1935-05-23

[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. U. G. BURY (East Edmonton) presented the second report of the select standing committee on standing orders, and moved that the report be concurred in.
Motion agreed to.

Right Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister) moved:: That when this house adjourns this day it stand adjourned until Monday the 27 th instant.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there must be unanimous consent before this motion can pass. I made a protest yesterday against this proposed adjournment. We have had almost a five weeks' adjournment, from April 17 to May 20, and I think that was sufficiently long for the members of this par-

liament who come here from all parts of this country from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the northern parts of Ontario and Quebec and as far south as the international boundary, to do the business of this country. While of course it may be convenient for a few members of this house to have the house adjourn to-night so that they can go back to then-homes and their families, it is not quite fair to those of us who have to stay here in Ottawa right through to-morrow, Saturday and Sunday, and until the house meets again on Monday. It seems to me, sir, that under all the circumstances this motion should not carry.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Mr. Speaker, on page 7 of the orders of the day the notice of motion appears under government notices of motion, and I merely move it now as a matter of convenience. It does not require the unanimous consent of the house.


William Duff: Mr. Speaker, I say that yesterday it did not appear on the orders of the day but in the votes and proceedings, and under the rules the motion must be on the order paper forty-eight hours before we can dispose of it.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I gave verbal notice of it yesterday.


William Duff: That is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think it is.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I am of the opinion that it does require unanimous consent. Rule 45 says:
Forty-eight hours' notice shall be given of a motion for leave to present a bill, resolution or address,
and so forth, and:
Such notice shall be laid on the table before six o'clock p.m., and be printed in the votes and proceedings of that day.
That is, to-day, and therefore in my judgment the motion can only be moved by unanimous consent.


William Duff: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Prime Minister and I can make a compromise. I realize the heavy burden which he and other members of the house are carrying, although I do not place myself in that category, and in consideration of that and especially in view of the fact that I always thought a great deal of Queen Victoria, I am willing to waive my objection under certain conditions. We have been sitting in this parliament since January 17,

Industrial Disputes
less the five weeks' adjournment, and if the Prime Minister will be good enough to make a compromise with me and move that from next Wednesday until the close of this session we shall sit on Wednesday evenings I shall be very glad to withdraw my objection so that the holiday can be observed to-morrow.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I am sorry that I can agree to no condition of that character. If the hon. member persists in his objection, the motion will have to stand.


Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: May I say to the hon. member who has just spoken (Mr. Duff) that realizing the position of the ministry in connection with new legislation to be introduced and other matters to be considered, I felt that the government would probably be in the best position to know what would serve to expedite the business of the session and accordingly said the other day that I thought it could be left to the government to decide whether or not we would sit on Friday. I stated at that -time, I thought with the approval of hon. members, that whatever the government might decide would be acceptable to this side of the house. Under the circumstances I hope my hon. friend will see his way to agree with the motion and abide by the decision of the government.


William Duff: I am a good soldier and I will follow my leader.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. P. A. SEGUI.N (Translation) (L'As-somption-Montcalm): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to lay on the table of the house resolutions from the municipal councils of various parishes of the riding of L'Assomp-tion-Montcalm, which I have the privilege to represent, requesting the abolition of the 6 per cent sales tax on vegetables canned by the farmers' cooperative societies carrying on no business other than the marketing of the products of their members.
It is natural that, in these difficult times, the farming class should receive from the government all possible assistance. It is highly important that this tax on farm products be removed.
These various resolutions have been adopted by the municipal councils of the parishes of
St. Paul l'Ermite, Lachenaie, St. Roch de l'Achigan, Sainte-Marie-Salomee, Chertsey and St. Donat. They are addressed to the government, to the ministers and to the members of the House of Commons.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Would the hon. member be good enough to let this matter stand until I have had an opportunity to look into it?



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice, for the Minister of Trade and Commerce) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 70 to amend the Weights and Measures Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. GUTHRIE:: This bill contains a number of amendments to the present Weights and Measures Act. It provides for the establishment of certain standards to be known as dominion standards; it prescribes certain weights and fixes the measurement of a cord of wood; it contains certain provisions in accordance with the recommendations made by the price spreads commission and it provides also for increases in penalties for infractions of certain of the sections of the act as well as of the new sections.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: Does it
cover short weights of coal?


Hugh Guthrie: Yes, short weights generally.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice, for the Minister of Labour) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 71 to amend the Industrial Disputes Investigation Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Hugh Guthrie: This bill seeks to carry
into effect certain of the recommendations made in the report of the price spreads commission. In certain cases it gives the Minister of Labour the power to bring the act into operation with or without any complaint or order of the board. It increases the power given to the Minister of Labour and is confined to industries subject to the legislative jurisdiction of the parliament of Canada.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
Criminal Code Amendment



LIVE STOCK AND PRODUCTS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 72 to amend the Live Stock and Live Stock Products Act.
He said: The purpose of this bill is to give effect to certain recommendations that have been made in the report of the royal commission on price spreads and which have not been taken care of by legislation already on the statute books. This bill provides that the yards of the packing companies may be brought within the regulations governing public stockyards and in that respect under the supervision of the Department of Agriculture. The bill provides that in cooperation with the provinces, all truckers may be brought under supervision and control. Provision is also made for a more complete inspection of live stock and live stock products.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 73 to amend the criminal code.
He said: As the house is aware, there is a short bill now before it to amend the criminal code and it is intended to consolidate that bill and the present one as they proceed through the house. To some extent the present bill is in the nature of an omnibus bill. It seeks to bring into effect some of the requests that are made from time to time from various parts of Canada for amendments to the code. It provides that the Minister of Agriculture may make recommendations by regulation to be submitted to the governor in council in regard to pari mutuel betting on race tracks. It provides, in the case of motor cars being driven by persons who are intoxicated, that there be no suspension of sentence. At the present time in some parts of Canada magistrates take the view that they are entitled to suspend sentence notwithstanding that they find the party guilty. There is a clause to prevent fraud in regard to the application for and the securing of passports. Then follow three clauses-4, 5 and 6-providing new offences and penalties, arising out of the report of the price spreads commission. I direct particular attention to these clauses because, with respect to one or two subclauses, there may be some constitutional doubt which we can discuss when the bill comes before the house. The other clauses are more or less technical. There is one relating to the jurisdiction of police magistrates in cities of over 25,000; another in

regard to the custody of insane persons in prisons, reformatories and penitentiaries; another providing for appeal by the provincial attorneys general to the Supreme Court of Canada, or to clarify the present section in regard thereto; and another one in regard to the fees which are allowed to justices of the peace.
Mr. LAPOINTE:: To which of these
amendments does the hon. gentleman refer as one in regard to which perhaps there may be some doubt respecting constitutionality?
Mr. 'GUTHRIE:	Sections 4, 5 and 6 are
introduced to carry out the recommendations of the price spreads commission and there seems to be some doubt about paragraph
(a)	of section 6 and paragraph (b) of section 6. The first one makes provision with respect to discrimination in trade. The bill as drawn provides:
Every person engaged in trade or commerce or industry is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a penalty not exceeding one thousand dollars or to one month's imprisonment, or, if a corporation, to a penalty not exceeding five thousand dollars, who
(a)	is a party or privy to, or knowingly assists in, any transaction of sale which discriminates against competitors of the purchaser in that any discount, rebate or allowance is granted to the purchaser over and above any discount, rebate or allowance granted to the aforesaid competitors in respect of a sale of goods of a similar quality and quantity;
(b)	engages in a policy of selling goods in any area of Canada at prices lower than those exacted by such seller elsewhere in Canada, for the purpose of destroying competition or eliminating a competitor in such part of Canada;
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



PRIVATE BELL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 65 for the relief of Isabelle Hume Sadlier Rice.-Mr. Garland (Carleton).

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

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Who is the postmaster at Riviere Fourchue, province of Quebec, since the month of August, 1930?
2.	Did the postmaster who was in charge, April 8, 1935, tender his resignation?
3.	If so, was it accepted, who is his successor and on whose Torommendation was he appointed?

Questions
Mr. SAUVE':
1.	Oscar Blier, appointed on September 4, 1930, tendered his resignation on November 6, 1933, and was replaced by Lorenzo Masse, who was appointed on December 1, 1933.
2.	No.
3.	See answer to No. 2.


ST. ANTONIN, QUE., POST OFFICE
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Did Mr. Amedee Jean, postmaster of St. Antonin, tender his resignation?
2.	If so, has his successor been appointed?
3.	What is his name?
4.	Did the Post Office Department receive recommendations in favour of a new postmaster in the village of St. Antonin since 1935?
5.	If so, when, from whom, and in favour of whom?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	No.
2 and 3. See answer to No. 1.
4.	No.
5.	See answer to No. 4.


BRITISH IMPORTS OF CANADIAN PRODUCTS
Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Were and are there any quotas affecting British imports of Canadian products?
2.	If so (a) since when; (b) what were they each year for each Canadian product; (e) what were the Canadian shipments to Great Britain each year in accordance with each quota; (d) what are they now?


Mr. BENNETT:: 1.	Yes; bacon and hams, oats and oat products.
2.	(a) Bacon and hams since August, 1932; oats and oat products since August, 1933; (b) Article 6 of the Canada-United Kingdom agreement assured free entry into the United Kingdom of bacon and hams of good quality up to a maximum of 2,500,000 cwt. (280,000,000 pounds) per annum for the term of the agreement.
An arrangement entered into on July 28, 1933, provided increase of United Kingdom customs duty on foreign oats and oat products to 20 per cent ad valorem or an equivalent specific duty on condition that exports from Canada of oats and oat products in the year beginning A'ugust 1, 1933, would not exceed 2,000,000 long owt. (6,588230 bushels) and
570,000	long cwt. (63,840,000 pounds) respectively. It was understood that not more than half the allocation for oat products would be comprised of oat products shipped in sacks as distinct from cased goods. This arrangement was renewed in terms for one year from August 1, 1934.
(c)	Exports of bacon and hams to United Kingdom for fiscal years ending March 31 were: 1933, 36,606,700 pounds; 1934, 94,559,700 pounds, and 1935, 127,052,900 pounds.
Exports of oats from Canada to the United Kingdom from August 1, 1933, to July 31, 1934, amounted to 4,545,006 bushels and from August 1, 1934, to April 30, 1935, amounted to 5,814,613 bushels.
Exports of oatmeal and rolled oats to the United Kingdom from August 1, 1933, to July 31, 1934, were 44,531,000 pounds. From August 1, 1934, to April 30, 1935, they were
35,374,000	pounds.
(d)	Answered by (c).


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: 1.	How many applicants received certificates of naturalization in 1934?
2.	How many applicants were refused on grounds of lack of adequate knowledge of English or French?
3.	How many were refused for other reasons, stating reasons?
4.	What was the average length of residence of the various applicants? What was the average length of residence of the applicants who were refused naturalization on grounds of language difficulties, and for other reasons?


Mr. CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.


LOAN FLOTATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Richard Bedford Bennett: I should have said, "which are callable on six months' notice." If I said, "at an early date," I intended to say were callable on six months' notice.


WHEAT CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. F. DONNELLY (Willow Bunch):: I notice in the press that the international wheat conference opened yesterday in London, England. May I ask the Prime Minister who our representatives are.


Richard Bedford Bennett: I think the representation has been arranged in the high commissioner's office. That is my memory, but I will verify it.


CANADIAN SILVER DOLLAR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. THOMAS REID (New Westminster):: In the absence of the Minister of Finance I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house as to the total issue of new Canadian silver dollars authorized up to the present time? Further, in view of the great demand for these, is the government contemplating authorizing further amounts?


Richard Bedford Bennett: Having received no notice of the question, I shall have to speak subject to correction. The first issue authorized, 100,000, has been exhausted. The second 100,000 is being proceeded with and as long as there is demand for them the silver dollar will be issued.


UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. HURTUBISE (Nipissing):: I have certain questions to direct to the Minister of Labour or in his absence to the Prime Minister. These questions are based on a telegram just received from the mayor of Sudbury:
Unless some relief work started in road camps here sure to be trouble. Some one thousand men congregated at relief office yesterday seeking assistance. Was in touch with Hon. D. A. Croll also Hon. P. Heenan by wire and they replied to effect that unless federal government assists impossible for camps to reopen. Will you please intercede?
The second part of the telegram reads;
Will you please ascertain from the government what they contemplate in the housing scheme as the housing situation here very acute. Will appreciate reply.
My questions are: first, has the government taken any steps to assist in providing work

for those men? Second, will the government take any steps to assist in relieving the housing situation in Sudbury?


Richard Bedford Bennett: The federal government makes a large monthly payment to Ontario to assist that province in the discharge of its obligations in respect to unemployment.
With respect to the second question I suggest that my hon. friend advise his correspondent that he does not know; that he has endeavoured to ascertain but he cannot do so for the intention of the government as to the housing matter is not yet known and will not be until they have had a full opportunity to consider the report of the committee of the house and upon it frame legislation which has not yet been brought to the attention of the house.


Joseph Raoul Hurtubise: How much does the
government contribute to Ontario in that regard?


Mr BENNETT:: As to the exact figure I
have confusion in my mind as between Quebec and Ontario. I will communicate to the hon. gentleman what the figure is. My recollection is that it is $600,000.


Mr. POWER:: That is for Quebec, a month.


Richard Bedford Bennett: Then it is $750,000 a
month in the case of Ontario. It is a larger sum based on population.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): As one of the private members of the house with very much concern as to when the session is to end, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the bills foreshadowed on to-day's orders of the day contain all the "new deal" set forth in the ethereal message that preceded the speech from the throne last January?
Richard Bedford Bennett: There is no reason why the hon.
gentleman should be offensive merely because he asks a question. The leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) speaks for the party opposite, and I explained' to him, in answer to a question which he very courteously asked the other day, just what the position was with respect to the legislation. I informed him that just as soon as I was in a position to make known to the house the further legislation it was proposed to introduce, I would do so. I might say that offensive observations from a private member

Privilege-Mr. Sauve
do not add to the strength of a party which is so ably led by the right hon. gentleman opposite.
LABOUR CONFERENCE On the orders of the day:


Ernest Lapointe: The press reports that the delegates of Canada to the international labour conference have sailed and one of them gave an interview outlining the program and mentioning the draft convention which is going to be considered there with regard to a forty hour week. I would like to know whether the delegates of the government of Canada have received instructions as to which stand they are going to take on that draft convention?


Richard Bedford Bennett: No instructions have as yet been
given.
UNEMPLOYED RETURNED SOLDIERS On the orders of the day:


Charles Gavan Power: The Minister of Pensions and National Health is not in his place. May I ask the government when we may expect to have the report of the Hyndman commission on unemployed returned soldiers and whether it is proposed to bring down legislation in connection therewith?


Richard Bedford Bennett: So far as I know, it has not yet been received.
PRIVILEGE-MR. SAUVE On the orders of the day:


Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) :: On a question of privilege I wish to
give some explanation respecting what the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) said yesterday, trying to incriminate me personally as having done something wrong or dishonest in the execution of works on the Riviere Jesus. I wish to establish that nothing is wrong in my conduct and that my conscience is clear. May I be permitted to express my regret that such an insinuation was made against me after my twenty-eight years of public life?
The dredging of the Riviere du Chene was made at the repeated1 requests of the municipal authorities of St. Eustache and of the riparian farmers, and this without opposition, as it appears in a resolution passed by the municipal council of the village of St. Eustache on August 4, 1932, and also in a resolution passed by the municipal council of the county of Two Mountains on August 10, 1932.
The amount of $32,000, of which the hon. member for Temiscouata has spoken, was spent not only at the mouth of the Riviere du Chene but over a mile in the river. The spoil of the river was placed on the adjoining land with the consent of the riparian owners less one: I refused to sign the document with other petitioners, but I did not object.
In regard to the spoil placed on the small island which I bought for $100 ten years ago so that I might cut trees which obstructed the view of the Riviere Jesus, as I had a right to do, it was placed there in the same way as it was placed elsewhere, because it would have been too expensive to carry it further, and this was done without any benefit or advantage to me. I objected to this spoil being placed around the island, which is a small one, because it would have enlarged it and also narrowed one of the outlets of the river. The spoil and the boulders placed on the island have made a confused accumulation which has depreciated the poor value of this little property of half an acre square. Last fall, after the work was done, I myself paid men for many days for the purpose of improving the appearance, but without success. I invite any hon. member to visit St. Eustache where he will be welcome, and see the situation, for I am sure he will admit that I am right and that it is ridiculous and mean to denounce me for such a small matter.
The engineers of the department have reported in view of other dredgings which were to be undertaken by the federal and provincial governments, that the dredging at the mouth of the Riviere du Chene should be undertaken to facilitate the flow of the Riviere du Chene into the Riviere Jesus. Similar works were done in this river nearly thirty years ago.
Knowing the needs of the locality, I considered that in the circumstances I had not to object to the demands of the citizens of the village as formulated by the municipal council and that I had not to sell my property on account of these works or to place elsewhere the unfortunate island.
I ask permission to give Hansard copies of both these municipal resolutions that I have mentioned in the course of my remarks.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. minister may not put the resolutions on the record in the manner proposed.


Arthur Sauvé: I can read them?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: If the hon. minister will permit I would point out that the debate on this measure will I assume continue this
Public Works Program

afternoon as intimated yesterday, and he will have opportunity then of placing the resolutions on the record in the regular way.


Arthur Sauvé: I have no objection.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Wednesday, May 22, consideration in committee of Bill No. 63, to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)- Mr. Morand in the chair.
On schedule A, item 9-Harbours and rivers generally, $2,500,000.
Mr. POULIOT:: I have been most lenient with the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). I could have objected to his question of privilege, because it was not a question of privilege. My remarks will be made in a very moderate tone, in view of the fact that the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) has given me most of the available information on the matter, and he knows that personally I have a high regard for him. One thing that I have appreciated in the remarks of the Postmaster General is that he has largely confirmed what I have said. He is the owner of an island, which he purchased ten years ago for $100. The amount he paid is none of our business. But what interests us is the amount of public money which has been spent in digging and filling there. It would be an extravagance to spend $1,000 for a property which is worth only $100. But the committee will learn through the Minister of Public Works himself what amount of public money has been spent in digging and filling around the island which belongs to the Postmaster General. I wonder if it is "Treasure island." But after we are through with the matter the committee will see that it is not a virgin island.
I am sure that the Minister of Public Works has the file relating to this expenditure since 1930, as he has already given it to the house in a sessional paper. Let us go back to the first of October, 1930. At page 289 of the return No. 350C of May 20, that is Monday last, there is shown an expenditure of $5,000 for hand dredging at the mouth of the du Chene river to remove rocks. May I ask the Minister of Public Works if that money was spent under and by virtue of the act of 1931?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I am sorry that with the conversation that is going on I did not get the first part of my hon. friend's question. Will he repeat it?


Jean-François Pouliot: I am referring to the file, sessional paper 350C, reference 259. I draw attention to the last page of it, there is mentioned an expenditure of $5,000 for hand dreg-ing at tlhe Riviere du Chene to remove rocks. Was that money expended that year or while that act was in force?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This item was
not expended under the Public Works Construction Act of last year. It was expended out of a general vote partly.


