1934-06-26

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of the select standing committee on agriculture and colonization.-Mr. Senn.
Ninth report of the select standing committee on banking and commerce.-Mr. Hanson (York-Sunbury).
First report of the joint committee on printing of parliament.-Mr. McLure.

Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) moved:: That Bill Q2 of the Senate for the relief of Hyman Stotland, the preamble of which has been reported not proven by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills, be placed on the order paper, under standing order No. Ill for consideration in committee of the whole of this house at eight o'clock p.m. this day.
Motion negatived.



DOMINION NOTES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved the third reading of Bill No. 110, to amend the Dominion Notes Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Elliott
He said: Mr. Speaker, the general principle of this bill will, I think, prove acceptable to the house. It is introduced in answer to a general demand from various sources for the inauguration of a program of public works throughout the Dominion of Canada. The bill has the threefold purpose of providing employment over a considerable period of time for those engaged in all lines of trade and activity connected with the construction business; of providing useful public services in the way of buildings and other structures, and of stimulating others to go and do likewise in connection with the building trades.
There is attached to the bill a schedule which sets out in detail the works that are proposed, with a general item which is calculated to enable the departments to put every public building in the Dominion of Canada in first class repair, including painting, plumbing, heating, wiring and so on. Then there is a similar vote for improvements to wharves and other structures in the harbours. It has been found that some of these wharves are not adequate for present needs. Some of them require strengthening, owing to the increasing use of trucks which has resulted in heavier loads passing over the wharves, and a survey is being made with a view to bringing them up to present requirements. In addition recent storms on the Atlantic have made repairs necessary in many instances, and this vote will provide funds for these purposes.
I hope the general principle of the bill will meet with the approval of the house. I can understand that there may be some discussion as to the details and as to some of the items in the schedule, but I submit the bill for the approval of the house with the hope that we may get into the schedule as soon as possible.
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I have looked over the various sections and the schedule of this bill with some care, and I think there is a great deal to be said in favour of the principle of getting away from the policy of unemployment relief which the government has been following, against the wishes of hon. members on this side of the house, for practically the last four years, and adopting a principle which at any rate is an improvement on what they have been doing.
First of all may I point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the house that at the special session of 1930 the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) proposed two methods for relieving unemployment. One was to raise the tariffs and the other was to vote $20,000,000 to assist in unemployment relief. The right
hon. gentleman will bear in mind, as I am sure other hon. members of the house will, that at that time it was urged by my right hon. leader and by many other members from this side of the house that so far as the expenditure of public money on public works was concerned, it was not proper to do that without submitting estimates to the house by way of a supply bill. That was the argument advanced at the special session of 1930, and while I am on that point I might read what was said by the Prime Minister at that time. When reference was made to the fact that we were getting away from the usual practice of calling for tenders and having the minister explain the different items in the house, the Prime Minister said:
I think the safeguards of the Public Service Act with regard to tenders are sufficient guarantee as to the money being expended.
I regret to find that these safeguards are being taken away to a large extent under the present bill.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: No.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend says not, but I think I can convince him in this regard as I was able to convince him once before, I think, when he contradicted me as to the relative proportion of the amounts going to the different ridings. I think I can show him once more that he is mistaken and that I am correct.
That was what the Prime Minister said at that time. Now I am going to endeavour to show that in this bill we are getting away from one of the greatest safeguards that the taxpayers of this country have had in regard to public expenditures. Ever since confederation there has been a provision that it shall be the duty of the minister to invite tenders by public advertisement. I regret to see that in this bill the words "by public advertisement" have been omitted. The minister says we are not getting away from the old principle. I should be very glad if he would assure me now that we will get back to that principle and that he will have inserted in this bill the words " by public advertisement," because after all, that is the first objection to the bill as presented to the house.
What does that mean? The wording of the bill is very neat; it says:
-the minister or department of the government entrusted with the administration, management and execution of any of the works set forth in schedule A to this act shall invite tenders for the construction and execution of such works, and contracts for all such works and undertakings shall be awarded under the direction of the governor in council.
4300	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Elliott
I ask the minister the reason for including the words "shall invite tenders" instead of using the clause that has been in the Public Works Act, the Public Service Act and the marine act ever since confederation, that it shall be the duty of the minister to invite tenders by public advertisement. That is the first objection to this bill, and I think it is a very serious objection. What is the advantage of doing it by public advertisement? I remember that a year or so ago the minister gave the house a long list of the newspapers in which these contracts were advertised. Everyone from one end of the country to the other who desired to tender on any of these works had an opportunity to do so when public advertisements of that kind were circulated. The result is different when private tenders are called for. I believe the minister will agree with me, and I believe that when I refer the Prime Minister to his words uttered in 1930 he will agree with me, when I state that public advertisement is the proper way in which to govern expenditures of this kind.
I submit there are sufficient safeguards in the act to enable certain work of a pressing nature to be carried on. Under the Public Works Act, as it now stands, public tenders shall be invited by public advertisement, except in certain specified cases. The first exception is that of a pressing emergency, where any delay would be injurious to the public interest. Under this heading would come any damage occasioned by a severe storm. We will suppose that part of a wharf had been washed away. Perhaps it would not be in the public interest to wait until the department could advertise for tenders. Steps would have to be taken immediately to protect the part remaining, and to repair the parts injured) Then, in the second place are those works which, from their very nature, may be more expeditiously and more economically executed by the officers and servants of the department. There are certain types of work which may always be done to greater advantage and more cheaply by the officers and servants of the department. I refer particularly to the repairing of old structures. For instance, in the work of resurfacing or recovering a bridge one cannot tell, until the work is opened up, in just what condition the timbers may be. The probability is that sueh work could be done more expeditiously and more economically by day labour.
I object strenuously to the repeal of that clause of the present law which states that where the estimated cost of any work is less than $5,000, and in the opinion of the minister in view of the nature of the work it is

not advisable to invite tenders, he need not do so. That has been the practice for over fifty years in the Department of Public Works. The amendment to the effect I have indicated was made in 1903 as the result of a practice which had been in vogue for the previous twenty years. Under those circumstances, for a work the estimated cost of which would be $5,000, one had to call for tenders. That was the rule, except in the case of an emergency or in connection with a work which could be done more economically and expeditiously by day labour or in some other way.
But what is the change now proposed? My greatest objection to the bill is that it contains these words:
Provided that no one work or undertaking certified by the chief engineer of the Public Works department to involve an expenditure in excess of $25,000 shall be authorized by the governor in council except on contract based on tenders.
What -is the change? All the works ranging from $5,000 to $25,000 may now be let without tender. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, and through you this House of Commons if hon. members think such a change is in the best interests either of the government, the parliament or the people of this country who must pay the bills. What can happen under that change? May I call the attention of hon. members to the fact that while in the schedule appear large contracts for which tenders will have to be invited, over one-third of the items appearing therein range between $5,000 and $25,000. I repeat that over a third of the items come in that class, and it means that we are increasing five times over the value of the works which may be done without calling for tenders.
As I pointed out previously all the leeway the minister requires is that provided -in cases of emergency and in cases where in his opinion or in the opinion of the governor in council the work could be done more expeditiously and economically by day labour. To make a change as sweeping as I have indicated at a time like this is, I submit, not in the interests of the people concerned. I say to the minister that the greatest protection he can have is the protection given him through being compelled to call for 'tenders between $5,000 and $25,000, as obtains at the present time. He kn-ows as well as anybody who has been associated with the Department of Public Works that where works are let without tenders and in cases where the minister in charge is not obliged to let contracts to the lowest tenderers, he is subjected to all the -influences of urgent friends, and some

Public Works Construction-Mr. Elliott
who are not such good friends, wiho aTe trying to obtain contracts by private tender instead of by public advertisement.
I urge upon the Prime Minister who introduced the bill and upon the minister now in charge of it the necessity of going back to the old rule which for over fifty years has been in force and has given satisfactory service. To make a change of this kind under present conditions is not advisable-and I make that statement altogether apart from certain clauses and general votes contained in the schedule. There are some large amounts mentioned in the schedule. For instance, there is the amount of $500,000 to supplement where necessary specific amounts hereinbefore provided, upon the authority of the governor in council. I say the item should not be put in that way. Then, there is another item of $2,000,000 for public buildings generally, improvements, additions, fittings and so on. Then, there is the vote for $2,000,000 coming under the Department of the Interior. These moneys are to provide for the construction and development of public buildings, camp sites, electric light and telephone systems, highways, trails, water and sewer systems, recreational areas, wharves, river protection works, and so on. The lump sum of $2,000,000 is indicated in the schedule, but there are no definite items stating where the moneys will be expended.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: Another blank cheque.


John Campbell Elliott: Such an arrangement is
not, I submit, in the interests of the people, it is not in the interests of the department and will cause great inconvenience to the minister. Perhaps the minister will remember the objections made by hon. members on this side of the house who urged that the moneys being spent should be authorized by way of a supply hill. In 1932 we had the rather remarkable spectacle of having items tabled for harbours and rivers. While the expenditures there involved did not run into sums as large as the ones now under discussion, the fact remains that apparently no hon. member knew about those items until the session was over. Those schedules were preoared as part of the unemployment relief scheme. When you came to look over the bill, while in the recital it was mentioned that there was no political significance in it, yet when you examined the amounts you found that they were about six times as large in the ridings represented by government representatives as in the ridings not so represented. The same characteristic applies to this schedule.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: You are
not complaining about that surely, after eight and a half years of the same treatment.


John Campbell Elliott: My hon. friend knows
perfectly well that there was not eight and a half years of the same treatment, and nobody knows it better than he does. He will not find the members who are sitting with him on that side of the house backing him up in that statement, because after all there are every year certain items of general public works that require to be done and that cannot be avoided no matter what the constituency may be. I do not think the hon. member for York-Sunbury is very serious when he makes that suggestion in the way he does, and I know perfectly well he will not get many to back him up in that statement.


Mr. CANTLEY:: My hon. friend the exminister was good enough to keep me on the waiting list for four years, and it was only three months before the election that he brought down $48 000 for a post office in my native town of New Glasgow.


John Campbell Elliott: But my hon. friend got
it, didn't he?


Thomas Cantley: Yes, I got it-election
bait.


John Campbell Elliott: Yes, you did.


Thomas Cantley: But only when you were
afraid to keep it back any longer.


John Campbell Elliott: And my hon. friend was
polite enough at the time to say that he had received very fair treatment. He will remember that, I think.


Thomas Cantley: I did thank him, yes.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend from
Pictou means by his interjection to suggest that you should raise these amounts that can be let without tender from under $5,000 to over $25,000, I am surprised at him because I do not think that is his idea of good business.


Thomas Cantley: I did not say anything
whatever in regard to that point. You are barking up the wrong tree.


John Campbell Elliott: Then that is perfectly all
right. I find in looking over this list of public works for Ontario, and I am referring particularly to Ontario because I think some of my colleagues will deal with some of the other provinces, there is about seven and a half million dollars to be spent in ridings represented by government candidates, and $2,747,000 to be spent in other ridings, of

4302	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Elliott
which amount about 12,250,000 is to be spent on a few items in the city of Ottawa which are necessary due to the fact that this is the seat of government.


Mr. STEW  AST@Leeds: Represented by
Liberals, though.


John Campbell Elliott: Oh, yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Why leave that
out?


John Campbell Elliott: I fancy that most of the ridings will be represented that way in a little while; it seems to be the trend of things. I do not want to labour the points that seem to me to be important in this bill, but a great mistake would be made in attempting to do these works without calling for tenders and without giving the contracts to the lowest tenderer. There has been no explanation given by the minister as to why that change has been made, not a word. Just as I warned the minister three years ago against the course that was being taken then of having public works done under unemployment relief without estimates being put through the house, I am just as much satisfied that he will find a year from now that my advice to-day is right as he is satisfied now that the advice I gave him three years ago was right.
The amount, Mr. Speaker, is a large amount, but I am not going to discuss that now. I quite agree with the opinion which I think is held on both sides of the house, that it is much better to be spending money for something that is needed in the country than giving it by way of dole to people, as has been done during the last three years. That is practically what we are on, the dole, and I want to congratulate the government on having experienced a change of heart in regard to their unemployment relief program. I understand that it has been decided that from now it is by a program of public works that they will afford unemployment relief.
There is another point about the bill that I do not like and that I should like to have cleared up, and that is as to the departments that will do the work. We have one department admirably equipped for constructing public works. I have the very greatest confidence in the efficiency of that department throughout, and I submit that works that are public works should be done under the supervision of the Minister of Public Works and by the officials of the Department of Public Works, instead of having them handed around from one department to another-works that are in reality public works.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Getting more patronage to certain ministers.


John Campbell Elliott: There is another objection that I make to the bill, and that is I do not think the practice should be followed of calling for tenders until the bill permitting the calling for tenders had passed the house. I understand that tenders are being called for, for some of these works before the bill has passed. I have no doubt that it will be passed, and that is a minor objection, but I do again protest just as strongly as I can against, first of all the abandonment of the public advertisements for tenders and secondly against the increase from less than $5,000 to over $25,000 in the amount that can be let without calling for tenders.


Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to add a brief word before the motion is put, and I rise now because I have to attend a committee meeting very shortly.
The first thing I should say is a word of congratulation to the government for having had the courage to embark on a very substantial program of public works in Canada for the relief of unemployment. I take it that the spirit behind this bill is the relief of unemployment in Canada, and to that extent I think we are all in agreement. I agree with what the ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) has said with respect to this system being an improvement over the dole system, and as far as I am concerned I hope the dole system is behind us forever, and that the people of this country will do something else than resort to the dole system.
With respect to what my hon. friend has said with regard to public tender, I do not understand that there is any departure being made from the principle that has been in existence for a good many years save and except with respect to those projects which may cost less than $25,000. I think ample justification can be found for the departure from the principle to which he has alluded.
I am not defending or criticizing that. What I desire to place upon the records of the house-I ask the minister in charge of the bill to give attention to this-is that consideration should be given to several factors. First of all, provision should be made in the contracts that wherever available and other things being equal, local labour should be employed. Second, wherever available and other things being equal, local materials should be employed. I have in mind the erection of public buildings in New Brunswick; our free stone should be used rather than materials imported from other com-

Public Works Construction-Mr. Rinjret
munities. Provision should be made to take care of these two matters. There is a third consideration which I desire to impress upon the government. One, two or three large contracting firms, such as I could name, should not be allowed to come in and get a monopoly of these contracts, even under the tender system. I think hon. members will agree that I am not approaching this matter in a narrow, parochial spirit; I do not want to be accused of that. I submit that the large contracting firms if given twelve or fifteen or more contracts under this program will be able to spread the overhead over all the projects and be in position to underbid the smaller contracting firms. I am anxious to see this work distributed, not only to local labour but to the local contracting firms. I believe such firms would give more sympathetic consideration to the local employment needs. I feel that they would give more consideration than the large, highly capitalized contracting firms, so many_ of which may turn out to be just subsidiary companies of American firms.


Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I desire to say a few words on the second reading of this bill. I endorse what has been said by the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) with regard to the tenders, publicity and the procedure of making contracts. My intention is to deal particularly with the city of Montreal. I may say that I am very grateful as a citizen of Montreal to the government for the public works which it intends to erect in our city, but I want to point out that even this amount of work will not wipe out the obligations towards the city. The unemployment situation in Montreal has been especially bad and it must be viewed from different angles. The government owes a large amount of money to Montreal for past accounts in connection with direct relief. On many occasions, both on the orders of the day and otherwise, I have attempted to have the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) make a statement on this matter. Up-to-date the statements issued by this government or the Quebec government have not been very clear, It has simply been a game of throwing th,e onus from one government to the other or from both governments to the city of Montreal. Somewhat the same game has been played between the former and present administrations of the city and the unemployment commission. It would seem that it was nobody's and everybody's fault that these past due accounts have not been paid. Notwithstanding the vouchers which exist in connection with the contribution of 74726-272 J
the Ottawa and Quebec governments to the city of Montreal for direct relief, there is not the least doubt that a very large amount is due to the city. There is no excuse for not advancing immediately to the city at least a large proportion of the sums which are due. So far the reservations which have been made have made negotiation impossible. I know something of the difficulties in connection with the administration of the city and whether we or our friends or some other group are in power in Montreal, I take the stand, as a citizen, that both governments should come to the assistance of ithe city and pay at least a proportion of the arrears of direct relief. This matter is connected with this bill because the government takes the stand that the erection of these public works will bring the unemployment problem to a conclusion. These public works are all right but they will be insufficient to take care of our unemployment problem. The first thing which this government and the Quebec government should do is to pay a proportion of the arrears due to the city. The. city needs this money very badly and has had to make huge interest payments because it has not been available.
I have another submission to make in connection with this matter and I hope it meets with the approval of my confreres on this side of the house. The government is going to spend six or seven million in Montreal on public works but I know from personal experience that that will not solve the unemployment problem. It will alleviate it to a certain extent as a certain number of unemployed will be given work, but I do not agree with the government's intention to discontinue direct relief payments on July 15. The government is attempting to do away with its responsibilities in connection with the general problem of unemployment by bringing down this bill for the construction of public works. There are 35,000 heads of families now unemployed in Montreal and while I have not made a calculation I know that this program will not take care of all those unemployed. The stand which I have taken in this house and at public meetings when I was more closely connected with the municipal administration is that as long as there is one head of a family not provided with -work it is the duty of the governments to look after that family. Even though it is spending these millions of dollars, I do-not think the government should take the stand that it is through with contributing to unemployment relief. I agree with the principle that the erection of public works is better than direct relief, but if those works are not sufficient, the federal and provincial governments still have a responsibility. It is very
4304	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Rinfret
unfair to consider that the problem is solved when only fifty or sixty per cent of the unemployed have been given employment. This is the stand I take in connection with this bill.
I am glad the Minister of Labour has extended the period of contribution by the federal government to July 15. I do not say that he has done this because of our demands, it is probably because of his own convictions. But I contend that there should be no limitation in these payments. The government is trying to reduce unemployment by the erection of public works but it is wrong to say that on a certain date it will not contribute otherwise. It should contribute otherwise if, notwithstanding this program of public works, there are still heads of families in need and out of work.
In connection with the public works designated for Montreal, I should like to make this statement. There is a considerable list, and I do not complain on that ground; but I see that provision is made for a public building, No. 101, which I understand is the customs build:ng. and No. 103, the postal terminal building, together with other works in the harbour of Montreal. If you look up the estimates of the last year that we were in power, 1930, you will find monej's voted for these or similar works.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: And not spent.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: Had we remained in power all these works which are now proposed, in a gesture of generosity towards the city of Montreal. would have been carried out four years ago: all these works would have been done if the estimates of the then government had been followed out.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: This is an election spasm.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: 
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre):: I do not desire to delay the second reading of the bill because I am not opposed to the principle of it, but I wish to repeat what has been said by the former Secretary of State and congratulate the Minister of Public Works and the administration upon h-aving, after four years of dilatory tactics, adopted the principle and policy which we on this side have been advocating for the last few years.


