably touch on the question of fact. If he is forbidden to eomment on tihe facts, I doubt if he could ever direct a jury so that his direction would be found satisfactory by the appeal court, although he tried most carefully to avoid anything that might be called comment. I do not know the experience of the hon. member for Montmagny, but .my observation of the administration of criminal law in British countries is that the present system works no injustice to the accused but rather gives him every chance to which he is entitled.


Mr. J. H. STITT (Selkirk) :: In the last
eight years I have had some experience in the criminal courts of Manitoba and from my limited experience I am absolutely opposed to this proposed legislation. First, if the judge trying the case is deprived of the power to analyse the evidence or to comment upon the facts, the power is taken away from the one best qualified to exercise it. If the clause becomes law, which states that the defence should always address the jury after the prosecution, the procedure will be loaded in favour of the defence. Most of my experience has been as defence counsel, and I have no complaint whatever to make of the law or procedure as it stands. As the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr Geary) has pointed out, should the bill become law we would be very likely to lose many advantages which we now have, because if a judge is not extremely careful in his analysis of the evi-

Criminal Code
deuce and in his comments upon the facts, there will be grounds for appeal. To pass legislation of this kind would be flying in the face of history and of the whole experience of English jurisprudence, and I oppose the bill.
Mr. ARMAND LaVERGNE (Montmagny):
I have had some experience in murder cases before the courts. As regards the question of appeals, the hon. member for South Toronto (Mr. Geary) stated that the result would be that there would be so many appeals that the purpose of my bill would be defeated.
I must remind the hon. gentleman that appeals are expensive and it is the accused who has to pay the piper in appealing in order to have, if possible, the conviction quashed and his innocence reestablished. If the administration of justice could do away with appeals, that would be so much easier for both the crown and the accused. The hon. gentleman has spoken of the man in the box as a criminal. He is not a criminal just because he is accused; on the contrary, he is innocent until he is proven guilty.
I shall give to the house an instance which to my mind shows how necessary this bill is, but before giving it, may I say I think it is worth while to send this bill to a committee to be discussed. In the province of Quebec,
I shall not say in what city, a man was accused of poisoning his wife. The defence, for some reason or another, were not allowed to have their witnesses heard. The defence attorney decided not to address the jury. The crown attorney, in spite of the fact that the defence had not addressed the jury, decided to do so.
I pointed out to him that when the defence did not address the jury the crown generally did not do so either. The crown attorney rose, spoke for an hour and a half, and secured a verdict of guilty. The man was sentenced to death; the case went to appeal and the court of appeal decided unanimously not only that there was no necessity for granting him a new trial, but that there was no evidence against him, and they set him free. He was acquitted by the court of appeal on account of that crown attorney, who should be-and in this I agree with my hon. friend-absolutely independent and not a prosecutor, who should be there to state the facts calmly and to put them before the jury without passion, but who, being human, or prompted by an assistant attorney general, as sometimes happens in our province, is not left with that freedom of mind that we see in England. Of course under the administration of justice in England the crown attorney when he has no case will
Stand up and say that his case is not proven, because in England presumption is no evidence. The presiding judge will tell the crown attorney that his case is not proven. Unfortunately, judging by the letters which I have before me from the different provinces, it seems, on the contrary, that that seldom or never occurs in this country; in fact we seem to have reached the stage where presumption is evidence. In England, before Queen Victoria, the judge was not allowed to comment on the facts. Certainly the comment of judges on the facts is taking away from the jury the freedom to judge for themselves which they should not be denied. The facts belong to the jurors; they are the province of the jury; yet I have heard presiding judges, supposed to be independent, who would say, "Gentlemen of the jury, we are impartial in this affair," and yet proceed to comment on the facts not in exposition of the case, but rather in the way of an inquisition of the man in the box as to the most natural actions of his life which he may have forgotten, and imputing guilt to him because of his forgetfulness. I think it is about time that we should go back to the law as it was seventy-five or eighty years ago.
I ask the house to send this bill to a committee, where I can cite letters that I have received from different criminal lawyers and crown attorneys, and where we can discuss the facts and reports and judgments in Canadian criminal cases. After all, what we are looking for is justice, and if under this 'bill some guilty party should escape in the future I am quite sure it will save many an innocent person who would otherwise be condemned because the crown attorney forgot his duty or because the judge was carried away by his passion or his prejudice.
The house divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division.
++YEAS
Messrs:
Beaubien,
Blair,
Bouchard,
Boulanger,
Brown,
Butcher,

Dupuis,
Gardiner,
Garland (Bow River), Hanson (Skeena), Heaps,
Hurtubise,
Lacroix,
LaVergne.
Macdougall,
Maclnnis,
Macphail (Miss), McIntosh,
McKenzie
(Assiniboia), McMillan (Huron South),
McPhee,
Pouliot,
Reid,
Sanderson,
Spotton,
Totzke,
V eniot,
Weir
(Macdonald).-29.
Supply-Public Works-N.S.

++NAYS
Messrs:
Barber,
Beaubier,
Bennett,
Bothwell,
Bowman,
Boyes,
Burns,
Bury,
Cahan,
Chaplin,
Cormier,
Dickie,
Donnelly,
Dtiranleau,
Embury,
Factor.
Fafard,
Fortin,
Fraser (Cariboo), Gagnon,
Geary,
Gershaw,
Gordon,
Guthrie,
Haekett,
Hanbury,
Hanson (York-
Sunbury),
Hay,
Johnstone,
Loucks,
MacDonald (Cape
Breton South), Macdonald (Kings), MacLaren,
MacNicol,
McGillis,
McGregor,
McLure,
Matthews,
Mr. LaVERGNE: member for Melville both ways.
Moore (Chateauguay-Huntingdon), Morand,
Motherwell,
Murphy,
Myers,
Neill,
Perley (Qu'Appelle), Perras,
Plunkett,
Porteous,
Price,
Ralston,
Rowe,
Ryerson,
Shaver,
Simpson (Simeoe North),
Smith (Victoria-Carleton),
Smith (Cumberland), Smoke,
Spankie,
Spence,
Sproule,
Stanley,
Stevens,
Stewart (Edmonton West),
Stewart (Leeds), Stewart (Lethbridge), Stitt (Nelson),
Stitt (Selkirk), Sutherland,
Swanston,
Turnbull,
W eesG
AVhite (Mount Royal), Willis,
Wright.-74.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. (Mr. Motherwell) voted


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member for
Melville corrected his first vote at the time.