Jean-François Pouliot: The answer of the minister is correct, because according to the letter of the Chief engineer that money was spent. Let us come now to 1932, page 285.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think that item was spent under the provisions of the Unemployment and Farm Relief Act, 1931.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is immaterial. I am
checking the amount of expenditure, because the Postmaster General has said it was a little thing. I want to know the amount that has been spent. We have $5,000. Now at pages 285-6, a report from the district engineer to the chief engineer, dated May 13, there is another expenditure of $3,234. Was that money expended on the same thing?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is impossible
to allocate to any particular area any item of expenditure. This work was done as a whole, covering approximately a mile at .the mouth of this river. The total amount expended was somewhere about $32,000 as given to my hon. friend, but to say what amount was spent in any particular section is impossible. That is the total expenditure. The work was done as a whole and not on a yardage basis.


Jean-François Pouliot: Therefore that money,
$3,234 was spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is part of the expenditure that year in that area of a mile long.


Jean-François Pouliot: In that vicinity. Now
there is at page 281 another amount of $14,000 about a sewage system in that vicinity. It relates to removing fifty private sewer pipes. So up to now we have an amount of $8,234 for 1931-32, and the report of this district engineer to the chief engineer reads as follows:
I beg to let you know that with the money available for the unemployment relief we started to drill and blast a channel at the junction of Riviere du Chene with Riviere Jesus.... The balance of the appropriation

Public Works Program
was spent to complete the study of Riviere du Chene, and also in making a complete study of the sewerage system of St. Eustaehe which empties now into that part of Riviere du Chene which is needed to be dredged. In order to permit the dredging as far as the dam where navigation ceases to exist, it will be necessary to remove some fifty private sewer pipes which empty into this river, and which pollute this river....
All these surveys were rushed to completion during the last weeks of February in order to secure all the information that was necessary in order to permit a complete report on the drainage of this county, and the full appropriation of $14,000 was used up in securing the necessary information.
May I ask the minister if that sum of
814,000	was spent in connection with fifty private sewers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not the
report before me but I am sure my hon. friend is not interpreting it properly. There was no such expenditure made in connection with private sewers at all. That is the total expenditure in that area.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not understand the
wording of the letter:
The full appropriation of $14,000 was used up in securing the necessary information.
Was the sum of 814,000 used by the Department of Public Works to get some information in connection with those sewers?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, that is not the meaning of the report at all. The expenditures in the different years were as follows: for 1931-32, 84,955.26, out of the unemployment and farm relief vote; for 1932-33, S10,271.38, out of the general vote; for 1933-34, 817,561.87, out of the general vote. That makes up the 832,000 to which my hon. friend refers. That was the cost of all the work done in that area of a mile or so in length, including surveys, dredging and all the work done up to that time.


Jean-François Pouliot: This shows more than the minister mentioned at page 2375 of Hansard where he said the total cost was only 818,139.81. Actually it was 814,000 more, but let us proceed a little further. Will the minister admit that the expenditure for that work was first intended for the improvement of the sewage system?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it was to
improve the navigation of the river for about a mile from its mouth, to take care of an increased flow of water brought about at that point by work done in cooperation between the province and the dominion, and to improve the channel. The work above the
dam cost about $47,000, which was contributed equally by the province of Quebec and the dominion.


Jean-François Pouliot: We will come to that later on. Now I want to know from the hon. gentleman why the sewage question was referred to by his department if it was actually of no importance. I cannot understand that.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The only reason for reference to the sewage system was that in the dredging that was done the outflow of these sewers would be interfered with, so the question had to be taken into consideration. That was all.


Jean-François Pouliot: At page 266 of the same return an expenditure of $55,000 is mentioned. May I ask the hon. gentleman if that money was expended later on, in that same locality?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The estimated cost of the work above the dam was as my hon. friend has stated from the report, as I recall it, about $55,000. The work was performed for about $46,000 or 847,000.


Jean-François Pouliot: That was a joint expenditure by the federal government and the province of Quebec?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly.


Jean-François Pouliot: At page 263 of the return I find the following communication from the chief engineer to the Deputy Minister of Public Works, dated May 31, 1932:
To complete the above scheme of improvements in Riviere du Chene, it would be necessary to improve also Riviere du Prince, Riviere du Sud and Belle Riviere, but the district engineer advises that the expense of carrying on these further improvements will not be very great, and he will be able to report further in the matter very shortly.
May I ask the minister if the true construction of this letter is this: after that dredging was done in Riviere du Chene, other work had to be done at Riviere du Prince, Riviere du Sud and Belle Riviere, and if that work had not been done in Riviere du Chene the further work would not have been required at these other three places?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is quite the other way around. The works to which my hon. friend now refers are those beyond the area in which work was done in cooperation with the province of Quebec. These works are further up the stream, probably a mile up from the dam. That work has not been undertaken as yet; the province of Quebec has not agreed to assume half the cost of improving
Public Works Program

the tributaries of the river above the dam, but the work that is to be done has no connection whatever with the work that was done at the mouth of the Riviere du Chene, and is not in any way caused by it. It is much further up the stream.


Jean-François Pouliot: Did the minister take this matter under consideration at the request of anyone else than the Postmaster General, at first? Who first spoke to the minister about it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The request for this work was received from the municipality.


Jean-François Pouliot: The minister knows this
plan which I hold in my hand in which is shown that famous island to which I have already referred.


Arthur Sauvé: That is the blueprint.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, I would
ask the Postmaster General to be decent enough not to interrupt, but to treat this matter seriously because it is a serious matter. I ask him to keep quiet until I am through, and then I shall be very much surprised if the Prime Minister decides to appoint him to the Senate as he has decided to do; in fact I will challenge the Prime Minister then to appoint him. I would ask the Postmaster General not to get excited and not to pose as a martyr, and then after I am through I will challenge the Prime Minister to appoint him to the Senate in defiance of the wishes of the people of Canada. I ask him to keep quiet and wait patiently, and then when I am through he certainly will be through. I serve that as a notice to him. I would like his electors of Two Mountains to be here in the gallery to see the light way in which the Postmaster General considers the expenditure of public money on a property which belongs to himself and what it has cost this country to give a value of over $30,000 to a small island for which the Postmaster General paid only $100.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not care.


Jean-François Pouliot: I know he does not care,
and that is why I care so much, Mr. Chairman. I am sorry for him.


Arthur Sauvé: I do not change my judgment for your sake.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, the more
the Postmaster General speaks the deeper he gets himself into the hole. Here I have the plan, Mr. Chairman, showing the island in the middle of that yellow and red ribbon. It shows the dredging which has been done
rMr. H. A. Stewart.]
around .the island. May I ask the hon. Minister of Public Works if a small stream which is less than one foot deep in most places can be considered as a navigable river under the jurisdiction of the federal government?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Conditions at
the mouth of a river, as my hon. friend knows, change from time to time, and very often we find that a river that is undoubtedly navigable and has been navigable for years, becomes filled up with silt and sediment which becomes so spread out that there is comparatively a very, very shallow depth of water over a wide area. Work was done many years ago on this section of the river. The depth of water at a particular time does not determine the character of a river so far as navigation is concerned. We have to dredge every year to keep open the mouths of rivers that are undoubtedly navigable and which become silted up. The engineer says that up to the dam this is a navigable river. That is the point at which the dredging ceased.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the hon. gentleman is
so sure that the federal government has any jurisdiction there how is it that his department has given instructions to the engineer there, according to the return, to get in touch with the riparian owners in order to get their consent before any rocks can be put on their land.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I could answer
my hon. friend by saying that a river although navigable does not give the crown the right when it dredges that stream to deposit spoil on the adjoining land of a riparian owner, and without getting his consent the crown would be liable for damages, or we would have to take the spoil away out and deposit it in another place. So, where we can do so, we get the consent of the adjoining owners to put the spoil on the bank because it decreases the cost of the dredging. That is what was done in this case with the object of keeping the cost of the work down and avoiding any possible claim for damages. The regular dredging in this river to make it navigable was with the consent of all the owners on the adjoining land.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Chairman, this river
is such a navigable river that the boats which are used on it are wheelbarrows. According to the other plan the rocks and stones were removed' from the bottom of the stream to the island belonging to the hon. Postmaster General in wheelbarrows, and this is the first time in my life that I have heard a river is navigable because one may cross it in a wheelbarrow. I would ask the Minister of

Public Works Program
Public Works to be serious because this is an important matter and it will show the Canadian people how their money goes, how it goes into the water.
I may take it for granted then that the red and yellow ribbon around the island shows the dredging which has been done around the small island which was purchased ten years ago by the Postmaster General at a cost of $100, and for the improvement and beautification of which the Canadian exchequer has paid $32,000. If we take for granted what the Minister of Public Works has said about the deepening for navigation purposes we have around the island in the middle of that ribbon these depths of water: A of a foot; A of a foot; A of a foot; rs of a foot;	^ of	a foot;	one foot;	one foot	2inches; 2	feet;	2	feet	4	inches;	2 feet	2inches; one foot	6	inches;	to of a	foot; onefoot; one	foot;	2	feet	3	inches;	1 foot	4
inches.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
I think the depths given by my hon. friend are those before the dredging was started, not after.


Jean-François Pouliot: Possibly so, but now I
will read to the committee the depths on the outside part of this river, the depths after the deepening: 2 feet 2 inches; 2 feet 5 inches;
1	foot 6 inches; one foot 8 inches; one foot; to of a foot; then there is one foot, but it is outside of the line, and also outside of the line -fo of a foot; inside of the line *to of a foot; ^ of a foot; ^ of a foot; one foot 2 inches; one foot 5 inches; 2 feet;
2	feet 4 inches; 2 feet 8 inches; 2 feet; 3 feet 3 inches; 2 feet 2 inches; 4 feet; 2 feet 5 inches; one foot; one foot; 2 feet 3 inches. It is incredible that the Normandie and the Queen Mary will come up this navigable river. The Minister of Marine told his electors of 1930 that the harbour of Montreal would be closed and the business of the port transferred across the river to his own constituency. Apparently the Postmaster General is jealous of his colleague the Minister of Marine and he wants to have all the vessels which usually call at Montreal call at his constituency. This would add considerable value to the island for which he paid $100 ten years ago. I have no doubt that the Minister of Public Works will admit that most of the rocks taken from this island were carried in wheelbarrows.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My information is that some hand dredging was done. The
soil taken from the channel was placed on the side and then handled in some other way, perhaps with wheelbarrows, but the dredging was not done with wheelbarrows.


Jean-François Pouliot: At page 231 of the return there is a letter from the district engineer to the chief engineer, dated July 15, which reads:
These additional improvements will be of a great benefit to the small navigation at this point of the river, and for this purpose, I do recommend the approval of same.
How deep is the channel since it has been dredged?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Three feet.


Jean-François Pouliot: In addition to wheelbarrows, what kind of craft can navigate that channel?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Motor boats, sailboats, rowboats, canoes and any kind of boat that can navigate in three or four feet of water. [DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: They would have to have flat bottoms as there would be no room for a screw. A sum of $900 was mentioned, in a letter from the district engineer to the chief engineer dated July 25, as having been authorized for the removal of boulders from the Riviere du Chene. Is that amount in excess of the $32,000 mentioned by the minister?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Any expenditure during that period covered by the return would be included in the amount given.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is not the straightforward answer usually given by the minister. I want to know if that $900 was in excess of the $32,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not a copy of the return before me. Could my hon. friend give me the date when that expenditure was made?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have given it once but I will give it again; it was made on July 25, 1932.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Undoubtedly
that would be included in the items I have mentioned.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will the minister admit that there was some objection raised by the Quebec government to the dredging done there in 1932?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The Quebec government contributed to the work done above the dam but they took the position that
Public Works Program

they would not contribute to the work done below the dam. They stated that was for navigation purposes only and that they should not be asked to make a contribution. They made no other objection that I know of.


Jean-François Pouliot: On page 131 is a letter dated October 24, 1932, from the deputy minister of agriculture of Quebec to the minister's deputy, and reading:
(Translation):
I am sending you herewith a report from Messrs. Picard and Clerk, requesting that the dredging operations be started in the rapids, running from station 96.00 to station 116.00, and be continued upstream at each place indicated in the longitudinal section.
They further claim that part of the work, as projected in your department's plan, is useless for the draining of farm lands. _
Should your engineers confirm this report, I trust that you will kindly give instructions accordingly.
I am sending a copy of this letter to Mr. Dansereau.
Yours truly,
J. Antonio Grenier,
Deputy Minister of Agriculture.
Messrs Picard and Clerk had drafted the following memorandum for Mr. Grenier, the deputy minister.
Rivi&re du Chene
We are informed that the contractor carrying out the work on this river is to start in that section included between stations 0.00 and
16.00,	as per longitudinal section, and its extension in the river Jesus.
The level of the water, in that section, is between 73.4 and 65.8 whereas it is 81.85 at the top of the dam, situated at station
16.00,	above said section. The dam, according to the plan, does not do any harm; consequently, the part below, which is much lower than the dam itself, cannot in any way hinder the draining of the waters.
AVe consider that this part of the work, as outlined in the plan of the dominion government, is absolutely useless for the draining of [DOT] farm lands and we are completely opposed to its 'being carried out.
The Department of Agriculture in Quebec stated that that dredging was absolutely useless and a protest was made by the Quebec government. The minister must have a translation of that letter which I just read.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not have
it before me, either in French or in English.


Jean-François Pouliot: Apparently the minister
has brought only the information which suited him; what did not suit him he left behind in the files. He is not usually like that. He has stated there was no protest but I have just read one from the Department of Agriculture of Quebec which stated that this dredging was not needed for the drainage of the farmers' lands in the vicinity.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly, because this was below the dam. This was not part of the scheme that they had in mind; the work they were doing was above the dam.


Jean-François Pouliot: Exactly. They protested
that it was of no use to the farmer. An amount of $55,000 has been spent jointly by the federal and provincial governments upon the request and for the pleasure of the Postmaster General. This large amount has been spent to beautify his property. The Quebec government has stated that it was absolutely needless to mine boulders or remove stones in the lower part of the river where the Postmaster General has his island. This work was condemned by the Quebec government and the minister has just admitted that fact.
Here is a letter from the assistant chief engineer of the Department of Public Works to the district engineer, dated November 26, 1932. It will be found at page 124 of the file:
I have your letter of the 24 th instant referring to the communication from Mr. Antonio Grenier, Deputy Minister of Agriculture, Quebec, dated 24th October, concerning his department's present attitude towards that portion of the river du chene work under contract which he considers not essential to the lrainage scheme and located between the dam and river Jesus. It is noted you recommend that the department stand the cost of improving this lower reach of the river, as it interests navigation more than drainage. I note also that you have a letter from the town of St. Eustache, requesting the enlargement of the channel, and I wish to refer to the last two paragraphs of your report.
Strong protest was coming from the Quebec government in regard to the matter. On page 119 there is a memorandum prepared by the assistant chief engineer for the deputy minister, dated December 16., 1932, in which he said:
It must be admitted however that the point raised by Messrs. Picard & Clark in their report of October 22 is well taken.
It is admitted by one of the chief officials of the Minister of Public Works that the objection of Picard and Clark to dredging below the dam in the vicinity of the island belonging to the Postmaster General was well taken.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was a matter of navigation and not one in which they should make a contribution.


Jean-François Pouliot: But the hon. gentleman said at first that that dredging was done for navigation purposes, and now he admits implicitly that there was no navigation at all and that the point raised by the Quebec government

Public Works Program
was well taken. He cannot get away from it; he knows very well that it is an absurd expenditure. The statement continues:
The dam in question at elevation 81.85 is not considered as an obstruction in the drainage improvement scheme under contract, and consequently the stretch of the river downstream at a lower elevation than the dam cannot affect drainage of the agricultural lands above the dam.
It was of no use at all to the community. Turning to page 115 we find an expenditure of $7,609.98 mentioned. This is dated January 20, and is an estimate. At page 113 the estimate amounts to $8,604.34. At page 111 that estimate is mentioned as cumulative, and at page 110 it increases to $9,279.57. At page 105 the contractors, the Gravelle Construction Company, complain of being ill treated, describing the nature of the material which has to be carried away, and the statement is made that it was harder to remove than rocks. I quote:
(Translation):
We have come across material harder to remove than rock. This material consists of gravel mixed with big stones and cemented together with a very hard clay. We have to use dynamite, pipes, and compressed air, to remove this material, the same as for rock excavation. We succeed in removing a small quantity of this material every day at a much higher cost to us.
And he adds:
At page 102 the original estimate of $7,609.98 goes up to $10,858.28. May I ask the Minister of Public Works whether this item is included in the $32,000 which he mentioned before?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the date of the expenditure?


Jean-François Pouliot: The estimate is dated April 10, 1933, the communication being from the secretary of the department to Mr. Forest, secretary treasurer of the county of Deux-Montagnes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What was the amount?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is $10,858.28.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is reading from a return which is paged. I have just now received a copy from the office but it is not paged. What is the date?


Jean-François Pouliot: April 10, 1933, a letter from Mr. Desjardins, secretary of the department, to Mr. Forest, secretary treasurer of the county of Deux-Montagnes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That apparently refers to the work that was being done jointly because it was sent to the province of Quebec also.


Jean-François Pouliot: At page 97 there is a letter from the district engineer to the chief engineer, dated May 4, 1933, in which he says:
This cleaning is to accommodate small crafts or light navigation, and the cut on both sides of the river is to permit free access to the shore to small embarkations and also to permit the free flowing of the sewers of the municipality of St. Eustache.
It is surprising that the district engineer attached so much importance to the sewers of the municipality when the minister said it had nothing to do with the matter. According to that letter of May 4 the estimated cost is $6,800. Was that money spent besides the amount already mentioned by the minister for Riviere du Chene?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The letter my hon. friend reads is an estimate given by the district engineer on certain work, and whatever was done, whether all or a portion of it, is included in the 1933-34 total expenditure of $17,561.87. That would include whatever portion of work referred to in this estimate was performed in that year.


Jean-François Pouliot: If the minister will turn to a letter dated May 16 from the chief engineer to the district engineer, he will see that the chief engineer says:
-the estimated cost of which you place at $6,800, I would point out that this is $2,000 in excess of the amount of $4,800 previously noted for this work as a charge against the dredging vote of "Ontario and Quebec."
Who was asking the minister to put that amount in the estimates?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The district
engineer was reporting to the chief engineer as to what was required in connection with this work. The letter from which my hon. friend is reading and which is dated May 16, 1933, is from Mr. Corriveau to the district engineer.


Jean-François Pouliot: And the Postmaster General never spoke to his colleague the Minister of Public Works about the matter? Do I understand my hon. friend to say that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would be
strange indeed if the Postmaster General were not sufficiently interested in his constituency and in the welfare of the people there to

Public Works Program

speak to the minister in charge of a work that was being carried on in his riding. Undoubtedly he spoke to me and made representations about it from time to time .


