1933-04-06

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

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

[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. H. HARRIS (Toronto-Scarborough) presented the second report of the select standing committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Mr. T. H. STINSON (Victoria, Ont.) moved:: That, pursuant to Special Order made 27th March last, the divorce bills referred to in the message from the Senate received this day be now read a first and second time, and referred to the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, together with the evidence, etc., taken before ' the standing committee of the Senate on divorce on the petitions on which the said bills were founded.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 68 for the relief of Birdie Glickman Steinberg.-Mr. Jacobs.

Bill No. 69 for the relief of Harry Prupas.- Mr. Vallance.
On division.

[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. G. POWER (Quebec South) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 67, with respect to hospital sweepstakes.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).

[Stage Direction]
Mr. LaVERGNE:
1.	Who constitute the personnel of radio station CHRC at Quebec city?
2.	When did said station secure a licence?
3.	Upon whose recommendation was such licence issued?
4.	For what period was it issued?
5.	What are the functions and obligations of such station?
Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	J. N. Thivierge, the manager of the station; Charles Frenette and C. Denoncourt, technical operators approved by the department to operate the transmitter.
No information respecting non-technical personnel.
2.	April 1, 1926.
3.	No recommendation filed. Licence issued on merits of application.
4.	Yearly, to date (March 31, 1933).
5.	The broadcasting of entertainment and information for reception by the general public.


LOAN TO SASKATCHEWAN FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Saskatchewan for governmental services, that is to say, for assisting in defraying the expenses of the administration of the said province (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances, and amount covered by each such order in council ?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said [DOT]
a dvances ?

Questions


Mr. RHODES:: 1. (a) 86,500,000; (b) $153,739.73.
(While these loans were authorized under the general heading "governmental services" it may be pointed out that at the same time the province was financing certain relief undertakings on its own account.)
2.	September 19, 1931, P.C. 2336, $2,000,000; October 28, 1931, P.C. 2707, $500,000; November 2, 1931, P.C. 2723, $500,000; November 17, 1931, P.C. 2890, 8500,000; December 17, 1931, P.C. 3131, 83,000,000; December 17, 1932, P.C. 2757, 8153,739.73.
3.	None.


LOAN TO MANITOBA FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Manitoba for governmental services, that is to say, for assisting in defraying the expenses of the administration of the said province (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances, and the amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said advances ?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) and (b) Excluding loans for unemployment and farm relief, and for maturities ir. New York, none.
2.	and 3. answered by 1.


LOAN TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of British Columbia for governmental services, that is to say, for assisting in defraying the expenses of the administration of the said province (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances, and amount covered by each such order in council ?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) and (b) Excluding loans for unemployment relief, and for maturities in New York, none.
2.	and 3. answered by 1.


LOAN TO ALBERTA FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICES
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Alberta for governmental services, that is to say, for assisting in defraying the expenses of the administration of the said province (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said advances, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) and (b) excluding loans for unemployment and farm relief, and for maturities in New York, none.
2.	and 3. Answered by No. 1.


ILES AUX GRUES, QUE., SIGNAL AGENT AND SEMAPHORE OPERATOR
Mr. POWER:: 1.	Who was employed by the Department of Marine as signal agent and semaphore operator at lie aux Grues, Quebec, during the summer of 1932?
2.	Was he a permanent employee?
3.	For how many years has he been an employee of the department?
4.	Have the conditions of his employment been altered from that of permanent employee to that of temporary employee, and if so, why?
5.	Were there any complaints lodged against him on grounds of his political activity or partisanship ?
6.	If so, was an inquiry held, and what was the result thereof?


Mr. DURANLEAU:: 1.	Joseph D. Yezina and Edouard Dan-cause.
2.	Yes, both.
3.	Joseph D. Vezina, since June 1, 1908, and Edouard Dancause, since May 7, 1925.
4.	Their appointments have been cancelled by order in council dated March 15, 1933, for political partisanship. It is necessary, however, to retain both in a temporary capacity until such time as the vacancies are filled by the Civil Service Commission.
5.	Yes, against both.
6.	An inquiry was not held inasmuch as the hon. member for Montmagny made representations that to his personal knowledge these two men have taken an active part in politics.
Questions


LOAN TO SASKATCHEWAN FOB NEW YORK OBLIGATIONS
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What is the amount of loans made by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Saskatchewan, to enable it to meet its obligations in New York (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said loans?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) $570,856; Ob) $3,464,078.12.
2.	November 25, 1931, P.C. 2953, $570,856; February 18, 1932, P.C. 360, $3,464,078.12.
3.	$100,592.66.


LOAN TO MANITOBA FOR NEW YORK OBLIGATIONS
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What is the amount of loans made by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Manitoba, to enable it to meet its obligations in New York (a) during the year 1931: (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of
orders in council authorizing the said loans, and amount covered by each such order in counoil?	.
3.	How much has been repaid on the said loans?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) None; (b) $3,180,883.28.
2.	January 21, 1932, P.C. 128, $1,236,753.12; December 7, 1932, P.C. 2685, $1,944,130.16.
3.	$47,567.43.


LOAN TO ALBERTA FOR NEW YORK OBLIGATIONS
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What is the amount of loans made by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Alberta, to enable it to meet its obligations in New York (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said loans, and amount covered by each such order in council ?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said loans?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) None; (b) $3,142,586.39.
2.	January 4, 1932, P.C. 3194, $320,129.52; January 13, 1932, P.C. 75, $2,822,456.87.
3.	$586.39.


LOAN TO BRITISH COLUMBIA FOB NEW YORK OBLIGATIONS
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What is the amount of loans made by the Dominion government to the government of the 
province of British Columbia, to enable it to meet its obligations in New York (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932?
2.	What, were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing the said loans, and amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on the said loans?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) $3,371,664.69; (b) $1,732,500.
2.	November 20, 1931, P.C. 2911, $3,371,664.69; December 8, 1932, P.C. 2707, $1,732,500.
3.	$3,169,915.19.


LOAN TO NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Nova Scotia (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932, for any of the following purposes:-
Cl) To defray share of cost of approved public works payable by province and/or to loan to municipalities moneys, in order that their share may be paid;
(2)	To provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities;
(3)	To meet obligations in New York;
(4)	For farmers for seeding operations, including purchase of seed grain;
(5)	To liquidate accounts covering expenditures by province and/or municipalities on approved public works;
(6)	For governmental services;
(7)	To cover share of province and municipalities for direct relief expenditures;
(8)	To give financial assistance to any of the cities of the province;
(9)	For provincial expenditure in connection with camps?
2.	If any such advances were made, what were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing said advances, and the amount covered by each such order in council?
3. How- much has been repaid on said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	(a) and (b) None.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


LOAN TO ONTARIO
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Ontario (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932 for any of the following purposes:-
(1)	To defray share of cost of approved public works payable by province and/or to loan to municipalities moneys, in order that their share may be paid;
(2)	To provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities;

Questions
(3)	To meet obligations in New York;
(4)	For farmers for seeding operations, including purchases of seed grain;
(5)	To liquidate accounts covering expenditures by province and/or municipalities on approved public works;
(6)	For governmental services;
(7)	To cover share of province and municipalities for direct relief expenditures;
(8)	To give financial assistance to any of the cities of the province;
(9)	For provincial expenditure in connection with camps?
2.	If any such advances were made, what were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing said advances, and the amount covered by each such order in council i
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1. (a) and (b) A temporary advance of $2,500,000 was made under P.C. 97 of 11th January, 1932, pending the passing of relief and other accounts owing by the Dominion government. This loan was repaid in full by 7th April, 1932.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


LOAN TO QUEBEC
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of Quebec (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932, for any of the following purposes:-
(1)	To defray share of cost of approved public works payable by province and/or to loan to municipalities moneys, in order that their share may be paid;
(2)	To provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities;
(3)	To meet obligations in New York;
(4)	For farmers for seeding operations, including purchases of seed grain;
(5)	To liquidate accounts covering expenditures by province and/or municipalities on approved public works;
(6)	For governmental services;
(7)	To cover share of province and municipalities for direct relief expenditures;
(8)	To give financial assistance to any of the cities of the province;
(9)	For provincial expenditure in connection with camps?
2.	If any such advances were made, what were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing said advances, and the amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1. (a) and (b) None.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


LOAN TO NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts, if any were advanced by the Dominion government to the government of the province of New Brunswick (a) during the year 1931; (b) during the year 1932, for any of the following purposes: -
(1} To defray share of cost of approved public works payable by province and/or to loan to municipalities moneys, in order that their share may be paid;
(2)	To provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities;
(3)	To meet obligations in New York;
(4)	For farmers for seeding operations, including purchases of seed grain;
(5)	To liquidate accounts covering expenditures by province and/or municipalities on approved public works;
(6)	For governmental services;
(7)	To cover share of province and municipalities for direct relief expenditures;
(8)	To give financial assistance to any of the cities of the province;
(9)	For provincial expenditure in connection with camps?
2.	If any such advances were made, what were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing said advances, and the amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1. (a) and (b) None.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.


LOAN TO PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. POWER:: 1.	What amounts, if any, were advanced by
the Dominion government to the government of the province of Prince Edward Island (a) during the year 1931;	(b) during the year
1932, for any of the following purposes:-
(1)	To defray share of cost of approved public works payable by province and/or to loan to municipalities moneys, in order that their share may be paid;
(2)	To provide funds for payment of direct relief in province and municipalities;
(3)	To meet obligations in New York;
(4)	For farmers for seeding operations, including purchases of seed grain;
(5)	To liquidate accounts covering expenditures by province and/or municipalities on approved public works;
(6)	For governmental services;
(7)	To cover share of province and municipalities for direct relief expenditures;
(8)	To give financial assistance to any of the cities of the province;
(9)	For provincial expenditure in connection with camps?
2.	If any such advances were made, what [DOT]were the dates and numbers of orders in council authorizing said advances, and the amount covered by each such order in council?
3.	How much has been repaid on said advances?


Mr. RHODES:: 1. (a) and (b) None.
2 and 3. Answered by No. 1.

Supply-Justice-Penitentianes


RAILWAYS-POOL TRAINS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. G. SANDERSON (South Perth):: I desire to ask a question of the Minister of Railways and Canals regarding the pool trains of the two railway systems between Toronto and Ottawa, and Toronto and Montreal, which trains are now running. Did the railway systems get the consent of the Board of Railway Commissioners, or is it necessary that they should get its consent to rim those pool trains?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: I am afraid I cannot answer the question offhand. I shall look into it and give my hon. friend an answer tomorrow. This matter is not submitted to me or to the government in any way; it is an arrangement between the two railways. I shall get the information and inform my hon. friend to-morrow.


RAILWAYS AND SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. L. BEAUBIEN (Provencher):: Is
it the intention to have the special committee on government railways and shipping meet before Easter?


Robert James Manion: There is standing in my name a resolution which will, I think, oome up tomorrow, and as soon as it passes and the bill based on it is introduced, we shall probably have a meeting of the committee. That will most likely be the beginning of next week.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Gagnon in the chair.
Penitentiaries-amount required for cost of administration, construction, purchase of land, supplies and equipment, maintenance and discharge of inmates at Kingston, St. Vincent de Paul, Dorchester, Manitoba, British Columbia, Piers island, Saskatchewan and Collin's Bay penitentiaries, $2,941,400.
Mr. REID:: Has the minister any information regarding the expenditure and the number of inmates that are at Piers island?


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: This matter in regard to Piers island was brought to my attention a few days ago by 'the hon. member for Comox-Albemi (Mr. Neill), and I prepaired a statement which will probably cover the inquiry of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Reid). In

the first place, the acreage of the island known as Piers island, which is now a penitentiary, is 254 acres, about 40 acres of which is cleared. Negotiations are under way for the lease of the island by the government. No money has been paid to the owners; they are asking $3,600 per annum and the department has offered $420. The matter is before the exchequer court by way of expropriation proceedings for lease, not for purchase, and I anticipate that the case will be heard some time next June, because the president of the exchequer court is at that time proceeding to British Columbia to hear the cases from that province and we shall endeavour to have this one ready for hearing then.
The expenditure on buildings and wharves to date is: for material, $29,769; for labour, $24,000; for pump, engine, lumber, etc., $3,807. The number of convicts confined on the island on the first day of March was: males, 295; females, 279.
The fifth inquiry that I received would be answered as follows: All employees on Piers island are appointees of the civil service commission. Piers Island penitentiary is administered by the warden and staff of the British Columbia penitentiary, officials being transferred for temporary employment on Piers island. This has necessitated the employment of an extra number of temporary police guards; one physician, part time, SI,500 per annum; one male hospital nurse and five matrons have also been temporarily employed.
A question has, I believe, reached the newspapers in regard to the purchase of toilet articles and I might give the information I have received to date in regard to that. In the purchase of toilet sets cognizance was taken of the fact that such articles were for temporary use only and therefore bowls and tanks suitable for removal and installation in one of the penitentiaries were purchased. The cost of the former was $6.82 each, and of the latter, $11.89 each, delivered at Piers island. Sixty-four sets were purchased and delivered. All fixtures, lumber, pump, engine will be removed to one of the penitentiaries when Piers island is abandoned as a penitentiary.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: We shall not own the property there?


Hugh Guthrie: No, we propose only to lease the island and there is a wide difference between the government and the owners of the island as to the value of the rental. There was a negotiation for the purchase of the island, but the price was so high that we did not consider it.

Supply-Agriculture-Animals


Ernest Lapointe: The inmates there are Doukhobors?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes; there are two prison camps, one for males and one for females.


Mr. POWER:: Is there anyone there to dress them?


Hugh Guthrie: I do not know about that. I have not been out there.
Mr.MUNN: What is the total expenditure to date?


Hugh Guthrie: The total expenditure is 329,769 in one case and 824,000 in the other; that is, about 853,000.


Mr. NEILL:: How many employees are
there?
Mr.GUTHRIE: Forty males and eleven females.


Mr. VENIOT:: How many convicts who took part in the riot at Dorchester are being tried under preliminary examination?
Mr.GUTHRIE: Six.


Peter John Veniot: The newspapers report a far larger number.
Mr.GUTHRIE: No, six.


Mr. DUPUIS:: Is there a tariff of fees for lawyers who represent the Department of Justice before the courts-for instance, in cases under the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act?
Mr.GUTHRIE: There is no fixed tariff. All bills that come from the Department of Pensions and National Health in its enforcement of the Opium and Narcotic Drug Act are taxed by the officers of the department. I think I am right in saying that, under that particular act, perhaps higher legal fees are allowed than in ordinary prosecutions before magistrates and the like. The cases are looked upon as more serious, and experience shows that in such cases the accused are equipped as a general rule with excellent legal assistance.


Vincent Dupuis: Can the minister give us
what was spent in legal fees during the past year?


Hugh Guthrie: I cannot give them offhand; they do not arise under this vote.


Vincent Dupuis: I understand we are on item 190.


Hugh Guthrie: No, this is No. 43, the penitentiary vote.
Mr.NEILL: What is the responsibility of the Department of Justice in relation to Doukhobor children? There is a good deal of misunderstanding in this respect in British Columbia, where the idea prevails that this department is responsible.


Hugh Guthrie: No. The responsibility in regard to the care of children of those confined in our prisons rests entirely on the provinces and municipalities; that is the law that pertains throughout Canada. The situation is a little more acute in British Columbia owing to the number of children to be taken care of there, and the province is paying for the maintenance of the children.


Alan Webster Neill: Is the minister's department not paying something in view of the fact that the government is supposed to be responsible for the introduction of the Doukhobors?


Hugh Guthrie: I believe that an arrangement has been made with the government of British Columbia that, in regard to children born after the mother has become an inmate, the care and maintenance shall be taken care of by the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Health of animals, administration of the Animal Contagious Diseases Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Aot, $1,817,991.
Mr. WEIR (Macdonald):: Has there been any change of policy in regard to the payment of compensation in tuberculosis free areas?


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: The regulations have not changed
in that respect.


William Gilbert Weir: Is the provincial government required to pay compensation?


Robert Weir: No.


William Gilbert Weir: Do they pay
anything towards the administration of the
act?


Robert Weir: The transportation
of officials.


Thomas Reid: Does the Dominion government bear the total cost of tuberculosis inspection throughout British Columbia-transportation of inspectors?


Robert Weir: In the restricted
area work the provinces pay the transportation, and we pay the salaries of the officials and the compensation for animals that are condemned.

Supply-Agriculture-Animals


Mr. DONNELLY:: Have any new restricted areas been established?


Robert Weir: No, not for this
year.


William Gilbert Weir: There has been no extension of restricted areas?


Robert Weir: No; there are no
new restricted areas.


Mr. GERSHAW:: In ease of epidemic
among horses or cattle what do the officers of the department do in the way of investigation and the recommendation of treatment?


Robert Weir: In the case of an
infectious disease, if the farmer or the owner of the stock will get in touch with the district inspector for the province he will be given full advice and the matter will be investigated by the federal officials.


Mr. GIROUARD (Translation):: Could the hon. Minister inform the House whether the tuberculin test of cattle comes under item No. 56?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Wilfrid Girouard: Mr. Chairman, in 1929, the Department of Agriculture undertook the tuberculin test of cattle in the county of Drummond. The officers of the department were carrying out this test in the parishes of South Durham and "L'Avenir", when, in the autumn of 1930, they were recalled, we understand, so as to be sent to another county. Since that date, I wrote on various occasions to the Department of Agriculture, at Ottawa; nevertheless, the work begun, in 1929, was continuously postponed. I am sure that the hon. Minister of Agriculture will understand that it is most important to the farmers of these parishes that the test which was begun should be continued without interruption. I wish to specially refer, in this connection, to the parish of "L'Avenir" in the county of Drummond. I would request the hon. Minister of Agriculture to kindly give orders that the tuberculin test begun in 1929 and 1930, be resumed.


Robert Weir: My information is that no work has yet been done in Drummond county. However I shall be happy to look into the matter raised by the hon. member and write him personally in connection therewith.


Vincent Dupuis: What amount of indemnity is paid for each head to be destroyed?


Robert Weir: For grades the maximum is $40 and for pure breds $100.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Gagnon):: Shall the resolution carry?


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: No. When this vote was under consideration a few days ago there was considerable discussion about the proposed merging of the live stock branch with the health of animals branch. The minister's explanation left upon the minds of some hon. members the impression there was nothing in the rumor, while on the minds of the rest of us it left the impression that there was something in it. I should like him to elucidate a little more and let us know his position. If he does not mean to merge the two branches he has done himself a great injustice by not being more explicit, and if he does mean to merge them nothing could be gained by concealing the fact.
While I am on my feet I should like to point out that these two branches were at one time under the control of the late Doctor Rutherford, a very prominent veterinarian, at one time chief veterinary inspector and later veterinary director general. I remember quite well that although the two branches were merged under him he came to the conclusion that they should not be merged. However, he was head of both branches, and his position made it possible for him to be fairly just to both. The positions he had occupied enabled him to pay particular attention to the health of animals end of his new duties. He expressed the opinion that they should be separated, with the result that his successor, the late Doctor Torrance, in the year 1912 or 1913 did carry out the separation. The late John Bright then became live stock commissioner, and the two branches have been working smoothly ever since. I take the ground that after twenty years of separation the minister should have some valid reason for suggesting a merger.
When the matter was under discussion before I gave some reasons why they should not be merged. Will the minister tell us whether he is or is not going to merge these branches, so that the discussion may be terminated. If it is his intention to merge them all I can do is to admonish him that in the light of past history, and in view of the splendid work the branches have been doing he should not merge them, because in fact they are quite separate and distinct in their character and viewpoint.


Robert Weir: If hon. members who were in attendance at the last meeting of the committee had read what I said on that occasion I do not believe there would be any doubts remaining in their minds. If, after full consideration-


Mr. BROWN:: "If" after.

Supply-Agriculture-Animals


Robert Weir: -with the heads of both branches, and their officials, it is felt that it will be in the interests of the live stock industry, and more economical, without any loss in efficiency of any kind, there will be a certain amount of amalgamation. At the last committee meeting some hon. members expressed the opinion that any change would be injurious. I cannot make a more definite general statement than that. I further said however that there would be no lajJmen put in positions where scientists should be doing the work. I cannot make my position clearer in a general statement and would like to be specific. We will say that in the city of Calgary we have hog graders and live stock marketing agents under the live stock branch. We have under the health of animals branch a stock car inspector. If these two branches can agree that in addition to his Tegular work one of the hog graders can do stock car inspection, I think there would be some gain, no harm done and no decrease in the efficiency in either branches. That is a specific case.
The qualifications for a stock car inspector are certainly no higher than, possibly not as high as, those of a man in charge of a stockyard. Such an arrangement would to a certain extent reduce the office staff as well as the personnel doing the actual work. I have made the general statement that no laymen will be put in positions where scientific men are required. But where the heads and officials of these branches after full discussion agree that any change or merging could take place which would not decrease efficiency and would reduce costs, it will be done.