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
Sydney Mines public building-improvements and repairs, $8,000.
James Layton Ralston: Since we are dealing with public buildings in Nova Scotia, Mr. Chairman, I should like to mention to the minister a communication that I received from the town council of Lockeport with regard to the necessity of providing improved accommodation for the postal service there, and particularly the erection of a public building. I know the minister is not familiar personally with the situation and with the well-known enterprise of the town. The letter is dated March 12, 1931, and reads:

I am authorized by the town council to advise you that the following resolution was passed unanimously at the regular monthly meeting held last evening.
On motion of councillors McKay and Weddleton-
Whereas the post office in this town is housed in a small, very inconvenient and unsanitary building-
Therefore resolved that this town council petition, and does hereby petition the federal government to erect a public building in the town of Lockeport, with suitable accommodation for post office and customs department.
I was asked to take the matter up. The hon. minister may remember that I wrote to him about it, and I have his reply stating that the matter will be given consideration. I am sorry that I do not find any evidence of the consideration having been favourable, at least in the estimates which he is now presenting to the committee. I might mention many facts in regard to the town of Lockeport, but I think one only will be sufficient at this time. With all due deference to my hon. friend who lives in Lunen-berg (Mr. Ernst) I can say Lockeport is undoubtedly the largest and most important fresh fish station in the maritime provinces. It is an incorporated town with a number of progressive and important industries and I urge again upon the minister favourable consideration of this request.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thank the hon. gentleman for
again drawing my attention to his request. It was duly considered, but as expenditure on public buildings of this nature is made out of revenues, and these are not what they might be, it has been found necessary to curtail such expenditure. My hon. friend may find some consolation in the fact that he is in the same position as many others on both sides of the house. I am pleased to say that the reductions on expenditures for public buildings which will be noted throughout these estimates have been received by hon. members generally in the spirit in which they were made. It is to be hoped that in the near future we shall be able to meet the wishes of my hon. friend for a public building for the important town of Lockeport when revenues have increased to the point that will warrant the expenditure.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Atholville-public building-under contract,
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.

Supply-Public Works-NT>.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a revote
of 12,200 to provide for the installation of fittings and lock bo-xes in the public building at Atholville, erected during 1930.


Mr. DONNELLY:: Why was the money
not spent last year when it was voted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was some
expenditure last year, but the building was not completed and the fittings were not installed. Therefore we have to revote the balance required.


Mr. VBNIOT:: Who got the contract for
the fittings, and at what price?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Canadian
Office and School Furniture Company Limited, at SI,172. There were three tenders; that was the lowest.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dalhousie-public building, $52,000.
Peter John Veniot: Of this amount I see $12,000 was voted last year but was not expended. I understand the reason why it was not expended. Can the minister tell me if the old building and site have been sold? I think there was an offer for them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There has been
no sale of the old site and building.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Tenders were asked by the
late government for the purchase of the old building, and an offer of $11,000 was received from the International Paper Company. This was $3,000 above the physical valuation placed upon it by experts of the department. Is the department now considering the acceptance of that offer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The offer still
stands. It was not considered advisable to dispose of the old building until we had secured provision for a new one.


Peter John Veniot: I understand that, and I
do not think it was the intention to dispose of the old building until the new one was constructed, but have any arrangements been made to have that offer still stand when the new building is finished? You will never get such an offer for that site and building in the future from anyone but the International i'aper Company, and it would be regrettable if the matter were allowed to drop.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thank my hon. friend for the information. The offer still stands, so far as I know, and it is a good offer.


Peter John Veniot: Has the site been purchased? If so which site is it, and what price was paid?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, the site has not been secured yet. There is the usual difference of opinion in this case.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Forest City-building for immigration and customs-excise purposes, $5,000.
Peter John Veniot: Why was not this amount
expended last year? This is a revote.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The contract
has been let. The work was not performed in 1930-1931 as a decision could not be reached regarding the site for the proposed structure.


Robert Gardiner: What proportion of
this building will be used for immigration purposes?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Approximately
one-third.


Robert Gardiner: Is there any immigration at that point?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is close to
the border between Canada and the United States and tourist and other traffic is pretty heavy.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Moncton-public building, $75,000.
Peter John Veniot: I had hoped the hon. member for Westmorland would be here when this item went through. I am glad to see that at last he has accomplished his purpose; it will encourage the hon. member for Temis-couata to keep after his station for Riviere du Loup. I should like to know what site will be occupied by the proposed new post office at Moncton.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The site already purchased.


Peter John Veniot: Further, may I ask, in
view of the fact that Moncton is perhaps the most rapidly growing city in New Brunswick to-day, whether in the preparation of the plans provision has been made for future developments. Perhaps the deputy could give that information offhand. Has allowance been made for the future postal growth of Moncton, which, situated as it is, soon will become the central distributing point for mail in New Brunswick? No doubt also, in the very near future, with this new building Moncton will become the distributing point of supplies for post offices within the maritime provinces, as well as the centre of distribution
Supply-Public Works-N.B.

for mail bags throughout the maritime provinces. I wonder whether, in making the plans, the Post Office Department has been consulted in order to ascertain exactly what the needs may be now and what they may be in the future.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thank my hon. friend for suggestions of this nature in connection with postal buildings. His experience as Postmaster General qualifies him to make helpful suggestions. I am assured that consideration has been given not only to the present requirements but also to the probable requirements of the future.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
St. John quarantine station-Patridge -improvements, alterations, repairs $10,000. '
island
etc.,
. Mr. VENIOT: I have no objection to this item, but I should like to know why the amount voted last year was not all spent.
Hugh Alexander Stewart: The expenditure was not made last year because there has been a reconsideration of the requirements, and it will be seen that the amount this year is a little larger than it was last year.


Peter John Veniot: You spent only about $2,000 last year. Why was not the whole appropriation expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Because some of the works that were asked for would have considerably exceeded the appropriation, and as I say there have been some changes and revisions of the plans.
Mr. VENIOT; But the amount spent was not expended under contract, so it could not have exceeded the appropriation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I might give my hon. friend the details of the expenditure for 1930-31:
Repairs, etc	
Smoke pipe, etc	
Couplings	
Repairing above house
Pipe furnaces	
Hot water front.. ..
Cast steel, etc	
Oil	
Advertising	
Bronze netting	
Shaker bars	
Hardware	
Labour, paint, etc.. ..


