1935-04-16

Mr. A. D. GANONG (Charlotte):: I beg to submit, Mr. Speaker, the third and final report of the special committee appointed to inquire into housing. As the report is rather lengthy, perhaps the house will dispense with the reading of it inasmuch as it will be printed in votes and proceedings.


Mr. SPEAKER:: It has been suggested by the hon. member who has presented the report of the special committee on housing that it be not read at the present time in view of the fact that it will appear in votes and proceedings. Is that satisfactory to the house?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Yes.
The following is a resume submitted by the committee of the points emphasized by the evidence.
1.	The term "housing" should be considered to include construction, reconstruction, repairs (rehabilitation), demolition of houses and slum clearance.
2.	Housing is primarily the direct responsibility of the individual cooperating with the local authority.
3.	A national emergency will soon develop unless the building of dwellings be greatly
increased.
4.	The formulation, institution and pursuit of a policy of adequate housing should be accepted as a social responsibility.
5.	There is no apparent prospect of the low rental housing need being met through unaided private enterprise, building for profit.
6.	The magnitude of the task involved in any program designed to eliminate in its entirety the housing problem in Canada is fully realized and appreciated; that such a program would involve intensive, continuous application and effort over a period of years is manifest; but that the initiation of such is imperative is obvious from even the necessarily limited inquiry into prevailing housing conditions in which it has been your committee's privilege to engage.
7.	The accurate determination of the number of houses required to meet the needs of the

Housing Policy-Final Report

people, annual and accumulative, and to overtake existing shortage, must necessarily be the subject of intensive direct and statistical investigation. At least the provision of dwelling units to the number of 25,000 should be initiated immediately throughout Canada.
8.	Selective tenancy of government _ aided housing should be based on total family income and ability to pay economic rent.
9.	The acuteness of the housing problem lessens to the degree that the wage scales of low wage earners is improved.
10.	Provision should be made for long term mortgages, in view of the long term amortization generally associated with housing.
11.	A major item in the financing of housing is interest charges. There is, therefore, a close and vital relationship between interest charges and economic rents.
12.	That the principle and institution of mortgage banks, as established in other countries, be investigated with a view to their effect upon the lowering of housing costs.
13.	That slum areas have been shown to cast very heavy expenses on many branches of public administration such as health, welfare, fire prevention, administration of justice, etc., may justify public assistance, which is likely to prove as sound financially as it is certainly desirable socially.
14.	Against public liabilities may be set certain very real, if in some cases, immeasurable, assets. Good housing means less expenditure on prevention of disease, less crime, greater benefits for education, less unemployability as opposed to unemployment. The elimination of bad conditions lias a cash value as well as a moral value to the nation. Further, there are wider economic aspects to consider. Bold and constructive housing projects will increase employment both directly and indirectly through the activity generated. To mitigate any liabilities on the national finance the cost of unemployment would be directly reduced, tangible and needed assets will be created, the yield of sales and income taxes will be increased by the profits of those in building and industry as well as those who benefit from the increased spending power of wage earners employed through the undertaking.
15.	Reference made in this report to the low monthly rental possible of payment by low wage earners should not be accepted in any way as indicative of the setting of any wage scale. Government assisted housing should not be taken advantage of to reduce the standard of living.
16.	That the initiation of a policy of new construction and particularly of repairs (rehabilitation) will appreciably stimulate private owners to do likewise, will also proportionately release for demolition slum buildings presently retained for want of other accommodation.
17.	The construction industry lends itself most effectively to the alleviation of unemployment and consequently to a reduction of those relief charges now being borne by federal, provincial and municipal taxpayers.
The recommendations of the committee are as follows:
1.	That a housing authority be established with power to initiate, direct, approve and control projects and policies, and to allocate such moneys, as in the opinion of parliament, may be necessary for the purpose of assisting a program of urban and rural housing.
fThe Speaker.]
2.	That said authority be authorized to negotiate agreements with any province, municipality, society, corporation or individual with a view to promoting construction, reconstruction and repair of such dwellings as may be necessary, and the extension of financial assistance at such favourable rates of interest, periods of amortization and other terms, as shall encourage housing.
3.	That as its first consideration the said authority be urged to take action in respect to repairs (rehabilitation), presently needed.
4.	That such national housing policy be so framed, with respect to provision for employment, as to endeavour to correlate and coordinate the efforts of provincial, municipal and other public authorities, and private agencies in relation thereto.