An hon. MEMBER:: Say a kind word.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I think
my hon. friend from Parkdale had better go back to Toronto. The government is not only adopting the policy of public works, as we have advocated it, but is financing this policy exactly as we urged on this side through the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and the hon. member for North Bruce (Mr. Malcolm) over a year ago. As I did the other day, when discussing the Dominion Notes Act, I wish to commend the Minister of Public Works and the Prime Minister for financing these works in the way they are doing. In the second place I wish to emphasize in the strongest possible terms the complete inadequacy of the amount provided to meet the situation. The present unemployment crisis in Canada cannot be met by the expenditure of 139,865,000 as under the terms of this bill.


Mr. QUINN:: Not a bad start.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: But you should have started four years ago. You are starting something which those on this side will finish before another year is out.


Felix Patrick Quinn: Don't fool yourselves.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I wish
to warn the Minister of Public Works not to repeat in this legislation the catastrophic blunders of the 1930-31 legislation. He will recall that we asked from this side of the
house for certain precautions in connection with the estimates, certain precautions in connection with governmental control, certain precautions in regard to a national audit of every single cent spent; and we again warn the minister that we desire these precautions to be observed in regard to this legislation. I submit that under section 7 of the bill powers far too great are given to the minister himself.
I wish to identify myself with some of the remarks made by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Hanson). As a matter of fact I had already drawn up an amendment before the hon. member spoke, to provide that, should no additional cost be entailed in connection with such public works and undertakings as are authorized, they shall be financed and completed in local areas and that local labour shall be employed in so far as possible in the completion of such public works. So far as we in British Columbia are concerned, with the meagre allowance given us, we do not desire to have any of the moneys spent in the fabrication of material in the city of Montreal. I mention Montreal by way of illustration; it might be equally Toronto.
In this bill, out of a total of S39.865.000 that may possibly be spent, S32.224.200 is to be spent on large public buildings of steel, of brick, of stone construction, and on steel bridges, harbour works, piers, wharves and works of that kind whereas only $7,641,400 is to be spent on what you might call ordinary undertakings. Under this measure skilled artisans will certainly obtain employment, but I am afraid that the common day labourer will wait on the side lines watching these buildings go up. My criticism of this whole plan is that the ordinary day labourer is not going to find an opportunity for employment under it. I make these observations, I trust, in a constructive spirit. When the time comes to consider the items I shall make some suggestions to the minister in regard to certain projects in my own province of British Columbia. In the meantime I support the constructive suggestions of the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) and the former Secretary of State (Mr. Rinfret) concerning this legislation. I have one further proposal to offer in regard to these public works; that the minister do what is done by the government of Great Britain in all such undertakings, that is in regard to the king's honour roll, that a certain proportion of ex-service men be employed on the contracts awarded. I think if the minister would include in his contracts these two provisos, the one I just
4306	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Howard
mentioned and the other in regard to local labour and material as far as possible, then he will go a long way to meet the criticisms from different parts of the country.
I want to conclude as I commenced, by commending the administration for that in this eleventh hour of their political life they are embarking on this program, and by commending the Prime Minister for adopting at the same belated hour the suggestion for financing these works which we on this side of the house advanced years ago; and I trust that future administrations will enlarge it into a really comprehensive program of public works for the relief of unemployment throughout Canada.


Mr. C. B. HOWARD (Sherbrooke):: I am not going to congratulate the government upon this program of public works that they have brought down to-day because I believe that if this government had done what they promised to do in 1930 this country would be in a different position from that in which it is to-day. I want to criticize two or three clauses of the bill, and then state the reasons why I do not think this distribution is equitable. It is admitted by everyone that during times of crisis like this people flock into the centres in order to be taken care of, even if they cannot get employment; therefore the unemployment situation is much more acute in the larger centres than elsewhere. In the province of Quebec we have four large centres. Montreal is our main centre, Quebec comes second in population, and Three Rivers and Sherbrooke vie with one another for third place, they are practically equal. We naturally think that Sherbrooke is third, and Three Rivers people think they are. Now if you examine the schedule here is the situation. In the city of Montreal it is proposed to expend $5,989,500, which is certainly not too much for the city of Montreal. In Quebec it is proposed to expend $1,722,500, that is in the districts immediately surrounding those centres. In Three Rivers the amount to be spent is $484,000 while in Sherbrooke, the third largest centre in the province of Quebec, they do not propose to spend one single nickel. I shall give some figures to show what the unemployment condition has been, and what conditions are in the city of Sherbrooke at the moment. But in the whole of those eastern townships of Quebec, consisting of eight counties federally and eleven provincially, only one work is proposed, that is in Farn-ham, in the constituency of the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Pickel), amounting

to $58,000. I think under those conditions I have a right to protest.
Population figures for the city of Sherbrooke as of last week show a total of 29,284. Taking into account the births during the year you find a net decrease in population during the past twelve months of 439 in spite of the unemployed coming into the city. In Sherbrooke we run a municipal kitchen to feed these people and keep them from starving. Our official figures of families on kitchen relief are as follows:
September	 331
October	 361
November	   406
December	 463
January	 522
February	 544
March	 542
In other words there was an increase from September, 1933, to March, 1934, from 331 to 542, or 211 more families kept by the city of Sherbrooke on direct relief.
For wood delivered by the city to people who are not obliged to go to the kitchen, the figures are as follows:
1933-	Load's
September				 213
October			 318
November			 550
December			 942
1934-	
J anuary			 1,010
February			 1.190
March			 830
Yet in spite of these figures we find not a single nickel provided under this bill for the city of Sherbrooke, the hub of the eastern townships of Quebec, to aid in unemployment relief.
One further aspect of the matter to my mind is more impressive than all the others; and I say this directly to the Prime Minister. I want him to realize the situation. I am one who believes that in a city the proprietor is what the Prime Minister termed the sheet anchor of the Canadian municipality. In Sherbrooke according to the last census we had 29,284 people, and in 1930 there were 2,975 proprietors; in other words 10-3 per cent of the people owned their homes. In 1931 the number of proprietors had dropped to 2,876; in 1932 to 2,596 and in 1933 to 2,233. In other words in a two year period, due to foreclosures and people losing their homes, there was a reduction of 643 in the number of property owners. If you carry that percentage on for another few years you might as well consider Sherbrooke in the class with a Russian municipality. I draw this to

Public Works Construction-Miss Macphail
the attention, of the committee because I think the distribution is absolutely unfair and shows no consideration for the needs of these centres in the province of Quebec.
I also criticize this bill in respect of the methods adopted for carrying out its objects. The word " public" 'is left out before the word " tender." I do not believe that this government or any government has any right to go on with a construction program without calling for public tenders. As this stands at present the government can call for private tenders or any other kind and go ahead and let contracts-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: In the Tory fashion.


Charles Benjamin Howard: The proper way to do this is by public tender. The old legislation provided that for works costing less than $5,000 the minister had the right to use his judgment and go ahead without public tender. The figure has not merely been raised from $5,000 to $25,000, but the bill says "in excess of $25,000." Then it goes on to qualify that, it provides that an expert in the department shall estimate the cost. If he estimates it as not in excess of $25,000, they can go ahead without calling for tenders. That simply means that if their estimate should over-run, we will say, an ordinary percentage up to $35,000, the government propose to carry on the work without calling for tenders.
Then I do not see any provision with regard to the fair wage clause. I am exceptionally interested in that; I believe we should mention it in this legislation without leaving it to the fair wage act. I believe it should be put in here, because I am one of those who believe that if the wages you pay a man give him only a bare existence it is not of much benefit to the community. If you want to help your communities pay your men fair wages so they will have money to spend in order to make their fellowmen more prosperous.
Then I should like to direct the attention of the minister to the fact that Canadian companies are not specified. I know what has happened in the past; I know how United States companies evaded the law by forming Canadian subsidiaries to handle these contracts, and perhaps in prosperous times that might be countenanced. But in times of extraordinary stress I do not believe any United States company or any other outside company should be allowed to tender on or accept these contracts. As one other hon. member said a moment ago, we want Canadian labour to be used, Canadian companies to get these contracts and, so far as possible, local contractors and local labour to get their share of the work.
In closing I want to say that I agree entirely with those who have already spoken from this side of the house. After waiting three and a half years; after it has been found that the marketing bill will not remedy (the situation; after the government have failed to raise the prices of agricultural products; after the Prime Minister has failed to implement the promise he made from the public platform in Sherbrooke in 1930, that if he were elected people would rush back to their jobs and the country would be prosperous, and that if this did not happen we could blame the government; after all that I want to say that I am glad the government have adopted the policy which we call inflation. If they had proceeded three and a half years ago to deal with our currency as they propose to deal with it in the legislation brought down last week; if inflation had been brought about three years ago the situation would have been quitte different, and possibly this legislation would not have been necessary. I want to ask the Minister of Public Works, when he considers these items, to give particular attention to the large centres of the province of Quebec, and to give Sherbrooke its fair share in relation to Montreal, Quebec and Three Rivers, since we do not wish to be discriminated against.
Miss AGNES C. MACPHAIL (Southeast Grey):	Mr. Speaker, I would not have had
anything to say had it not been that the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) rose a short time ago and said that this program, or perhaps a more extensive program, had been proposed by the Liberal party. The number of things the Liberal party claim to have sponsored is to me amazing and amusing. They suddenly become the exponents of a publicly owned bank; they say they were the .people who advocated a central bank, though I always understood that we were the people who converted them. I think everyone who sits in the house or in the press gallery will remember that over and over again the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Coote) suggested a public works program on a large scale financed with new money, that is, money issued without interest against the general assets of the people. I do not think one needs to argue the point. I might say to His Majesty's loyal opposition that if they had really wanted to bring in a program of public works for the relief of unemployment they' had an opportunity to do so before the election of 1930. I really think the Liberals were defeated then because of the depression and their inadequate methods of dealing with it. If they knew then what should be done it
4308	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Miss Macphail
is a wonder they did not do it. At any rate, while those who sit in the southeast corner are very modest when the government bring in their programs, and do not like to rise too often and say, " Thank you very much"- or, as someone suggests, "We told you so"

 still I think it is going too far when the hon. member for Vancouver Centre claims credit for the Liberal party for suggesting that such a program be inaugurated. The order paper to-day carries a resolution standing in the name of the hon. member for Macleod, as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, in view of the large number of unemployed, and with the necessity of increasing the purchasing power of the people, it is expedient that the government give immediate consideration to the inauguration of a large scale program of public works to be financed by a direct issue of non-interest bearing dominion notes.
Actually, if we enforced the rules as severely as they are enforced at times, we could not discuss the bill now before us because the subject matter is already before the house in this resolution, which was put on the order paper by an hon. member sitting in this corner.
I do most heartily congratulate the government upon bringing in a program of .public works. It is four years late, but at any rate it is being brought in now and is being financed in what I believe to be the correct manner. The program should have been larger; I think this is only a beginning, and that still larger programs will be brought in to be financed in the same way. I am sure the government will not appreciate my prolonging my congratulations, so I will bring that part of my remarks to an end. I think at this time we could easily stand a program calling for the expenditure of $100,000,000 rather than $40,000,000, financed in just the same way, because we have been deflated much more than $100,000,000, and there is no reason why we should not reflate to that extent, if people like the word "reflation" better than another that might be used. However, undoubtedly even this small program, amounting to $40,000,000, will do a great deal to relieve unemployment. At least it will put $40,000,000 of purchasing power in the pockets of the people and to that degree at least will help business.
I am sorry this program is not larger; I think we could have stood a very much larger one. I could have said $200,000,000 instead of S100,000.000, but perhaps we had better put it at the latter figure. We are spending only a small amount now. I look for larger programs in the future; I think they are

inevitable, and I think they will be financed in the same way.
As a last word I want to say to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre that I think he has claimed for himself and his associates about all the credit he had better try to claim this session.


Hon. W. R. MOTHERWELL (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I am moved by somewhat conflicting emotions as I survey this vain attempt on the part of the government to save themselves from political extinction. That is what it means. They have one foot in the grave, and this is a great lunge to try and keep the other foot out. Of course it is claimed that this program is meant to relieve unemployment, and no doubt there is something to be said in that regard, but just how much of it will go for that purpose is another matter. It is something like the money spent for grasshopper bait; how much went for Grithoppers and how much for grasshoppers? No doubt this also will do away with the dole, in some little measure at least. Are we contemplating the expenditure of a great deal of money, nearly $40,000,000, for the purpose of affecting the coming federal election? That is what it is for; there is no use getting away from it. And it does not say very much for our criticism if we let them get away with it without pointing out that fact. And then to think of the stupidity of the government who seem to have the idea that such action will save them. Why, the deeper they are in the mud the farther they will get into the mire via this route. Have we been living all our lives with our heads buried in the sandpile so that we do not recognize these things when governments attempt to do them? We do not need to go back to antiquity to find it out. On the Prescott highway, part of that system of the King's highways, we saw men lined up like bees around honey and pretending to be working the day before the election. And out in Saskatchewan there were white men, black men, Indian boy graduates-all kinds of men, old and young, working on the roads only the week before and during the week of the election. How did they vote? Most of them just voted to soak the government that much harder. They took and earned their money and then put the boots to them afterwards.
That kind of blind failure has been this government's record, from its inception. Every move has been more stupid than the one preceding; each move has been non-effective in whatever purpose it set out to accomplish -and this is the hugest one of the lot. There

Public Works Construction-Mr. Motherwell
was a time in my early political career when, from a political standpoint, I would have been very much alarmed at this procedure;
I would have been afraid that the government would scoop in everybody and get all the voters within their toils. But to-day, even if they doubled the expenditures outlined in this bill, I would be quite composed, so far as that angle of the matter is concerned, because I know that their action will only result in the greater downfall of the government, when it comes. So we do not need to be alarmed at that.
Another matter which gratifies me is that recent events have shown that the people of Canada are not on the bargain counter. They are going to vote as they wish. They are going to take advantage of the secrecy of the ballot if the returning officers do not open their ballots as some of them did in Ottawa at the last election. They will vote, they will take advantage of what is supposed to be the secrecy of the ballot and in other respects they will govern themselves accordingly. There is no use haranguing the government. It is said that all governments do a little bit of this kind of thing prior to the elections. I do not admit that. But, for the sake of argument, supposing I do admit it;
I suppose it is only natural that one should dress up and brush up before he presents himself to the people at an election. Put on your best clothes, have your front yard swept up, and your backyard ditto. Maybe a little of that is only natural. But the present wholesale attempt, with no pretence at saying that the purposes behind it are not as I have indicated-well, it is just too much for me to swallow at one gulp, and without protest. I am not making these statements because there are no appropriations for my constituency; as a matter of fact, I do not know whether there are or not.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Not a dollar.


William Richard Motherwell: 
Mr. P. A. SEGUIN (L'Assomption-Mont-calm) (Translation):: 
Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: It is unfortunate that the minister who prepared these appropriations did not first consult the hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) and refer to the dole lists, in order to distribute this money in localities where it is most needed. Such a method would have been fairer and at least it could have been said that the government's object was purely to relieve distress.
Since 1930, sir, I have earnestly requested the hon. Minister of Public Works to erect a post office at L'Assomption.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is a fact.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: I think it
is not a matter of luxury, sir. The building is supported on all sides by props which this government has had placed there instead of rebuilding it.


Mr. PARENT (Translation):: It will
crumble like the government.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: The town of
L'Assomption had to resort to the dole. On many occasions I requested that the post office, which is in ruins, as you may judge by this photograph, be rebuilt.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Show it
to the government.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: I forwarded
a copy to the hon. minister at the time-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: He did
not bestir himself.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: -and he replied as follows:
While I fully agree with you and appreciate the fact that the building in its present condition must present anything but a pleasing appearance, I regret we have no appropriation to which the reconstruction of this building could be charged. I have however, made a note of the matter and it will receive every consideration when the estimates are being prepared for the ensuing fiscal year.
This was on November 29, 1932.
Mr. CASGRAIN (Translation) [DOT] He forgot about it.
Public Works C o?istruction~
COMMONS -Mr. Seguin


Mr. DUPUIS (Text):: Who signed that?


Paul-Arthur Séguin: The hon.
Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart). He certainly lost his memorandum because in quoting this item to relieve the unemployed, he forgot to provide for the reconstruction of the post office at L'Assom.ption which is crumbling; the Liberals, therefore, will be obliged to rebuild it as soon as they assume power.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: I regret also
that the hon. minister has also lost sight of many other requirements affecting rural constituencies and particularly the county which I have the honour of representing in the house. The tobacco industry in my county is of primary importance and our farmers who are in distress requested, at various times, warehouses, so as to preserve their tobacco in good condition and enable them to market it advantageously. I earnestly requested the erection of such warehouses and I again do so now, if it is not too late; it could be included in this last item of the amounts to be expended:
To supplement where necessary specific amounts hereinbefore provided upon the authority of the governor in council.
Perhaps this paragraph could be altered; this amount of $500,000 would be increased, a few million dollars could be added to provide for various other requirements that the hon. minister forgot in the schedule.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Hear, hear.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Thus the post office at St. Lin; tobacco warehouses at St. Jacques-I'Achigan, St. Esprit and even at Joliette could be erected. The minister did not do so, he did not inquire in what localities this money could be utilized.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: He is not a connoisseur in tobacco!


Paul-Arthur Séguin: Moreover, it is urgent that a bridge be constructed at one end (bout) of " File Jesus," on the Jesus river. This bridge would link Montreal to the eastern part of our province, at the village of Charlemagne.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Quite so, the Charlemagne bridge.
, SEGUIN (Translation): The construction of this bridge would give work to a great number of unemployed in the adjacent counties. It would have been timely to construct this bridge, but it slipped the hon. member's mind. I could point out numerous urgent

undertakings in my county. The hon. minister is aware that a dam was requested on the Assomption river, so as to raise the water to its regular level and thus draw to its shore much wealth. The government promised, at the time, to give it their serious consideration, however, this promise became a dead letter, and when work is being distributed, the government rather think of other counties to which large sums of money are granted. I do not envy my colleagues who reside in the neighbourhood. We obtained, at St. Jacques-I'Achigan, under the Liberal regime the construction of a very attractive post office which cost $28,000. I note that $48,000 is appropriated for such a building at Berthier. I wish to congratulate my hon colleague from Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette): however, I think the government could have set aside, out of the large amounts which it expends in certain localities, some funds to provide for other localities which have been completely ignored.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No justice exists.