Jean-François Pouliot: That is all right, but the Minister of Public Works did not know before that the island around which such dredging was being done belonged to the Postmaster General.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That was a detail I knew nothing about, was not concerned with, and it really did not make any difference to the carrying on of this work. The object was not the improvement or the beautification of the island. It is a question whether the island has been benefited at all; it is a question whether it has not been damaged. The beautification of the island did not enter into the matter. My hon. friend says that $28,000 was spent for the beautification of an island. I am sure he has made a mistake in that. An amount of $32,000' was spent for dredging a mile of this river, and only a very small portion of the spoil was placed around this island. The island or what happened to it was not under consideration in the scheme at all; it had nothing to do with the initiation of the work. The work was not initiated at the request of the Postmaster General or with any idea whatever of beautifying the island. The purpose was to improve the navigation at the outlet of the river.


Arthur Sauvé: The island for which I paid $100 I offer to the hon. member for Temis-couata for $25-condition, cash. Is it accepted?


Jean-François Pouliot: The work was done at the mouth of the Riviere du Chene where there is a very extensive delta. If the minister says it has cost nothing, how is it that the Minister of Public Works has stated to the House of Commons as reported at page 2375 of Hansard that the expenditure was $18,130.81? That is much above $25.
Let us now turn to page 89, to a letter dated November 13, 1932, from the chief engineer to the district engineer:
An amount not exceeding $20 J;o check out some soundings in Riviere du Chene, P.Q., the amount to be charged to encumbrance L. 24-1 already issued.
It was an encumbrance. The island was an encumbrance.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No; the word
"encumbrance" there means a charge against the vote.


Jean-François Pouliot: But as everyone can see,
the island itself has been an encumbrance to the country.
Let us turn to page 87, a letter from the chief engineer to the district engineer which is partly quoted and one paragraph of which reads:
It will not be possible to proceed with the work should funds be granted unless the site has been acquired by the crown in the right of the dominion. It will be necessary to have plans and descriptions by metes and bounds, in quadruplicate, and to have agreements of sale and transfer from the owner where the site is not crown property. This should be put under way so not to delay the prosecution of the work.
There was also a list of riparian owners which was secured by the department, and the chief engineer wrote to the district engineer on March 25, 1934:
In this connection, would there not be objection on the part of the riparian property owners to permit casting over objectionable material, such as sewage, weeds, etc.?
On March 27, 1934, the chief engineer wrote again to the district engineer in that connection.
On March 28 Mr. Marion of the district engineer's office was at St. Eustache trying to obtain the necessary release for all riparian owners whose properties would be affected.
Besides that there was a list of the riparian owners and several names are given. On March 28, 1934, they signed a paper to the effect that they were allowing the work to be proceeded with. I see that the Postmaster General's name is mentioned in the report from the district engineer, as follows:
The Hon. Mr. Sauve, owner of lot No. 22 did not sign the release, but has stated verbally to Mr. Marion that he was approving the proposed dredging and would not claim any damage if his property was to suffer from the proposed dredging.
Did the colleague of the Minister of Public Works ever tell him that the island was his when he asked for dredging?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There was no
discussion whatever as to the ownership of the island or of any of the adjoining land.


Jean-François Pouliot: The hon. gentleman is
evading my question. I am not asking if there was discussion. I know very well my hon. friends are on friendly terms.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I mean to say
that there was no discussion with the Postmaster General, nor did he ever tell me anything about it.

Public Works Program


Jean-François Pouliot: Does the minister state
that in the case of this island shown on the plan circled with yellow and red ribbon, when he was asked to spend $32,000 for dredging a small stream at some places less than 3-23 feet and at others less than 1-2 feet, the Postmaster General did not mention that that very island was his own? The minister was not curious enough to ask who was the owner of the island, he never thought of asking that? Did the minister look at the plan before agreeing to that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I did not see
the plan at all, did not know whether there was an island in the river.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was accepted with
closed eyes. Well, I am surprised. I thought the minister was more of a business man than that. According to the rules of the house I am bound to take his word, but I do not understand how a responsible minister of the crown would decide to order such an expenditure in such a place without getting more information. The only reason he did it was out of friendship and love for his colleague! That would be an admirable thing in the present government under different circumstances, but to waste public money to such an extent is incredible and inconceivable. The minister has said he had spoken many a time with the Postmaster General about it, I do not see how he did not know that the island was his.
Sir, I could have raised a question of privilege about the answer which was given yesterday by the Minister of Public Works when I asked who was the owner of that island. He said, "No information on file." His memory is not on file, but I am sure that in his memory he knew all the time that the Postmaster General was the owner of that island. Does he say yes or no?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I repeat to my
hon. friend that it was not necessary that I should know, there was no reason why I should inquire. Details of that character are left to the engineer. Until my hon. friend stirred up this matter I never had any information that the island belonged to the Postmaster General.


Jean-François Pouliot: All right. Suppose for a
moment that the minister did not know it was the Postmaster General's island. If he had known that at the time would he have authorized the work just the same, or would he have refused it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It would not
have made a particle of difference, because this was a dredging scheme for the improve-92582-191 i
ment of a mile of river for the benefit of the people of the village of St. Eustache, and it made no difference to me who owned the property.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the minister
why he gave that answer, "No information on file "? I know very well that the file has been cooked, but, "No information on file." Usually when the government has no information they say "No information," and stop, finish. Why did he put "No information on file "?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I say to my
hon. friend that the file has not been cooked in any sense, and that there is no information on the file as to who owns that island.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then I am sure the minister will have no objection to me comparing the file he has given with the original file in his department. I will go right after dinner and compare it with the file I have now. There is not a single letter from the Postmaster General on this, but he admitted that the Postmaster General had spoken to him often about it, and he knows very well there are letters of the Postmaster General on file in his department, whether on the file that has been copied or not.
Not only that, what amount has been paid for a tug? The minister knows very well that the extraordinary large amount of $150 a day has been paid for a tug to complete that dredging. It was to carry the rock that was put on the island. One hundred and fifty dollars a day, and the minister will not deny it, because it is on record.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I should correct my hon. friend there. He says $150 a day was paid for a tug. The fact is that $150 a day was paid for the whole plant, one and a quarter bucket dredge, fully manned, equipped and fuelled. Rent of plant and operation, with men and fuel.


Jean-François Pouliot: But it was $150 a day just the same.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, that is all right.


Jean-François Pouliot: Was it $150 a day, or was it 5 cents? Each day for that work the country was paying $50 more than the Postmaster General had paid for his island. Each day that part of the dredging was proceedings-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend should have stated that the total estimated expenditure in that connection was only $7,000, and that had not anything to do with the island at all.
Public Works Program


Jean-François Pouliot: Even $5 for nothing would be too much. But it is $7,000. How many people could be relieved with that sum? It is a huge amount. But the minister finds it nothing. The tug has been there quite a number of days.
Furthermore this expenditure was approved by the privy council on April 21, 1934. There
is ministerial responsibility in the matter. The Minister of Public Works is not the only one to be blamed, but all the members of the government, on account of that extravagant expenditure being approved by order in council.
Might 1 ask the minister if that sum of $7,000 was included in the amount of $32,000 already mentioned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, that is included in the total I have given.


Jean-François Pouliot: At page 4 there is another item of $8,414.90. I understand it is that $7,000 plus $1,414.90. Was that amount of $1,414.90 included in the $32,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In some instances my hon. friend is giving estimated expenditures. That $7,000 is stated as the estimated total cost of rental of that plant. Whether the amount of $7,000 was consumed or not I do not know; but whatever amount was paid for the work done by that plant is included in the total I have given. In some cases my friend is giving estimates and in other cases actual expenditures. But the amount I have given is the total expenditure.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is an expenditure mentioned in the memorandum from the acting chief engineer to the deputy minister, October 13, 1934, page 4 of the file. It does not appear here as an estimate, it appears here as an actual expenditure. I want to know if that amount of $1,414 was in excess of the $32,000 already mentioned.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The amount is not in excess of the S32,000, it is included.


Jean-François Pouliot: The Postmaster General has said that this work was done at the request of the county council. At page 266 of the return I find a letter from the district engineer to the chief engineer, under date of May 27, 1932:
Would you kindly authorize me to do so in order that I may assure the Hon. Mr. Sauve that we are making as much progress as possible with this work.
At page 241 there is another letter, also from the district engineer to the chief engineer, dated July 7, 1932, as follows:

... but the Hon. Mr. Sauve wishes that the river be cleaned out for navigation purposes, from the entrance to the dam, and the material removed by scows.
At page 238 the district.engineer writes the chief engineer under date of July 8, 1932:
... we have to modify our first proposal in order to meet the wish of the Hon. Mr. Sauve and the citizens of St. Eustache.
From correspondence appearing at page 195, between the secretary treasurer of the county council and the Postmaster General, it would appear that the Postmaster General had written to the council saying that the performance of this work was a very good thing for the farmers of Two Mountains. That view was not shared by the Quebec Department of Agriculture, later on. I have already read the two letters appearing at page 171, from the Postmaster General, one to the warden of the county and the other to the secretary, with regard to the extension of the dredging works in that stream.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: What were the dates, please?


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the report of a meeting of the council which was sent to the Minister o*f Public Works on August 29. Then at page 127 a letter under date of November 24, 1932, was sent by the town of St. Eustache to the Postmaster General with regard to enlarging the proposed channel. At page 199 there is a letter from the district engineer to the chief engineer under date of April 24, 1933, in which he says:
I want to discuss this matter with the Hon. Mr. Sauve.
That was with regard to the dredging of Riviere du Chene below the dam at St. Eustache, near the island. Letters appearing at pages 67 and 68, dated March 28 and April 4, 1934, refer to riparian and owners' rights and the fact that the Postmaster General had not signed the form.
Sir, the case is nearly complete. We have the island; we have the plan, and we know very well that the island belongs to the Postmaster General. He has admitted that. This island has little or no practical value; it is worth only $100. The government have spent some $32,000 in that vicinity, which has been a pure waste of the money of the people. This island that belongs to the Postmaster General may have been beautified, but this expenditure has no raison d'etre at all. In addition to that expenditure of $32,000, and because of that expenditure, the federal and provincial governments have spent another $50,000 or more for dredging somewhere else

Public Works Program
As a matter of fact the total amount spent in that vicinity is about $87,000, all for an island which cost the Postmaster General only $100 not long ago. It is incredible that in these times of stress the government should waste such an enormous sum of money just for the pleasure and enjoyment of one man.
The other day I said that in reading the debates of confederation, for instance, and those of some years ago, we saw the care formerly taken by those in charge of the business of the country with regard to the expenditure of public money. They were very careful in that regard, but now I feel sorry that the Minister of Public Works has approved such an expenditure as this. I am even more sorry that the Postmaster General takes it so lightly. It will be hard for him to explain to his electors. Since he has shown so little concern about public business I do not see how the Prime Minister will be able to reward the hon. gentleman by appointing him to the Senate, as he has boasted will happen. I do not see how a man can be rewarded for having recommended such a wasteful expenditure. I do not see how the Prime Minister and his colleagues can agree to recommend such a person to go to the Senate as a reward for wasting nearly $100,000 of public money in order to beautify and improve an island for which he paid only $100 some years ago. This is why we have a tax on sugar, but the sugar tax collected in the county of Two Mountains would not be sufficient to cover that expenditure. All the money paid by the good people of Two Mountains and Temiscouata under that sugar tax would not be sufficient to cover this expenditure. I am sorry to think that good, earnest, reliable Canadian citizens should suffer the burden of taxation to such an extent in order to beautify the property of a minister. It is shameful, as the minister knows, and I am sure he has enough common sense and good judgment to admit it. I am not speaking of the Postmaster General but of the Minister of Public Works. After he thinks it over he will see that it is impossible for any of the cabinet ministers to approve the appointment of the Postmaster General to the Senate.


Mr. BRASSET:: I should like to ask the minister a question. For the last few years I have asked him to spend a few dollars on some small rivers in my constituency. Under the Liberal regime and before 1930 I understand that a sum of several thousand dollars was spent every year to remove boulders in the district of Gaspe in small rivers where fishing boats were operating all the year
round, but I have received a letter from the deputy minister saying that this amount is no longer provided and that there was no money appropriated for the removal of boulders. In view of that I was very much surprised to see that at the point which has just been mentioned by my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) several thousands of dollars were spent for removal of boulders at a point where such work was not necessary for navigation, and at the same time I was refused money for the removal of boulders in the county of Gaspe where the work would have been of benefit to fishermen who are using boats there all the year round. I would ask the minister if he will not agree to spend some money for the removal of these boulders down in Gaspe. The work is very much needed and unless it is done some of these harbours will be completely blocked and the fishermen cannot continue fishing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is right when he says that for some years a special item of $5,000 or something like that-


Maurice Brasset: It was $8,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -was inserted in the estimates and earmarked for the removal of boulders. That item was not continued, but nevertheless where representations have been made to the department, boulders have in some cases been removed where the reports seemed to indicate that it was necessary and appropriate to have that done, but there has been no specific vote for that purpose. The work has been done out of the general vote. I think my hon. friend will agree that the expenditures in many places in the county of Gaspe have been pretty generous, and perhaps my hon. friend would be surprised if I gave him the total.


Maurice Brasset: May I ask at what places boulders were removed in the county of Gaspe?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot say
now but I can get that information for my hon. friend.


Maurice Brasset: With the amounts in each case?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas Reid: I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. minister. Under the allocation of $300,000 for work in the Fraser river I understand that a certain scheme of work was proposed which has been altered somewhat. and at the moment I believe only some $55,000 has been designated for certain work. I would suggest to the minister that in spending the remainder he take into consideration
Public Works Program

the advisability of having a new modern dredge constructed for .the Fraser river. The two old drediges there have done very good service but as the minister knows, developments are taking place in that river and the area to be covered now is mudh more extensive than it was in years past, and I would respectfully suggest that the minister consider the advisability of constructing a modern dredge. It would provide lots of work in the yards, and after construction would certainly fill a long-felt want in the matter of dredging in the Fraser river.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman,
my hon. friend is very familiar with the conditions in the Fraser river, and very much interested in its development and the welfare of the people who live there. The dredging there has been a difficult problem. It has been continuous work and we have two dredges that are working there, as my hon. friend says, almost all the time. I believe that a modern suction dredge suitable for that work, such as my hon. friend suggests, would cost in the neighborhood of half a million dollars, $400,000 in any event, and with the pressure to have the actual work of dredging done we thought it more advisable to spend whatever we have available in dredging rather than putting the money into dredges. The time may come when the suggestion of my hon. friend would be practicable in the light of the revenues and the money at our disposal, but I think he will agree that up to the present it would not have been the best plan to tie up so much money in a dredge rather than spend it in dredging either by our own dredges or by contract.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: I do not suppose the minister has any more light on the subject to give the committee than he had yesterday, but I am going to make this suggestion to him. I do not know that there is any object to be served by taking up any more time of the committee in endeavouring to get information which it seems impossible to get at the present time, and as I understand there is an item in the public works estimates being held over on which there will be the fullest opportunity to discuss everything that comes under the Public Works Construction Act and affecting public works generally, I think there is no object in continuing the discussion now, but I hope by that time the minister will be able to give us the information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is correct. The understanding is that an item is being held over on which there will be wide open opportunity to discuss anything affecting public works.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: And the minister will try to have the information for us by that time.
'Item 9 agreed to.
On schedule A, item 10-Alterations, improvements and additions to public buildings and to supplement where necessary, upon the authority of the governor in council, specific amounts provided in the schedule to The Public Works Construction Act, 1934, $4,000,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I wish to say a few words with regard to this item. The minister was good enough recently to let me have a statement which will perhaps facilitate very considerably the discussion of item 10. I regret that he has not been able to do the same in regard to item 9. As the committee are aware, item 10 is for the amount of $4,000,000 to be expended in alterations, improvements and additions to public buildings and to supplement where necessary, upon the authority of the governor in council, specific amounts provided in the schedule to The Public Works Construction Act, 1934.
May I just call attention to what has been done as shown by the statement which the minister has handed to me? The Public Works Construction Act of 1934, it will be remembered, was introduced a few days before the house prorogued and at that time there was no great opportunity for discussing it because it was understood that the house would prorogue about the first of July and there was before us the Election Act, the Bank of Canada Act and considerable other business to dispose of, so the Public Works Construction Act was left to the very last moment. The list of 185 items contained in the act of last year contained two or three items in regard to which, in view of what has transpired, I think the administration deceived the committee. May I just mention one or two?
Take first the customs building at Centre-ville, New Brunswick, on the boundary. I know practically nothing about the necessity for this particular building because there was no inquiry made last year. The legislation was just hurried through and there was less objection to these specific items than there was to the large general items that were included in the appropriation. But here we have this customs building on the boundary at a cost of $5,000. I think that every member of the committee understood at that time that that was to be the price for the building. But now we find that that $5,000

Public Works Program
has been supplemented by $11,000 to be taken out of this grant, and I say that that is not treating the committee fairly.
There are some other items for additions to considerably larger buildings. 1 want to be reasonable about the matter, but I do not think it is possible to estimate too accurately what any particular building is going to cost. It was estimated that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police barracks at Edmonton would cost $200,000 but it has been necessary to provide an additional $80,000 from this vote of $4,000,000. An ordnance building for Halifax was estimated to cost S500.000. This was quite a substantial amount but it has been found necessary to supplement it, not by $50 000 or $100,000 but by $400,000. There is a more striking instance in connection with a building for customs and immigration purposes at St. Stephen, New Brunswick. It was originally estimated that this building would cost $75,000 but it has been found necessary to supplement this amount by $100,000. Another instance is in connection with a building for immigration and customs purposes at Huntingdon, British Columbia. The original estimate for this building provided for $3,500. Apparently it was to be a small customs building but I find that that amount has been supplemented by an amount of $35,500.
Such action is not fair to the committee which passed these estimates last year. I do not intend to take up much time in arguing this matter as I know very little about the locations of these various buildings. Hon. members who come from the districts in which the buildings are situated would be better able to speak in that regard, but I offer these instances as examples of what happens when a large amount of money is placed at the disposal of the minister. We had an example this afternoon of the claims made upon the minister when he is given large amounts of money to spend. I do not think the committee was treated quite fairly by having these items put in in that way. The minister will no doubt reply that that always happens but I would point out that that is not the fact. I should like to quote a statement of his to be found on page 4299 of Hansard of last year, as follows:
There is attached to the bill a schedule which sets out in detail the -works that are proposed, with a general item which is calculated to enable the departments to put every public building in the Dominion of Canada in first class repair, including painting, plumbing, heating, -wiring and so on. Then there is a similar vote for improvements to wharves and other structures in the harbours. It has been found that some of these wharves
are not adequate for present needs. Some of them require strengthening, owing to the increasing use of trucks which has resulted in heavier loads passing over the wharves, and a survey is being made with a view to bringing them up to present requirements. In addition recent storms on the Atlantic have made repairs necessary in many instances, and this vote will provide funds for these purposes.
It will be noted that the phrase "and construction of new buildings" was tacked on to item 135 of the schedule. My memory is that that was added the night we tried to adjourn but did not succeed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not in
this year.


John Campbell Elliott: No and I hope it is not in because of the abuses which occurred as the result of its having been inserted at the last moment last year. I do not think such a clause was in the mind of the minister when he spoke on the second reading of the bill on June 26. Such a clause represents the thin end of the wedge. I do not think such action assists the party to which the minister belongs and it certainly does not assist in the administration of this department. I suggest that this plan be not followed in the future.