CLARENCE McGREGOR ROBERTS

Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunemburg):: I move that Bill No. 43, letter M of the Senate, an act for the relief of Clarence McGregor Roberts, the preamble of which was reported as not proven by the select standing committee on miscellaneous private bills on March 28, 1935, be placed on the order paper for consideration in committee of the whole this day, the 16th day of April, 1935.
Motion agreed to on division.



PRIVILEGE-MR. MACKENZIE KING

Right Hon. W. L. MACKENZIE KING (Leader of the Opposition):: I wish to say a word on a matter that affects the privileges of the house. On different occasions I have noticed that some hon. members, whether intentionally or otherwise, take advantage of the opportunities of freedom of speech in the house to reflect in an immediate and direct way on the integrity and character of gentlemen who are not in parliament to speak for themselves. I think it goes much beyond the intention of the rules of the house respecting freedom of speech that any such latitude should be permitted. Yesterday my hon. friend the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion), in reference to a matter affecting his department, and referred to in one of the newspapers of this country, used the following expression:
The statement made in the Winnipeg Free Press is false in every word and line and merely illustrates the general perverted attitude of the editor of that paper. I am not referring to the representatives of that paper located in Ottawa, but when the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press writes upon political matters he never tells the truth if a falsehood will serve.
May I say at once that I feel sure my hon. friend, when he used these words, was speaking figuratively. I think he was making use of that figure of speech known as hyperbole
APRIL 16, 1935	f	2767
Privilege-Mr. Mackenzie King
which should not be indulged in too frequently or readily. I do not wish to have my remarks construed as intended to be directed primarily at my hon. friend, but I should like to say that Mr. Dafoe, the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, is one of the most respected and honoured of journalists in our country. His reputation requires no defence in this parliament or indeed in any part of the British empire. It is, I think, unfortunate that a reference of this kind should be permitted to be on the records of parliament without some mention being made of it and some refutation of it. I hope my hon. friend will find it possible to say that the language is intended in a figurative and not in a literal sense. I desire to affirm that the rule respecting freedom of speech is based upon the control which the house has over its own members in the matter of their utterances. It is not intended to afford unbridled licence to speakers in referring to the character of individuals who are not in a position, to answer for themselves on the floor of parliament. I say this without special reference, as I have already said, to hon. members opposite. At times I have noticed the same unfortunate occurrence on this side of the house, and I may even quite unconsciously have been an offender myself; I hope however this kind of thing will not be permitted to become a practice in this parliament if it can be prevented.


Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways and Canals):: Since the right hon. gentleman has been given liberty to make the statement he has, which to my mind is entirely out of order, I should like to say a word, and that word is that the only reason I used such mild language about the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, was that I could not parliamentarily use any stronger. The editor of the Winnipeg Free Press has consistently and persistently falsified the record about members on this side of the house. I do not on that account blame my right hon. friend for defending him. The editor of the Winnipeg Free Press has falsified the record about the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). He has on innumerable occasions lied about me- I do not want to use the word-
Some hon. MEMBERS'. Order.


Robert James Manion: He has on innumerable occasions falsified the record in every way about me. I do not intend to be painted by the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press as a traitor to my country, and I may add that I have never hesitated in my speeches in Winnipeg or Manitoba or elsewhere to state 92582-176J
my opinion of the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press. It is apparently suggested by the right hon. gentleman that the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press may falsify the record about me or any other member of the house daily in his newspaper, but that we dare not say a word in reply in this chamber. Is that the suggestion? I do not intend to live up to any such suggestion as that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I do not think the remarks of the Minister of Railways and Canals should be allowed to go unchallenged.
I do not believe any hon. member has a right to say that a gentleman beyond the confines of this parliament has deliberately falsified statements that he is making in the public press. I think my hon. friend should be called upon to retract his remarks.