Peter John Veniot: I understood the minister to say the balance was not expended because they expected the expenditure to exceed the

amount voted. How did they arrive at that conclusion? They started out very well, by spending this money under day's work and without calling for a contract, but when the expenditure reached about $2,000 the work was cut off. Was it the intention to call for a contract for the remainder of the work, and of what did the remainder of the work consist?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The smaller items I have mentioned were expended under day's work. The further action taken was that public tenders were received for the various items of work, as submitted by the Department of Pensions and National Health, and these tenders stated the price for each item. The lowest tender, which amounted to $10,500, exceeded the balance of the appropriation available, which was $8,000. The Department of Pensions and National Health suggested deleting a number of items, which brought the lowest tender to $5,269. It was decided to hold it over and re-advertise the work.
Mr. VENIOT; The lowest tender amounted to $5,269, and you had $7,000 left. Why did you not go ahead?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That did not
cover all the work that was required; the tenders were for only part of the work.


Peter John Veniot: There is one other point.
I am not going to complain; perhaps I should compliment the minister, but I notice that while a great deal has been said about retrenchment, in New Brunswick the expenditure is increased on public buildings by some $96,000. I am not condemning it; I am merely pointing out to the minister that he has become all at once generous to the province of New Brunswick in comparison with the other provinces. And when we are preaching retrenchment, the sum of $95,000 or $100,000 by way of increase in public buildings in one small province looks large.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I can
answer that question-


Peter John Veniot: I am not asking the hon.
gentleman for an explanation; I am asking the minister for a reply. I have the floor, Mr. Chairman. There is only one Minister of Public Works I recognize in the Dominion, and that is the hon. gentleman who is now handling the case. I will not be satisfied with any reply that may come from the hon. member for York-Sunbury.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson) caughL the chairman's eye first.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
Public	buildings-Quebec-Asbestos-public
building, $30,000.


Peter John Veniot: He was going to give me
the reasons which I am asking the Minister of Public Works to give, and he had no right to do that.


Richard Burpee Hanson: The hon.
member may not want to get the reasons from me, but he has to take them.


Peter John Veniot: I want to ask another
question. In what county is McAdam located?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If I am correctly informed, it is in York-Sunbury.


Peter John Veniot: I just want to have that on record. The hon. member for York-Sunbury last year was very apt at times to ask where certain expenditures were to be made, especially when they affected my own county, and now I see he has such pull with the present government I want it to go on record. He is succeeding.


William Duff: Will the minister be good
enough to tell the committee how much money was voted last year for public works in New Brunswick and how much of that money was spent? I am referring to public buildings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will look
that up.


William Duff: Perhaps the deputy can get the information for the committee when it meets again. I should like to know what money was voted last year for public buildings in each of the provinces and what money was spent in each province. I shall be satisfied if I get the information later.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be pleased to procure the information and give it to my hon. friend.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: Don't forget Manitoba.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not at all.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime provinces generally [DOT]- Dominion public buildings - improvements and repairs, etc., $50,000.
William Duff: Will the minister get the information also with regard to this item? How much money was voted last year and how much expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount
appropriated for similar purposes last year for the maritime provinces generally was [DOT]$55,000. The hon. member will observe that it is $5,500 less this year.


William Duff: How much was spent altogether out of that amount?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot give that information at the moment; I will get it later.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. POULIOT:: I have tried .to ascertain what was spent last year in connection with the public building at Trois Pistoles. I see nothing here; no building was constructed. Is it the intention of the government to put up that public building? Did something happen at Trois Pistoles last year? Will the minister tell us?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Instead of constructing a public building at Trois Pistoles from the money voted last year, an arrangement was made with the municipality to erect an addition to their town hall, which provides the desired accommodation on terms that are believed to be more advantageous to the Dominion and at the same time satisfactory to the municipality.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is the minister aware that that very building has been condemned by the board of health?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the first intimation I have received of anything of that nature.


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the minister say that there is nothing in the government files of previous years to the effect that that building has been condemned by the board of health?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My information is that the building is being remodelled and an addition constructed and that it is now quite satisfactory in every respect.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the minister mention, in making his arrangements with the town of Trois Pistoles, that that building should be renovated in order to comply with the requirements of the board of health?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As already intimated, the department have no knowledge or information that the building did not or does not comply with the requirements of the board of health.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister be kind enough to tell the committee what arrangements have been made with the town in that respect?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The arrangement is on the basis of rental. The premises are a portion of the ground floor of a two-storey annex to the city hall measuring twenty-five by thirty-eight, a wooden frame building, brick-lined, galvanized iron roofiing, with stone foundations and situated on the main or national road on part of cadastral lot 163 of the parish of Trois Pistoles. The area is 900

Supply*-Public Works-Quebec
square feet and the rental $1,000 per annum; term, five years from date of occupation, wath option of renewal for a further period of five years on same terms and conditions. The lessor is to pay taxes, water, heat, light, cleaning, insurance, snow removal and the cost of large and small repairs.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the hon. gentleman say that the lease was to run for five years?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, five years.


Jean-François Pouliot: What was the previous rental?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I regret I cannot give my hon. friend that information.


Jean-François Pouliot: Is there an increase in the rental?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say yes because of the improved accommodation.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the department stipulate that a reduction in taxes should be made by the town authorities because of the higher rental being paid by the government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The department did not in any way interfere in the matter of taxation; the lease provides that the owner shall pay any taxes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I understand that the increased rental is being paid in order to assist the municipality in the improving of the building to provide better postal facilities.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The arrangement was one of mutual advantage, and wherever we have an opportunity to make an arrangement of that kind we are pleased to do so.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister have any objection to producing all the correspondence, resolutions and so on in connection with this matter?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can tell my hon. friend that the estimate was $20,000, for the building; and a rental of $1,000 per annum, with heat and other services provided, is one of advantage to the Dominion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I challenge what has been said by the hon. gentleman. It was because of numerous requests on the part of the citizens of that locality that the money was voted last year. My information is that the building is absolutely unsatisfactory. I do not blame the minister for that, but I do blame those who gave him wrong information. I regret that no public building was constructed last winter, as it would have provided employment for many in this locality who were asking for work. I told them that 
should a building be constructed during the winter they could obtain work by applying to the man who had the patronage in that county. The minister, I say, was given wrong information in this regard, and the same applies in connection with other matters to which I shall refer as they come before the committee. I regret the action of these narrow-minded people in this community, these disgusting Tories. I do not say that m any offensive way, because there are black sheep in every family, but the ones to whom I refer are the most disgusting in all the world. They prevented the poor people of this municipality from obtaining work last winter; because of their stupidity those people have had to suffer during the severe winter months. What has happened is a shame, but it will be publicly denounced in the press so that the people who gave the wrong information will be able to dbtain a different view of themselves from that reflected in their own looking-glasses.


An hon. MEMBER:: A bad colour.


Jean-François Pouliot: The unemployed in that community were not asking for charity, they were asking for work. During the last-election the Prime Minister said: "If the people will work, I will give them work."


An hon. MEMBER:: He did not specify the time.


