1934-02-16

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it becomes my unfortunate duty to deal with a matter affecting the privileges of the house. My attention was directed to the fact that during the course of a speech in the house the night before last the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said:
I am not in favour of an election this year.
That remark does not appear in Hansard, and it now transpires that the words were taken down by the Hansard reporter and struck out of the report by the hon. gentleman. I hold the original manuscript in my
Civil Service Committee

hand. Though as much care as can be exercised is taken in connection with these matters I think it well to direct attention to the fact that the privileges extended to members do not permit of the elimination from their remarks of statements of this kind.


Mr. BOURASSA:: I quite agree with the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, but I could quote an instance where one of his ministers struck out a passage from one of his speeches last year which made it appear exactly opposite to what he had said. Since then, however, he has taken a flight to Egypt.


Mr. BROWN:: I have had occasion before this to believe that members have struck out portions of their speeches. We shall have to be more watchful in future.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I believe the rule has been that grammatical errors and defects of that sort are corrected. In one case I made some inquiries when it was brought to my attention that substantial changes had been made in a speech; the matter was brought to the attention of the house, and the Hansard authorities were advised that it was not competent for anyone to change the sense of a speech. There may be errors in transcription or there may be errors made in taking down the remarks of the speaker because of noise in the chamber. Those are matters with which members may be expected to deal quite properly. I recall in my own case that on one occasion there was a noise in the chamber and Hansard sent for me saying that because of the noise they had not been able to take down what had been said, and wanting to know if I could assist them. I gave them my notes, such as they were-they were not very helpful-and I am bound to say that the report was not entirely intelligent. In this case, however, the words were heard and transcribed, but they have been struck out by the hon. gentleman who used them. It becomes somewhat important for the reason that a few moments previously the former Minister of Justice (Mr. Lapointe) had been speaking of the necessity for an early appeal to the country. Then one of the distinguished members opposite, who frequently speaks for the Liberal party, said he was not in favour of an election this year, and though Hansard took down these words they were struck out by the hon. member.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I think I heard the remark that was made by the hon. member for Temiscouata. I do not know how much of the text he removed, but the remark 
about not being in favour of an election this year was associated with a further remark, provided that the present leader of the government was not retained as leader. If the hon. member for Temiscouata struck that out he evidently felt .that he did not wish to reflect upon the present Prime Minister.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, he left that in. The very courteous observation made by the right hon. gentleman makes it possible for me to read the whole sentence as it was taken down by the reporter and transcribed into typewriting. It was as follows:
I am not in favour of an election this year; we can wait another year, provided that the Conservative party .and the government select another leader to devise new measures and carry on for another year.
What appears, as amended in the handwriting of the hon. member, is this: first, there is the deletion of the words "I am not in favour of an election this year." Then the following words appear:
We might wait another year for an election -provided that the Conservative party and the government select another leader-and try the administration for a year longer under that new leadership.
The last twelve words are in the handwriting of the hon. member, so he did not remove that portion of his observations.


Mr. POULIOT:: I am glad the right hon. gentleman has taken notice of that fact.



CIVIL SERVICE


Richard Bedford Bennett: That a select special committee of this house be appointed, to consist of seven members, to be hereinafter named, to inquire into and report upon the administration and operation of the Civil Service Act as amended, with instructions to inquire into and report concerning the repeal or amendment of any of the provisions of the said .act or the substitution therefor or addition thereto of other provisions, as the committee may deem advisable, with power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time to this house.
He said: In moving this motion I believe I should say that it is moved in consequence of the recommendation of the select special committee which was set up a couple of years ago. At that time it was suggested that at each session there should be set up a select special committee to deal with any problems which might arise in connection with the Civil

Radio Broadcasting Committee
Service Act, its operation, and administration. In furtherance of that suggestion, this motion is made. I know of no reason other than that as to why the motion should be made at the present, time, but I now move the motion in consequence of that representation.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: May I ask
the Prime Minister if that statement applies to the committee on radio broadcasting?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No, this is in connection
with the Civil Service Act.


Mr. VENIOT:: Does the Prime Minister
know of any problems which have arisen since last session or since the report of the last committee was presented which would necessitate the appointment this session of a committee ?


Richard Bedford Bennett: I know of no specific
matters of great import, except that there are always numbers who are not selected for positions to which they think they should be appointed.


Mr. VEINIOT:: But that is not a matter
of investigation.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is a matter of
course, and is not peculiar. The motion has . no significance except, as I say, it is in pursuance of the understanding arrived at that such committee would be set up so that hon. members of the house, if they have representations to make in connection with the administration of the act, may have an opportunity to do so.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Is it the intention of the government to refer to this committee Bill No. 4 now before the house, the one which was introduced by the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) respecting the Bureau for Translations?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is the intention of the government to refer that bill ;o the committee now being proposed?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes.
Mr. MdINTOSH:	May I ask the Prime
Minister why it is necessary to appoint a special committee to deal with a matter of this kind? I have in mind a recommendation about which the right hon. gentleman has just spoken, a recommendation that was made to the house a few years ago by a special committee appointed to deal with civil service matters. We have a standing committee of the house on industrial and international relations. Why should this question not be
referred to that committee? A few years ago it dealt with problems pertaining to the organization of a national civil service council and upon that occasion reported to the house and had its report endorsed.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The answer is that our
civil service is national, and not international.


Mr. McINTOSH:: That is not an answer
at all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That a select special committee of seven members of the house, to be hereinafter named, be appointed, to inquire into and report upon the operations of the commission under the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act. 1932, as amended at the last session of parliament, to advise and recommend what, if any, changes should be effected in the existing system of radio broadcasting, and whether the said statutes should be amended, in whole or in part, and what, if any, additions should be made thereto, the said committee to have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses, and to report from time to time to this house.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, in moving this
motion I would ask unanimous consent of the house to change the word "seven" to the word "nine." There were nine members on the committee last year, and it was thought that that number of members was desirable because of the interest of every province in the matter. However, by mistake, the word "seven" appears instead of the word "nine." With the consent of the house and without moving a formal amendment may we make the substitution?
Then, may I add that this committee is the one which it was promised would be set up, in view of the fact that the statute passed last session amending the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Act of 1932 is valid only until April first next, at which time it expires. In view of the very evident manifestation of desire on the part of the house shown at the last session, that an opportunity should be offered to discuss the problems incident to broadcasting, and without injuring the institution itself by attacks, counter attacks and defences such as arose in discussion last year, this motion is made. In other words, this committee would afford an opportunity for hon. members to present their views, so that a report might be made to the house. In that

Unemployment Relief

way there would not be involved a discussion which would destroy the very body which we have desired to preserve.


Mr. SPEAKER:: With the consent of the
house that the number be changed from "seven" to "nine," shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of
the day are called, I should like to address a question to the government. I believe I would be acting properly if in this connection I addressed the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Sutherland). I have had a number of letters from some of the single men in camps in the province of British Columbia which come under the control of the Department of National Defence. Their complaint is that they have inadequate medical service in those camps, and also that the men in camp do not come under the Workmen's Compensation Act. If I am addressing the proper authority, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence, if there is any reason why the men in these camps do not come under the Workmen's Compensation. Act of that province.


Hon. D. M. SUTHERLAND (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman has asked two questions. His first is as to whether or not the medical attention given the men in camps is or is not ample. I believe that it is ample, and I have heard no complaints with regard to it. If the hon. member has any particular case in mind I should be very happy to have inquiries made concerning it.
As to the question concerning men coming under the Workmen's Compensation Act, may I answer that I do not think arrangements could be made for that. Again I must say that I have not heard of any instance where a man has been seriously injured in which the matter of compensation would arise.



PETITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. F. W. PERRAS (Wright) (Translation) :: I ibeg to lay on the table of the house a petition from the citizens of the township of Bouchette, Wright county, protesting against an excise tax of 20 cents per pound on leaf tobacco.
[Mr. Bennett.1



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. W. D. EULER (North Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) when we may expect the report of the Canadian National Railways, and whether or not it is the intention of the government to appoint the usual committee to deal with that report?


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Mr. Speaker, as to the first question, concerning the report, may I say that I have not asked but I shall inquire and inform my hon. friend in a day or two. The Duff commission recommended against the bringing of the officers of the railway before that special committee but at the same time recommended that the committee might be set up and the trustees brought before it, but in view of the fact that the trustees only began their duties on January 1 of this year it was the thought of the government that it perhaps might not be advantageous to have that special committee at all this year. However, we are in the hands of the house. My own opinion, however, is that there would be nothing to be gained by having that special committee for the reasons I have given. If my hon. friend or other hon. members have different opinions we shall be very glad to hear them.


William Daum Euler: Will the report be referred to some other committee to be dealt with?


Robert James Manion: I had not given that any thought, but when I give an answer in a day or two I can mention that at the same time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Might I point out that there is no other way in which hon. members of this house can receive authentic information with regard to the operations of the national railway except through a committee at which either the trustees or the officers of the railway will appear. We are unable to get any information in answer to questions of the ministry and it would be a great mistake to have the session go by without hon. members having the opportunity which the special committee affords of getting information.


Robert James Manion: We will take into account the remarks of the right hon. gentleman, which certainly deserve consideration, before

Canadian National Railways
we make any decision. In view of what he says perhaps the committee should be set up. I have no objections. The only thought I had in mind was that the trustees have been so recently appointed that they would not be in a position to give us any information themselves, and of course it was against the recommendation of the Duff commission that the officers should be brought before the committee.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: The trustees will be able to get the information from their officers I should not think that the intention of the Duff commission in recommending that the trustees were to appear but not the officers, meant that the house should not get all the information it requires.


Robert James Manion: The trustees have not been there long enough to be familiar with the situation.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: They have their officers.



EMPLOYMENT AT CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. CAMERON R. McINTOSH (North Battleford):	I have a question to direct to
the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). It is directly connected with possible port development at Churchill this summer. Many unemployed men in northern Saskatchewan are anxious to obtain work at Churchill. Can the minister make a statement that will clarify the situation regarding employment at Churchill during the next few months?
Robert James Manion: I will deal with that matter when
the estimates are up. I think there will be plenty of time.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Cameron Ross McIntosh: I have another question
to direct to the Minister of Railways, and I hope that he answers this one. It is directly connected with railway construction in northwestern Saskatchewan this summer. I touched upon this subject in my address to the house about a week ago-to be exact, Friday, February 9.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It is coming. If I remember correctly, the minister was not in 74726-4 lj
his seat when I was speaking on this subject during the debate on the address; I think he was called out. This problem of railway development concerns ten thousand people in that part of Canada.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Question.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Just possess your souls
in patience.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
proceed to ask his question? This is not the time for discussion.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: That will be done at
the proper moment. It is this: Will the minister explain whether his department has any plans under consideration for laying the steel and grading the right-of-way on the balance of the line connecting North Battleford, St. Walburg, Loon Lake, Goodsoil and Edmonton? His cooperation in the solution of this railway problem forthwith would be greatly appreciated.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman knows the position of this matter just as well as I do. He has written me about it a number of times and has also brought it up in the house a number of times. I have given him by letter all the information that I had. He knows that the matter has to be submitted to the management of the railway, and when the management are deciding to recommend to the government and parliament the building of branch lines the railway he is supporting will be given consideration along with others. I cannot give any further information than that. The question is not in the hands of the government but in the hands of the management of the railway.



BRITISH QUOTA ON CANADIAN CATTLE AND EGGS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: On February 2, as appears at page 224 of Hansard, I asked the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture, a question regarding the importation into Great Britain of cattle and eggs. I would ask the Minister of Agriculture if he is now ready to answer that question or state when I may receive an answer.


Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: I will look up the question and give an answer to the hon. gentleman later.
Radio Conditions



FLOODS IN VAUDREUIL-SOULANGES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday last, the hon. member for Vaudreuil Soulanges (Mr. Thauvette) made an inquiry in connection with the floods on the Ottawa river, near Vaudreuil, and requested that an engineer of the Marine department be sent immediately on the premises. I wish to inform the house and the hon. member that the following day, an engineer of my department was on the premises, investigating the causes of these floods, which had then somewhat receded, the level of the river being about three feet lower. We are studying the situation so as to ascertain whether it would be possible in the future to prevent such floods.



RADIO CONDITIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Alfred Duranleau: Replying to my hon. friend from Skeena (Mr. Hanson) who asked a question regarding radio reception in his constituency, I stated the other day that I would look into the matter and I wish to say that immediately after a very competent inspector was sent into the constituency of the hon. gentleman. On the thirteenth he was at Quesnel, and from there was proceeding to Fort George and Hazelton with special instructions to inquire fully into the situation and give all assistance possible under the circumstances.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: I wish to thank the minister for the prompt action he has taken in this matter.


Peter John Veniot: While on the subject of radio interference, would the minister be good enough to have an inquiry made into conditions at the station at Fredericton and why we cannot get any good service from it up in northern New Brunswick.


An hon. MEMBER:: Perhaps you haven't a good radio.


Peter John Veniot: We have had a very severe winter, which may have had something to do with the poor reception.


Mr. BOUCHARD:: Perhaps the snow is frozen.


Peter John Veniot: Or the radio commission.
CMr. R. Weir.]



DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr Sullivan in the chair.
Harbours and rivers-St. John-Channel improvements, $220,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: Will the minister explain the item?


Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: The amount covered by this item is required to complete a contract with the Saint John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company Limited. This contract covers the straightening and deepening of the main channel leading from the bay of Fundy into the harbour and was awarded on July 14, 1930.


Peter John Veniot: To whom?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To the Saint John Dry Dock and Shipbuilding Company.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Public buildings-New Brunswick-Saint John quarantine station-Partridge island- improvement, alterations and repairs, $10,000.
Charles A. Stewart: This and the following item show increases over last year. Surely the Minister of Immigration (Mr. Gordon) does not expect that more money will be required this year for alterations and repairs. Would the minister explain this item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It must be
obvious to the hon. gentleman that in some years a building will require repairs while in other years it will not. This amount is required for general repairs and improvements to the Saint John quarantine station which is under the Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. MaoLaren). There is SI,882 to cover repairs to verandah, painting, repairs to hospital roof and reshingling. These repairs would not occur every year. There is also $7,000 to cover repairs to water supply pipe line.


Mr. DONNELLY:: The previous item shows an increase of $57,000 to pay the Halifax harbour commission for maintenance of immigration quarters. Why is that increased this
year?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is to cover an adjustment of arrears of rental over a period of two or three years.


James J. Donnelly: If there is to be no immigration we should not need any quarters.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We must keep up the buildings.


James J. Donnelly: Probably for deportees.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Maritime provinces-Dominion public buildings, $40,000.
Peter John Veniot: Will the minister tell us what public buildings in New Brunswick are affected by this vote?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to take care of repairs to all public buildings in the province. It is impossible to say just how much will be required for each particular building.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: The minister should have an estimate of what is necessary in the province. I do not require details of the various buildings but I should like to know what is estimated to be required for the province.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This vote is based upon our experience over a period of years. The hon. member will notice that it is the same this year as it was last.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: How is the amount arrived
at? Surely when the engineers send in a report to the department that they require so much for public buildings in the maritime provinces they give the minister an estimate for each province. I should like to know upon what that estimate is based.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: From time to
time the chief architect receives reports from the district architects as to repairs required to these buildings. According to our experience from year to year we estimate that this amount is approximately correct. We are doing just what has been done over a long period of years. The amount this year is similar to the amount voted last year and we hope it will be sufficient.


Peter John Veniot: The minister does not seem to get my point. I claim that when the architect submits his estimate to the department which is based upon reports he has received from the local architects, he estimates what he considers to be necessary for the province of New Brunswick. In doing that he would estimate what would be necessary for each building. I should like to know the total estimate for the province. Surely it is not left to the department to guess at what amount is needed. He must submit a detailed statement upon which the department fixes the amount necessary for the province for the coming year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no
estimate before the department at this time as to what the requirements for this year will be. There could not very well be one. This amount of money is placed at the disposal of the department and the architects make theii examinations and report from time to time We then apply the money voted by parliament to the carrying out of the needed repairs.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Quebec-Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $75,000.
Montreal-instalment on purchase of armoury, installation of fittings, and insurance-under contract, $16,100.
Quebec Citadel-improvements and maintenance, $15,000.
Quebec examining warehouse-repairs and renewals, $10,000.
Westmount-instalment on purchase of armoury, and insurance, $13,600.
Mr. MacNICOL:: I should like to ask the
minister a question in connection with the second item in this vote. It will apply also to the second items in votes 98 and 100. In connection with the armoury being erected in Toronto, I am informed that the specifications for the materials do not call for one hundred per cent Canadian or British manufacture. The regular specifications issued by the department for buildings to be erected under the supervision of the department call for Canadian materials and I should like to know what steps the minister or his department can take to ensure that all the material entering into the construction of the Toronto armoury shall be either made in Canada or within the British Empire.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am of the
opinion that while the contract was awarded by the Armoury association, instructions were given to include our standard specifications in the contract as to hours of labour and Canadian and British materials.
Mr. MaoNICOL:	I am glad to hear that,
but my information is that some material of either the heating, the sprinkling or the plumbing system now on the job was purchased outside of Canada and not within the British Empire.


Mr. HEAPS:: What is the basis on which
this work is done?


John Ritchie MacNicol: If the hon. member does
not object, I should like to have first an answer from the minister to the question I asked. If there is at present, in connection with any of these jobs, material purchased

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
outside Canada and not in the empire, has the government any control over the use of such material?


Mr. DUPUIS:: Where is it from?


John Ritchie MacNicol: The United States, I am informed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would depend upon the specifications, which I have not before me, as the contract was awarded by the association. I can assure the hon. gentleman however that I will investigate the matter and if there is any violation of the terms the material will be rejected.


Abraham Albert Heaps: What is the basis on which
the government acquires these buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These armouries are constructed by local associations, in each case, in the city where the building is located. They provide the capital and the government undertakes to pay by instalments, over a period of years, an equal amount in each year covering the cost of construction. The building then becomes the property of the dominion.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I object to that form of
contract being entered into by the government with any private corporation. When public buildings are to be erected the government can better afford to put them up than any private organization. In the first place, an armoury is a public building and should be owned by the government; and secondly, when a private organization contracts to erect such a building, it has to go on the public market to obtain funds and is compelled to pay much higher interest than would be paid if the government itself were directly responsible for the undertaking. There must be a difference of one and a half or two per cent in the cost. The government assumes liability to purchase the building over a term of years, and it simply means that it is compelled to pay a larger sum than it would pay if it were responsible for financing the construction. Why does the government allow a private organization to become responsible for the erection of such buildings, when the government is ultimately responsible for them?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a practice
that has been followed by governments for some considerable time. There is something to be said in favour of my hon. friend's contention, but we must bear in mind that these public works are constructed out of revenue. We do not borrow, except in very few instances, money for the construction of public buildings. These buildings are an expense, and to take the cost out of any one year's revenue

would be a very severe charge indeed. Therefore, instead of the government borrowing the money, spreading it over a period of years, it adopts this plan of allowing the local association to construct the building. The association takes the initiative in these matters. They have an interest in it, and it is from the local standpoint that the undertaking is initiated; it is not done on the initiative of the government. From the time the building is completed however it is the property of the government; it is taken over from the contractor. It is under the control of the government and is used by the Department of National Defence.