Robert James Manion: I do not intend to retract anything.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: A member of parliament has a perfect right within the house to use such language as he considers parliamentary in regard to anyone else outside the house within the limits prescribed in the rules of the house and I do not think the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press or the editor of any other paper comes within the exception. Consequently there is no point upon which I should make a ruling at this time.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: On the point of order may I quote to your honour the comment in Redlich's Procedure of the House of Commons, with respect to the rules of the house that govern in the matter of freedom of speech? In Volume III at page 4S Redllich speaks thus in regard to freedom of speech:
The power of parliament to judge the acts and speeches of its members is the starting point, a condition precedent for its complete and absolute liberation from the control of any exterior authority. We can. of course, conceive a parliament which disclaimed such an autonomous jurisdiction-
That is to say, control over its own members in the matter of the language they may use.
-and refused to call its members to account for transgressing the bounds of usage and tradition; and again a parliament might declare in advance that it did not insist on any standards of speech among its members and would exercise no control over them: in such cases we should be without the historic premises from which the privilege was deduced in England. The struggle there for freedom of speech was waged to emancipate the action of parliament from all influence of crown, courts of law and government; it was never a fight for an absolute right to unbridled oratory, for freedom to each member to say exactly what
Price Spreads Commission

he pleased. From the earliest days there was always strict domestic discipline in the house and strict rules as to speaking were always enforced. The house could point to its autonomous regulation of the conduct and speech of its members, and to its enforcement of its rules; its power of so doing enabled it to claim and to win for its members the right of exemption from all responsibility at common law for what they said in its debates. Thus, theoretically speaking, the principle of parliamentary freedom of speech is far from being a claim of irresponsibility for members; it asserts a responsibility exclusively to the house where a member sits, and implies that this responsibility is really brought home by the house which is charged with enforcing it.... Freedom of speech and self-imposed rules of debate are linked conditions for the existence of true parliamentary action.
I maintain that unless we proceed on that basis, parliamentary discussion becomes an impossibility.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I want to thank the
leader oif the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) for calling my attention to the authority he has quoted. However my mind is quite clear with respect to the matter. May at page 69, as referred to in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, page 96 has this to say:
If a member should say nothing disrespectful to the house or the chair, or personally opprobrious to other members, or in violation of other rules of the house he may state whatever he thinks fit in debate, however offensive it may be to the feelings, or injurious to the character, of individuals; and he is protected by his privilege from any action for libel, as well as from guy other question or molestation.
I think that covers the point in question. PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION



OMISSION FROM VOTES AND PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER PAPER OF MR. STEVENS' NOTICE OF MOTION

[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN MACKENZIE (Vancouver) Centre):	May I rise to another question
respecting the privileges of the house as a whole. Last Friday as reported on page 2675 of Hansard, the hon. memlber for East) Kootenay (Mr. Stevens) gave notice of motion which appears to-day for the first time on the votes and proceedings of this house on page i in Roman numeral (I). I am not at the present moment raising the question whether the resolution was in order or not, but L would like an explanation why it was not on the votes and proceedings of yesterday and on the orders of the day for to-day.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: I think the hon. member
for Vancouver Centre was quite in order in