Paul-Arthur Séguin: I do not
wish to further delay the house, although endorsing the principle of the bill, I wished to point out that a grave injustice is being perpetrated in the distribution of moneys and that this bill seems rather introduced, not to win counties-it is futile-but in an endeavour to hold on to those which are in danger. I do not think that such a policy will succeed, in spite of all, the counties which are Liberal will remain so while the others will return to the Liberal fold.


Mr. J. A. MERCIER (Laurier-Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of the remarks I have to make on this bill, I want to say that I approve of the spending of $40,000,000 for public works because it does away with the direct relief system which has done so much harm to the country since the present government adopted that means of relieving unemployment in Canada. On June 19 the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) introduced this bill in the place of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) who, as he said, was engaged in a patriotic duty. I want to take this opportunity of congratulating my genial friend, the Minister of Public Works upon the success he attained in the patriotic duty he was engaged in at that time. That success was considerable and has been heartily approved by the people of Ontario and the people of Canada in general. On that occasion the Prime Minister, answering a

Public Works Construction-Mr. Mercier
question asked by my right hon. leader (Mr. Mackenzie King), stated:
I can assure my right hon. friend that when he looks at it he will regard it as being the acme of patriotism, inasmuch as communities which have little claim except their adherence to the time honoured tenets of the great party which he has the honour to lead, have not been forgotten.
I want to deal with those words of the Prime Minister and endeavour to find out if there has been an equal distribution of this work among the different constituencies and divisions of Canada regardless of the political adherence of the representatives of those communities. I intend to deal particularly wi h Quebec as I am more or less familiar with that province. The former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) has dealt with Ontario and I shall not attempt to touch upon that province or any other province. In looking over the schedule of the bill I find that the first place in Quebec which is to be benefited by the provisions of this bill is Beauport, to which $20 000 has been allotted. Beauport is in a Conservative constituency. The next place is Berthierville, to which $48,500 has been allotted. I do not know whether this amount would have been allotted last week had the government known that the hon. member for Berthier-Maskinonge (Mr. Barrette) was going to leave his party when an important vote was taken in this house on Friday evening.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon.
member know that in the estimates for 1930-31. prepared by his hon. friends, provision was made for a building in Beauport?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: No, I did not know that.


Mr. VENIOT:: Why did you not carry it
out?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: It
should have been carried out before. As has been said before, it is coming four years too late.


Mr. MANION:: Better late than never.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: 
An hon. MEMBER:: I think you forgot Chicoutimi.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I mentioned it, $88,500.


Mr. GOBEIL:: 


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: I have $88,000 and I stick to it.


An hon. MEMBER:: What about Edmonton?


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: If you want to go to Alberta, more than half the amount in the province goes to Calgary, the constituency represented by the Prime Minister. But to come back to Montreal. What struck me most in examining this schedule was that most of the amounts were items that should have been in the main estimates rather than in this special measure for public works. We find that the sum of $200,000 is voted for an armoury for the 17th Duke of York's Royal Canadian Hussars, and that amount can be attributed almost to anyone. I have nothing to say in that regard. Then we find $2,000,000 for a public building addition. I suppose this is the new customs building on McGill street, Montreal. This site was acquired a great many years ago and a certain amount of work has been done on the lot. The pillars are there, the place has been fenced in, and it is only right that at this time something should be done to supplement the expenditure that has already been made there. The next amount, taking Montreal, is for the postal station at Notre Dame de Grace, $136,000, the site of which has already been acquired. In Notre Dame de Grace, in the coming elections, it is possible that there will have to be a new government candidate, be-
[Mr. J. A. Mercier.3
cause the member for the present constituency of Mount Royal does not reside in Notre Dame de Grace, nor does the member for St. Antoine reside there, so that there will be a new government candidate in this division when the next election, so ardently hoped for, comes along. There will be a new Conservative candidate, I say, and something must be done to ensure in the minds of the government the election of that candidate. Therefore we find the sum of $136,000 voted, to be spent on a postal station in this part of the city.
I represent one of the most flourishing cities in the province of Quebec, not quite as large perhaps as Notre Dame de Grace, but under the administration of my good friend the former Postmaster General we were lucky enough to have a post office built in the city of Outremont. But the amount was not anything like $136,000. I think it only amounted to some $40,000. I am sure that when consideration of this item comes up the minister will explain why so expensive a building is to be put up in this suburb of Montreal.
As to the postal terminal building, everyone who knows anything about Montreal is aware of what has taken place. We know that the site was acquired-that is mentioned here-but it was acquired by the former government. The sum of $1,800,000 is to be spent in putting up this building. We have nothing to say against that, we are rather commending the government for carrying out the program of the former administration. I am advised by the former Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot) that there was an item of $600,000 appropriated in 1930 to carry out this project but it was cancelled by the government.
The next item goes to prove what I said a moment ago, that many if not the larger number of items in this schedule should have been included in the main estimates, but this futile gesture is made by the government pretending to come to the relief of unemployment. This $534,000 for repaving of certain surfaces should have been in the main estimates. And further to show that the nature of this work makes it clear that it should have been placed in the estimates, we find that the last amount for the city of Montreal is for the application of two protective coats of paint on the steel structure of the harbour bridge. A bridge of the importance and value of the Montreal harbour bridge has to be painted every now and then. That is not a matter of special relief but an ordinary expenditure that should have gone into the estimates.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Mitchell
The next item is for the reconstruction of eleven raceways at the Windmill point pier, $339,000. Under the former administration a sum of $1,500,000 was voted to carry out this work, but that was cancelled and now this government comes along with its belated generosity and votes the meagre sum of $339,000. Then we have another amount of the same nature, certain protection works against sifting of filling material supporting grain elevator No. 3. This is a work that had to be done of necessity and there is no special commendation to be given to the government for putting it in this measure. The next amount for Montreal is a sum of $242,000 for raising of a fronting wharf, sections 38, 39 and 40. That is work that should come under the ordinary expenditures of the government and should have been in the estimates, it should not be placed here.
I want to add my word of blame, Mr. Speaker, of the government for the clause in this bill which allows the granting of contracts for sums not in excess of $25,000 without calling for tenders. With great surprise also we find nothing in this bill calling for the fair wage clause. We know what has been going on throughout Canada as regards wages paid-[DOT]


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is provided in our specifications for all works that we undertake and in all works that we do by day work we conform to the act.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Why do you not put
it in the bill? It is not stated in the bill.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It does not need to be in the bill because it applies to everything.


Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton):: I just wish to make a few general observations on this bill. First I want to congratulate the government on launching this public works policy. I think it is sound in principle, and that in adopting it they have followed the lead given by other countries of the world in an endeavour to break the spell of this depression. I have no criticism whatever to offer in that regard.
Further, I think that the government should be congratulated particularly on the financial policy of using the nation's credit rather than borrowing money for this undertaking. I believe it is an experiment, and I have no criticism to offer as to their being cautious in launching such a policy. If it is successful and proves sound it can be extended to much of the work set in motion by the government in the future.
The work to be done in my own city, where rentals at the present time for offices used by the government amount to $52,000 a year, is a productive enterprise that will result in a large saving. With the self-liquidating provisions of the bill it will return to the people of this country the capital expenditure involved.
What I wish to bring to the attention of the government is the question of the fair wages policy. I am not unmindful of the fact that the fair wages act provides that:
Every contract made hereafter with the government of Canada for construction, remodelling, repair or demolition of any work shall be subject to the following conditions respecting wages and hours:
But in subsection 2 the act says that:
The provisions of this section shall not apply to persons employed in fabrication or manufacture of materials, supplies or equipment for use in the work contemplated where such fabrication or manufacture is carried on in any established plant or factory other than a plant or factory established for the purposes of the work contemplated.
Especially in view of the disclosures in the price spreads committee, I think the fair wages policy in connection with this work should be all-embracing. I believe the government should give leadership in this connection, should insist that every nut, bolt, screw and piece of wood or equipment that goes into this program should be fabricated or produced under fair wage conditions. Might I give as an example the furniture industry in this country, on which much light has been thrown during the past year. I think the government should insist that any furniture that goes into these buildings should be produced and manufactured under fair wage conditions, with -wages that provide for a standard of living at least equal to what we consider a fair Canadian standard. I leave that suggestion with the government, notwithstanding that the act eliminates these establishments where the fabrication takes place from the fair wages requirements. I believe it would be wise on the part of the government to extend the provisions of that act to bring these establishments within the compass of that policy in connection with this undertaking.
Then I believe that every job should be awarded by contract. I would not accuse the government of endeavouring to use any of this work for political purposes in the broadest sense-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No doubt they will do so.


Humphrey Mitchell: -but I believe the safest way to overcome that evil is to insist that
4316	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Mitchell
every undertaking set in motion shall be let by contract. Then in the big undertakings I believe that every subcontract should be registered with the government. I do not think that what are known as broker contracts should be permitted, where the main contractor gets the contract and then chisels the other contractors down to provide a profit for himself. I believe every contract of any kind or character that is awarded should be registered with the government in order to prevent, the intrusion of the broker contractor.
I believe also, Mr. Speaker, that the government should give a lead in regard to the establishment of the six hour day. I believe the main purpose of this legislation is to distribute purchasing power among the building tradesmen of this country, and in passing I may say that it is a fact that the building and construction industry is the real cesspool of unemployment. I think it is a fact that eighty per cent of the money expended in construction goes in wages, and in view of the fact that the policy of the government is to take people off relief I think it might be well to experiment with the six hour day. I believe we are going to get the six hour day whether we like it or not; it is just a question of time. I believe it is a sound principle, and it might be well for the government to give leadership in that direction. It might be argued that it is not practicable, but I would point out that it would not be necessary to have a break in the midst of the six hours for meals or anything else; if necessary you could run two shifts, and in that way you would spread out the work so that as much as possible might be given those who want to put their hands to some productive enterprise.
I hope this government will not make the mistake that has been made by the government of Ontario in connection with some of their construction work. They insisted that a man must be on relief before he could take advantage of the work. I believe there are hundreds and thousands of people who have made every effort, who have used up the savings of a lifetime, in order to stay out of the relief offices. I believe those people should be given some measure of recognition. It should not be necessary for a man to be on relief before he can get work under this program. My main interest is that as many men as possible should be given work under this policy. In connection with the subcontracts I should like to point out that through the letting of these contracts by broker contractors the employees themselves may be placed outside the provisions of the workmen's compensation laws, and even the TMr. Mitchell.]
fair wage policy of the government. That is why I believe the government should insist that all these contracts must be registered, so that every bit of work done should be carried on under the legislation that has been enacted for the protection of men and women engaged in the industrial life of this country.
In conclusion I want to congratulate the government on launching this policy. I be-lipve that in the next five years the respective governments will have to take an active part in launching building programs for the purpose of eliminating the slums of this country. I believe we might take a leaf out of the book of the British government, who launched an enormnu5 home building program partly financed by the government. I believe that if the interest rates do not come down policies will have 'to be formulated and set in motion by the respective governments of this country looking to the abolition of the slums and the provision of housing accommodation of the kind we think is necessary in the life of this country.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: With the alleged purposes of the measure as set forth by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) I think all parties in the house will be in agreement. The threefold purpose, as the minister described it, was that of providing employment, providing useful public services in the form of buildings and other construction work, and stimulating activity on the part of others to do likewise. I call these the alleged purposes, because it seems to me that if they were the real purposes this measure would have been brought down many months ago instead of in the concluding hours of the session. The circumstance that the bill is brought down at this time within a few days of the prorogation of parliament. together with the sections of the bill itself, give one good reason to believe that the emergency referred to in its provisions is not so much one with respect to unemployment as it is an emergency with respect to the government's own position in appealing to the people, as they no doubt will, in the very near future. The bill has all the earmarks of a measure introduced for the purpose of assisting the administration in a general election. Parliament is asked to vote a public works program amounting to S40.000.000 on. the eve of a general election; that in a nutshell is what the measure is.
May I point out to the minister wherein I think an examination of the measure will reveal its political intent. In the first place, were this an unemployment measure introduced for

Public Works Construction-Mr. Mackenzie King
the purpose of setting an example to others and of stimulating employment, it would have been brought down long ago. I would remind the house that it was November 20 last when the Prime Minister publicly announced that during the course of the forthcoming session a program of construction of public works would be introduced. When I read the announcement, I thought, judging from what little knowledge I have of political affairs, and of -hon. gentlemen opposite, that it meant a general election at the end of the session, that the government was preparing the way for a program of public works to be put forward, not in the regular way in the form of a supply bill, to be voted as estimates for public works, but as a measure supposedly in aid of the unemployed. During this session I have watched pretty carefully to see just when this program would be brought down, and the longer it was postponed the more certain I became that it indicated the near approach of a general election. Several times during this session I asked the Prime Minister when we might expect this public works program. He gave one reason after another, or I should not call them reasons; I should say he gave one excuse or apology after another for the delay. Once he said the program was like Jonah's gourd, that it was getting larger and larger, and numerous demands were being made which he had to consider. Later on we were told that it would not do to have it suggested that he was seeking to bribe the people with their own money by bringing down the program while the elections in Saskatchewan and Ontario were under way. But I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that long before there was any announcement of an election in Ontario or Saskatchewan, long before those dates were fixed, there was ample opportunity for the government to have introduced this program.
As a matter of fact, if this program really was intended to assist the unemployed and stimulate industry, it Would have been brought down early in the session in the regular way, in the public works estimates, which would have insured proper control of the expenditure by this House of Commons. It is now almost July 1. As the minister knows better than anyone else, it takes a certain time to prepare plans for public works. Tenders have to be called for, or ought to be called for, and that takes more time. As a result we will be fairly well along in the year before this particular program, which is intended to take the place of the dole, will be in operation. What has -been happening in the meantime according to the government? The government has 74726-273
been telling us that in the meantime conditions have so improved we do not need the amounts formerly required as assistance for the unemployed. They have told the different provinces that after the middle of July they will discontinue giving any more moneys for direct relief, that those moneys are not needed, and that the fifteenth of July will see the end of any necessity of the kind. They are seeking to persuade the public mind to the idea that under this administration conditions are improving.
Let me pause for a moment to ask this question: How are they -improving? The government has already spent out between one and two hundred millions of public money to improve conditions, all taxes of the people.
I suppose when, during an election campaign, reference is made to this public works program the situation of trade under it will be pointed to as further evidence of great improvement. However, the fact which will not be stated by the government is that it all is fictitious improvement where the taxes of the people are being spent to effect that end, and where the device of inflation is being resorted to so as to make it appear -that prosperity is greater than that which actually obtains. In other words, the measure is just one more of the many measures the government has brought forward this session devised for election purposes and containing provisions intended, if possible, to beguile the innocent electors into believing that in some way or another the conditions of the country have been improved. The fact is that it is at his expense and from his taxes -that this temporary stimulation is made possible.
Another feature which to my mind makes clear that this bill is intended as an election measure is the one pointed out by the hon. ex-Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) and other hon. members, namely that the bill does away with the necessity of calling for tenders by public advertisement before public works of an estimated cost of $5,000 or over are to be commenced. I can see no defence whatever for inserting in the present measure a section which runs distinctly counter to the provisions of the Public Works Act. I believe this feature is important enough, to justify me in placing on record the section in the Public Works Act to which I have referred. In order that the house and country may have before it the law respecting the construction of all public works, and the law which has governed during the last four years, I shall quote section 36 of chapter 166 of the revised statutes of 1927. Ever since this government took office we have been passing

4318	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Mackenzie King
emergency measures, but, until this measure was introduced, one designed for the purposes of a general election, no attempt has been made to get away from the principle of securing tenders by public advertisement. Section 36 to which I have made reference is as follows:
Whenever any works are to be executed under the direction of any department of the government, the minister having charge of such department shall invite tenders by public advertisement for the execution of such works, except in cases-[DOT]
(a) of pressing emergency in which delay would be injurious to the public interest; or
Ob) in which from the nature of the work it can be more expeditiously and economically executed by the officers and servants of the department; or
(c) where the estimated cost of the work is less than five thousand dollars and it appears to the minister in view of the nature of the work, that it is not advisable to invite tenders.
That has been the law of the land for many years. It has governed the expenditure of all federal public moneys, and it is a law which should not be departed from. The minister cannot urge that these are emergent measures, because, if they were emergent, he should and would have brought in his bill six months ago. The fact that he has waited until the present time to bring it in makes it quite clear that there is not a single item in the program which is in the nature of an emergency measure, and for that reason he is not in any way justified in setting aside the clause in the Public Works Act to which I have referred. If the minister leaves in the present measure that clause allowing the government to evade its obligations under the statute with respect to calling for tenders by public advertisement, I say this action will be prima facie evidence of the government's desire to use this particular program for political purposes rather than for the purpose of assisting the unemployed. It will be for the purpose of enabling it to give contracts tq political friends of the government, to people who the government believes will at the time of a general election best serve its interests.
I do not think that sort of procedure ought for one moment to be countenanced by this parliament. While some hon. gentlemen opposite may entertain a different view, I am inclined to believe that in their heart of hearts the majority of them agree with me in the view that any attempt to depart from provisions in a statute which have been framed with a view to protecting the public treasury is unwarranted, unquestionably when such action is taken obviously for election purposes. In the long run it will do more harm to 
them than to anybody else. I say that is a procedure which in this parliament we should not countenance. Let the minister continue to deal with these contracts as his department has been and is dealing with other contracts.
There is even less excuse for the government bringing down the present measure in the form they have, because many months ago their attention was drawn to the desirability of adhering strictly to the general rule which gives this house control over expenditures for public works, and which obliges the carrying out of public works contracts in accordance with statutory provisions. When I saw mention in the speech from the throne of the intention of the government to have a public works program, I was prompted in what I said in the debate on the address to refer to the matter. The following words, directed to the Prime Minister, are to be found at page 39 of Hansard:
If large sums of public moneys are to be spent for public works, this House of Commons should have the same control over these expenditures as it has over the ordinary expenditures of government. We should not be asked to vote to the government a lump sum of money for the purpose of carrying out public works wherever and whenever it pleases during any portion of this year or next.
That surely was a direct intimation to the government that adoption of the course they are now attempting to pursue would not be accepted by the opposition, and would quite properly be regarded with suspicion. Then I added:
If we need public buildings to serve public purposes they ought to be voted in the estimates in the way in which we are accustomed to vote the items for the various public works.
The Prime Minister gave an evasive answer to that proposition. I noticed at the time of his speaking that his remarks were evasive, and I thought-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does not my
right hon. friend think that the schedule to this bill meets the requirements as to details which he has mentioned?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No, not at all.
I am glad the minister has raised that question. When we come to the schedule, is the minister going to permit us to pass on each of the items, to move to strike them out, or to add others, if we wish to add others? It is understood we are at liberty to do that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would not say "to add others" because that involves an expenditure on the part of the government. As my right hon. friend knows, nobody has the right to do that, except the government.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Mackenzie King