Abraham Albert Heaps: If it were not for the government's guarantee the private corporation would not be able to finance construction?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is doubtful whether they would be able to finance it if there were not the undertaking to pay by instalment.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The government in any case has the responsibility of paying for the buildings; it is liable. Does the government supervise the awarding of the contracts for these buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The expenditures have to meet with the approval of the government under the terms of an agreement made with the association. It must be remembered that these are buildings which, in the natural course of events, should be constructed by the government. They are not buildings that should be constructed by any private corporation. The architect is appointed by the association and the government exercises very close supervision over expenditures, and if there is anything outside the scope of the standard agreement which has been developed and perfected over a period of years the expenditure is not approved and the association must stand the expense themselves. There are some instances in which associations do expend amounts in addition to those approved of.


Abraham Albert Heaps: In connection with this particular undertaking, will the contracts be awarded by tender?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot say
whether in every instance they have been advertised, but I know of no instance in which there has not been competition. I have in mind one building in connection with which tenders were invited from nine or ten different people, although in that particular case there was no public advertisement.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec


Abraham Albert Heaps: The reason why I am asking this question must I am sure be obvious to the minister. I have in mind a certain city where they contemplate the construction of an armoury along -the same lines as the undertaking we are discussing at the moment. It has come to my knowledge that this particular construction will be awarded by private tender. A private corporation is being created to undertake the work, and the only basis on which the money will be loaned is the intention of the government to lease the building over a period of twenty years. I have a strong objection to the government guaranteeing any private corporation in the construction of public buildings, for the maintenance of which -the government becomes responsible, though the building remains under the ownership of a private organization for a period of years. Surely the government is strong enough to erect these buildings in whatever part of the country they are required. Coming back to the city I have in mind, a private corporation is being created there to construct an armoury. The government takes a lease of the building for twenty years. At the end of these twenty years the building will have been completely paid for and will then revert to the ownership of the government; but in the meantime the private contractor will receive from twenty to forty thousand dollars more than if the work were advertised and done by public tender. That is where my objection comes in to the construction of these buildings. I believe that in order to avoid anything savouring of favouritism or overcharging in the construction of buildings the only fair thing to do is for the government -to own these buildings themselves completely, advertising by way of public tender, and giving every contractor an opportunity of tendering. I should like to get from the minister an understanding that if any more of these buildings are constructed the government itself, whether through the Department of Public Works or the Department of National Defence, will be responsible for letting the tenders and giving every contractor a chance to tender.


Mr. HANBURY:: I wish to associate myself to some extent with the criticism of the hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) regarding the purchase-rental method of constructing public buildings of any kind. If such a building is necessary the government should assume the responsibility and place before the house an estimate for such construction. I believe the purchase rental method is an evasion of the rights of this
parliament; the matter is brought before the government and a contract entered into without parliament being consulted. The government enters into obligations and then comes to the House of Commons and says:	We
have these obligations and it is now your duty to pass these amounts. The minister has explained how this has been brought about. An association is formed and I think the minister will agree with me that it is purely a paper organization; it is based entirely on the strength of the contract that they can enter into with the government. The question of calling for tenders is technically left with the organization; they may call for tenders or they may not. The government may require the calling of tenders and as a matter of fact usually they do, but after all, the government have entered into a contract with a paper organization and are to all intents and purposes giving them great freedom in the manner in which they conduct their business.
If we are to have armouries in Canada- and I for one believe we must have them-[DOT] we should carry out the armoury business in an open and aboveboard manner, place the estimates for such construction before the house, let the house consider whether such construction is advisable or not and if we cannot get public opinion as expressed in the House of Commons to support such measures, then I do not think the particular armoury in question should be erected. In the past the reason this method was adopted was due to fear on the part of some members of the government of the day that they could not secure the support of the house for the construction of armouries. I for one believe that time has passed, but I do not think that method should ever have been adopted, and I suggest to the government that if they wish to construct armouries in future, they should lay their plans before the house and let us consider what armouries we should , have in Canada.


Sir EUGENE FISET:: I am afraid there
is some misconception in this matter; these are simply regimental armouries built for one regiment. The association mentioned is a regimental one and in no case are the plans of the association approved by the Department of Public Works before the Department of National Defence have passed on and approved them. Moreover, the first allotment on the first contract made with either the Department of National Defence or the Department of Public Works is always submitted to the House of Commons when the

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
first instalment is voted in advance of construction. The only armouries of the kind that have been built in the past are, as I said before, regimental armouries for one regiment or brigade. All other armouries affecting other arms of the service or for more than one regiment in one city are always built by the Department of Public Works.


Abraham Albert Heaps: The hon. member has completely evaded the real issue at stake.


Eugène Fiset: I was not replying to the hon. member.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I am trying to point out
that the question has nothing to do with the purpose for which the building is being constructed. The point is whether the erection of public buildings is to be turned over to private corporations. If public buildings are to be erected, the proper body to control their erection is parliament; parliament should have control over the money it is voting and over the building once it is erected. I did not even raise the question of armouries or oppose their construction; I am raising an entirely different point. I object to parliament being asked to vote money to a private organization. If parliament is responsible for the erection of a public building, it should control the money and the building itself. Will the minister say that in future no such plans will be approved by the government, but that parliament will assume all responsibility in connection with the erection of such buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This practice, as I have said, is not new. I think it originated in 1925 in connection with the construction of an armoury in the city of Montreal.


Wilfred Hanbury: Was it not Regina?


Mr. RALSTON:: Westmount.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think the
Montreal armoury preceded the Regina one. The former Deputy Minister of National Defence understands the situation very well and the reason these buildings have been constructed as they have. Let me say to the hon. member for North Winnipeg that these buildings are from the time of completion of construction taken over by and under the control of the government, and then handed to the regiment that occupies them in the usual way that military buildings are occupied. I point out to the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that the matter must
[Sir Eugene Fiset.l
come to parliament for approval of the first item in the estimates and then the whole question is up for discussion. If parliament rejects the item in the estimates, the matter cannot proceed; it is all subject to the approval of parliament.


Wilfred Hanbury: Is any contract entered
into before the first estimate is approved?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: You cannot enter into a contract before you have a vote of parliament for the amount required. We never enter into a contract until the matter is discussed in parliament and the vote passed. It is on the strength of that vote that the agreement is made with the association.


Wilfred Hanbury: The minister says that
after the completion of the contract, the government have full control of the building. I understand that legally the building remains in the possession of the building company for a period of years. I believe a limited liability company is formed and this company have officers and hold meetings, and continue to do so for a period of years. The building, while it may be actually in the possession of the government, is technically in possession of the building company.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Until it is paid for.


Wilfred Hanbury: Yes.


Mr. KENNEDY (Winnipeg):: It is my
understanding-and I would ask to be corrected by the minister if I am wrong!-when the contract is completed and the armoury is taken over by the government, title is thereupon vested in the government, and instead of the government having technical it has legal possession from the time of completion of the armoury.


James Layton Ralston: As I understand the
matter, title is not in the government; it is in the association, but it is under an instalment purchase agreement whereby possession is in the government, so that nothing but the bare title remains in the association and at the end of twenty years, or whatever the term may be, the building automatically comes under the control of the government in the sense not only of possession but of title. The principal objection I have seen to this method-and as a former minister I have at least on one occasion presented to the house a similar estimate-is whether we could get money at the same rate of interest in this way as if the money were borrowed directly. There is a great deal to be said

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
for what hon. members on this side have stated, and probably the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of National Defence will agree. I know I sat in this chamber one night in 1928 or 1929 and heard the present leader of the government absolutely rave, if I may use the word without offence, with regard to a similar proposition in Regina, but it seems that the situation is different now that the right hon. .gentleman is himself leader of a government. The principal objection is the question of interest, but outside of that I do not think there is any question but that the government's interests are protected in every particular.
May I say further, in regard to the Victoria Rifles armoury building, which is the first item in vote 97, that if ever there was a case of merit it seems to me this was a genuine case. For many years that regiment supplied their own armoury premises, which they owned themselves, and of which they gave the government the benefit of the use. I have forgotten whether the building finally went into disrepair or whether it was burned.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: A tunnel was put
through.


James Layton Ralston: Yes, and the premises
were rendered unfit for use. Then, and only then, this regiment came to the government and asked them to supply premises for them, and that is what this particular vote is for. With regard to the Westmount armouries, I understand that that was started in 1925. Will the minister tell me how many instalments are still due on that building.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The first payment on the Westmount armoury was made for the year 1926-27 and amounted to $12,624. We have made eight payments, so there are twelve payments yet to be made.


Mr. LUCAS:: Has the minister any information as to the manner in which these associations raise the money for the erection of these buildings, and what rate of interest is charged?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe they
issue debentures, and so far as we are concerned the rate of interest is limited to five per cent.


Mr. HEENAN:: Would the minister tell me whether under this method of erecting buildings the contractors are governed by the fair wage and eight hour day law passed in 1930?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The clauses regarding minimum wages and so on as laid down by the Department of Labour are sent
to these associations, who must embody them in their contracts. We see that this is done.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Has the minister received any requests for the construction of a post office at Ste. Anne de la Pocatiere, and if so is there any likelihood that it will be constructed in the near future.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot recall any very recent request, but I should be surprised if at some time during the last few years we have not received a request for the construction of a post office there.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Would the minister be kind enough to secure this information?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Certainly; I shall find out when and by whom the last request was made.


Angus MacInnis: Would the minister say whether any buildings used for other purposes are constructed and taken over by the government on the same principle.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I understand that in the past some buildings have been acquired in a similar way. My deputy informs me that the Daly building in Ottawa was purchased on the instalment plan as well as a certain building that we use for workshops. These building were not constructed on the same basis and then acquired, but were purchased from the owners on the instalment plan.


Angus MacInnis: That is quite a different principle. The reason I asked that question was because I am of the opinion that there is something in the contention expressed by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard that this is a sort of underhand way of building armouries in this country. There may be other reasons why it is done in this way but undoubtedly this is one of the main reasons.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In reply to my hon. friend I can assure him that there is nothing underhand about it. There can be nothing underhand when we come to this house and ask for approval of an estimate for this purpose. Just as much information is given in connection with this vote as is given in connection with any other.
Mr. HANB'URY: I should like to ask the minister whether the government would give sympathetic consideration to further construction under this plan.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It seems to me that my hon. friend's request cancels the suggestion made by the hon. member for North Winnipeg who asked me to give a pledge that this would not be done again.

Supply-Public Works-Quebec
I understand that my hon. friend suggests that I should give him a pledge that it will be done.


Wilfred Hanbury: No, I ask for sympathetic consideration.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would not be very sympathetic if we did not do it. Of course I cannot pledge the government as to what their policy will be in any particular case. They will have to be guided by what appears to be best in the circumstances as they are presented in each instance. There is precedence for this action; there is also some merit in it. I recognize the force of the objections to it, but in this case it has been adopted apparently with fairly satisfactory results to all concerned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I presume the government are obligated to the amounts set out in the estimates, but I am raising the question in regard to future construction of a similar type. I am asking two things: First, if the department feels it necessary to construct armouries that they should construct them on their own responsibility; second, that if the government do not want to assume the responsibility for the erection of these buildings and think it a better policy to have private corporations undertake their construction, then I want the government to undertake to see that these buildings are constructed by public tender and put up in such a way as to ensure that the government will get the best possible results for the money for which they become responsible. I should like to have the minister's reply to those two suggestions.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The specifications are submitted to the Department of Public Works for revision and approval, and are also submitted for the approval of the Department of National Defence. I cannot give my hon. friend any undertaking that in no case will an armoury be constructed on any plan other than this or that all armouries will be constructed by the government. I can assure him that we will endeavour to see that reasonable competition is secured. Certainly we would not approve of the construction of a building at an extravagant cost. We have our own estimates, and I know of no case in which a contract has been awarded privately or as the result of only one tender. We would want to be satisfied that there was honest, real competition in connection with the awarding of the contract.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
[Mr. H. A. Stewart./
Ontario-
Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $95,000.
Toronto-instalment on purchase of armoury, installation of fittings, and insurance

under contract, $41,100.
Toronto public buildings-government's share of cost of local improvements, $2,400-Total, $141,500.
Mr. FACTOR:: I should like to ask the minister for the particulars of the third item, amounting to $2,400, for the city of Toronto.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is to provide for payment of the government's share of the following local improvements in the city of Toronto: sewer on Lombard street between Victoria and Church streets, $1,116.29; an asphalt pavement on Lombardi street between Victoria and Church streets, $1,249.97, or a total of $2,366.26, say $2,400 to cover contingencies. These are opposite government-owned property.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I just wish to bring to the attention of the committee certain anomalies respecting public buildings in the city of Ottawa, and certain public works. Very often from the other side of the house we hear a challenge to the effect that there is lack of cooperation. I know there is a system in Ottawa, one which is growing, concerning men who are seeking work on the railways, on the Rideau canal, or shovelling snow in front of public buildings. If a man wants to get work on the Rideau canal he has to go to the vice-chairman or the chairman of the Liberal-Conservative Association of the city of Ottawa, and there he is asked if he is a Liberal or a Conservative. I am positive of these facts. Before a man is put on the list so that he may obtain any kind of work from the government he has practically to sign a pledge and to pay the sum of one dollar before his name is entered on the list. He has to say he belongs to the Liberal-Conservative Association. I come from a section of the country where we do not believe in that system. I know that so far as the Cochrane district is concerned there is no playing of politics in regard to relief measures. I do not see any reason why in the city of Ottawa or anywhere in Canada such a system should be in existence. I know that patronage exists, and that it has existed in the past, but I have never heard of any man being asked to sign his allegiance to a certain party before he could get any work. Certainly that should not be done at the present time. Even the sum of one dollar means a lot to many of those men. Some of them would never receive any return from it. I know that if the country was aware of the situation, in view of

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
statements made by the government that there is no partisanship so far as the distribution of work is concerned, the government would be severely criticized. I protest against the practice I have described.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: May I say in
reply that I know nothing of what happened in the Department of Railways and Canals. I do know that a few years ago when we were on the other side of the house and my friends were on this side of the house I heard similar charges made.


Wilfred Hanbury: And will again.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So far as the
Department of Public Works is concerned I do not know of any such practice as he suggests exists. I do know however that from time to time I receive complaints that we are employing too many Liberals in connection with work of this kind.


Robert James Manion: May I say a word in reply to the hon. member, since he has attacked my department. I do not admit that any such condition exists as he has described, namely, that men have to pay a dollar before they can obtain a position. I admit frankly however, generally speaking, that so far as the appointment of workers on works of my department in the city of Ottawa or elsewhere is concerned, we very frequently do accept the recommendations of the Conservative committee. What is the use of implying anything else, because everybody knows, as the Minister of Public Works has pointed out, that the same charge was made from our side of the house against the last government?
I say quite honestly and quite sincerely that there is no difference, generally speaking, between the system which obtains under this government and that which obtained under the previous one. Not only that, but I believe generally speaking there is a good deal to be said in defence of the practice. I do not mean to suggest that when a man is destitute he should not be given consideration; many of them are. Irrespective of a committee in this city I have on a number of occasions given positions to men who, it was represented to me, where in destitute circumstances. That often occurs, I have not any doubt, in the Department of Public Works, my own department and in others. But, generally speaking, it is obvious that the government in power, whether it be Liberal, Conservative or even a government of my hon. friends in the corner-when, a thousand years from now, they gain power-* will probably do likewise. It will naturally give consideration to its friends. I do not
think any just criticism can be levelled at that. I do not admit however that the system is, in detail, as pointed out by the hon. member. When my estimates are up for consideration I shall be happy to discuss the whole matter.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish to repeat that there is a list of those belonging to the Liberal-Conservative Association of the city of Ottawa. The Minister of Railways has mentioned the fact that there is a partisan system. I do not agree with that principle, no matter what party is in power. We do not do that in our section of the country. There is this fact, however, that men whose names appear on the list have to pay one dollar. The Minister of Railways and Canals would not accuse the late government of adopting that practice.


Robert James Manion: I do not admit that it exists now, either.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I repeat the statement that it does exist.


Robert James Manion: That does not prove it.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I will give hundreds
of names, if necessary. If a man is to get any kind of work he has to pay a dollar and sell his soul to the Conservative party to get on that list. I say that that is not fair. The Minister of Railways and Canals would not accuse the late administration of having compelled men to pay the sum of one dollar to belong to the Liberal party and to get work.


Robert James Manion: That is exactly what they were accused of. Whether it was true or not, the fact is that that was the accusation.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: That does not help the situation. We have been challenged by hon. members opposite to give cooperation. May I say we are willing to give it, but we do not want such practices as this, and particularly under present conditions. I have had men visit me in this city of Ottawa who have told me that every man who gets work around these buildings or on the Rideau canal must sign allegiance to the Conservative party. I repeat that that is not fair.


Robert James Manion: Just because someone has
made that statement to the hon. member does not necessarily prove that it is true. Frequently men state things which are not true or correct. However, I shall look into the whole matter, and shall gladly discuss it later.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to thank the
Minister of Public Works for the manner in which he has responded to my request for

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
information concerning my constituency. However, may I inform him if he does not already know it, that no Liberal has had a job in the county of Bona venture since the Conservative party has been in office. I am not blaming him for that. In our parishes the party leaders have the spending of the money, and they employ their own friends. Probably they are following in the footsteps of the party who preceded them. I am pleased to note that our amiable and truthful friend, the Minister of Railways and Canals, has made a public acknowledgment to-day as to the system prevailing now. It would seem to be the system that to the victors belong the spoils.
Another circumstance comes to my mind at this time. 1 believe it was in 1929 that the then leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister of to-day, read a letter to this house from the county of Bonaventure complaining severely that the party affected was unable to obtain work because he was a Conservative. The leader of the opposition of that day, the right hon. .gentleman who sits opposite to-day, protested strongly at that time against the practice he described. He stated that poor labourers, no matter what their allegiance was, should be employed, irrespective of party. I should like to have that policy followed at the present time.


Robert James Manion: It is being followed.


Charles Marcil: In my constituency there are poor men who do not know where to turn for their meals. If they are to be punished because they voted for the Liberal party I must say that would not seem to be a very fair way of distributing public money. I would ask the minister in connection with any further works that he grants to my constituency to instruct the overseer to see that the work is divided equally. The parish priests have asked from the pulpit that those who are most in need should be given the work and that it should not be confined wholly to one party. That is the reason I am bringing the matter to the minister's attention and raising objection at this time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I could show to my hon. friend a sheaf of letters from Conservative committees in his constituency complaining that the Liberals are still in power down there.


Charles Marcil: That is misinformation.
Mr. STEWART (Leeds) And that they are getting all the work and furnishing all the supplies.


Charles Marcil: Not in Bonaventure county.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And that the Conservatives are not getting a fair share of the work even when it is being done by day labour.


Charles Marcil: Misinformation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am telling you honestly the information I am getting.