Mr. MACDOUGALL:: When the hon. member was Minister of Public Works did he have knowledge of a vote of $52,000 for a public building in Hawkesbury?


John Campbell Elliott: It went through the estimates in the regular way.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: No, it did not.


John Campbell Elliott: What year was that?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: 1926, when the hon. member was minister.


John Campbell Elliott: What is the complaint?


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: The building was never constructed although it was promised by you and by your party.


John Campbell Elliott: Then there could have been no waste of public money.


Isaac Duncan MacDougall: But there was a waste in public futility and truth.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am glad I can give the committee more information in connection with this matter than I could in connection with the last matter brought up. I gave my hon. friend certain information and he has made reference to the striking items contained therein. The Public Works Construction Act of last year contained a schedule made up of a large number of items but it must be remembered that in the time at the
Public Works Program

disposal of the departmental architects they were not able to make accurate estimates of the costs of these various buildings. Most of their time was taken up in preparing estimates of the oosts of the works included in the regular program and in some cases these buildings were placed in the schedule without that complete and accurate information which would enable a definite estimate of the cost to be made. In some instances it was found that the building was not adequate, perhaps the customs department would require more space than had been provided, and the result was that $2,730,000 was required out of this vote to supplement these items. I think it should be pointed out to the committee that in other instances the estimated cost was greater than the final cost. The decreased costs almost balance the increased 'costs, but in order to complete these buildings we must have these amounts. I might tell the committee that there is another building in connection with which we may require an additional amount, the building to be erected in the city of Victoria. So that we are accounting for the greater part of this building with these specific amounts in the statement given to my hon. friend amounting to $2,730,100. That will foe increased somewhat because some of the tenders are not yet in and we do not know what the amounts will be. We have reason to anticipate that in some cases they will exceed the amount in the schedule. My hon. friend will agree with me, I think, that during the past- few years there has been an accumulation of deferred maintenance in public buildings. We did set out to put them in good repair, all of them, and that work has been carried on, as most hon. members know, and the buildings in their towns have been put in a pretty good state of repair. But there are still some that have not been so treated and the balance of this vote will probably be required for that purpose. It may not require all, but there is substantial work to be done in that direction, work that is not completed. With that information I might confidently ask the committee to pass the item.


John Campbell Elliott: No new buildings will be
constructed out of this $4,000,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am glad to
tell my hon. friend that that item is not in the bill. It caused me a good1 deal of trouble and it is not in the bill this year. No new buildings will be constructed out of this item.


Charles A. Stewart: I have a
question to ask but I doubt whether it should be directed to the Public Works

department; probably the Defence department would be the proper place to make the inquiry. However, perhaps the minister can tell me. He will remember that last year considerable sums of money were voted for Calgary, for the construction of barracks, stables and so on. My first complaint is that public tenders are not being asked for these buildings and therefore it is difficult to say whether or not they are being constructed at reasonable cost. There is going on at the present time in Calgary, if it is not already completed, the levelling of a landing field and I am given to understand that the work is under contract; and while there are at least three or four hundred idle men standing around in Calgary, my information is that the contractor has been allowed to purchase a very efficient levelling machine operated by a few men, with the result that the levelling is done very rapidly. Now the object of this whole vote is, I understand, to give employment; it is not to permit contractors to purchase very modern machinery with which they can rapidly complete the work, thus making no contribution to the provision of employment for idle men. That was going on in Calgary when I was there a short time ago. It does seem to me to be a mistaken policy. Surely the government is taking precautions to see that these works provide the greatest amount of employment. Not only that, but excavating is being done with steam shovels. Surely in times like these, if the object is to relieve unemployment, men should be given work with picks and shovels. It will cost more money, but the country is spending large sums on relief and it would be very much better to give employment to the men and enable them to preserve their self-respect. I know that has not been the rule in connection with the works in the parks under the Interior department, because they have been carrying on very much as they did in the past and are not employing machinery. In one of the localities in my constituency a large number of men have moved from the south and gone into the bush, and I notice a report from my leader's constituency that complaint has been made that the government-not this government but the provincial government-might very well employ these men on building a road, improving roads and constructing new roads into the localities in which they have taken up their lands. The answer I received when I complained to the provincial government was that the work could be done very much better and more cheaply with machinery, and that it was really cheaper to do the work

Public Works Program
with the machinery and keep on paying doles to the people to keep them alive. I protested there and1 I protest here against that sort of thing being done at this time. So far as Calgary is concerned, it is directly under the control of the federal government and apparently no restraint is placed on the contractor to have this work done by hand labour; instead he purchases a $35,000 machine that will displace 125 men daily. As I say, I do not know whether this is the department to which I should protest, but I do want to register a very vigorous protest first, against the system which the department has followed, of asking only a select list of contractors to tender on buildings, and then the failure to make provision to ensure that they shall not use all these modern machines and so cut out labour, particularly at a time like this. This applies to the federal government, and I simply mention the other thing as having come directly under my observation. It seems a crime that a hundred families should be kept on relief
when they might have employment and so preserve their self-respect.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
has very fairly presented the problem from his standpoint, which is perhaps not different from the standpoint from which we have to approach it in the department. The particular work to which he refers is not under the control of the Public Works department but under National Defence. We have adopted in many instances the plan of inviting alternative tenders for excavation to be done by hand labour or in any way the contractor chooses. Sometimes we find the difference in cost to be considerable, and there is always the conflicting interest of having public works done as cheaply and economically as possible and, on the other hand, the desire to employ as large a number of men as possible at this time in doing the work. There is a division of opinion in that regard. Excavation by hand labour involves delay, though it employs a considerable number of men in some cases. Sometimes a steam shovel operates to very much greater advantage because of the obstructions that are found in the excavation. Where we can, without unduly increasing the cost, have excavation done by hand labour, we have adopted that course. But that has led to protests from unions of organized labour, who say, "You are holding up the work; you are not getting on with it and you are holding it up for weeks while mechanics are standing around. Why don't you go ahead and get it out and let us get to work"? The matter is not as simple as it looks; the conflicting
factors are there. I agree with my hon. friend, however, that where, without unduly increasing the cost or delaying the work, excavations can be made by hand it is desirable at this particular time to have this done.
As to the other matter, the invitation of tenders, there is a difference of opinion about that. There is a feeling all over the country that the contractors and the supply of labour and material should be confined to the locality in which the work is being carried on. Contractors in certain areas say that public tenders result in unfairness, hardship to them. They say that large firms that have secured contracts in other places for big amounts have an advantage; that they can come in and tender an amount which, although not very much less than that submitted by the local contractor, is just sufficient to take the work away from him. They say that these larger firms just cut the price fine enough to make it impossible for a local contractor to do the work. That has to be taken into consideration on the very same basis as that on which my hon. friend is placing the claim of the unemployed. These are local unemployed contractors or unemployed staffs of the smaller local contractors. There is a sentiment both in the house and out of it that even though the work does cost a little more, these local contractors should be taken care of. Some say that it should not be taken out of the province involved, for instance, that it is not fair to allow a contractor, say in Alberta, to do work in any other province. I do not share that view. This is public money, and strictly speaking any person in the dominion should have the right to tender on a public work; but local conditions, the times and the unemployment situation make it necessary in some cases to depart from that strict rule. There is however one rule that I think I may say is strictly observed and that is being sure of reasonable competition and that the cost of the work is not unduly enhanced by limiting the tenders to a selected list in the locality where the work is being carried on.


Charles A. Stewart: May I say to the minister that I am not particularly enamoured of the explanation he gives. In the first place it does not help the local situation one iota who gets the contract if a provision is inserted in it that the excavation and other work shall be done by employing in the district. That is a very simple insertion to make in any contract. In the second place, when my hon. friend tells me that the intention is to protect local contractors, I am bound to have the opinion
Public Works Program

that when two or three local contractors are invited to tender, it is not a very hard matter for them to get together, and the whole trouble is that labour does not get the money; it never gets it. Whatever the profits are, they go into the pockets of the contractor. If you submit to public competition, I do not care whether it comes from any part of Canada, you are in a much better position to defend yourselves than under the present system that has been pursued by this government with respect to not only the regular work of the department but the unemployment relief moneys as well. What on earth are we voting these moneys for? It is for the purpose of giving employment to people who cannot secure work to maintain themselves. Therefore I do not see anything in the argument of the minister that to confine the invitation of tenders to two or three local contractors is of any advantage for the purpose for which the vote is made or to the department itself. I am bound to think such a method will cost more money in the long run, and when that is coupled with the employment of every kind of machinery for the purpose of excavating, of course labour suffers and must undoubtedly suffer.
The minister states that other organizations, the mechanical organizations, are standing around protesting against delay in excavation. Unless the excavation is a tremendously big one, it means a matter of only eight or ten days' difference whether the excavation is done by hand labour or by machinery. It is true that excavation work can be done much more quickly with a steam shovel, and more cheaply; we do not deny that for a moment, but in times like these when we have so many unemployed men, these steam shovels should be abandoned altogether on government work. This is not a private undertaking; it is the spending of money voted for one specific purpose, namely, for relief. I just want to register the strongest kind of protest against the method by which the government are carrying on this work.


Mr. BEAUBIEN:: In the statement which the minister has given to the ex-Minister of Public Works concerning item 10, $4,000,000, I find $235,000 additional for the public building in Winnipeg which was estimated under the 1934 act to cost $1,500,000, and $15,000 extra for addition to the post office in Winnipeg, which in the 1934 act was estimated to cost $250,000. May I ask the minister whether in the $4,000,000 item those are the only amounts that will be expended in Manitoba?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Those are the two items that are required to supplement the specific items in the schedule of last year, being short of the cost of the work as ascertained by public tender in both cases. As I have said to the former Minister of Public Works, there will be no new buildings under this vote, but if there are public buildings in Manitoba-and I presume there are some- that require alterations, improvements, additions, repairs, that can be done under this vote.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do I understand from the minister that under this item 10 of $4,000,000, no other works will be undertaken than this $235,000 additional for the public building in Winnipeg, $15,000 for the post office, and repairs to buildings that are at present in existence in Manitoba?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There can be no new buildings under this item.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will any of this money be expended on other works than public buildings and repairs to public buildings?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, it must be limited to work on public buildings.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I give the minister some information which I gathered while I was at home during the recess? In the case of two public buildings that were undertaken under the 1934 act, as the system works at present the percentage of employment of persons formerly unemployed is very small. My information, which is fairly authentic, is that of the people employed on the public building and the addition to the post office at Winnipeg that are now being erected, less than one-third were taken off direct relief. I do not know the reason for that, but surely if we are going to erect these public buildings and spend this money in order to relieve unemployment, we ought to make a very decided effort to give the work to people who are at present unemployed in order to take them off the charge of the municipalities and the provinces. That is my view.
Another very strong rumor that exists- and it is fairly well established-is that unless a man signs and seals a document that he always voted one way and intends to vote the same way for the rest of his life, it is very hard to get a job on those buildings. I cannot prove that statement; it is very hard to do that, but I give it to the minister for his personal information. If a situation like that exists in respect of any public undertaking voted by parliament for the purpose

Public Works Program
of providing work for the unemployed, it should not be tolerated. Every man, no matter what his creed or his politics, should get a chance if he is unemployed and needs work. I make this statement in order that the minister may look into the matter and remedy the condition if it exists.
I think money could be expended for works which would benefit the communities much more than these public buildings do. A big building is being constructed in Winnipeg at a cost of about $1,750,000 to house the government offices. It will be a very nice building and it will be fine to have it, but it is going to empty a considerable number of offices in Winnipeg, the city will lose a good deal of revenue by way of taxes, and the people who own office buildings will go bankrupt. In many parts of the country market roads, and repairs to bridges are needed, and there are many other public undertakings which in my opinion would bring greater benefit to a greater number than these public buildings. These roads and so on are very necessary and would be permanent improvements. I see in this schedule an item of $1,500,000 to be spent by the Interior department, also $2,500,000 to be spent on harbours and rivers. As far as Manitoba is concerned our harbours and rivers are few and far between, but very many other works could be undertaken which would give greater benefit and more employment than these public buildings. I make these representations in all good faith. I know that the minister is not a partisan, except at certain times-


Mr. YENIOT:: This is one.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Well, he is generally
partisan when he attacks the ex-Postmaster General (Mr. Veniot). But if the condition exists which I have mentioned, that politics are playing a part in regard to the giving of employment, I ask .the minister to remedy it as soon as possible, because it is not fair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Perhaps my hon. friend was not in the house recently when the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy), who speaks with knowledge, explained exactly the method adopted in Winnipeg of securing the names of those who should be employed on the works carried on there. I suggest that my hon. friend read that statement; it indicates that the method is quite the opposite of that which my hon. friend has been informed prevails. We do get information from time to time that some disappointed individual writes in and says that some improper method is being followed in the employment of labour. In many cases we investigate and find that there was no
ground whatever for the complaint. As far as I know, no such method as my hon. friend refers to has been adopted. I have heard of its being adopted in certain places on certain occasions, but if anything of that kind is done it is a public scandal; I would not approve of it for a moment in connection with any work under the control of this department, and I am sure no member of the government would. I do not want to give instances in which something of that kind has been adopted to .the disadvantage of our friends. But I do not approve of it, and it certainly does not exist with the knowledge or approval of the government.
As to roads and bridges, my hon. friend knows that the dominion government cannot go into a province and build a road or a bridge. It has no jurisdiction. The works we are carrying on are those that we are sure we have the authority to do. A program of public works such as my hon. friend has outlined was undertaken for some years in cooperation with the provinces. But the provinces finally said: We cannot go on with that any further; we want direct relief. The dominion met their wishes in every way possible, in every direction they proposed. I point out that there is still another act on the statute book, the Unemployment Relief Act, which permits an agreement to be made between the dominion and the provinces for the carrying on of just such works as my hon. friend has mentioned-roads, bridges and sewers; and at the present time there is under consideration and negotiation a proposal for the construction of sewers in the city of Winnipeg at very great cost, which would give a large amount of employment of labour. But when my hon. friend advocates the construction of roads and bridges and works of that kind, he is overlooking entirely another class of labour, the mechanic, the bricklayer, the carpenter, the plumber and allied and associated trades. These have made representations and through the Canadian Construction Association have urged a program of public buildings. These classes of unemployed are entitled to consideration, and the fact that we are considering public buildings where needed is for the purpose of meeting their wishes and endeavouring to afford relief to that large body of skilled labour that could not find that relief in work on roads, bridges and sewers.
But there is nothing to prevent the other program being carried on under existing legislation in cooperation with the provinces. We take into consideration the special requirements of each province and each locality. In Saskatchewan, as my hon. friend knows,
Public Works Program

the problem is different even from that in Manitoba and from that in Ontario. A relief program has to take into consideration all these phases. The reason for putting up buildings is to relieve that very large volume of skilled labour that has been out of work for a long time and from whom very strong representations have been received.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Will the minister investigate the statement I have made as to 425 people being employed on two public buildings, of whom less than one-third were taken off the roll of unemployed or direct relief? If we vote money to relieve unemployment by public works surely we ought to make the greatest effort possible to give the work to the unemployed in order to take them off relief, and lessen the burden of the municipalities and the provincial governments.
In regard to the construction of roads and bridges, is the minister aware that Manitoba has made representations to this government almost every year in regard to a program of joint construction, with the province contributing its proportion, forty or fifty per cent, and that these projects have never been entertained very seriously? Last year, when the provincial representatives came here, the whole thing was cut and dried even before they arrived. I should like to ask the minister to do this for me: Will he use his influence with the minister in charge of the relief act to the end that the proposition which is in his hands at the present time, and which must have been before the cabinet, having to do with a joint public works program including roads, repairs to bridges and so on, will be approved so that Manitoba may receive some benefit from the money that is to be expended?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With regard to the employment of one man in three of those on relief, I think that is a pretty good average when you bear in mind that some of those on the relief rolls are incapable of steady work of the kind necessary in connection with a building of this kind. Others who are not on relief but who have reached the end of their resources must be considered as well. They have kept off the relief rolls; they have endeavoured to preserve their pride and avoid going on relief. If they are not looked after they will be on relief. It must be borne in mind that this work is done by contractors, after competitive bids. The contractor has cut his price in order to get the job. We include in the specifications a provision that he shall employ a reasonable quota of local labour and returned soldiers where they are available and competent. In dis-

cussing the matter one contractor said, "I took some men off relief and put them on the work, but they could not stand it; after two or three days they quit voluntarily. They were not suited to that kind of work. I tried to help them." It was represented to me that we should rotate the men on the relief rolls. I tried that, but the difficulty was that as soon as a man took employment he was removed from the relief rolls, and then if he was rotated he could not get back on the rolls. The problem is full of difficulty from the standpoint of every interest concerned, but I do say to my hon. friend that I will inquire as to the numbers to be employed on these works in Winnipeg, and see if the contractor can take more men from the relief rolls. However, when some are asked to rotate on the work they refuse to do so, because they say it only embarrasses them if they go on a job of that kind; when they are let out they have trouble getting back on the rolls again. So some, when asked to go on work, for these and other reasons prefer not to do so.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Would the minister
answer my other question?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The program to which my hon. friend referred comes primarily under the administration of the Minister of Labour. I have no objection whatever to discussing the matter with him. I would think that if Manitoba put forward a scheme of work of the type mentioned by my hon. friend, calculated to relieve unemployment, and if they are prepared to enter into an agreement *with the dominion on that basis, there would be no insurmountable obstacle in the way. It is a question of negotiation between the province and the Department of Labour. I quite agree that it is better to have men working than on direct relief, and I should think that if work cannot be found in connection with the sewer extension, which will take care of the situation in Winnipeg for a year or so if it is undertaken, and which is now under negotiation, something else might be found.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: One final word and I am through. According to my information the province of Manitoba is just waiting for an intimation from the federal government to go ahead with this works program.


Clarence Joseph Veniot: I should like to ask the minister for a little explanation. As I understand it this item is to supplement estimates already made in connection with various works, which estimates have been found insuffi-

Public Works Program
cient. I find that item 156 of the 1934 schedule provides $75,000 for a building for 'customs and immigration purposes at St. Stephen, New Brunswick. Would the minister inform the committee how that amount was arrived at in the first instance?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The estimate in the first instance was based on the purchase of suitable property and, as I have said, without full knowledge of the requirements. We find that the first estimate of $75,000 was not sufficient, and that a further amount will be required to furnish the necessary accommodation.


Mr. VENIOT:: You are supplementing it now by $100,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Peter John Veniot: Is there not a customs building at St. Stephen already? Is this to be a new building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is a new building for customs and immigration purposes.


Peter John Veniot: Where will it be situated in St. Stephen? Will it be near the international bridge?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: At the bridgehead of the international bridge.


Peter John Veniot: This will be a customs building, and the immigration offices will be in it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is the intention.


Peter John Veniot: What will be done with the old building?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will be torn down.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.
After Recess
The committee resumed at eight o'clock.