William Richard Motherwell: Mr. Chairman, that would seem to be-I say, "seem to be"

quite satisfactory. However when we analyze the minister's statement we find there is not much in it, and the illustration which was intended to show a saving of expenditures was not very convincing. As I understood it, the hypothetical case was that there was no reason why a hog grader at Calgary should not do stock car inspection. Of course not. Hog grading, although to some extent technical, could not be classed as a highly technical position. Anybody who could grade hogs could very soon learn to inspect cars. Further than that, car inspection is frequently only a part time job. Although in a sense it may be important work, it is very often performed by men holding other positions-at least that used to be the case.
Then we have the minister's further statement that laymen will not be put in the
position of doing the work of scientists. When the item was under discussion before, the minister pointed out that the office of the veterinary director general for the last twelve years had been under the supervision of two laymen, namely the minister and the deputy. Again, the minister's attitude is not very satisfactory. Perhaps I am too hard to please, but I believe this is an important matter. The health of our farm animals is the pride of Canada. I am sure that during the Imperial Economic conference the minister must have felt some degree of pride surging within his own veins when he could show the excellent health standing of our farm animals under the supervision of the veterinary director general. And might I come to a little closer grips with my hon. friend, indicating how these two branches sometimes differ, though not frequently but fundamentally, in their views of certain questions. For instance, some six or eight years ago and for some years prior to that there was connected with the experimental farm for experimental purposes what we called a "Bang" herd farm; that is a number of tubercular cattle were segregated on one farm and were used as breeding animals under what is called the "Bang" system. That is they were valuable animals for breeding purposes, they were tubercular, and it was desired to get some heifer calves from them, and by taking the calves from the cows immediately when dropped and pasteurizing the milk, it was thought that they could raise the young stock in safety without transmitting the tuberculosis. That wras a matter that had been in dispute among live stock men and veterinarians for years and years, and the purpose was to demonstrate whether or not it could be done. It was done for a number of years with safety and success on a farm not far from Ottawa under the supervision of the experimental farm. But at various points, particularly at one central point, outbreaks that could not be accounted for occurred at intervals. The attitude of the live stock husbandman at that time was that it was perfectly safe to conduct that kind of experiment, that there was no danger of transmitting tuberculosis to adjoining herds or other herds by using those animals male or female for breeding purposes. But the veterinary director general took the opposite stand, that it involved too much risk, and he advised strongly that the "Bang" herd be discontinued. Now which point of view should prevail? Running the risk of associating with and continuing the "Bang" herd because there had been no outbreak for a while, or taking

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
the advice of the veterinary director general and playing safe by cutting out the "Bang" herd experiment? At that time we took the advice of the veterinary director general rather than that of the live stock husbandman. Which attitude would my hon. friend have taken? And who would decide such questions under a merger? I am a layman and the minister is a layman as far as veterinary science is concerned. That is the reason I think those two branches should be kept separate. Both points of view are held conscientiously, but with such dissimilar viewpoints they are bound to differ at important points of contact.


Thomas Reid: The other evening the minister was good enough to say that it was going to be the policy of his department to encourage the private veterinary practitioner. I wonder if he would be good enough to state how that policy will be carried out and who will have the hiring of these private practitioners?


Robert Weir: There is first an
examination under the veterinary director general. Private practitioners who pass this examination will be given an opportunity to do certain work that is now done by health of animals officials. For instance if they are suitably located, they might be given the work of testing more municipal or supervised herds. They would be paid for that out of this vote under the present arrangement, at a cost not exceeding what the cost has been during the last number of years when done by our own officials. There might be other work, such as taking blood for blood tests. The provincial governments are also in sympathy with this proposal and believe that they can turn some work towards the private practitioners.


Mr. FERLAND:: I observe that this item 56, health of animals, is decreased by more than a quarter of a million dollars as compared with last year's estimates. May I ask the minister if the animals are partially cured of the disease or if it is only for reasons of economy that he is making this decrease?


Robert Weir: This was explained the last night the committee was in session. There are so many retests due that it is impossible for us with our present staff to do the retesting work and also undertake any considerable amount of new work. It is the new work that involves the large cost, owing to payment of compensation. So we feel that we have enough work to carry on with retesting, for which the cost is very small in comparison with the costs of the initial tests. Therefore we can carry on with the smaller amount.


Wilfrid Girouard: How many inspectors
are there for tuberculosis in Quebec?


Robert Weir: They keep changing from time to time as they are taken from one province to undertake work in another province. At present I am informed there are from twenty-five to thirty in Quebec.


Wilfrid Girouard: Have they an office in Montreal?


Robert Weir: Yes.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister has chosen not to answer my last question. I assure the minister however, that it is not a hypothetical case at all, it is an actual condition of affairs that occurs and will continue to crop up. I hope the minister will be able to answer the next question, I think perhaps it will be easier and should be given a specific answer. My information is from newspaper reports, which while not always right generally have some element of truth in them; sometimes they are entirely true. This one I hope is entirely false. It is a report that comes from the west, that the live stock men assembled at Calgary recently expressed the opinion, by resolution or otherwise, that the quarantine of fifteen days at Levis, just across the river from Quebec, should be discontinued; that animals imported from Great Britain, after the precautions taken on the other side, are sufficiently safeguarded without quarantining them in Levis. I hope that is wrong, I hope there is no truth in it whatever. When it was my privilege to have charge of this work the period of quarantine used to be thirty days, if it is now fifteen I should like to know how and when that came about.


Robert Weir: The quarantine at Levis is to be continued. There is this change, that where animals are quarantined in London for two weeks the quarantine in Levis will be only for two weeks. It differs in that respect from what it was before the Imperial conference. The change has not only been recommended by our own officials but agreed to also by the American officials, so that it will not interfere in any way with their regulations in connection with our live stock.
With reference to the first question, my hon. friend would not think I would be so discourteous as not to answer or attempt to answer his question; I did not think he really asked a question. If there was any question it was this: In case a decision had to be made with reference to isolation or precautions against diseases what would be the

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
correct procedure? I would say that there could be but one answer, that the decision of those qualified to do that work, the veterinary scientists, should prevail.


William Richard Motherwell: Hear, hear, that is very good. Then there is no talk at all about dispensing with the quarantine at Levis? And the reduction from thirty days to fifteen is compensated for by the other fifteen days quarantine taking place in London, England?


Robert Weir: Right.


William Richard Motherwell: Just another point
and I am through. In the vicinity of Ottawa, on the Ontario side of the river a restricted area was established back in 1928, I think it was. It was quite large; it formed a triangle between the Ottawa and St. Lawrence rivers and the Rideau canal. Some spots were badly saturated with tuberculosis, and as often happens there were some objections raised to the test being applied. I wonder how the minister is getting along in that area. It is nice to be able to assure our international and other visitors that we have not only a beautiful capital city but also healthful surroundings from which they can get their meat, poultry, milk and other products without the possibility of any contamination from this or other diseases.


Robert Weir: The work is almost
completed. This was set aside as a restricted area before the last election, when it became pretty much of a political question. For that reason I think it was felt advisable

and I quite agree-to drop the work until the controversy was over. After the election it continued to be very much of a - political question. I think one day I saw a delegation of seventy-five people who insisted that the test should not be carried on, and they were headed by one of the successful candidates at the election. I think the next day I saw a delegation of more than eighty people, headed by the other successful candidate, who took the opposite view. I think I recognized quite a number of the same faces in both delegations, and there were similar names on the different petitions submitted to the department. However, we were successful in handling the situation with the least possible friction, though feeling was very high. We are glad to say that now the whole area has been cleaned up with the exception of parts of Leeds and Grenville counties, and that work will be completed shortly. It is to be among the first work undertaken.


William Richard Motherwell: My hon. friend was successful he says in handling the question by dropping it, and losing most of the money 53719-238
that had been spent in that area. These sources of infection were bad, naturally they will contaminate the adjoining areas. Thus it will be only a matter of time until the whole area is re-contaminated unless these spots are cleared up. I think this is most lamentable.


Robert Weir: I do not think the
hon. member can have heard me.


William Richard Motherwell: I know I have
not my hearing apparatus with me, because the batteries are low, but I can hear fairly well without it.


Robert Weir: The work has been completed with the exception of a very small aTea in Leeds and Grenville counties. The work proceeded; it was not dropped, and I believe it has been carried on to the satisfaction of every person, which at one time seemed absolutely impossible.


William Richard Motherwell: The less work there remains to do then the more justification there is for doing it so far as cost is concerned. There must be ten constituencies in tlhat area, and of those apparently two are reneging. There will always be two parties to this question, some for and some against the test and in all probability some of those are beef areas rather than dairy districts.


Robert Weir: There are not two
parties in the area left, and there has been no reneging. We have not completed the work yet, but it will be among the first work to be done after this vote is passed. There was not sufficient money last year due to the much higher percentage of reactors than was expected. The work was dropped about one week before the end of the fiscal year, and there is only a very small area remaining.


William Richard Motherwell: Perhaps my hon.
friend can tell us when that work was begun. I object to the suggestion that this was a political question before the last election; it was not. If it became such later that was under my hon. friend's administration. I took the ground then, as I had taken it previously, that when either a provincial or federal election came on, this class of work should be discontinued temporarily, because it is rather delicate work and is liable to cause ructions in the heat of an election contest. We did not stop it because it had become a political question but because of our previous experience in the maritimes during an election which was held a year earlier than we expected. The Nova Scotia elections came on right in the middle of the work; I happened to be overseas that year, and when I got home there


REVI5ED EDITION COMMONS
[Stage Direction]
Supply-Agriculture-Animals
was the dickens to pay. We continued the work during the election and finally completed it quite satisfactorily, but only after a good deal of heart burning. The newspapers took sides; one blamed the Dominion government and the other blamed the provincial government, and I made up my mind that rather than go through that unfortunate experience again during any subsequent election we would cease work in the east till the election was over where there was likely to be friction. At that same time we continued the work in the west, where there was no friction. Out there on the prairies they are so strong for this bovine T. B. work that even in the middle of an election contest no one could make it an election issue.
That was what we did in 1930, so I think my hon. friend will have to examine the facts a little more carefully. This work around Ottawa must have been started either in 1928 or 1929, so this is either the fifth or sixth year since. All the time these remaining infected sore spots are festering. If you had only two festering sores on your hand they might easily affect your whole body in five years, so with all the earnestness at my command I would urge the minister to complete this work. Some of his colleagues are medical men; they know the importance of this work. I am sure they will give their colleague enough money to go ahead and complete it and other subsequent areas in less than five years. The responsibility does not rest entirely on the minister for this parsimony; he admits that he had to suspend operations for want of money, yet he has been telling us all along that there has been no material lessening of the agricultural work because of the reduction in the estimates. In almost every vote we come across work that has been neglected because there is not sufficient money. That is the fault of the minister's colleagues. I know the staff well enough to be sure that the estimates go up to my hon. friend large enough and I know human nature well enough to be sure that he passes them on to the council, so it must be his colleagues who reduce them. I appeal to both the minister's medical colleagues present and who know the close connection between human and bovine tuberculosis; if ever money was well spent it is the money devoted to the elimination of tuberculosis among our cattle, especially pure bred cattle.
Robert Weir: I accept my hon.
friend's explanation with regard to the test. What I had to say was in no way critical; I felt that if this had become a matter of politics this action was advisable, and had I been in my hon. friend's place I would have

dropped the work also. Certainly the work was started and with no particular reason being given it was stopped, so the officials of the department felt it was stopped for that reason.
With regard to the question of money I gave a clear explanation. The vote recommended by the officials of the department was not sufficient to carry on the work. They could not foresee that the percentage loss would be anything like as high as it was in certain areas. There never had been such a loss, running up to even forty per cent.


William Richard Motherwell: That was not in
this area; that was in Quebec, was it not?


Robert Weir: Yes. More money was required than was required in Quebec. An additional vote was included in the supplementary estimates and it was felt that this would furnish sufficient money to carry on this work. We did not want to carry over charges from this to the next fiscal year but the percentage of reactors was much greater than had been anticipated by the officials, and it was found necessary to stop the work for the last week.


William Richard Motherwell: I think the minister erred by having too many irons in the fire. I suppose the pressure, from Quebec was stronger than that from the Ontario end. I feel sure the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) will appreciate the importance of this matter. I have a lot of sympathy for the minister because I know both the importance and worries of this work. If the provincial Conservatives and the federal Liberals get criss-crossing and scrapping locally not even the angel Gabriel could carry on the work satisfactorily. The Minister of Public Works resides in a splendid dairying area and I am sure he would give the right-of-way to a vote to clean up these two festering spots in the area in which he resides as quickly as possible. The committee may not understand why I am so interested in this matter. I thought it to be a good thing when it was established and I enjoyed the Hon. John Martin's complete cooperation in everything that was done, and I think similar cooperation could be obtained even at this late date. If this matter could be cleaned up it would be a credit to the minister, to his department and inure to the safety of the cattle and human population therein.


Robert Weir: I am afraid the hon. member is in error through not knowing just what we did. He has suggested that we concentrated upon Quebec but the fact is that the iwork was divided fairly and equally

Supply-Agriculture-Animals
between the two provinces and carried on simultaneously. Unforeseen circumstances arose for which no one could be blamed and it was found that there was not sufficient money to complete the work in a small area in Leeds and in part of Grenville.


William Richard Motherwell: Was not the Quebec area taken on after that?


Robert Weir: It was taken on at the same time.


Vincent Dupuis: I understood the minister to say that the work in Quebec was found to be more expensive than that carried on in Ontario.


Robert Weir: I do not think I said that. We have run into high percentages of reactors in Quebec.


William Richard Motherwell: That runs away with the money.


Vincent Dupuis: What amount has been spent in Ontario and in Quebec?


Robert Weir: I shall be glad to send the hon. member that information. I am told that the percentage of reactors in one part of Ontario was over thirty per cent.


Vincent Dupuis: How many areas are there in Quebec and how many still have to be covered?


Robert Weir: There are still some areas in Quebec to be covered.


Vincent Dupuis: What are those?


Robert Weir: Part of Saguenay, which has to be covered for the first test; L'Assomption, for the first test; St. Hyacinthe; Bagot; Drummond, west of the St. Francis river; Yamaska west of St. Francis river; Richelieu, east of the Richelieu river and Terrebonne. I believe more money has been spent in Quebec than in Ontario.


Vincent Dupuis: Is that because there were more reactors?


Robert Weir: Yes and more cattle tested.


Vincent Dupuis: Is the minister aware of any instances where stock dealers went to cities like Toronto to buy stock that had been condemned to bring into Quebec to be sold as sound stock?


Robert Weir: I am informed that that has not been done. It was felt that it would be attempted and notice was given that the department would take steps against such a practice.
53719-238J


Vincent Dupuis: I understand that the inspectors are veterinary surgeons. Could the minister tell me how many inspectors now working in the province of Quebec are natives of that province? As I understand the minister, several inspectors have been taken from other provinces.


Robert Weir: There are inspectors now working in the province of Quebec who will be lent to other districts when their work is completed, and the same thing will apply to Ontario. I think I know what the hon. member has in mind, and it was one of the first matters I took up with the veterinary director general upon taking over this portfolio. I can understand the difficulty when an English speaking veterinarian goes into a French speaking farmer's stable to carry on tests. He may be unable to explain the test and invariably it is the best cattle that are affected. The high producers are weakened and are more susceptible but the veterinarian may be unable to explain just what is happening. He may be also unable to explain the precautions which should be taken. I was told that there were insufficient fully qualified French speaking veterinarians available to carry on this work and I got in touch with the principals of the veterinary colleges in Quebec and emphasized the importance of this work. Those of us who do not understand the French language would be upset if an inspector speaking only French came to test our herds. The farmers in Quebec must be commended for the patience they have displayed in allowing this work to be carried on. They offered practically no obstruction and we are making every effort to increase the number of French speaking inspectors for work in French districts.


William Richard Motherwell: The minister will not get on with this work very rapidly with the vote reduced by $250,000 this year and $300,000 last year. I do not wish to be put in the position of advocating that the work in Quebec should be discontinued while that in Ontario should be carried on, but I know that this particular work in Ontario was started before that in Quebec. If, however, the two cannot be done simultaneously, then either first finish the one that has been started first, or else increase the vote substantially so that both can be carried on simultaneously.


Wilfrid Girouard: Is it the intention of the minister this year to cover the area where the test has been started?


Robert Weir: Yes.

Supply-A griculture-A nimals


Mr. MacINNIS:: Some little time ago I
took up with the minister on behalf cf the poultry raisers in British Columbia the question of supplying free ohiekenpox serum to poultry farmers who do their own inoculating. Has the minister had time to go into the question and has he been able to come to any conclusion?


Robert Weir: My information is
that we do not wish to give a vaccine containing live organisms to laymen poultrymen or workers.


Thomas Reid: Under this vote I wonder if
the minister could tell me what inspection is done under the Meat and Canned Foods Act?


Robert Weir: The inspection is
chiefly in abattoirs and also in connection with export trade.


Thomas Reid: What I have in mind is that
there was a firm in British Columbia which was buying horses, slaughtering and canning them. I understand much of that product was shipped to France and quite a quantity of it was distributed to fox breeders. Was any of that inspected by our inspectors?


Robert Weir: It was inspected.


Charles-Édouard Ferland: I understand the district of Terrebonne has been named in the new areas or zones to be covered' during the coming year. Could the minister include with the district of Terrebonne the electoral district which, if I understand aright, will be the new Joliette-Montcalm?


Robert Weir: There is no application, and I cannot say anything about the electoral district.


Mr. PARENT:: Does the minister intend
to continue the work of tuberculosis inspection in the district of Terrebonne? The inspection ceased about a year ago.


Robert Weir: It is a new area
and, as such, it will not be started this year unless we make better progress than at the present time is expected.


Mr. SEGUIN:: I thank the minister for
what he has done in the county of L'Assomp-tion, but I would like to know from him whether the testing of cattle will be continued this year.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Wilfrid Girouard: The minister has just
stated that there are a few French Canadian

inspectors in Quebec. In order that he may make more progress, would he not consider that in certain areas the veterinary surgeons could do the work where the inspectors could not come?


Robert Weir: The system of
selection is that an examination will be set under the supervision of the veterinary director general and any veterinarian of any province can write on that examination. If he passes it, he is eligible to be taken on the list.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Farm economics, including agricultural cooperative marketing, $15,190.
Mr. LUCAS:: 
Mr. SPENCER:: I should like to support the attitude of the hon. member for Cam-rose that a larger amount be spent on this particular branch. The sum at present allowed is altogether too small. Can the minister give us some information as to the work this branch has done with the limited amount of money at its disposal?


Robert Weir: This branch, of
course, collects information directly from the farmers and cooperates with the other branches; it also works in cooperation with the provincial departments of agriculture and in that way it saves the expense of a large staff to do that part of the work other than interpreting and analysing the figures. Some of the work undertaken last year was a cheese factory study including merchandising costs. Cheese factories to the number of 250 have submitted statements as requested and given full information of the cost of operating for one business year. There has also been an investigation into the cost and other factors of milk production in the two provinces of Ontario and Quebec, that is, the relation between volume of business and cost of operation. That analysis is complete and the report will soon be ready for publication. They have also carried out careful work for three years in connection with ranching costs and have received reports from a number of leading ranchers. A comparison of percentages has been made with relation to costs and weight of lambs. They have also finished an investigation comparing costs as between tractors and horses in western Canada, reports having been received from one thousand farms.


Henry Elvins Spencer: What power have the
officials of the department in seeking information from various people? Can they compel people to give 'them the information they require?


Robert Weir: They have not
this power and the commissioner does not wish it. He thinks he can perform better service by getting voluntary cooperation, and he feels that there is no reason for changing his attitude.