Mr. DUGUAY (Translation) :: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased of the opportunity afforded to me of discussing patronage. The hon. member for Timiskaming North (Mr. Bra-dette) mentioned, just now, a kind of a pledge that people have to sign, in Ottawa. I hold in my hand such a pledge from a Liberal club of Quebec. These pledges are not solely required for work entirely paid by one or another government, but also for such work which is paid by both Dominion and provincial governments, in connection with unemployment relief. Instructions to show preference to members of this club are given to engineers of various districts, not only by political organizations but directly by the Quebec government. I have here a document addressed to a highway engineer, instructing him to employ, in relief work, for the repairs of a certain road, 75 per cent Liberals and 25 per cent Conservatives. The hon. member for Timiskaming should come and give a lecture, on the subject, to the Liberals of Quebec, but especially to the Prime Minister of that province.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Since I asked the question in regard to the Montreal armouries I have been advised by the departmental official that the specifications for the Toronto armouries do not stipulate that the material-I am not sure whether all the material or not-to be usedi in the construction of these armouries shall be of Canadian or at least of British manufacture. I am very grateful for the minister's statement a moment ago that so far as lies within his power he will see to it that the material going into these armouries will be Canadian, or at least British material. Construction on the armouries has not yet gone far enough for the use of material of general manufacture, and while the specifications it is said do not call for the material to be made in Canada, I trust that the minister will make every effort, as I know he will, to see that the material so far as possible is Canadian. He is just as anxious as I or any other member of the house that Canadian material and Canadian labour be used as far as possible in the construction of all buildings for dominion purposes. I do know that all the specifications issued for

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
buildings which the department itself erects specify that the material must be of Canadian or British manufacture,' and if it is not too late to take action in reference to these buildings that are being erected outside of departmental control, I hope that similar action will be taken. I have no criticism whatever of the specifications other than that.
I am told that they are excellent specifications, nor have I any criticism to offer of the contractors, who I am told are the very best, nor of the sub-contractors or workmen. The only thing I am concerned about is that Canadian material and Canadian workmen be used if at all possible, and if not Canadian material, at least British material.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: May I suggest that the Finance minister raise the tariff in his next budget so that the request of my hon. friend (Mr. MacNicol), and not my desires, may be complied with?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no doubt that that would meet with the approval of my hon. friend who has just spoken. In reply to my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol), the departmental specifications are exactly as he has stated, and within the last few years they have been revised to make them even more exacting with respect to the use of Canadian and British material, I shall certainly see that in any contracts that may be awarded in connection with these armouries the same standard specifications are inserted, and if they are not already in the contracts, we will take the matter up with the contractors and see if we cannot get them to use Canadian material.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I thank the minister
very much for his remarks.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: To ease the mind of my hon. friend from Toronto Northwest, may I remind him that the minister who controls importations into this country will see to it that an embargo is placed on the importation of outside goods. I think my hon. friend can rest his soul in peace because, according to the letters I am getting, there is no danger under this ministry of any goods getting into Canada, even from the British Empire, if Canadian goods are available. I cannot understand how anyone who favours tariffs, embargoes and restrictions to the extent my hon. friend does should be at all alarmed over the possibility of foreign material coming into competition with Canadian.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am anxious for Canadian workmen to get as much work as possible.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: A few days ago, in
reply to a question, the Minister of Public Works gave the amount that was being paid for rentals of buildings for the use of the government in this city. I have not the figures before me but they ran into hundreds of thousands of dollars. I understand, and I wish to be corrected if I am wrong, that two floors of the new Confederation building are unoccupied at the present time. If that is true, it would seem to the ordinary man that the whole of that new building should be occupied before further rentals are paid in the city of Ottawa.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure my hon. friend that his information again is absolutely incorrect.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Why again?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is no space in the Confederation building of any importance that is not occupied. There is not one floor nor half a floor that is not occupied. The amount of rentals paid in the city of Ottawa has been very substantially reduced, and we are now paying over $100,000 less than before we went into the Confederation building, and since we have given up some rentals that we had.


Peter Heenan: Referring to the question
that has been brought up by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Marcil) and the hon. member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bra-dette), and in view of the frank admission of the Minister of Railways that there is discrimination or, shall I say, patronage with regard to appointments, although I thought we had done away with that-


Robert James Manion: Not under your regime.


Peter Heenan: The Prime Minister in the 1930 session promised on his honour from the floor of this house that there would be no such thing as discrimination or patronage in connection with these public works that were being undertaken for purposes of relief. I hold in my hand P.'C. 2043, dated August 5, 1931. I feel sure the government believe in their own orders in council, and I should like to quote clause 9 of this one, which reads:
All agreements with provincial and municipal authorities shall contain a provision to the effect that all persons employed on the works or undertakings referred to herein shall be residents of Canada, and so far as practicable of the locality in which the work is being performed, and in no case shall discrimination be made or permitted in the employment of, or in the granting of direct relief to any British subjects by reason of their political affiliation, race or religious views.
I think that is a very good principle.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario


Robert James Manion: May I interrupt the hon.
gentleman? We were not discussing direct relief, and I do not think the discussion of that matter is in order. The hon. member for Timiskaming referred to ordinary work on the canal.


Peter Heenan: I wish the minister would let me finish.


Robert James Manion: I consider the hon. gentleman as being out of order in discussing direct relief on an estimate of the Minister of Public Works.


James Layton Ralston: If the minister heard the order in council which was read, he would realize that it referred not only to direct relief but to employment.


Robert James Manion: I was not talking about
the order in council, I was talking about the discussion. The hon. gentleman has no need to tell me what I am talking about.


James Layton Ralston: The Minister of Railways seems to be very glib. He rose to a point of order and I am only suggesting that the hon. gentleman was talking about an order in council which deals not only with direct relief but with employment. Reference to such an order in council is in order during the discussion of public works estimates.


Peter Heenan: I like to be called to
order once in a while by the Minister of Railways even though he may not be the chairman of the assembly. If the government insists upon such a principle in the case of the provinces and the municipalities, it should be good enough for them to carry out themselves. I think it is a shame and a disgrace to see a member of the government stand up and tell this house during times like this when there is so much distress through the country that they are actually taking recommendations of Conservative associations as to who is to receive employment. I agree that in normal times there might be something to be said about such a practice but this government is supposed to enforce this principle in connection with the provinces and the municipalities and yet they act at variance with it, as has been admitted by the Minister of Railways and the Minister of Public Works.


Robert James Manion: I did not admit discrimination at all. I took the attitude that in the case of ordinary work on the canals- nothing to do with relief work-this government was doing the same as the last government. I am not hypocrite enough to say

that, generally speaking, we do not prefer our friends to our enemies. As far as I am concerned personally, I would prefer a friend to an enemy where there is work to be performed. As far as relief work is concerned, so far as I know nothing in the shape of patronage has been practised. If I understood the order in council correctly, it deals entirely with relief matters and has no connection with ordinary work on the canals. As I have pointed out on many occasions, I have appointed people to ordinary canal work who had nothing to do with committees but I shall be quite frank and admit that, generally speaking, when ordinary work on the ' canals is let we do exactly the same as the late government did when they were in power. As a general rule, we take the recommendations of our friends.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Does the minister mean his past enemies or his present enemies?


Robert James Manion: The hon. member will find out.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The order in council quoted by the hon. member for Kenora (Mr, Heenan) is in connection with expenditures specifically earmarked for the relief of unemployment. This department issued instructions to all its district engineers and architects that under no circumstances should there be any discrimination and that wherever possible they should consult the mayor, the reeve or the head of the municipality and make a fair distribution of the employment. Preference was to be given to married men over unmarried men or to such cases where the need was greater. I know in many cases rotation was carried out as suggested by the mayor of the town. We received complaints but they were investigated and I should say that ninety out of one hundred were found to be unfounded. I say to the hon. member for Kenora that there was an honest, a sincere and a successful attempt made to administer the moneys voted for unemployment relief. They were administered fairly and in a manner calculated to bring about the greatest measure of relief.


Peter John Veniot: I would not rise to take part in this discussion were it not for the fact that the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) has confessed so openly that he believes in the system. I believe in the system and I do not intend to criticize the present government for distributing patronage under ordinary conditions in normal times. I did it myself and if I ever have the honour of getting back into power, I shall do it again.

Supply-Public Works-Ontario
They say an open confession is good for the soul, but I do not know whether the minister needs that. I deprecate the fact that he has made such a confession because in 1928 and 1929 he was one of those who attacked most bitterly not only myself but other ministers of the then government for distributing patronage to our friends.


Robert James Manion: I do not think my hon. friend can lay his hands upon any issue of Hansard where I said any such thing. I am honest enough to admit that the government in power naturally favours its friends to its enemies. I do not think I have ever in my life attacked either my hon. friend or any of his friends for carrying out that idea.


Peter John Veniot: The Minister of Railways
has been on his feet half a dozen times while I have been up only once. If he wishes to reply to me, let him do so after I am finished. Every hon. member within hearing of my voice knows that in 1928 and 1929, and especially in 1927, the Minister of Railways and others were very critical in opposition. He was a member of the committee that held up the estimates of the Post Office Department for twenty-one days. They obstructed the proceedings of the house because I, as Postmaster General, had been distributing patronage. They claimed that I had not done the right thing in the appointment and dismissal of postmasters, and the Minister of Railways cannot deny that.


Robert James Manion: I do deny it so far as
patronage is concerned.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I cannot accept the denial.


Robert James Manion: You do not need to.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: Under the rules of the
house I am obliged to accept it, but the records of this parliament will show that I am right. I leave it to the records and ask hon. members to look them up and see who is correct, the Minister of Railways or P.J.V.?


Mr. BELL (Hamilton):: Who is he?


Peter John Veniot: Let me go a step further.
The Minister of Public Works says that they have been successful in preventing patronage in the distribution of work for relief purposes. Even though he was not fair at that time, I am fair enough to give credit where I think credit is due. I appealed to the Minister of Public Works to stop the patronage in the distribution of relief work in the county of Gloucester and he wrote and told me that instructions had been issued to the provincial engineer that that system should be abolished.
The minister, at my suggestion, sent their engineer to a certain port in the county of Gloucester where wharf repairs have been going on. The engineer tried to straighten out, and did straighten out certain conditions that were shameful; but the very moment his back was turned the foreman in charge, under the direction of the patronage gentleman of the county, the defeated Conservative candidate, took these Liberals off the job and put Conservatives back again. These men were in desperate circumstances. There were four of them, fathers of families, with not a bite in the house to eat. They applied for work and were turned aside by the foreman and distinctly told that they had voted the wrong way. It was then, when I was made aware of the situation, that I called the attention of the minister to it. He was good enough to take the matter up, and he tried to remedy it, but it was never remedied. It was remedied one day; but the distributor of patronage on behalf of the government went down the next day and threatened to dismiss the foreman if he did not carry out his instructions. His remarks were these, "I am running the public works in the province of New Brunswick; not the Minister of Public Works of the dominion." I am only pointing this out to show the minister that no matter what efforts are made there are political partisans so narrow that they will take advantage of the occasion to carry out their own free wishes, and to punish those who they think should be punished. In spite of any government that practice will be carried on, but it should not be carried on under the conditions that exist in Canada to-day.
Let me go a step further in the matter of the distribution of work for the unemployed, since it has been brought up and discussed, though I know it does not come up under this item.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Sullivan):: I think the chairman is giving too much leeway.


Peter John Veniot: It is too late to raise that question now; I claim the same privilege as the others. I want to make a submission to the Minister of Railways. I know that the answer will be, "It is a matter of administration with which I have nothing to do." Well, it will be a sorry dlay for Canada, it will be a sorry day for any government, when a gentleman bearing the title of Minister of Railways has to stand up in the house and say he has nothing whatever to do with the railways of Canada, especially when flagrant injustices are pointed out to him, such as I
656	COMMON'S
Supply-Public Works-Ontario
am now going to mention. The railway authorities at Moncton issued instructions, during a very severe winter, with reference to the clearing of snow in northern New Brunswick, that persons taken on to do that work along the railways should be in the first place married men. I approve of that, for I think it is a good move. They said that there should be no discrimination as to who the parties might be, provided they were in need of work. The instructions were that they should take men who were on direct relief and put them to work along the railway line. In the lower part of the county of Gloucester the railway runs from Tracadie to Shippegan, a distance of some eighteen or twenty miles, and from Inkerman Junction to Caraquet, fourteen miles. The road then runs from Caraquet to Bathurst for forty-five miles. The district between Tracadie and Shippegan had to employ hundreds and hundeds of men owing to the early severe snowstorm, as a result of which the snow was some six feet deep. The section foreman at Tracadie did not, would not employ men on relief; instead, he took on friends of his and put them to work-as many as two men in one family, the sons of a farmer, men who were well to do and had no need of any such work to carry them through the winter. This condition of affairs I brought to the attention of the manager of the Atlantic region, Mr. Appleton, and asked him to investigate it. He told me they had given instructions not to do anything of that kind, but the instructions were not carried out. I believe the matter was investigated and remedied to some extent, but only for a short time. The same thing took place after the next snowstorm. I wish it distinctly understood that I am not blaming or criticizing the minister; I am simply pointing this out that the heads of the railways should get into closer touch with conditions and see that their instructions are carried out, especially in these times when people need work to keep their families.
Under the conditions that exist in Canada ;o-day there should not be employed on relief work any man who does not need it; it should go to those with dependents, who are out of work and have no means whatever of providing for those dependents. It is for that reason that I bring the attention of the Minister of Railways to this condition of affairs, in the hope that he will have influence enough with the railway administration to see that in future they will get into closer

touch-at any rate, those whose duty it is to do so-with the men over whom they have supervision, in order to have the work done without discrimination.


Robert James Manion: I have never heard of the incident which the hon. gentleman has described, and I can say quite frankly that I have never endeavoured to interfere in the employment of any railway men, because that is a matter entirely in the hands of the management. Nor do I think that the Minister of Railways in the late government tried to interfere with employees. I know that my hon. friend made it clear that he was not criticizing me personally, and I shall be glad to pass on to the management the remarks he has made.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: Unless I am led
astray by my poor knowledge of the English language, the word which the Minister of Railways used to qualify a political opponent, the word enemy, is a very strong one, after the wonderful speech we heard a few days ago asking the house and the country to cooperate with him in putting.the dominion on a proper footing. I say this courteously to the Minister of Railways, inviting him on reflection to give a little explanation of this word.


Charles Marcil: When I spoke about these works in Bonaventure I referred to federal works; I never thought of works as being carried on jointly by the dominion and the province. The system is this. The province asks for work, and if the dominion agrees to it the province carries on the work. That is the system now in operation. I was referring to the works carried on under the supervision of the minister himself in the repairing of wharves along the sea shore. I make bold to say that during the last three years no Liberal has been employed on any of those works. That situation may have been brought about without the knowledge of the minister, but I would be interested to know whether the minister at any time gave the resident engineer instructions that men should be employed on such works irrespective of their nationality or political affiliations. If that is so, I should like to have the information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The instructions will be found in Hansard of a couple of years ago, I think it was 1931, when the dominion undertook on its own account a program of public works for the relief of unemployment. At that time, in answer to objections similar to those that are now being raised by my hon. friend, I read into Hansard the instructions

Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
given in regard to carrying out works for the relief of unemployment. Those instructions were not given in connection with our regular program of works once we got through the relief program.


Charles Marcil: I have had no complaints
regarding relief because that is carried on by the municipality.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
is mistaken there. Those instructions were given in connection with relief works carried out and paid for wholly by the dominion in 1931.


Charles Marcil: Those instructions are not
in force at the present time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Not in connection with our regular program of works.


Charles Marcil: I wanted the minister to
admit that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said that.


Mr. GOBEIL:: Listening, as I did very
carefully, to the Temarks of the hon. member for Gloucester, I almost thought he was speaking of things happening in the province of Quebec where on all works under the supervision of the provincial authorities no one can get work unless he is a recognized Liberal.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order!


Samuel Gobeil: I am referring now to relief works supervised and conducted by the provincial authorities, more particularly by the Department of Colonization of Quebec.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Is the hon. gentleman
a provincial or a federal member?


Samuel Gobeil: I ask the chairman to give
me the same privilege as was accorded to other hon. members who have been speaking on everything. In respect to works undertaken by the Department of Colonization of Quebec, financed fifty per cent by provincial authorities and fifty per cent by this government, the provincial government do not even notify the authorities of the municipality in which the work is done. They simply send instructions to one of their good followers, one of their parish leaders, giving him full power to employ whomsoever he likes, regardless of the municipal authorities, who are not even consulted. I agree in a way with the hon. member for Gloucester on the question of patronage, but at the same time I do not believe the Minister of Railways was quite correct in the statement he made and I intend to give an illustration for my reason for holding that opinion. Under the administration of the ex-Postmaster General, two rural post-74726-42
masters were dismissed in Compton county without an investigation of any kind and without their having an opportunity of being heard. When this government came into power our friends asked that these postmasters be reinstated, but I could not get that from the present Postmaster General. There is a difference between the principles of the Liberals and those of the Conservatives in regard to patronage and it is this: when the Liberals come into power, they dismiss every Conservative they can and replace them by Liberals. When the Conservatives come into power, they make very few dismissals-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Samuel Gobeil: I agree that they give preference to their friends, and it would be a shame if that were not the case; but they do not go half as far as the Liberals do when they cpme into power. Some day I will give the house the details, but I have in my hand a document showing that several dozens of civil employees were dismissed after the election of 1926 without investigation and without their having an opportunity to demonstrate whether the complaints made against them were right or not. That is the difference that exists between the two parties.


Mr. BEAUBIBN:: Were they appointed by the shadow government?


Samuel Gobeil: They had been in their positions anywhere from five, ten, fifteen to twenty years; I do not know who appointed them.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
British Columbia-Dominion public buildings -improvements and repairs, $25,000.
Vancouver-instalment on purchase of armoury, $14,000.
Vancouver public building-to meet one year's interest at 5 per cent on mortgage of $400,000, $20,000.
Thomas Reid: Would the minister explain what the improvements are in connection with Dominion public buildings? I might follow that up with a question as to the mortgage on the Vancouver public building. How long has that to run and how long has it been in existence?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As to the repairs on the Dominion public buildings, I can only say that this item is one that we have carried for many years to meet necessary repairs from time to time. We have not any list of them now. The architect will make an examintion and report from time to time the expenditures that should be made.

658	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia


Thomas Reid: It is no special building; it is just general?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No special building-any building that needs repair. As to the item of 820,000 to meet one year's interest on a mortgage, this is required for payment to the Montreal Trust Company of one year's interest on a mortgage of $400,000 held by that company on the Winch building in Vancouver. This building was purchased in 1925, subject to mortgage, and this pays the instalment of interest on it.


Thomas Reid: How long has the mortgage to run?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The mortgage is past due, but we are just carrying it on rather than raising the money to pay it off.