Thomas Reid: I have just a few words to
say, Mr. Chairman, regarding item No. 10, and without any desire to hold up the bill at all. Last year the minister will remember that I appealed to him, to the Prime Minister and the Postmaster General regarding the construction of a post office in the city of New Westminster, and there was included in the bill of last year an item of some $30,000. which has since been increased by some $17,000 for a building on the Pacific highway. That is the information I have. I am not finding fault with the customs and
immigration building that is going to be constructed at Huntingdon, but the item of S3.500 for Huntingdon plus the $35,000 represents a total expenditure there of $39,000. During the adjournment I paid a visit to the Pacific highway and I would urge upon the minister the necessity of putting up a really decent building there while he is at it. I would rather have seen a post office constructed than a customs building because I believe it would have provided more work where the unemployed are; but inasmuch as it has been decided to go ahead with the customs building on the Pacific highway I do hope that a building will be put up that will be in conformity with the buildings on the United States side of the line. The amount now allotted for the construction of a customs building is wholly inadequate in a port of entrance such as this is. The Pacific highway entrance is the most important entrance from the United States into British Columbia. The number of foreign cars entering the province of British Columbia last year through the Pacific highway entrance was 60,750, while 17.842 entered at Huntingdon. The Pacific highway port in British Columbia leads all the ports in Canada when it comes to the entrance of foreign and all cars, more cars entering through that port last year than through any other port in Canada. As I say, if you are going to put up a building, why not build a creditable one? I am strongly of the opinion that $47,000 will not construct a building adequate to the importance of that port of entry. The American building on the United States side of the line is a modern brick structure costing in the neighbourhood, I believe, of $150,000. The building on the Canadian side is now going up, but do it right. I appeal to the minister to take this plea of mine into consideration very seriously and have the thing done right


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can assure the hon. gentleman that his plea will be given consideration, and I will ask the architect to investigate and report upon the suggestion my hon. friend has made.


Peter John Veniot: Just before six o'clock I
was asking for some information about St. Stephen. You have an item of $75,000 originally for a building there for customs and immigration purposes, and $100,000 is taken out of this item No. 10. The minister told me before the dinner recess that the old building would be torn down. May I ask if there is an immigration building at the end of the international bridge on the Canadian side?
Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The immigration office was in. the building that it is now proposed to tear down. It was in a building that was hitherto rented but which we have recently purchased.
Mr. VENI'OT:	It was a rented building
at the end of the bridge?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was rented,
but we have now purchased it, and it will be torn down and a new building erected.


Peter John Veniot: Do I understand that two
buildings will be torn down or only one?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: One. The customs and immigration offices are in the one building.


Peter John Veniot: There is another item on
which I should like some information, the item to take over and reconstruct the city wharf at Fredericton, $23,000 originally, and $5,000 taken out of item 10. What is the additional $5,000 for? There was no estimate in connection with that $23,000, which I thought was adequate to take over the wharf owned by the city at Fredericton. I am not criticizing the taking over of the wharf because I think the government did right in taking it over, but I should like to have some information as to why the $5,000 extra was required; also, what amount was paid to the city for the wharf, or was the $23,000 for repairs only?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The city wharf
at Fredericton was torn down by the city and was taken over by the dominion, and the amount that is now required is the engineer's estimate of what will be required to put it in proper shape.


Peter John Veniot: So that will be $28,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It will be
$28,000 instead of $23,000.


Peter John Veniot: Can the minister tell me
who was the legal gentleman engaged in making the transfer?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That would be
done through the Justice department. My deputy tells me that he cannot recall who the agent was, if any, engaged for that work. It is a case where we did not pay anything, and it is possible that we simply accepted the transfer from the city.


Peter John Veniot: Perhaps the Minister of
Justice would give me the information some other time.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will undertake to get it for my hon friend.


Peter John Veniot: I was just asking the Minister of Public Works who was the legal gentleman engaged in the transfer of the wharf at Fredericton, and the Minister of Public Works said that that would come under the Justice department. Perhaps the Minister of Justice will get the information for me.


Hugh Guthrie: I shall endeavour to get
the information, but I do not know how it would pertain to the Department of Justice.


Milton Neil Campbell: Just before six o'clock
the minister stated to the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr., Elliott) that a large part of this vote was being used for items under the Public Works Construction Act of last year for which the estimates were not high enough, and he also stated that there were many other items under the Public Works Construction Act of last year the estimates for which were a little more than the amounts required. I was wondering what happens to the money provided by these votes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The money cannot be used for any other purpose. If there is a specific amount provided for any particular work and the work is done for a smaller amount, the money cannot be applied for any other purpose.


Milton Neil Campbell: It cannot be used for
any other purpose?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
On 'Schedule A, item 11-Interior Department 

To provide for the construction and development of public buildings, camp sites, electric light and telephone systems, highways, bridges, streets, sidewalks, landing fields, air harbours, trails, water and sewer systems, recreational areas, wharves and river protection works; to provide for the development of historic sites including buildings, repairs and restorations; to provide for the purchase and acquisition of building sites, also to provide for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke (Big Bend) section of the trans-Canada highway, $1,500,000.
William Lyon Mackenzie King: cordage already cut along the roadsides and riversides immediately adjacent to the highways coming into this city, and the volume which would have to be dealt with in any scheme of controlled cutting. This is work which a voluntary organization could hardly be expected to undertake, but perhaps the government, through its survey department, could give employment to some unemployed surveyors and thereby assist this voluntary association in its work. Other hon. members have spoken of this matter earlier in the session. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) comes all the way from Alberta but he has observed how far this destruction has gone and has already brought it to the attention of the house. As I said before, I made it a point during the recess to see what had been done and outside of the pictures of devastated areas which were exhibited after the great war I have seen nothing more devastating in appearance. This is the condition which exists in an area which can all but be seen from parliament hill. I believe the house may expect the fullest sympathy from the minister and his colleagues in connection with this matter. I am sure the Prime Minister will view the matter sympathetically, and I trust the minister will have his colleague, the Minister of the Interior look into this situation and allot some of this money to permit of action which is so much in the public interest being immediately taken.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I think it is very appropriate that the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) and other hon. members should direct my attention to this matter. I have observed recently articles in the press dealing with this situation and I am sure that many hon. members will be as much surprised as I was to learn of the extent to which the timber on these beautiful hills has been destroyed. I am not sure whether these areas are privately owned or whether they belong to the province of Quebec. I would say that the areas in Ontario would be privately owned, in which case there would be a difficulty which would not arise were the property owned by the province. I should judge it would not be difficult to get the cooperation of the provincial governments with respect to any lands the title of which might be in the provinces, but the matter would not be so easy where private owners are concerned. This vote contemplates the expenditure of money on property already owned by the dominion. My right hon. friend's interest in everything pertaining to

the beauty and the advancement of the city of Ottawa and surrounding area is well known, and I am pleased that he has made the suggestion. Perhaps, through the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior, something might be done in cooperation with the voluntary association that has been formed. I am taking this item on behalf of the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy), who is unavoidably absent owning to a death in his family, and I shall draw his attention to this matter. If the Department of Public Works, through its engineers, can lend any assistance I shall be glad to see that the contribution, small though it may be, is made.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think it would involve the matter of expropriating property. Most of these are privately owned lands, but this association which has been formed, known as the Federal Woodlands Preservation League, and which has given a good deal of study to the matter, believes that, for a very small compensation, the owners of these lands might be prepared to avoid the cutting of any trees beyond a certain size. I am not even suggesting that the government should consider paying these private owners to prevent them from cutting beyond a certain size; the voluntary association might be able itself to discover ways and means, to meet that end. But what the association needs as a beginning is a survey to indicate the extent to which it would be necessary to make provision, and to enable it to make an estimate of the cost of what should be done. My own feeling is that, even if it meant the necessity in some instances of expropriating land on these main approaches to the capital, it would be in the public interest for the state to acquire strips of land along the sides of the roads as it has acquired, along the sides of the canal within the city limits, where property has been used for beautification and driveway purposes. But that is a matter for consideration between the different governments. The main thing is to avoid the destruction to the extent that it is taking place, and will take place, within this very year, and which it will not be possible to offset in a generation to come. I wish to thank the minister very cordially for the sympathetic interest he has expressed in the matter.


Mr. HANSON (York-Sunbury):: I should like to add a word on this very important subject. The leader of the opposition has referred to the condition in Ottawa and I read with a good deal of interest that a meeting had been held recently in regard to this project. I felt that if I had been a resident of Ottawa I would have joined the association.

Public Works Program
My object in rising at the moment, however, is to tell the house what is going on in my constituency under the auspices of the forestry branch of the Department of the Interior. In connection with unemployment relief, Nos. 1, 2 and 3, the work is being carried on by the Department of National Defence and, I may say, very successfully. We have no agitators or communists and at least two-thirds of the men are being placed every summer in useful employment-perhaps some come back in the winter. There is being conducted, in conjunction with the relief project, a large experimental station and reforestation scheme under the auspices of the forestry branch, and it should be an object lesson to the whole country. It is done on land donated to the dominion by the province of New Brunswick from crown lands. While I am making these observations I should be glad if any hon. gentlemen from New Brunswick would let me know whether they would care to inspect it; I should be pleased to have them conveyed there so that they could see what is being undertaken. I think the time has come, in fact it has long since passed, when we ought to give very serious attention to the whole question because our forest wealth is being destroyed. I remember going to Fredericton as a boy thirty-five years ago and visualizing the size of the timber that .came down the Saint John river-300 million feet annually- and the size of the timber that comes down to-day, less than 10 million feet. That tells the story. The public must be awakened to this fact. Primarily I think it is the duty of the provinces, because they own the great bulk of crown lands; that is true at all events of New Brunswick and Quebec, and I think it is also true of Ontario. But the dominion could by precept and example do something to assist.
Mr. MaoINNIS: Am I right in assuming that this vote is for improvements in national parks?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Largely, yes.
Mr. MaoINNIS: In that connection I believe that representations have been made to the minister with respect to Stanley park, Vancouver. This is also federal property, although it is, I believe, leased on long term to the city of Vancouver. As the minister no doubt knows, there has been a good deal of destruction of trees in Stanley park this winter, the result of two or three storms, and in order to conserve the park it is necessary to clear the debris from it. I understand that the parks board has approached the minister for a grant of S50,000. I was wondering 925A2-192
whether there was anything in this vote that could be applied to clearing work in that park. A grant of $50,000 for the purpose would be money very well spent.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Some representations along these lines were made to the Department of Public Works and the correspondence was transferred to the Minister of the Interior. I know that what my hon. friend says about Stanley park is true. I had occasion to pass through it recently and I observed the destruction of timber by the storms. A good deal of Clearing has been done, I believe, by the city of Vancouver as a relief measure during the last few months, but a great deal has to be done yet, and I am sure that although the city of Vancouver has control of it the Minister of the Interior will be pleased to cooperate with the city in any scheme that might be calculated to improve conditions there.
Mr. MaeINNIS: May I take it, then, that there is nothing included in this appropriation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Nothing specifically for that.


Mr. WOODSWORTH:: Does all this grant involve the doing of work by means of paid labour, or will part of it be done by men in relief camps?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This all involves the expenditure of money and is classified under different headings and different amounts. There is nothing in the memorandum I have to indicate that the work is being done by camp labour, and even if it were I suppose a reasonable wage would be paid for it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: May I suggest, then, that fair wage rates should apply in all work of this kind. It does not seem to me that we can impose upon poor fellows out of work the burden of keeping up the public parks; that at least should be borne by the country at large. I want to have the assurance of the minister that there will be fair wages for work of this kind.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The minister has left a memorandum pointing out that in their contracts for this work they provide that in the execution of the work the contractor shall employ reasonable quotas of returned soldiers and that local workmen should be engaged where they are available and competent.


James Shaver Woodsworth: There is nothing about wages in that, is there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.

Public Works Program


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is it the policy that fair wages shall be paid?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: On every government contract where the work is performed by a contractor, there is a schedule of wages applicable to it.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Is any of this work
being done directly by the department, or is it all being done under contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know; there is nothing to prevent its being done either way.


James Shaver Woodsworth: All I want to be assured of is that whatever way the work is carried out, the men will be paid decent wages. I think in the past it has been the policy, the rather boasted policy of the government, that fair wages were paid. I trust there will be nothing in the special conditions of the depression to lead the government to depart from that policy.


Mr. MUNN:: I should like to support the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Mac-Innis) in his appeal to the minister for some recognition in regard to Stanley park, Vancouver. The minister mentioned that it was in the hands of that city. Well, it is under lease, but it belongs to the dominion government and I have appealed in the house before for some survey by the government as to what is happening in Stanley park. That park is one of the beauty spots on the Pacific coast. The city is in a bad way; the civic authorities have not the money to spend, and as the hon. member says, money spent on that park would be ordinary investment. Not only would work done in cleaning up the park give employment to men, but the park will certainly never amount to anything unless it is cleaned up because there is so much in the way of dead timber and fallen trees. The dead timber and fallen trees should all be cleaned out; they are breeding grounds for beetles that will destroy timber that might otherwise grow in a healthy state.
I am sorry the Minister of the Interior (Mr. Murphy) is not in his seat; I have appealed several times to the hon. gentleman, and perhaps the Minister of Public Works will pass my suggestion on to him. On the river Squamish in British Columbia there are at intervals very bad floods and some river bank protection work should be done there. There are two or three Indian reserves along that river; there is a town of five or six hundred people. The government should cooperate in this work through the Superintendent General of Indian Affairs with the

provincial government and perhaps the Pacific Great Eastern Railway. There is a danger that some day there will be a flood there that will carry that town into the ocean. The situation is a serious one. I have had a good deal of correspondence with the minister but I cannot get any satisfaction; they say they are investigating, but they never get anywhere.
I have another suggestion to make. In this item there is mention of the Big Bend highway. It will be realized that at the present time we have a very serious situation in British Columbia in connection with the relief camps. I am familiar with the situation there; I have visited the camps and I know the class of men that are in them. There are some that we would be better off without, as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling) knows, but there are others whom we would like to see taken care of. The present system is absolutely unworkable. I suggest that the federal government might use some of the money in this vote-it might perhaps be supplemented later on-in cooperation with the provincial government to put the men on the Big Bend highway and give them a five hour day on the road at forty cents an hour. That would mean $2 a day. If they get a better job, let them take it; but in the meantime those who will work will be quite satisfied and those who will not work-well, let them either work or go hungry. The government would find that that would satisfy the men and it would be doing a work that we are all anxious to see completed, namely, the trans^Canada highway. Of course the minister may say that that is a matter for the province; granted, but a little bit of cooperation would bring about the desired result. The trouble could have been settled in one day had some such suggestion as that been followed; when the mayor of Vancouver wired the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley), had the latter wired back: "All right, I will put the men on the highway," or made some announcement to that effect, everj'body would have been satisfied and the men would have gone back to the camps. Let the government put them on the road, and let them buy and pay for their board. That short day, at $2 a day, would not interfere with the regular logging, lumbering and mining industries.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Item 11 reads:
To provide for the construction and development of public buildings, camp sites-*
And so forth. Is that money all to be spent in the national parks or may it be spent where-ever the minister feels disposed to spend it?

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the national parks, property that is under the absolute control of the dominion. There is no provision in this vote for any money to be spent on provincial highways. Such provision would have to be made under the relief act by agreement with the provinces.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: How much of this
amount will be spent in Manitoba?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Riding Mountain park, $62,000.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Any other places?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Waterton Lakes National park. Is that in Manitoba.


Mr. VALLANCE:: That is in Alberta.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 'Is there any national park in Manitoba other than the one I have mentioned?
Mr. BEAiUiBIEtN: There is the Turtle Mountain reserve. Will anything be spent there ?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is nothing appropriated for it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Do I understand from the minister that out of this vote of $1,500,000, the item of $62,000 for Riding Mountain national park is all that will be spent in national parks in Manitoba?


Milton Neil Campbell: I notice one part of this item reads:
To provide for the development of historic sites including buildings, repairs and restorations.
Have any plans already been made as to what sites are to be restored?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The provision that is made for historic sites is $27,000. Under that heading I find a note as follows:
Fort Louisburg:	restoration, preservation
and improvement, $5,000.
Fort Prince of Wales:	restoration and
renovation as per engineer's report, $18,500.
Fort Anne, Annapolis Royal: completion of repairs to building, $3,500.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is that the entire amount that will be considered under this vote, or are any other requests being considered?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These are the only items for which provision is made under this vote.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is there any money left of this $1,500,000 that is not appropriated?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: These estimates are not final, and as the amount is all one and, as my hon. friend will observe, no specific
appropriation is made for any particular site, if the work in one does not cost as much as is estimated the balance will be available for something else.


Milton Neil Campbell: Might I make a suggestion to the minister to pass on to the Minister of the Interior? Fort Henry, which I think is quite well known to the minister and which is located at Barriefield on the Barriefield common, is one of the oldest forts in Canada, especially in Ontario. The historical association I think have requested on several occasions that something be done to restore it. Such restoration might increase the tourist business, and the Minister of Railways as the tourist king of Canada should be interested. May I ask the minister to pass on the suggestion that consideration be given to the restoration of this fort out of this vote?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That would be under the control of the Department of National Defence rather than the Department of the Interior. As the minister of that department is here, no doubt he has taken note of my hon. friend's suggestion.


Mr. HEAPS:: I wish to revert to the question raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) in regard to the wages to be paid for the work proposed in this schedule. The minister was not at all explicit as to the wages that will be paid where the work is done by direct labour, that is by the government undertaking the work. The government should at least live up to its own legislation. We passed this year a minimum wage bill. I woiild ask the minister to be explicit and tell the committee that all the works undertaken under this item or other items will be paid for according to the fair wage clauses which are in effect in the respective provinces.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As this is under the Department of the Interior I have not an intimate knowledge of the intentions of the minister with respect to these works. I do know with respect to any work that is done under contracts that the provision is binding upon the minister of that department as of any other; he must provide for payment of current rates of wages. If the work is done by camp labour I do not know what the regulations are.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is just the difficulty.
I assume that some of these works may be undertaken by the government itself, and not through a contractor, in which case I am asking that the government observe its own law and pay fair wages. It may be done by departments other .than the Department of
Public Works Program

Public Works, but the policy of the government should be the same whatever the department involved. They should all pay fair wages according to the law which the government itself has put upon the statute book in recent months. I should like the minister to give the assurance that all the men employed in these undertakings will receive wages in accordance with the fair wage schedules of the provinces in which the work is carried on.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I can
give the information which my hon. friend desires, as a note has been sent to me by an official of the Department of the Interior. It says that for all day labour the Interior department pays fair wages as recommended by the Labour department. Then as to British Columbia, I can tell the hon. member that the Minister of Labour has been authorized to enter into arrangements with British Columbia for the improvement of the park.


Thomas F. Donnelly: I notice that under item 11 the government is providing for the construction of electric light and telephone systems. I should like to know where they expect to build .these systems and what kind of systems they intend to put in. Where are these telephone systems to be installed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They would be
in the national parks.