raising the question, and I want to thank him for doing so. On Sunday, I think it was, I noticed an article in the Saturday morning Citizen under the heading of "Will not record Steven's motion", further on in the article it had this to say:
Action was taken by Doctor Arthur Beau-chesne, K.C., C.M.G-., clerk of the house, it was learned, to keep Air. Steven's notice of motion out as improper on two grounds-
Then it went on to set forth the alleged grounds on which the notice of motion was to be kept off the order paper. I then came down to the house, examined the order paper and found the notice of motion was not on the order paper nor on the votes and proceedings. I got into touch with Doctor Beau-chesne and asked him for an explanation as to why the notice did not appear on the records of the house and he gave me an explanation which was quite satisfactory. I asked him to be good enough to put it into the form of a .memorandum, and he did so in the form of a letter dated April 15, 1935, addressed to myself as Speaker of the House of Commons, as follows:
Sir:
With reference to the report in the press stating that I refused to place Hon. Mr. Steven's notice of motion in the votes and proceedings, I beg to submit a word of explanation.
On Friday evening, the 12th instant, I told Hon. Mr. Stevens that, as his motion seemed to be out of order, notice thereof should not be given. After some discussion, he told me to take whatever action I thought best, wTbich I understood to mean that he agreed to the notice not being inserted in votes and proceedings, but, Saturday morning, be came to my office and stated he had not intended to infer that I should withhold the motion from the notice paper, though be seemed to realize that he had spoken to me in such a way as to lead me to understand that he actually agreed to leave the notice out. I told him on Saturday that if I had thought for a moment he wished .the notice to appear, I should have referred the matter to you, since, as Speaker, you are the judge of the admissibility of notices of motions or questions. It is our practice to call a member's attention to objectionable notices, and if tbe member insists on the notice being given under standing order 45, the matter is immediately referred to the Speaker. It is because Mr. Stevens did not so insist that I did not refer tbe matter to you.
Now, as Mr. Stevens wishes the motion to appear on the notice paper, I have the honour to refer the same herewith to you, and I shall take action on your decision when you think advisable to give it.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Arthur Beaucbesne,
Clerk of the House of Commons.
Immediately upon receiving the memorandum in question from the clerk of the house

C.N.R.-Alberta Coal
I instructed him to place the notice of motion on the minutes of proceedings, which has been done, and it will appear on the order paper to-morrow.



PRIVATE BILL


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 64, for the relief of Frances Goldberg Joseph-Mr. Garland (Carleton).


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon.   S@: Yesterday my right hon.
friend the leader of the opposition (Mr. Mackenzie King) asked if the government could advise the house whether or not when we resume after the recess there will be other legislation in addition to the bills based on the report of the price spreads commission and the housing committee. I am sorry that I am unable to answer that question just now. I think that there will be a few other bills, but we all expect that when the house meets again after the recess the Prime Minister himself will be able to give the house the information sought.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: We shall have a new
speech from the throne.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. J. GARLAND (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion). I have received information from the Cadomin, Luscar and Mountain Park coal. mines in Alberta to the effect that the Canadian National Railways recently reduced, I think on April 1, the price they offer for coal by fifty cents a ton. I am anxious to know if this is true, and if so, what is the reason for it. The men are extremely exercised, and I am informed that there is danger of an outbreak if any economies are effected at the expense of the men.


Robert James Manion: I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I had
not word of the matter previously. Naturally this matter is not discussed with me in any way, it is a matter for the management. But I shall gladly direct the attention of the management to my hon. friend's question and
ask them for an explanation which I shall send to him.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. FERNAND RINFRET (St. James):: I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. It is this: Has the federal government taken or will it take means during the receas to ensure the federal contribution to unemployment relief in the different provinces for the month of May?


Hon. W. A. GORDON (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the matter under consideration and it is under consideration by the government now. I believe I can state with a degree of certainty that the grant in aid will be granted for the month of May.



BRITISH COLUMBIA RELIEF CAMPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Stirling). Has he any further information with respect to the strike of relief camp workers in British Columbia?
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have nothing further to report. The commission is sitting, was sitting last week at various camps in the lower country and yesterday was sitting in the city of Vancouver. I am not aware what their itinerary is to-day or will be the day following.



POST OFFICE EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ARTHUR SAUVE (Postmaster General) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question put by my hon. friend the member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier), which appears at page 2722 of the Hansard of April 15th, I must say that I did not personally authorize these instructions concerning the statutory holidays in the postal service, because such instructions are simply a matter of practice and they are given every year by competent officers, as circumstances require.