Mr. McKENZIE (Assiniboia):: Last year
when this item was under consideration the minister made a statement with regard to a proposed marketing board. He was interrogated on several occasions by some of my colleagues and asked to state his policy with respect to agriculture. On two occasions he intimated that it was the intention of the government to establish a marketing board, and he said he had support from different parts of the house, from members of all parties. I believe he said it was the intention of the government to establish this board after the Imperial conference. What has been, done in the matter?


Robert Weir: We did endeavour
to form a commission to investigate the whole subject of marketing and to report thereon. We felt that we should get the very ablest men in the dominion and we approached a number of individuals who realized the importance of the subject but who, owing to the financial stress through which we are passing, felt that they could not very well leave their own work. In the meantime the various marketing officials of thd department have been gathering all the information they can and making a closer study of the whole question.


Robert McKenzie: I take it
from what the minister says that it has not been abandoned.


Robert Weir: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Assistance to fairs and exhibitions, including the Royal Agricultural Winter Fair, $395,000.
Mr. SPEARMAN:: Is it the purpose of the minister to continue grants to fairs as before?


Mr. McINTOSH:: How many regional fairs will there be in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: That depends on the agricultural societies themselves. I can answer the hon. member definitely by saying that North Battleford is to be one of the regional fairs.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And Prince Albert will
remain?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Will Melfort be a regional fair?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about the provincial fairs of Saskatoon and Regina? Will they remain provincial or regional?


Robert Weir: Not regional.
Supply-A griculture-Fairs


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What will be the grant
for Regina and Saskatoon?


Robert Weir: Up to 52,500 to the summer fairs.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: And the regional fairs
will get 52,000?


Robert Weir: They will get 51,500 and if they conform with the regulations for regional fairs they will get $500 extra.


Mr. VALLANCE:: How many fairs will
there be in Saskatchewan?


Robert Weir: We do not know
until the agricultural societies decide whether they will hold fairs or not.


William Richard Motherwell: I guess it isn't my hearing that is amiss; it must be my brains, as I have never been able to understand this regional fairs business. The minister told us when this question was up before that there would be nine fairs in Saskatchewan that could be eligible for regional fairs. I might have heard him wrong. There used to be seven. Are there nine B fairs in Saskatchewan, or does that include two A fairs and seven B fairs?


Robert Weir: Seven B fairs.


William Richard Motherwell: So that there are seven that are eligible and two that are noneligible. Has the minister worked out the regulations in such a form that we can get them into our heads? What are the regulations under which any fair becomes a regional fair? Just what have they to comply with before they are completely eligible to earn the extra 5500? Are the regulations out?


Robert Weir: The regulations are out, and have been sent to all fairs that have been recognized in the past.


William Richard Motherwell: I suppose we can obtain copies of the regulations.


Robert Weir: Yes.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: What about a fair that is neither provincial nor regional? Will that class of fair get any grant whatsoever?


Robert Weir: Not from the federal government.


Wilfrid Girouard: Does the department
make any grant in Quebec to fairs and exhibitions held outside Quebec, Sherbrooke and Three Rivers?


Robert Weir: There are spring and winter fairs at Lachute, Ormstown and Sherbrooke. The A fairs are Sherbrooke, Quebec, Three Rivers, Valleyfield. The other fairs are Waterloo, St. Scholastique, St. Hyacinthe, Ayer's Cliff and Brome.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: There is no grant given to county fairs?


Robert Weir: No.


Vincent Dupuis: Were grants given before this year to county fairs?


Robert Weir: No.


Alfred Speakman: What was the experience of the department in connection with the experiment which was held in Red Deer last year and in other places as well? Was it looked upon as successful?


Robert Weir: The experiment was carried on for two years, and the results, as indicated by people who had been in close touch with the experiment, were such that this year we have evolved a policy whereby we shall extend the regional grant.


Alfred Speakman: So that fairs which previously have received a grant will be eligible now for regional fairs.


Robert Weir: Yes, provided they have qualified.


William Richard Motherwell: Does the word
regional imply that within a certain radius or region only, will exhibitors be permitted to show exhibits at that fair? For instance, Melfort and Prince Albert: these are regional fairs. Is it the assumption that within a certain radius of either of these fairs, and only within that radius, will exhibitors be eligible to show exhibits and compete at that fair?


Robert Weir: The area is left in the hands of the agricultural society of, we will say, Prince Albert. They can go as far east or west as they wish, but no exhibitor can show at more than two fairs in regional competitions. The idea is to keep down the professional exhibitor.


Robert McKenzie: Could the
minister put on record the list of class B fairs in Saskatchewan, and particularly those which have made application to become regional fairs?


Robert Weir: Lloydminster, Melfort, North Battleford, Prince Albert, Wey-burn, Yorkton and Estevan.

Supply-Agriculture-Fairs


William Gilbert Weir: Would the minister give the names of the fairs in Manitoba which have made application?


Robert Weir: Carman, Dauphin
and Portage la Prairie,


James J. Donnelly: Is the fair at Assiniboia not called a class B fair?


Robert Weir: No, they cannot
qualify. They come under the list known as the B-2 circuit. Kindersley and a number of others are in the same class.


William Thomas Lucas: Would the minister give a
list of the class B fairs in Alberta?


Robert Weir: Lethbridge, Red
Deer, Vegreville, Vermilion and Camrose.


James J. Donnelly: Does the minister mean to say that the fairs which come under the B-2 circuit will receive no assistance from the government this year? Why is it thought advisable to cut them out this year?


Robert Weir: When the B-2 circuit was formed, I believe it was understood, so far as the Department of Agriculture was concerned, that no commitment had been made that a grant would be given. However many people connected with the smaller fairs were under the impression that because they were called B circuit fairs grants would be given. In the first year one or two fairs were given grants. Others had gone to a certain expense, but received no grants. So, in the following year-1931 I believe it was-on account of representations made we decided it was only fair that for one year we should give a grant to the other B-2 fairs, on the strict understanding that it would not be continued.


John Vallance: I believe the minister
mentioned that Carman, Manitoba, came under the regional fairs. My understanding was that Carman was a B-2 fair.


Robert Weir: I am glad that
point has been brought to my attention. New fairs were brought in to make two circuits, namely, the B-l and B-2 circuits. So that there would be the least possible travelling, some of the new fairs were included in the B-l circuit, which was really the old B circuit. I understand Carman originally had been a B fair.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister has stated that the class A of provincial fairs, two of which are held in the province of Saskatchewan, secure a grant of $2,500. The class B or regional fairs receive only $2,000. What is
the outstanding differentiating factor between these two fairs? In other words, why should Regina and Saskatoon get $500 more than larger fairs such as Weyburn, Yorkton, North Battleford and Prince Albert?


Robert Weir: I agree with the
hon. member for North Battleford that perhaps in many respects the most important fairs are the smaller ones. That is why we have increased the grants to the smaller fairs and decreased those given to the larger fairs.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I thank the minister for his answer, and must add that I believe he is on solid ground. For practically five or six years I have accepted the principle he has stated, and believe it should be worked out to the full. However there is still $500 difference. I am asking why there should be that difference. Is the minister aiming gradually at eliminating even that $500?


Robert Weir: There is no intention at the present time to eliminate it.


James J. Donnelly: How many class B fairs were there in Saskatchewan which received grants? Would the minister give the names of the fairs in that province which will not be given grants this year?


Robert Weir: Of the so-called B fairs?


James J. Donnelly: Yes.


Robert Weir: We have not yet received all of the returns, but my understanding is that none of them will be cut out in Saskatchewan.


James J. Donnelly: Only a minute ago the minister mentioned Assiniboia as being one to be cut out.


Robert Weir: Assiniboia is one of the new fairs which came in with the formation of the two circuits. Each of them receives a grant for one year.


James J. Donnelly: How many are there in the same class as Assiniboia?


Robert Weir: From memory I would say there are Kindersley, Kerrobert, Assiniboia and Rosetown.


William Richard Motherwell: Is Assiniboia not getting a grant now?


Robert Weir: No.


Frederick William Gershaw: Nearly $400,000 is to be voted for these fairs. Would the minister give us a brief explanation of what they accomplish? We notice that certain towns
Supply-Agriculture-Fairs

and cities in different parts of the country receive grants while other areas receive no benefits at all. Is it largely a matter of entertainment, or of improving live stock?


Robert Weir: This money is given for prizes with the understanding that it will be used entirely in live stock and utility classes. It is not given for entertainment of any kind, but only to encourage competition in agricultural products.	,


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The minister said he admitted that generally speaking regional fairs were more important than class A fairs; yet we find they are receiving 8500 less. I am not just clear as to why an extra grant of 8500 should be given above and beyond the regional fair grant, if in fact the regional fairs are doing the ground work?


Robert Weir: Those who compete at the regional fairs may also compete at the larger fairs. They are under greater expense to go to the larger fairs, and for that reason they should perhaps be encouraged by larger prizes. We know that the winners at smaller fairs go to the larger ones.


James J. Donnelly: Is the class B fairs a closed list, or are there qualifications or standards which must be equalled before a grant can be given? Is it still possible for fairs coming up to the qualifications or standards required, to get the grant?


Robert Weir: This year the list is closed because to a certain extent it is based on what has been paid out in prize moneys over a period of years. During the year however we will always be pleased .to accept an application from any fair setting out what it is prepared to do and has done. If we believe we would be warranted in giving it consideration, we are free to do so.


James J. Donnelly: You have no standard, though?


Robert Weir: Yes.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Is there an arrangement with the provincial ministers concerning the fairs to which grants should be given from the federal treasury, or do we understand the minister does as he pleases in the matter or as hon. members please. I know he is anxious to cooperate as closely as possible with provincial authorities and I want to know if he has agreed on some policy.


Robert Weir: The officials of my department got in 'touch with the officials of the provincial department at Quebec after Mr. Godbout and myself had discussed this

whole question. We made our policy in Quebec conform to the regional policy that the provincial Department of Agriculture have developed.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: But that does not exactly answer the question. Is there any possible way for, let us say, a county fair, to make direct application to the federal department for a grant when their exhibition is held?


Robert Weir: Not for county
fairs in any province.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Department of Agriculture-civil government: salaries, $736,326; contingencies, $98,600.
William Richard Motherwell: I think that went
through the other night when tire hon. gentleman was absent. The Minister of Railways filled in fifteen minutes and he put civil government through.
Mr. MANIO'N:	It was just the civil government of my own department.


Mr. COOTE:: There is a matter of considerable importance to agriculture, and of interest to the minister and to the department I am sure, about which I have received considerable correspondence lately. It is in connection with the use of surplus grain in making industrial alcohol to be used with gasoline as motor spirit. An editorial in the Calgary Herald under date of February 24 says:
According to a recent press report from Washington, the United States government will be asked to consider legislation providing that all gasoline sold shall contain one-fifth of denatured alcohol.
This is of special interest to Canada. If similar legislation were enacted in this' country it would mean that some 100,000,000 gallons of grain alcohol would be required to form a 20 per cent statutory content of our annual consumption of gasoline which in turn would call for some 50,000,000 bushels of wheat for alcohol distillation purposes.
The manufacture of industrial alcohol proper is a business entirely divorced from that of the production of spirituous liquors both in equipment and practice, and all considerations of this subject should avoid the ordinary meanings of the terms "distilling" and "distillery." If the United States should enact the proposed legislation, the manufacture of industrial aleohol from grain would naturally form a part of the petroleum refining industry rather than of the brewing and distilling industries, for obvious reasons, and the same would be true in Canada.
I have a letter from a Mr. Faulkner in Calgary who has had some years' experience as a director of a large industrial alcohol plant in the United States. He says in part:
Apart from the fact that alcohol necessary to supply Alberta's requirements for such a

Supply

Agriculture-Salaries
motor spirit would take some 3,000,000 bushels of wheat per annum, and give the farmer about $1,000,000 above present prices, there is the additional advantage of the refuse in the form of cattle feed, either in the wet form for immediate consumption or in the dry form for shipment. Also, that this industry is the largest consumer of coal of any industry outside of blast furnace operations.
. . . this industry is entirely divorced from the manufacture of liquor for human consumption. Differing in equipment and practice and in everything it has no identity with the ordinary distilling business in any form, if run solely for the purpose stated.
And in referring to the legislation which is now before congress at Washington he says:
If such legislation could be passed it would mean an increase of ten cents per bushel at least in the price of grain to the farmer and a big boost to the cattle and hog industries.
I took the trouble to write to the bureau of standards at Washington, D. C., and ask them if they had any bulletins dealing with the matter. In a bulletin which I received from them I find two or three paragraphs which show that this industrial alcohol can very well be used with gasoline to make a better motor spirit than gasoline itself. It says:
Blends of alcohol and gasoline containing less than 15 per cent of alcohol sometimes can be substituted for gasoline without readjustment of carburetors. These blends give leaner fuel-air mixtures than gasoline alone, hence if the carburetor is adjusted for an over-rich mixture, as is commonly the case, the alcohol blend substituted for gasoline may give equal fuel economy.
Alcohol is an anti-knock fuel and alcohol-gasoline blends knock less readily than the same gasoline without the alcohol, therefore they can be used in high-compression engines. The addition of fifteen per cent of alcohol to a gasoline will improve its knock rating about as much as the difference between the usual premium and non-premium gasolines, or about three cents worth at retail prices.
Ethyl alcohol can be made from grain, potatoes, molasses, or from various vegetable byproducts, It can be made also from natural gas and from by-products of the distillation of petroleum or coal To produce one gallon of alcohol requires about twenty-five pounds of either grain or molasses, hence the cost per gallon of alcohol from these sources can hardly be less than the cost of twenty-five pounds of grain or molasses.


Vincent Dupuis: I would ask the speaker what he is citing.


George Gibson Coote: I am reading from a bulletin put out by the bureau of standards at Washington, D.C., dealing with the use of alcohol as a motor fuel.


Vincent Dupuis: Is this used for agricultural purposes?


George Gibson Coote: The industrial alcohol is
made from surplus grain, that is why it should be of interest to this committee when we are discussing the estimates of the Department of Agriculture.
I have just one sentence to finish the quotation from the bulletin:
This permits a comparison between the cost of alcohol and gasoline.
If a gallon of alcohol can be made from twenty-five pounds of grain it is quite clear that the gallon of alcohol might easily be sold at less cost than a gallon of gasoline now brings in western Canada, considerably less.
Then it continues:
In certain countries the cost per gallon of gasoline considerably exceeds that of alcohol.
I think that is true in western Canada to-day.
Under such conditions the use of alcohol-gasoline blends for fuel purposes is economically justified provided the technical difficulties are satisfactorily met.
The reason I am bringing up this matter here is to ask the minister whether his department has made any investigation of the subject, and if so, what conclusions have been arrived at; and if no investigations have been made, whether the minister would not take it under consideration and have some of the officers or some branch of his department investigate the subject. It seems to me that there is evidence enough available to justify a thorough investigation. It might be that we could supply a percentage of the gasoline requirements, or the motor fuel requirements, from surplus grain rather than imported oil.


Robert Weir: I believe this work is now undertaken by the National Research Council, but we will be very glad to look into it.


George Gibson Coote: Does the minister mean the National Research Council? I know that very often the national research bureau carry on investigations which extend over a very long period of time before we get any definite results, and if the minister has any way of speeding up this investigation I am sure it would be very much appreciated by a good many people in western Canada. I judge that from the correspondence I have received regarding the matter in the last couple of months. The fact that such a bill has been introduced at Washington has caused considerable interest in western Canada. I think

Supply-Agriculture-Salaries
that is a matter that should be pushed energetically, so that we may know if it is feasible. If it is we can proceed to make use of some of our surplus grain for motor fuel.


James J. Donnelly: I notice on page 68
of the estimates, under the heading of contingencies, an item for travelling expenses. In looking over the estimates for 1931 I find that we voted $90,000 under this heading, and the last year the amount voted was $79,500. This year I see all the government asks for is $6,000. What is the idea? Are they not going to do any travelling or were the votes in other years higher than usual?


Robert Weir: The travelling
expenses this year have been taken from this vote and included in the departmental votes. That was discussed when various items were being put through.


Thomas Reid: I see an item here in connection with dominion apiarist. I wonder if the minister has given any consideration to the coordination of the work of the dominion apiarist with that of the provincial authorities. I believe I am correct when I say that those who keep bees in British Columbia do not get the benefit from the Agassiz experimental farm that they would obtain if the farm were in a more central location. The provincial government have inspectors who not only inspect apiaries but who also give demonstrations for the benefit of those keeping bees. I believe we are not getting the advantage we might get from the money spent in this work at the experimental farm. The provincial grant has been cut down for reasons of economy, and I think it must be very difficult for one inspector to cover the whole of the Fraser valley. I would suggest to the minister that whoever is in charge of the Agassiz farm should work in close cooperation with the provincial authorities in connection with inspections and demonstrations throughout the Fraser valley.


Robert Weir: The dominion
apiarist does work in very dose cooperation with the provincial authorities; there is full cooperation in all work between the dominion and the provinces. For instance, I have instructed all the officials of my department in British Columbia that when the provincial minister of agriculture calls a meeting of technical men he is equally free to notify the federal men to attend. These conferences have been called in British Columbia, as in several other provinces, and the benefit derived is in the fact that they decide on what out-

standing agricultural problems should be attacked. They also review what is already known, and if any other problem comes up they have the advantage of any knowledge that may be possessed by the federal experimental farms. They all work together as one body on any agricultural problem that may present itself.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Quebec
Under contract
[Stage Direction]
Riviere la Guerre - contribution towards dredging, province of Quebec to bear a like amount, $23,000.
Essential undertakings
[Stage Direction]
Anse au Canard-improvements to training piers, $2,100.
Anse au Griffons-to complete wharf improvements, $3,500.
Anse au Griffon (river)-improvements to jetties, $12,200.
Batiscan-freight shed, $1,350.
Champlain dry dock-keel blocks, $26,000.
Doucet's Landing (Ste. Angele de Laval) - wharf improvements, $7,900.
Havre au Maison, M.I.-wharf, $5,200.
Isle Verte-wharf reconstruction, $13,300.
Matane-repairs to harbour works, $24,100.
New Carlisle-wharf reconstruction, $22,000.
Paspebiac (Robins)-;wharf extension, $25,000.
Petit Cap-breakwater reinforcement, $20,000.
Rimouski-wharf repairs and improvements, $47,100.
Ste. Emelie-wharf reconstruction, $18,000.
Timiskaming dam - reconstructing Quebec side, $70,000.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $400,000-Total, $720,750.
Hon. II. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):	When this item was under consideration previously certain information was requested as to the details of expenditures made under 'the general vote of $400,000. Those details were tabled that day.
Joseph Georges Bouchard: Would it be proper
under this item to refer to the Riviere-Ouelle wharf?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: Yes, to any
matter.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: As the minister knows, I have written on different occasions with regard to this wharf. Two years ago a storm destroyed the middle portion, and this wharf is bound to disappear if repairs are not made immediately. I would urge upon the government the necessity of having this work done at once. I always receive very kind and courteous answers from the minister, but I think the time has arrived when there should

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
be some action. There is a gap of about 35 feet between the two parts of the wharf; as a matter of fact the outer end is an island to-day. This wharf is very important; I think it is one of the few deep water wharves in the lower St. Lawrence. I believe the minister said it would cost something like $30,000 to make repairs at the present time, but if we wait a few more years it is impossible to say 'how much it may cost. I would like the minister to say if it is his intention to maintain this wharf, which is essential for the navigation of that part of the river and, if he is prepared to do some temporary repairs this year, when that work will be done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As my hon.
friend has said, he has made representations from time to time in connection with this wharf. There is no doubt that it does require repair, and it is just a question ijf whether or not we can find the necessary funds. It is rather	a large amount,	but I	will	have thematter	reviewed to see	if we	can	meet my
hon. friend's request.
Mr.	BOUCHARD.	Does	the	ministerrealize that in another year or two this wharf will be completely destroyed? Has he any report from the engineers? I wish we could get a little more information. I am not an engineer, but I have observed the wharf quite closely. In its present condition it is not a credit	to the government.	The	minister
always has been very courteous; _ he has always answered my letters and given me some hope, but we cannot live on hope. In my locality there are many unemployed who would be glad to get this work. There is no deep water wharf between Riviere du Loup and Quebec, a distance of 125 miles, and in time of storm, or for other reasons, this wharf might be of great use. If it is not repaired within a year or two the government will have to spend three or four times the amount that would be required if something were done now. The former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) is aware of the condition. Many tourists arrive at this point and at times the boats used to chase bootleggers are forced to take refuge. It is necessary to use rubber boots or find other ways of going from one part of the wharf to the other. I wish the minister could see this wharf to judge for himself how necessary are the repairs. I am sure he would be convinced that something should be done. The minister has been given lots of time to consider this matter and I am sorry to see that the estimates do not provide for this work. I hope the minister can see his way clear to promise that fuller consideration will be given
to this matter. The people in my district want more than faint hopes. With the engineers at his disposal, the minister should be fully acquainted with this matter. It will be all right if he desires to obtain further information but I think it is my duty to insist that this wharf be put in proper condition.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say
that our reports are very complete and they indicate that it is desirable that repairs should be made to this wharf and that if they are not made, heavier expenditure will probably have to be made in the future. My hon. friend must realize that there is a very persistent and general as well as a sincere demand for a curtailment in expenditure. He knows that these expenditures are made from revenue and not from borrowings and that we have to meet the emergency of falling revenues. We are unable to make all the repairs which we recognize it would be to the advantage of all concerned to make. I cannot give my hon. friend a definite promise, and I am sure he does not expect one, that this expenditure will be made this year but I can promise him that we will review the situation and1 see if we cannot make some provision in the supplementary estimates. However, if the supplementaries are not larger in proportion than the main estimates, we may have to disappoint him.