Thomas F. Donnelly: What kind of electric
light system is it intended to put in?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I really do not
know.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Is it intended to bring in engines, or use water power, or what kind of system do you expect to build?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Thomas F. Donnelly: No information whatever? What about the telephone system; is it to be just around the park, or connected with the outside?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am sorry I
cannot give my hon. friend any more information about that.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Does the minister think that is a satisfactory answer? He should know something about what he is going to do with this money. Perhaps it is to get some light on the political situation.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I can
give my hon. friend some information. It is partly in Banff park, in the new administration building, installation of telephones, electric bells, et cetera; purchase of essential furniture and transfer of office equipment from present quarters to the new building, S2.500.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: The hon. member for
Willow Bunch (Mr. Donnelly) has almost taken the words out of my mouth. I see this item 11 provides for:
The construction and development of public buildings, camp sites, electric light and telephone systems, highways, bridges, streets, sidewalks, landing fields, air harbours, trails, water and sewer systems, recreational areas, wharves, and river protection works; to provide for the development of historic sites including buildings, repairs, and restorations; to provide for the purchase and acquisition of building sites, also to provide for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke (Rig Bend) section of the trans-Canada highway.
It seems to me that the committee is entitled to details of the moneys to be appropriated for these various items. For instance, I should like to know how much they are going to spend on electric light and how much on highways, how much on bridges and how much on sidewalks, how much on landing fields and how much on water and sewer systems. The minister must have some details; he should give the committee some information as to the way he is going to spend the money.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think I can
give the hon. member the information he desires:
Golden-Revelstoke highway:
(a)	Donald-Canoe river section (east leg), $185,000.
(b)	Revelstoke-Cano-e river section (west leg), $275,000.
To be applied in extending work on main trunk highways such as Banff-Jasper and Golden-Revelstoke, $300,000
Yukon territory:
Landing fields and highways, $40,000.
Northwest Territories:
Landing fields and air harbours, etc., $17,400.
Banff National park, $164,700.
Elk Island national park, $21,000.
Glacier national park, $2,500.
Jasper national park, $219,500.
Kootenay national park, $54,000.
Prince Albert national park, $60,700.
Riding Mountain national park. $62,000.
Waterton lakes national park, $24,200.
Yoho national park, $32,000.
Engineering supervision, $15,000.
Historic sites, $27,000-Total, $1,500,000.


Charles Edward Bothwell: Would the minister kindly tell us where these historic sites are to be established and how the money is to be spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes:
Fort Louisburg:	restoration, preservation
and improvement, $5,000.
Fort Prince of Wales: restoration and renovation, $18,500.
Fort Anne, Annapolis Royal: completion of repairs, alterations and improvements to building, $3,500.

Public Works Program


Thomas F. Donnelly: Will any of this be spent on the highway north of lake Superior, in Ontario?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Mr. TOTZKE:: I should like to ask if the minister will permit this item to stand. The hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) is desirous of securing some information, and he will be in later in the evening


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection whatever, if he will be in later.
Item stands.
Item 12-Lac Seul protection works, $175,000.


Milton Neil Campbell: I should like to ask the minister just what this work consists of, where it is and the nature of it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With the indulgence of the committee I will read a memorandum that has been left by the minister, because I have no personal knowledge of the matter.
The Lac Seul Conservation Act, 1928, confirmed an arrangement between the dominion, the province of Ontario and the province of Manitoba for the construction of a conservation dam at the outlet of lac Seul and for the regulation of the outflow from the lake in the interests of the water power development in Ontario and Manitoba. The Lake of the Woods Control Board was charged with re-sponsibilty of regulating lac Seul in conjunction with its responsibility for regulating the Lake of the Woods.
During the past season the run-off in the lac Seul watershed reached extreme flood proportions and as a result of these conditions and in order to maintain the necessary power supply for 'the mining operations in the Red Lake district, Ontario raised the lake to elevation 1158-95 on April 1, and to elevation 1167-24 on July 15, thus causing considerable flooding of the foreshore timber and other foreshore interests.
The lake was drawn down to elevation 1162-30 by April 15 of this year. Since that date the lake has risen to above 1164, which is more than 2 feet higher than the maximum natural water level (i.e. elevtion 1162). It is anticipated that in the forthcoming months the lake will again reach levels as high as those reached last year.
The lac Seul agreement of 1928 provides for a maximum elevation of 1172, with payment for any damages caused by raising the water level above natural levels.
As a result of repeated protests from Hudson, an investigation was made by representative dominion government engineers assisted by engineers of the National railways. It appears that because of the raising by the province of Ontario of the waters of lac Seul reservoir, certain protection works will be necessary to safeguard the waterfront and the railway main line right of way.
In past years damage has been caused to the railway embankment which, at this point, borders upon the lake for a distance of 3i miles. Temporary repairs have been made to the embankment by the Canadian National Railways from time to time. During the high water last year, serious damage resulted to the embankment, necessitating extensive and hurried repairs. Permanent riprapping is necessary for the safeguarding of the through line traffic.
Under the terms of the original lac Seul agreement any works which may be necessary for the construction and maintenance of the reservoir and for the repair of any damage are chargeable three-fifths to the dominion (to be refunded by Manitoba) and two-fifths to Ontario. However, there are certain features relating to this present situation which must be discussed with both Ontario and Manitoba before the work is undertaken and arrangements for apportioning the cost settled.
So this is for riprapping along the shore of lac Seul, where damage has been caused to the Canadian National roadway. Some arrangement is to be made with the provinces.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is the work to be done by the railway?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is to be done by this government, and a contribution is to be sought from Ontario and Manitoba.


Milton Neil Campbell: By which department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That has not been decided as yet, but the matter comes under the Department of the Interior because they have charge of the water-powers, and the agreement was negotiated through that department. Probably the work would be undertaken by the Department of Public Works.
Mr. iMcKINNON: I assume that the fair wage clause will apply to that work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, certainly.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Will the minister say how much money has been spent altogether on the lac Seul proposition?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not that information. I assume that my hon. friend is referring to some clearing work that has been done by the Department of National Defence.
Public Works Program


Abraham Albert Heaps: There was work done before that, but I should like to remind the minister that the clearing work done by the Department of National Defence was on the basis of twenty cents per day. I hope this work will be done under the fair wage clause.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am informed that no other work has been done since the dam was built, other than the clearing to which my hon. friend has referred.


Mr. McKINNON:: Is it proposed to do this work by contract?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That, of course, would be determined after an investigation, and upon the report of the engineers, on the authority of the governor in council.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Did I understand the minister to say that the roadbed of the railway was being endangered by the water of the lake and that it was necessary to have the roadbed riprapped in order to protect it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes.


Thomas F. Donnelly: How does that come to be w-ork that must be done by the department?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The railway runs right along the shore.


Thomas F. Donnelly: But why should it come under the Department of the Interior; why should it not come under the railway? It is a railway matter, so why should it come under this bill?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It comes under the agreement that was made for the erection of this dam.


Thomas F. Donnelly: With whom?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Between the province of Ontario, the province of Manitoba and the dominion. The dominion has the responsibility for it. It is not a railway matter at all; the dam was not built by the railway.


Mr. MacINNIS:: With further reference to this matter of fair wages, I think the government should be able to give us once and for all a very definite answer to this question. The title of this bill is:
An act to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities.
If this were an act to provide for relief we would call it an act to provide for relief. It is an act to create employment, but that should be employment on a fair wage basis,

under which the fair wage clause of the dominion government regulations should apply in every instance. I think there should be no difficulty in getting the government to give a definite assurance to the house that this will be the case. Personally I think we would all vote for this measure on that basis, but I should be very reluctant to vote for it if this money were to be expended on a relief basis. I think the minister should give us that undertaking.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can hasten to
assure my hon. friend that any works done under the provisions of this act will carry the fair wage clause. They will not be done by relief labour at all.


Charles Gavan Power: Under the act they must
carry that clause.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 13-Bridge at Ceepee, Saskatchewan,
Mr. McINTOSH:: Since this item concerns a bridge at Ceepee in the constituency of North Battleford I think perhaps it would be in order for me to say a few words in connection with it. In beginning I should like to ask the minister some pertinent questions. Will this be only a highway traffic bridge or will it be a combination bridge that will take care of both railway and highway traffic?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not intended to take care of rail traffic.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: There was then no consideration given to a combination bridge with the Canadian National railway at this point?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Or the Canadian Pacific railway ?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think not.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is the minister and the
department utilizing a plan for this bridge which I understand is on file in the government offices in Regina, or is there a new plan being made for this bridge?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No decision has
been made as to whether the bridge will be of steel or of concrete construction. No plans have been prepared or adopted.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Nothing has been done
so far as the department is concerned in connection with the plan that I understand is on file in the government offices in Regina?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.

Public Works Program


Cameron Ross McIntosh: After this item is carried and the bill passes the house and is sent to the senate and passes there and becomes law, how long will it be before the actual building of the bridge gets under way?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Just as soon as
plans and specifications can be prepared and tenders invited.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Can the minister state
in a more definite way how long it will likely be before construction is started?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think construction should be well under way this fall before the winter season sets in.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Has the minister any
idea of the number of men who will be employed in the construction of this bridge?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: He has no idea?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Is it the intention of
the department to utilize straight relief labour or mechanical means in the building of this structure?


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: May I ask if the name
of this bridge is an Indian name?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think it must
be.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: Are they all Indians in
that county?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know,
but the Indians are not all there.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I want to say a word
or two in connection with this vote. I am sure the minister has been deluged with resolutions, petitions and personal requests to build a bridge across the south Saskatchewan river at a place called Saskatchewan Landing. Ceepee to most people in western Canada means just the crossing of a river. I am doubtful whether a bridge there is justified. But the minister must have come to the conclusion from the resolutions and petitions he has received that it is the duty of this or some future government to build a bridge across the south Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing. It does seem to me that instead of voting S225.000 for this bridge at Ceepee which is not needed to any comparable extent with the need for a bridge at Saskatchewan Landing, the money might be devoted towards building a bridge where it is really needed in that province. I would ask
the minister to read the petitions and resolutions he has received and consider the facts that are given to him in those resolutions, and I trust that he will then conclude to divert this $225,000 to the construction of a bridge at Saskatchewan Landing.


John Vallance: May I hasten to assure
the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Both-well) that he does not seem to know the geography of the province of Saskatchewan. If he will look even at a road map of the province he will find that this bridge at Ceepee is being built on the Jasper highway, which is one of the main arteries of road transportation in the province of Saskatchewan, running from the city of Saskatoon, through the city of Battleford and on through to Edmonton, a road of the best type, one hundred per cent, mostly gravel highway, there being only seven or eight miles that are not gravelled. 1 know Saskatchewan Landing which my hon. friend from Swift Current speaks of, and I believe it is very necessary that a bridge should be built there some time. I rose merely to correct his statement that a bridge is not necessary at Ceepee. There is probably more traffic crossing on the ferry at Ceepee than on any other ferry in Saskatchewan, and in my opinion a bridge is very necessary there because it will serve all the towns lying between Saskatoon and Edmonton. It is on a through route, in fact, from Saskatchewan to Alberta, and is one of the most travelled highways in the province of Saskatchewan.


Charles Edward Bothwell: The hon. member for
South Battleford (Mr. Vallance) does not yet seem to realize that a bridge at this particular point should be either a provincial or a municipal matter.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Just a word with regard to the necessity for a bridge at Saskatchewan Landing which my hon. friend from Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) speaks about. This crossing on the Saskatchewan river is on a highway. There is a highway running north and south connecting the* central part of Saskatchewan with the main line of the Canadian Pacific. It is a gravelled road on which there is a great deal of travel. One of the reasons why a bridge should be built across the Saskatchewan river at Saskatchewan Landing arises out of the fact that because of the very nature of the south Saskatchewan river, banks are thrown up in it every summer, producing shallow spots which during the past two or three years have made it very difficult for the ferry to cross without going aground. I was on the ferry
Public Works Program

myself when it was aground for more than an hour and unable to get across. We have continually to move the ferry from place to place in order to get where there will be sufficient water for it to cross. The occurrence of these shallow areas makes it very difficult indeed to run a ferry, and therefore the necessity for a bridge is very great. Whether the need is greater there than it is at Ceepee I do not know.
Mr. VALLAN'CE: What you need is more water.


Thomas F. Donnelly: That may be true, and I hope we shall get it this year. But in any case, whether it be the business of the municipality, the province or the federal government, it seems to me that a bridge should be built at Saskatchewan Landing.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: Mr. Chairman, when I
was interrupted I was asking the minister about the possibilities of using straight relief labour in the construction of this bridge at Ceepee. Has he anything further to say on that point? Will he endeavour to see that relief labour in the district is used?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Mr. Chairman, I would expect that this bridge would be constructed under contract, and the contract will contain provisions as to the employment of labour in the locality, those most in need and returned soldiers. With regard to the importance of these two bridges, the information we have on file is that the number of crossings at Ceepee in the year 1933 was 80,000 and at Saskatchewan Landing 55,000, and we have selected the point where we found the traffic was the heavier.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Has any consideration
been given to the possibility of having a bridge at Saskatchewan Landing and a tunnel *t Ceepee? This government is great on building tunnels, and they might give us one at Ceepee.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: How many other bridges is the dominion government going to build along this highway? What justification is there for the government entering the field of bridge construction?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend
has raised a very pertinent point. As a matter of strict obligation, the dominion government should not be in this field at all. Such bridges should be constructed by the provinces except possibly where they are on the trans-Canada highway, towards which the government contributes fifty per cent.


Edward Joseph Garland: Or an
international bridge.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Or an international bridge, as my hon. friend suggests. This is a measure for the relief of unemployment and there are not many harbours or other places where we can do work of this kind in Saskatchewan. That province has practically all the necessary public buildings, and it was thought only fair to provide a reasonable amount under this bill. It was decided that this was as good a way as could be found to provide this work.


Charles Edward Bothwell: When these moneys
are voted are they allocated definitely for the purpose set out in the bill, or can they be diverted to needful works?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would say they cannot be diverted, no matter how needful the work may be.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: I should like to make
a suggestion to the minister in connection with spending money for this purpose. I think the minister could relieve unemployment and do something which w'ould be more useful and beneficial if he would have dams built at intervals along some of the rivers and streams in the west in order to keep the water level at such a point that the people living along the streams may get their supply of water. People have settled along the banks of the Red river and many bridges are necessary across that river, but I think water in the river is even more necessary. I understand that the government of the United States is going to dam the Red river at a point close to the boundary, and if that is done the water in this river will become even more putrid than it has been during the last few years. Along this river the water in the wells is so hard and alkaline that even the horses will not drink it. I ask the minister to have his district engineer in Winnipeg look over this river and see if it would not be possible to construct small inexpensive dams at different places in order to raise the level of the water say two or three feet so that the people along the river may be able to get a supply of better water.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am inclined
to think that the suggestion made by my hon. friend comes within the scope of the program being laid down by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) for the conservation of water in the three western provinces, which program is now being studied by a special committee. This would appear to be the best way of accomplishing the result my hon. friend has in mind. The difficulty of constructing dams

Public Works Program
without provincial authority is apparent, and even if that authority is obtained there are the rights of the riparian owners to be considered. People living along a stream are entitled to the natural flow, and if the flow is retarded or increased there may be many and costly claims for damages. This matter would require special consideration and perhaps special legislation, but I shall draw it to the attention of the engineers of the department to see if there is any information which we could furnish to the Department of Agriculture.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: So far as I can find out, the work being undertaken by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) is to take care of the dried out areas in the three western provinces. The district along the Red river to which I refer is not dried out from the point of view of sufficient moisture with which to grow crops, but it is as far as actual water in the river is concerned. There is a vote of $2,500,000 in this schedule for harbours and rivers generally, and very little of that amount is to be expended in Manitoba. Another vote of $1,500,000 is being provided for the Department of the Interior, of which only $62,000 is to be expended in Manitoba. I notice the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) looking at me; probably he is going to finish the Mafeking cutoff before the session is ended. Surely this condition along the Red river could be investigated and some relief provided out of this vote of $2,500,000. I have taken up this matter with the province of Manitoba but they are not in a position to do anything, because the federal government claims that the Red river is a navigable stream and under its jurisdiction. Will the minister have Mr. Goodspeed, the district engineer in Winnipeg, look into this matter and report to the department whether something cannot be done to raise the level of these waters? At nany points along this river the traffic must tross on ferries, and quite often there is not sufficient water to permit the ferry boat to cross.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have no objection to securing a report as to the feasibility of this proposition.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: If the district engineer reports favourably will the minister hold back part of this $2,500,000 vote to do this work?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will consider that.


Charles Edward Bothwell: After listening to this discussion I have come to the conclusion that the minister is not particularly enamoured
of the word "Ceepee." I suggest to him that that should be changed to' "Saskatchewan Landing," and I should like to move an amendment to that effect. This bill is intended to provide work, and there is no place more worthy of assistance than the district in which the Saskatchewan Landing bridge would be built. I suggest to the minister that he change this location to Saskatchewan Landing.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend can get the hon. gentleman who spoke for Ceepee to second his motion, then we will consider it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: I asked the minister a few questions, to which he gave certain answers. These were simply preliminary;
I should like to add a few observations in connection with this measure. I may say that my remarks will be more in the nature of commendation than condemnation; I want to commend the minister and the government for taking the action they have in the matter of the construction of a bridge at this point. The bridge will cross the north Saskatchewan river at Ceepee, and will fill a long felt want in that part of the province. John Morley once said that there were three attributes which were essential to parliamentary eloquence or parliamentary discussion. One was, who did the speaking, another, how he spoke; and the third, what he said. To-night, in the discussion of this project, we can throw out the last to a large extent. There has not been much said on it yet-that is, not much that is constructive. A good deal of extraneous material has been introduced. How what was said was said, and who said it, are important, but there has not been the opportunity to say very much. Very little information has been given the committee so far. Now I should like to give some.
It is not necessary to persuade the government or t'he committee because that persuasion has already taken place and the bridge project has been accepted by the government, so that in time it will be constructed. Therefore, so far as those who have spoken are concerned, and how they uttered what they did say, and what they said, did not make much difference from the point of view of persuading the ministry because, as I say, that persuasion had already been accomplished.
May I say I am glad to see this bill on the order paper; there is no doubt that the house will adopt it. The government has a sufficient majority to put it through and will put it through and if necessary, my vote will help to put it through. May I say that the
Public Works Program

very fact that the bill is on the order paper is proof that [DOT] the unemployment problem in that part of northern Saskatchewan has not been adequately solved. That is why I asked some questions as to whether or not straight relief work would be done in the construction of the bridge. I gather from what the minister said that a good deal of it will be of that kind. Now it is better late than never to have a bridge of this kind erected, and though it has been a long time coming, I think I am justified in saying that the government has done the right thing by that part of the province.
In 1930, subsequent to the election of that year, the dominion director of unemployment relief sent out a questionnaire to every member in western Canada and in the east as well. It had reference to useful projects that would help to absorb the unemployed of that day and most of the members east and west replied to it. At any rate, speaking for myself, I forwarded my reply, and I recommend that a certain number of projects should be supported by the government in northern Saskatchewan in order that useful development works might take place and also with a view to having the unemployment problem grappled with in a satisfactory manner. I recommended surface gravelling of important highways in northern Saskatchewan, especially in northwestern Saskatchewan. I also recommended branch line railway building; I suggested that there should be a branch lice from St. Walburg to Beaver Crossing, and another branch line a certain number of miles south of that branch, between Frenchman's Butte and a point called Heinsburg in Alberta.
Furthermore, this bridge was recommended. I would point out that it was recommended in 1930, five years ago. Now in 1935 action is being taken. I commend the government for taking this action but considerable time has elapsed since the recommendation was made in 1930 and I do submit that it would have been better if the bridge had been built four or five years ago. A branch line railway was also recommended out of Borden to join the railway between North Battleford and Prince Albert so as to afford the farmers of that area better railway accommodation, something they do not yet enjoy. Indeed, that is a problem which will have to be met in the near future. Nothing was done in regard to this bridge in 1931, nothing was done in 1932 or 1933 or 1934; not until 1935 in the last session of this parliament has the government taken action. As I say, it is better late than never and I am pleased that the government is backing this measure and that it will become law. To show the im-
portance of this project all that one has to do is to consult the geography of western Canada.
If one knows anything about Saskatchewan, if he knows what a great province it is, embracing 250,000 square miles of territory, if he knows anything about the development that has taken place in that great area in the last twenty-five years, he is bound to come to the conclusion that this bridge is an absolute necessity. It will be a link in the Jasper highway, a link in the highway through northern British Columbia, northern Alberta and northern [Saskatchewan, and will very materially facilitate the traffic through North Battleford, Saskatoon on to Winnipeg, and to eastern Canada.
At the present time there is only a ferry service at the point known as Ceepee. It cannot by any means accommodate the large amount of traffic that flows along the highway from the north through North Battleford and down to Winnipeg. That northern country in the last few years has taken a new lease of life. The people from southern Manitoba, southern Saskatchewan, southern Alberta and other parts of the dominion have been going into that northern area which is prac- [DOT] tically an empire in itself. It is thickly populated. This bridge therefore will be a very useful link in that highway and will prove an important aid to traffic from all parts of that northern area. It will be a great benefit to all those who are doing any trucking or transporting of goods to and fro along that highway. I would point out, moreover, that this bridge could be utilized to a large extent by the department in absorbing unemployed who are on relief in that part of the province, and since there are some unemployed I should think that those who are near to this location in Saskatoon and North Battleford and also in the rural areas should be given the preference when the bridge is being built. That would give them an opportunity for work and wages.
May I urge upon the minister and the department the importance of getting the work under way as expeditiously as possible. I am satisfied that when the bridge is constructed all those associated with its erection will receive commendation from people of all shades of political opinion, something only right when we consider that the contract will involve over $'200,000 and that this structure will constitute a permanent link in one of the most important highways in the dominion.