ADDRESS TO HIS MAJESTY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. R. E. CHEVRIER (Ottawa) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the act-
C.N.R.-Branch Lines

ing Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) if the address which this house has adopted to express its loyal and respectful congratulations to his Most Excellent Majesty the King on the occasion of the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the throne shall be presented to His Majesty in both official languages of Canada.
In other words, I desire to ask this of the acting Prime Minister: Will the address which this house passed expressing loyal and respectful congratulations to His Most Excellent Majesty the King on the twenty-fifth anniversary of his accession to the throne be presented to His Most Excellent Majesty in the two official languages of this country.


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, the loyal
address to His Majesty is being engrossed in both languages.



PEAT FUEL INVESTIGATIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. CHARLES STEWART (West Edmonton) :: I should like to make an inquiry of the Minister of Mines (Mr. Gordon). I notice in this morning's Citizen a rather lengthy article stating that negotiations are under way between the government and a company desirous of manufacturing peat, and that there is a proposal to have an investigation made by a commission looking towards securing further information. May I ask if this report is correct?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I saw the article to which the hon. member has referred. It is by no means an accurate statement. The fuel testing laboratories in Ottawa operated by the dominion government are constantly carrying on investigations with respect to fuels of all kinds. There has been, I am told, considerable agitation lately on behalf of a company, with whose name I am not familiar in regard to some new process said to be designed in such a way that peat can be converted into a fuel for use in Ontario and Quebec comparable to and able to compete with anthracite. Matters such as these are constantly under review by the fuel division. If this process is as good as it is claimed to be I think it is something the qualified officials of the department should investigate. At the moment no decision has been arrived at, but I am looking into the whole matter and if it appears desirable to have the competent officials of the department investigate the peat fuel situation I think the government would be quite justified in authorizing a very modest expenditure in order to carry on an investigation of that character*



DISMISSAL OF MR. HECTOR HUDON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. (GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamour-aska) (Translation): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve) if he expects to lay on the table of the house, before the adjournment, the return concerning the dismissal of Mr. Hector Hudon, mail carrier of St. Pascal, county of Kamouraska?
Arthur Sauvé: I can only say to my hon. friend that I shall inquire from the officials who deal with the compiling of these returns and instruct them to produce them to-morrow, if possible.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LUCIEN DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation).: Mr. Speaker, I read in to-day's Le Canada that the Canadian National Railways intend to ask the railway commission permission to discontinue trains on about 160 miles of branch lines in the province of Quebec, particularly on the lines running from Victoriaville to St. Gregoire and from St. Leonard to Nicolet, in the county of Nicolet.
As I am well informed about the local conditions I must protest against the closing down of these branch lines.
Mr. VINCENT DUPUIS (Laprairie-Napier-ville):: The hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) has just directed a question to the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), concerning a matter in which I am very much interested and which I discussed with the minister some time ago. I refer to the discontinuance of service on branch lines in the province of Quebec. In the constituency of Laprairie-Napierville this includes the branch line from St. Isidore Junction to Hemmingford. The hon. member for Nicolet asked the minister if anything can be done to assure the people of Quebec that these branch lines will be continued in operation.


Robert James Manion: I meant no disrespect
or discourtesy to my hon. friend from Nicolet (Mr. Dubois); I caught only a few of his words and I meant to look up his question and reply to-morrow. In regard to the discontinuance of sendee on lines, or the abandonment of lines, I have no control in any shape or form; the management of the rail-iway, whether it is the Canadian Pacific or

Radio Broadcasting
the Canadian National, have absolute jurisdiction in that regard with the exception that they must submit their intention to abandon to the board of railway commissioners. I am glad to offer to both hon. gentlemen this suggestion, that when any of these abandonments are proposed their proper course is to approach the board of railway commissioners and make their protests as volubly and strongly as possible. I quite sympathize with them in their wish to see these abandonments not carried out, but I have no control whatever over either railway in that regard.