Charles Gavan Power: When this item was being
considered some time ago the attention of the committee was called to the item covering harbours and rivers generally. No new works are undertaken under this vote, if being for the maintenance of services. The vote this year totals $400,000 while the total vote for Quebec totals $720,000. Over half of the total vote is to be expended by the minister without consultation with parliament. When this matter -was last before the committee, if I remember right, the minister stated that it had been the custom to vote fairly substantial amounts for harbours and rivers generally. The estimates for 1931-32 show that this vote totalled only $110,000; for the year 1930-31 it was $100,000 and for 1929-30, a preelection year, it was only $100,000.


Ernest Lapointe: And in a time of great
prosperity.


Charles Gavan Power: And in a time of great
prosperity. The amounts voted for harbours and rivers generally in those years were small when compared with the total vote. The government has got away from the control of parliament with the peace, order and good

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
government and relief proposals, which covers relief to the fishermen of Newfoundland in the payment of their debts, and other matters, and it seems to me that in the case of public works it is going a little too fax to ask that over half the total vote be left to the discretion of the minister. If the minister would bring before the committee all the details of this vote I have no doubt that some hon. members would be able to point out certain items which were not necessary. I think the procedure followed by the minister is wrong and is not in keeping with the traditions and customs of the department. It is altogether out of lime to have more than half of the total expenditures for one province left entirely to the discretion of the minister and his officers. It would be much better and we probably would get through much faster if we just had a total vote for $720,000 without any details. We might just as well have that as only a few details and then a lump sum vote for $400,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In ordinary
times there might be some force to the argument made by my hon. friend, but he must remember that these are not ordinary times. We are following a policy of reducing to the minimum the expenditure for public works and making provision only for repairs and maintenance. This vote is made elastic in order to meet any emergent conditions which might arise through storms or other causes. We have specified and asked for votes for certain items which were thought desirable and it is proposed that only the most urgent and necessary repairs will be made under this particular item. Very often it is found that storms produce conditions which require an immediate expenditure, and it is for this reason and this reason only that the vote is made in this way. The last time this vote was before the committee I gave the details of the expenditures during last year. I think my hon. friend will agree that those expenditures were pretty general. I assure him that there is not any desire to select works here or there or to prefer one particular district to another. Our aim has been to keep open the public services to the best possible advantage.


Charles Gavan Power: I would be the last man to accuse my hon. friend of having the idea of spending money only in certain selected localities. I know he would not do that, and I am quite sure none of the members from Quebec sitting behind him would ask him to do so. I know their altruism, their patriotism and their strong desire not to expend any money in their ridings; they wish to set an

example of economy to the public. I suppose that would apply equally to money to be spent in Liberal ridings. They ask the Liberals also to set the example. I realize that we are going through a time of emergency, but perhaps the minister's estimates would be lower, he would be called upon to spend less money, If he gave an itemized account of the manner in which he proposed to spend it. In former years, when the vote was, as I have already stated, something like $100,000 for these unforeseen expenses, storms occurred; the wind blew just as much along the gulf of St. Lawrence and it was just as strong and the waves were just as high as they will be in 1933-34. At least I expect they will, and it was not considered necessary to lay aside for these repairs more than $100,000. It is true that under the present administration we may expect storms of all kinds, but surely Providence Will save us from what I might call physical storms; it is bad enough to have the brainstorms which are sometimes inflicted upon the house, without our being troubled by wind and rain. Even though the minister has given his explanation in the best manner possible and without offence, arguing the case well, I suggest that his explanation is a lame one. There is no more reason why we should this year permit half the estimates to be spent at the discretion of the minister than there was any other year. If the minister really wants to economize, he will accept my suggestion-and I am doing this for the harbour and river work in my own province-that we cut this item by $200,000. I am making that suggestion with a sincere desire to cooperate.


Ernest Lapointe: Would the minister tell the committee how much was spent last year out of this $413,800 general vote, and where?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount expended was $407,000 to March 15, and at the request of several hon. members I tabled a list of the works upon which this money had been expended. I can only supplement what I have said in reply to my hon. friend by telling him that this expenditure was very general. I find that out of the sixty-five constituencies in Quebec, expenditures were made in forty-two. That is a pretty general distribution of the amount. I can assure my hon. friend that we did not find $400,000 last year sufficient to meet the requirements of my hon. friends on that side and on this. My hon. friend has just been preceded by another hon. member who is asking for a considerable expenditure -I think he said about $30,000-on one wharf, and suggesting that in the meantime possibly a smaller expenditure of $10,000 might meet the situation. There are particularly on the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
lower St. Lawrence in Quebec, a number of wharves that are badly in need of repair, and if my hon. friend's suggestion were adopted that this vote, which we did not find adequate during the past year, be cut in two, we would only be increasing the grounds of complaint and the difficulty of meeting the suggestion of my other hon. friends opposite.


Ernest Lapointe: If we vote the whole amount, will the minister guarantee the repairs to the wharf of the hon. member for Kamouraska? I know the place very well- this used to be my constituency-and the wharf needs that work very badly.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only say that the chances would be very much better of getting something done if the vote were not cut in two.


Mr. POULIOT:: Would the minister be kind enough to table the engineer's report on wharf reconstruction at Isle Verte, S13,300, which item is included in this vote? Would he be agreeable to tabling the report to-morrow or some other day in order that hon. members may see it?


Mr. STEM  ART@Leeds: I cannot say offhand. This is one of the items mentioned in the estimates. I think my hon. friend will agree that sometimes engineers' reports are of a confidential character and possibly should not, in the public interest, be tabled. At this time I have no reason to believe there is any objection to tabling this report; I shall be pleased to go over it and if there is no objection in the public interest, I shall be glad to give my hon. friend a copy of it.


Jean-François Pouliot: Supply-Harbours and Rivers
while others were exaggerated. Here is his comment:
To this, I may say that no such hammer has been used. As to the chisel, I may say that one has been used for a few hours-
As a matter of fact is was a few hours.
-not to give a satin finish to the timber of the wharf, buit ito make the joints in the handrail. I may add, however, that a plane has been used to make the bevelled edges of the railing and plane the surfaces of these timbers and of the handrail.
He says that the chisel was not used to give a satin finish to the timber of the wharf but that a plane was used to make the bevelled edges of the railing. I suggest that his term is synonymous with mine; at any rate, if there is a distinction between what he says and What I said, it is veiy subtle.
(c)	"I have been told by reliable people that two young men about fifteen or sixteen years of age were employed fifteen days doing some painting which could have been done by a good man in two days".
To this, I may reply that the two youngest men employed on the work were Lucien Roy, nineteen years of age, and Baptiste Berube, twenty-five years of age.
The painting work done consisted an giving two coats of paint to the whole railing, top of the sheathing, handrail and mooring posts.
In order to magnify it, he mentions the whole railing first and afterwards the top of the sheathing, and then the handrail and mooring posts, though, the top of the railing is included in the whole thing; and as everyone knows there are not more than a dozen mooring posts on any of these wharves. However, to continue:
It is estimated that about ten thousand square feet of timber had thus been given two co-ats of paint. Fifty gallons of paint were used, and it is obvious that no good man, however good he might be, could have done the work in two days.
It will be observed that the time during which the foreman and the chief carpenter worked, respectively, has not been separated.
I may remark here that the painting was executed by Lucien Roy and Baptiste Berube, who have worked together a total of 34 days on the wharf, but the time taken for doing the [DOT] painting lias not been separated from the time employed at other works. They were paid as labourers 35 cents, less ten per cent per hour.
(d)	"Another young man was very busy carrying wood shavings from the wharf to a small building nearby, putting those shavings in bags and taking them to the home of the foreman."
The foreman reports that he had employed an old man to carry water and do other light work, and this old man was so active, a kind of old age pension.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member is purporting to read the report in answer to his objections taken on a former occasion, and he is interspersing it with comments of his own which are being read into the record as if they were part of the report. It is not fair. He says it is a kind of old age pension.
Mr. MoINTOSH:	He wants to improve
the construction.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
my hon. friend intends to convey the effect which his interjection of words into the report will have.


Ernest Lapointe: He wants to put some
spice into the report.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will appear
as part of the report. If the hon. member will make it clear what is his own contribution, and just what is contained in the report, I have no objection.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am perfectly agreeable
to the minister's suggestion, but he knows that I shall give the text to Hansard. Hansard is true in its reports, and I will see to it that the text of the report is published in small characters while my own


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -appear in large letters.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am too modest to say, every time I interject something of my own, "This remark is mine." I am too modest to do that sort of thing; it would offend my sense of what is right. However, so that there may be no misunderstanding at all, I will say, whenever I introduce a parenthesis of my own, "between paragraphs", or better still, "between brackets", which would be more appropriate, seeing that we are discussing the work of carpenters. I will continue:
To this I may say that the foreman reports that he had employed a very old and poor man to carry the water and do other light works, and that this old man was so active that when he had a few moments to spare he picked up the wood shavings and brought them in bags to the shed. He claims that the workmen that wanted any of these wood shavings could take them after their day's work, and that he, the foreman, had taken less than the others.
It shows how disinterested he was.
(e)	"I am informed that some of the paint left over was used to decorate a sailing boat or canoe belonging to a good friend whose home happened to be near the wharf."
Between brackets, this is a quotation from my own speech given in this report, and here is the comment of the investigator:
To this. I may say that some children, playing at the wharf, after the workmen had left the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
place, found some of the empty paint cans and daubed a rowboat belonging to Mr. Levesque. Of this, Mr. Levesque complained to tfae foreman, and as the damages had been dome with remnants of paint belonging to the government,-
Between brackets, it is extraordinary that there were remnants of paint in empty paint cans. Close brackets.

, it was thought that it was proper to repair these damages in giving a new coat of paint to the rowboat of Mr. Levesque. But this was done the last day that they worked at the wharf with the paint that was left over by Lucien Roy, during his lunch hour.
Imagine that. After they were through with their work one of them, a young man of nineteen, was so devoted to his country that he remained throughout his lunch time to paint the boat, using paint that had been left over. What great devotion to his country.
(f)	"It was a family affair and did not help the unemployed at all."
This is a quotation from my speech. The comment of the investigator is this:
To this I may reply that the work was not an unemployment relief work, but a regular work of the department. The foreman has employed his brother, Ernest Roy, because he was a poor man with eight children and his son, Lucien, because he was a painter by trade. He has also employed alternately two other relatives, Theodore Michaud and Georges Michaud, but he said that they needed to work as much as the others.
As twenty-nine persons have been given employment on this work, it is clear that although the foreman, Roy, has favoured some of his relatives, the work cannot be considered as a family affair.
If the foreman of the wharf bad been Prime Minister he would have appointed not only his brother-in-law to Washington but his brother as well, and he would have appointed his son and two other relatives, and I suppose that would not have been described as a family affair. That remark is between brackets. I resume the quotation:
As the work was not considerable, it was not possible for the foreman to economically give work to a greater number of men than he did. Most of the twenty-nine men employed were men in the same condition as those not employed.
I cannot understand that very well.
I consider that the work did help as much as possible the unemployment situation.
It did help the unemployment situation for those men who had work on the wharf, but those who did not receive work did not have the same chance. Then, here is something:
The work was executed from June 23. to September 2, 1932, inclusively, and was done at a total cost of $2,561.87 divided as follows:-
Materials and supplies	$ 1,120 30
Labour and superintendence.. ..	1,441 57

The authorization, dated June 4, 1932, was for $3,000 leaving, therefore, an unexpended balance of $438.13.
I am very sorry that the department did not see to it that the complete repair work was not done to the wharf in order that the money might be spent for the relief of the unemployed. Without any desire to be facetious, may I ask the minister in the future to give as much attention as possible to heads of families and men supporting mothers or sisters. I say that in the interests of all hon. members. I am not asking the Minister of Public Works to do anything particularly for my own constituency, because I know very well there are other requests coming to his department to which he has to listen. At the same time there is a wharf at Cacouna which needs repairing. The top of the wharf has been torn away by ice, and as a result it is in very bad condition. Some years ago a resolution was forwarded by the municipal council of Cacouna asking for the immediate repair of the wharf, but at that time the application was set aside. Again last year I asked the minister to do something, but nothing was done. I am wondering if this year he will do something under the $400,000 vote now submitted to the house.
It is not my job to recommend the employment of certain persons. However, I am as much interested as the minister is in seeing that the money serves the purposes for which it is voted. There are many places in my constituency as well as in other constituencies where money could be spent, and I am interested in seeing that it is not wasted. I have much consideration for the minister. Although I do not recall doing so, I believe I have said to the minister that the bite of a friend is better than the kiss of an enemy. If I give to him information which appears strange, I can substantiate it. When the report states that my representations were exaggerated, I must leave to the judgment of the house whether they were or not. I spoke in all fairness, and only for the information of the minister. The House of Commons is the proper place to express the grievances of my county, and I am doing my duty to the best of my ability. Although at times I may be wrong, yet I speak in ail sincerity, and I hope the minister will accept my words in the spirit
,5778

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
in which they are given. When the minister does something right in my constituency I would be the first to offer my praise, and when something is done improperly I will be just as frank. I ask for information about the public works at Isle Verte only in fulfilment of my duties as a watchdog of the exchequer, and in defence of the attitude of the minister when it has been assailed by his own friends in my constituency.
I speak now in all fairness, and I hope the minister will accept my observations in that light. I should be very happy if he would tell me how much of the 813,300 will be spent for labour, and how much for materials.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The hon. member has asked for information regarding expenditures at Isle Verte, one of the specific items in the estimates. In the ordinary course of events that work will be done by contract. I believe the hon. member will agree that in advance of asking for tenders it is not in the public interest that engineers' reports and estimates of costs should be made public. I assure him that the specifications or plans have been under consideration and are subject to revision. Suggestions have been made as to possible changes or improvements which might be made in the plan as outlined when the estimate was prepared.
The hon. member has been fair enough to read practically the whole of the report of the district engineer. As I recall it he omitted only one paragraph on page 4, which gives details of 'the work, and I believe that paragraph was not material to the discussion. I say to him, and to every hon. member in any section of the house, that I welcome honest, candid, fair criticism. That is the only way in which the administration of a department such as the Department of Public Works can be kept clean and efficient.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister will admit
that he is treated fairly by this side of the house.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When the hon.
member made his criticism of expenditures I assured him there would be a thorough and complete investigation.


Jean-François Pouliot: For which I thank the minister.
Mr. STEW'ART (Leeds): I repeat what I have stated on many occasions, that if an hon. member rises in his place, makes a criticism and states he believes it to be well founded and a matter which should receive investigation, it will be investigated, regardless

of consequences,-let the chips fall where they may. That will be my policy as long as I have the honour of being in charge of the Department of Public Works. Following that policy, instructions were given the district engineer to investigate the matter about which the hon. member.has spoken. The hon. member has quoted practically the whole of the engineer's report. I believe it is only fair to say the answer of the district engineer is that the complaints are not well founded. Unfortunately from time to time hon. members from all parts of the house receive information which they believe to be correct, but which upon investigation either by themselves or by others is found not to be as accurate as they had supposed. The report of the engineer goes into the statements of my hon. friend in detail and gives his finding. Some good comes of these investigations; all I ask is that my hon. friends convince themselves in the first instance that the complaints are well founded, or that there is some good reason for an inquiry, because these investigations involve time and expense, and some complaints have been found to be frivolous, not well founded, really unwarranted in the first instance. I do not go so far as to say that that applies to the complaints of my hon. friend in this case.


Mr. TETREAULT:: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Is Waterloo in Temiscouata county?


J.-Eugène Tétreault: 
Jean-François Pouliot: Not everything.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: 
Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask my hon. friend if the post office was built?


J.-Eugène Tétreault: I will tell you when it was built. They have bought the land now.


Jean-François Pouliot: Why was it not built? On such expensive ground it should have been built at once in order to make use of the site.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: I will let you know exactly about that. First the hon. member for Sherbrooke recommended the architect

37S0

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Mr. Gregoire of Sherbrooke, who happened to be his recognized Liberal organizer. No tenders were asked. Mr. Gregoire was appointed. Then, after the plans were submitted by Mr. Gregoire tenders were opened and the contract awarded to Mr. Alphonse Daris, of Richmond, and the building was finally put up.


Jean-François Pouliot: I should like to know if the post office was built on that property.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: I will tell the hon. member the whole story. Let us see how much it cost-that is the important part for him. During the election campaign of 1930 the exmember for Shefford, Mr. P. E. Boivin, and his supporters were claiming on the political platforms of the county of Shefford that this nice building which had been erected in Waterloo cost only 821,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I do not wish to interfere with the reading of my hon. friend, but we are discussing undertakings in harbours and rivers. I wonder if this post office is built in a river or in a harbour. I ask if my hon. friend is in order in reading something about the building of a post office.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: If I do not get this before the committee now I will do it later.


Jean-François Pouliot: I ask for a ruling.


An hon. MEMBER:: You are afraid to hear it.


Onésime Gagnon: From
the discussion so far I cannot say whether the remarks of the hon. member are in order or not. When I am sure I will give a ruling.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: It was said that this
nice building cost only $21,000. The truth is quite different. In fact, to certain questions which I put on the order paper on February 16, 1933, inquiring as to the total cost of building the post office, the answer was $43,303.69. Here is another incident which will demonstrate that this building was erected for the benefit of political friends. As usual, a man was required by the department to supervise the construction work. This selection was to be made by the Civil Service Commission, and notices were issued advertising it and specifying the qualifications, which were as follows:
Education: primary school, preferably high school graduation; three years experience as foreman of construction.
However, the Civil Service Commission did not have anything to do with the nomination. Mr. Oscar Seguin of Waterloo was recom-

mended by the clerk of public works and the then member, for Shefford, Mr. Boivin, as being an expert fully qualified for the position. Consequently he was appointed. Mr. Seguin was and still is the Liberal organizer of the county of Shefford, and I claim this is the only qualification he had to supervise this work. In fact he had no experience whatsoever in construction work, as he had previously been a motorman on the Montreal electric tramways and, if my information is correct, red or green pill salesman, finally and suddenly to become the editor of Le Journal de Waterloo, the most ridiculous and insignificant newspaper that could be found in the eastern townships. At the time he was appointed to supervise the construction works his occupation was selling liquor for the provincial government. These were his qualifications; that was the kind of expert we had to direct the construction of that building. For his services as supervisor this man received $1,500.86 for one year, and he also had a position with the provincial government at the time. This fact will prove to the committee that whenever the Civil Service Commission makes an appointment it is not always the best qualified man who obtains the job.
This is not all. When the new post office was finally erected the old one, which still stood in front of the new one, had to be demolished. Instead of proceeding in the way generally adopted, as was done in my own city of Granby when we constructed a church two years ago

that is, to sell the properties to be demolished by auction sale and thus receive from $500 to $700 foT each-they gave a contract for the demolition of the old post office. The man who was awarded this contract received from the government the sum of $2,240, plus the material remaining from the old building. And this is not all. There was, of course, a deal between the government and the owner of the first piece of land for the sale thereof. This deal was completed before notary R. R. Bachand, who charged the department only $73 for signing this transaction. I may inform hon. members that in addition, his name appeared on the first cheque for $3,650 issued by the government in payment for this piece of land, which still appears to be the property of Mr. H. Forand.
There is still more. When the post office was completed a heating system was installed therein, the cost of which amounted to $800. This system was sold to the department by the Fess Oil Burners, Limited, through their official agent in Granby, Mr. P. E. Boivin, ex-member for Shefford. However, due to the fact that members of parliament are not

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
allowed to sell to the government, I must explain that the sale was conducted under the name of Mt. Boivin's accountant, who acted as regular agent in this instance.
In conclusion, I may say, Mr. Chairman, that it is quite fortunate that we do not have a water power such as Beauhamois in the county of Shefford, because certainly we would have had a repetition of the Beauhamois scandal had our Liberal friends from Waterloo and Granby only had a wider field to work on than the mere construction of a post office.
Before taking my seat, Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that the officer of the Department of Public Works who recommended to the government the purchase of these lots at such prices and the nomination of the so-called expert who supervised the work, should not remain in the employ of the government. Therefore, in conclusion, and as a consequence of the facts I have stated, I would ask the hon. Minister of Public Works that this officer, whoever he may be, be compelled to hand in his resignation.