Jean-François Pouliot: The country would have been no poorer had a building been constructed as previously arranged, because it would have been the owner of a good public building and at the same time the people would have obtained employment. Whenever the minister receives recommendations from the sour-mouths in my county, he should inquire into what they say. He should get in touch with independent people who are well posted and thus obtain the correct information. I do not blame the minister, but I warn him that if he continues to listen to these people I will have to put him in the same classification.
Will the minister have any objection to producing the whole file in this matter on a motion for the production of papers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection whatever; I shall be pleased to bring down all the correspondence in relation to this arrangement.


Mr. BOULANGER:: Mr. Chairman, the
total amount voted last year for public buildings in Quebec amounted to $1,237,300, and I was wondering if the minister would be kind

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
enough to tell the committee-I am sure he will because he is very obliging-whether all of this amount was spent, and if not, what portion remains unspent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can answer the hon. gentleman's question in part; the whole amount was not spent, but I cannot give him the details now. I will secure that information if he wishes it.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I notice in the estimates now under consideration that there is a column headed "Revote". Does that mean that money is being revoted this year which was not spent last year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, that is the idea.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The total of that column would be that portion of the. money voted last year which was not spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, not spent for one reason or another.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The total of the revote for this year is $630,500; would that be the money voted last year which was not spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. LaVERGNE: There is a revote of $6,500 for a quarantine station at Grosse Me; is that contract actually proceeding?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This amount is
to provide for general improvements and repairs to the various buildings at Grosse Isle quarantine station. It is requested by the Minister of National Health.
Mr. LaVERGNE :	All I want to know is
whether this amount of $6,500 will conclude the work, or is further work going to be done this summer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We propose to
spend this year the amount provided by this vote and it will take care at least of present requirements.


Mr. POWER:: I gather from the answer
which the minister made to the hon. member for Bellechasse that out of the total amount voted last year for public works under the head of buildings in Quebec, the sum of S63'0,000 was not expended. Is it not a fact that other sums of money which were voted last year were also not expended, but do not appear as revotes? For instance, in the estimates of last year there appears an item of $30,090 for Farnham public building. I am not familiar with that locality, but was the money expended?	1


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; that work
was not gone on with.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask why?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not that
information here, but I presume the reason is the same as that given in the case of other works: that in consideration of the revenues and the fact that these expenditures have to be made from revenues, it was deemed advisable not to proceed with the work at that time.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not suppose the minister would have this information, but I think he should. I wonder whether any work under the unemployment relief act was carried on in Farnham.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I might supplement the information which I gave with regard to Farnham by saying that there was a reconsideration whether there should be a new building or an addition to the existing one. As to the expenditures for unemployment relief, as my hon. friend knows, those are made, not through the Department of Public Works, but through the Department of Labour in cooperation with the provinces and the municipalities, and I have no information in that regard.


Charles Gavan Power: It would be of some importance, and certainly of some interest to the committee, to know whether or not in instances such as this, other works were carried on out of the unemployment relief fund and the municipalities, so to speak, taxed 50 per cent to provide for unemployment relief when the federal government with amounts such as this could have done the work itself. I have no knowledge whatsoever of the situation in Farnham; I do not know anything at all about it. This may or may not be a typical case. I know in some cases where moneys were voted by parliament to the Department of Public Works, the department did not carry on the work, but later, under the Unemployment Relief Act they forced municipalities to pay 50 per cent. We should have more information on that subject. I do not want to hold up the minister's estimates; I think they should go through; but when he comes here with his estimates he ought to be able to give the committee some information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I have stated, I am anxious to give all information available, and I am assured by the deputy, who is familiar with all these matters, that no public works of ours that he knows of were constructed out of the unemployment relief fund.
Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Charles Gavan Power: I am satisfied that in the
ordinary course of events that would be so; but parliament voted $20,000,000 to give employment in municipalities and localities throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. We asked the municipalities to pay 25 per cent and the provinces to pay 25 per cent. If the federal government had carried on the works authorized by parliament, in many cases it would not have been necessary for the municipalities and the provinces to carry on those works. I am asking the minister whether he does not agree with me. Perhaps he will agree with me. I think the committee should have some information on this matter. The minister, when he brought down his estimates, should have been prepared to tell us something along these lines. I do not want to criticize unduly the minister, who is a new minister, and I think everyone in the house wishes him well. We are only too anxious to assist him and not to obstruct his estimates. We shall be only too glad to pass these estimates, but before the public works estimates are passed, the minister should endeavour through his deputy and the Deputy Minister of Labour or the director of unemployment to furnish some statement along these lines. Perhaps he will. I ask him now whether he will make some effort in that direction.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not aware of any case in which employment has suffered through the fault of the Public Works department to carry out its program. The program was not curtailed in any ease with a view of throwing any added burden on anyone, or of escaping any responsibility in connection with carrying on our work.


Peter John Veniot: I wish to call the minister's attention to one case, which I think he will remember, where employment suffered because the program of expending the money that was voted by parliament last year was not carried out. I instanced the case of Gloucester county, about which I have written to the minister. From the reply given to a question asking what correspondence was received in connection with a certain undertaking in Gloucester county for which money was voted last year, I see that tenders had been called for and had been received, but the work was cancelled. In that section of the country there w'as a great deal of unemployment. It was a fishing district and the fishing in the fall of the year had completely failed. I wrote to the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Public Works in connection with the matter, urging that the money 
authorized by parliament to be expended should be expended, and I got no reply except that the matter was under consideration. The provincial government came to the rescue in some degree by expending a small amount of $500 or $600 in that district in cooperation with the federal government. I think the proportion was 60 per cent provincial and 40 per cent federal. In the reply that I got yesterday or the day before from the minister giving the names of those who had corresponded with the department I find three names given:	Rev. Arthur Gallien,
priest of that district; Mr. Albany M. Robi-chaud, barrister, Caraquet, the defeated Conservative candidate in the last election, and Mr. Geo. M. McDade, M.P., the present representative of the county of Northumberland, the adjoining county, which had nothing to do with the county of Gloucester. My name either inadvertently or for some reason was left out, and therefore it appears on the records of this parliament that I took no part at all in the matter, and that I never wrote to the minister or to the department in connection with it. I wish the minister would look up his file and have a correction made because he must have on his file a letter from me on behalf of the people of that district drawing attention to the absolute necessity of going on with this work. Only one tender was received, and if I am not mistaken the tender was below the estimate of the department for the building of this wharf for the fishermen. If I am not mistaken-


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Maloney):: I hesitate to call my hon. friend to order, but the New Brunswick estimates are passed and gone.