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The minister
states then, that we are at liberty to vote on the individual items, does he?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Deal with them just as we deal with the estimates. That is what we are proposing to do.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am glad to have that assurance. We are not however in a position to move an amendment, as we would be on a motion to go into supply; we cannot, for example, present a want of confidence motion. The form in which the bill is prepared presents the items in the form of a schedule, and there is a clause in the bill which, if carried, would adopt the schedule as it stands, without any change one way or another. However, in view of what the minister has said, when we come to that particular section of the bill he will probably allow the section to stand until the schedule has been gone over clause by clause, and then we may adopt the schedule after that. So much to the good.
May I point out to the minister the effect of this? Looking at the schedule the work falls into two broad classes. There are public works which the minister says are necessary. Well, if they are necessary, why were they not put in the public works estimates and treated as estimates of public works? There is the other class of item, of works largely in the nature of repairs, the renovating of wharves, buildings and the like. Those are part of the regular expenditure on public works, and the effect of bringing down a measure in this form is simply this: The government in announcing its total expenditures to the country, as an evidence of economy points to the total expenditure amounting to such and such a figure, omitting altogether what is voted for public works under this bill which claims to be for the purposes of the relief of unemployment. But there are forty million dollars in this measure being credited to the relief of unemployment which really ought to be made a part of the total expenditure of the administration, and which ought to be put down as part of the regular expenditures of the government for this year.
May I say to the minister, since he has said that we are to all intents and purposes dealing with this matter as we deal with the ordinary public works, that I hope he may see his way to carrying out that point of view to the extent of complying with the requirement of the Public Works Act, which requires that wherever any of these amounts to be spent exceeds $5,000 the work should be awarded by tender, and the tenders publicly advertised.
74726-273 J
The next earmark of the general election purposes of this measure is the obviously unfair allotment of work, and expenditures for public works, the manner in which the work has been distributed. That has been referred to by several of those who have spoken this afternoon. A moment ago one of the members from the province of Quebec pointed out how carefully these public works had been allotted to certain constituencies which are at the present time represented by hon. gentlemen opposite, and how constituencies represented by hon. members on this side of the house had been completely left out.
I am a member of this house for one of the constituencies in the province of Saskatchewan, and I cannot perhaps better illustrate the unfairness of this measure as one which has to do with the relief of unemployment than by drawing attention to just what is taking place with respect to the province of Saskatchewan and contrasting it with what is being done for the adjoining province.
I have gone carefully through the schedule, and I find that out of all the items there are only two which relate to the province of Saskatchewan, one which my hon. friend the member for Regina has succeeded in getting for his own constituency, and the other for the constituency of another hon. member on the otherside of the house. With the exception of those two items, one for Outlook Saskatchewan, for a bridge across the south Saskatchewan river, $275,000, in the constituency I think of the hon. member for Rosetown (Mr. Loucks), and the other an item of $400,000 for a new public building at Regina, there is nothing for the province of Saskatchewan, though as we have heard over and over again from the members for Saskatchewan on the other side of the house as well as on this, no province has been in so great need of relief as that particular province.
May I draw attention to a further circumstance. Let us see what has happened in the adjoining province of Alberta. I find that one-half of the total amount that is voted for the province of Alberta goes to the constituency represented by the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). There are three items, all of which go into the Prime Minister's own constituency:
Banff. Alberta, post office and administrator building. $150,000;
Bow River. Alberta, retaining wall, $150,000;
Calgary. Alberta, barracks for permanent force, $1,200,000;
There is a total altogether of $1,500,000 for the seat of the right hon. the Prime Minister.
4320	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Mackenzie King
Now how ihas the Prime Minister dealt with the leader of the opposition? For the constituency of Prince Albert which I represent, there is not a single dollar. I really do not think I need say much more than that to illustrate what I am alleging about the political purposes of this whole schedule. It reminds me of what took place in the concluding week of the last session of parliament when we had before us a redistribution bill, and the constituency which the Prime Minister represents was so readjusted as to make his position more secure, while the constituency which I represent, Prince Albert, was so gerrymandered as to remove from it those parts which gave the largest Liberal majorities in previous elections.
That is the kind of fair play and decency that we who are members of this house receive at this present time, when moneys are being voted for the alleged purposes of helping those in need of employment and to serve not only a patriotic but a humane end. Under the guise of those laudable purposes we are having as a result of this particular legislation a piece of diabolical political trickery. I could point out also where in previous estimates very large sums in addition have been voted for the Prime Minister's constituency.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: For the Calgary post
office in 1930.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am the more surprised because the Prime Minister cannot have been ignorant of the needs of the Prince Albert constituency for much in the way of very necessary public works. I have in my hand a program with respect to public works which was communicated by the mayor of Prince Albert in September, 1933, to Premier Anderson of Saskatchewan, setting forth the projects that he regarded as necessary. The mayor of Prince Albert at the time was, and I believe still is, a member of the Conservative party, but I doubt if he will be after he sees this bill. We all know too that Premier Anderson, was interested at that time in the well-being of the Conservative party. In the communication from the mayor of Prince Albert the projects which are pointed to as being necessary are such all important and necessary projects as hydro development on the Saskatchewan river; highways and colonization roads; the clearing of lands for cultivation; grade separation in Prince Albert city; an interior storage elevator in Prince Albert city; reforestation in Prince Albert district; and the development of Prince Albert national park.

Those are all projects that were known to the government of the day here just as they were known to the government of Saskatchewan, because they were brought to the attention of the administration here, and the administration has had them before them in preparing this program. May I draw attention to a telegram which I received only this morning, from L. W. Andrew, city clerk of Prince Albert, Saskatchewan? It refers to a resolution, not from the members of a politcal party, but passed by the city council of Prince Albert. The telegram reads as follows:
Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King,
Ottawa, Ont.
A resolution passed at a meeting of the city council on this date is as follows:
Whereas there has been and still exists a very serious unemployment situation in the city of Prince Albert and no immediate prospect of improvement, and' whereas the city council of the city of Prince Albert feel that a national works program should be undertaken in this city to alleviate present conditions where fifteen per cent of our population are on direct relief at the present time, the city council therefore strongly urges that the following projects be undertaken by the dominion government: the construction of a union depot, grade separation, and airport and air harbour.
L. W. Andrew,
City Clerk.
That message was not sent by the city council of Prince Albert without the citizens seeing the necessity for these particular projects, and feeling that they have a right as taxpayers to share with other constituencies in this country in the much needed improvements being undertaken, amongst other reasons, for relief purposes. Unless the members of the government are prepared to meet some of these necessary obligations in constituencies other than those represented by themselves and their following, I tell the government that they will find they will have to pay a heavy price for that kind of partisanship in dealing with public moneys appropriated for relief purposes. I notice the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mr. MacMillan) is in his seat. I know his interest in the Prince Albert national park. While this park is in the constituency of Prince Albert it is recognized throughout Saskatchewan as being an enterprise which belongs to the entire province and which serves a need of the entire province. From that point of view the hon. member for Saskatoon has been very strong in his advocacy of the purposes of the park. I have always joined with him, as he has with me, in the support of that point of view. I hold in my hand a communication, not from Prince Albert but from Saskatoon. This is from the Saskatoon board

Public Works Construction-Mr. Mackenzie King
of trade and is dated May 29, 1934. It is addressed to the Hon. T. G. Murphy, Minister of the Interior, Ottawa, Canada, and is signed by Mr. J. H. Holmes, commissioner. I again remind hon. members that this communication comes from a board of trade, this time the Saskatoon board of trade. It is as follows:
I am instructed to advise you that the Saskatoon board of trade has unanimously supported the resolution of the Prince Albert board with reference to development in the Prince Albert national park, which speaks for itself and of which I understand you have the original.
The exceedingly small appropriation for Saskatchewan is creating some comment in the province, where the park is regarded by the public generally as its one and only natural playground. Because of this, and because of the newness of the park, there are many developments essential before it can be fairly advertised to the tourist traffic as a holiday resort at all. The small appropriation reported in Hansard, scarcely sufficient for maintenance expenses when compared with funds provided for other federal parks, seems entirely out of all reasonable proportion.
The unanimous request of our board members is that in reviewing the proposed estimates for the various national parks in Canada, you will reconsider the Saskatchewan allotment, and with the knowledge that the amount now set down is entirely inadequate and out of all proportion to the allotments for the other prairie provinces, you will endeavour to provide in the supplementary estimates an amount requisite for the continuance of the developments already projected in this province.
I think that is a most reasonable request to be made by a representative body such as the Saskatoon board of trade or the Prince Albert board of trade. There is no institution in the province which is of greater service to the people than the Prince Albert national park.


Mr. MacMILLAN (Saskatoon):: I suppose the right hon. gentleman is aware that there is an item of $2,060,000 under the Department of the Interior which can be used for park development. I suggest that he discuss this matter with the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart).


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am aware that there is an amount which may be used, but I am not aware that it is going to be used. When we take up that item I hope the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) will assure us that he is going to see that out of this amount there is set apart a considerable portion for the needs of the Prince Albert national park. I see the minister is in his seat and I ask him kindly to be prepared to tell us when we are discussing the schedule what proportion of the amount appropriated for national parks will be allotted to the Prince Albert national park.
There are as I have said, but two items in the whole program allotted to the province of
Saskatchewan. As hon. members know quite well there has been no province that has suffered as Saskatchewan has suffered from many causes of distress. There has been no province in which there is greater need for relief, and I am amazed that the government should have brought down this schedule in this form with such vast amounts being allotted to some of the other provinces and so little for Saskatchewan which needs help so greatly.


Richard Burpee Hanson: They have had about $40,000,000 in the last three years.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says that they have had about $40,000,000 but according to what hon. gentlemen on the other side have told us, all the money spent in Saskatchewan was needed because of starvation conditions facing the farmers whose crops had been completely destroyed.


Richard Burpee Hanson: And to
take care of their debts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I am not going to argue the point. All the provinces have been receiving much from the administration in the way of relief but no province has required relief as much as Saskatchewan. I think it is an extraordinary circumstance that in this measure there should be only this small provision for that great province. I might say a great deal more but I shall conclude by reminding the house that after all this is the money of the taxpayers of Canada regardless altogether of their political affiliations. They are all helping to pay the bill and they should be entitled to an equal share of any value that is to come from this public expenditure.
The Minister of Public Works still has a chance to redeem the situation a little, and when we get into committee on the bill, I hope he will permit us to strike out that clause which frees him from the obligation of calling for public tenders in connection with any contracts to be awarded. I hope to that extent at least he will give us assurance that this money is not going to be used exclusively to serve political ends, rather than the ends of humanity and the needs of the country. It is rather significant that after the government has been in office for four years and is, I believe, on the eve of an appeal to the people, we have had to wait until the moment at which the government is trying to save itself to get some of the relief in the form of work which long ago should have been given to help to save the people.


Mr. F. W. GERSHAW (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this motion and urge the minister
4322	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Gershaw
to reconsider in a general way some of the items on the program. I notice that of the S4O,000,000 involved, about 832,000,000 is for public buildings. Provision is made for the spending of $1,200,000 for barracks for the 'permanent forces in 'Calgary. I have no doubt that the situation has been canvassed but I make an appeal to the minister and to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) in particular, to consider changing that and some of the other items even at this late date and substituting for them items which I think will add much more to the general welfare of the people of the province and of the country. I hope that they will do something in the way of water conservation in the dried out districts and provide for the construction of sewage disposal plants in our larger cities and towns.


Richard Burpee Hanson: We do those things for ourselves.


Frederick William Gershaw: The ranching industry is one of the great primary industries of this country. At the present time these ranchers are on the verge of ruin largely because of their inability to get a sufficient water supply. I should hope that some of this money could be spent in these ranching districts so as to conserve water which flows so freely in the spring and provide water holes, so that the stock at various places can be supplied through the summer months. Such a policy would give work in the rural districts where it is very much needed. It would help to assure the permanency of that great industry and it would benefit a large number of people who will derive little benefit from the buildings which this measure proposes to construct. In addition to that, many of the cities and towns are situated upon the rivers and waterways. The sewage from these urban districts usually finds its way into the water, often with very little treatment, and communities further down stream have their health endangered because of the insufficiency of treatment which this sewage receives, because the purification by air is not sufficient to make it safe for human supply. I wish therefore to urge the minister to reconsider some of these items and make provision for the two projects I have mentioned, I realize that he will say this is a provincial or municipal responsibility, but after all the money is paid in taxation by the same people. The distinction between dominion and provincial responsibilities is not so clear at the present time, and I should say that these things I have mentioned would really add to the wealth of the country. In

the case of water holes, they would be productive and would be an aid to industry. And in building for the future, surely it is up to us to consider the human aspect and to construct those works which would be of the greatest general benefit.



BANKING AND COMMERCE

Richard Burpee Hanson: Mr. Speaker, by unanimous leave of the house may I request you to return to routine proceedings to enable me to present the tenth and eleventh reports of the select standing committee on banking and commerce. This matter affects two private bills that were before the committee this afternoon.


Mr. SPEAKER:: By unanimous consent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Motion (Mr. Hanson) agreed to.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house in committee on Bill No. 12, respecting patents on certain inventions of which Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, is entitled to benefit-Mr. Lawson-Mr. Stirling in the chair.
On section 1-Power of commissioner of patents to grant patents.
Mr. CAHAN:: Mr. Chairman, I wish to call attention to certain (particulars in reference to the bill itself and certain principles which I suggest should be followed by the committee in regard to a grave matter of public policy. The bill is entitled:
An act respecting patents on certain inventions of which Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, is entitled to the benefit.
I think I can show conclusively to the committee that the Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, is not entitled by law or by practice to the benefit of the several inventions which are covered by the patents the numbers of which as granted in Great Britain are set forth in the preamble. These several improvements with regard to the manufacture of glass were the inventions of certain inventors in France. In cooperation with the inventors in France two French companies at successive dates applied for and

Duplate Safety Glass Company
obtained fifteen patents covering certain processes in glass manufacture. Under a convention which was signed by Canada at The Hague on November 6, 1925, and ratified by Canada on May 1, 1928, it is provided in article 4 that any person who has deposited an application for a patent in any one of the contracting countries shall enjoy, for the purpose of deposit in other countries, and reserving the rights of third parties, a right of priority for the period of twelve months from the date of the deposit of the first application in any country which is a party to the convention. That is to say that within twelve months from the date on which an application was made in France for a patent the French inventor was entitled to apply in other countries which were parties to The Hague Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property for a patent in that country covering the same invention.
The French companies proceeded to apply for patents in the United States and patents in Great Britain. Although the United States is not a party to the union or to the convention, congress has provided by law that a foreign patentee, that is the inventor who obtains a foreign patent, may apply at the patent office at Washington for a patent covering the same invention. But in the United States the application must be made, as under the convention, within a term of twelve months; no further extension of time is allowed, and if the application is not made at Washington within twelve months then the invention falls into the public domain and is open to public use throughout that country. In Great Britain the same rule applies, because England is a party to this convention. If an application is made in France for a patent, then within twelve months from the date of the filing of the application in France the applicants must make application at the patent office in London if they desire to obtain a patent there.
It has been held by the exchequer court in a decision by Mr. Justice Audette in 1924 that in Canada an application may be made under the convention within twelve months from the date of the application in the foreign country -and I include Great Britain as a foreign country in that respect-but that under another subsection it is held that an application may be made here within two years from the date of the grant of the patent in the foreign country. That rule has been followed by the Canadian patent office. By that rule, allowing twelve months under the convention, and allowing two more years under the decision of
Mr. Justice Audette, applicants have practically three years from the date of the filing of the application in the foreign country within which to apply in Canada. Under that rule for a number of these patents the time within which application may be made in Canada has not yet expired. I shall refer to them by the English numbers, because although I have investigated and have the French numbers, the English numbers are placed in this bill, I think for purpose of camouflage and not otherwise. Patent No. 376219 still has under our law until October 11, 1934, within which application for a patent may be made at the patent office in Canada. Respecting patent No. 385843 the inventor has until January 5, 1935, to apply for a patent in Canada; respecting patent No. 393491 until December 31, 1934, within which to file an application for a patent in Canada; respecting patent No. 389314 until March 16, 1935, to apply for a patent in Canada. I therefore object to the house passing a special act providing for the granting of patents in Canada which are similar to foreign patents, when the applicants already have ample time within which to apply to the patent office in the ordinary way and have their applications investigated and decided upon by the commissioner. If the commissioner gives an erroneous decision then they can appeal from the commissioner to the Exchequer Court of Canada. I think as a matter of public policy we should not encourage applications to parliament for special acts providing for patents when the ordinary machinery of the patent act is still open to the applicants.
Those conditions, however, do not apply to the eleven other patents which are mentioned in the preamble to this bill. These eleven patents never have had force or effect in Canada. There is no right, title or interest outstanding in Canada with respect to those patents, to which any person in Canada or elsewhere can claim any beneficial interest whatsoever. They are patents which are, to use the ordinary phrase, in the public domain, and the inventions which they cover may be used by any manufacturer in Canada; they may be bought and sold in Canada without the payment of any royalty. The patent rights have never existed in Canada, and therefore no beneficial interest thereunder can be deemed to exist.
Patent No. 310838 was applied for in France on May 1, 1928. The applicants had twelve months within which to make applications in other countries under the convention, so the last day for an application for patent priority in Canada or in any other
Duplate Safety Glass Company

country of the union was May 1, 1929. The applicants applied at Washington within the twelve month period and obtained a patent. They filed an application in Great Britain on March 18, 1929, and the patent was granted which is referred to by its English number in this preamble. Patent No. 340108 was applied for in France on March 13, 1929, and there were twelve months in which to obtain priority in Canada, which would be until March 13, 1930. Within that twelve month period the applicants applied both at Washington and in Great Britain, the application in Great Britain being dated November 27, 1929. So I might go through the list of these patent applications, because we have taken the trouble to examine the English patents and, so far as our records disclose them, the facts with regard to the French patents and the dates on which they were applied for.
This has been the result: allowing the applicants the twelve months from the date of the application in France; then allowing them what is not allowed by any other country of the union, but only allowed in Canada by reason of a decision given in 1924 by our exchequer court and a subsequent change in the act to conform to that decision, that is to say, one year from the date of the application, because usually a year elapses before the patent is granted, and also allowing them two more years from the granting of the patent in France or in England, wherever it was granted first, these eleven patents to which I have referred are out-dated in one case by five years and in other cases two years and nearly two years. So the time for each application in Canada has long since expired, and our act, under the interpretation which has been given to it, grants more widely extended privileges as to time than any other act to which I have been able to obtain access.
No application has been made to our patent office with regard to any of these patents. I have explained that applications may yet be made with regard to four of them, and my contention is that these patents should not be granted by a special act. Allowing the two extra years the time expired, for one of them at least five years ago; for another the time expired more than two years ago. In connection with others the time expired approximately two years or more ago. I have the dates, which have been worked out and with regard to which I need not trouble the house.
Though these patents never had existence in Canada, and though the time had elapsed within which applications could be made in Canada, on November 21, 1933, the Duplate