Wilfred Hanbury: I want for a minute to revert to the question of armouries, .as the minister has been good enough to call this item. I should like to ask him what units there are in Vancouver and also what accommodation they have. While he is looking up that information, I should like again to refer to the question of the purchase rental basis and to give the committee some information of which I have direct knowledge. The government were for a number of years renting a building known as the old horseshoe building in Vancouver for the sum of $9,000 a year. It was practically a condemned building and very inflammable, and in that building the government had stored a large amount of very valuable guns and ammunition. As you will see by this item, they have been able to construct an armoury for an annual cost of $14,000 that has provided practically ideal quarters, that is giving some insurance against fire and that encourages those men who are giving their time and attention to the development of our militia.
So, with regard to the construction of armouries, I want to assure the minister and the members that I am thoroughly in accord with such construction where there is need for it. At the same time I should like to point out to the minister and to the Minister of National Defence, whom I am pleased to see in his seat, that there are other units in Vancouver lacking proper accommodation. I refer particularly in the first instance to the Seaforth Highlanders; I think they are called the 72nd brigade, although I am not sure. I think the Seaforth Highlanders are spread over three different buildings. They are one of our best units and deserve some encouragement. I understand representations have been made to the government that an armoury IMr. H. A. Stewart.]
should be constructed. I should prefer to have that armoury built, if it is to be built, by the government in the regular way they construct government buildings, but if we cannot get an armoury on that basis, I am quite prepared to subscribe to >the rental basis. I really do think something should be done for the Seaforth Highlanders; and there is another unit as well whose name I have forgotten for the moment. They are located in rented quarters in a different part of the city from that from which they draw the greater part of their membership, and they are also entitled to the support of the government.
In that connection I would suggest to the government that if they are to recognize the militia, and if there is such a thing as defence necessary, probably there is no place in Canada where such encouragement should be ' more freely given than in Vancouver. Vancouver is on the Pacific and we all look with perhaps some apprehension to what might happen on the Pacific in the not distant future. Vancouver is so situated that it might become involved in any trouble in that area. The government would be justified in giving consideration to this matter, and I think they should give some further encouragement to those men who have been carrying on for a number of years under very great disabilities. Perhaps the minister could tell the committee what stage the negotiations have reached with regard to an armoury for the Seaforth Highlanders, and perhaps if there is nothing of a definite nature he may assure the house at least that very sympathetic consideration will be given and an analysis made of the situation in British Columbia generally and in Vancouver particularly with reference to the further construction of armouries and whatever works of defence may be necessary.
Mr. 'SUTHERLAND:	I am very glad to
hear the remarks of the hon. .member, and I appreciate the way he has spoken about the Seaforth Highlanders of Vancouver. Undoubtedly they are one of our best regiments, and they have a splendid history behind them. We in the department appreciate the strong claims they have at the present time for better accommodation; personally I think I would rank their claim above that of any other unit in Canada. For a number of years they have been in quarters that are not satisfactory, but in spite of that their loyalty and support have been magnificent. During the last two or three years, and in fact ever since I have been in the department, approaches
FEBRUARY 16, 1934	&
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
have been made with regard to better accommodation.
When I came into office I found Vancouver in a particularly bad situation. The hon. gentleman has referred to the cavalry and artillery, and the condition in which their building was maintained. I think it would be generally regarded that their claim was very strong, because the quarters were condemned and were absolutely unsafe for the storage of valuable goods. So they took precedence, but all during these years we have been in negotiation with the Seaforth Highlanders. The only thing I can say, of course, is that I have every sympathy for their claim, and if it is possible to meet their wishes I shall be glad to do everything I can; for in meeting their wishes we will be working for the good of the country as a whole.


Wilfred Hanbury: Would the minister refer also to the unit, the name of which has slipped my mind, which is located in the eastern portion of Vancouver? They are in rented quarters also. Perhaps if the Minister of Public Works referred to his notes he could tell us the name of the unit.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: I think that is what is called the Irish regiment.


Wilfred Hanbury: I wish to place myself
on record as supporting their claims also.


Donald Matheson Sutherland: Of course it would
be absolutely impossible to provide new accommodation in both cases. When I was in Vancouver last I saw the accommodation provided for the Irish regiment, and while it may leave something to be desired, undoubtedly their case does not approach that of the Seaforth Highlanders.


Angus MacInnis: The hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard has raised a question which no doubt is very important in a way, or which at least has to do with a very important principle. To-day I believe that so far as the danger of war is concerned the world is in a more critical situation than it has been at any time since the great war broke out in 1914. But one thing is very clear, and it is that those nations which are arming the most and spending the greatest sums on armaments are the nations who fear war the most. Those nations of Europe that have decided to disarm are not afraid of war breaking out or of being invaded by armed forces, but the nations which are arming to the teeth are constantly in fear of armed invasion.
Recently, Mr. Chairman, the leaders of the three parties in the Dominion of Canada, the 74726-42 J
Prime Minister, the leader of the opposition and the president of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, made an appeal for peace and disarmament, expressing their hope that everything possible would be done to promote peace. I am convinced that Canada cannot arm either for offence or defence to any effective extent, for the obvious reason that we have not the means. Even if we had the means I believe it would be useless for us 'to attempt it, and I hope that neither my good friend the Minister of Public Works nor the Minister of National Defence will take any steps to give us further armaments in the city of Vancouver or on the Pacific coast. If we have money to spend I can bring to the attention of the government many ways in which they can spend money to far better advantage than in training soldiers and building armouries. I can show them how they can spend money on the health and education of the children of the city of Vancouver, who are very much neglected at the present time. I pointed out a few days ago when speaking in this house that the municipal inspector of schools in the city of Vancouver stated that the annual report showed there were 4,000 children in the city of Vancouver alone who needed dental care. He stated further that it was through lack of funds that such care could not be provided. Surely, when a necessity of this kind is evident, it is madness to go on spending money on useless armaments or anything to promote or encourage warfare, when far more pressing things are waiting to be done. It is necessary that we should do everything possible to promote our security, but I am convinced that that can be done in other ways, more efficiently than it can be done by building armouries, or anything of that kind, not only in the city of Vancouver but anywhere in the Dominion of Canada.


Olof Hanson: Under the heading of public buildings for British Columbia I should like once more to remind the minister and the government about the situation in Prince Rupert. We have a building at that point which, as I have stated before, would not make a satisfactory barn on a farm. I had before me a few days previously figures showing that at that point we collect hundreds of thousands of dollars for the federal treasury. I know as a fact that in cold weather the employees in the building have to go home because of the unsatisfactory condition of the building in which they
660	COMMONS
Supply-Public Works-British Columbia
are working. It is absolutely necessary that the Minister of Public Works and the government should look into this matter.
May I mention, further, that we have a provincial building which cost $500,000, but their collections are insignificant when compared with those of the federal authorities. I know that the minister has full information, because I have sent it to him myself. He has been approached, also, by the board of trade and different organizations of Prince Rupert. . I should like him to assure me that he is looking into the conditions and trying to find a remedy.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: From time to
time I have received representations from the hon. gentleman concerning the building in the city of Prince Rupert. He must recognize the fact that we have curtailed our program, and that there is practically no provision for new buildings. I assure him, however, that the requirements of Prince Rupert will not be overlooked when again we reach our stride.


Olof Hanson: It may be possible that the work could be done under the new public works program about which we have heard. It may be that the minister cannot say anything about it as yet, but we have heard that there is to be a relief scheme in connection with which there will be certain public works, and I am suggesting that probably it would be possible to have something done under that scheme.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will not be overlooked in that connection either. Would you allow me, Mr. Chairman, as we have been speaking about armouries, to refer to the point raised by the hon. member for Toronto Northwest (Mr. MacNicol) concerning the specifications for the materials in the armouries at Toronto. I have a copy of the general conditions and specifications for work and material for the fourteenth infantry brigade armoury at Toronto, Canada. The architects are Marani, Lawson and Morris, and on page 21, clause 10, I find the following:
All materials of whatever nature used throughout in the execution of this contract shall be new and of the best quality of their several kind's and must be Canadian and of Canadian manufacture unless the architect is convinced that they cannot be obtained or manufactured in Canada. In every ease where a contractor submits for approval materials of any nature other than Canadian origin of the material desired to be used must be stated. The architect will give first preference to the material of Canadian production or manufacture and where materials of Canadian production or manufacture are not obtainable preference will be given to materials of British 
production or manufacture. No defective, unsound or improper materials worked or otherwise shall be brought to the premises or used in the building. Materials adjudged as such by the architect must be replaced upon demand.
I think that covers the question raised by the hon. member.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I am grateful to the minister for reading the specifications. When I received information which apparently was more or less erroneous, namely that the specifications did not call for all Canadian manufacture, I went down to the department and discussed this very subject with the departmental1 officials. They informed me that the specifications pertaining to armouries built along the plans of this one,-that is, not by the department itself but by outside architects, and with the same financial set up as these armouries have-did not contain such a clause. It was on the information which I received from the department itself that I raised the question to-day. I now have pleasure in congratulating the minister upon seeing to it that the specifications do contain those regulations.


Wilfred Hanbury: I should like to obtain
some information from the minister with reference to the addition to the post office contemplated to the north of the present post office building in the city of Vancouver. Could the minister give any information in that connection?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We have no vote for or plans drafted for that building. It will receive consideration in any program which may be brought down for public works.


Wilfred Hanbury: On the suggestion of the
minister that it will receive consideration I should like to suggest to him that when plans are being made for that addition they should be prepared for a complete building, and that it should not be simply an addition or a repair job. The present post office building does not lend itself to an addition. I would suggest that an addition, when being planned, should provide for the eventual tearing down of the present post office building and, at a later date, the tearing down of the Winch building, and making the building uniform. In connection with the contemplated building I would remind the minister of the large amount of money being expended by the government for the rental of space in the city of Vancouver, and I would suggest to him that, if public works do carry themselves, an extension to the post office building in Vancouver would probably go farther towards carrying

Supply-Public Works-Manitoba
itself than many other buildings which might be considered. I hope the government will give very careful consideration to the matter.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
James Layton Ralston: Would there be any objection to calling item 106?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was some
objection.


James Layton Ralston: Very well.


John Ritchie MacNicol: We
will proceed to item 99:
Manitoba-Dominion	public	buildingsimprovements and repairs, $15,000.


Peter John Veniot: Will the minister give details in regard to this item?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This is the same type of item as we have had for other provinces to cover repairs that may be required. I have no particulars. The amount is the same as we expended last year for similar purposes. I do not know where the money will be expended at all; it will depend upon the needs.


Albert Joseph Brown: I should like to propose a method whereby I think public money could be very profitably expended in the construction of public buildings. I brought this matter to the attention of the predecessor of the present minister. In many places where public buildings have been constructed by the Dominion government, the buildings have been too elaborate costing sometimes $25,000 or $30,000 or $40,000 for a small community, and it has been suggested to me that instead of spending $25,000 or more we could spend $5,000 or $10,000 in the construction of a smaller building, and in that way the work and the money would be distributed much more widely. In our province there are places where land was acquired as a site for a public building as long as twenty years ago, and where nothing has been done to erect the public building. I have in mind two fairly large towns in my constituency which need public buildings and which I think are entitled to them, and from one of them the suggestion has come to me that a public building such as I have mentioned costing a comparatively small sum would meet the needs of the case. Larger buildings constructed on a more elaborate scale, with special heating plant and so forth, of necessity require a caretaker, but a smaller building such as I am now suggesting could be taken care of by
the postmaster himself and would meet the needs of the case. It would be cheaper not only in its original cost but in maintenance charges as well.
I do not know what may be included in the government's program of public works. There is nothing in the main estimates for public buildings in the western provinces, perhaps not in the other provinces, but I do not see why the contemplated program of public works should not include the construction of public buildings, and if comparatively small buildings such as I have mentioned were erected, which would perfectly well serve the needs of many communities, the work could be very much more widely distributed and local men would in a large measure be employed.
As to the question of material to be used in these buildings, in the absence of my hon. friend from Weyburn (Mr. Young) it almost devolves upon me to advance a point that I am sure he would advance if he were here, that some consideration might possibly be given to the revenues of the country which would be swelled if outside material were used. There is always a danger of overemphasizing the desirability of using only Canadian material. There is just the possibility that while that may be to the immediate advantage of some buisness concerns, the general interest of the country might suffer if the difference in cost is too great because that would simply come back on the taxpayers of this dominion.
I had a suggestion come to me the other day from a man in the west which might be considered radical, if not extreme, and that is that in the case of public buildings the material should be constructed. That may seem an extreme suggestion, and yet it sets forth a point of view which I think ought to be considered. In the past objection has been made that a large proportion of the money spent on relief works did not go directly to the relief of the unemployed, that too great a proportion went for material. Of course, we know that in the preparation of the materials used in these buildings other men are employed, but is it not just possible that the men employed in these other industries were not as much in need of relief as the men who were doing the actual work on the relief undertaking, public building or whatever it might have been? I think some consideration must be given to that phase of the matter. Naturally we want to see all businesses prosper, but consideration should be given to the point of view that a larger amount of money should be directed to the relief of those in actual need.
Supply-Public Works-Manitoba

I hope that the minister will give consideration to these points and to the desirability of constructing not such elaborate buildings as have been constructed in the past, but buildings on a more modest scale that would perfectly well meet the need of many of the smaller communities to which they would be a source of pride.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I just want to offer a word or two to the genial Minister of Public Works. I do not thing that in this item the minister is breaking his heart by being too generous. May I suggest to him that when this contemplated program of $50,000,000 or more is put into effect he open his heart to the province of Manitoba and give it its just share of public works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think it is really the purse, not the heart, that my hon. friend wants opened. With respect to the suggestion of my hon. friend from Lisgar (Mr. Brown) the problem of providing public buildings in these smaller places is a difficult one. I find that the smaller places are rather ambitious to have pretty good looking and expensive buildings.


Mr. DUFF:: So are small men.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Quite so, and big ones too sometimes.


Albert Joseph Brown: But they are more prepared to recognize the situation now than they have been in the past.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The policy has to be very carefully considered in these times of stringency and difficulty, particularly as these buildings are paid for out of revenues. In the smaller places we are rather inclined to encourage the construction of community halls or the rental of a suitable place in a public building constructed by a municipality. We can afford to be pretty generous in the matter of rentals and at the same time get suitable accommodation much cheaper than by providing a building of our own, and I say that the time has come when economy is necessary in the construction of these public buildings. In many of these small communities buildings that were constructed for other purposes, banks and so on, are being offered to us at very reasonable prices, and other buildings that are not now in use, stores and so forth, can be purchased much cheaper than we can construct buildings,, which of course involve after their construction an annual charge for maintenance, heating, etc. So the problem is not as easy or as simple as it looks on the surface. fMr. Brown.]


Mr. COOTE:: I am sure the minister will find quite a lot of bank buildings in towns in western Canada that he could buy. The banks seem to have gone out of the banking business and will no doubt be glad to get rid of some of their buildings if they can get the Dominion government to buy them.


Charles A. Stewart: Ours was sold for a church.


George Gibson Coote: I think the suggestion which has been made by the hon. member for Lisgar is a very good one. There are many towns in Canada which should have public buildings in which to house a post office but do not need buildings costing from $20,000 to $26,000. A couple of years ago I went to the trouble of obtaining from the officials of the Alberta government plans for telephone buildings which had been erected in that province. In many cases these buildings had cost only $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000, and a similar building would be quite large enough for a post office. When the minister is considering the public works program for Alberta I hope he will remember that very little has been done in the three prairie provinces in the way of the erection of public buildings. I do not intend to ask for the amounts spent in the various provinces by his department, but if he will go back as far as confederation I know he will find that the amounts spent in the three western provinces do not begin to compare with what has been spent in other provinces.
We do need public buildings in many places but I like the suggestion made by the minister that certain towns might put up community halls in which could be provided suitable space for a post office- I again offer the same suggestion that I made two years ago that in -many places the federal and provincial governments should cooperate in the erection of public buildings. Such a building could house the telephone office and post office, and perhaps one or two other government offices. The building could be taken care of by one janitor, it would be cheaper for everybody and would provide better accommodation for the public. There are some places where this could be done, and I think in this respect there should be cooperation between the federal and provincial governments.
I hope the minister presses his suggestion in connection with the erection of community halls in the smaller places. There are many places which need such accommodation. In my own constituency I believe there is only one public building, but I speak subject to correction. I have received requests from three towns for post office buildings, and they are needed badly in each case. I am putting

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
these facts forward in order that the minister can assure the government that there is a real need for the construction of public buildings in various places in Canada. I am sure that nearly every hon. member could tell the minister of places where a public building is needed. I shall be glad to furnish him with a list of the places in my constituency. I remember asking a former minister of public works how much he could spend if a public building was erected in every place where the citizens had asked for it, and he replied that while he had not made an estimate, he thought he could spend well over $100,000,000.


Wilfred Hanbury: You would have to inflate the currency.