Peter John Veniot: I am not dealing with the New Brunswick estimates, Mr. Chairman. I mention them only to bear out the argument of my hon. friend to my right and to strengthen my own argument.


Martin James Maloney: What
about the Quebec estimates?


Peter John Veniot: Quebec is all right and it will always be all right, no matter what the results may be. I would call the minister's attention to that particular work in New Brunswick. I shall deal with it further when we come to the estimates for harbours and rivers.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was about to suggest to my hon. friend that that would be the appropriate place to discuss the matter, and I shall then have full information with me. I want to say in justice to my hon. friend, however, that certainly he communi-

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
eated with me verbally-I do not recall whether there is any correspondence or not-during the short session and impressed upon me the urgency of these two works, one at Caraquet, and the other at Little Shippigan. When we come to the estimates for harbours and rivers for New Brunswick, I shall be glad to make a statement as to why these works were not proceeded with.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Would the minister be good enough to explain why the money that was appropriated by parliament last year for public buildings in Quebec was not spent? Looking over the estimates that we are now discussing I find that in many cases we are re voting the exact amount that was voted by parliament last year. For instance, parliament voted $3,500 last year for a public building at Beauharnois, and this year we are revoting exactly the same amount. Last year parliament voted $12,000 for a public building at Beauport, and this year we are revoting exactly the same amount. Last year we voted $4,000 for a public building at Grande-Mere, and this year we are revoting exactly the same amount. Last year we voted $6,500 for improvements to a quarantine station at Grossle Isle, and this year we are revoting exactly the same amount. Last year we voted $8,000 for an addition to a public building at Jonquiere. This year we are revoting exactly the same amount. We voted $25,000 last year for a public building at Maisonneuve. I am sure that the spending of $25,000 in a working centre like Maisonneuve would have been quite a relief to the unemployment situation in that city last winter, but not a cent of that appropriation was spent, and we are revoting the exact amount again this year. Last year $500,000 was voted for a postal terminal building at Montreal. Apparently this money was not spent as we are being asked to revote the same amount this year. There again, in such a big city as Montreal where unemployment is great enough now, and was greater during the winter, it would have been quite a relief to the unemployment situation to have spent half a million dollars last winter. Last year we voted $39,500 for a public building at Ste. Anne de Bellevue. Apparently only $10,500 of that amount was spent as this year we are being asked to revote $29,000. Last year we voted $17,000 for a public building at Ste. Martme, and only $5,000 was spent. We voted money last year for a public building at Shawinigan, and apparently that money was not spent. The total amount of money which was appro-
22110-62	REVISED
priated last year for public buildings in Quebec was a little over $1,200,000. Of that amount a little more than one-half $630,000, was not spent. The money had been appropriated and could have been used to relieve unemployment in the province of Quebec.
I wish to contrast that situation in Quebec with the situation in Ontario. Last year for public buildings in Ontario we voted a little over $2,000,000, of which only $179,000 was unexpended, whereas in Quebec, with a total vote of $1,200,000, a little over $630,000 was unexpended. The government is taking a lot of credit for having voted $20,000,000 at the September session for the relief of unemployment. I think they would deserve a lot more credit if they had spent in the province of Quebec the money which this parliament had authorized to be spent in the province, but which, for reasons unknown to me, was not expended. The money was there available to the government; everything was in readiness to go ahead with these works, and yet over half of the amount appropriated for the province of Quebec remained in the coffers of the government unexpended..
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I am afraid my hon.
friend's friends did not call for tenders.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: I do not know, and
that is why I am asking the minister. I am asking him why this $630,000 that was appropriated was not spent, and why in so many cases we are being asked to re vote the exact amounts voted last year for public works in the province of Quebec.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend I can only say that he has confused the figures in some of the columns. Our expenditure last year was $32,700,000, a very heavy program, the largest expenditure, in fact, which the Department of Public Works has ever made in any one year in its whole history. That compares with an expenditure of $29,250,000 the previous year.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: But that $32,000,000 was not spent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. I am giving the figures of the actual expenditure, and I say that last year $32,700,000 was spent. Every year, of course, there is a number of items that are not expended, and for which the money has to be revoted. Hon. gentlemen will recall that the work was interrupted last year owing to the election, and then after we came in there was a delay in getting the plans completed. In fact the program was so heavy that all the plans have not yet been com-



EDITION

[Stage Direction]
Supply-Public Works-Quebec
[Stage Direction]
pleted, and in some cases we have had to employ outside architects. For these and the other reasons which I have given some works were not proceeded with, but in many cases we are showing our good faith by going on with those deferred works this year.
Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: How much was voted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Approximately


Peter John Veniot: Including supplementaries?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Including everything.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: The present government took charge on August 7 last. Even if the election interfered to a certain extent with the administration of national affairs, surely since that date the present government has had time to call for tenders and award contracts for the works voted last session. I wonder whether the elections interfered very much with the duties of the permanent officials of the Public Works department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In answer to my hon. friend, I might go back to the previous year, when although $30,000,000 odd was voted only $20,000,000 was expended; the year before that again when my hon. friends were in power $27,000,000 was appropriated and only $20,000,000 spent-a larger amount carried over and unexpended than the amount this year about which he is complaining.


Charles Gavan Power: There was $6,000,000 less expended on public works than was voted last
year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: So had we expended that money we could have saved $18,000,000 to $20,000,000 to the municipalities and to the provinces.


An hon. MEMBER:: High finance.


Charles Gavan Power: It is very rapid finance. It is simply adding two and two together. More than that, these public works had already been provided for in the estimates, so plans of some kind must have been in the department; the engineers of the department at least must have known what they were about. Therefore these works could have been started as soon as the hon. gentleman and his friends came into office. Indeed, they might have had the prospect in some localities of ending unemployment in three days, as they promised; instead, they brought down their unemployment bill, the provisions of which could not possibly be put into operation until the winter. As .a result, in many localities the municipal

authorities were not able to take advantage of the fund. But here we had money voted, we had plans prepared, and the engineers and architects of the department must have known how this money could be expended. I am not blaming the minister, but for some reason or other the money was not expended. As I said before, we do not want to interfere with his estimates, but surely he should give an explanation to the house and the country with regard to this delay.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend is all too general in his conclusions. Some of these works were not proceeded with for a variety of reasons; for instance, disputes as to sites, requests as to change of plans, reports that the buildings were not necessary or desirable. My hon. friend is quite inaccurate in saying that plans were already prepared; in some cases they were not.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not wish to question my hon. friend's accuracy of statement, but surely plans must have been prepared or the proposed works would not have been put in the
estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not at all. You can put in votes for public buildings before you have plans, and you can say to the house that the plans have not been prepared, that the vote is just for a beginning. This has been done in some oases before the site had been acquired. As my hon. friend knows it is done right along.