Mr. HOWARD:: WTould the hon. member repeat what he had to say about me a moment ago?


J.-Eugène Tétreault: I am sorry the hon. gentleman was not here, but he can read it in Hansard to-morrow.


Charles Benjamin Howard: But the item may be passed if we wait until to-morrow.


Charles Gavan Power: May we have your ruling now, Mr. Chairman?


Onésime Gagnon: I think in the discussion of the estimates most hon. members are at times out of order. The hon. gentleman who has just taken his seat might have discussed this question on item 130, which will be called in a few moments, but when he started it seemed just as well to let him continue his explanation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the first I have heard of this matter, and the hon. member asks that I should do something as minister of the department. All I can say is that I will review the file and endeavour to find out what it discloses and to ascertain who is responsible for the conditions described.


Eugène Fiset: Then we can take it that the minister never heard of this complaint previously.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: May I remind the hon. member that I, not the minister, represent Shefford county?
53710-239J


Eugène Fiset: I think in fairness to the department the minister should have been notified that this question was going to be raised in order that he might give the committee the department's side of the question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I think the behaviour of the hon. gentleman has been most unfair to the Minister of Public Works, and on his behalf I protest.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: Before the item passes I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the iniquity of putting in estimates lump sums such as this $400,000 under consideration.


Onésime Gagnon: That point has been raised.


John Campbell Elliott: I am not asking you
whether or not the point has been raised. If I may say so, Mr. Chairman, if you had been as diligent in noticing points of order a short time ago you would have intervened then and made the suggestion you now make. I want to say to the minister that the very fact that he has spent $407,000 under this item is the best reason that could be given why an amount such as this should not be included in the estimates in this way. Two or three years ago, when there was money in this country with which to carry on public works, $100,000 was considered sufficient for this item. If this item had provided only $100,000 I am satisfied the minister would not have spent anything like $407,000. This is not the time for the minister to place himself in the position of having to submit to the importunities of hon. members with regard to any public works that can be avoided. I -think he has seen the error of that policy in regard to public works being done under the relief act, and I want to commend the minister and the government for the all too late repentance and change of heart they have experienced in that regard. They admit now that it was a mistake to do it in that way.


Mr. BURY:: No.


John Campbell Elliott: Then why did they change the policy?
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


John Campbell Elliott: When the committee rose
at six o'clock I was referring to the item of $400,000 contained in this vote No. 117. I was pointing out the objections to an item of this kind. As I said before, up to 1930
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

the highest amount provided for harbours and rivers generally in the province of Quebec was $100,000. When objections were raised to this item the minister suggested that he was only following a principle which had been followed for some time. The increase from $100,000 to $400,000 in this item is out of all proportion to the necessities of the present time. That the whole amount plus $7,000 was spent last year indicates the danger in following a course of this kind. It brings about a condition similar to that which occurred under the blanket powers given to the government by the unemployment relief measures. The minister will recall that in objecting to the granting of those powers, I called his attention to the fact that the expenditures in the province of Ontario had been seven times as much in the ridings represented by government supporters as they had been in the ridings represented by opposition members. Such a principle is absolutely wrong. I think the minister and the government have been ill-advised in increasing this item to the amount that now appears in the estimates. It is bad business, and particularly in times like these when the budget presented to the house shows the lamentable condition of the finances of this country. The minister and other members of the government know perfectly well that if this $400,000 had not been in the estimates, no such amount rvould have been expended. In cases of dire necessity the government can issue a governor general's warrant to cover the cost of repairing and restoring buildings destroyed by fire or wharves washed away by storms. The minister would be better advised to limit himself to what is reasonable rather than to increase the amount by four times. Estimates for public works are in a different category from estimates for other purposes. Representatives of various constituencies are anxious to have works constructed in their own districts and there is a tendency to give way to what is really political patronage when the money is available and the members who sit behind the minister know that it is available. I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) when he says that this item should be reduced by at least $200,000. There is no justification in a time like this for such a large increase in the amount of money made available for expenditure on matters of this kind.


Eugène Fiset: Mr. Chairman, I do not see why the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) should ask that this Quebec item be reduced by $200,000. I do not agree with him. and I congratulate the minister for providing a sufficient vote to help whatever community may need help in days tMr. Elliott.]
like these. I thank him in the name of my constituents for providing a vote of $47,(K)0 for the city of Rimouski. I would suggest to him that the patronage system might be eased up to a certain extent. I would not ask that a fifty-fifty basis apply, but I do suggest that in considering the needs of our local population at least one-third of the works should go to Liberals of Rimouski.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I should like to say a
few words to correct an impression which may have been left with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) by a speech delivered just before six o'clock by the hon. member for Shelford (Mr. Tetreault). I think that speech was entirely out of order, but I think also that it is only Tight that I should correct any wrong impression which may have been left. Reference was made to the construction of a post office at Waterloo, Quebec, in the eastern townships in the county of Shefford. The statement was made that I had recommended the architect, Mr. J. O. Gregoire, for this work. I did not know that I had, but I hope I did because I would tell the minister that he is a mighty good architect. There are three good architects in Sherbrooke and I am glad that this particular work went to the eastern townships instead of somewhere else. I am sure any one of these architects could have done justice to the work. The Iron member criticized the fact that the superintendent of works, Mr. Oscar Seguin, had been working in the government liquor store. I might say that this gentleman came very near to getting the nomination at the last election and being the choice of the people of that constituency. I think that is a fairly good recommendation. He also criticized Mr. Robert Bachand. N.P. This gentleman has since been elected to represent this constituency in the provincial house. That is not such a bad recommendation. As to the suggestions made in connection with Mr. P. E. Boivin, I think that gentleman is well known to the committee and can stand upon his own recommendation. I have no complaint to make of the fact that no items appear in the estimates for the city of Sherbrooke. I appreciate the present financial stress which has forced the minister to take the aotion he has.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: I should like to be in a similar position to the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset) and congratulate the minister upon finding items in the estimates to take care of the recommendations which have been made as far back as five years ago for the construction of certain public works in my constituency, but I am not. M&ny necessary public works have been recommended

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
in years past and would have given considerable employment to the distressed population, but no provision has been made for their construction. Considerable discussion has taken place in connection with this S400.000 item and I should like to ask the minister if he could indicate to the committee whether or not some of this vote will be used to construct certain public works which are urgent and about which I have written personally. I know that some of these works have been recommended by my late opponent. There has been a request for a wharf at Havre St. Pierre as well as at Sacre-Cceur and Bersimis. Many other requests have been sent to the minister and I should like to know if it is contemplated that some of this vote will be expended in the construction of these works. The population is in need of employment and the works are necessary. They were recommended a long time ago.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I shall endeavour to reply, in their order, to the comments and suggestions that have been made, dealing first with those of the hon. member for Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), the former Minister of Public Works. Let me say that nobody is more impressed than is the present Minister of Public Works with the necessity for economy, and if any department is a victim of circumstances, then it would be correct to say that that is true of the Public Works department. Let me briefly run over the total estimates of that department for a number of years. I am giving the round figures:
Total
appropriation
for
Year-	public works
1920-	21	
?22,000,0001921-	22	
20,000,0001922-	23	
16,000.0001923-	24	
20,000,0001924-	25	
21,000,0001925-	26	
20,000,0001926-	27	
19,000,0001927-	28	
20,000,0001928-	29	
27,000,0001929-	30	
30,000,0001930-	31	
38,000,000
In the year 1929-30 the appropriation for this general vote about which my hon. friend speaks was increased from $75,000 to $100,000. The total estimates for public works for the next three years are as follows:
Total
appropriation
for
Year-	public works
1931-	32	
$23,000,0001932-	33	
15,000.0001933-	34	
14,000,000
In 1933-34 it was really less than $14,000,000.


Mr. YOUNG:: Is that for all public works, no relief work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: All public works, buildings, harbours and other public undertakings which, as I have said, in the year 1930-31 amounted to $38,000,000. So I think my hon. friend must agree that this is evidence of economy, of cutting down expenditures. As a matter of fact, I think they have been cut a little too close. The reason this vote is now $400,000 with the limitation upon it that no new work can be undertaken, is on account of the very limited character of the specific appropriation and a desire to leave, as I said, a reasonable, indeed a very small amount in view of the other limited appropriation, available for necessary repairs. My hon. friend spoke about a comparison he made of employment relief expenditures in Liberal constituencies with those in Conservative constituencies. I think the answer is to be found in the fact that for a year prior to the Conservative party taking office my hon. friends took such good care of Liberal constituencies in that area that we could not find anything that really needed expenditure, and I have no complaint to make on that score.


John Campbell Elliott: All the constituencies wen. taken good care of then.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Their representatives do not all say so. I might point out that in the constituency of my hon. friend for Charlevoix-Saguenay there was an expenditure last year of $38,000 on twenty-four works. He has a very long coast line.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Very long-785 miles or thereabouts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Almost 800 miles, and in a long coast line like that works from time to time require repairs. I think my hon. friend will agree with me that we have taken fairly good care of conditions down there.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Following what the minister has said, I quite agree with him - that some years ago, when the former administration was in office, this district was well taken care of. At that time there was much development and certain works had to be constructed. At present those works are there and of course they have to be repaired, maintained and kept in good working condition to be available in the near future when business revives and' the people operating in thiose districts resume operations. If the government does not make the necessary repairs now, in a few years it will cost the people of Canada much more money to put these works into proper condition to give the service that
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

will then be required. For instance, from a place called Sacre-Coeur, which I forgot to mention a few minutes ago, about twelve miles north of Tadoussac, I received a communication in regard to some necessary work there. I wrote to the minister in February and he replied that he would put it on the program for the next fiscal year. This is a necessary work. Some people at Havre St. Pierre have communicated with me, and people on the other side have also sent communications as to necessary work there. This is a most important point on the north shore of the river St. Lawrence, and the people need proper means of communication there. The government ought to see that these works are done as expeditiously as possible.
I should also like to get from the minister some information regarding what I said a month or so ago about some works that were carried on at Tadoussac. I remember at that time I read to the house a letter regarding certain complaints that were made. I have been told that since then the government has sent some of its officials to investigate and find out if the facts that I have reported are exactly as they have been presented to me. At that time the complaint was made and submitted to me on good authority that some of the timber which had been purchased there was purchased at a high figure and that only very few people had profited by its sale. Has the minister received a report from the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Again I can only say that the work to which my hon. friend refers involves a rather heavy expenditure, the estimated cost being 8125,000. I think he will agree with me that that is a pretty large undertaking in these times.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What place is that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some representations have been made recently that we might get along temporarily with a small expenditure just to put the structure into a condition that would prevent further decay, and we are having an investigation made.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What place is that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Havre St. Pierre.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: As regards what I have just mentioned about the investigation that was made at Tadoussac, has the minister received the information? I am told that the investigation was conducted by Mr. Gobeil, an official of his department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, he made an investigation and I have the report. I could send a copy of it to my hon. friend.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I should be glad to
have it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I rather thought one had been sent to him.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No.


Eugène Fiset: Is it the intention of the department to call for tenders for repairs at the Rimouski wharf?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is work which apparently can be properly done by contract, and the amount is such as to render necessary the calling for tenders. It is the intention to invite tenders.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister has overlooked the point I was endeavouring to make. What he said with regard to the years from 1922 to 1930 is perhaps the best evidence one could have of the impropriety of the course that is being followed at the present time. During the years to which he referred, particularly the years in which there was an expenditure of over $20,000,000, that is to say from 1926 on, in every one of those years the government of the day showed a surplus. That illustrates better than anything else the difference between that regime and the present one. At that time real works were being undertaken. After the expenditure of the moneys in those years the government was able to show a substantial surplus annually. But let me impress upon the minister and the government that to-day there is a very critical condition in Canada. We are running behind, not a matter of a few millions a year, but in the last few years amounts almost equalling the total of the public debt before the war. That is the condition that faces us at the present time. I do not think the government realizes how important it is to pay as little attention as possible to the appeals that come from the various ridings. I lmow my hon. friend from Rimouski, and I realize that he is diligent in looking after the interests of his riding, and I am not criticizing him on that score. Personally, however, I prefer to take the suggestion of the hon. member for Quebec South. This house has reached the stage where it must consider whether or not we are going to go on spending money irrespective entirely of whether we have the money or have any means of obtaining it. The country is in too serious a condition to go on spending money by increasing an expenditure from $100,000 to $400,000, as the minister has done in the last few years in connection with this one item.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
The people of the country cannot stand it; we have reached and passed the limit. These expenditures must be cut. I am sure the minister must realize that. I know something of the difficulties which the Minister of Public Works has in resisting the appeals made to him, but the point I am trying to bring home to him is that he has not the money and that it is not available to the government. The government cannot afford to make expenditures of this kind at the present time; it is time to call a halt. There is a very great difference between spending money when you have a surplus and increasing expenditures without the people's representatives in this house having an opportunity to pass on different items, as should be done in regard to public works. You cannot excuse increasing the expenditure from 8100,000 to $400,000, as the minister has done.


Mr. VERVILLE (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, would you kindly inform me whether I am in order. The house has just passed an item amounting to $35,000, for the reconstruction of the wharf, at Ste-Emilie. This is of interest to me, as it is in my county. Am I in order in discussing this item now?


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Certainly.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Thank you, sir. The government advocates economy. Economy! Hon. members sacrifice $400 of their indemnity; that is economy. It benefits everybody. However, $35,000 is voted to rebuild the wharf at Ste-Emilie. I have been a liberal member for a number of years past, yet, never did the government grant my request to rebuild the wharf in that locality. For the last two years the work on this wharf has been going on, and we must thank a conservative administration for it.
Ste. Emilie once had an industry which gave work to all its inhabitants. The Seignior Joly was the owner of a saw-mill on which the whole population was dependent, including the clergy and the people of the parish and surrounding county;	unfortunately,	the	mill
[DOT]closed its doors and no more wood is shipped.


Mr. DORION (Translation):: His mill runs too fast.
Mr.	VERVILLE	(Translation):	His	mill
does not run too fast, it has shut down. A Mr. Paris purchased it. This saw-mill is not working any more, yet $35,000 is expended to improve the wharf.
Mr.	CASGRAIN (Translation):	It is
unreasonable.
Mr.	VERVILLE	(Translation):	The	mill
has shut down and no further sawing is done
in that section of the country, yet $35,000 is being expended.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: That augurs well for the redistribution of the counties.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I ask the minister why, in times of depression such as we are passing through, make an outlay of $35,000, at Ste. Emilie? This village is located in my count}"- and I have no objection to my constituents earning money, but, I state: spend your money rightly, because you will soon need it. Who recommended such an outlay? Since you are undertaking such an expenditure, it must be because there is work ahead. However, the miil is being demolished, there is no lumber to saw, no work, absolutely nothing to do. And, you vote $35,000! For whom? Why? To please your friends? Well, cariy on.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@Translation: Order! the hon. member must address the chair.


Joseph-Achille Verville: Mr. Chairman, I have the honour to address to you what I have just communicated to the house.
The saw-mill has disappeared, there is hardly any more timber, no lumber operations are undertaken. All has been swept away except the $35,000 which the government has just voted.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The government will also be swept away with it.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I am
entirely opposed to this item of $35,000 to rebuild or extend the wharf at Ste. Emilie. I protest against this extravagant and uncalled for expenditure. Were I only to consider the needs of the people of that district, I would state: All is well, let the government grant them $35,000. However, the wharf is not worth repairing because it is no further required. If you wish to grant these people $35,000, let the member for the county handle it so that it will be fairly distributed, and not in the way the government wish to expend it, because, again I state, this wharf is not worth rebuilding and is useless. Let 'the government place this amount in the hands of the member for the county so that it may be fairly distributed and thus be a blessing to the people.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Achille Verville: I trust, sir, that I have conformed myself to the rules of the house, and I wish to thank you for the latitude which you have afforded me.
In closing my remarks, sir, I would request that this item of $35,000 be withdrawn, because it is not required, we are practising economy and, furthermore, the members of this house
3786	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers
could well apply it elsewhere. No doubt, the people of Ste. Ernilie would be glad to accept the whole of this amount, without it having to undergo the clipping of the conservative machinery which would leave, out of $35,000, practically nothing for the public to benefit by.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I gather the hon. member for Lotbiniem is protesting against the proposed expenditure on a wharf in his constituency. That is indeed unusual.


Mr. STEVENS:: And refreshing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly it requires some consideration. I would be the last one to force upon any constituency any public work i>t does not need or want. Last year the reports from our engineer, upon which we place a good deal of weight and in which we have confidence, pointed out that this wharf was in very bad repair, that the traffic was very heavy, and that unless the wharf was renewed a heavier expenditure would be involved in the near future. Tenders were invited, the lowest of which was for the sum of $12,420, not the larger amount mentioned by the hon. member. On a review of the situation, and owing to the fact that the investigations were made laite in the season, it was decided that the work could stand over until this year. Now the hon. member seems to think it might stand over until next year. I am inclined to accept his suggestion.


Joseph-Achille Verville: I wish to thank you, sir, for postponing this vote. I contend that the saw-mill having been demolished, there is no further need to repair the wharf. My opposition to this $35,000 outlay arises from a desire to economize that amount to the country, what member would rise in the house and state : I shall save the country $35,000. I do so, the house must take my word that the outlay is unnecessary or else must seek the truth of my statement on the spot. If the house does not care to make the necessary inquiries in my constituency, then, let them take my word.


Vincent Dupuis: Granted.


Joseph-Achille Verville: May I
inquire the name of the tenderer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Wilfrid
Robidoux, for $12,420,


Joseph-Achille Verville: I am satisfied, thank you.