George Gibson Coote: That would not be a very dangerous inflation, seeing that we have been deflated in currency and credit to the extent of about $700,000,000. Without saying anything more, I urge the minister to present to the other members of the cabinet the requests for public buildings which I am sure he has filed in his office. I take it for granted that most of these requests are warranted.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Harbours and rivers-Nova Scotia-under contract-Cow Bay (Port Morien)-breakwater replacement, $17,000.
Yarmouth harbour-dredging, $41,000. Essential undertakings-
Blandford - breakwater-wharf replacement, $4,500.
Black Point-harbour protection, $3,600.
Broad Cove Marsh - breakwater-wharf replacement, $12,500.
Halifax-repairs to wharfs and replacement of machine shop at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.C. dockyards, $25,000.
Phinneys Green-wharf, $4,900.
Port Dufferin (John Yogler's shore)-breakwater, $4,900.
Port Mouton - breakwater replacement, $6,900.
Trout cove (Centreville)-breakwater extension, $4,200.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new work to be undertaken, $225,000.
James Layton Ralston: I should like to direct the minister's attention to a number of very modest projects which are needed in my province. Most of these are known already to him, either by letter or by personal interview. I should like to gather them up together and put them before him at this time, as most of them come within the terms of the blanket vote for "harbours and rivers generally, for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken." These facilities are urgently needed in connection with the fishing industry, particularly the activities of the shore fishermen. They are needed for the
purpose of providing safe landing for boats, protection and shelter, and for convenience. That is to say, with the proper facilities the men would not need to leave on the tide an hour or two earlier than they must do at present. With a proper wharf or breakwater the men would be able to have their boats afloat and leave at a later hour. I might say to the minister that these men leave at three, four and five o'clock in the morning and if there are no facilities, they have to return on the tide. Sometimes this return is under pretty strenuous conditions when rough weather happens to kick up while they are out.
The first project is the completion of some work already undertaken at West Baccaro. There was a breakwater and boat harbour there which served this community which is down on the most southerly and westerly point of Nova Scotia at Cape Sable. The activities of this community are confined almost exclusively to fishing, both lobster and) fresh. A boat harbour and breakwater is essential and these facilities have been destroyed or injured by storms. I believe the minister has a report in connection with this matter, as some work has been done already.
The total amount needed to complete the projects I have in mind would not amount to a quarter of what we have just voted for military buildings. The vote for military buildings totals about $100,000. There are items which cannot be deleted because they are under contract, but the people do not understand why these large amounts shouldi be voted for such projects when they cannot get the modest sum needed to provide them with very necessary facilities.
The next item is the extension to the breakwater at the west endi of upper Surette island. This is another fishing community, and a breakwater would be of great service to the people. The next is repairs to the public wharf and extension of the breakwater at Shag Harbour. When we speak of breakwaters we generally think of them as being large projects, but the one needed at Shag Harbour would be a modest affair and could be carried out with the expenditure of comparatively few dollars. A little dredging is needed at The Hawk and this could be done with departmental dredge, number sixteen. This community is located on Cape Sable island out near Clarke's Harbour, well out in the Atlantic, and the protection is needed for the fishermen. A breakwater was built at Louishead in 1887 but it has been practically demolished. This is a fishing community and the destruction of that facility has proven
664	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
to be a very serious matter to the people. Some work has been done at Lower East Pubnico, and I should like the minister to carry it on and provide the necessary facilities for this community. The fishermen now find it necessary to go a long distance to the fishing grounds and this facility would prove of great help. Another matter is the building of a road between the landing and the light on Bon Portage island. This would require an expenditure of only a few hundred dollars.
These requests are very modest but they are in the interests of the fishermen. They are needed for the carrying on of their activities and the expenditure of this money would assist in providing employment. It would not be in the nature of direct relief, because it would provide a facility which is as nearly self-liquidating as anything could be; that is to say, it would assist people in carrying on their ordinary vocations. I do urge on the minister favourable consideration of these matters, either in connection with this vote or in connection with whatever program of public works for relief may be carried on. These are not relief projects the utility of which is questionable; they will provide a useful addition to the equipment of these people for carrying on their work.
There are three more or less major projects and these have to came within the relief vote, or at least a supplementary estimate for public works. First there is the need of a facility at Lockeport, the money for which was voted some three or four years ago. The contract was let, but that was cancelled after this government came in. That money was intended for the provision of some sort of suitable facility in Lockeport harbour to afford protection for boats as well as protection for the shore owing to the situation there due to the action of the sea. The fishermen down there have got together in reference to this facility and have determined that this is what would be best-(because there has been a good deal of confusion and difference of opinion. The practically unanimous decision is for some sort of substantial piece of blocking, not necessarily attached to the shore, which would probably be the most suitable facility for protecting the boats there.
Another needed improvement is a wharf at Yarmouth, with regard to which representations have recently been made to the Minister of Finance and probably direct to the minister as well. That is a major work. Yarmouth is an important port. There is no public wharf there, but there are a number of private wharves, and the provision of a public wharf would afford employment to men there and 
would encourage a thriving port which does a great deal of business. It would be to the advantage not only of that section of the country as well as of the whole province of Nova Scotia, but of the country at large, because it is essentially a Canadian, port. There are more passengers in and out that port throughout the year than in any other port in Canada. Hon. members may be surprised at that, but owing to the Boston and New York services you will find that the passenger service there is greater throughout the year than in any other Canadian port including Montreal, Halifax and Vancouver.
The other major item is the completion of a breakwater at Port Maitland, a facility which has been needed by the fishermen and the provision of which, so far as it has been constructed, has been of great benefit, having practically provided a harbour where otherwise there would have been open shore, and where a very large fishing industry is prosecuted, both in fresh fish and in lobster.
I commend these three items to the minister, not in connection with this particular vote but in connection with a supplementary vote or in connection with any program which may be instituted by this government in the way of public works for relief purposes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall,
nearly all these items have been the subject of correspondence and representation in the recent past. It will be seen that the vote has been reduced from last year and it covers the whole of the province. We shall have to take into consideration the demands and requirements of other sections and try to harmonize them, doing the best we can. I am glad that the hon. gentleman has collected them all together and summarized the situation, and I shall give consideration to the larger projects in connection with any program of public works that may be determined.


James Layton Ralston: The small ones are
needed as much as the large items, but I thought they might be taken care of in connection with the general item.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is no exaggeration to say that there are hundreds of similar requests, and we shall have to do the best we can for all sections.


William Duff: 
Mr. STANLEY:: Where is Lunenburg?


William Duff: I say to my hon. friend he
does not know his geography. The government have put in the estimates only $4,500 for the whole county of Lunenburg, one of the greatest fishing areas not only in Nova Scotia but in the Dominion of Canada. All that the government, on account of mismanagement, on account of the fact that they are strangling trade and not trying to do anything for the Canadian people, can put in the estimates for that great county is $4,500. The same policy applies to everything else. I notice in the item of harbours and rivers generally, a reduction of $50,000. Last year the item was $275,000; the year before, if I remember correctly, it was $325,000; in 1930 it was $400,000. I am sorry my good friend the Minister of Finance is not present. He at least should have got something for his county in Nova Scotia, but in the estimates there is not one
666	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
dollar for the constituency represented by him. This government is riding for a fall as far as Nova Scotia is concerned. I am sorry for my Conservative friends opposite; they should have some influence with the government because they are all strong, silent men, especially silent; but they sit quietly in their seats and allow the Minister of Public Works and the government to bring down these estimates, only five out of twenty counties in Nova Scotia being given a single dollar to try to encourage the fishermen and other businessmen of that great province. This is a shame and a crime. Of course it may be possible that my friend the junior member for Halifax, the hon. member for Pietou, the hon. member for Cumberland, the hon. member for Cape Breton South and the others are being lulled to sleep by the Minister of Public Works or the Prime Minister because perhaps they have been promised part of this $50,000,000 which it is rumoured is to be voted- for public works. Why not come out into the open? If we are going to vote that large amount, a portion of which Nova Scotia must get, why not put the items in the estimates?
As far as my county is concerned, politically the less money the government insert in the estimates, the better I like it, because every knock is a boost; every dollar they do not appropriate, means that I shall get more votes in that constituency and I thank the Minister of Public Works and the government for not spending a dollar there, because in the last fortnight I have been receiving letters from Tories as well as Grits saying that when the next election takes place they will give me a greater majority than ever before.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is just
one interpretation that I can place upon the remarks of the hon. gentleman: I am forced to the conclusion that his appreciation of the people of Nova Scotia is that they vote according to the amount of money spent in their constituencies.


William Duff: Is the hon. member for Pietou going to stand for that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not think that is a fair representation of the intelligence, the patriotism, of the people of Nova Scotia; it is a reflection upon them which they will resent very keenly when they come to cast their votes. Further, has my hon. friend not heard from his own side of the house a demand for economy throughout the country, for balanced budgets? He would disregard all that and say that this is the time when we should go out with open hands and spend money in the high, wide and handsome 
way in which his friends spent it, which expenditures unfortunately have seriously curtailed the revenues that are at the disposal of the government at this time. We are forced because of some of the reckless extravagances of the hon. gentleman's friends-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh!


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is so.


James Layton Ralston: The hon. member's party spent more than we did.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
knows quite well and no member knows better than he does the expenditures in connection with the Canadian National Railways have seriously handicapped the present government.


Peter John Veniot: The hon. member agreed
to them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Peter John Veniot: He accepted every one of
them.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those expenditures made a serious inroad upon the revenues of this country, and as my hon. friend knows, these expenditures on public works are paid out of revenue and not from borrowings. If we accepted his contention, the budget instead of approaching balancing would be very much more in deficit than it is. Surely he does not consider a policy of that kind in these times of general depression is sound or one that any sane government would adopt.
At six o'clock the Speaker resumed the chair and the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 11, respecting Prudential Trust Company Limited-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).

[Stage Direction]
The house in committee of supply, Mr. Smoke in the chair.
Harbours and' rivers-Nova Scotia-under contract-Cow Bay (Port Morien)-breakwater replacement, $17,600.
Yarmouth harbour-dredging, $41,000. Essential undertakings -
Blandford - breakwater-wharf replacement. $4,500.
Black Point-harbour protection, $3,600.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
Broad Cove	Marsh - breakwater-wharf
replacement, $12,500.
Halifax-repairs to wharfs and replacement of machine shop at R.C.N. barracks and H.M.L. dockyards, $25,000.
Phinney's Green-wharf, $4,900.
Port Dufferin (John Yogler's shore)-breakwater, $4,900.	,
Port Mouton - breakwater replacement, $6,900.	,
Trout cove (Centreville)-breakwater extension, $4,200*	. .
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new work to be undertaken, $225,000.
William Duff: When the committee rose at six o'clock the minister had just stated, if I understood him correctly, that the reason this small amount was placed in the main estimates for the province of Nova Scotia was that this money had to come out of revenue, and that he had to economize because the affairs of this country were in such bad shape when the government took office. I will admit that I am getting old, Mr. Chairman, and that I am old-fashioned ; I am willing to admit that my memory is bad, but I do not ask you to take my word. If you look at the votes and proceedings or Hansard or the public accounts for 1929 and 1930 you will see that when the budget was brought down in 1930 the Liberal government had a surplus over expenditures of some $82,000,000. So I do not see why to-day, after this government has been in power for four years and my hon. friend has been Minister of Public Works for that length of time, he should say that they can only spend this small sum of money in the great province of Nova 'Scotia because of the condition of affairs when they took office. Let me remind the minister that Nova Scotia is one of the maritime provinces, a province whose men go down to the sea in ships and do business in the great waters. The expenditure in that province has been reduced year by year so that now it is dowm to a minimum, and the minister says the reason is the policy of the government previous to 1930.
The minister was not satisfied with that; he had to drag in the railway question. He stated that the fact that the Liberal government had spent money on the railways of this country was another reason why he had to economize in his expenditures on public works. W ell, sir, I do not want to go outside of the items under consideration, but the expenditure on railways had or has nothing to do with the expenditure on harbours and rivers. We all know, however, that when the Liberal party took charge of this country we had only two streaks of rust from Vancouver to Halifax, and that by their policy the Liberal party built up a railway in this
country. In 1921 the deficit on the railways amounted to $90,000,000, butt when the Liberal party went out of office the railways wrnre practically paying their own way. With a Conservative majority in the Senate and a Liberal majority in this parliament we could ask for the construction of the Sunnybrae-Guys-borough branch line. Therefore I say that the minister should not try to camouflage the fact that so Htitle money is spent either in the province of Nova Scotia or elsewhere, because the same condition applies in every province. Why should the minister drag in the railway question or the fact that these amounts of money must be spent out of revenue?
I do not want to go into details, Mr. Chairman, but the minister should not pretend that this bluebook sets out all the money that is to be voted for public works; the Minister of Public Works knows the details better than I do, and he knows that in the last three or four years tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars have been spent on public works by way of relief. I have no hesitation in saying that, so far as the province of Nova Scotia is concerned, in a large measure that money was wasted and never reached the people who should have received that so-called relief.
Before six o'clock my hon. friend tried to make out that this vote is small because the revenue is small. Who is to blame because the revenue is not greater? That is entirely due to the policies of this government. My hon. friend knows that in 1928, 1929 and 1930 the revenues of this country were expanding; he knows that in 1930 we had a surplus of $82,000,000, as I said before. The minister knows that trade has decreased under this government by at least seventy-five per cent. My hon. friend and his associates have so restricted Canada's trade that I cannot blame him for reducing expenditures. I pity him.
I pity members of the government because they have not seen the necessity for expanding our trade but instead, in order to satisfy certain interests within their own ranks, have endeavoured to restrict trade. As a result trade has dropped, and instead of having a total trade of over two billion dollars as under the Liberal government we have the condition with which we are only too familiar, both in regard to our trade with Great Britain and our trade with foreign countries. That is the reason the minister has to go to the council and to the treasury board and receive this little pittance for his department. I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that so far as the public works of this country are concerned, and so far as the maritime provinces, those great provinces of New Brunswick,

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are concerned, we bring new money into this country every year. We go down to the sea and every dollar that we bring in from it is new money which is spent in this country, money which we derive from foreign countries-money for the produce which we take from the sea and export. I want to say to my hon. friends opposite that to-day we have a situation in Nova Scotia due mostly to the actions and policies of this government whereby we are so constricted and handicapped that the people of the province of Nova Scotia, in the fishing section of this country, are practically starving. Again I appeal to the hon. member for Pictou, again to the hon. members for Halifax, and to the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria who will no doubt agree with me that the greatest fishing area in his native province borders his own constituency. I appeal to the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis and to every other hon. member from the province of Nova Scotia, and I say to them, "unite." I say that because I have no influence with this government-I do not want to have. Unite among yourselves and show the government that there is a great opportunity in the province of Nova Scotia, that there is connected with that province the greatest natural resource of this country-the fishing industry. How are hon. members going to improve the conditions when they vote- well, how much do they vote for my hon. friend's constituency? How much do they vote? Let me see, now-not a dollar for Annapolis-Digby, not a dollar for Cape Breton North-Victoria-not a dollar in the estimates. There is nothing in the estimates for Cumberland.


Mr. SMI  PH@Cumberland: I beg your
pardon; there is.


William Duff: Where is it? Is the hon.
member referring to Phinneys Green?


Mr. SMITH (Cumberland):: Yes.


William Duff: Yes, $4,900 for the great
county of Cumberland. When the hon. member for Cumberland sat in this parliament with a Liberal government in power between the years 1925 and 1929 what did the estimates show, despite the fact that he was sitting in the opposition?


Robert Knowlton Smith: When .my
hon. friend has completed his remarks I shall tell him what this government has done for the county of Cumberland by way of public expenditures.


William Duff: Probably the hon. member will wait until I have finished.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I will wait.


William Duff: I say that my hon. friend
must admit that when he sat in opposition to the government the Liberal party certainly made greater provision in the estimates for the county of Cumberland than is made to-day.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I do not admit that, and I do not think it is true.


Mr. DUE  F@: Perhaps I had better send for the estimates. The fact remains that although the hon. member is an influential member in the party opposite all he can get in the main estimates for his own county is $4,900. I say this, that we can never expect the province of Nova Scotia to get out of its present condition, and never expect any part of that province to get anything when the government is willing to spend only the small amount appearing in the estimates before us.


Mr. JOHNSTONE:: Mr. Chairman, since
my hon. friend speaks about estimates, may I say that the estimates are given by the district engineer in Cape Breton, but there is nothing in them for Cape Breton North. But the district engineer is allowed so much and that money is distributed between the counties of Cape Breton North and Victoria.


William Duff: I am very glad the hon.
member for Cape Breton North-Victoria has called that fact to my attention, because I had intended to deal with it. With thait in miind I shall ask the minister to give the committee the list of estimates submitted to him and his department by the engineering branch of the province of Nova Scotia. I know that not only he but every other member in this House of Commons from Nova Scotia has submitted recommendations to the engineering department of the province, and the result is found in these paltry amounts appearing in the estimates. I should like the minister to give us the recommendations sent to him from the engineering department at Halifax.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
the hon. member must know that I have not that information with me; I do not carry it with me. I have only the information as to the estimates presented to the committee.


William Duff: I shall ask the minister to get it before the amount is voted.


Richard Bedford Bennett: It is not producible.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I had not expected to delay the passage of the minister's estimates, but because of the vociferous and stormy denunciation of the government we heard shortly before rising at six o'clock I think that in the interest of accuracy it would not be amiss for me to say a few words with special reference to the county I have the honour to represent in this house. I should not want the house to interpret my remarks to mean that I am perfectly satisfied that everything has been done that should be done with respect to public expenditures in the county of Cumberland or in the province of Nova Scotia. Furthermore I unhesitatingly say we anticipate that other expenditures will be made, perhaps in the very near future, which will more than make up for any delinquency there may be in the vote now before the committee.
In less than two years after this government took office upwards of 8100,000 was expended on public works in the county of Cumberland. The money was spent on wharves, harbours, harbour improvements, breakwaters, public buildings and other public services. In a period of less than three years that expenditure has amounted to upwards of $130,000. If the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough reads the papers I feel sure he will have observed that within the last ten days, through governmental action there has been given to one of the industries in the town of Amherst, which is in the county of Cumberland, a contract for upwards of half a million dollars. That money will be expended to the benefit of the town and tlhe people living therein, and will in a measure help to relieve the unemployment problem with which we are faced. Another firm in the constituency of Pictou has been given a contract of upwards of half a million dollars as well. I have not all the figures before me concerning expenditures in the province of Nova Scotia, but I have figures for one or two counties where expenditures have been made since July, 1930. I find that in the constituency of Digby-Annapolis over $600,000 has been expended. In order to be fair to the committee I should say that $250,000 or $300,000 of that was voted before the change of government. In the county of Halifax approximately one half million dollars has been expended. As I say, I have not had time to secure the amounts for the other counties in Nova Scotia, but I do assert that in the main the expenditures by this government since August of 1930 have been just as great relatively speaking as those made in the past by any government in Ottawa. I do not think that we have any
reason whatever to complain of the treatment accorded by this government. I should like to repeat before I sit down, as I said at the beginning, that I do not wish my remarks to be interpreted to mean that we are completely satisfied with everything, and that we feel that everything has been secured which we need. Far from that, but I do say that under the stress of world conditions the government has dealt fairly with us, so far as the expenditure of public money in the province of Nova Scotia is concerned.


Mr. CANTLEY:: Mr. Chairman, I should like my deep-water friend, the commodore of the Lunenburg fleet, who with the full consent of all the great powers still maintains his position as Lord High Admiral of the LaHave, Georges and Grand Banks, to know how fully I appreciate his self-sacrificing, disinterested and forceful expression of interest in my constituency. The member for An-tigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff) was most flattering in his references to my native county-all in good taste, and all within the strict bounds of truth. My gallant friend, however, in his zeal to berate the government, forgot for the moment that later we shall have supplementary estimates before us; also that old adage that all things come to those who wait. But may I also remind my hon. friend that if he will refer to the full list of public works in the county of Pictou receiving assistance at this time and be content to await the incoming supplementary tide he may perhaps then see that the county of Pictou is still floating in high water. If his constituency be not then equally fortunate I can assure him that he will have as sincere, if less vigorous an expression of my sympathy. That is all I can do for him under the circumstances.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: So far as the county of Cape Breton North-Victoria which I have the honour to represent is concerned, while we have not got just what we would like, I must say that during the last year the Public Works department have spent over $150,000 in developing the natural resources in my constituency. They have developed there a gypsum mine which has been one of the most important events in the history of the county, and all this has been done in the last two years. Before that, for many years we had been trying in vain to get a breakwater built. Within the last two years this government has spent over $125,000 on the breakwater alone. The development of the gypsum mine I spoke of is a great contribution to the solution of the problem of unemployment. The solution of that problem lies in the creation of new
670	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
industries to provide work, and at this mine at Dingwall there is now employed a great number of men, and the mine is shipping gypsum not only to Canada, but, as the president, Mr. MacFarlane, informed me only yesterday, to England, where it has never been shipped before. The mine has a contract for five thousand tons of gypsum to be shipped to England, and all this is due to this government having spent money at Dingwall and opening up this great industry, building the breakwater, and dredging the harbour so that vessels could come in. Never before had a vessel entered that harbour, but last year before navigation closed, two thousand tons of gypsum were shipped out of Dingwall harbour across the Atlantic to England. So this government has done something for my county and for the development of our natural resources.