Charles Gavan Power: I do not know anything of the kind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Then I am telling
him as a fact that that practice has prevailed for years.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister tells me the practice is that items are inserted in the estimates without plans being prepared, I am quite willing to accept his statement; but these items were in the estimates when they were brought down last March, and surely after bringing down estimates of from $20,000,000 to $30,000,000 for public buildings, the minister must have consulted the officers of his department. When at the special session we voted money for unemployment, those plans at least should have been further advanced than any plans for unemployment relief, which was not thought of until late in September. Surely the hon. minister will admit that.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Is it not the fact that always a skeleton, as it were, of the plans is made

in order to prepafe the estimates to be submitted to the house? When application is made to the department for the construction of a public building or a public wharf, the local engineer makes an examination and then reports to the department recommending or disapproving the application. On the strength of the recommendation and with the detailed information that is given to the deparment at Ottawa, a decision is taken whether the work is necessary or not. On the skeleton plan that the engineer prepares for himself he bases his estimates. If it is pretty certain that the vote will go through, an amount will appear in the estimates, the local engineers prepare their plan, at least they do for wharves and breakwaters, and those plans are sent forward to Ottawa for approval. For public buildings the procedure is somewhat different; architects have to be employed after the district architect makes his report. Generally the departmental architect is employed unless he is too busy with other work, in which case outside architects are engaged to prepare the final plans. Buit sufficient of the plans is known in the department to allow of a fairly accurate estimate being made of the probable cost of the proposed work. If that had been done I cannot understand why there should be delay in expending the money which was authorized by parliament, and which was so necessary to relieve unemployment. Let me point out further that between the date of the signing of this supply bill and the time the election took place there was an interval of about six weeks; that bill was signed about June 3 or June 4 and the elections took place on July 28. Within ten days after the election this government was installed in power, I think on August 7, and hon. gentlemen opposite at least will give us credit for the fact that during the election campaign we did not attempt to use this money or these public works for election purposes, since the plans, as the minister says, were not prepared. Between August 7 and the time when extreme frost strikes sections of the province of Quebec, which might prevent the carrying on of the construction of public buildings, there was an interval of some three or four months; there were the months of August, September, October, November, and up to December 15, yet we are told that the government did not have time to prepare plans, even by engaging outside architects, in order to carry on this work in the province of Quebec, whereas in the province of Ontario they spent almost the total amount voted by this house last year. I cannot understand the reason for that, and for me it needs some further explanation than the minister has given so far.
22110-62i
24, 1931
Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot accept
ray hon. friend's statement that, there has been any attempt at discrimination as between the provinces, with respect to the expenditure of public moneys.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I did not make that statement; I merely gave the facts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I took that
interpretation of it, and I want to point out to my hon. friend that there- was one very large item in the province of Quebec, with which he is perfectly familiar. I refer to the postal station at Montreal, which accounted for $500,000 in the estimates. As my hon. friend probably knows, that is only a beginning, for the construction of that building probably will cost about $2,000,000 or $2,500,000.


Peter John Veniot: About $1,750,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will say $2,000,000, and that does not include the site in connection with which expropriation proceedings are under way. They were carried on for a year or two by the former government.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: The hon. gentleman is
mistaken. The first amount granted was in 1929, I think, when $650,000 was included in the estimates, and that amount was reduced in 1930 to $500,000. There were some negotiations as to the purchase of the site from the time the first amount was included, but there were no negotiations before that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But $650,000 was voted, and not a dollar was spent that year.


Peter John Veniot: That is quite true, because
we found they wanted too much for the property.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That may have
been a perfectly good reason, and there are perfectly good reasons this year as well. I can only come back to the fact that in the last year our expenditures were $32,758,000, as against $25,000,000 the year before.


Charles Gavan Power: A few moments ago the
hon. gentleman said $29,000,000, did he not?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was for
another year, which I gave as a comparison, showing the next highest year of expenditure.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I should like to direct
the attention of the minister to the item, which provides for repairs to the Quebec citadel. The walls of that citadel are crumbling into absolute ruin, and I think unless something is done very soon this old historic place will be a thing of the past and

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
will have to be abolished, because actually the walls of the citadel and the walls of the city of Quebec, which are federal property, are in a very bad state of repair. I understand that in this year of economy it would require quite a large expenditure to repair these walls, but I think in a very real sense they represent an important part of your national wealth. I see the minister who represents the district of Quebec here, and I would ask him to support my demand that the government give attention to this matter. The only steps taken so far were taken by the late administration in connection with the demolition of the old St. John's gate, which was asked for by a decided barbarian who was at that time mayor of Quebec. This historic gate was abolished, and in its place was erected a monument of horror. I do not know who allowed it. I would not blame it on any administration or minister; I would rather put the blame on the municipal authorities of the city of Quebec. I was one of those who protested, but I understand the evil is not finished. On the street which is just at the old St. John's gate there are some old powder magazines, and it is intended that these should be demolished to widen a street on which there is practically no thoroughfare and no traffic, and which is one of the finest corners of the old city, and could easily be made into a park. The same thing applies to the Esplanade, where the walls are failing to pieces. I believe this part of the city should be put under the jurisdiction and control of the National Battlefields Commission. I have nothing to say against the present chairman of the National Battlefields Commission: he is a good friend of my hon. friends on the other side-


Peter John Veniot: He is a good man, for all that.
Mr. L.WERGNE:	Certainly; he has cultivated lovely flowers in the parks without thorns, and I suggest that should be a good example to be followed by hon. gentlemen opposite at election time. I certainly ask in the name of the city of Quebec and also in the name of Canada, that prompt attention be given the old citadel and the walls of Quebec, for if matters go on in this way for not many years, probably not more than a year or two, it will cost millions to preserve the wall and the work could be done now for much less.
I commend my request to the influential minister representing Quebec, and I am sure he will share the opinion which I am expressing now. We Quebecers are supposed to be a little parochial, but we have reason to be proud of the city of Quebec. There are but
	-
five or six cities in the world which have natural beauty and at the same time historic associations, and Quebec is one of them. I hope the minister and the government will give attention to the request I make in the name not only of the citizens of Quebec but of all those who love Canada and her history.