Safety Glass Company allege that they entered into a contract with Pilkington Brothers, of Liverpool, who are alleged to have previously acquired the English patents. The house is well aware that the English patent gave Pilkingtons no rights whatever in Canada; Canada happens to be an independent jurisdiction, in respect of patents. When the Duplate Safety Glass Company entered into a contract with Pilkingtons I am advised, and I think I can state it with absolute accuracy, that the Duplate Safety Glass Company were fully informed that there were no patent rights outstanding in Canada, and that, with regard to the eleven patents mentioned, the time had elapsed for the filing of applications here, including the first twelve months from the date of the application and the second term of two years from the date of the granting of the first patent. There was no deception whatever on the part of Pilkington Brothers. They disclosed all the facts to the Canadian company which is now promoting this bill. So that when the Canadian company applies to the House of Commons for this special legislation it is applying for a grant of a specific monopoly with regard to eleven inventions for the manufacture of glass, which inventions are now the property of the public. The main invention for five years, and the subsidiary inventions for terms of three and two years, may now be used at will by any manufacturer in Canada.
I suggest to hon. members that this is a case in which parliament should not intervene to create a private monopoly of the nature and extent of the one herewith proposed. As a matter of public policy I think this house should refuse to enact the measure. It is not an easy task for a minister of the crown to administer an office such as the patent office. It is fortunate that whenever the commissioner acting under the direction of the minister is in error, there is an appeal to the Exchequer Court of Canada in order that the remedy may be given by judicial decision. But that office is open to very grave temptations. I believe that the men now administering the office, although the temptations are great, are perfectly honest in their administration of it. But the applicants for this private monopoly, which it is now sought to create and establish in Canada by means of these patents, might just as well ask from the treasury of Canada a grant of 8150,000 or more, because if these patents, which are proposed to be established in Canada, were put up to public auction one might obtain very large cash considerations for them. However, they are not for .sale. They are the property of all those who are manufacturing

in Canada at the present time. But if this bill is enacted the Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, will have a monopoly of the manufacture under these fifteen patents. It will not only have a monopoly of the manufacturing, but if these glasswares are imported from the United States or France or England, where they are being manufactured, the importer will not only have to pay the customs duties imposed by parliament for revenue and for the protection of Canadian industry, but such importer can be compelled by the Duplate Company to pay a special royalty on every pound of glass of that nature imported into Canada. This glass is becoming of great importance in the automobile and elevator trades because it does not splinter as does ordinary glass, and under the suggested legislation the Duplate Glass Company may demand a royalty from every person in Canada who uses this glass either when imported from abroad, or made by any other manufacturer in Canada except the concern which is granted this special monopoly.
These being the facts I ask the House of Commons to consider whether or not, as a matter of public policy, this House of Commons should pass the bill. It is granting by legislative enactment a private monopoly covering fifteen inventions, a monopoly which would be subversive of the interests of all Canadian manufacturers of the same or similar products who are now entitled, of their own right, to import, to make or to use these products without payment of any licence fee or royalty to any person or company in any part of the world. I contend that the enactment of the proposed bill will enable the promoters, without any shadow of right or claim, except such as they may acquire under this special enactment, to demand and receive in Canada from importers, manufacturers and users, licence fees or royalties during the term of sixteen to eighteen years, to which they have no right, title or interest whatsoever. I contend that the creation of such a private monopoly by special legislation invariably tends prejudicially to affect and injure the industrial and commercial interests of Canada, and to impair the effective administration of the patent office which happens for the time being to be under my supervision, as Secretary of State, and which I am bound, by my oath of office, properly to administer. I do not wish to use too strong terms, but it seems to me that the passage of this measure would be a prostitution of the parliamentary powers conferred upon this parliament to promote the interests of a private monopoly which should not be created or allowed to exist.
Duplate Safety Glass Company


Mr. LAWSON:: Mr. Chairman, I should
like to speak on the bill before any final disposition is made. The bill in question, of which I am the sponsor in this house, seeks to extend the time under which applications for certain patents may be made. The Duplate Safety Glass Company of Canada, Limited, entered into a contract with the holders of certain French and British patents to have the right to manufacture the glass in this country and to have the exclusive right, as they then thought, under protective patents.
The glass is an invention of such a nature that upon being struck, instead of shattering and flying into pieces which may cut one or cause injury, it merely crumbles. In the private bills committee we had several demonstrations as to its usefulness.


Mr. BENNETT:: Is it covered by four or
eleven patents?


James Earl Lawson: I understand that the
complete process is covered by eleven patents, but I am unable to state to the house just to what extent each patent applies.
This application was made because of an error on the part of two patent attorneys. The inventor instructed a French patent attorney to take out patents in France, the United Kingdoth and other countries, and the French patent attorney wrote a firm of patent attorneys in New York city and instructed them to take out patents in America. Unfortunately the attorneys in Washington or New York concluded that apparently America meant the United States, whereas the French attorney intended the whole of the North American continent, and notwithstanding the statement of the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) that he was informed at the time the deal was made the Duplate Glass Company had knowledge of the fact that these patents did not exist so far as Canadian patents are concerned, I can only say that the statement was made in the private bills committee that it was during the course of closing the deal for the acquisition of the Canadian patent rights that the Canadian company discovered that there were no Canadian patents, and hence this application.
The Secretary of State said that under the law where a patent application is refused by the patent commissioner an appeal may be had to the exchequer court, but certainly it will be obvious to all the legal members of this house that such an appeal can deal only with a question of law. If an inventor made application for a patent and the commissioner held, for example, that the invention was not patentable, then we might have
Duplate Safety Glass Company

aa appeal, but obviously when the time has expired within which you can make application there is no ground, upon which one can appeal to the exchequer court, and the purpose of this bill is to extend for a period of three months from its passing the time within which that application for a patent may be made to the commissioner .of patents.
Again there is considerable dispute on an interpretation of the act and the decision of the exchequer court to which the Secretary of State referred, as to just how long overdue this application is. I think I need not enter into any quarrel in that regard because, irrespective of that, the .principle of the bill is the same.
As to the four patents in respect of which it is alleged by the Secretary of State that they are still within time to apply, I have investigated the matter and I find that to be correct and when I conclude I shall move an amendment to strike out those patent numbers from the preamble to the bill, which will then allow the applicants to make their application in the ordinary way to the .patent office.
Prior to the discovery by the Duplate Glass Company that they were not protected with Canadian .patents they had made an investment in machinery and .plant for the purpose of manufacturing this glass in Canada of some $20,000. Needless to say, when they discovered the difficulty they ceased to continue a contemplated investment of $100,000 but have been manufacturing small quantities of this glass with the plant which they have available.
I should next like to point out to the house that there is nothing particularly new in a bill of this kind being brought before parliament. Before the private bills committee seven precedents were cited. It is within my recollection since I have been a member of this house that we have had such bills .before the committee, and on each occasion the question for decision by the committee and by parliament has been whether or not in the particular circumstances of each case an extension of time should .be granted.
The Secretary of State lays some emphasis on the question of monopoly. I will quite freely admit that if this bill is passed, and if in pursuance of this extension of time the commissioner of patents ultimately grants a patent, then it does create a monopoly, but it only creates the same kind of monopoly as is created in every single instance in which a patent is granted by this country in respect of any invention.

Will such a .monopoly be injurious? At the present time this glass is not manufactured in this country except to the limited extent of the investment of the Duplate Glass Company. It is imported from the United States and France, and even with the limited extent to which it is manufactured by the Duplate Glass Company at the present time the price at which it is offered for sale in this country is one-third less than the imported article. I am assured by the parties interested in procuring this bill that if they are allowed to have some protection in connection with this matter they will make an investment of somewhere between $100,000 and $150,000; that they will employ three or four times the number of .men who are now employed and that the glass will be on sale and available to the Canadian public at one-half the price they were paying for the imported article. Again I ask, will monopoly injure? I suppose the largest plate glass company in this country is the Consolidated Plate Glass Company. It was pointed out to me by the manager of that company that there is not a sufficient demand in Canada to support two manufacturers of safety glass. Consequently, although as alleged by the Secretary of State the right to make this glass has fallen into the public domain, nevertheless no one has sought to make it during these years that it has been in the public domain, and I fail to see how by giving protection to a firm that is now willing to make it, provide employment, and sell the article to the Canadian public at a price far less than the imported article, we are going to create a monopoly whch will be injurious to this country or how we are going to prostitute the powers of parliament.


Mr. STEVENS:: Mr. Chairman, for fifteen years or more I have voiced opposition in the house to bills of this character. It is my conviction that during -many years past a number of such bills os this have been passed and patent rights established which, if all the facts had been fully understood by the members of the house and the public generally, would never have been granted.
I .think it should be borne in mind that the basic reason for the granting of a patent by the state is to preserve to some talented individual the right of his discovery. It is assumed that a discovery of some new and useful device or some scientific discovery or formula which will be of benefit to humanity may be made by an individual who is himself perhaps unable financially to promote the manufacture or production of the article, and that therefore there should be preserved to

Duplate Safety Glass Company
him some of the winnings, shall I say, that come from the discovery which he has made. And so, through all the years and I think in all countries, the idea of granting a patent is to preserve to the individual the benefits that go with the discovery that has been made. As time has passed and as industrial development has become more complex and on a much wider scale than was perhaps true of years ago, the value of patents has become less according to the ability of the individual to press forward the merits of his discovery or to bring it into general use. I think it has become increasingly difficult for individuals to get the full merit of patents. Very often large corporations will purchase for a comparatively small figure the rights of a patent, put it away and never use it because the new device is such that it might conflict with some article already on the market and well established in their industry. In dealing with matters of patents I think the major duty of parliament is to preserve the interests of the individual primarily responsible.
The article here dealt with is a certain type of glass, a new type of glass. This is something which is very generally used and which is needed or required by a large number of industries. It is alleged that a patent attorney in France made an error or committed an oversight when dealing with a patent attorney in New York and instructing him to take out patents in America. Because the patent attorney in New York did not safeguard the interests of his clients in Canada, it is argued that this group of individuals have a right to come to parliament and ask for the special legislation now before us. It is very difficult for me to believe that a patent attorney in France would be so, ignorant of what is necessary to establish hie rights in various parts of the world that he would overlook a place like Canada. I am quite certain that a patent attorney in Canada would not advise an attorney in Paris to look after his interests in other European countries, and then pay no more attention to the matter. I am quite certain that when the patent attorney in Paris got his returns from the patent attorney in New York he at once recognized that he had received protection in but one country, namely, the United States. In addition to the United States, there is Mexico on the one side and Canada on the other. It is difficult to conceive that such an error could be made, and it certainly does not appeal to me as the reason why parliament should pass a special act to vest this patent in the applicants.
The suggestion is made that the granting of this patent will possibly result in the establishment of a new industry in Canada. I certainly would like to see a new industry established in Canada but I cannot conceive why the failure to obtain these patent rights would deter a bona fide industry from entering upon the manufacture of this class of glass. I am not at the moment familiar with the rate of duty upon this article, but that rate would be the same whether or not there was a patent granted. So far as the particular industry is concerned, the protection would be precisely what the tariff provides. In my opinion there is no argument in that contention. The only additional advantage to the applicants would be to obtain the exclusive right of manufacture in Canada, and that exclusive right of manufacture would mean the charging of royalties to those who desired either to make or use this glass. The advantage to anyone who wished to manufacture this glass in Canada of securing this special bill authorizing the issue of this patent would be that he could charge higher prices for the glass because he had a patent. I cannot follow my hon. friend in his argument in that respect. My hon. friend said that it would likely result in the cutting of the price of glass, but here again I find it difficult to follow him because the only difference in the price of glass would be the amount of the royalty, and that could be cut only if the individual securing the patent rights were to make the price of glass so much higher than otherwise would be necessary.
For a great many years I have raised my voice in this house in opposition to this class of bill. I feel it is unwise and very often improvident for this house to give these special rights. Very often we are asked to revive a patent which has completely expired. If I remember rightly, a patent right expires in Canada after eighteen years, which is two years longer than in Great Britain. We are frequently asked to extend this right because an article has not been manufactured or for some other reason. I think parliament should be exceedingly careful in these matters. I reiterate what I said a moment ago. In the first place, the object of a patent right is to protect the interests of the individual who makes the discovery. The assumption is that if the individual does not take advantage of his patent right within a reasonable time-I have forgotten the exact time, but I think it is two or three years-the right then expires and it becomes, as the Secretary of State (Mr Cahan) has so well defined, part of the public domain. I am sorry that I must differ with the hon. member who is sponsoring this bill but I take very strong exception to its passage. I do this, first, because of the general principles
Duplate Safety Glass Company

which I have indicated, and, second, because of the specific reasons which are inherent to this particular case, and which have been so ably put forward by the Secretary of State. I regret to say that as far as I am concerned I shall have to express my opposition to the bill by voting against it.


Mr. BROWN:: Mr. Chairman, for once at least I find myself in hearty agreement with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Stevens). He has outlined the reasons why patents are granted. I am heartily in sympathy with the principle of the granting of patents to men who have invented something useful for humanity. I think they should be allowed to reap in a large measure the benefit of their skill and industry. I am not nearly so favourably inclined to the large companies which secure patents from individuals. I think it is a well known fact that many clever inventors have lost almost the entire fruits of their inventions because they have been grabbed up by some of the big moneyed powers. When we come to deal with large companies or corporations I am not so leniently inclined as I would be towards a private individual. It is true that parliament on a number of occasions has passed special bills reviving patents which have been allowed to lapse because of some slight error. I have been in the private bills committee now for a number of years and on several occasions we have had such questions to deal with. But it seems to me that the circumstances surrounding this particular patent are very different from anything we have had before us up to the present time. I can scarcely imagine, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce has pointed out, that the attorney in Paris would be so completely ignorant as has been suggested he might be. I know that in regard to many of the cases that have come before us I have had some hesitation in voting for an extension of the time during which a patent might be acquired; for in some instances it did seem that the attorney who had the matter in hand had not taken action, or had failed to take action until it seemed desirable in the interests of those for whom; he was asking that action should be taken. However, I shall not go into that matter at any length.
Undoubtedly this particular patent is a matter of great interest to the Canadian people. The granting of a monopoly to this company for a period of sixteen or eighteen years would unquestionably place a heavy impost upon the Canadian people. The hon. member who is promoting the bill has made an argument which it seems to me will scarcely 
stand investigation. He tells us that the company is now manufacturing in small quantities and selling that glass at half the price of the imported article. Well, if it is doing that and can do that, why can it not continue to do it? The company has the protection of the duty, but it wants not only the protection which undoubtedly our friends on the other side would be willing to accord it, though we will not enter into that question at the moment, but also the right to collect a royalty on all glass imported. I ask any hon. gentleman in this house,, does he for a moment seriously believe that a company which is now manufacturing this glass at half the price of the imported article will continue to manufacture it and sell it at that price when it has the exclusive monopoly, when it has not only the protection accorded by the tariff but also the right to collect royalties? For my part I certainly intend to oppose the bill.


Edgar-Rodolphe-Eugène Chevrier: For the same reasons which in the private bills committee warranted my voting against the bill, I will vote against it now.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: I move that the committee-rise.
. The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):	Mr. Cahan moves that the committee rise. Shall the motion carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Stirling):: Those in favour of the motion will say aye.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Aye.


Grote Stirling: Those opposed will say nay.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Grote Stirling: In my opinion the nays have it. Shall clause 1 carry?


An hon. MEMBER:: No; take a vote.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Mr. Chairman, I think


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Out of order.


Richard Bedford Bennett: He is not out of order.


An hon. MEMBER:: Clause 1 is carried.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; clause 1 is not carried. The motion is that the committee rise.


Mr. SANDERSON:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, did you not declare that clause 1 was carried?.


Grote Stirling: No.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Rheaume


Frederick George Sanderson: With all due respect to you, Mr. Chairman, what did you say?


Grote Stirling: The motion of Mr. Cahan was not carried. The question is now on clause 1.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Clause 1 provides:
If within three months from the passing of this act application is made to the commissioner of patents for the grant of patents on the inventions described in the British patents hereinbefore referred to, the commissioner shall consider and act upon the said applications notwithstanding any limitation of time contained in section 7 of the Patent Act.
In the ordinary course an application must be made by an inventor or by the assignee of the inventor. This provision is so broad that it allows any person whatsoever to make an application for the granting of this patent, without specifying that it must be made either by the inventor or by the assignee of the inventor, and on that ground I think the clause is altogether too wide, although I am opposed to it on general grounds as well.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Surely this committee realizes the seriousness of the situation with respect to this matter. This is not an ordinary transaction at all but a matter in which parliament is asked to do something it has sometimes done on previous occasions, very much to the detriment of the public interest. I have opposed these matters so frequently that I abandoned the idea of endeavouring to do so, because the committee had usually been well canvassed and commitments had been made in a friendly way without a realization of what was involved. In this matter a tremendous principle is involved. We are asked to amend the Patent Act of Canada so as to provide that a special privilege shall be conferred by way of patent on a process not patented in this country, and there is an international side of it that influences me entirely. We, unfortunately or fortunately as you will, saw fit to become parties to an international arrangement and approved of it in 192S. Having done so, we must not place ourselves in the position where it will be alleged that in bad faith we have-


Grote Stirling: Nine
o'clock.



PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION ACT

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Hon. H. A. Stewart (Minister of
Public Works) for the second reading of Bill No. 113, to provide for the construction and improvement of certain public works and undertakings throughout Canada.
Mr. MARTIAL RHEAUME (St. John's-Iberville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I think that this bill No. 113 is introduced for a political purpose. On September 11, 1930, at the special session, I requested work to relieve unemployment in the town of St. John's which I have the honour of representing in the house. To a question I put to the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau), whom I am pleased to see in his seat this evening, he replied:
As to the second' question asked by the hon. member: the deepening of the Richelieu river, my views on the subject are well known. I believe that this river should become a means of transportation from the St. Lawrence to lake Champlain, and I trust that I shall have the support of my colleagues in connection with this matter, as soon as it is found possible to act.
The hon. Minister of Marine certainly could have found it possible, under those circumstances, to fulfil his promises of the special session of 1930. In the course of the last electoral campaign, the hon. minister, who represents Chambly-Vercheres in the House, made promises of which some hon. members reminded him, he replied, at the time, that he could not remember having made such a statement. I trust he will not deny the excerpt which I have just quoted and whicn can be found at page 132 of Hansard, September 11, 1930. The hon. minister would have been worthy of praise had he remembered the Chambly canal.
I note in the Annex A of this bill an amount of $40,000 for St. Lambert. In 1931, an amount of $69,000, included in the appropriations for unemployment work, was expended in St. Lambert on a retaining wall. Of the $20,000,000 voted at the special session of 1930, $415,000 only was expended in the province of Quebec yet the county of Chambly-Vercheres obtained $129,000 of that amount. The hon. minister could have, under the circumstances, remembered the Chambly canal. I think that $40,000 would have been better expended in improving that canal than by building a retaining wall at St. Lambert; it would also prove more profitable to the hon. minister, at the next election. The Chambly canal has been neglected for a few years past. Last year, hardly 100 boats passed through it during the summer. This year, for the first time, ever since I remember, the water was let in the canal on June 1. If the hon. minister, according to his statement, had wished to carry out the Liberal party's program, the oppor-
4330	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Rheaume
tunity was then offered to him. The Liberal party, under Sir Wilfrid Laurier's regime, in 1908, 1909, 1910 and 1911, had expended thousands of dollars to deepen the Richelieu river. It would have been a worthy act to carry on this work and not to allow the outlay already made in the Richelieu river to be a total loss.
I note in the Annex an amount of $35,500 for Lacolle and another amount of $31,500 for Cantic. Ever since the advent of the Conservative party to power in 1930, we have tried without success to have this work done, unfortunately, these localities are represented by a Liberal member and we have no chance whatever of succeeding. Since the redistribution of counties last year, the parish of Lacolle has been included in the county of Chateau-guay-Huntingdon, and I note that $67,000 has been appropriated solely for Lacolle and $3,500 for Huntingdon-$70,500 for a county as large as my hand.
This afternoon, the leader of the Liberal party stated that this bill was introduced with a political end in view. The hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier) analysed the work proposed for the province of Quebec, going over the entire schedule, and our hon. friends opposite cannot deny that this work is being done with a political end in view.
I note that there is an item of $272,000 for Three Rivers. By this act, the hon. Minister of Marine perhaps intends to carry out the promises he made in 1931 and which were not fufilled up to date; however, this amount of $272,000 for Three Rivers is not sufficiently large to save the hon. member who represents that county to-day. Moreover, the outlay of $40,000 in St. Lambert will be of no avail to the hon. Minister of Marine to save him at the next election.
Work was requested by the town of Iberville which suffers from unemployment, for instance, work to improve the wharf of that locality. If there is one place in this country where money should be expended to improve a wharf, it is certainly at Iberville. That town is quite important. All are aware that the Richelieu is a beautiful and navigable river. Iberville possesses an old wharf only 75 to 100 foot in length. Requests were made on various occasions, in 1931, 1932, 1933 and 1934. Unfailingly the answer was: There is no money. Under the present circumstances, it would have been an act worthy of praise. If this program of public works had not had a political end in view, certainly the town of Iberville would have been remembered and the Chambly canal would have been improved. The hon. minister is aware that this

canal is very important. It was for Chambly-Bassin and Chambly-Canton a source of revenue which does not exist to-day because they are neglected and no improvement is made.
Some attempt was made, hardly a few
months ago, to obtain funds from the Department of Railways and Canals to make improvement along the Chambly Canal which borders the national highway from Rouse's Point to Montreal. By improving the Chambly Canal, by dredging and building wharves, it would have been possible to widen the road. Very little material would have been required and it would have provided much work to the unemployed of the town of St John's. Within the last four years the town of St. John's has expended each year between $40,000 and $50,000 to relieve its unemployed. The government should not have granted favours but shown a sense of fairness towards the county of St. John's. Such was not the case, I am aware that this measure has a political end in view, nothing else.
Last winter, work was carried out on the locks at St. John's and along the canal. However, no work was given to the unemployed. To be employed on the Chambly canal it was absolutely necessary to have a letter of recommendation from the Conservative candidate so that men from Chambly and elsewhere were brought over there thus depriving the unemployed at St John's. Probably, because there are too many Liberals in St. John's; I can see no other reason. I state that it is a shabby procedure, on the part of the Conservative party, to refuse work to unemployed, heads of families, simply because they are supposed to be Liberals, while work was given to sons of Conservatives whose fathers were working and in no way were in want. When there were more than 350 unemployed receiving the dole, work was refused to these people because it was absolutely necessary that their applications be approved by the defeated candidate. As the latter is acquainted with every one and knows to what party they belong, those who were supposed to be Liberals were out of luck. The proof that these public works have a political end in view is that the government delayed introducing this bill until after the elections of Ontario and Saskatchewan, under the plea that they did not wish to influence the people of those provinces. In the county of Brome-Missisquoi, at Farniham, a beautiful little town, $58,000 will be expended for a public building. No reason is given. At Huntingdon, the wealthiest county of Quebec, where public

Public Works Construction-Mr. Reid
works are the least required, S70,000 is granted. I therefore protest, sir, and contend that such public works have a political object in view.


Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: Almost every member on both sides of the house, I believe, is agreed that the effort to provide employment through a public works program is very desirable. But in this program it is evident to me at least that the needs of the provinces have not been considered very carefully, at any rate the province from which I come has not received anything like equal treatment with the other provinces. I note that out of some S40,000,000 the amount allotted to British Columbia is just over $2,000,000. Might I draw attention to the fact that over $2,000,000 is allotted to one city alone in Canada, and more than to the whole of the province of British Columbia. The Prime Minister at various times has chided us for raising the cry of east against west, but when I look over this program of works I cannot help but feel that in the west, and particularly British Columbia, there is some justification for that cry. I would point out that so far this year $9,000,000 has been provided for the development of harbours and rivers on the Atlantic side of this country and only some $273,200 for the ports on the Pacific coast. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, is it any wonder that we rise in our places and ask when are we in British Columbia going to receive anything like the same treatment that has been accorded this year and almost every year since confederation in expenditures looking to the building up of the Atlantic coast? I repeat that this same state of things has already happened this year-almost nine millions appropriated for the Atlantic side and only a little over a quarter of a million for the Pacific coast.
Dealing with the bill before us I am not going to repeat what has been said by various speakers, that certain districts and certain provinces have been favoured over others. I am not going to say a great deal about what has been given to the city of Calgary, but it is interesting to note that over one million dollars, or more than fifty per cent of what the whole of British Columbia is to receive, is to be expended in the city of Calgary. Further I am not unmindful of the fact that considerable sums were spent for buildings in that city in 1930. If it were a question of providing works where necessary I would draw this to the attention of the minister- and I might say the various parts of the program I have in my hand have been given to both the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). Speaking of one, we have in the city of New Westminster a post office which was constructed in the year 1900 when there were only some 10,000 people in that city. Since then the district has grown until to-day some
60.000	people are served by that post office. So acute are conditions for those who have to deal with postal matters there that an annex has been provided close to the main building, and I am going to tell the minister of the conditions existing in that annex. The size of the annex is twenty-one by forty-two feet, and in it there are housed forty-three people. Bear in mind that this is an outside building. The parcel post and letter carrier deliveries have been inaugurated since the main building was erected. The rapid growth in population not only of the city of New Westminster, but of the surrounding district has made conditions for the workers there terrible, and it is no exaggeration to use the word. I have visited there; I was there before coming to Ottawa. I am surprised that they have had to carry on for so long in such cramped quarters. There are also three rural mail routes totalling some ninety miles, on which the volume of mail is very heavy. The main post office building is a one story structure. The ground for the extension was purchased many years ago; plans were drawn up and submitted to the department; they were O.K.'d by the postal authorities, but nothing has been done about it.
The minister may say, "Why was it not done when the Liberal administration was in power?" I can only say that if it had been my privilege to be here they would have heard about it. I am holding no brief for what was done or not done previous to 1930; I can only speak for the time I have been in the house, but certainly this situation should not have been overlooked. The minister may say that in the present bill some
5300.000	is provided for Fraser river improvements. I am not objecting to that, but I would remind the minister that those improvements should have been dealt with in the main estimates. As proof of that statement I have under my hand the recommendations made by the district engineer last December, which include that sum for river improvement work. I expected when I came here that I would find the amount provided either in the main estimates or in the supple-mentaries, but for some reason or other it has been carried forward and placed in the bill now before the house. I claim that if British Columbia had received her fair share according to population she would have received some $3,000,000, while if it had been
4332	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Reid
intended to help the province most necessitous and the people in it who are unemployed the amount would have been much larger.
May I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the province of British Columbia is carrying a burden that is not being carried by any other province, in that there are some ten thousand transients on relief in British Columbia who have come from the other provinces of Canada. I heard the minister say that he hoped municipalities and provincial governments would carry out similar works, but I should like to ask him how that is possible for municipalities and provincial governments that have passed through some four years of economic distress, and especially in British Columbia where we have at least four or five municipalities in bankruptcy. In one of the municipalities I represent one in five of the people is on relief. It is impossible for the municipalities to carry on works such as those in the bill before us.
I was interested in following the discussion as to fair wages, and I noted that the minister rose to say that this was provided for. I would remind the minister that while that provision may be in the Public Works Act my experience would indicate that the contractors find ways of getting around that law. I drew one case to the attention of the minister, where a contract was let for rock work in the Fraser river. The work was sublet to another contractor, who paid only half the wages the first contractor would have had to pay under the fair wage clause. When I got after the dominion government about it the minister admitted that he did not know' a great deal about that contract which had been sublet. It may be provided in the act that no contract shall be sublet without the authority of the minister, but I know that has been done in the past. Contracts involving considerable sums of money have been let to subcontractors who have cut the wages in two, which permitted the contractor to make large profits. I had another case in connection with the shingling of the armoury in New Westminster. The regular price for shinglers was, I believe, eighty cents an hour. The contract was sublet, and the subcontractor obtained workmen at some twenty-five cents an hour. This was stopped only after I drew the matter to the attention of the department here, and they found that the contract had been sublet without permission from Ottawa. The government should enforce the provision which states that contracts shall not be sublet without the authority of the department. I know that provision is in the Public Works Act, but it has been

evaded, and I would urge the minister to see to it that under this program no contract is sublet without the entire authority and approval of the minister. We all know what subletting means; the man who obtains the contract sits back and draws his profits for doing nothing, while the subcontractor has to try to make it up-and does make it up- by bleeding the workmen and paying them low wages.
I also believe that full publicity should be given in connection with these contracts. This bill may be designed to give employment to those in need, but I do not see in it any provision similar to that section of the relief act which states that no discrimination shall be shown. I would suggest to the minister that if the bill is designed primarily to relieve unemployment in this country, a section should be inserted stating that no discrimination shall be shown as between Liberals, Conservatives and those holding other political views. I believe necessity should be .the only requirement necessary in order to obtain work.
When we get into the bill I shall have a little more to say with regard to the section. I see nothing here for the development of the shipyards of this country. That is another proof that the bill has not been designed entirely with a view of relieving unemployment and helping to develop the country. We have some thirteen shipyards in the Dominion of Canada, and we require many ships to carry on our work, such as dredges, lightships, and so on. At the front door of this building we have the statement:
The wholesome sea is at her gates,
Her gates both east and west.
But here is a program providing for the expenditure of $40,000,000 or perhaps $50,000,000, which does not contain one item looking to the development of what could be and should be one of our major industries, that is, shipping.
My main reason for rising at this time, Mr. Speaker, was to protest against the treatment meted out to us in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. ALPHONSE FOURNIER (Hull) (Translation):: 
Mr. BARRETTE:: (Translation):	By
whom?


Alphonse Fournier: By Mr. Beauchamp, my opponent at the last election. I personally interviewed the hon. minister after the visit of Mr. Beauchamp. This shows that I have no political object in view; it is simply to help the 7,009 people who, at present are in distress in my constituency.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Indeed, the intention is excellent!


Alphonse Fournier: The city
council has also submitted a list of which I

4334	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Fournier
could furnish a copy to the Minister of Public Works. To-day although protesting, may I inquire of the government whether they could not grant us at least a slice of the $2,000,000 mentioned in item 78 and which is destined to build roads, aqueduct, drainage, and electric lighting systems, and protective work on rivers.
My second request, which I think is quite fair, is that Ottawa should look upon Hull as one of its outside suburbs-


Joseph Arthur Barrette: As its
daughter.


Alphonse Fournier: I should
not like to use that expression, because it would, at times, be an ill-treated daughter.
Hull is considered like one of the suburbs of the city of Ottawa. A large amount is expended in Ottawa to improve public buildings. I would request, at least, that the unemployed of Hull be employed in carrying out this work. If the hon. Minister of Public Works would only issue instructions to that effect to the superintendent or to the person who will be in charge of such work, the people of Hull could benefit by it like the unemployed of Ottawa.
Without wishing to criticize, I saw in an item that the beautiful city of Three Rivers would be granted about $400,000. I do not blame the government in favouring those who support their policy; however, they should not be given the whole cake, leaving no crumbs for other constituencies of the province. The citizens of Hull contribute to the dominion treasury, probably as much as the city of Three Rivers. Our people have paid their taxes, as well as they could, for the last four years, and certainly do not deserve to be treated thus in the bill under consideration. May I inquire of the government whether it would be possible to reconsider the bill and grant us some appropriation.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Chicoutimi fares better than you do.


Alphonse Fournier: The situation is very distressing. I reside quite a distance from Chicoutimi. I am pleased that this town benefits by the government's favours; however, the city of Hull should not be considered like a stranger in Quebec or the dominion. May I request the government to help us; if not directly, at least indirectly by giving work to our unemployed in Ottawa.


Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention to take part in this debate; I wanted to leave to my hon. colleague (Mr. Stewart) the task of guiding his bill through 
fche house. However, since two or three of my colleagues opposite have thought fit to discuss questions concerning Montreal and my county, I deem it my duty to briefly reply.
This afternoon, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret) displayed an extraordinary zeal for our beautiful Montreal city. He reminded the government of its duty towards this city with reference to relief-direct relief or otherwise. My reply to the hon. member for St. James is that the government, since the day it assumed office has been conscious of its duty towards the unemployed throughout the country. Canada has felt the world-wide crisis, there was a lack of work, as in all other countries, perhaps in a much less degree than in a large number of other countries. However, the government made the necessary provisions so that citizens without work did not suffer from want and received help. And although the responsibility in such matters rests first with the municipalities, then with provincial authorities, and lastly, with the Dominion government, we helped all provinces and, particularly, that of Quebec and its municipalities. Neither was Montreal forgotten, quite the contrary. I think that the hon. member for St. James will be fair to the government by admitting that we have well carried out our part.
The hon. member for St. James reminded the government that it should immediately advance its quota in connection with amounts paid out, within the last few months, by the city of Montreal in order to relieve the unemployed; while awaiting that the city accounts be vouched for by the provincial authorities. May I point out to my hon. friend that we previously thought of helping the province of Quebec in order to remedy this state of affairs; the hon. member himself alluded, this afternoon, to an offer made by the Dominion government to the provincial authorities to advance $3,000,000 from the federal funds-


Mr. DENIS (Translation):: On what conditions?


Alfred Duranleau: -to
help the city of Montreal and partly to reimburse it of the amounts expended to relieve the unemployed.


Mr. RAYMOND (Translation):: At unacceptable conditions!


Alfred Duranleau: The
provincial authorities thought proper to refuse the government's offer. May I add that this government would have no objection to

Public Works Construction-Mr. Duranleau
an amount representing 60 per cent of the city of Montreal's accounts being advanced to help that city in the sums expended to relieve the unemployed, if the provincial authorities were willing to contribute half the amount. This would only be fair to Montreal, until their accounts are vouched for. It is not the Dominion government's fault, if the provincial government and the city of Montreal have not yet settled their accounts. We are bound to deal with the province and not with the municipality. That is why, we must wait until Quebec has audited the accounts of the city of Montreal. However, we are disposed to help out Montreal, and to follow the procedure I have just stated to the house.
What surprises me, is that the hon. member for St. James, when mayor of Montreal, did not think proper to settle this question with his Quebec government friends. It was necessary to elect another mayor to settle this question of advances to the satisfaction of the city of Montreal and its citizens.


Louis Édouard Fernand Rinfret: If the hon. member will permit me I shall point out to him that the question is no nearer a settlement than it was six months ago and, may I add that my request is addressed to Quebec as well as to Ottawa. I made no distinction. I addressed myself to the two governments on behalf of the citizens of Montreal.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will discover, perhaps, before a few hours have passed, that the question is nearer being settled than he thinks, as far as the dominion government is concerned. The hon. member seemed to congratulate the government as regards its schedule of public works attached to the present bill, in connection with the city of Montreal and surroundings. I wish to thank him. I trust that our friends in Montreal will recognize that we endeavoured-


Donat Raymond: At the
expiry of four years.


Alfred Duranleau: -to have the most urgent works authorized and especially those which will employ the most people from the labouring class of Montreal.


Vincent Dupuis: Will the hon. member permit me to put a question.


Joseph Arthur Barrette: Two.


Vincent Dupuis: One will be
enough, I think, for my hon. friend on the back benches. The hon. minister states that he does his utmost to give work to Montreal 74726-2741
and other parts of Canada. I wish to inquire how it happens that his interest on behalf of the people is felt only after four years, when he had promised to give work to all in 1930, and after he had withdrawn the $50,000,000 that the previous government had appropriated.


Alfred Duranleau: I
thought that my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville (Mr. Dupuis) wished to put a question pertinent to the subject under consideration. We shall have an opportunity later to reply to my hon. friend on that point.