Vincent Dupuis: Under this item there is a vote of $23,000 for dredging at Riviere la Guerre, and further, under item 124 there is a vote of $215,500 for dredging in Ontario and Quebec. We have iu the counties of Laprairie

and Napierville a river called La Petite Riviere Montreal, about which the minister knows the details. Upon my request to the federal and provincial governments this river was dredged in 1929 and 1930. With its source somewhere in the neighbourhood of the border between the United States and Canada, this river flows into the Richelieu, passing through the counties of Huntingdon and Napierville and the township of Sherrington. In Sherrington there is an area of about 1,100 acres of good land which used to be flooded in the spring and fall, and mostly during the greater part of the summer. As the minister knows, dredging operations were commenced at Napierville, and a large amount of money was spent upon the dredging operations until they had reached a certain point in Sherrington county. I am informed that there is about oue mile of river in soft land still to be dredged, and it will be very easy for the department to finish the work. From the minister's letter of February 11, I would judge that his reason for not proceeding further with the work is that he believes he has spent enough money in operations on that river, and that during these days when economies must be made the1 expenditure of $2,000 more would not be justified. Upon our request the Quebec department of agriculture were ready to contribute $2,000 towards -the completion of the work, provided the federal Department of Public Works would furnish the same amount. I would not dare to ask that this department spend a large amount of money if in the first place the proposed work were not useful, and if in the second place it were not already partly completed; because in these times when all departments are bound to economize I think we should not ask for a large amount of money. But without any reflection on the wisdom of the item, if the department is ready to spend as large an amount as that already in the estimates for Riviere la Guerre, I think the small amount for which I am now asking, $2,000, should be granted. There has been some criticism on the part of my opponents in my constituency -I will not give names-that I was negligent in this matter, because in Sherrington, in the vicinity of this river, there, are large numbers of good farmers, good citizens, who happen, to be Conservatives. I think the two descriptions can go together; I am not so narrowminded a Grit as to think that among Conservatives there are not good citizens. A large number of these citizens in Sherrington are Conservatives, and they attacked me because I am supposed to have neglected to ask for this small amount. I know well to do

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
farmers in this district who have 100, 200 and sometimes 300 acres of land which they are unable to cultivate because of the conditions now prevailing, whereas if this work were done this large area would be available for cultivation, with very beneficial results to this part of the country. To justify myself before this committee and before the electors of my riding, and especially those who attacked me, I will remind the committee that on the 21st of December, 1931, and the 21st of January, 1932, I made two identical requests to the Department of Labour under the relief act in answer to a circular sent to all members of this house asking what kind of public works they could suggest in their ridings that would be useful to the citizens and help the unemployed. In reply I mentioned many public works that might be done in my riding, and especially this dredging of the little Montreal river. On the 4th of February the Minister of Public Works answered me thus:
Dear Mr. Dupuis,-
Mr. Harry Hereford, Dominion Director of Unemployment Relief, has sent me copies of your letters under date of the 21st December and 21st January, with his replies thereto, respecting requests for works under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931, in Laprairie-Napierville.
When tentative lists were being made of works to be carried out directly by the federal government, we had to consider first the class of works which could be included in a limited program for each province and to confine these to harbour and river works and public buildings, according to established practice in the Department of Public Works. It was also necessary to take into consideration the most pressing situations resulting from dislocation in industry in the large centres of unemployment.
So far as the department is concerned apart from public buildings, works are confined in the main to the actual requirements of navigation, with due regard to seasonal conditions to effect construction. We could not undertake any extensive program of protection or drainage works. It was not intended that the federal government should carry out works which could be initiated by the provinces and the municipalities, except by contributing a certain percentage of the cost, if and when these works were grouped and submitted to the Department of Labour by the provinces and finally authorized by the federal government.
As you are aware, farm relief under the act was confined to the prairie provinces, and this matter was handled by the Minister of Agriculture.
I shall not read the whole letter, but I have read the paragraph which states that these works could not be done, and that under the Relief Act the provinces of Quebec or Ontario were not entitled to any appropriation. I do not want to criticize the government unduly because I believe they have enough difficulties without adding to them, but I felt bound to make this statement so
that the friends of hon, members to your right, sir, shall not in future attack me for having neglected their interests. Moreover, I believe that the hon. Minister of Public Works, for whom I have a very high regard because of his kindness and all the good qualities I am ready to recognize in him personally-


An hon. MEMBER:: He is a nice fellow.


Vincent Dupuis: I do not want to throw any flowers, but he deserves it. I hope that when the hon. minister replies, apart from what I say as to his personal qualities, but from the point of view of administration only, comparing this with wthat has been voted for other parts which I will mot name, he will assure us that he will grant this small amount.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: How much?


Vincent Dupuis: It is $2,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For a breakwater?


Vincent Dupuis: No, to finish dredging the
river to drain a large area of land in my riding.


Alan Webster Neill: The flowers would be cheap at the price.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I might pay it
myself.


Vincent Dupuis: Some hon. member to my left says if it were $400,000 it would be easier, but I do not believe it. I will wait until I have a favourable answer from the minister, and 'then I have another request to make.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend defers making his second request until he gets the promise, possibly he will not make the second request to-night. I have not before me the particulars of the work to which he refers, which was undertaken in the little Montreal river some years ago. It was an undertaking on the basis, I believe, of a contribution by the province of Quebec and possibly by the municipality interested in the scheme.


Vincent Dupuis: Fifty per cent by Quebec
and fifty per cent by Ottawa.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am told that
the portion of the work assigned to the Department of Public Works was fully carried out, and that what is now sought is some additional contribution to take care of the cost of the work that was to be done by the province or by the parties directly interested. From time to time my hon. friend has presented these claims, but the circumstances were such that we did not feel
Supply-Harbours and Rivers *

that we should do the work at this time. With regard to the farm relief act I can only say that if my hon. friend will look up the records he will find that very large expenditures have been made under the provisions of that act in all the provinces. The undertakings carried on by the Department of Labour were begun by the municipalities in the first instance and then approved by the province, and to the cost of those undertakings the municipalities and provinces, as well as the dominion, made contributions. I cannot say whether the work to which he refers was ever suggested under that plan; I do not think it was advanced or approved by the province of Quebec. If it had been I think in the ordinary course it might have been undertaken, together with other works of a similar nature, but I cannot tell my hon. friend at this time that I can promise to do that work.


Vincent Dupuis: The minister states that the work undertaken by the federal government was accomplished. Although his statement is correct it does not show the complete picture, because the undertaking was to drain that river to its source in order to relieve that area of the floods from which it has suffered. That work has not been completed. It is as though my hon. friend and myself started on a trip to France; when we came within ten miles of the coast of France we turned back. We would not be able to say to our friends that we had seen Paris. The provincial department of agriculture was in the same position as the federal government. So far as economy goes I believe Quebec is in the same position as Ottawa; they must make economies in Quebec also. Nevertheless, knowing the great advantages that would result from the completion of this work the Department of Agriculture decided to make a contribution. I have here a letter written by Mr. J. Antonio-Grenier, deputy minister of agriculture of Quebec, to which I referred in my letter to the Minister of Public Works. This letter is dated July 20, 1932, and is as follows:
(Translation):
Pursuant to your last recommendation, the minister wishes me to inform you that he is disposed to reconsider his promise of August 22. 1931. which was for 40 per cent, .with a maximum of $520, and to replace it by another for 50 per cent, the amount not to exceed $2,000, on condition that a similar contribution be obtained from the Dominion government.
As the minister understands, the letter states t-hat the Department of Agriculture is ready to increase its contribution to fifty per cent of the cost, the amount not to exceed $2,000, if the federal government will do the same thing. I believe the Department

of Public Works here would make a very wise decision if they changed their minds and put this small amount in the supplementary estimates. I do not want to obtain anything by blaming the government for having done similar work in other ridings, but the minister knows that even in these days of drastic economy similar work has been done, and probably quite properly done. I am informed by the authorities in Quebec that in the constituency of Laval-Two Mountains dredging and surveys have been carried on, costing a large amount, in order to drain certain areas or to prevent flooding. Laval-Two Mountains is a very nice riding, but it is no nicer than the constituency of Laprairie-Napierville. I have great regard for the hon. member for Laval-Two Mountains, but I shall be jealous of him if I am refused that small amount while I know that in 1930, 1931 and 1932 similar work was done in his riding.


Jean-François Pouliot: Would the minister be
kind enough to tell the committee exactly where the work will be carried on at Isle Verte? Will it be near the old wharf?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am informed
that it is proposed to do the work at the upstream end of the headloek, which is in bad repair.


Jean-François Pouliot: The main wharf?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Jean-François Pouliot: I will not detain the
committee long, but I should like to answer the speech made by the hon. member for Shefford.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: On a question of privilege, Mr. Chairman.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: On a question of
privilege the hon. member is in order.


Jean-François Pouliot: This afternoon the hon.
member said I spoke every five minutes; he insinuated that I was imposing on the committee and wasting time. Let me tell him that I saved more money-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -for the government-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -than he ever did.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: I do not think this is
a question of privilege at all; it seems to be a matter of personal opinion. As the hon. member knows, a question of privilege must

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
relate to the dignity of the hon. gentleman as a member. If the hon. member wishes to answer the hon. member for Shefford he will have a chance to do so under a different item.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I will pay no more
attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Shefford; I will eulogize the Minister of Public Works instead. There was a dirty robber-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: -who was foreman in one part of Temiscouata county. He padded the pay-rolls and stole government money. I was the watchdog of the treasury; I notified the Minister of Public Works, who did his duty as a minister of the crown and forced the man to pay back the money. That same man was indulging in joy rides at the expense of the government; on Sundays he would drive for miles and miles with his family. The Minister of Public Works put a stop to that and I praise him for it. This is how I waste the time of the house. Not only that-


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Order. The hon. member must speak to the item; he knows the rules.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am speaking with regard to public works in the province of Quebec.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: My hon. friend's
remarks must be directed to the item under *discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not blame the minister, but I blame the contractors for putting inferior timber in that wharf. At my request the minister forced the contractors to replace them with stone.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must speak to the item under discussion.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sorry I cannot pay
compliments to the minister when I wish; it shows my broadmindedness.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: The hon. member must comply with the rules.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want to be nice and I cannot.


William Richard Motherwell: If there are facts to [DOT]be stated, why cannot the hon. member state them?


Armand Renaud La Vergne: They do not apply to the item.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not see why an hon. member should be run off simply because he is stating unpleasant truths.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: this item of $400,000 refers to the whole province of Quebec and I could speak about Cacouna or any other place in the province.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: As far as harbours and rivers are concerned, but not post offices.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am not speaking about post offices, I am speaking about a wharf; it is spelled w-h-a-r-f and the plural is spelled w-h-a-r-v-e-s. You know, Mr. Chairman, how all times I respect the rules of the house, especially when you are in the chair. I would not do the least thing against the least rule of the house.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: There is no doubt about that, but the hon. member rose to a question of privilege when there is no privilege.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Remain on the wharf.


William Richard Motherwell: Stay on the dock.


Jean-François Pouliot: Thanks are due to the hon. member for Melville (Mr. Motherwell) who has made such a good point. This item of $400,000 covers the whole of the province of Quebec, not only the lands bordering the sea, but the sea itself. I want to know that things are being properly done in my constituency. I am not concerned with what happens somewhere else except when I am provoked. I have to render an account of what I have done; I have to defend the people's pocket-book, especially the people in the county of Temiscouata. It is only proper that the hon. members for Shefford and Compton should know about this. Cement was required for the wharf at Trois Pistoles, and before the election of 1930 I asked the department to give instructions that the cement should be purchased from the two stores at Trois Pistoles. This cement was purchased at the regular price, but after the change in government other cement was sent from Riviere du Loup. The cost of this cement was three times that which had been purchased in Trois Pistoles and the department was charged with the cost of transportation from Riviere du Loup. In order to protect the Canadian exchequer, I protested against this transaction. As the result, the quotations for the cement were lowered and I think the merchant was told to sell the cement at five cents less than the previous price as well as to pay the transportation charges. That merchant also had to pay a commission to the dealers in Trois Pistoles.


Mr. MERCIER (St. Henri):: That is
patronage.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Jean-François Pouliot: The cement company forced him to do that. This is one of the reasons why I have such respect for the Minister of Public Works. I saved the government money on that occasion. I should like to give the committee another instance. Some work was being done upon the wharf at Riviere du Loup and the government was being defrauded by means of padded payrolls. Not only that, but government money was being used to provide joy rides for these men and their families all around the district. I called this to the attention of the minister and he forced these people to pay back this money. The fact that this money was recovered was due to the efforts of Jean-Francois Pouliot, who mentioned the matter in the House of Commons. I direct this to the attention of the hon. members for Shefford and Compton who complain that I speak too often in this chamber. Let me give the committee another instance. A wharf was being constructed at Cap St. Ignace and I learned that rotten timber was being used in its construction. Mr. Chairman, perhaps you are hearing of this matter for the first time. This matter did not concern my own constituency, but we are elected to represent the country as a whole and I thought it my duty to notify the minister of what was happening. The minister sent the. chief engineer to investigate the construction of this wharf. The chief engineer ordered the removal of the stone filling in order to inspect the timber at the bottom of the wharf. It was found to be rotted and the contractor was forced to change it.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You win again.


Jean-François Pouliot: Instead of the wharf having been constructed with rotten timber, it was constructed with firm timber which will last much longer. I saved the country a lot of money. If I speak occasionally in the House of Commons, the government is paid for the time I use by what I save outside. I believe the country benefits more from the time I use than it would if I were selling my brother's jam. The fact is my brother does not sell jam or preserves.


Mr. GOBEIL:: The hon. member spends inside what he saves outside.


Jean-François Pouliot: But there is a surplus and that is about the only surplus the government has. It should be thankful to me for what I do. I have no desire to be unpleasant to any hon. member on the other side, even to any who might be disagreeable to me. They do not succeed in their efforts even
rMr. P. Mercier.]
though they try very hard. I see smiles upon the countenances of some of them. I see the countenances of my hon. friends from Shefford and Compton are adorned with very pleasant smiles. I assume they are satisfied with my explanation and I hope in the future they will follow the example I have set and endeavour to save the government money in the construction of public works. In the meantime I am glad to tell the Minister of my very high appreciation of and regard for what he has done in those circumstances, and I hope he will -not lose any opportunity, when occasion offers, to help -the people of my riding.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has the hon. member
one left?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have one left now. I
do not know what is going to happen, but at present I defend my own people, -my own family, Conservatives as well as Liberals. In conclusion, I may say that I am sure the minister will be fair to me; and I shall be fair to him and treat him with due justice.


J.-Eugène Tétreault: On a question of
privilege I want to reply to the hon. member for Temiscouata.


Jean-François Pouliot: I said that the hon. member was smiling. Is he smiling?


J.-Eugène Tétreault: Yes, I am smiling.
Is the hon. member smiling too?


Vincent Dupuis: I told the minister that I had another favour, a very important one, to ask of him. In the town of Laprairie there was constructed by the Department of. Public Works a protection wall.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A dyke.


Vincent Dupuis: Yes, a dyke. This was built in 1930; it was the continuation of a dyke which was begun ten, twenty years ago. To do that work, the Department of Public Works had to cover part of the public road leading from the town of Laprairie to St. Constant. Just that part of the road which follows the shore of the St. Lawrence was taken by the department, of course with the permission of the town of Laprairie. The dyke remains there. To provide for a similar road, the department built on the side of the dyke a kind of elevated road eighteen feet wide, not wide enough to replace the old road, because the latter was thirty-six feet in width. The department, in doing the work they did in Laprairie, had not directly the duty of building a road. I shall admit, because I presume the minister will tell me that it is not the duty of his department to build roads, but on

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
the other hand, if the minister admits that his department built a dyke on a road, they must see to it that that road is replaced by a similar one. They took a road thirty-six feet wide and reduced it to eighteen feet, just cut it in half. They simply laid the bed of the road, if I might say so; they did not finish it. They laid large stones, then smaller ones; then they put a coat of smaller stones on top of that, and they left the road in that condition. The Department of Roads of Quebec refused to accept the road as it was laid, first, because it was not wide enough and, second, because it was not according to their requirements; it was not built in a proper manner so that they could finish it. The result is that the road is left in that dangerous condition. The Department of Public Works, when the dyke was finished, closed the road, putting at each end of it a notice that it was prohibited to pass there. I believe they were not entitled to close that road. It was their duty to build a road, if not of the same width, at least of a width sufficient that two rigs or two automobiles could pass without danger. Moreover, the department should have put a fence on the south side of the road to protect the public, because some parts of the road are from twelve to fourteen feet high. It is a very dangerous place to travel, and the town of Laprairie is threatened with damage suits for leaving the road as it is by other munci-palities ' on the south shore, for example, Hemmingford, Sherrington, St. Edouard, St. Constant, St. Emile and all the places on the way to Valleyfield, Chateauguay and Beauhar-nois, the people of which are interested in . passing along the road because it is a shorter route. Some time ago I wrote to the Department of Public Works and to the Department of Roads of Quebec and I did not receive a very proper answer from either. Recently I received the following letter from the divisional engineer, Mr. Leclerc:	*
(Translation):
In reply to your letter of March 11, as regards the petition signed by the ratepayers of Laprairie requesting the completion of the parish road, please find attached a copy of a letter from Mr. Vincent Dupuis, dated May 11, 1932 . . .
This letter was sent to Mr. Gosseldn, chief engineer of the district of Montreal.
(Translation):
. . . and a copy of a report which I made in reply to that letter.
As you will note by this report, the road over which improvement is requested has a length of 4,105 feet, and to improve it in the way the petition requests, the work would cost as follows:
To widen the road-shoulders-
3,800 cubic yards, borrowed material,
$1.30	 $ 4,940
Protective cable fence-
3,350 feet at 60 cents	 2,010
Laying of pavement-
342 cubic yards at $4	 1,368
(.including the screenings and rolling)
A layer of maeurban and macasphalt 3 inches-
8,210 cubic yards at $1.50	 12,315

In a letter from the same district engineer there appears one paragraph which I will try offhand to translate as well as I can. He says: "This road cannot be accepted by the public roads department of Quebec because the foundation is everywhere in bad condition and is not suitable for making a road. As it stands, the road is not in such a condition as to be completed. It would have to be widened and rebuilt." The Department of Roads in Quebec has reported that it would cost $20,633 to build the road, and I presume, although I am not authorized to speak for that department, that if the Department of Public Works in Ottawa were prepared to contribute half the cost of the road the Department of Roads of Quebec would pay its share. My reason for asking the federal department to contribute to this work is that the question of obligation arises here. The work done by the federal department in building the dyke resulted in the destruction of the original road, which it left in the present state of disrepair. I submit, therefore, that there is a principle of justice involved and the Department of Public Works is under obligation to restore the road to a proper state of repair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This work was undertaken some years ago-


Vincent Dupuis: In 1930.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some work was done earlier than that, before the present government came into office. I am told that the object was not the construction of a road-


Vincent Dupuis: No.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) -. -but the construction of a dyke for protection, and that the road as it existed before was very imperfect. It was in bad condition a great part of the time through flooding, so much so that it could not be used at all. There is another road on the shore, almost parallel and not far removed, which was used. My information is that there was no agreement on the part of the Dominion government to leave the work in such a condition as would make it available
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

as a highway, and that what has been done has materially improved conditions; instead of injuring the road it has made it better. It is true that some work may remain to be done to render the road passable at all times, but that would have been true of the former road, and my hon. friend's request for further expenditure cannot be made in pursuance of any agreement on the part of this government to do anything further than has been done. It would be a matter of grace. Probably the work is desirable, but it is another illustration of the demands that are being made for more expenditures, demands which go far to cancel requests from other hon. members that we should spend less. I do not know how we can spend more and at the same time spend less. Mjr hon. friend has made representations in regard to this matter and I regret I have not been able to see my way clear to meet his request.


Vincent Dupuis: The minister states that
we urged his department to do this work last year, and he was kind enough to receive a delegation from the town of Laprairie in connection with this matter. In reply to the argument advanced by the minister may I point out to him that when he says there is another road parallel to this one for which I am asking money, he is not exactly correct. There is no road parallel to the one which I am asking to have repaired. The road over which the public is -bound to pass is about two miles longer than the one on the shore and it goes south instead of towards Montreal. The minister states 'that the work done by his department was not for the purpose of building a road but was for protection, and that is quite -true. But I would point out that the Department of Public Works, or any other department for that matter, when it undertakes a public work, has certain responsibilities if it injures other public works, causing damage thereto. In that event it is the duty of the department to repair the damages or to rebuild the road in such a manner as to make it available to the public as it was before. Although this is not a very favourable time to ask for a further amount of about $10,000 which would be necessary to put that road in a proper condition, I urge upon the minister that it is imperative. This road is absolutely necessary, and the town of Laprairie, which is responsible for it, will be bound to answer to the public for it. If I were discussing the matter from a legal point of view I would say to the minister that if my client were sued by parishes and townships to the south of that road for damages sustained by the -travelling public, as a lawyer I would bring the Department of Public

Works into 'the action in guaranty in that suit, and I am sure that, as the minister knows, before a court of justice he would be compelled to restore the road to its former condition.
I have no complaint to make against the Department of Public Works with respect to the dyke; I a-m quite satisfied in that connection, and I congratulate the minister o-n the work done there. But I am not speaking of the dyke; I am speaking of the road which was covered by it. The minister said that the road which was covered by the dyke was in bad order. That is perfectly true, but the farmers on the south shore who now have to travel an extra two miles used to go by that road, thus shortening their trip to Montreal by two miles. Going and coming, it would represent a difference of four miles. I believe the people on the south sho-re are entitled to a proper road, and that the Department of Roads in Quebec is very generous, inasmuch as it is not bound in any way to contribute a half share towards the rebuilding of -the road. I say that in offering a payment of $10,000 the department in Quebec is acting generously, and the federal Department of Public Works should not refuse to assume its share of the cost of th-e rebuilding made necessary through th-e construction of a dyke within the town limits of the town of Laprairie. I am pressing for that work because it is absolutely necessary; it is most urgent. The people are threatening suit against the town of Laprairie if the road is not opened. Upon whom is the responsibility for the closing of the road? My answer is that the Department of Public Works at Ottawa is responsible.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The information my officials give me is to the effect that the work on the road was submitted to and approved by the town of Laprairie.