Mr. DUPRE:: I certainly concur in the
remarks my hon. friend has made with regard to the desirability of preserving the historic sites of old Quebec. I was asked to support certain demands that might have had the effect of causing the disappearance of those historic sites, and as to my views on that subject I think my hon. friend and myself would be on the same side.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I am glad to hear the
hon. gentleman say so. May I cite one instance before the item carries. Quite a number of years ago the auditorium was built in Quebec and a part of the walls was used as a support for that structure. This, besides being an encroachment upon public property, served to obscure the view of the wall. I understand that it is now contemplated to use a part of the wall on the other side of St. Jean street for a public building to be known as the forum. The work has been stopped this year because the city is building a sort of public hall there, and I trust that the government will put a stop to the practice which has prevailed under the past administration of permitting encroachments upon public property just to satisfy some personal friend or partisan at the expense of what is most sacred among the public monuments of this country. Undoubtedly crimes have been committed in this respect. Just think of it, for instance: only fifty years ago the old Jesuit college was demolished by dynamite- public property-leaving a bare field for twenty-five years, to be occupied afterwards by a monumental horror called the city hall of Quebec. The old building was of beautiful architecture. This sort of thing has been going on year after year, the government allowing people to encroach upon public property with axe, shovel and pickaxe, among the most sacred stones in Canada. I am glad that the Solicitor General-who, by the way, must be in good humour seeing that his income has just been augmented-will take my request into serious consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: I am very glad that my
hon. friend from Montmagny (Mr. LaVergne) has taken this attitude. The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) will recollect that many years ago, back in 1918 or 1919 I believe, and for some years thereafter, I

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
brought this matter to the attention of the house. In 1928 the ex-Prime Minister and present leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) visited Quebec and I took him all over the walls. We climbed up and down one rainy afternoon and before he got through .he was quite willing to cry quits and promise to do anything he could to have the wall repaired, because he had to walk over slippery places and so on. The then Prime Minister, who has always taken a great interest in matters historic in Canada, gave to the people of Quebec the assurance-I believe he made the statement in parliament also-that he was prepared to have a certain amount voted every year for the repair, maintenance and upkeep of the walls of Quebec. I speak subject to correction by the former Minister of National Defence, but I believe the sum of $50,000 was voted for the year 1929-30 and the year 1930-31. I see no mention of it in these estimates, but I hope that after the eloquent address of my hon. friend from Montmagny and the kindly, benevolent consideration which the Solicitor General has promised to give the matter, he will discuss the question with his colleagues in the cabinet so that we may be able to continue the good work of keeping the walls in repair. With respect to the statement of my hon. friend from Montmagny, that the repairs to Porte St. Jean are hideous, I entirely agree with him.


Maurice Dupré: We all agree.


Charles Gavan Power: The ex-Minister of National Defence informs me that the plans were carried out at the suggestion of the civic authorities of Quebec. I do not wish to pose as one who has a taste in architecture, but I do entirely agree with my hon. friend from Montmagny that the first thing we should do, if any money is voted, is to restore Porte St. Jean to its former condition.


Joseph Oscar Lefebre Boulanger: Apropos of what has
been said concerning the fortifications of Quebec, might I be permitted to call the attention of my hon. friend the Solicitor General and the Minister of Public Works to a similar condition that eixsts in the military works at Levis. There also the forts and military works are crumbling. These works, of course, are not as important as those of Quebec; they are not as historic or attractive. Nevertheless they have their value, and we on the south shore should be pleased if the government would look after them. Seeing that they are situated in the home town of the Solicitor General, I think our case is in good hands.


Maurice Dupré: This is certainly a very
strong appeal to me.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The hon. members who have spoken with reference to the fortifications and walls at Quebec are all from the province of Quebec itself. I believe that quite irrespective of the provinces from which they come, the feeling of the citizens of Canada generally is that there is no more important historic site in Canada, no site more precious to the Dominion as a whole than Quebec, and that it is a national obligation to keep the walls of that old city in a proper state of repair. What the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) said a moment ago about the trip we had together over the site two years ago is quite correct except, possibly in one particular: the trip was not at all necessary to convince me as to the need of what should be done. I was in entire sympathy from the outset, indeed I have been ever since I have taken an interest in public affairs, with every effort to preserve historic sites, and that of Quebec above all others. But I certainly did see on that occasion the necessity for immediate work, and whatever influence I was able to exert at the time with my colleagues and others was all in the direction of having the work gone on with at once. I believe the delay arose out of the difficulty of bringing about some sort of agreement or understanding between the city authorities,, the battlefields commission and the provincial and Dominion authorities. There was an effort to have all parties make some contribution to the project, and I believe that in the endeavour to bring them together there were interminable delays. I hope that these delays may be avoided in the future, because the necessity is urgent. If I am not greatly mistaken, the acting leader of the government, the hon. member for South Wellington (Mr. Guthrie), when the matter was up in the house a couple of years ago, stressed from this side, in terms just as emphatic as those I am now using, the need for immediate expenditure in this very connection. I mention the point because I believe it is but fair to our colleagues from Quebec that they should feel that in all parts of Canada there is entire sympathy with them in their desire to see these historic walls kept in a state of adequate repair.


Maurice Dupré: I thank my right hon. friend for his words and congratulate him on the stand he has taken. I may tell him that the Minister of Public Works, in spite of his many duties, came to Quebec to spend a few

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
days for the purpose of examining the works, the fortifications and walls and he was impressed, very much as the right hon. gentleman was. We all concur in what my right hon. friend has said.
Mr. LaVERGNE:	I would advise the
government to beware of too close an alliance with the civic authorities. We have sometimes mayors and aldermen who seem to think that these old stones should be discarded. That unfortunately is what happened in the case of Porte St. Jean. The Department of National Defence was induced to accept the opinion of the then mayor of Quebec, who was not a believer in old stone, and because his good faith was misplaced this monstrosity occurred. I understand there is an historic sites commission created by the federal government which should be consulted in matters of this kind. The city of Quebec derives a large revenue from tourists, and were this plan carried out Quebec would be a city like New York, with numbered streets instead of the old crooked ones so attractive to the tourists. These tourists are interested not only in old stone but in the Quebec Liquor Commission, but they could stop off at Montreal.


Hugh Guthrie: Mr. Chairman, I am quite satisfied that not only in this house but throughout the country there are no two opinions with regard to the propriety of doing everything possible to preserve historic sites, not only in Quebec but throughout the rest of Canada. I think it was in 1927, when I was the acting leader of the opposition, that I pledged the support of the opposition of that day to any reasonable scheme which might be brought down in this connection. I remember also in 1920 my hon. friend from Quebec-he is wrong in his dates-brought this thing very forcibly to the attention of parliament. This matter has been in abeyance a long time, but I am glad that something is to be done to preserve these historic monuments. This work will have to be continued from year to year, perhaps for all time, but the expenditure need not be very great. There are many valued sites in the city of Quebec as well as in other parts of the Dominion. There are sites in Kingston, Ontario, wdiich should be maintained, but upon which no government money has yet been spent. We on this side of the house are. just as heartily in support of a proposal of this kind as are our hon. friends opposite, and I am sure we express the view of the people of Canada as a whole.