William Duff: I am delighted, Mr. Chairman, that I have got my hon. friends from Pictou (Mr. Cantley), Cumberland (Mr. Smith) and Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone) to speak, and now that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has come into the house he may have a few remarks to make after I am through. My hon. friends, especially the hon. member for Cumberland, have told the committee of the great amount of money that has been spent in their respective counties. I thought that we were discussing public works estimates, but the hon. member for Cumberland, in order to draw a red herring across the trail, told us about a contract which the railway company had given in Amherst for the building of cars.


Robert Knowlton Smith: My hon. friend knows that I stated very clearly what the public works expenditures were. I mentioned $130,000. The other contract was upwards of half a million.


William Duff: But my hon. friend did mention the other contract of half a million, and I am dealing with that first; I shall deal with the other afterwards. If I had not drawn my hon. friend's fire he would not have got up to object, but would have let me go on. He knows that the half million contract has nothing to do with the public works estimates, that that contract comes entirely within the purview of the railway company, and that this government, as we have been frequently told by my hon. friends opposite, has nothing to do with the railway, that it is a separate entity entirely, that there is no politics in the railway, and consequently my hon. friend can take no credit in the city of Amherst for getting this half-million dollar contract.
TMr. Johnstone.]


Robert Knowlton Smith: It had nothing to do with the railway.


William Duff: What was it?


Robert Knowlton Smith: The harbour commission pier in Halifax.


William Duff: Oh, I thought my hon. friend was talking of his own county. The hon. member for Halifax will look after Halifax.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I am speaking for my own county. The contract for half a million dollars was given to a firm in Amherst, the Robb Engineering Company. The other contract went to Pictou county.


William Duff: My hon. friend says that this money was spent in Amherst. My hon. friend also said that there was $130,000 spent on public works in his county last year.


Robert Knowlton Smith: Not last year.


William Duff: In how many years?


Robert Knowlton Smith: Since the
change of government.


William Duff: Very good. Now take the estimates for this year and see how much is being spent in the county of Cumberland. The miserable sum of $4,900. What about last year? I have the list in my hand, and I see that public works were awarded as follows:
Nova Scotia-
East Ferry-wharf and shed, $700.
Lunenburg-dredging, $24,500.
Yarmouth harbour-dredging, $90,000.
Cow Bay (Port Morien)-to repair breakwater and complete extension, $4,500.
Devil's Island-breakwater repairs, $10,500.
Digby-dredging, $34,000.
Finlay Point-improvements, $3,000.
Grand Desert-harbour protection, $2,600.
Lower L'Ardoise-breakwater reconstruction, $14,400.
Little Judique ponds-groyne, $1,500.
Little River-mooring piers, $5,000.
Meat Cove-breakwater extension, $1,800.
Sandy Cove-breakwater repairs, $11,900.
Seaside (Harbourview) -wharf extension, $4,900.
Seaforth-breakwater extension, $5,000.
Spencer's Point-wharf improvements, $3,600.
Not a dollar for Cumberland county in the last two years, except $4,900! As I said this afternoon, this government is not bringing down the expenditures where they should appear in the main estimates, or even in the supplementary estimates. When the Liberal party was in power my hon. friend from Cumberland was treated much better by his opponent and by the Liberal party; for in the estimates for 1929-30 I find, not simply eight or nine items for the whole province of Nova Scotia, but two whole pages, and

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
included among them is a very large sum for the county of Cumberland in spite of the fact that my hon. friend always voted against the government in power. The same thing applies to the previous year. I have in my hand the estimates for 1928-29, during which time my hon. friend represented that great county in the province of Nova Scotia. In spite of the fact that he is a Conservative, in spite of the fact that he and I are -what are we?


An hon. MEMBER:: Shipmates.


William Duff: No, not shipmates, but my
hon. friend and I have an understanding; we are always paired. These estimates show two whole columns of public works for the province of Nova Scotia. Some of these works were in Malagash, of which I spoke this afternoon. The Tory government did not vote any money for Malagash, it was the Liberal government. The same thing applies to Dingwall. Who started the operations at Dingwall? It was the Liberal party. They were the first to vote money for the Dingwall operations, not the Tory party. I admit that my hon. friend has done his duty in this house-


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: The Liberal party never started the operations in Dingwall harbour. They started the breakwater there and in 1925 they had an estimate for that work. I asked across the floor what amount was going to be voted and I was told $50,000. It has cost $135,000 and the Liberal party never had anything to do with the development of the gypsum operations at Dingwall. I think we were in power last year, and that is when the operations were commenced. They had never been heard of before. A ship came into the harbour last year for the first time and was able to load two thousand tons. Never before had a steamer ever entered the harbour. My hon. friend ought to know that and he does know it. He did not thank I was going to be here to-night. I was called to Halifax a couple of days ago but I just got in. I do not think my hon. friend would have said that if I had been here.


William Duff: I must first apologize to the
hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Being an old sailor and not having had much education, my English is not as good as it might be and consequently my hon. friend perhaps does not understand what I say. I think the hon. member for Pictou (Mr. Cantley) will agree that any remarks I made to the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria are equally true as far
as his county is concerned. I said, and I repeat it, that during the time he has been a member of this house, he got more money for his county while in opposition, than he has since he has been supporting the government.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: That is not true.


William Duff: I will prove it. The hon.
member has said that the Grits did nothing in the way of dredging at Dingwall. I hold in my hand the estimates for 1930. The Conservative party was not in power that year and my hon. friend was sitting on this side of the house. He was urging that certain public works should be undertaken in his county. I do not know whether he made an impression upon the Minister of Public Works or whether he induced the engineers that these works were necessary, but the fact is a vote was included in the estimates to cover them. Perhaps my hon. friend will give me some credit for that. I remember getting a vote put in for New Waterford in the constituency of the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) for a new public building. I may have had something to do with the vote to which I intend to refer, but I shall give all the credit in the world to my hon. friend from Cape Breton North. He has said that no dredging was done in 1930 but a vote appears in the estimates for that year in the amount of $25,000 for dredging Dingwall harbour. Surely my hon. friend is fair enough to give the Liberal party credit for that.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: What year is that?


William Duff: These are the estimates for
1930, before the government was changed.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: That was before the
government was changed. Excuse me, that was not for dredging. That $25,000 was for the building of a breakwater which cost $125,000. I asked across the floor of this house what this breakwater was going to cost and I was told it would cost $25,000. No dredging was started in Dingwall until last year, and I think the Minister of Public Works will bear me out in that statement. This work was started after considerable effort on the part of the hon. members and the Dingwall company.


William Duff: Perhaps the Minister of Public Works can answer the question asked by my hon. friend. All I am going by is the estimates which I hold in my hand.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: The first boat that
ever entered Dingwall harbour entered last year.
672	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.


William Duff: If I were my hon. friend I
would not make that admission, because the Liberal government voted $25,000 for dredging.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Excuse me, they did
not; they voted $25,000 for the building of a breakwater. The hon. member does not understand.


William Duff: I think my hon. friend will agree that we are doing all this in the most pleasant manner possible. All I want to do is to refer my hon. friend to page 35 of the estimates for 1930. On that page appear the letters D-i-n-g-w-a-1-1-, hyphen, d-r-e-d-g-i-n-g, and carried out is, $25,000. I do not know whether that money was spent for a wharf or whether it was spent for a dance in the town of Dingwall, but the estimates say it was for dredging.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: It was put down there for the continuation of a breakwater that should have cost $150,000. The Liberal government put it down at $25,000 but everyone knew that it could not be constructed for that. They put down $25,000 for the continuation of that breakwater and not for dredging.


William Duff: My hon. friend does not quite catch my point.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


William Duff: No, it is not carried. If my
hon. friend will send to the library for the estimates of 1930 he will find an item on page 35 for $25,000 for dredging at Dingwall.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: For what year?


William Duff: 1930. I shall go back a little
further to see if my hon. friend was trying to do his duty to his constituency. I intend to give him all the credit in the world for it. In 1929 the estimates for Nova Scotia took up almost two pages. I notice on page 34 of the estimates for 1928-29 the following item:
Dingwall (Aspy Bay), breakwater.
Surely my hon. friend will give credit to those of us who supported him in trying to get the breakwater built and the dredging done. I will support him in any effort he makes to get after the government to get breakwaters constructed and dredging done.


Peter John Veniot: How much was the breakwater?


William Duff: Since that time my hon. friend has been able to get some money for dredging but that amount never appeared in the estimates. In order to get it he had to go around about seventeen corners and he did

not meet prosperity on the way. He had to get into the office of the Minister of Labour; he had to get after the Minister of Public Works; he had to do these things to get the money for the dredging at Dingwall put through as a relief measure. It was not put through in the ordinary way it should have been. That is why I am complaining. As far as Dingwall, Cumberland or Pictou is concerned, I will vote for every dollar which is asked for. But what is the government doing for these counties to-day? We find a paltry $4,900 for Cumberland county and not a dollar for Pictou.


Thomas Cantley: The hon. member should learn to read.


William Duff: The only place I can think of is Phinneys Green, and my hon. friend from Cumberland claims that.


Thomas Cantley: You need another pair of glasses.


William Duff: I am not criticizing the hon. gentleman; I am criticizing his party. In the great county of Pictou, which requires public works and public buildings, dredging, breakwaters and repairs to wharves, there is not a dollar. I know what is earning, the same thing that happened last year and the year before under this government-a blank cheque for $50,000,000. An election is coming on, and when it takes place money will be spent on public works all over the country. And I know my hon. friend from Pictou well enough to know that he will get his share. We heard this afternoon about poor Grits who wanted work and could not get it. The same thing will happen as has taken place in connection with public works under the relief program in Nova Scotia in the last three years. Men who should not have got work at all got if, men who charged the government 15 cents a foot for logs, and foremen being paid $7 a day on wharf repair work under the Minister of Public Works-$7 a day when there were lots of good men who would have done the work at $4 a day. That is what will happen this year under the $50,000,000 program to be surreptitiously introduced under the provision for peace, order and good government.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: What year is the hon. gentleman referring to in connection with the vote for dredging?


Peter John Veniot: It was 1930.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: Dredging was not
thought of in Dingwall until 1932, because no dredging was required. In 1932 we did build

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NJ$.
a dredge for the reason that the gypsum company had opened a mine, but nothing was said about dredging, nothing was done to take care of dredging until the present government ca-me into power. Then we did get the harbour dredged so that they could open up the mine, from which we shipped this last year 2,000 tons of gypsum to England, something that 'has never been done before.


William Duff: If my hon. friend will come across the floor I will show him the estimates. I am sure he does not think that I am trying to mislead him. My objection is that he is too modest, and I am ready to give him credit for getting the Liberal government to provide this money for dredging. But he does not want to take credit for it. I will send the estimates over so that he may see it, and I expect him to give the leader of the opposition credit for voting $25,000 in 1629 for dredging at Dingwall.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: That $25,000 was not for dredging.


William Duff: A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: You know as well as I do that it was not.


William Duff: The hon. gentleman is neither deaf nor dumb and he can read what is printed in the estimates for 1930. Why is he not generous enough to get up and bow to the leader of the opposition and say, "thank you, Mr. Mackenzie King, for giving us that $25,000."


Lewis Wilkieson Johnstone: For the simple reason that there was no dredging in Dingwall until last year.


William Duff: In view of the small number of items which appear under the heading of Nova Scotia, and with which evidently my hon. friends on the Conservative side are quite satisfied, I should be glad if the minister would read the list of recommendations made by the engineering department in Nova Scotia for the province this year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have already explained to my hon. friend that I have not that information, and even if I had it would be confidential. All we do is to take the responsibility for what we recommend to the house. These reports are made more or less in confidence, and until some action is taken on them they do not become associated with the estimates or the expenditures. Now, even at the risk of delaying the passing of this item for a few minutes, I wish to reply to my hon. friend. I am sorry that just before six 74726-43
o'clock I rather annoyed him by something I said. But he has entirely changed his position. Before six o'clock he was thanking this government for not spending money in Nova Scotia-


William Duff: That is not true.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, it is.


An hon. MEMBER:: Hansard will prove it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He was thanking this government because the appropriation was so small, and he said that the result would be that he and his friends would get more votes-


William Duff: I did not say that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -in the province of Nova Scotia. Thereupon I ventured to suggest to him that that was a reflection upon that noble province, which had made such a fine contribution to the dominion, and that in casting their votes they would not be guided entirely by the amount of money that was spent in any constituency, particularly in a time of crisis and difficulty. I am sure that on reflection my hon. friend will agree with me that his great province will rise above the mere matter of the expenditure of money when it is giving its decision on the great questions that will come before the Canadian people. With regard to the expenditures in the province of Nova Scotia, let me give him the amount of appropriation in the general vote for a number of years past. I will start with the year 1924. The appropriation under the general vote was that year $55,000;	in	1925-26,	$65,000;	in	1926-27,$71,000;	in	1927-28,	$65,000;	in	1928-29,$65,000;	in	1929-30,	$80,000;	in	1930-31,
$100,000; in 1931-32, $110,000; in 1932-33, $200,000; in 1933-34, $275,000; and this year it is $225,000. And the expenditures out of this vote since this government came in have exceeded the expenditures made from similar votes when my hon. friends were in power.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


William Duff: I am delighted that the hon. member for Renfrew has reason to applaud.


Mr. MALONEY:: Not a cent for Renfrew.


William Duff: How about five cents?


An hon. MEMBER:: Worse.


William Duff: The minister made the statement that before six o'clock I said I did not want to see a dollar voted for public works in Nova Scotia. He should take back that remark; I did not say that. What I did was to refer to the political conduct of this gov-

674	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NS.
ernment in not voting one dollar for my constituency, the great county of Antigonish-Guysborough, with 700 miles of coastline, not voting one dollar for dredging, for public works or repairs to wharves, this year, last year or the year before, because forsooth the fishermen and people of Antigonish-Guysbor-ough saw fit to send me to this parliament. That was what I said. I said that so far as I was concerned it was a good thing politically. I did not mention any other county in Nova Scotia, but I say that there is nothing to the credit of the Minister of Public Works or the government as regards the expenditure of money in that province. My hon. friend read a list, I do not know where he got it, but if he will turn up the estimates for 1928-and I have them under my hand-he will find that he was wrong when he said that in that year there was only some 860,000 spent in Nova Scotia.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not say that.


William Duff: He said for the general vote. The minister was trying to deceive the committee. What I am talking about is the whole amount voted for the province, not the general vote. I hold in my hand a list of the estimates for 1929 showing that there was voted for Nova Scotia an amount of $750,200 and not $60,000 as the minister said. I wonder whether the minister knows there is such a place as Nova Scotia.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I was speaking about the general vote.


William Duff: I was speaking about the estimates as placed upon the table of the house. My hon. friend was not fair to himself or to the government when he dared to say that only $60,000 was voted. In addition to the $750,200 voted in 1929, there was also a large sum voted for ordinary expenditures. Why was my hon. friend not fair? What is the use of his saying that this government has appropriated more money in the last three years than the Liberal government did from 1922 to 1930? That is not correct, and my hon. friend knows it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not make any such statement. I said that in the general vote the amount was just as I gave it and expenditures had been made from that general vote which my hon. friend is leaving out of account altogether.


William Duff: I am not leaving the general expenditure out, and the minister knows that. As I said before six o'clock, the total amount to be voted for the year 1934-35 is

S349,500. Does the minister know what year he is living in? That includes the $225,000, does it not?
Last year the amount was larger, namely, $417,900 as against $349,500, which includes the small amount to which the minister referred. As I said a moment ago, if you go back to 1930, the amount was $893,700 including what the minister said was for general account. Every year the Liberal party was in power, we had money in the treasury with the result that every county in Nova Scotia, whether represented by a Conservative or a Liberal, received its share of public works. But what has this government done? What has the Minister of Public Works done? Look at his estimates! He should be ashamed of them and of himself. Just to think, because he is a Tory and I am a Grit, but both of us representing people in this country, not one dollar did he put in his estimates for the two great counties of Antigonish and Guysborough! Not a dollar for any county represented by a Liberal! My hon. friend did not even do his own party or his own followers the justice of giving them any decent amounts for expenditure in their counties. No, but he camouflages the matter just as he did in two or three instances in my county by putting it in for relief work, fifteen cents for logs and $7 a day for a foreman. But he was not satisfied with one foreman at $7 a day, he appointed another at $6 a day. Will my hon. friend deny that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know
to what my hon. friend refers; this is the first time I have heard of it.


William Duff: My hon. friend is Minister
of Public Works in this dominion; it is his duty to see that only a fair price is paid for logs or hemlock planks or timber. It is his duty as custodian of the Public Works department; as a privy councillor it is his duty to the Prime Minister and the other members of the government, to see that no money is wasted in public works. Yet if he will look at his records, he will see that $27 a thousand was paid for hemlock planks when I was buying them for $19; thait fifteen cents a foot was paid for logs when I was buying them for ten cents; that eight cents was paid for little poles when I was buying them for four cents, and that one foreman at $7 a day was not enough, they had to get a subforeman at $6. Think of itl


Peter John Veniot: One fellow to watch the
other.

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NS.


William Duff: Yes. Yet this is the man
who comes before us and says that I was trying to say that in Nova Scotia there was no necessity for expenditure of money. Let him look into his own department and he will see that I know more about Nova Scotia than he does; that I am more interested in it than he is. My only regret is, partisan as I am, with the Conservative party in power, conditions in this country are such that there is no revenue and consequently the hon. member for Pictou and the hon. member for Cumberland can get only S4,900 for expenditures in the year of our Lord 1935.


Thomas Cantley: I think it is time this
controversy should end; but my hon. friend opposite made the statement that when the Liberal party were in power they appropriated money for expenditure in my constituency. For four years, Mr. Speaker, while I sat on the other side, I appealed to the former Minister of Public Works (Mr. Elliott) who, I am sorry, is not now able to occupy his seat in the house, and it was only in the session of 1930, with an election immediately in prospect, that he eventually inserted an item of $56,000 in the estimates for greatly needed repairs on a public building at New Glasgow. A contract was let. The repairs cost $86,000 and the incoming government provided the difference between $56,000 and $86,000. The hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough is trying to leave the impression that no public money was spent in Pictou during the regime of the present government. There was dredging done at Pictou amounting to about $27,000; Cariboo, $15,000; Pictou railway wharves were rebuilt at a cost of over $50,000; Bailey's Brook wharf repairs, $25,000; in Larry's River there was an expenditure of $15,000; more than $10,000 spent at Pictou island, and $15,000 in dredging New Glasgow. These are amounts I have written down from memory. My hon. friend either does not know the facts or is not quite fair. Usually he is fair, but I suggest he had better inform himself a little more accurately in regard to these matters. The hon. member for Cumberland referred to an order for $500,000. The contract was for $1,030,000, one-half going to Amherst and the other half to New Glasgow. I have not any doubt that when the supplementary estimates are brought down I shall be fairly well satisfied with what the government is doing through the efforts of the Minister of Public Works here, and I do not think it is quite fair for the hon. member to make the statements he has.
74726-43 J


William Duff: Since my hon. friend has been good enough to give the Liberal government credit for what it did when his party were in opposition, I may refer to the facts and give fuller details. The item for Bailey's Brook was voted in 1928 when the Liberal, not the Tory government was in power.