Vincent Dupuis: I would be
pleased to have the reply now.


Alfred Duranleau: We
shall be in a position to reply without any fear.	[DOT]


Joseph-Arthur Denis: Before the
electors.


Alfred Duranleau: Our
hon. friends opposite seem to forget that for the last four years a world wide crisis has held Canada in its grip. Instead of carrying on petty criticism, they should have helped the government to weather the crisis. Instead of making, in the house, suggestions of a practical order, instead of helping the government, it was thought wise for another reason than that of public interest, to unceasingly criticize. I trust that the people of Canada will realize the attitude of our friends in the house, for the last four years, and will judge them as they deserve to be.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The people gave their verdict in Saskatchewan and Ontario.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation):: In 1930 you had nothing to propose except a commission.


Alfred Duranleau: I had
no intention, sir, to start a discussion on our general policy but simply to reply to the hon. member for St. James and briefly comment on the speech just delivered by the hon. member for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume). The latter stated that the water route of the Chambly river was of great importance and contended that we should have included in the public works program a certain amount to carry on the improvement of this route.
I entirely agree with the views of my hon. friend for St. Johns-Iberville (Mr. Rheaume) with reference to the importance of the Chambly river, I stated so on many occasions. I am convinced that the section drained by the Chambly and Richelieu rivers would later
1336	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Duranleau
on cater for the eastern part of the United States and that throughout this waterway, we shall be in a position to transport our products at a low rate and profitably. However, all remember that during the last four years, we had to be thrifty so as to balance our budgets and maintain, the credit of Canada. Hon. members opposite should realize that it was impossible for us to carry on improvements on the Richelieu river. I may inform my hon. friends that this project is under consideration, and I hope that before long we shall be in a position to request the house to authorize certain outlays in this respect.


Donat Raymond: Make
haste! You will not be long in power.


Alfred Duranleau: 
Joseph Arthur Barrette: As far
as Berthier.
Mr.	DURANLEAU	(Translation):	My
hon. friends who complain that the program of public works contain nothing for their counties will realize that it was impossible to give details of all the work which we intend to carry out.

The hon. member for Hull (Mr. Fournier) pointed out just now, the items as a whole which we request the house to authorize and which amount to many millions of dollars. This will allow the government to distribute as fairly as possible the work in the various parts of this country. One must have noted the amount of $2,500,000, "harbours and rivers generally." This simply means that work will be carried out in harbours on the St. Lawrence river and other rivers from the amount included in this item. This project also comprises an amount of $2,000,000 for the Interior department. There is another item of $2,000,000 under the heading of "public buildings generally" - "improvements, additions, fittings, etc." These amounts will permit us to do justice, as much as possible, to all counties of Quebec, in all localities where unemployment prevails.
My hon. friends will note also in the schedule the last amount of $500,000. This item will again permit us to do justice to the various parts of all the provinces of Canada. May I request hon. members opposite not to complain too much. We shall endeavour to act as fairly as possible towards every part of this country and all localities where unemployment prevails.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: Will the hon. minister permit me to put a question?


Alfred Duranleau: With
pleasure.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: To prove his good faith, his sincerity, could not the minister, out of this amount of $2,500,000 find $50,000 to improve the Chambly canal? You can also preach by giving the example.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend will realize that I cannot give an affirmative reply this evening. These general items being authorized, it will foe the duty of the government afterwards to distribute, as fairly as possible, the work. The hon. member is perfectly aware that I shall neglect nothing to obtain work to be done on or along the borders of the Richelieu river and also for the Chambly canal; the government will have to decide where the work is to be carried on.


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: T-hat will afford the means to the hon. minister of proving his sincerity.


Alfred Duranleau: My
hon. friend will agree that I have the greatest interest in the beautiful Richelieu region as far as St. Johns; however, it is not always possible to obtain all that we wish.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Sanderson


Pierre Auguste Martial Rhéaume: That will afford to the minister an opportunity of proving his earnestness.


Alfred Duranleau: I had no intention, sir, to take part in this debate, I simply wished to give a few explanations with reference to unemployment in Montreal and also as regards the work to be distributed in the various parts of Canada.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: 
Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Speaker, I so stated a moment ago. As far as I am concerned, I would be disposed to request that an amount representing 60 per cent of the accounts of the city of Montreal, which have not yet been vouched for, be advanced and equally shared by the dominion and provincial governments.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: And this, unconditionally.


Alfred Duranleau: On the sole condition of course, that when these bills are vouched for they will equal the amounts advanced. Personally, I am ready to recommend that 30 per cent of the amount be advanced immediately by the dominion government and 30 per cent 'by the provincial government.


Joseph-Arthur Denis: You will not impose any condition on the province of Quebec.


Alfred Duranleau: As I have just stated with the sole understanding that we are to foe reimbursed if the accounts vouched for do not amount to the sum advanced.


Joseph-Alexandre Mercier: Reimbursed by whom? By ithe province of Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend, is quite aware that we must deal with the provincial authorities. The duty of looking after the unemployed first rests with municipalities. Then, if the municipalities cannot cope with the task it behooves the provincial government, and lastly the dominion authorities come to the rescue of the provinces. Therefore, we can only transact with the Quebec government. I hope that, within a few days, we shall have succeeded
in convincing the Quebec authorities that this advance of 60 per cent on the accounts such as they exist, at present, should be granted to the city of Montreal.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, I desire to make only one or two observations on this bill. I shall confine my remarks more particularly to the province of Ontario, and shall corroborate the statements made this afternoon by the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Before I speak about Ontario, and before making a few observations in regard to the other provinces, I should like to say that this government is running true to form. It has brought down this bill in the dying days of the session, what perhaps may be the last session of this parliament. It is a bill providing for an expenditure of at least $30,000,000 on public works throughout the Dominion of Canada, they say for the relief of unemployment. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the method in their madness in regard to this bill is to endeavour to save themselves from defeat when the election comes on. If hon. members will go back to three years ago and look up Hansard they will see that the right hon. leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and those who sit behind him pleaded with the government then that if they wanted to relieve unemployment in the Dominion of Canada they should submit a program of public works. I remember that at that time the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) said that his department had nothing to do with the expenditure of money for the relief of unemployment, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) said that that was not the method of his government, and that he would never resort to that method in order to relieve unemployment in the Dominion of Canada. The members of the opposition at that time pleaded with the Minister of Public Works and with the Prime Minister at least to get away from the dole system, and if possible provide work by which men could earn their wages by doing a day's labour for the support of themselves and their wives and their children, and relieve unemployment in that way. But the Prime Minister said that that was not the policy of his government. Yet to-day we have the government coming down with this bill, which is nothing more or less than a bill for the expenditure of $30,000,000, and perhaps more, for political purposes in the Dominion of Canada. I say that seriously Mr. Speaker, and I say it because there is not a member of the government who has yet got up in defence of this bill.
1338	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Sanderson


Robert James Manion: Oh yes, the Minister of Public' Works was up.


Frederick George Sanderson: I hope the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) will get up a little later on.


Robert James Manion: There is no necessity because we are all in entire support of the bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: Yes, and in a moment or two I shall have something to say in regard to the money which it is proposed to spend in the riding of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways.


Robert James Manion: Go ahead. If you know anything about it you will say something for it.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will say what I have 'to say, but before coming to that I will say this to the Minister of Railways who interrupted me, that despite the money that will be expended in his riding he will experience the same fate as the Conservative candidate who was defeated in that riding in the last provincial election.


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend and his friends have been saying that for five elections, and in four of them my opponent lost his deposit. He will lose it next time too.


Frederick George Sanderson: I will say to my hon. friend the Minister of Railways that there always comes a time if you stay long enough in politics, and especially if you join one party and desert it for another, as my hon. friend the Minister of Railways did-you cannot play all sides all the time I will make this prophecy, that the Minister of Railways will go down to defeat in his riding when his government gets the courage to appeal to the people.


Robert James Manion: I will take a chance on that.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am afraid the Minister of Railways has lost his influence with his friends in his constituency. He went up there and made two or three speeches for the Conservative candidate in the provincial election-


Robert James Manion: My hon. friend is just as right as usual. I made one speech. My hon. friend is just one-third right, about as usual.


Frederick George Sanderson: That was enough. If the minister had made two there would have been a thousand more votes against the Conservative candidate.
Coming back to this bill and looking over these expenditures of the taxpayers' money, which is going to be spent apparently in an effort to get back into power this discredited

government which has lost the confidence of the people, this ramshackle government which is trying to get back into power by the expenditure of money on public works, and in which the riding of my hon. friend the Minister of Railways is going to share, may I say to the Minister of Public Works that I have gone through this schedule very carefully and I do not see one dollar for Brockville or Leeds, and I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister and his government have decided that my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works has not the ghost of a chance to be elected in the next election.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to tell my hon. friend that he is one hundred per cent wrong in both the statements he has made.


Frederick George Sanderson: I shall be very glad to accept the explanation of my hon. friend the Minister of Public Works, but the electors won't. If you go carefully through this schedule of expenditures for public works in the province of Ontario, it is really marvellous. Take the county of Oxford, for instance. It is one of the banner counties of the province of Ontario, and in the last gerrymander, because it was not a redistribution but a gerrymander in the province of Ontario, the two Oxfords, north and south, were united. In all probability my good friend the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland) will be the Conservative candidate in Oxford in the next election. There is not a dollar of expenditure in this vote for Oxford.


Mr. SUTHERLAND:: I do not need it to win.


Frederick George Sanderson: My good friend the Minister of National Defence predicted that in the by-election in South Oxford, the Conservative candidate, his namesake, another Donald Sutherland, would have one thousand of a majority whereas the Liberal was returned by fifteen hundred of a majority. Let me say to the Minister of National Defence that it is not because he does not need it that there is no expenditure for Oxford county in this bill. I have come to the conclusion that the Prime Minister, because we know that at times he is ruthless, and if he thinks one of his colleagues is going down he throws him to the scrap heap, has arrived at the conclusion that the Minister of National Defence has not a chinaman's chance in Oxford at the next election, and that is the reason there is no expenditure for that county.


Mr. SPOTTON:: Well, well!

Public Works Construction-Mr. Sanderson


Frederick George Sanderson: I will come to my good friend from North Huron (Mr.Spotton)-


George Spotton: To save time in this process of elimination and get on with the business, I will admit I have no chance.


Frederick George Sanderson: I give credit to my good friend from North Huron. He says he has not a chance, and he is right. There is no expenditure apparently for North Huron. The Prime Minister has come to the conclusion, and I regret it very much, that my good friend in the next election will be left at home. There is a rumour going about, which I hope is true, that the hon. member for North Huron is to be put in the Senate before the next elections are announced. I think he would at least add weight to the Senate, if nothing else.


George Spotton: Barkis is willin'.


Frederick George Sanderson: My hon. friend says,
"Barkis is willin'." He says that he made only one speech in his owrn constituency during the provincial elections. It is too bad he did not make more.
Apparently the government have come to the conclusion that the Minister of Railways and Canals has a fighting chance in Fort William because I find an item for that city of $425,000 for a public building, site acquired. If it is necessary to expend $425,000 in Fort William in order to elect the Minister of Railways and Canals, I say that that is too high a price. I doubt very much if the expenditure of $425,000 will elect the minister.
I go down through the list. I am sorry the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) is not in his seat as I have something to say about him and South Wellington. I well remember a provincial by-election which was held in South Wellington a few years ago when a supporter of the Liberal party was elected. At that time the Minister of Justice made a ret.ort from this side of the house that that would never occur again. Well, it did occur again and there was an increase of about one thousand in the majority. Apparently the Minister of Justice has convinced the Prime Minister that he still has a fighting chance to come back in South Wellington, because there is to be a considerable expenditure in the city of Guelph. I see an item of $250,000 for a new public building, and also one for S15.000 for the installation of an elevator in the public building. That is a total of $265,000 which is too large a price to pay in order to bring the Minister of Justice back to Ottawa. If anyone will go through the list of expenditures on public works in Ontario during the last four, five
or six years he will find that a lot of money has been spent in Guelph by this government. If the Minister of Justice, with his influence with the Prime Minister and his colleagues, finds it necessary to bribe the people with
S265,000	of their own money in order to be reelected, he had better stay at home. I will make the prophecy that it does not matter whether the government spends $265,000, it does not matter whether it spends half a million, a million or a million and a half, the time has come when the Minister of Justice will be defeated should he decide to test the confidence of the people in his riding.


Mr. McGIBBON:: You said that in 1930.


Frederick George Sanderson: I did not. I say to
the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario (Mr. McGibbon) that he had better watch his own step because I think he is doomed in Muskoka. I doubt if he will ever sit in this house again after the next elections, and I think the hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario knows that as well as any one else.


Peter McGibbon: I ask the hon. member
to come up to Muskoka during the next elections and then I certainly will be elected.


Frederick George Sanderson: It is not necessary
for me to go up. The hon. member for Muskoka-Ontario can get up and make one of his Canadian National speeches or one of the other speeches for which he is noted, but even then I think he will lose his deposit. I shall be very sorry if he does not come back, but I am afraid he will not.


Peter McGibbon: You are wasting your
sympathy.


Mr. JACOBS:: Are they going to elect
anyone?


Frederick George Sanderson: I will make this
prediction-


An hon. MEMBER:: Who is going to be elected in Perth?


Frederick George Sanderson: I have not forgotten Perth and I shall come back to it.


Mr. MacNICOL:: Dave Wright.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have been waiting
for the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol). He was the organizer for the Conservative party during the last provincial election.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I never was the organizer for Ontario at any stage of the game. The hon. member knows perfectly well that that is not correct.
4340	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Sanderson


Frederick George Sanderson: All right. The hon. member was chairman of the speakers' bureau. The hon. member worked day and night for a month, and on the Saturday before the polling took place he gave an interview to the Mail and Empire of Toronto. He said to the reporter: "There is nothing to it. Premier Henry will have 55 seats; I could name them to you, but it would only take up space in your paper, but he will have at least 55 seats." My hon. friend from Toronto had better keep quiet. He undertook to leave his seat in this House of Commons to go down to Toronto to superintend that campaign for Mr. Henry, Colonel Price and all the rest of them. What was the result? I should like to make a prediction about my hon, friend from Toronto.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member should confine himself to discussing the subject matter of this bill.


Frederick George Sanderson: I am speaking about public works and the effect they are going to have on the various ridings.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member has stated that the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) was the organizer in the elections, and that has nothing to do with this matter.


Frederick George Sanderson: If Your Honour will just be patient with me for a moment I will connect that up.
Mr, MANION: We all have to be patient with you.


Frederick George Sanderson: The items for Toronto total millions of dollars. The first is customs building addition, site acquired, $600,000; the next is new postal station "D", $100,000; the next is completion of ship channel walls- perhaps that is in my hon. friend's riding- $220,000; and the next is new dock at marginal way-I do not know what that is; perhaps it is, the parting of the ways-$546,000. How much of that expenditure is to be made in the riding of my hon. friend?


John Ritchie MacNicol: Not a single dollar.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is that because he has not a chance to be elected?
Mr. iMacNICOL: The hon. member is again incorrect; I will be elected.


Frederick George Sanderson: Time will tell, but my good friend from Toronto had better keep quiet about elections. He was in charge of the redistribution bill which was put through last year, and believe me he took care of him-

Self and of his friends. He carved it up beautifully, but it makes no difference; he too is doomed, and if he can get into the Senate I would advise him to go there.
Now, getting back to public works, I want to say that within the last week in the province of Ontario we have seen a government which had lost the confidence of the people to such an extent that they were almost annihilated. And how did they try to get back into power? By bribing the people with their own money on roads and highways and with patronage of all kinds, the worst example of political patronage that this country has ever seen. The government that was defeated last Tuesday had lost the confidence of the people of Ontario to a degree that no other government has ever done, unless it is the government across the way; because my hon. friends opposite-and I am glad to see that the Minister of Justice has come in-have lost the confidence not only of the people of Ontario, and to a greater degree than the Henry government had done, but they have lost the confidence of the people of the eight other provinces of the dominion. And they have not the courage to go to the country; they will hang on to power as long as they can. Yet they bring down this bill proposing an expenditure of over $30,000,000, almost $40000,000, to bribe the people of this country to put them back into power.	.
Let me say a word about the contractors who will feed at the crib in connection with this expenditure. My good friend the Minister of Public Works-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Good friend?


Frederick George Sanderson: If I am not a good friend I will take it back.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Go on.


Frederick George Sanderson: I want to say to him that not later than three weeks ago, four weeks ago at the longest, an hon. member who sits on the apposition benches, from the province of Ontario, was in the minister's office in regard to some expenditure and the minister frankly told him he was going to do all he could to defeat him and therefore the minister could not do anything for him in the expenditure of money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I deny any such statement. I never made any such statement to any member of this house at any time or on any occasion.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Mr. GEARY:: You had better unconditionally withdraw it.

Public Works Construction-Mr. Sanderson


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I ask my hon. friend to accept my statement and withdraw his. I will insist upon it too.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Frederick George Sanderson: By the rules of the house I am compelled to take the word of the Minister of Public Works and withdraw that statement.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Frederick George Sanderson: Nevertheless I have in my mind what my hon. friend* told me


Peter McGibbon: That is cowardly.


Frederick George Sanderson: Don't you call me a coward. I want that withdrawn.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Take it back.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, I have withdrawn my remark to the Minister of Public Works-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The Minister of Public
Works has denied a statement attributed to him and the hon. gentleman is obliged to accept the denial.


Frederick George Sanderson: I have withdrawn the
statement.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member who
called out "coward" must withdraw that remark.


Peter McGibbon: Mr. Speaker, I did not
say "coward." I said that the action implied in the hon. member's reply, wherein he withdrew his statement under compulsion and intimated that he did not believe the denial, was cowardly.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Withdraw.


Frederick George Sanderson: Mr. Speaker, I quote
to Your Honour rule 298:
The following expressions have been ruled to be unparliamentary in the British House of Commons:
Alleging that a member's statements were: not consonant with personal honour; cowardly; dishonest; insulting;
And so on.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have already ruled that
the remark must be withdrawn.


Peter McGibbon: I withdraw it with great pleasure, and following-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Stop there.


Peter McGibbon: I think I have a right
to complete my sentence.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Don't spoil it.


Peter McGibbon: Well, I won't spoil it.


Ernest Lapointe: You are a sport, doctor.