Mr. BURY:: I wish to make a brief contribution to the harmony, indeed the unanimity, that has prevailed among lion, members opposite on the subject of bridges by interjecting another bridge which I wish to call

Public Works Program
to the attention of the minister. On the same highway on which this Ceepee bridge is to be constructed, there is another nec^p-sary link, a bridge over the North Saskatchewan river at the northern part of the city of Edmonton. We have no ferry there as my hon. friend who represents North Battle-ford (Mr. McIntosh) has at the site of the proposed bridge in his constituency, and people taking that highway, coming from Lloydminster and Saskatoon and, I suppose, going through North Battleford, when they come to the bank of the North Saskatchewan opposite Edmonton have to make a detour of fifteen miles or perhaps more in order to get back on that highway. I would urge upon the minister consideration of the possibility of utilizing an amount from this vote for the purpose of completing the good work which he proposes to commence at Ceepee, by putting up another bridge over the North Saskatchewan river at Edmonton.
May I, while I am on my feet, remind my hon. friends opposite that this particular item of the vote demonstrates what they are so loath to admit, namely, the broad mindedness and lack of political partisanship of the present government in respect of relief; for whereas the hon. member for North Battle-ford is able to get a bridge at Ceepee, I have so far failed to get a bridge in my constituency of East Edmonton over the North Saskatchewan.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: We will help the hon. member to get one there some time.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: I hope, if I do not get it this year, I may get it next, and in the very remote possibility that by an extraordinary freak of circumstance my hon. friends opposite find themselves on this side of the house, I may get it from them if I cannot get it from my own party.


Thomas F. Donnelly: Following what has been said by the hon. member for East Edmonton (Mr. Bury) and the hon. member for North Battleford (Mr. Macintosh), I just wish to say that probably this Ceepee bridge will be needed in the near future. I hope and trust that southern Saskatchewan will continue to have the rains which it has been having in the last few weeks and will continue to have them for the next year or two. If the rains continue that bridge will be needed in order that the people who migrated north of the North Saskatchewan may return south, because I assume they will all come back after having migrated to the north about which the hon. member for North Battleford spoke.
As regards unemployment, I fail to see why the people in that district should be unemployed. They have been having good crops for the last few years. This is in a country section some distance from a city. Why should there be a lot of unemployment there? The situation is entirely different in the southern part of the province where the people have had no crops for six years. Why at the time of the election last summer should a lot of money have been sent in to the northern part to relieve unemployment and to build roads while nothing was done in the southern part, where the people had no work, no crops, nothing to do and were living entirely on relief? It looks as if this action was taken to help out not so much the unemployment as the political situation. However, it did not do a great deal of good anyway in the election last June.
I wish to compliment the minister upon his saying that in looking over the proposition they decided to spend $225,000 on bridge work in Saskatchewan because that province has no harbours or wharves, breakwaters and things of that kind to construct. I notice what he said with regard to the money that is to be spent, namely $500,000 for building dams and $750,000 for rehabilitating the dried out area. Well, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) was out in the west, 'but he did not come into the central part of the dried out area. I have the misfortune to represent the constituency of Willow Bunch in the central part of the dried out area, and I did not see anything of the Minister of Agriculture there, nor did I hear of any proposition to build dams or reservoirs or anything else in my constituency. He went around on the outside of it. I notice there was a proposition in the west in the Cypress hills to dam the Frenchman river and the White Mud. There was another proposition in the northern part to dam the Saskatchewan river, and another to build a reservoir or dam on the Souris river in the Estevan district, but I did not hear of any proposition in regard to Willow Bunch. It looks as if what the people out there say is true, that this proposition of building dams is not to dam the water but to damn the Grits; it is a political manoeuvre. The people say; Whan the next election comes around we will have a pork barrel election; we will have these dams all over and people surveying them in all parts of the west.
An hon. MEMBER; The government will be damned.


Thomas F. Donnelly: They will be the ones that will be damned, and not the Liberal
Public Works Program

party; it will oome back on the government just as it did last June. There will be a lot of parties sent out looking for farms for strip farming, tree planting and that kind of work. There will be another lot of people prospecting for gold. We expect to see them going over all the hills looking for gold. There will be another lot travelling around from farm to farm, asking the farmer if he does not want a loan and saying: Come up before the debt adjustment board; we will adjust all your debts and lend you money at five per cent; there will he no more of this eight or nine per cent. Of course there will not be any amount of money lent until after the election. There may be some small sums lent here and there just to entice people to think they are going to get the money, but there will not be much done. I do hope the minister will be just as sincere with regard to the constituency of Willow Bunch and the people there as he tried to show he was towards the people of Saskatchewan, and that when it is a matter of building dams and putting in reservoirs he will not forget that there are sites in the constituency of Willow Bunch in the centre of the dried out area that he might work on just as well as in some of the other constituencies round about.


Mr. SEGUIN (Translation):: Mr. Chairman, it is not to object to the $4,000,000 vote that I rise at the present time. I believe that in proposing this vote the government wishes to redeem the monumental error they committed in spending million after million to maintain people in idleness, instead of employing them at useful work. I should consider myself recreant to my trust if on this occasion, when a large sum is sought for public works, I did not once more ask the Minister of Public Works to use part of this $4,000,000 to rebuild the post office at L'Assomption.
Many times have I drawn the minister's attention to this matter, even showing 'him a photograh that I can now exhibit to the house. The present building, supported by props, is a disgrace to the town of L'Assomption and to the government. Its reconstruction or permanent repair is not only absolutely necessary, but would help to relieve unemployment. When I insisted on its reconstruction, a few more stays were simply added to prevent the building from crumbling. And when I repeated my request last year, a coat of paint was applied to the props in an endeavour to improve the appearance of this tottering structure owned by His Majesty. It is not too much to ask, now that a vote
[Mr. Donnelly.J
of $4,000,000 is before the house, that a reasonable sum be devoted to providing the t#wn of L'Assomption with a less disgraceful post office than it now has.
Many people in my district are out of work. During the past few years the government has had to disburse vast sums to maintain people in idleness, when they could have been employed at useful work. A post office has long been sorely needed at St. Lin des Laurentides. It had been decided in 1910 to build one, but unfortunately a change of government took place as the work was about to begin, and it was not proceeded with. Now that the government intends spending money to relieve unemployment, I think it would be proper to devote part of the $4,000,000 to the construction of a public building in the town of St. Lin des Laurentides.
May I remind the minister that my district contains a large number of farmers who grow vast quantities of tobacco. The construction of warehouses would prove a great advantage to the tobacco producers. There is urgent need, in many parishes of my district, of warehouses to enable the tobacco growers to market their product in good condition and at the right time.
I therefore suggest to the hon. minister that he relieve unemployment in my district by providing from this vote a sufficient sum to build warehouses, for example at L'Epi-phanie, at St. Jacques l'Achigan, at St. Esprit, at Ste. Julienne, at St. Alexis. Should he find that I am asking too much and that the building of small warehouses here and there will prove -too costly, I would ask him to build one large one, say in the town of Joliette, where the farmers of L'Assomption, Montcalm and Joliette counties could store their tobacco, keeping it safe and in good condition until the time came to market it at a decent price.
I respectfully submit these various propositions to the consideration of the minister. I could also add a request for the construction of the dam at Charlemagne that the Chambers of Commerce of L'Assomption and L'Epiphanie have already asked for. Senator Rainville, chief organizer of the Conservative party, has promised that a grant would be made for that purpose. I would point out to the hon. minister that this project is very important and will increase the value of all the land fronting on L'Assomption River. I would ask him to endorse the promise given by Senator Rainville and pro-

Public Works Program
vide a sufficient amount to erect this dam that will make L'Assomption River navigable once more and give to the whole district the benefit of the fine stream that the present bed of the river makes possible.
That is all I am going to say. I trust the hon. minister will take these requests under consideration and will not fail to grant at least one or two of them, among others the rebuilding of the post office at L'Assomption, which is a disgrace to the town and district, the construction of a large warehouse at Joliette, of a dam at Charlemagne and of a post office at St. Lin.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I gather that
my hon. friend is making representation in regard to the construction of public buildings in his constituency. I shall read in Hansard to-morrow very carefully what he has said and see what can be done about it.


John Campbell Elliott: I wish to make a suggestion that I hope will meet with the approval of the minister and of the members of the. committee. There is an amendment moved to the section on which this schedule is based, and it would be convenient for those in charge of that amendment if the minister and the committee could see their way clear to discuss it now. It involves a number of things which if they are out of the way may obviate discussion that might otherwise have to take place.


Charles Gavan Power: Shall we pass the remaining items of the schedule?


John Campbell Elliott: No, let them stand. I
assume they cannot all be completed anyway.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There is only
one other small item, No. 14, I suggest that we deal with that. And there is the item that is standing until the hon. member for Edmonton comes in. If this last item could be disposed of then I have no objection.
Item 14 agreed to.


The CHAIRMAN (Mr. MacDonald, Cape Breton):: An amendment has been proposed
to clause 2, as follows:
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto subsection 2A:
2A. That in all employment arising out of the execution of such works and undertakings, whether under contract or by day labour (a) those most in need and available shall have first benefits from the employment to be created; (b) preference shall be given to unemployed and needy ex-service men and to unemployed and needy married men with dependents; (c) in no case shall discrimination be made in the employment of any person by reason of political
affiliation, race, or religious views; (d) where such works or undertakings are of a local character and the expenditure involved does not exceed $25,000, all persons employed shall be residents of the locality in which the work is to be performed; (e) it shall be the duty of the minister concerned to see that the provisions of this section are complied with and, in respect of works or undertakings done under contract, he shall be entitled to cancel the contracts forthwith in the event of any breach of such provisions by the contractor.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: During the recess I have carefuly studied the amendment prepared by the hon. member for West Lamb-ton (Mr. Gray). It is drastic, severe in some of its limitations, and I suggest in some respects from an administrative standpoint perhaps impossible, fully to comply with. Some part of what the amendment proposes is already observed in the specifications and in the practice of the department. I am prepared to go a long way to meet the suggestions of the amendment, with the general purposes of which we are quite in agreement; there should be no discrimination, there should be preference for ex-service men, for married men with dependents, and also unmarried men with dependents, for whom the proposed amendment does not provide.
I have drafted an amendment to the amendment which I think will make for the same ends, and which I trust will be acceptable to the hon. gentleman. I move, seconded by Mr. Manion:
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto the following:
Provided, however, that in the execution of such works, as far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy, first consideration shall be given to the employment of those who if available and competent are most in need in the locality in which the works are to be performed, without any discrimination whatsoever; preference being shown to unemployed ex-service men and unemployed married and single men with dependents; and that the minister of the department responsible for the execution of such works may take such action as he may deem necessary and proper to enforce compliance with the foregoing provisions.


Mr. GRAY:: The amendment which I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Shelburne-Yarmouth, on the 17th day of April, has been read by the chairman and is on record in Hansard, so I feel sure hon. members have had an opportunity of considering it. I have not seen the amendment to the amendment, and did not hear it until the minister read it a moment or so ago, and while I appreciate the spirit in which the minister has viewed my amendment I feel that the amendment to the amendment is
Public Works Program

too general, and that we cannot accept it. I feel that my amendment has teeth which will help to overcome some of the difficulties about which we have been hearing during the discussion of this bill. The hon. member for North Winnipeg (Mr. Heaps) has stated some of the difficulties with which we have been confronted throughout the dominion in connection with this public works program, and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Beau-bien) has mentioned others. I quite realize the difficulties with which the government are faced; 1 quite realize that the government themselves are desirous of seeing that there is no discrimination and that certain preferences are lived up to, but I wish to point out that what has taken place in the past has caused that attitude on the part of the government to become nothing more than a pious hope. The first provision of my amendment is that:
(a)	those most in need and available shall have first benefits from the employment to be created.
I realize that probably it is sometimes a little difficult to decide who are most in need, but in 193)1 the government recognized that this provision should be in all contracts having to do with the work being promoted in the various municipalities. In their instructions issued under the unemployment relief act of 1031 they stated, in a bulletin issued by the Department of Public Works, that those most in need should first derive benefit from the grants, which should be apportioned with impartiality. The president of the United States, in announcing his relief program a week or so ago, stated that in all cases those on relief rolls should be first considered. I think that is the wish of the committee, and I believe it was with that point in mind that the hon. member for Provencher directed the attention of the minister this afternoon to a project in the city of Winnipeg on which, out of a total of some four hundred men employed, it had been reported to him that only about 150 had been taken from the relief rolls. So it is the intention of my amendment to put into the act a specific subsection stating first, as I have said, that those most in need and available shall have first benefits in the employment to be created. I do not think the government should object to that provision because, as I have said, they have already given similar instructions, though in many cases these instructions have turned out to be merely pious wishes.

The next provision is that:
(b)	preference shall be given to unemployed and needy ex-service men and to unemployed and needy married men with dependents.
I agree with the minister that we should include needy single men with dependents as well. First I should like to say a word as to needy and unemployed ex-service men. It is quite true that in the regulations issued, and I think in the contracts as well, it is stated that a reasonable quota of unemployed returned men shall be employed, but I think we would strengthen the hands of the government, of the minister and of the contractor if we inserted this provision. Apparently the minister recognizes this, because he is prepared to go that far in his amendment. I commend to the government the fact that they have already recognized that in this country there are large numbers of needy unemployed ex-service men. The Minister of Pensions and National Health (Mr. Sutherland) has appointed a commission, known I think as the Hyndman commission. In answer to a question asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett) stated that the report of this commission had not been received, but from the press one learns that the commission is hearing of the large number of needy unemployed ex-service men we still have in this country. I think it is to be deplored that during the five years they have been in office the government have not been busy classifying the unemployed of this country so that we might know how many ex-service men, how many men of different ages and so on are among them. I think we should have had that information long ago, but in any event in this program of unemployment relief which we are about to launch and in completing the construction program of 1934 I suggest that we should place upon the statute books the preference that is to be given to the needy unemployed ex-service men, the needy unemployed married men with dependents and, as the minister has suggested, and as I should be glad to include in my amendment, the needy unemployed single men with dependents.
The next provision of my amendment is as follows:
(c)	in no ease shall discrimination be made in the employment of any person by reason of political affiliation, race, or religious views.
I think in this particular also the amendment to the amendment is very general in its terms. I believe we could divide it up and place this provision in a separate subsection as I have tried to do in my amendment.