Vincent Dupuis: You mean the dyke?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Whatever was
done and whatever effect it had upon the road was approved by the town of Laprairie. If the people of that town wish to have the highway improved they are perfectly free to go ahead with the work. We believe we have made their task much -lighter, and the expense involved will be much less than it would have been had we not done as we have done.


Vincent Dupuis: I am sure the minister's
officials will corroborate my statement when I say that before beginning the work on the dyke they obliged the town of Laprairie to deliver into their hands and to place under th-eir authority a certain parcel of land, including a road. .They threatened that unless

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
this abandonment on the part of the town took place, they would not build the dyke. As I stated before, the dyke was properly built, but the town of Laprairie was forced to abandon a certain piece of land along the shore of the St. Lawrence river. If the Department of Rotads are the sole owners of that piece of land, I believe there should be some remedy. Mind you, Mr. Chairman, I am not making this statement simply for purposes of political expediency. The minister knows perfectly well that I do not bother him very often. I must tell him, however, that in respect to this matter I am pressed by the public not only of Laprairie-Napier-ville, but of Beauhamois, Chateauguay and Huntingdon. The town of Laprairie has received request after request for the reopening of the road but has not been able to comply, because, owing to the conditions prevailing on the road, and the state in which it was left by the federal Department of Public Works, the reopening has been forbidden.


Armand Renaud La Vergne: Shall the item carry?


Vincent Dupuis: No, it is not carried. I hope the minister will give me a favourable answer.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not believe I can add anything to what I have already stated. The bon. member has explained the situation from his standpoint, and I have explained it from mine.


Vincent Dupuis: Give me $10,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot promise him that this year I can authorize an expenditure of that amount on the road.


Mr. CARDIN:: I understand that following the cancellation of a contract awarded to an Ontario company for the building of a pier in the port of Sorel, a claim for damages has been filed. Is the minister in a position to inform me as to what has become of that claim?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am informed
that a claim was made and an adjustment effected by taking over certain materials on hand. I am not aware of any outstanding claim. As the hon. member knows, the contract involved an extensive expenditure for which there was no parliamentary appropriation.


Pierre-Joseph-Arthur Cardin: Will the minister supply
me with the details of the settlement?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes. I will give the hon. member particulars concerning the action taken by the department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and Rivers Ontario
Under contract-
Leamington-harbour improvements, $93,000.
Midland-harbour improvements, $73,000. Essential undertakings-*
Belleville-dredging, $22,500.
Blind River-dredging, $47,000.
Cobourg-dredging, $17,000.
Depot Harbour-dredging, $15,200.
Fort William-wharf extension, $6,500.
Key Harbour-harbour improvements, $15,000.
Kincardine-harbour repairs and improvements, $18,000.
Oshawa-harbour improvements, $35,000.
Port Hope-dredging, $12,400.
Rockport-wharf, $1,900.
Sault Ste. Marie-harbour repairs and improvements, $13,000.
Svdenham and Chenal Escarte-dredging, $19,000.
Toronto-harbour improvements, $22,300.
Wallaceburg-wharf and warehouse, $9,500.
Windsor-warehouse extension, $60,000.
Harbours and rivers generally for maintenance of services, no new works to he undertaken, $200,000.-Total, $680,300.
Mr. GRAY:: For some time the minister
has been considering work in connection with a warehouse on the wharf at Sarnia, and I should like to know why some amount is not placed in the estimates for that work. I make the inquiry because I find he has included in the estimate the sum of $9,500 to be expended in Wallaceburg, which is situated in a neighbouring constituency. I have no fault to find with the Wallaceburg expenditure, but I do say to the minister that having proceeded to the extent of asking for tenders for the construction of the warehouse on the public dock at Sarnia, and having gone to the point where those tenders have been practically awarded, with the exception of actual closing, to a Chatham firm, I wonder why the work was not proceeded with. We are in dire need of a warehouse at Sarnia, at which point there is a harbour second to none on the great lakes. We have there a public wharf all ready for a warehouse, but without the facilities of a warehouse proper use cannot be made of the wharf. I should like to ask why the minister has included in the estimates an expenditure for a neighbouring constituency and has left out the city of Sarnia.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand the proposition in Sarnia involved the extension of the wharf and the building of a large warehouse thereon. Then, there is some trackage which is not completed. It is perfectly true that the item did appear in the estimates, and tenders were asked for. No contract was awarded, and therefore no contract was cancelled. This is just another case where, faced
Supply-Harbours and Hivers

with shrinking revenues and a demand for an endeavour to make revenues meet expenditures, this and other works were not proceeded with.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Mr. Chairman, I submit that
this is a much more important centre, and that the work should have been proceeded with at the port of Sarnia before proceeding with the warehouse at Wallaeeburg. Is there any chance of including in the supplementary estimates an amount for this purpose? We do not ask anything from the government with respect to trackage. If the minister will assure me now that the warehouse will be erected upon the dock, without any extension of the dock, he does not need to worry about the track. I will undertake to look after the trackage if he will look after the warehouse.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry that I cannot give my hon. friend the assurance he desires that the warehouse will be built this year.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia Essential undertakings-
Columbia river (below Burton)-improvements to diversion work, $2,000.
Comox-float extension and wharf repairs, $11,600.
Deer park-wharf reconstruction, $12,500.
Fraser, Skeena and Naas rivers-operation and maintenance of snagboats, $37,000.
Fraser river-repairs to Woodwards Training Wall, $14,000.
Fraser river-North Arm-dredging, $39,000.
Port Clements-wharf repairs and improvements, $6,500.
Sidney-breakwater, $4,200.
Stewart-wharf repairs, $11,000.
Victoria-dredging, $6,000.
Harbours and rivers generally for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $100,000.-Total, $243,800.
Thomas Reid: I notice there is an item of
some $39,000 for dredging in the north arm of the Fraser river. That is very good, but where is the appropriation for the dredging that is being carried on at the present moment?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is in item 124. This year, as in past years, the expenditure has been made from that general vote, and will continue to be made from that vote.


Thomas Reid: Is there a sufficient amount in item 124? I see the appropriation is the same as last year, but the dredging that is being done in the main channel of the Fraser is practically new work. I was wondering why the minister could segregate the $39,000 for the

north arm and not put down anything for the main channel of the Fraser, which is practically new work and will probably cost around $50,000 or $60,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The north arm
work is an undertaking that would naturally be done under contract, whereas the work in the main Fraser, as my hon. friend knows, is done with our own dredges and paid for out of the general vote.


Mr. MUNN:: In my riding of Vancouver North, there are perhaps thirty or forty steamboat landings, wharves and floats. When this government took office in 1930 these wharves and floats, generally speaking, were in good repair. I would like to take the hon. minister for a trip in that country, and I do not think lie would be very proud of the condition in which he would find the wharves at the present time. This government took charge of a property on which the people in my riding had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, and they have not even taken care of the ordinary, necessary repairs. If for instance the wind blows a door off a farmer's bam he fixes it up, but they have not even taken that much trouble to keep things in repair. I have written several letters to the hon. minister, and I must say he answers the letters promptly and gives me a very polite reply, but I never get any action. Every year I have been asking, not for new work, but for reasonable repairs; and even taking into consideration the hard times there is no reason in my opinion why this government as guardian of those properties should not take care of them by making the required repairs. There are hundreds of men on relief in British Columbia, many of them living right alongside these wharves and floats, and if there had been any cooperation, any common sense used, this work could have been done without cost beyond that of taking care of these men who are unemployed. At the present time several of the wharves are entirely out of commission. From little villages here and there where the wharves have been out of commission on account of storms or reasonable repair work done, people have to go perhaps in a rowboat or along the road or trail to some other landing at great inconvenience. I do not think it is fair that these people should be treated in that way. The hon. minister should give my riding some little consideration. I have had mighty little, practically none since I have been here. I assure him that when the

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
present government came into office those public conveniences were in reasonably good repair, but at present they are in anything but good repair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend again points out an opportunity for spending more money. There is no doubt that a number of these wharves do need expenditure; we have reports to that effect. But again I can only plead shortage of funds. When my hon. friend says he did not get any work done in his constituency I can only point out that he is in error, because during the last year in North Vancouver we carried out thirty-one works at an expenditure of .$14,369, one-sixth of the whole amount spent in British Columbia out of this vote.


Albert Edward Munn: Perhaps I exaggerated a little, but I meant those I recommended direct. These others were taken care of, but there were several cases where repairs that I asked for were not taken care of. I realize that this is not a time to ask any government to spend money, but when you have a property that has cost money, that is a public convenience, an effort should be made to keep it in repair so that the public can make use of it.


Alan Webster Neill: Mr. Chairman, it is a striking tribute to the integrity and fairness of the minister that so many men among his political opponents have risen one after the other to speak of it. I do not think I ever saw that happen in this house before, and I am pleased to add my testimony to the same effect.
Now I will say a word or two about the appropriations. As the minister truly says, I suppose I am asking for more money to be spent. I understand the policy of the department is not to do any new work but to maintain the works that are already in existence. That certainly is all I ask, or that I think the hon. member for Vancouver North asks. The vote out of which these things comes will be the general vote of $100,000; that is not enough. I suggest that it should be enlarged, not necessarily to spend it, but to have it in case it is necessary. I heard many comments in the early part of this session from the minister and from hon. members saying that an extraordinary storm which occurred last fall necessitated extra work which had not been foreseen. I have lived forty years in British Columbia and I never saw a winter yet that there was not an extra storm at some period, an abnormal and unusual one; it always happens, and it ought to be provided for. I have before me the estimates prepared by the minister's own engineers in British Columbia as to what they 53719-240
thought was necessary for the even bare upkeep of these public works in my district. It totals $40,000, and out of that there is one item in these estimates for Comox of $11,000. But the other items are just as urgent and necessary. It is not my suggestion alone that we need $40,000; it is that of the minister's own engineers. I would not ask and I am not asking for a penny to be spent unless on the O. K. of his engineers. In fact I think in the case of two works it is not necessary to spend what the engineer recommended, because I thought he had been got at politically and had recommended something that was not called for. At any rate this $40,000 has the endorsation of his own practical, experienced engineers. I will not read all the details, as some of the hon. members for Quebec did; I could go on for an hour giving names and explanations, but they would be only names to the minister and I would be wasting the time of the committee. His deputies and engineers are acquainted with these works; they know what is necessary and I do not think they would ever say that every item is not required.
One hon. member said the coast line in his constituency was some 780 miles in length, and he seemed to think that was something unique. Why, Mr. Chairman, I have one fiord in my district that is almost equal to that. I never took the trouble or went to the expense of figuring out what would be the total coast line, but certainly it would run to almost six or seven thousand miles if all the indentations were measured. The two engineers recommended an expenditure of $40,000 for works now in existence, with no provision for emergencies, which a-re bound to develop due to storms and other factors. That sum is forty per cent of $100,000, the entire vote, and certainly you could add another $10,000 for emergencies. There you have half the vote for the whole province of British Columbia recommended by the engineers for Comox Albemi. There are three other districts, making four in all, which will require the expenditure of money in this connection, and I suppose the Skeema district would require an even greater expenditure than my district, while some of the others perhaps would require a little less. Also there are several lake wharves in the interior which must be looked after out of this vote, and we find one district out of four requiring one-half the total vote. That is why I suggest that there is not enough money being voted.
Now just a word with regard to the general principle. There are three reasons why these works should be maintained as we go along,

Supply-Harbours and Rivers

and the first reason, is that it would foe cheaper in the long run. I think somewhere in the scriptures you will find this quotation:
There is that scattereth, and yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.
That is the situation; it does not pay to be penny wise and pound foolish. I have some recollection of a wharf approach, a float, which was broken during a storm. Only $10 or $12 would have been required to repair that approach at the time, but before they got around to it the constant dragging of the broken portion of the float necessitated an expenditure of something over $100. This is just an illustration; it could be duplicated in scores of cases. It pays to keep your house, your car, your wharf or anything else in good repair; it does not pay to let it go down, because you must repair it in the long run, when it costs more.
The second reason is that it is not fair to the settlers. These men have been encouraged to go and have gone in there, and for twenty years their only means of access has been by water. It is not a case of driving or walking over a road as compared with going by water; it is their only way of obtaining supplies. The steamers, which are getting larger all the time with the increased traffic, will not stop at these wharves if they are not safe; they are afraid of accidents. They simply refuse to call; whether or not the settlers must go ten or fifteen miles in an open row boat, they will not call until repairs are made. Of course that is not fair to the settlers.
The third reason is that it is economically unsound, because the life of these works is very short. An unereosoted pile or log has a very short life. I suppose the minister's engineers would know exactly, but I should say they would not last more than four years at the most. I know of a float that was put in during the month of August; the very best cedar logs and so on were used, but it was so ravaged by teredos that it had to be renewed the following September-just thirteen months afterwards. That is an illustration of the short life of these works. Of course when the piles are creosoted they last much longer, perhaps for fifteen or eighteen years if nothing happens in the meantime. When you take a work whose life is only four years and leave it out of commission for six or nine months it certainly makes your work very costly for the short time it is in operation.
Therefore I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that they should be repaired; I believe it would pay the government to keep them in good order. I think it is the best policy in the

long run, and it is only a question of voting the money a little sooner. I do suggest to the minister that $100,000 is insufficient to carry on the work in British Columbia. It does not make a great deal of difference, it seems to me, whether we vote $100,000 this year and $200,000 next year or $150,000 this year, and the same sum next year; it would be cheaper if we did so. I am fully seized of the need for economy, but as I said before sometimes it is the best policy to spend wisely. I hope the minister will bear that in mind when he is preparing the supplementary estimates.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I wonder if the minister could tell me what part of the vote was spent in the riding of Skeena last year, and where it was spent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Eight works
were given attention in the constituency of Skeena, at a cost of $3,239.82.


Olof Hanson: Would the minister tell me where those works were located?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The list I have gives the work done in all ridings. I can find those in Skeena, but it will take a little time.


Olof Hanson: Perhaps the minister could let me have it later.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will try to give it to the hon. member now. I see Port Clements, $914,44; Port Essington, $95.54; Prince Rupert, $15.06, lighting for float;. Queen Charlotte City, $18; Sandspit, $1,088.25, and Stewart, wharf repairs, $50.04. I believe that is all.


Olof Hanson: Is it the intention of the department to carry on the work indicated by the items in vote 121?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have not yet allocated this vote or determined on how it will be spent. I gave the expenditures made last year. We do not know where we will spend the money this year, but it will be spent where it is needed most.


Olof Hanson: But will those
undertakings set out in vote 121 be proceeded with?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I misunderstood my hon. friend. It is our present intention to proceed with those special items, though we do not know what the future may bring.


Albert Edward Munn: I should like to appeal to my hon. friend on behalf of the people at Robert's Creek, in connection with which I wrote the minister a few days ago. This is-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
quite a prosperous community, and the wharf was partly destroyed during a storm which occurred a month or two ago. Four of five times a week the boats from Vancouver pass within a couple of hundred yards of this wharf, but they cannot stop there; they must go to the wharf at Wilson Creek, which belongs to the Union Steamship Company. This is several miles from Robert's Creek, and these people must pay wharfage on any goods handled over that wharf. This puts them at a very great disadvantage. During the summer time a number of boy scouts and girl scouts and other societies go to that district for their summer holidays. I consider that this is an emergency work and on behalf of the people I appeal to the minister to restore this utility.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: A small expenditure was made at this point last year. My hon. friend's request has been placed upon the list of those items for consideration in connection with expenditures under this vote. I may say to my hon. friend that the list of requests very much exceeds the total amount of this vote, so we will just have to do the best we can.


Albert Edward Munn: I have no doubt of that, but this is an extreme case.


John Campbell Elliott: In 1930-31 the general vote for Ontario was $85,000, whereas for this year it is $200,000; the vote for Nova Scotia in 1930-31 was $100,000 as compared with $200,000 for this year; the vote for New Brunswick was $60,000 as against $125,000 and for British Columbia, $75,000 as against $100,000. In this last instance the increase is only one-third whereas in the case of Quebec there was an increase from $100,000 to $400,000, or three hundred per cent. Is there any rule to govern in arriving at this vote, or does the minister just jump at it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The present Minister of Public Works does not jump at anything any more than did the former minister.


John Campbell Elliott: I am afraid he does not jump as much.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He endeavours to exercise the best intelligence he has, assisted by the advice of his officials, considering at all times the amount of money placed at his disposal.


John Campbell Elliott: The basis of my objection to this item is that the works performed under it are not submitted to the house. Can the 53719-240 J
minister give any reason why in some cases this vote has been increased to four times what it was, whereas in other cases it has been increased only by one-third?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: For instance, we had information that Nova Scotia had suffered from severe storms. We are asking the district engineer to make reports and give us an estimate of what is required. The estimates are based upon the information we receive. Although the information is the best obtainable, it must necessarily follow that no rule of thumb or any other rule can be applied to the fixing of estimates. I would point out to my hon. friend that he increased his general vote from $75,000 to $100,000; perhaps he will tell me what principle he employed.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the minister mean that these items are to cover repairs which were rendered necessary prior to the vote being passed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not altogether. They are based upon our experience from year to year as to what is required. Some years we have to defer to the next certain works which should be but are not done. Last year we had to do this, and it will probably have to be done this year.


Thomas Reid: Is it the intention of the department to complete the new channel prior to the beginning of the freshets? Has the minister any information as to the silting up of the old channel which may interfere with shipping on the river?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We are doing our best to complete the channel. As my hon. friend probably knows, a double shift is working on the dredge and we hope to complete the channel before the freshets arrive.


John Campbell Elliott: I gather from the minister that he is including in this general vote the amounts required to make repairs rendered necessary by conditions which have already arisen. Is it his usual practice to include in this special vote repairs rendered necessary before the estimates are prepared? I understood him to say that the total had to be estimated in order to provide for contingencies which might arise because of storms during the year and I should like to know if he expects that the storms will increase three hundred per cent in some provinces and only thirty three and a third per cent in others?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend knows very well that that is not the basis upon which this estimate is made. I have told him that there is no principle as to storms or anything else upon which we can
Supply

Harbours and Rivers

rely. My hon. friend carried a substantial general vote and this vote is for the very same purpose. Our specific items have been reduced very materially and this general vote is enlarged to enable us to meet emergencies rather than have the money tied up in some specific vote so that it cannot be used when something more urgent turns up.


Alan Webster Neill: Could the minister give the
total-I will not ask for the shameful details -of the few meagre nickels which have by some fortuitous change been scattered around the district which I represent? I know he will blush when he states the amount because it is so small; I will blush when I hear it, but it may be just as well to have it upon the record.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There were
thirty-two works undertaken in my hon. friend's constituency and $22,440.44, or more than one-fifth of the general vote, spent.


Alan Webster Neill: Then I was right in stating
that the vote was not large enough.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree with that statement.


Alan Webster Neill: I am somewhat in the position of the young lady teacher who went to the bank to get her salary cheque cashed. The teller had run out of clean bills and he asked her if she would be offended by having to take dirty ones, with the possibility of getting some microbes. She said she was not afraid because no microbe could live on the salary she was getting.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services; no new works to be undertaken, $25,000.
Peter John Veniot: I hope the minister will
excuse me for taking up a little of his time at this point. Unfortunately I was ill at home at the time the New Brunswick items went through and therefore was not in a position to obtain the information I would like to obtain. Under appropriation No. 116 I see an amount of $25,300 for wharf extension and repairs at Shippigan. Is it the intention to ask for tenders for this work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: I am glad to hear that,
because I have word from home that it is understood that tenders would not be called for and that the department was already preparing to see that only such-and-such persons would get on that work. I am satisfied now that if the work is under tender, things will be all right.