Charles Gavan Power: I noticed that the hon. Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) listened most attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for Montmagny, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice. I know he is sympathetic in this matter, and I am confident he will give us the assurance that at least an amount of $50,000 will be placed in the supplementary estimates. I am sure that if he does that we on this side of the house will see that the estimate passes without objection, which is perhaps more than we can say for the rest of his items.
Having turned from the glories of war and the plains of battle to the lesser glories and perhaps more heated arguments of peace, I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works just why the different items providing for the expenditure of money in the estimates of 1930 and 1931 were not proceeded with. The first item to which I would refer is a vote of $11,000 for Cowansville. I can enumerate others, if the hon. minister so desires.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If the hon.
member has a list perhaps he had better complete it.


Charles Gavan Power: The next is Farnham, and
in this connection the plans must have been prepared because it was a revote last year from the year before. In this case I think the department had ample time if it so desired to have prepared all the plans, and I hardly think the minister can offer that excuse in this case.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some time ago
there was a reconsideration of the plan; a desire for change was evinced and the matter is still under consideration.


Charles Gavan Power: May I ask just what was
that desire for change?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I said before, the question was whether there should be a new building constructed or an addition made to the existing building. Representations have been received in support of both methods of procedure.


Charles Gavan Power: Were tenders called for the new building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The tenders
were called but no action was taken for the reason given.


Charles Gavan Power: When were the tenders
called?
9S3

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The tenders
were received on August 21, in answer to public advertisements. Four tenders were received, as follows:
K.	B. Jenekes, Sherbrooke, $31,957.
Stewart Construction Company, Limited, Sherbrooke, $37,642.	. .
Newton Construction Company, Limited, Sherbrooke, $38,900.
Paquet & Godbout, St. Hyacinthe, $47,000.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the site for this building been purchased?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The	site was
expropriated.


Charles Gavan Power: When?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: An	order in
council was passed on July 26, granting authority to expropriate.


Peter John Veniot: What year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 1930.


Charles Gavan Power: Has the money been paid
as yet to the owner?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, nothing
further has been done.


Charles Gavan Power: Will the hon. minister tell
me-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Pardon me: I
notice that on November 14, 1930, a notice of abandonment of expropriation was served.


Charles Gavan Power: In the case of La Tuque a
vote of $39,000 was passed, of which $9,000 was a revote. Would the hon. minister tell me how that money was expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That building has been completed and we are now putting in the fixtures.


Charles Gavan Power: As regards the additions and alterations to public building in Montmagny: I am assuming that that building was completed also.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend's assumption is correct.


Charles Gavan Power: I come now to the item
"Quebec, accommodation for military stores." An amount of $100,000 was voted for that purpose. The Minister of Public Works will doubtless recollect that that $100,000 was to be more or less of an annual grant until such time as an amount of $3,000,000 was reached, which was to provide for the construction of a new arsenal at Little River, Quebec. In the Department of Public Works there is an ordeT in council, which I have never seen but which I know is there, providing that with the removal of the Ross rifle factory, the cartridge factory and the Dominion arsenal,
there shall be expended for the replacement of those buildings at a location at Little River, an amount of $3,000,090. Originally it was intended that this money should be spent at the rate of something like $300,000 a year; but former governments, like this one, felt the need of economy and for one or two years an amount of $100,000 was inserted in the estimates of the Department of Public Works for the purpose of providing for a building for Quebec military stores, that is, I assume, for housing stores which for many years had been located in the Ross rifle factory. The Solicitor General knows very well the need was the same last year as the year before, and is perhaps greater now, because the Ross rifle buildings have been torn down. Part of the military huts which were to be demolished have been burned, and they are still as unsightly as they ever were. The arsenal is getting more obsolete, more dangerous for those who are employed therein, and the necessity for building a new arsenal is just as great as it was five years ago. Possibly it will be easier for my hon. friend and his friends to justify a military expenditure thari it would have been for hon. gentlemen leading the house at the time I was supporting a government. Under those circumstances, with a militant Prime Minister and a militant majority back of the government, perhaps the Solicitor General might look carefully into this question of expenditure to replace the Ross rifle factory.
Only this week I received a resolution which was passed by the city council of Quebec, and a copy of which was doubtless also received by the Solicitor General and the other members from Quebec city and district, calling attention to the fact that in the month of November the then Acting Prime Minister, the hon. member for Argenteuil, had, in the words of the resolution, agreed that money would be voted forthwith to proceed with the construction of a new building to replace the Ross rifle factory. Of course, since the government has changed, and long before, I have never been called, either by the present Solicitor General or by the former one, into conference with the authorities at Quebec, so that I do not know what negotiations have proceeded between the mayor of Quebec and the Solicitor General, or rather, in his absence, his deputy, the hon. member for Dorchester, or the hon. member for Argenteuil in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister. But apparently the city council of Quebec are under the impression that a. definite pledge was given. It may be all right to make pledges to the electorate and not to keep them, but it is a bad thing to make pledges to a city

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
council or other corporate body. If that promise was made, I would suggest that the Solicitor General now join with me and ask the minister to insert in the estimates a substantial amount to commence construction of an arsenal in Quebec. The Solicitor General will, I am sure, assist me in this.


Maurice Dupré: All I can say to my hon. friend is that during the last three months I hare heard more about the Ross rifle factory than about any other question. I have, as a matter of fact, received a copy of the resolution passed by the city council of Quebec. Not only is the matter still under consideration, but it has been under consideration for quite a few months-


Charles Gavan Power: For years.


Maurice Dupré: -and we are trying to reach a conclusion.


Charles Gavan Power: I shall not take any more promises, but will the Solcitor General insist upon his colleague, the Minister of Public Works, placing to the credit of the department for accommodation of military stores at Quebec at least an amount similar to that which has been voted in former years? At the present time I understand those stores have been placed in the immigration building Surely the Department of Public Works did not pay $100,000 to the Immigration department for the lease of its building for military stores. I am not to understand that, am I?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Charles Gavan Power: Has any of this money been expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Peter John Veniot: It is almost eleven o'clock I want to discuss the matter of the postal terminals at Montreal. Perhaps the minister would hear me the next time these estimates come up.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister will agree that the question of the Montreal postal terminals may be discussed on some other item, I do not think anybody has any objection to the estimates for the Quebec public buildings passing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall be quite willing to do that.


Peter John Veniot: I accept that.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order. 
Monday, April 27, 1931