Thomas Cantley: That is another matter
altogether.


William Duff: I do not claim any credit for getting it, but my hon. friend should be fair enough to say that the amount for Bailey's Brook is in the 1928 estimates. My hon. friend spoke about the Pictou railway wharves. If my hon. friend will look at the 1928 estimates again-and the Tory government was not in power then-he will find an item of $25,000 voted for repairs to the Pictou railway wharves, and no doubt that was included in the estimates due to the influence of my hon. friend. We did not have the depression then, though of course now it is a world depression while in 1930 it was only a Canadian depression due to the Liberal government. Surely my hon. friend should give some credit to the Liberal government for these votes. I pity my hon. friend, and he knows it; he knows he has all the sympathy of my heart. When a Liberal government was in power, with only three Liberals and eleven Conservatives from Nova Scotia, my hon. friend will find that our province received a great deal more money than they have received since.
Now I want to refer to Malagash in Cumberland county. When the Liberals were in power there was an item of $36,000 for wharf repairs, but to-night my hon. friend gets up and tries to apologize for the Minister of Public Works who gives him $4,900.


Robert Knowlton Smith: I might tell
my hon. friend that over $40,000 has been expended on public works in Cumberland county since 1931.


William Duff: I am sorry it was not $60,000. I say my hon. friend is not being treated fairly, and I wonder why he does not get up and say so himself. I know he does not dare do so in the house, but I know also that he has gone to the Minister of Public Works and raised the roof; he was practically told to get out of the minister's office because he was so insistent in trying to get something for his county. I sympathize with my hon. friend because he cannot get anything from a Tory government. It has always been the same since confederation; Tory governments will not spend money in Nova Scotia. It was while the Liberal party was in power from

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NJi.
1896 to 19-11 that all the breakwaters and public wharves were built and all the lighthouses and aids to navigation constructed. Since 1930 the Tory party have tom down everything they could. So I sympathize with my hon. friends. I say to them that if they would support me, instead of having $4,900 spent in Cumberland county and nothing in Pictou or the other counties we would get something. If my 'hon. friends would back me up as they should m the interests of their constituents, because they must not forge that it is their duty to see that every possible dollar is obtained for their counties, we would be able to force the minister to vote more money. Of course I know what is coming; the members from Nova Scotia have been lulled to sleep with the promise of the 850 000,000 blank cheque of which they thinK their province will get a part. But even when that money is spent the Tory party will be defeated in Nova Scotia.


Mr CANTLEY:: I now wish to correct my hon. friend. It is true that $25,000 was put in the estimates during the session of 1928 tor Bailey's Brook, but what happened? Mr. Archibald McCall then had the patronage for the county, and he appointed the foreman. When the district engineer went down to inspect the work he reported it was the most disgraceful piece of work he had ever seen, and he dismissed the foreman. Mr. McCall was asked to name a second foreman, which he did: he in turn was also dismissed, and when a southwest gale came in the latter part of August the structure floated out to sea and went down Northumberland strait, go we had to rebuild the whole structure.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough has made some complaint about the expenditures of money under the Unemployment Relief Act. Let me assure him that the department and the officials have endeavoured to take every possible precaution to see that the money was well expended and that full value was received, and every complaint made to the department either in this house or by correspondence has been investigated. This is the first time I have ever had a complaint from my hon. friend, and if he will follow it up and give me the names and the particulars I will see that it is investigated, and will see what can be done to place responsibility where
it belongs.
With regard to expenditures under this general vote I should like to point out to my hon friend .that in the county of Antigonish-Guysborough over $20,000 was expended from the vote of last year.


William Duff: Where?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In Antigonish-Guysborough.


William Duff: Where?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On twenty-five
different projects.


William Duff: You spent $20,000 on twenty-five different projects?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


William Duff: Thank you very much indeed; $800 on each project. Isn't that wonderful? Is it any wonder the country is in such a condition when my hon. friend spent that large amount of money, $800, on twenty-five different projects. My hon. friend says he expects me to go to him and complain about certain conditions in his own department. With all respect may I ask the minister what he is getting paid for? My hon. friend is the Minister of Public Works in this government; he has surrounding him a deputy minister, secretaries and engineers, and it is their duty to see that no money is wasted. It is their duty to see that only a fair price is paid for logs or hemlock planks or timber. It is their duty to see that no foreman gets $7 a day while another foreman on the same work gets $6 a day. It is not my duty to make complaints to the minister; if his officials have not told him of these conditions I say it is not my place to do so, and I am not going to do so beyond what I have said to-night. But I say to the minister, and he knows it as well as I do, that the money spent on public works under the so-called peace, order and good government legislation, was paid to Tories who never should have been made foremen, Conservatives who did not need the money, and so on. The poor people did not get it in the province of Nova Scotia, with very few exceptions. I say that in nine cases out of ten men supplied timber, logs and planks who had no right to supply them. There were poor men who would have been willing to drag ten or twenty logs to where they were needed and who were not allowed to do so. In one case one of the friends of the Conservative party was paid $8,000, out of a $15,000 job, for logs, planks and timber. Another friend of the government on the same job received $1,500 for rope, nails and so on, but how much did the poor labourers get? They received $4,000 out of the $15,000. Was that what relief was intended for? Was that why the money was spent under the peace, order and good government legislation? My hon. friend says I must tell him what is wrong, that I must

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-N.S.
make the complaint. I say he should go and investigate it himself; it is the duty of himself and his officials. They know as well as I do that most of this money was wasted, that it was given to men who had no right to it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When my hon. friend says I know that to be so, he is going far beyond the fact. I have already given him the reasons for my statement, and I have invited him to give me this information in order that I may investigate. He says it is my duty to make an investigation. How can I do so if I have not the information? He says it is up to my officials. I am carrying on with the same officials I found when I came into this department.


William Duff: Oh, oh.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And so far as I know they are doing their duty well. Other members on the same side of the house as my hon. friend have not chosen to adopt that independent, disinterested position; they have not refused to give information if they knew of irregularities. I submit that if the hon. gentleman knows of any improper expenditure of public money it is his duty to make it known so that an investigation may be held in order that responsibility may be placed just where it belongs. I want to say that 1 repudiate any responsibility ; I repudiate any insinuation that I know of any wrongful expenditure. I assure him that if it is brought to my attention the responsibility will be placed where it belongs and heads will go into the basket, without regard to whose they may be.


William Duff: I appreciate the noble sentiment expressed by the Minister of Public Works; nevertheless, he is the minister of the department. Every payroll and every account for expenditures in his department is down in the Hunter building, and I say it is the minister's duty, as the head of his department, to say either by himself or through his officials whether certain moneys have been paid, and whether these moneys have been paid properly. It is also the minister's duty to say whether in the province of Nova Scotia or any other province fifteen cents a foot per log is a fair price, whether $27 a thousand is a fair price for hemlock lumber and whether $32 a thousand is a fair price for square timber, and whether there is any necessity for two foremen, one at $7 a day who never saw a wharf before he was appointed and who would have been of no use had not a second foreman been appointed at $6 a day. That is the minister's duty, not mine, and I am not going
to assume the responsibility. I am not in the minister's office; let him have his officials -he has plenty in the department-go over the files, and he will find out that my statement is correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Does the hon. member suggest that all this should be shown, and that all these details come under the review of the minister himself, or that he has any knowledge of them? I ask him to give me the name of the work, or the place where he suggests these irregularities took place.


William Duff: I said the minister was responsible as minister of the department.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am trying to assume that responsibility; I welcome the responsibility and am anxious to discharge it. All I ask is that my hon. friend give me the support which I am entitled to receive from him in the discharge of the duties of my position.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The name of the place.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. Smoke):: Is the item carried?


William Duff: No; before the item carries I should like the minister to tell me whether or not he will produce a memorandum of the different works which his officials in the province of Nova Scotia submitted to the department to be included in the main estimates. The minister says that is confidential information. I do not agree with him; I say that is a public document.


Richard Bedford Bennett: This house decided the other way.


William Duff: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon?
Mr. BEiNNETT: This house decided that it was not.


William Duff: How?


Richard Bedford Bennett: A few years ago.


William Duff: Well then, we must reverse that decision right now. That must have been under a Liberal government. I say that it is a public document and is not confidential at all. The officials of the Department of Public Works, the engineers and their staffs in all the provinces are appointed by the government of this country, and they are responsible to the people. What I should like to know is, in view of the fact that only half a dozen amounts are included in the estimates for the province of Novp Scotia,
678	COMMONS
Su-p-ply-Harbours and Rivers-NJ5.
whether or not these were all the amounts which the engineers and the officers of the department recommended after investigation and after this coimtry had paid those officials hundreds of thousands of dollars to investigate and make reports to the minister and his officials, or whether there are other items. I ask that the item stand until the minister :gives that information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can say to my hon. friend without hesitation that there were other items recommended and, so far as I know, in years gone by have always been recommended. We have to decide how much money we can apply and appropriate for public works. When that is done we have to make eliminations and cut out certain, recommendations, excepting those which we consider to be most urgent and most necessary, and assume responsibility for the position which we take.


Peter John Veniot: Am I to understand the minister has said that the report of the engineer is so confidential that it cannot be submitted?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not say that.


Peter John Veniot: I understood that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not say that.


Peter John Veniot: What did the minister say about those reports?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I say that in many cases these reports were of a confidential character.


Peter John Veniot: Well, that is the point; you would not submit it, or give the contents of it?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Of course not.


Peter John Veniot: I am somewhat surprised at that, and I am more surprised that the hon. gentlemen now sitting as members of the government did not take that position when they sat in opposition. I remember quite distinctly that in 1927 when I was asked for a report connected with certain post office trouble in the city of Saint John I then stated that reports had come from our inspectors, and that I considered them confidential. I was forced to produce them on the table of the house. I remember quite distinctly that I agreed that the leader of the opposition of that day, the present Prime Minister, should name a committee of five to whom I would submit all the reports, for their information. The reports were submitted for such information. Then, after the committee had finished its work the then leader of the opposition took the re-

ports and read them into Hansard from the floor of this house. If on that occasion it was right for them to be submitted to the house, or to be put on the table, why is it not proper procedure now?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think there is a clear distinction between the two cases.


Peter John Veniot: There is no distinction at all; they are both confidential reports.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the case to which the hon. member has referred there was a charge against a certain official, and the reports were in connection with that incident. The reports now in question are made for the purpose of enabling the minister and the department to decide on a certain line of action.


Peter John Veniot: And the reports to which I referred were made to enable the Postmaster General to decide upon a certain line of action.


Richard Bedford Bennett: No; one was a matter of policy and the other was not.


William Duff: These reports are on the file of the Department of Public Works and are not on the minister's confidential file. There is no official in the department, other than the minister, who has a confidential file. These are public documents, documents which the people of this country pay to have made up. W e have to pay money to send these engineers around to the different parts of the provinces to find out w'hat works are necessary, and they submit those recommendations to the minister. I say they are not confidential, and that this House of Commons ought to have the right to see what works were recommended by the officials who are paid by this country, and to see what works were cut out either by the government or by the treasury officials.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Might I correct the erroneous impression held by the hon. member? The recommendations made by officials, upon which the government takes action, are not producible if ithe government accept responsibility for the estimates, os they do, which are submitted to the house. We discussed this matter, as the hon. member for Gloucester will recall, and he is right in stating thiait on the occasion to which he refers we did press for the production of the documents. They were not documents to determine a question of policy, but they were documents connected with a particular transaction. The hon. gentleman produced them and read from parts of them, and he will recall we said

Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NJS.
that having done that they should be laid upon the table. They were produced before the committee, first., and laid upon the table, and he is correct when he states that they were read into Hansard, without comment, as he will recall.


Peter John Veniot: There was lots of comment.


Richard Bedford Bennett: The comment came later. But there is a distinction between the two sets of circumstances. As the hon. gentleman will realize, having been Postmaster General, and as the former Minister of the Interior and the former Minister of Agriculture will understand, when the time comes to prepare estimates it has been the custom ever since there has been responsible government to send out people who make reports, and the government adopts its policy. It then determines what action shall be taken, and assumes the whole responsibility. If it were otherwise the hon. member for Antagonish-Guysborough will understand the result would be that the officials would be the responsible parties, and not the ministers who bring them to this House of Commons. Their recommendations would be the basis of discussion in parliament, and not the estimates at all. That is my understanding, and I have no desire to suggest that a course different from that which has been followed should be followed in the present instance. However, that has been my understanding of it since I have known about parliamentary institutions; for if at the present moment we were to substitute a recommendation of engineers or others for the responsibility accepted by the administration we would have an entirely different system of government. I recall now what the hon. gentleman mentions. It was in connection with Griffiths, and there was a man called Woods. I recall it quite well now. But if my hon. friend looks at it, he will see that that is entirely a different thing.


Peter John Veniot: If I may be permitted,
Mr. Chairman, I cannot agree with the Prime Minister in the matter of confidential information. I can well understand that when an engineer makes a report to a minister on a certain public work, and gives an estimate on the price, his estimates should be confidential until the contract is awarded.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Yes, up to that point.


Peter John Veniot: My hon. friend is quite correct in assuming that attitude. But when an engineer makes a report asked for by the minister on the necessity of certain public works in a province, his report should not be confidential.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Why not?


Peter John Veniot: Why should it be? That is not establishing the policy of the government. If it were establishing the policy of the government I would say yes, it should be confidential. But the policy of the government is to carry on public works in this country to a greater or certain extent, and the details of that policy are not confidential once you begin to work out the policy. Then parliament is entitled to the information, except that when contracts have to be let based on an estimate of the engineer, then in fairness to the people who are tendering, in fairness to the contractor and the engineer, the estimate should be confidential.
I go a step further. Time and again I have asked for papers and reports of engineers in connection with public works by way of motion, and I have got them; but I took very good care not to ask for them until after the tenders had been awarded, because up to that point I felt they were confidential. After the contract is awarded, however, they are no longer confidential.


Richard Bedford Bennett: That is right.


Peter John Veniot: And in that case we are entitled to the information that we are asking for. My hon. friend from Antigonish-Guysborough is entitled to the information he is asking for in connection with public works in Nova Scotia that were not done by tender but by day labour. There is nothing confidential in that. We are entitled to know every item that was spent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am not contending that my hon. friend is not entitled to receive, and he will receive, in connection with any expenditures all the information that is available-the estimates, pay sheets, and everything else. I grant that readily, even without a motion in the house. That is a different thing from' the reports of engineers in connection with works that have not been undertaken, and in respect of which no item has appeared in the estimates.


Peter John Veniot: But where they are intended to be done by day work there is nothing confidential.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It does not
make any difference how they are to be done if they are not included in the program.


Peter John Veniot: You have them in the
estimates. Why cannot we get the details?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Again we are at
cross purposes. I have not declined to bring down reports and recommendations in con-
1380	COMMONS
Supply-Harbours and Rivers-NS.
nection with anything that appears in the estimates. It was only in connection with what was recommended by the engineers and is not in the estimates that I have taken objection.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I asked for information in
connection with general expenditures, and I was denied it. This afternoon I asked the minister if he would specify or detail what this amount of so many thousands of dollars for general expenditures in New Brunswick was for, where the money was to be spent, how, and based on what reports, and the minister told me this afternoon that he could not give me the information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is in connection with an anticipated expenditure.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: It cannot be anticipated
because it is right in the estimates.
Mr. .STEWART (Leeds): It is a possible expenditure, an item put in to cover repairs, the nature and extent and locality of which are not yet known.


Peter John Veniot: How does the minister
know what to put in there, then?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That will not
be known until the architect visits these buildings, ascertains their condition and recommends the necessary repairs. The item is put in there to cover these unknown day to day repairs, some of which spring up entirely unforeseen. How can I give the hon. gentleman particulars of what repairs are going to be required on any public building in New Brunswick next summer?


Peter John Veniot: I did not ask for that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The roof may
be blown off or it may leak. That is the kind of unforeseen expenditure that this item covers.


Peter John Veniot: It is not. The amount put in here is based on the report of the provincial architect to the chief architect.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Peter John Veniot: Then you are guessing.


Mr. STEW  ART@Leeds: I said it was
based on our experience of our requirements in prior years, and that the expenditures this year would be made upon the recommendation of the architect.


Eugène Fiset: It is really a guess based on past expenditure?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is an anticipated expenditure in the next fiscal year.


Peter John Veniot: I asked the minister this
afternoon, and he said it was based on the report of the local architect to the chief architect. Now he assumes another attitude altogether. I have got him in a corner on this, and now he jumps. Now he tells me that is not the case. When was he telling the truth, this afternoon or now?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Peter John Veniot: He told me so and so this
afternoon and he contradicts it to-night. I have a right to ask what part of his statement is the truth. That is not unparliamentary.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There must be some misunderstanding betwen my hon. friend and myself, because the statement I made this afternoon is the one I am making now, or I intended it to be so. The explanation I gave this afternoon was exactly the same as I am giving now, that based on our experience of past years a certain amount was required to make these repairs. The architect estimates what amount will be required this year, as in past years.


Peter John Veniot: Therefore you are going to spend this $200,000 on guesswork based on the experience of last year. You may not spend a cent of it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will be spent on what the engineer finds and reports is necessary after he has visited these works after the spring storms, and after the effects of the winter and ice and all these conditions are known. Then we will make such expenditures, and such expenditures only, as the circumstances render necessary. It is in order that we can meet these unknown and unforeseen expenditures that arise from time to time that we are asking parliament, as it has been asked in previous years for a vote of this character.


William Duff: The minister is getting away
on to the question of the general vote. I am not asking for particulars of how he is going to spend this general vote, whether five hundred or a thousand or two thousand dollajrs is going to be spent here or there as conditions warrant. That is not what I am asking for at all. What I am asking for is a copy of the reports of the engineers specifying the work which they consider necessary in the province of Nova Scotia. I am not even particular as to the amounts. If the amounts should be considered confidential, leave that out. But the minister cannot possibly argue that if he gave me a list of the works which the engin-

Supply-Public Works-Alberta
eers had decided were necessary in the province of Nova Scotia anybody would be hurt.
I go a step further. Where does the minister get these items in the estimates? I know the minister has said that he was not responsible for anything that happened in his department so far as expenditures are concerned, and he wanted me to share the responsibility. In the estimates for 1928-29, for instance, I find an item of $2,500 for repairs to pier, Bailey's Brook. How did the department arrive at that figure that it was necessary to spend $2,500 at Bailey's Brook? Simply because my hon. friend got his car out of the garage and went with the engineer from Halifax down to Bailey's Brook, giving him his lunch on the way. They looked over the work and the engineer decided that $2,500 was all that would be necessary.


Thomas Cantley: The hon member is
working his imagination to death.