Frederick George Sanderson: Now let me refer to my good friend from Toronto South ('Mr. Geary). The hon. gentleman went out in the provincial elections. He said he did not think it was worth while going into western Ontario because all the candidates of his good friend Mr. Henry would be elected. Finally he consented under pressure to go into three or four ridings and the result was that in these three or four ridings the people gave huge majorities to the Liberal candidates-much larger majorities, possibly, than if the hon. gentleman had not gone into the ridings.


George Reginald Geary: You are not complaining
about that, are you?


Frederick George Sanderson: In regard to the
contractors, I went to say a word or two, but let me observe that the Minister of Public Works deserves no sympathy from anyone on this side.


Ernest Lapointe: He is a good fellow.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He is not asking for any.


Frederick George Sanderson: When he was in opposition, without mercy and in a ruthless fashion he bombarded the Postmaster General for three weeks, and I fancy the reward he got for that was the position he now holds. Now he comes into this house and practically says in this bill, which he is sponsoring, that no contracts under $25,000 shall be tendered for. He knows that is wrong; the Prime Minister knows it is wrong; the Minister of Justice knows it is wrong; the Minister of Railways knows it is wrong; and the Minister of National Revenue knows it is wrong. They are injecting into public works, under the guise of relief for unemployment, a system of patronage and graft such as this country has never seen before. It is all very well for the Minister of Public Works, backed up by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Justice, to say, "Oh well, this government-"


Mr. COTNAM:: Tell us about Beauharnois.


Frederick George Sanderson: "-will be honest; they will be fair and take care of the people's money." Well, three years ago, two years ago, for hours, under the leadership of the leader of the opposition we pleaded with this government to have an audit of the moneys sent out to the provinces for relief. They
4342	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Sanderson
laughed at us. The Prime Minister said that was insulting to the provinces, to the premiers and to the government. During the last four years about $32,000,000 was sent from Ottawa to Toronto for unemployment relief. I am not criticizing the amount, but a good deal of that money never reached the place for which it was intended, because there was no audit, no check.


Mr. ARTHURS:: What about Quebec?


Frederick George Sanderson: I do not know anything about Quebec; I am speaking about my own province of Ontario. This government should have had an audit, a check on every dollar that went out from their treasury for relief, not only in Ontario but in all the provinces. Oh, they said, peace, order and good government, blank cheque legislation. Under this bill my good friend the Minister of Public Works, if he will let me call him that-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Just
temporarily.


Frederick George Sanderson: All right, temporarily -the Minister of Public Works wants to get control of the expenditure so that any amount not in excess of $25,000 he can deal with in his office. Is that democratic government?


Mr. CAS  GRAIN@: The pork barrel.


Frederick George Sanderson: Is that the kind of government the people of this country want? No. The only thing the people are hoping and praying for is that this government will have the courage to go to the country. They only want a chance to mark their ballots against it. I say to my hon. friends across the way: Watch your step, because the handwriting is on the wall and you are doomed.


Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville):: I rise not to predict anyone's rise
or fall-


Mr. J. A. BRADETTE (North Timiskam-ing):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of
personal .privilege. I adjourned the debate this evening at six o'clock and I have not yet had a chance to speak.


Robert James Manion: I rise to a point of order. The hon. gentleman made the statement that he adjourned the debate at six o'clock. If therefore he did not go on at nine o'clock he has lost his position and cannot go on now.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: He did
not adjourn the debate; he just saw six o'clock.


Robert James Manion: I was simply taking the
hon. gentleman's own statement that he adjourned the debate at six o'clock.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The fact is that no one
adjourned the debate at six o'clock. The hon. gentleman has the floor.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I just want to give the northern Ontario viewpoint on this bill. For the last four years I have always been in favour of a program of public works rather than of direct relief. As far as northern Ontario is concerned, under the northern development branch of the province most of our settlers were given some employment. This is no time to discuss the wages they were receiving, but this bill is a step in the right direction. The only regret I feel at the present time is that it was not inaugurated four years ago and maintained since then. I have no quarrel with other sections of Ontario getting millions of dollars, or with the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion) when he gets $425,000 for his constituency; no doubt that expenditure is warranted in his section of the country. As far as Cochrane is concerned I am glad that the sum of $55,000 has found its way into the program for that town, but when you realize that in that riding at the present moment there are at least 100,000 people it means that under this bill there is to be provided for the relief of unemployment there an average of fifty-five cents a head. Anyone will readily see that that is no cure for the present situation in our section of the province. The same applies also to South Timiskaming; there is only $53,000 provided.
I believe it will be absolutely impossible for the federal government to stop direct relief on the fifteenth of next month as far as northern Ontario is concerned, because in a population of nearly 175,000 people in the two Timiskamings there is only to be a total expenditure of $108,000. We never were parochial in our section, but I want the house to be fully seized of this fact, that from the gold tax as amended the government will receive from the southern section of Timiskaming, represented by the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon), and the northern section, represented by myself, some six or seven million dollars, yet these two ridings are receiving under this bill the small sum of $108,000. Coming again to my first statement,
I am very glad that the government are going to build a post office in Cochrane, my home town, which is really the hub of the the north country, being situated much the same as Winnipeg was some fifty years ago. All the development taking place in northern Ontario will prove beneficial to that section of the country, and more particularly to Cochrane, and its environs.

Public Works Conslruction-Mr. Bradelte
Before I proceed to mention, some of the things that I think should be included in this program, I want to compliment the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) upon the expenditure he is going to make in the town of Cochrane. I complimented him personally upon having found it possible to make some necessary repairs to the Indian hospital there.
I now appeal to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart)-I hope he can hear me-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: For the last six or
seven months the town of Timmins has been trying to get 500 new post office boxes, which so far they found it impossible to get. It is an expenditure which I know will eventually prove a paying one to the government. I trust that the minister will find it possible under this vote of $2,000,000 for public buildings to grant to the town of Timmins these necessary facilities. I said a moment ago that they require 500 boxes, and I hope the department will find it possible to give them at least 700; I am positive that every one will be used at once.
Another appeal that I want to make to the minister is for the new building in Timmins, which was built over four years ago, and which now needs a certain amount of painting and repair. I trust the minister will find it possible to take care of this also out of that $2,000,000 vote.
There is another very important matter that should be implemented in this program but I regret to see that there is no mention of it, I refer to the trans-Canada highway.
Some lion. MEMBERS:	Oh, oh.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Some hon. members
from Quebec may not be interested, but I have always been interested in Quebec, and I would tell the hon. members that Quebec is in fact very much concerned with the trans-Canada highway. They should have direct communication from Montreal to Mont Laurier and west through Hearst to Winnipeg..


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We are with you.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I hope you are. As
far as the federal government is concerned there has been practically no work done on the so-called trans-Canada highway in northern Ontario. What money has been spent was spent on the wildest section of the country on the north shore of lake Superior. During the last provincial election, Hon. James Lyons was telling his constituents that if he were elected and his party returned to power they would receive $8,000,000 for the
building of that section. The logical route for the trans-Canada highway is that through the town of Hearst, westward along the Canadian National to Winnipeg. On that route there are less physical obstacles to overcome, and where ten dollars has to be spent for construction on the north shore one dollar would be sufficient in our section. We are very practical and logical in our requirements, and we also realize that it is not a matter of months but of years before that highway can be completed, but I want this government to be fully seized of the present situation. I well remember that five years ago the Hon. Howard Ferguson, speaking in my home town, stated that the governments should be given a certain amount of time to decide on the route of the trans-Canada highway. But five years have passed since then and the governments must have had sufficient time to settle where that route should be. Again I am pleading with this government, and also asking the Quebec members, whether from the Quebec district or Montreal or otherwise, if they want a direct route for the trans-Canada highway from coast to coast, to see that it goes through the northern section of northern Ontario. A few weeks ago in reply to a question I put to the Prime Minister on that very important matter of how the route was decided he told me it was decided by orders in council passed by the different provinces, and that as far as Quebec is concerned they were satisfied with the present existing route within their own limits, over the Montreal highway to Hawkesbury and through the Ottawa valley. I must say that in the province of Quebec someone must have been asleep at the switch. I know that at present the Quebec government have a party of men working west of here near lake Victoria, and this government should see to it that the construction near Norembega, which will involve building about fifty miles of road, is carried on in order to give direct communication between Montreal and Cochrane. This would save motorists hundreds of miles.
There is another important question I should like to mention. I must voice my disappointment in the fact that, in this bill I do not see even a mention of that very important work to which I have directed attention on previous occasions; that is, the construction of high powered radio stations in northern Canada. Through the good offices of the chairman I was able to appear before the radio committee and give the northern Ontario viewpoint. I believe I made that committee realize that so far as we in northern Canada, and particularly in northern Ontario, were
44	.	COMMONS
Public II arks Construction-Mr. Bradette
concerned, we were not getting the service from the radio commission that we deserved. I am not blaming the radio commission or any other public body, but the house must be seized of this fact: If all the northern sections of Canada were absolutely in favour of the nationalization of radio it was because they realized that under then existing conditions the cities received the service they desired, while in the northern sections of Canada they were not and are not getting the service to which they were entitled. In my own section of the country at the present time at least ninety per cent of the radio users are not paying their licence fees. I have received dozens and in fact hundreds of letters from radio owners *asking for my advice in this connection. Naturally I tell them that I believe they should pay their licence fees, but when one considers the little service they get for the money they spend in fees, equipment and so on, it is hard to blame them for not doing so. They get absolutely no reception in the daytime and in many instances they are unable to get reception at night.
According to my information the government, whether through the Department of Marine or the radio commission I do not know, had in view the expenditure of
85,000,000 in the construction of high powered radio stations across northern Canada. I make a very serious appeal to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart): I ask him if it is not possible at least partly to implement that undertaking. It would be one of the very best ways to give radio service to the section of the population that most needs it. At one time it took nearly three weeks to go to Moosonee; now the railway runs there, and the trip can be made in a very short time. But I want the government to understand that our pioneer population, who are within seven hundred or eight hundred miles of the capital, receive their daily papers at least thirty-six to forty-eight hours late. So the government should be fully aware of the situation with regard to those people; they should Realize what it means to those people to be able to receive tf*e broadcasts of the radio commission. I believe the people in the north are playing the game, they are extending civilization year by year, as their forefathers did in southern Ontario and on the shores of the St. Lawrence, but they are not receiving the treatment to which they are entitled.
I ask the Minister of Public Works if he will not try to implement the promises that were made in my part of the country. I remember that the present chairman of the 
radio commission told us we would have a high powered station located somewhere between Timmins and Sudbury, but so far we have obtained only local broadcasting stations in Timmins and Kirkland Lake. I understand that another is to be installed either at New Liskeard or Englehart, and there is another at North Bay, I have no quarrel with these local stations; they are giving a service to the people of those localities, but because of their wave lengths and their low power it is absolutely impossible for people more than a few miles away to receive their broadcasts. In any case hon. members will readily realize that local broadcasting is not sufficient for that whole region; we are entitled to better service than that. I believe I am speaking also for the people of northern Quebec; I am sure the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Bellec), who is in his place, will voice the same criticism with regard to the radio situation in his part of the country. I intend to keep up the fight until we receive the consideration we deserve. When I was discussing the proposed gold tax some hon. gentlemen opposite tried to make the house believe that-some of us on this side were local in our point of view. I believe I proved quite clearly, however, that the gold tax would affect practically every citizen in this country. The same statement would apply to goid mining and the mining industry generally, and it applies also to the radio situation. We are entitled to the same service that is given in the larger centres of population, such as Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. In the next fifty years our great development will be in the northern section of Canada; that is where our great natural resources lie.
As I say, Mr. Speaker, I intend to carry on my fight. I am no prophet; I do not know what may happen at the next general election, but if I sit on the government benches I am going to carry on the fight as strongly as I am carrying it on at the present time, because I am fully convinced that, so far as radio broadcasting is concerned that fine pioneer population is not receiving the service it deserves. I am not speaking politically when I say that. I received a great deal of information from the committee and also from the radio commission. I understand that under their departmental budget it was impossible for them to give us the service we requested, but surely in this public works program it should be possible to do so even if we have to increase the amount to be voted. This afternoon some hon. gentlemen said we were having mild inflation. This is not the time for me to discuss that matter, but if there is to be an increased circulation of our Cana-

Public Works Construction-Mr. Bradette
dian money it is wholly due to the gold mining industry of this country. I believe if all the facts were known the gold mining industry of Quebec and Ontario would open the eyes not only of this section of the continent but of the whole world. This applies with equal force to northern Ontario, to northern Manitoba, to British Columbia and to Alberta. If it is possible to inflate it is purely on account of that primary industry which in this year, 1934, is going to create new wealth to the amount of $50,000,000, eighty per cent of which comes from northern Ontario. Another large part comes from the northern part of the province of Quebec, and I believe to a certain extent that statement could be applied to the whole northern section of Canada.
Then, may I say that my section of the country has not sufficient radio broadcasting facilities. I know the Minister of Public Works is familiar with the situation, and I have no doubt that some appeal has been made to him, or to some department,-I am not sure just which one it would be. It has come to my knowledge that he has been approached in connection with the expenditure of from S4,000,000 to $6,000,000 for the creation of high powered radio stations in the northern section of the country. I fervently hope-and I am making the same appeal to the Prime Minister and to every member of the government and of the house-that this promise will be supplemented in the very near future-and when I say that I do not mean some time five years from now. I am hoping it will be supplemented under the present public works program. This work would entail a certain expenditure on raw materials; and it would mean that a large number of men would be employed on the construction of such high powered radio stations. Also it would add to the permanent equipment already erected by the government whereby all sections of the Canadian population could have radio facilities. I should be willing to give full credit for such advancement, or any such development.
Something has been mentioned, and very properly so, about contracting. May I say that I know something about contracting. I know that in this country it is the habit in most instances where big contractors find it possible, to sublet some of the work to be done, such as masonry, painting, plastering, flooring, and so on. In some cases it works out all right, but in a great many instances it works out badly for the working man. We were told that protection is afforded by the fair wages clause, and I was very glad to hear that statement from the Minister of Public Works. My fervent wish is, however, that
the subcontractor will not be tolerated, under present conditions. The contractors should not make more money than that to which they are entitled. I maintain that under present working conditions they should not make any more than from six per cent to nine per cent profit on construction work, and that the rest of the money should go to the working men. That would be one of the best ways to relieve distress, and so far as the government is concerned, to have good construction work.
This afternoon the hon. member for East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) quite properly referred to the deplorable slum conditions in the Canadian cities. I know that there is a great movement on foot, one which was inaugurated by the lieutenant governor of Ontario, to initiate a construction program whereby those slums may be obliterated, and new buildings and sanitary conditions would be given to the working men. Again I have no quarrel with such a suggestion, and no doubt something will have to be done along that line. But may I suggest that there is another fine class of workers to be helped- the people living in the little log cabins up in the northern section of the country. Under present financial and economic conditions they find it impossible to graduate from the settler to the farmer class. I would not be opposed to the spending of those moneys to improve slum conditions, but I would suggest that such a program should include doing away with the slum conditions in rural sections. Such a program could apply to those little places the people in the northern sections call their homes; I have no doubt hon. members will readily realize the necessity, indeed the urgency of the need, for public expenditures in that direction.
When I qpoke on the budget I said that the government ought to inaugurate a program whereby annually a sum of $5,000,000 could be spent to allow settlers under the jurisdiction of the different provinces of the Canadian federation to build their homes, and to build also barns and stables which they need so very much at the present time. I am in favour of the back to the land movement, but I believe this scheme could be effected by the government and would help the present rural population. It would allow the farmers' sons, young men who by their training, surroundings and ' mode of living are familiar with the present situation, to continue in their vocations. In northern Ontario hundreds of people are trying to find new occupations, as a result of the back to the land movement. That may be all right, but our own rural population, the people who did the pioneer work and held the line for the last fifteen or twenty years, think it
4346	COMMONS
Public Works Construction-Mr. Bradette
strange when they see the federal and provincial governments bonusing people going on the land, to the tune of $200 per year, when at the same time the sons of farmers, the young men, have no work. The young men find it impossible to settle next to their fathers. I believe the government should inuagurate a scheme whereby the farmers could build decent homes. I do not ask for luxurious houses, but only for comfortable ones where sanitary conditions would prevail.
Making these suggestions in all sincerity I believe no man could properly accuse me of bringing any political discussions into my observations. I have always given credit where credit is due, and I believe I indicated that fact when only a few moments ago I referred in favourable terms to the Minister of the Interior. Speaking for the town of Timmins, may I say that I hope the Minister of Public Works will find it possible to give to the post office in that fine mining town the seven hundred postal boxes which at the present time are particularly needed. I know that the minister is fully seized of the facts. In two or three years those boxes would pay for themselves, and would, so far as the government is concerned, be revenue producers.
Speaking for my section of the country I must say that at least to some extent conditions are improving. The lumbering operations have been a little more active during the last winter, although prices are not yet what they should be. It is our hope that during the present season they may be increased. The northern development branch of the Ontario government voted this year only the sum of $3,500,000, while the usual vote had been $5,000,000. While we may have a more limited number of unemployed in our section, we still have a great number of them. I suggest that the present public works program does not justify the government in shutting off the relief on July 15. Again, in all sincerity I make an appeal to the government, because a great many of our rural and industrial population in northern Ontario are in the same predicament they were suffering from two or three years ago. The government must carry on its initial public works program; it should enlarge it if possible, but direct relief is still necessary for a section of our population, at least for a certain period of time.
Again I make the fervent request that before this bill is passed the minister should take action, if he has not already taken it- I know some statements have been made- to give the people in northern Ontario the
[Mr. Bradette.l
radio service to which they are entitled. I know that if the people in my section of the country were receiving the service they deserve they would be willing to pay not only a two dollar licence fee but more if necessary. But at the present time the Department of Marine is actually losing revenue, it is not collecting more than ten per cent of the radio licences in the north country, and under the present public works program it should be possible to initiate the expenditure of $4,000,000 to $6,000,000 for radio purposes. I was told that this matter had been discussed in the radio committee and that the committee was in favour of bringing to the attention of the Minister of Public Works and of the government this expenditure of five million dollars. I do not think there is a member of this parliament on either side of the house who would criticize such an expenditure. I implicitly believe that it would alleviate the present situation in our part of the country, and that it would be a permanent remedy, and a step in the right direction. Our part of the country has never been sectional in its viewpoint. It has always had sympathy for other parts of Canada, and I trust that this suggestion will receive the attention which it deserves from the Minister of Public Works and the government.
On motion of Mr. Mercier (St. Henri) the debate was adjourned.
On motion of Mr. Bennett the house adjourned at 10.58 p.m.
Wednesday, June 27, 1934