Perhaps I am trespassing on the rules of the house, but I wish to refer to another item:
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $125,000.
Either under that item or under another further on, No. 124, "dredging, maritime provinces," is it the intention to do any dredging work in Tracadie harbour this year? If it is, this would be quite satisfactory; but if the minister has not money devoted to that purpose, that is for continuing the work done in 1930 by a suction dredge, I target whether it was No. 4 or No. 12, I wish to point this out to him: An expenditure of $175,000 or $165,000 was made for the construction of breakwaters for the opening of a new entrance to Tracadie harbour. Tenders were called for this work in 1930 under the former government; the contract was awarded under the present government and work was completed last year, I think some time in October, and accepted by the department. If no dredging is done in Tracadie harbour this year out of this item for dredging in New Brunswick or the one for harbours and rivers generally in that province, that work will remain in such a state that it cannot be used and $175,000 will have been spent without there being any chance of 'the work already done being used. In these times of depression the government should be anxious to do everything possible to help people to earn their living, and if the opening of the new channel at the entrance to Tracadie harbour could be proceeded with this year, this would mean giving a chance to earn a living to from seventy-five to one hundred fishing boat crews. If this dredging is left as it is and the $175,000 breakwater already constructed remains idle, those people will have no means whatever to earn 'their livelihood in the fishing industry. The present entrance to Tracadie harbour is and has been for years too dangerous to allow those people to carry on their work in the fishing industry. Prior to about four or five years ago, the lumber industry was flourishing in that district, but now that the mills are closed and that industry is not carried on to any great extent, the people there have to resort to farming and fishing. The dredge boat is in Tracadie harbour; it was idle during a,11 1931 and 1932; it has to remain there because it cannot get out without dredging its way out. It is going to decay because no repairs have been made. The minister might as well have it employed to do this useful work which will give those people the means to earn their livelihood.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not proposed to do any work in the way of dredging in Traeadie harbour this year.


Peter John Veniot: I am sorry to hear that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The only reason is that the appropriation will not permit. When the construction of the breastworks or breakwater referred to by my hon. friend was undertaken, it was realized that to make the work effective, dredging would have to follow. The breastworks had to be constructed first. The importance of the work to the fishermen is fully realized and I can only assure my hon. friend that when circumstances permit and when funds are available, we shall resume that work, but I do not hope to be able to do so this year.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Before this item is
carried, I should like to say something under item 120.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Go ahead.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: But I can say what I
want to say under item 120, just as well under item 123. This item deals with harbours and rivers. I notice British Columbia is getting $354,000 out of this vote for harbours and rivers; Quebec is getting $789,000; Ontario is getting $815,000. The maritimes, I notice, are getting over $700,000. I was asking myself: Where do Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta come in? We have a great area of country and yet under item 120 we are given the paltry sum of $15,000. Before I amplify that statement, might I ask the minister what this sum is for?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is just as the item states, for the maintenance of existing services, no new works to be undertaken.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: In what provinces are
these existing services?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The note I have is that this is required to provide for the maintenance and repair of existing harbour and river facilities in Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest territories. In former years this appropriation was used only for small repair work of $1,000 and under, and special votes were taken for large repair works.


Edward James Young: Does that include Churchill?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think
so.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has the minister before him a record in regard to a vote of $4,000, either in 1929 or in 1930, for clearing the rapids between Meadow lake and the foot of the Grand rapids on the Beaver river?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My officers inform me that we have no particulars on that matter here. I shall be glad to obtain the information and send it to my hon. friend.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I understand a vote of $4,000 was passed for that work, but I am not certain whether the work was ever done. May I say that Meadow Lake is a thriving village 125 miles north of North Battleford, and is in a very productive agricultural area. It ought therefore to be the point which would draw all northern trade 250 miles north from Churchill river down the Beaver river and along the Meadow river to Meadow lake. Between Meadow Lake and Grand Rapids this waterway is filled with rocks for miles so that navigation is impossible, and about four or five thousand dollars would render that river suitable for navigation. It would bring northern trade down to Meadow Lake and on to North Battleford. It is important that something should be done in that direction. We find here a large vote for Ontario, a large vote for Quebec, and an extremely large vote for the maritimes, but there is a paltry vote for the three prairie provinces. I am at a loss to understand why a small sum of $4,000 should not be spent to clear the rocks out of this otherwise navigable stream.
The minister cannot really say that he has not the money, because the expenditures in the other four large areas of Canada which I have indicated prove conclusively that he has the money; and since he cannot plead a want of funds for this small undertaking I would impress upon him the importance of investigating the matter and doing something at once. I urge this matter upon the minister not only from the point of view of the importance of clearing that river in order to make it navigable but because there is a good deal of relief wanted in that area. Indeed, I have under my hand a telegram pointing out the need of relief there. The telegram says: "Much relief required in the Meadow Lake country." That means that these people are not getting relief from the Saskatchewan relief commission, and therefore the expenditure of a few thousand dollars on a public work of this kind would be well advised.
Although parts of Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta may be called the prairies, the minister must remember that in the far north we have wonderful rivers and lakes, and transportation by water is quite important to the people living in that section, as well as to the people living in the middle parts of the
Supply-Harbours and Rivers

provinces, because northern trade ought to come southward, and coming in that direction it would benefit the centres lying south of these rivers and lakes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think my hon. friend can seriously compare the western provinces with Nova Scotia.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: No, not according to this vote; I shouldn't think we could.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think he can compare them in any way from the standpoint of requirements with regard to wharves or anything in that line.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Not on the basis of
equality.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the east there is a coast which is exposed to severe storms. There are fishermen all along the coast and there are wharves and breakwaters, all subject to rapid deterioration and requiring constant renewal. The conditions are altogether different. I suggest that if my hon. friend will diligently look through the expenditures of Canada he will find that the provinces he is speaking about are in large measure compensated by other expenditures which they need and which they are entitled to have for their development, but which are not applicable to the maritimes. I can only say that I will consider the matter, but I think that my hon. friend will agree that it is not a fair comparison to suggest that the expenditures should be on anything like a basis of population. The demands and the conditions are not at all the same. We are trying as far as possible to meet the demands according to the locality.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I did not argue that the expenditures should be on the basis of population; I do not think they should. I said that, far from it, it was apparent that the votes we have carried are not on the basis of population. But to a certain extent they ought to be, and they are not, and it was on that foundation that I was presenting a claim for a small vote for the clearing of this navigable river, or at least a river that ought to be navigable. I submit that the minister ought to investigate the matter and come to a decision. As regards the requirements of Saskatchewan, I know that we do need public money. We are the expanding part of the dominion and I am quite sine that the minister will not make out that we are getting more than we ought to get. As a matter of fact, we have not obtained by any means the fair share to which we have been entitled in the last twenty-five years.


Alfred Speakman: Though we have no
rivers in the prairie provinces such as hon. members in the east boast :of, I know of some rivers in western Canada beside which, considered from certain points of view, a few rivers in the east are mere streams. I hear of the wonderful fishing for itrout and even for salmon in the rivers of eastern Canada. Well, in the river in my district they go fishing for dinosaurs. Go to the museum and you will see that we supply the dinosaur trade for Canada from Red Deer river. If that does not prove that we have real rivers in the west I do not know what does.


James J. Donnelly: 
[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Mr. PRICE:: May I ask the hon. member for North Battleford what he has to say with regard to the bonus received on wheat of $12,000,000 in the province of Saskatchewan? What did the maritime provinces get?


James J. Donnelly: What did you get from freight rates?


Cameron Ross McIntosh: The hon. member is misinformed; Saskatchewan did not get $12,000,000.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan):: Order; thi3 discussion is out of order. The item has already carried.
Dredging
Maritime provinces, $149,200.
Ontario and Quebec, $215,500.
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, $36,800.
British Columbia, $130,000.-Total, $531,500.


Mr. BOWMAN:: Mr. Chairman, I note that the dredging item for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta has been reduced from $46,800 to $36,800. Will the minister tell me how the reduction is accounted for?

Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is a lump
reduction brought about by the fact that it is proposed this year to operate only one dredge instead of two. It was thought that the reduction could well be made.


James Langstaff Bowman: Will the minister tell me whether, in view of the amount set aside, it is the purpose of the government to operate the dredge Winnipegosis on lake Winnipegosis?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The appropriation will not permit'the operation of that dredge.


James Langstaff Bowman: May I point out that the cutting off of this dredge would be a very serious matter to a large community. The dredge Winnipegosis has been operating on the lake of that name as far back as I oan remember. I came to Dauphin constituency about twenty-three years ago, and during all that time, and perhaps for several years previously, the dredge has been operated. Some members have spoken about the lakes and streams in western Canada-. Lake Winnipegosis is very large, and stands in size next to the great lakes, Great Bear lake, Great Slave lake and lake Winnipeg. Its area is about 2,000 square miles. A very considerable amount of business in the way of fishing, lumbering, and so on, is carried on on the lake. At its south end there is the village of Winnipegosis, with a population, according to the last census, of 976 people, which constitute the trade centre of the lake. The dredge Winnipegosis has for many years kept the harbour at Winnipegosis open. The village is situated at, the mouth of the Mossy river on lake Winnipegosis, and at that point there is a harbour for the boats plying up and down the lake. During the last few years at low water periods it has been necessary to dig a channel out into the lake for a distance of about a mile. That is the only way in which the boats engaged in the fishing business oan enter the harbour. Hon. members will readily appreciate that if the dredge Winnipegosis is not allowed to operate during the coming summer the effect upon the community will be serious. As hon. members know, during the last few years there has been very little moisture in western Canada, and in most of our lakes, even in a large lake such as lake Winnipegosis, the water is extremely low; I am told that at the present time it is three or four feet lower than it is under normal conditions. About a year ago, in the winter of 1931-32, the department spent a considerable sum of money blasting out the bottom of the Mossy river so that the boats might enter the harbour-under the conditions obtaining before that, they had been unable to enter in
safety. The dredge has been operating in the channel to which I have referred, and its operations extend practically throughout the whole season because the high winds keep filling the channel, necessitating dredging operations throughout the whole summer.
In this connection I shall read a letter received from the mayor of the village of Winnipegosis. Under date of February 15, 1933, and addressed to myself, it reads as follows:
I thank you for your letter regarding dredging operations on lake Winnipegosis.
There is no doubt whatsoever but that the channel from the village wharves to deep water in the lake is much too shallow for safe navigation. Unless dredging is done this summer to clean out the entire length of channel, which is a good mile in length, our steamboats at present in the harbour will not be able to get on to the lake for navigation purposes. We had difficulty last fall in navigating, especially in periods of low water resulting from south winds, so much so that as a result of touching bottom the Armstrong Company's ss. Armenon is now on dry dock for repairs as she damaged her stern bearing to such an extent that it requited replacement. She also requires renewing of a portion of her keel which was worn down through scraping bottom.
This work is of paramount importance to this community as without a channel to the lake proper all works will be tied up. There are other works required at various portions of the lake, a list of which Mr. Goodspeed, chief engineer has, including work at two lumber mills on the lake and one channel.
In support of having this work done I would point out that the existence of the village of Winnipegosis rests practically entirely on the products coming in from lake points. There are two lumber mills and two box factories on the lake which bring their production into Winnipegosis. Combined I would estimate that they will produce this year about 250,000 feet of lumber. Our principal industry centres in the fish business, and on account of low water last year it was impossible for the Booth Fisheries Company to operate their tug.
May 1 add that the summer fishing is carried on about 110 miles up the lake, and it is necessary that the fish be brought down by steamboat and barge. For that purpose there has to be a channel of fair depth, and a good harbour at Winnipegosis in order that these boats may ply their trade and the business be carried on. The letter continues:
This resulted in curtailment of operations in the district, but should conditions be such that the Armstrong Fisheries tug is tied up on account of low water, stagnation will result locally. With an -improved channel we anticipate that fish production will be increased this fall, but unless this work is done there is every likelihood that fishing operations will be greatly curtailed, which as you can appreciate will hit this locality very hard.
I feel very decidedly that this work should be done and that the dredge should operate.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
Our district here has passed through a very trying time, and the unemployment situation is acute. The only prospect we have of relieving this condition is in our lake operations; stoppage of this would he a catastrophe. The mills mentioned, the box factories and the fishing operations employ a great number of men, not only from the village of Winnipegosis but from the surrounding district.
Yours very truly,
C. L. White.
For many years Mr. White has been a resident of that district, and for some time has been mayor of the village. He is reliable, and from my personal knowledge I know the statements he makes in this letter are quite true.
Then, I have a letter under date of March 7, 1933, from the secretary of the Winnipegosis board of trade. It is as follows:
At a recent meeting of the Winnipegosis and district board of trade a resolution was unanimously passed that I be instructed to write you requesting that you do all in your power to have the Dominion government dredge at Winnipegosis kept in operation over the coming summer.
The water in lake Winnipegosis last year was lower than it has been for a number of years. It is impossible to navigate some of the channels of the lake without doing injury to boats propelled by steam power.
Yours respectfully,
W. S. Howatson,
Secretary.
Mr. Howatson with that letter forwarded to me a letter addressed by him under date of March 24, 1933, to Mr. F. G. Goodspeed, district engineer of the department of Public Works at Winnipeg, as follows:
Dear Sir,-
I have for acknowledgment your letter of the ninth instant with respect to the dredge on lake Winnipegosis. This has been placed before the board, and I have been instructed to place before you the following in regard thereto.
Lake operations last year-1932-would undoubtedly have been most difficult had the dredge not operated. As it was, the river and the approach channel were hardly passable during periods of south winds, as was instanced when the ss. Armenon had to lie outside on occasion and get use of the dredge tug to tow in her barge. In addition to this the dredge tug also had to be used in taking out of the river the same steamboat and equipment, as it was too dangerous to operate the steamboat through the shallower water. The result of this navigating this river and channel has put the ss. Armenon on the bank this winter for repairs, including a cracked stern bearing through wheel hitting bottom, and a broken shoe. If this had happened earlier in the season it would have tied up some fishing operations and resulted in lean times for certain residents.
This leads to the fact that this district practically wholly is dependent on the fishing

operations and other industries on lake Winnipegosis. Stoppage of operations through lack of a navigable channel out of this port will have a direct and serious effect on the livelihood of our residents.
I cannot too strongly endorse that statement, Mr. Chairman. Winnipegosis and the surrounding area probably has a population of 1,200 to 1,500 people, in addition to various settlements around the lake, and this population is practically wholly dependent on fishing operations and the perhaps lesser industries that are carried on on the lake. The letter continues:
Appreciating the serious financial situation at present existing the board feels that, although curtailment in dredge operations may be essential, some work must be done here.
May I point out that last year the dredging operations were shortened; they did not take up the whole summer season as in previous years, but were discontinued in the month of September.
The recommendation now is that your dredge operate along the river channel and outside channel for a reasonable portion of the season to make these channels safe for navigation. There is too much at risk with the residents of this district to withdraw all dredge operations.
Regarding the possibility of the water of the lake rising; in a normal year, with a normal rainfall, the lake rises with the spring inflow of water. The evaporation during the summer months offsets this rise. In the present season, wherein we have had a reasonable fall of snow, there will be some drainage into the lake, but owing to the fact that the land is so dry there will not be a normal inflow in our opinion. Against this is the natural decrease from evaporation during the summer, which may bring the water level to what it was last year, or even below that. Our opinion is that only an abnormally heavy rainfall can raise the lake to a safe, navigable level. Again leaving the future of our lake operations in the hands of nature and an anticipated heavy rainfall is too heavy a risk when the livelihood of a large number of people is at stake.
I would therefore request that you give the subject of operating the dredge here further consideration, advising me of your decision.
I think these two communications will indicate to the minister the real seriousness of closing down the operation of this dredge during the coming summer. The very fact that that dredge 'has been in operation for probably twenty-five or thirty years, and that it is now proposed to take it out of operation when the water is at the lowest level it has been for possibly forty or fifty years, indicates the seriousness of the situation. I trust that the .minister will take these representations into serious consideration. It is not a minor matter; it involves as I have said, the interests of 1,200 to 1,500 people in the neighbour-

Supply-Harbours and Rivers
hood of Wiunipegosis, in addition to a large number of settlers around the lake, which is one of the largest we have in the whole Dominion of Canada. I trust that if the figure which is under discussion is not sufficient 'to put that dredge in operation during the coming summer the minister will see to it that provision is made in the supplementary estimates for a sufficient amount to keep it in operation so that the channel may be kept open.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My bon. friend,
both on this occasion and previously in conversations with me, has, I think, made out a good case in favour of his contention. I cannot assure him that we will make provision for it, but I will give his very strong argument further consideration.


Peter John Veniot: Maritime province dredging, item 124, is $149,200. Could the minister tell me where that money is to be expended?


Otto Baird Price: In item 116 I see an amount for Shippigan, $25,300, which is in the constituency represented by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Veniot). I cannot understand what his objection can be at the present time-


Peter John Veniot: I am not objecting.


Otto Baird Price: and why he is objecting to other expenditures in different parts of the province of New Brunswick. If ever there was an expenditure in New Brunswick which was not justified it is the expenditure at Shippigan, and here we have an item of $25,300 to continue the work. We had previously an appropriation of $80,000 for Caissie Cape, Kent county, a work which has cost now in the vicinity of $100,000, and was never justified in the world, while other parts of the provinces were neglected under the administration of which he was a representative. No expenditure is allowed for repair of wharves at Pointe du Chene, and nothing for Barachois, one of the French Acadian districts. We have on record the hon. member for Gloucester criticizing, wanting to know how much was spent in this district of Barachois; the people of that district long have desired a wharf, a place to handle their lobster fisheries-


Peter John Veniot: Order, Mr. Chairman.


Otto Baird Price: -a portion of the county
in which no provision was ever made by the previous administration. I want to say to
the hon. member for Gloucester that under this present administration expenditures have been made to provide for these fishermen who have been duly shown to be justified in making the applications they have made. They have been provided for under the present administration as they never were provided for under the government which preceded it. And when the hon. gentleman, if he has the privilege in later years to go into those towns in Westmorland county and tell the good people along Northumberland straits what he told them in previous years with regard to what has been done for them, and criticizing the present administration, I want to tell him that he will meet with just the reception and the criticism he deserves. He cannot go to that district and criticize the present administration which has done so much for the fishermen of Westmorland, whom the previous administration never helped.
Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that many expenditures made by the previous administration cannot be justified. I might mention this item of $25,300 for Shippigan, which is required to complete work that was begun by the previous administration. The facts are here; many unjustifiable expenditures were made in the province of New Brunswick simply for political purposes, while other constituencies such as my own have suffered simply because they were represented here by members who were in opposition to the government. I do not understand how the hon. gentleman has the nerve to stand up in this house and attempt to justify the expenditure of $25,300 for Shippigan. The same thing applies in Kent county, where over $80,000 was spent in order to construct a wharf and breakwater for about six or eight fishermen. That was the biggest steal ever put over in the province of New Brunswick.


Peter John Veniot: I am somewhat surprised at the heat with which the hon, member for Westmorland has discussed an item which was passed about an hour ago. He should have been in his place then. I have not criticized, either during this session or any other session, the expenditure of money in the province of New Brunswick. I asked for information, to which I have a right as a member of this house. To-night I asked the minister for information with regard to the expenditure at Shippigan, which my hon. friend says is not justified. If that is so let him have his battle with the Minister of Public Works, because I never recommended that expenditure.
Supply-Harbours and Rivers


Otto Baird Price: Your administration made the first expenditure.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member is wrong when he says this money is required to complete work started by the former government. That is not true. The Shippigan wharf was built years ago, and lately there has been a demand for an addition.


Otto Baird Price: The other government justified it and started the expenditure.


Peter John Veniot: That addition is demanded in order to afford the shipping interests greater facilities. Last year nine steamers were loaded at Shippigan with wood pulp for different parts of Canada and the United States. Those steamers could take on only part of their cargoes at the wharf; then they had to lay out. I did not recommend an addition to this wharf, and I know the minister will support my statement. I did recommend an expenditure of some $2,500 for improvements to the wharf which would allow these steamers to load there. I have not uttered a word of criticism with regard to any expenditures in the constituency of Westmorland. I asked for information, and that information was given to me. Let me tell the hon. member that if I feel like going into the county of Westmorland, to the Cape Bald district, I will go without any fear of him or the people living there.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I should like to get some information before we adjourn. I should like to know where this $149,000 is to be expended.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I cannot give my hon. friend full information as to where this money will be spent. The program is only tentative; it i# still under consideration, and details will have to be settled later.


Some hon, MEMBERS:: Carried


John Alexander Sullivan: Carried.


Mr. HAY:: Before the item carries-


John Alexander Sullivan: Carried.


Thomas Hay: Surely the item could stand until to-morrow-


John Alexander Sullivan: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Progress reported.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order. fMr. Veniot.]
F'riclay, April 7, 1933