Public Works Program
The government say in their bulletins they recognize that this should be the case, but again may I point out that hon. members have often stated to this house that this has not been followed in the works that have been undertaken during the past year. The government stated in their bulletins in 1931 that in no case should discrimination be made or permitted in the employment of or in the granting of direct relief to any British subject by reason of his political affiliation, race or religious views. But we all know that unless the minister has enabled to hold a club, so to speak, over the contractors, that is difficult of fulfilment. I am going to read a letter which my right hon. leader has received from the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, just to illustrate what is taking place in one section of the country. I grant that the matter I am about to refer to does not come under the Minister of Public Works, but in view of the fact that this is a public works measure as a whole, he must take responsibility for it as well as the minister under whose department the particular work directly comes. The letter deals with the barracks being built at Calgary under the Department of National Defence. It is from Local Union No. 1779, and reads as follows:
The members of the above local wish to inform you that when the building of the barracks at Calgary was announced it was lenerally accepted that the available Work would be spread out to afford a maximum jf assistance to the various classes of craftsmen which it might employ.
Contractors opened lists for the carpenters who had worked for them at various periods, and many workmen hoped that after waiting many months for the work to begin that at least they would be able to get a few days' employment. Now we are to understand that the only hope of ever getting work on the barracks job is when his name is on the approved list which is furnished to the contractors.
The members of Local No. 1779 request that when parliament is opened a protest be vigorously made against the practice of using this patronage list, as it is debarring carpenters who are loyal and have been citizens of this country for the last twenty-five to thirty years, also a large percentage of the members being ex-service men. Owing to this approved list being used certain carpenters are being given employment by the various contractors on the scheme, thereby making it impossible for others to get employment.
Trusting you will give this appeal your greatest consideration,
Yours truly,
per Charles E. Scott,
Recording Secretary.
This illustrates what has come to the attention, I feeil sure, of many hon. members present. The minister a few days ago stated
in reply to a question which had been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth).
The government leaves it largely to the contractor whom he shall employ, with this reservation, that we stipulate in our contracts that he must employ a reasonable quota of returned soldiers and_ local labour where it is available and competent. That is as far as we can go, I think, in reason with the contractor. If we go further, then the contractor has the right to make a claim for extras or anything else if you are going to dictate to him just whom he shall employ.
I say with all due respect that contractors who are receiving public money, and in respect of expenditures such as we are making for the relief of unemployment, certainly should be told to as great an extent as the government sees fit whom they shall employ, and to do that it is necessary to put some teeth into the act, which I am suggesting shall be done.
Clause (d) of my amendment is as follows:
(d)	where such works or undertakings are of a local character and the expenditure involved does not exceed $25,000, all persons employed shall be residents of the locality in which the work is to be performed.
I realize that the minister in his contracts with the contractors does state that as far as practicable the people of the locality shall be employed. What I am attempting to do here, sir, is to see to it that in works of a purely local nature, and works not exceeding $25,000 only local men shall be employed. But in large works where half a million dollars or more are being expended, whether in Toronto, Halifax or any other city, men in the surrounding, outlying localities should surely be just as much entitled to employment as residents of the particular city concerned. They are purely dependent on the city, and I think they should be given some consideration.
Clause (e) of my amendment reads:
(e)	it shall be the duty of the minister concerned to see that the provisions of this section are complied with and in respect of works or undertakings done under contract, he shall be entitled to cancel the contracts forthwith in the event of any breach of such provisions by the contractor.
That is a necessary provision in order that the minister may be able to enforce strictly the provisions that have been dealt with in clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d).
Again may I say that while I appreciate the government's attitude with respect to my amendment, I feel that the amendment to the amendment is in much the same general tone as the various orders in council and the various instructions that have been
Public Works Program

communicated to the provinces heretofore under the relief acts. I hope that with the fact in mind that I am trying to put some real strength into the section, some real power into the hands of the minister, whatever department the work may happen to come under, the government will see fit to accept my amendment as moved on April 17.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have listened attentively to the remarks of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. 'Gray). I am not unmindful of the necessity of work for returned soldiers, and of the necessity of work for those, both married and single with dependents. But speaking from my own practical experience I sometimes think that not enough attention is given to those who should be on relief but are not. I mean that large body of workmen who have mortgaged their homes, who have saved by thrift, and have stayed off relief, and I think that in connection with work of this description something should be done for such people. I do not think they should be placed outside the pale, so to speak, in connection with this building policy of the government, because after all is said and done it would be a penalty on thrift if you denied to them the right of effective labour simply because through their own efforts they have kept off the relief roll.
The question of politics, of course, enters deeply into work of this description. We have not yet reached the stage in this dominion where the secretary of the local political organization has not some say as to who shall be employed not only on works of this description but also on contract work. I believe that is unsound and unfair. I believe that when a government launches a works policy for the unemployed' the political stripe of the individual and the influence that comes from political organizations should not enter into the matter at all. I think it is fair to say that the unemployed men in the trades and the labourers of this dominion look forward with a great deal of satisfaction to the launching by the government of this works program. I have no knowledge of the manner in which contracts are allocated to individuals who are on the right side of a particular political organization, but I think such practices are unfair and not in accord with British justice. Another great difficulty will arise in deciding who is and who is not needy. I am dealing with conditions in Ontario with which I am better acquainted, and I contend that this work should be given through the labour exchanges. These organizations are non-

political and they have rosters of the unemployed men and women in the different localities. I know of no fairer way of hiring men and women. No matter whether the amendment of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) or the amendment to the amendment of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) should pass, the government would be well advised to use these employment offices in giving employment in connection with the public works program. The government owes it to the unemployed to see that no unemployed man or woman is denied work because of his or her political affiliation. From my practical experience of many years I question very much whether any government is benefited by political patronage, because for every man who gets a job the particular government makes twenty enemies. The question of political affiliation should not be considered at all; this should be a public works program for the benefit of those deprived at the moment of productive labour. When a contract is let there may be difficulty in deciding who is the most efficient man to employ, but that difficulty is met every day. If the government is going to demand that certain labour shall be employed by the contractor, I do not know where the thing will end. The employment service of Canada can supply all the necessary labour through its various offices. I urge the minister and1 the government to put forth every effort to see that men and -women are given work irrespective of their political affiliations.


Charles Gavan Power: Is the question on the amendment or on the amendment to the amendment?


Finlay MacDonald: On the amendment to the amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: The amendment to the amendment reads:
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto the following:
I submit that that is badly drawn; it should read, "that all the words after 'that' be struck out," or something similar. I ask you to rule the subamendment out of order. It is drafted not as a subamendment but as an amendment, and there is already an amendment before the chair.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: When I moved it I said it was an amendment to the amendment.

Public Works Program


Charles Gavan Power: It does not read that way. I suggest that as we now have it, it is out of order.


Finlay MacDonald: The motion as made by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) was an amendment to the amendment.


Charles Gavan Power: It does not say so.


Finlay MacDonald: It said so.


Charles Gavan Power: Will you read it, please?


Finlay MacDonald: The motion is:
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto the following:


Charles Gavan Power: I submit that we cannot take that into consideration because there is already before the chair an amendment to section 2.


Finlay MacDonald: I suppose it would be simply a matter of changing the wording.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With the consent of the committee I would have the motion put into proper form to comply with the rules and have it read, "that all the words of the amendment after the word 'that' be struck out and the following substituted therefor." There are two ways of doing it, and one is to vote your amendment down and then vote on this one.


Charles Gavan Power: I suggest also that there are two ways of doing it, one right and the other wrong, and apparently after a month's consideration the minister proceeds in the wrong way.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Possibly so.


Charles Gavan Power: The minister agrees. I am not going to labour the point-some other hon. member may deal with it-but the fact remains that this is hardly a proper and appropriate amendment to the amendment because it does not in any way negative the amendment itself. I have not the rule of the house under my hand but it seems to me that this means the same thing as the amendment itself, although we cannot accept it on this side because it weakens the amendment. T suggest, Mr. Chairman, that you consider whether the fact that the amendment to the amendment does not negative the amendment moved by the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray) is not a proper point of order. While you are considering that I will proceed with my remarks on the minister's subamendment.
The amendment reads in part as follows: 92582-193
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto subsection 2A:
2A. That in all employment arising out of the execution of such works and undertakings, whether under contract or by day labour (a) those most in need and available shall have first benefits from the employment to be created.
I submit that there can be no objection to that on the part of the minister or the contractors. There is nothing in this amendment which would hold up a contractor in the execution of his work. He would not have to go to Toronto in order to find a person in need to help him carry on work in Winnipeg. Any one in need and available will have the right to first choice.


Mr. STEW  ART@Leeds: What is meant by "available"?


Mr. POT  ER@: I have just tried to explain it persons available and at hand who could possibly be employed.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Without regard to competency?
POWER: I would suggest that the word "available" would cover everything.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Oh, no.


Charles Gavan Power: If a carpenter was wanted they would not ask a lawyer to do the work; he would not be an available carpenter.


Ambrose Upton Gledstanes Bury: He might be a botch carpenter, and he would be utterly disqualified.


Richard Burpee Hanson: A jackknife carpenter.
Mr. PO'WER: In that event the penalty, after all, would be in the discretion of the minister and it would not apply; whereas in the amendment to the amendment the words, "as far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy," give really no direction at all to the person in charge of the work to employ people most in need. You can always find reasons and excuses for saying that such and such a procedure would not be efficient or would not be economical. The idea behind this program, as I understand it, is not so much economy as the giving of employment. The principle which we have laid down is that employment shall be found. If we are to talk about economy then let us do it with the twenty cents a day labour as the government is doing in some instances; that would be really economical. But the intention is to give a fair chance to the people who are at present

Public Works Program

in need of employment and not to carry out these works in what might be the most economical manner possible.
Now as to section (b), preference shall be given to unemployed and needy ex-service men. I do not think that the preference question need be discussed very long; this lias been in our statutes since 1910. The house has unanimously on many occasions decided that the ex-service man shall have the preference. Here we are asking for a preference to unemployed ex-service men; next, to needy ex-service men; and then unemployed and needy married men with dependents. That is a direction which it should be comparatively easy for the foreman or the contractor to understand. As a matter of fact, I believe that at present, in his contracts with the contractor, the minister says that there shall be a reasonable quota. Personally I do not like the words "reasonable quota." That might mean one man out of many hundreds.


Richard Burpee Hanson: That
would not be reasonable.


Charles Gavan Power: Why not?


Mr. MALONEY:: One out of many hundreds?


Charles Gavan Power: There is nothing to show what the quota shall be, and Mr. Contractor might very well say to the minister, "Sure; I have my quota. I have a man I picked up, an unemployed ex-service man, and he is my quota. Now the others can go hang as far as I am concerned."


Martin James Maloney: What would you say?


Charles Gavan Power: If it were in the law and I were a contractor I would follow the law. But if it were laid down by the minister and my hon. friends opposite and if the provision were "as far as practicable and consistent with reasonable efficiency and economy" I would say, "I will do what I darned well please." That is what I would say if the law as suggested by the minister were enforced. But if the suggestion of my hon. friend from West Lambton were enforced as the law, then I would be mighty careful before refusing applications from any of the classes listed here as being those to whom one should give a preference.
Then in clause (c) it is provided that in no case shall discrimination be made in the employment of any person by reasons of political affiliation, race or religious views. My hon. friend from West Lambton has just told us that this clause was taken from order

in council P.C. 2043, passed by this government on Tuesday, August IS, 1931, 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 dn 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.
The agreement entered into on October 26, 1931, I will also quote. It is the form for the agreement with the province of Quebec. I understand that it is taken from the agreement between that province and the federal government dealing with unemployment relief and the works to be carried out under the unemployment relief law of 1931. It states:
Those most in need should first derive benefit from the grants which should be apportioned with impartiality, 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.
And:
Under no consideration should political favouritism be considered on unemployment relief works, from which only the most needy shall derive benefit.
Now it is in order that the express intentions of the government in this respect shall be carried out that my hon. friend has moved this amendment; and so that there may be as little discussion as .possible with the contractors and others he adds that it shall be the duty of the minister concerned to see that the provisions of this section are complied with and in respect of works or undertakings done under contract he shall be entitled to cancel the contract forthwith in the event of any breach of such provisions by the contractor. That is clear and specific. It imposes on the contractor the obligation to carry out the provisions of this statute under pain of forfeiture. I think that would be the intention of every member of this house. I hope it is the intention of the minister in moving his amendment to the amendment, and if that is so, why then does he not accept the amendment moved from this side of the house? I am sure the minister has not in mind the refusal of it simply because the suggestion comes from us. Knowing him as I do, I am quite sure he is willing to accept any reasonable suggestion no matter from what quarter of the house it may come. I submit to him therefore that there is no

Public Works Program
reason why this amendment should not be taken as proposed. If he insists, I am sure my hon. friend from Lambton would be quite willing to add a clause to provide a preference to single men with dependents, and perhaps that compromise could be arrived at between the minister and himself. But were I in his place I would certainly not accept the subamendment, which has far less force, which is merely a pious wish, and which will not in any way affect the contractors, if they wish to employ men in defiance of the desire of parliament and, I am sure, of the desire of the people of Canada.


Mr. KENNEDY (Peace River):: How can the contractor tell which one of a number of applicants for a job is the neediest?


Charles Gavan Power: He can very easily apply to the municipality and ask to have a person sent to him who is on the relief roll. Under the present practice, as I understand it, he applies to the party organization and asks which of the persons on their roll would be best employed. Since this is a relief work, I suggest that the municipal relief roll would be the best source of information, rather than the political party list of probable and potential party voters.


Mr. IRVINE:: The employment office in the province.


Charles Gavan Power: So far as my province is concerned, I anticipate an objection which might be raised by the other side. If I were to suggest that, it would be said that perhaps the employment office of my province was just as bad as the party political organization of my hon. friends. I suggest that the contractors go to the municipality which is really looking after the persons who are on relief; that would be the fairest thing to do.
As for ex-soldiers, there are ex-soldier organizations throughout the whole of Canada, and it would be very easy for the contractors to apply to the Canadian Legion, the Army and Navy Veterans' Association or to any other of the half dozen ex-service men's organizations throughout the dominion. They would have no difficulty in finding men, and if they did have the slightest difficulty, then as far as I am concerned, there is no objection to their making a requisition or request to the member of parliament representing the government. He is probably closer in touch with conditions in his constituency than anybody else, and he could very readily guide the contractor in the choice of men whom he was to take, but I think the contractor should exhaust the other possibilities before he approaches the member.
92582-193}


Finlay MacDonald: As to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power), under standing order 48, paragraph 399 on page 126 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, I find the following:
A motion may be amended: (a) by leaving out certain words; (b) by leaving out certain words in order to insert other words; (c) by inserting or adding other words.
On that ground I think the amendment is in order. When we come to the other, the only difficulty I find with regard to the amendment to the amendment is the way in which it is framed. It is not framed as an amendment to the amendment; it is framed as an amendment to section 2. I am driven to the position under paragraph 401 which reads:
When several amendments are offered at the same place in a clause, it is within the chairman's discretion to decide which amendment he will receive. An amendment proposing to omit certain words in order to insert other words is given precedence over an amendment proposing simply to omit the same words.
I think under those circumstances it is my duty to decide which amendment I shall accept, and feeling that way I shall accept the amendment offered by the Minister of Public Works.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: It would be omitting certain words of the bill itself.


Finlay MacDonald: They are both amendments to
section 2 of the bill.


Ross Wilfred Gray: As I understood it, after objection to the form of the subamendment had been raised by the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power) the minister changed the amendment. I think he will agree with me in that.


Finlay MacDonald: It has not reached me.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Am I correct in saying that the minister .moved that all the words after the word "that" be struck out and the following substituted therefor?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I said that if the amendment was out of order, that might be done.


Ross Wilfred Gray: While that may not have reached the chairman in writing, certainly it was understood by the committee that the minister after a suggestion by the Solicitor General (Mr. Dupre) moved that this be done, and the whole basis of the discussion of the hon. member for Quebec South (Mr. Power)
Public Works Program

was that the Minister of Public Works had moved an amendment to the amendment. I do not think anybody understood anything different.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: According to what the chairman has just said, if he accepts the amendment moved by the minister it will read "That all the words after 'that' be struck out."


Finlay MacDonald: It is an amendment to section 2. That is the only amendment 'before the chair.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My impression is the same as that of the hon. member for West Lambton (Mr. Gray). I heard the minister say that in order that his motion should be in order he would have it amended to read "that all the words after the word, 'that' be struck out."


Finlay MacDonald: That has not yet come before the chair.


Charles Gavan Power: Do I understand that the chairman so far overrides all the rules of priority that he takes an amendment moved on this the 23rd day of May in preference to an amendment moved over a month ago, placed on Hansard and in the hands of the chairman on April 17?


Finlay MacDonald: The time 'has nothing to do with the matter. The rule says:
When several amendments are offered at the same place in a clause-
That is the case here exactly.


Charles Gavan Power: I take that to be the chairman's ruling.


Finlay MacDonald: Until something else comes before the chair, I shall have to rule that way.


Charles Gavan Power: If the chairman takes that position-and I regret he does so-it would appear from his ruling that what we now have before us is the amendment moved by the Minister of Public Works, which reads:
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto the following-
And so forth. Is that it?


Finlay MacDonald: Yes.


Charles Gavan Power: I therefore move in amendment to the amendment of the minister:
That all the words after the word "provided" in the said amendment be struck out and' the following be substituted therefor:

That in all employment arising out of the execution of such works and undertakings, whether under contract or by day labour (a) those most in need and available shall have first benefits from the employment to be created:
(b)	preference shall be given to unemployed and needy ex-service men and to unemployed and needy married men with dependents; (c) in no case shall discrimination be made in the employment of any person by reason of political affiliation, race, or religious views; (d) where such works or undertakings are of a local character and the expenditure involved does not exceed $25,000, all persons employed shall be residents of the locality in which the work is to be performed; (e) it shall be the duty of the minister concerned to see that the provisions of this section are complied with and, in respect of works or undertakings done under contract, he shall be entitled to cancel the contracts forthwith in the event of any breach of such provisions by the contractor.


Finlay MacDonald: This is an amendment to the
amendment.


Jean-François Pouliot: This amendment provides
for help for the needy; therefore it shows the necessity of a classification of the unemployed according to their trades or previous occupation. That is why a member of the house spent the recess getting information on that and trying to tabulate it in order to inform every hon. member as to the number of men engaged in the building trades and other activities. This measure should not pass before that information is completed, in order that the minister may know better what the allocation of the various amounts for the relief of unemployment should be. At present the minister finds it difficult to tell the committee how it will be spent. I suggest that the minister wait until that classification is ready. There is a member of the house who gives nearly all his time to it, and it will be ready shortly. I ask the minister not to press for a vote until that classification is ready; then he will be in a position to inform the house as to his views on the matter. I offer that suggestion, which I am sure the minister will accept at once.
Amendment to the amendment (Mr. Power) negatived on division.


Finlay MacDonald: The question is now on the amendment proposed by the Minister of Public Works.


Ross Wilfred Gray: The Minister of Public Works surely cannot propose an amendment to his own bill.


Finlay MacDonald: It was my mistake; it was proposed by Mr. Manion.

Questions


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a point of order. The Minister of Railways is in exactly the same position as the Minister of Public Works because it is pretty hard to know which minister will be in charge of the bill. I do not see how the Minister of Railways can move an amendment to his own bill, and all the ministers who may be responsible for some of the work are precluded from moving any amendment to the bill.


Mr. MANION:: As a matter of fact a
minister introducing a bill has a right to amend his own bill. I have on a number of occasions amended bills that I have introduced. It would be quite in order if the Minister of Public Works had moved the amendment.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Not in financial matters.


Robert James Manion: I moved many amendments to the Canadian National-Canadian Pacific bill in 1933, and it was a financial bill.


Jean-François Pouliot: It was by unanimous
consent.


Finlay MacDonald: The bill is in the name of the
Prime Minister, not of the Minister of Public Works.
M,r. POULIOT:	It makes no difference.
It is a matter of discretion, personal discretion. It is a very delicate matter. I do not see how the seven ministers who are supposed to be in charge of the bill can forget that at the present time. Who knows that all the works will not be for a certain time in charge of the Minister of Railways or of the Minister of National Defence or the Minister of Marine? And there are other ministers who .may come into the picture, perhaps even the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce.


Finlay MacDonald: Will the hon. member kindly state
his point of order?


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes sir, I will summarize it in a sentence or two. My point is that according to the rules of parliamentary institutions of Great Britain and other dominions a minister who is in charge of legislation cannot himself amend that legislation except by leave of the house. The eases that the Minister of Railways cited were cases when the leave of the house was granted. Sir, it seems to me that when a minister wants to change legislation that he has submitted to the house or the committee, the
amendment should be moved by one of his colleagues. The reason is this; when a minister comes with a bill the bill must be perfect so far as he can possibly make it so. It is the best effort of his brains, and though at times it comes from the clerks-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am very serious about it. It comes from the clerks of his department, but he takes the full responsibility for it. Only another minister who is not in charge of the bill-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Jean-François Pouliot: This is no place for cats!


Finlay MacDonald: Order. With all respect to the hon. member, the point of order is whether the minister could move this amendment or not. I have decided that he could.


Jean-François Pouliot: How can you decide that before I state my point? That point is most serious; I am defending parliamentary institutions.
Amendment agreed to on division.
Section as amended agreed to.
Progress reported.
On motion of Mr. Manion the house adjourned at 10.55 p.m.
Monday, May 27, 1935