William Duff: The engineering department in Halifax then recommended to the department in Ottawa that $2,500 would foe suffi-eent for Bailey's Brook. Surely that cannot be considered as being confidential. If tenders are called for that work the men who put them in knew that $2,500 has been voted and they put in tenders for $2,499, or $2,497, or whatever they feel is right. There is nothing confidential about it. Let me go a little further and take up an item in which I am particularly interested. This is one for $70,000 to cover dredging at Brooklyn, the Mersey Paper Company Limited to contribute one-third of the cost. I might state to the hon. minister that I got that work done after I was defeated in Lunenburg. I did not bear any ill will against my constituents; they did me a good turn when they defeated me in Lunenburg. I came up to Ottawa and got $70,000 and that amount appeared in the estimates. The dredging contractors knew that that amount had been voted and when tenders were called for by the department, the tenderers governed themselves accordingly. Where is there anything confidential about that? I could go right down the whole list and show that there is nothing confidential about any item. My hon. friend from Pictou (Mr. Cantley) has said that I am drawing upon- my imagination, but I venture to say that the hon. member for Pictou, the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Smith); the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone); the hon. member for Richmond-West Cape Breton (Mr. Rhodes); the hon. member for Cape Breton South (Mr. MacDonald) ; the senior member for Halifax
(Mr. Black), the junior member for Halifax (Mr. Quinn) and the hon. member for Queens-Lunenfourg (Mr. Ernst) at least two months ago sent a list of works to the government which the engineers had decided were necessary in the province of Nova Scotia. They intimated to the government what they thought should be spent in the year 1934-35. That information should not be considered as confidential simply because the government did not accept their suggestions. That is where the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) falls down in his argument. The government did not accept the recommendations of the officials and he tried to make out that they would be going over the head of the government if this information was accepted. Why was it not accepted? Because the Minister of Public Works, the ministers of the crown and the treasury board felt that this country could not afford to spend any more than this measly sum which appears in the estimates. It is because of the policy of this government that the country cannot afford to spend more. How can the Prime Minister say that it would be a retrograde step if this information was brought down? I say that we are entitled to it. The people of Nova Scotia should be shown exactly what the engineers, who are paid by the ratepayers, think is necessary to be spent in that province. I say again that that information should not be considered as confidential when items which appear in the estimates are not confidential.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: 'Carried.


William Duff: It is not carried. I want that information and if I cannot get it, I should like the item to stand.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: We will let it stand.
Item stands.
Alberta

Dominion public buildings-improvements and repairs, $15,000.
Edmonton-government's share of cost of local improvements, $1,160.
Edmonton-tractor	for postal purposes,


Mr. BURY:: In connection with the item of $1,160 covering the government's share of cost of local improvements at Edmonton, could the minister advise just what that covers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The government's: share of the cost of an asphalt pavement in front of the old Dominion Lands building on 100th street which is now utilized for armoury purposes.
6S2

Supply-Public Works-Alberta


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: There is nothing to cover the cost of the sewer from the government grain elevator?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I understood that there was to be an item in the estimates to cover this.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Possibly that
will be under Trade and Commerce; they have to do with the elevators.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not rise to criticize this vote, although it is very meagre. The government has explained that it is unable to spend more money this year because of the depression, and I do not want to add anything to what has been said tonight with respect to the depression. If the government's policies were changed I do not think there would be any necessity for such drastic cuts in necessary public service. However, I have another object in view in speaking this evening. Every once in a while someone from eastern Canada takes it upon himself to point out the tremendous costs incurred by the government in western Canada. I ask my hon. friends from eastern Canada to glance through the proposed expenditures for the three prairie provinces. The estimates this year are no different from those of the past thirteen years. I am not so familiar with conditions before that time, but the country was new and the expenditures could not have been heavy. No individual in eastern Canada has the right to say, either publicly or privately, that the government of Canada is making huge expenditures in western Canada. With the single exception of the expenditures for relief, a calamity similar to occurrences in the past in the east, it would be hard to discover expenditures of any great amount. Time and again we are treated to a tirade by people in eastern Canada to the effect that the cost of carrying western Canada is out of all proportion to the cost applicable to the rest of the country. I want to state publicly that for the past thirteen years the 2,000,000 people who live in the western provinces have not had anything like their fair share of expenditure. To-night we have listened to the complaints of hon. gentlemen from the old province of Nova Scotia sitting on both sides of the house. Year after year the eastern provinces have been voted ten times the amount voted to the three prairie provinces. The cost to the federal government of carrying the western provinces has been small compared with the expenditures made in other parts of the country. I exclude British Columbia because 
that province has a coast line and at times heavy expenditures have been made in that connection. Some of these complaints come from the maritime provinces-I do not say they are made by hon. members of this house, but they are made by very influential people. They do not go down very well with us in the west, particularly with those of us who happen to have been acquainted with the estimates for years past and are likely to see them in the future, because we have no rivers, no dredging, no harbours, so that all we get from the federal government-and we are taxpayers equally with the people in the east- is money for repairs to public buildings and once in a while a public building. I can quite imagine that my hon. friend from East Edmonton has made representations. I know that there is necessity for expenditures in the west as well as in the north which is opening up, but we shall not get them; I find in the estimates no appropriations for work of that sort. I rise now to protest against that kind of thing. In the light of these estimates, and of the estimates of previous years, I say that the residents of western Canada have not received anything like their proportionate share of the expenditures voted year by year by the federal government. If you glance at the estimates this year you see that the expenditure is so paltry as hardly to be worth mentioning. I know that representations have been made to the Department of Public Works and to other departments as well for expenditures; but we are told-rather, I1 should say, they are told, because I am not now in the habit of inquiring-that the money cannot be given; the depression is on, and therefore it cannot be done. I venture to say however that when this government changes, as it will change when there is a general election, the depression will not cut much of a figure in the demands that will be made upon the successors of hon. gentlemen now in the government. We shall hear in no uncertain way, when the Liberal government is in office, that money ought to be spent.
I have not a great deal of sympathy with my hon. friend who is getting such a panning to-night, because in former days he was one of the gentlemen who contributed their fair share of the panning of ministers in the previous government. He knows now what the responsibilities are like and he must be prepared for a pretty severe castigation, not only on his own account but for the sins of his fellow members in the government. He and some of his friends were fairly good at criticizing in more prosperous days, and I would submit to him now that the prosperity then

Supply-Public TForfcs-Alberta
was brought about by the fiscal policy of the government of that day. Indeed, had the same fiscal policy been carried into effect by this government there would to-day be a different story to tell. I think now of all the spacious promises made by himself and his leader and other members of the government of what they were going to do for the people of this country. What a wonderful country Canada was going to be; what a wonderful place to live in. But now we hear excuses made on any and every occasion that there is a world depression. There was no world depression in 1930, however; hon. gentlemen never heard of such a thing. All the fault then was the government's. My hon. friends cannot change their argument.
I am amazed as I sit here and watch the performance of hon. gentlemen opposite that in very few particulars have they changed the method of administration in any respect. They are carrying on very much in the way the government whom they succeeded carried on, and day by day they are finding out that after all the old government was not such a poor government, that its methods were not so terribly bad as my hon. friends opposite depicted them. When it comes to administration they have to carry on very much in the same way. They were going to nationalize unemployment, but they have to carry on through the agency of the provincial governments. My hon. friend is spending some money-very little, and it is being reduced- but another agency will spend it and do some of the work formerly performed by the Minister of Public Works.
Taking it all in all, therefore, there is a tremendous difference between sitting on this side and sitting on that side. I must confess that there is great freedom from anxiety over here. There is one gentleman with whom once in a while I do sympathize, and I say that freely, and that is the Minister of Finance. He is the one who has to find the money, and I say to my hon. friends opposite that their policies make it absolutely impossible for him to find it. Year by year he is finding himself in this difficulty, a difficulty every year aggravated. Every year there is a little more cut off expenditures-why? Because we cannot get the revenue, and if there were no election in sight for the next two years this performance would go on, with constantly decreasing revenues. No reference is made to the fact that we are losing over S100,000,000 in customs and excise, though the Minister of Finance knows it. But that is to be made up by direct taxation from some other source. Notwithstanding all the additional taxation, however, we have to admit, when we glance through the estimates, that they are going down, with the result that very much needed services will have to remain in abeyance.
I want to make it perfectly clear that I am ready to take up the cudgels on behalf of my own part of the province, and I say with full assurance that not only are we not getting more than we are entitled to, but we are not getting our fair share. Perhaps I must take my share of the responsibility as well as anyone else, but the fact remains that every western member should take up the cudgels on this question, because it is so irritating at times when we read in the press, or hear, such statements as have been made. I do know that the gentleman who made the statement when he came to Ottawa took it back. I have no desire to raise any question about east versus west, but statements of that kind are not true.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend confines his remarks to this item, certainly it does appear small and insignificant. But I submit that it is not quite fair for him to limit his observations to, and to base them on, an item such as this. We must look at the whole picture. When he speaks of large expenditures for harbours, undoubtedly the part of the country for which he has spoken so forcefully reaps a benefit from those expenditures, notwithstanding that they are made in other provinces. How would the west market grain if it were not for harbour improvements in British Columbia and at the head of the lakes?


Charles A. Stewart: No one
complains about dredging in Vancouver harbour.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Vancouver is
not the only one; there is New Westminster, and grain goes out through that port. And when you take railway expenditures into consideration, possibly my hon. friend will find some compensation in this direction. He may find some compensation when he surveys the whole field. I admit that the amount is small.


Mr. QBRSHAW:: Under this item I wish to call the attention of the minister to the fact that if a program of public works is undertaken, post offices throughout the rural parts of the country should certainly come in for consideration. M'any of them are poorly equipped, without any waiting rooms, and with inadequate protection for the mails. I know that the postmasters have often to provide buildings themselves, but in many instances their salaries have been reduced and

Supply-Public Works-Ottawa
it is impossible for them to do so. We have in Medicine Hat a rather large government building which houses the post office and the customs as well as the health of animals branch, and it has been pointed out to me that that fine building is in need of repairs in several ways-not that any great amount of money should be spent, but it does require certain repairs to keep it in shape. I heard the minister say that the architects visit those places once in a while. How often does an architect visit such a point and is there enough money in this appropriation to provide whatever repairs are needed?
Mr. -STEWART (Leeds):	We have the
Dominion of Canada divided up into districts for engineering and architectural purposes. The resident architect at Regina would cover the territory referred to by my hon. friend. If the postmaster or the janitor or any other occupant of the building reports that repairs are needed, or if representations to that effect come from my hon. friend, the matter would at once be referred to the architect and he would investigate and make his report. This item is provided for the purpose of taking care of just such repairs as my hon. friend mentions. The architect does not visit all buildings regularly or at any specified time, but reports are sent to him in the way I have indicated.


Frederick William Gershaw: I would be glad if the minister would have a note of that taken because it has been brought to my attention.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Every suggestion made as reported in Hansard will be carefully reviewed.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Rents, Repairs, Furniture, Heating, Etc. Ottawa public buildings and grounds-
Elevator attendants, $109,000.
Departments generally-char service, including $135 to E. Snowden for firing the noon gun, $408,000.	_	.
Heating, including salaries of engineers, firemen and watchmen, $405,000.
Light and power, including roads and bridges, $185,000.	_	,
Repairs, improvements, additions and maintenance, $377,000.
Rideau Hall-allowance for fuel and light, $19,000.
Rideau Hall-improvements, furniture and maintenance, $40,700.
Telephone service, $82,500.
Water, $68,000.
Charles A. Stewart: Does this
item cover all the improvements at Rideau Hall or is some other department doing work there?
fMr. Gershaw.l


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The only items I notice are for fuel and light, $19,000, and for improvements, furniture and maintenance, $40,700.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon.
friend's department did not construct that fence. That is what drew my attention to the matter. By whom was that built? Who pays for it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The federal
district commission undertook that work and they pay for it out of their appropriation.


Mr. RHODES:: From the vote to the commission.


Charles A. Stewart: I presume
that would be a permanent improvement. Do they do anything else?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They look after the grounds.


Charles A. Stewart: Maintenance of grounds?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Charles A. Stewart: Has the
minister any idea as to the cost?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; if my hon. friend would make a note of the question, he could refer to it when the estimates of the federal district commission are before the house; this -matter does not come under my department.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It is just
within the last year, is it not, that the maintenance of Rideau Hall grounds and improvements thereto have been placed under the federal district commission? Hitherto, they were under the Department of Public Works.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My right hon.
friend is quite correct. I think this is the second year the commission has had charge of that work. They were given it owing -to the fact that they have the necessary equipment and it was felt that the fact they are carrying on similar work of this character made them better qualified.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It also has the effect of showing a saving in the minister's estimates.


Charles A. Stewart: This was
drawn to my attention just yesterday and as a matter of fact I said it could not be true, but I find now on inquiry that it is true, that the government has divided the work on Rideau Hall and that the actual cost of keeping up that institution is now divided

Supply-Public Works
between, the federal district commission and the Department of Public Works. Was there any particular reason other than that, as the minister says, the commission has special equipment? It would not have equipment for the maintenance of the grounds.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, to care for the driveways and all that sort of work, for instance, removal of snow. They can do it more cheaply than we can. What we felt was that with the special equipment they have for the care of driveways, they could take care of this work at the same time.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not want to be critical of the change, but it seems to be rather poor policy to divide work of that kind. The erection of a fence is certainly as much a matter for the Department of Public Works as for the federal district commission, because they would have no special equipment for erecting iron fences. As regards the maintenance of the driveways and the grounds, this is the same sort of work as the Department of Public Works is doing around this and other public buildings. I cannot quite agree with the minister that the government are saving any money by the change. It is work identical with that which is being carried out by the Department of Public Works and to divide it among three or four departments certainly does not tend to cheapen the cost. If the work were concentrated in one department, that would have a tendency to cheapen the cost.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I agree that duplication is likely to increase expense. One reason the work is given to one organization is that it may be in time they will also be given the care of the grounds round the parliament buildings; I am not, however, suggesting that that will be done.


Charles A. Stewart: If the government turns over to the cominission the care of the grounds all around Ottawa, there would be some strength in the argument, but that is not the case. The Department of Public Works have the equipment and they must have the men to do this work. I do not see how this change is going to lessen the cost.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: In justice to the commission and its work, it ought to be appreciated that a large percentage of the amount voted for the commission really goes to carry out work formerly undertaken by the Department of Public Works. Last year, out of a total of $55,000 provided for
the maintenance and equipment of properties under the control of the commission, over $44,000 was spent on improvements to the grounds at (Rideau Hall. I mention this because it would be unfair, when we come to discuss the item for the federal district commission, to assume that the commission is getting a large amount for general work. It is really getting a large amount for that particular work which formerly was under the minister's department.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Dominion public buildings-
Dominion immigration buildings-repairs, improvements, additions and furniture, $10,000.
Dominion quarantine stations-maintenance and repairs, $13,600.
Fittings, general supplies and furniture,
[Stage Direction]
Heating. $420,000.
Light and power, $333,000.
Rents, $1,600,000.
Salaries of caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $1,030,000.
Supplies for caretakers, engineers, firemen, etc., $45,000.
Water, $75,000.
Yukon public buildings-rents, repairs, fuel, light, water service, and caretakers' salaries, $20,000.
Thomas Reid: As regards the item of $1,600,000 for rents, is that for rental of buildings throughout Canada?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, that is
throughout the whole of 'Canada where we have rentals.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Prince Edward island-
Essential undertaking-
Victoria-additional warehouse accommodation, $2,700.
Harbours and rivers generally-for maintenance of services, no new works to be undertaken, $50,000.
Mr.   MacLBAN@Prince: This item, like the others for the maritime provinces and also the rest of Canada, has been reduced drastically. There is only one item in the whole estimate for Prince Edward Island and the total is $52,700. I wish to draw attention to the fact that in 1928-29 the estimate was $229,800 and in 1927-28 it was $339,800. So far as public works are concerned the estimates for the province of Prince Edward Island have been cut out almost entirely. I need not tell the committee that of all the provinces of Canada perhaps Prince Edward Island has a coast line which involves the greatest number of public works, but these have been allowed to fall into decay very rapidly in the past few years. As the hon. member for Antigon-ish-Guysborough said, we need assistance for

Supply-Public Works-P.E.I.
our fishermen, and the only assistance we can give is to provide them with facilities in the way of harbours and landings.
There is one matter to which I would like to direct the attention of the committee. The estimates presented by my good friend the Minister of Finance the second day of the session are no more the estimates for this dominion than that telephone directory is out in the lobby. We have had the information, perhaps by way of accident, from a good many hon. gentlemen opposite as to what is the situation. We know that two or three months before the session opened there were demands from every city and town across the country asking this government to cut down on expenditures, and when the estimates were tabled great headlines appeared in the press from coast to coast saying the estimates hadi been reduced by 817,000,000. But our friends from Nova Scotia say: "Wait until the supplementary estimates are brought down; then wc will be floating on top of the ocean." They say these do not begin to be the estimates for 1934.
I want to point out that the Minister of Finance has not played fair with the country. If we are to have supplementary estimates that will wipe out the S17,000,000 which he said he was saving, it is absolutely unfair to the people of Canada. I think the estimates should have contained every item of expenditure contemplated by the government so that each item could be brought down in the house and passed in the regular way. We do not know how this tremendous amount of new money is to be expended. Some say it is to be a blank cheque; some say it is to be expended under the peace, order and good government legislation, while some say it will be in the supplementary estimates. At all events there is nothing in the estimates for the county I represent, and very little for the counties represented by my hon. friends opposite.
The question I want to ask the minister is whether any representations have been made to him with regard to the warehouses on the wharf at Summerside, Prince Edward Island, and whether a request has been made for the construction of a heated warehouse at that point for the handling of potatoes and other products.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think some
representations were made in connection with the government taking over the Canadian National Railways warehouse. As to the amount in the estimates for Prince Ediward

Island, of course it is small but I think my hon. friend will find that it is only in keeping with the estimates for the other provinces.. With regard to his fears as to the supplementary estimates and further expenditures,. I can only invite him to be patient and wait and see. If any action is taken along: that line, he will have an opportunity, as all others will have, to set forth his views and express his claims. We have always had supplementary estimates since I have been in this house, and there may be some this-year; I cannot say.
Mr. MaicLEAN:	A portion of that wharf
has been taken over and maintained by your department, but on that wharf we have a couple of potato warehouses. This year, however, a great deal of trouble was experienced in loading and housing the' potatoes in those buildings, because of frost. A request has been made by the board of trade and other organizations of Summerside asking that some improvements be made there in order that these buildings might be heated so that potatoes could be shipped in colder weather than is possible at present. I hope that if there are supplementary estimates, as we have been led to believe, a sufficient amount will be included to take care of these very necessary repairs.
There are other repairs all around the county that I could enumerate by the score; I could point out many places where money should have been expended this year, and I hope that when the supplementary estimates are brought down these very much needed repairs will not be overlooked.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Peter John Veniot: Before the committee rises I should like to remind the minister that I submitted a request, by way of a motion, for the production of certain papers in connection with the Shippigan wharf. If that report has been submitted I have had no knowledge of it. I wish the minister would have it ready when his estimates come up again.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will inquire and see that it is brought down as soon as possible.


Peter John Veniot: I cannot discuss the matter intelligently unless I have that information.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 10.10 p.m.

King Albert oj Belgium
Monday, February 19, 1934