Mr. T. ADELARD FONTAINE (St. Hyacinthe-Rouville) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to second the remarks of the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) and to add now that they also apply to the district of St. Hyacinthe.
In answer to the hon. Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) I may say that so far as the discontinuance of certain services of the Canadian National in the district of St. Hyacinthe is concerned >1 had occasion to make similar suggestions to the board of railway commissioners who paid very little attention to them.


Robert James Manion: I shall draw the words
of the three hon. members who have spoken to the attention of the railways; I assume thev all have to do with the Canadian National.



DISTRIBUTION OF THE FRENCH EDITION OF THE CANADA YEAR BOOK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. LUOIEN DUBOIS (Nicolet) (Translation) :: Mr. Speaker, we received, a few weeks ago, the English edition of the Canada year book but the French edition has not been distributed as yet. May I ask the hon. Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) when he expects to have the French edition ready for distribution?


Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I understand that the hon.
gentleman's question has regard to the French edition of the Canada Year Book. I will have immediate inquiry made and let the hon. gentleman have the information.



PRICE SPREADS COMMISSION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. GEORGES BOUCHARD (Kamour-aska):: In view of the fact that the question
I directed some time ago to the Secretary of State (Mr. Cahan) with regard to the French translation of the report of the price spreads commission was disregarded by the hon. gentleman, who said he had nothing to do with the matter, may I ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) if he could give me a proper answer as to when this translation is to be completed?


Richard Burpee Hanson: That will be done as promptly as possible. I shall make inquiries.



RADIO BROADCASTING

[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Sir GEORGE PERLEY (Acting Prime Minister) moved the second reading of Bill No. 60, respecting radio broadcasting.
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. MacDonald (Cape Breton), in the chair.
On section 1-Provisions of act of 1932-33 reenacted for two months.
Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the Minister of Marine if the radio commission is under his jurisdiction?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Chairman, this bill has for its purpose the extension for two months of the rights and powers of the radio commission, and appears in the name of the Prime Minister. In deference to the suggestion offered by the right hon. leader of the opposition I said I would take charge of the bill. I hope that will answer the question of the hon. member.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, that is not the point at all. Upon three or four occasions I have asked the Minister of Marine to answer me yes or no as to whether or not the radio commission was under his jurisdiction. I want that information, right now, please.


Sir GEORGE PERLEY:: If I may be permitted to answer I would say that the radio commission is a body given authority by parliament. It reports to parliament, through the Minister of Marine. However the Minister of Marine has no authority over the radio commission, nor has any other member of the government. It is a semi-independent body of the same nature as the civil service commission, which reports to this chamber through the Secretary of State.


Jean-François Pouliot: I protest against it, very strongly. The Minister of Marine brings down the estimates for the radio commission; he asks us to vote money for that commission,
Radio Broadcasting

but we find that it is not responsible through him to parliament. I have asked the minister that question on many occasions and have never received a satisfactory answer. The answer given by the acting Prime Minister is less satisfactory than ever. I submit that a bill having to do with any matter in connection with which a minister submits estimates should be in charge of the minister who places those estimates before the house. I hope I have made myself clear.
I do not see the necessity for placing the Prime Minister or the acting Prime Minister in charge of the bill. Yesterday I stated I was suspicious about another piece of legislation in which both the Minister of Railways and Canals and the Minister of Public Works were interested, despite the fact that it stood in the name of the Prime Minister. My reason for making this statement and for repeating it in connection with this bill is that the Prime Minister is not in the house; to-morrow he is sailing for England. How is it that a right hon. gentleman who although theoretically speaking is the leader of the government and is leaving this country tomorrow, still has his name appear on the bill?
I have another objection. In the measure we are changing only the figures; in other words we are extending the powers of the commission for some time. It is impossible to get accurate information as to the expenditures of that body.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: They are large.


Jean-François Pouliot: When we ask for information it is always hard to get, and we do not get it until after the estimates have been passed. I submit the radio commission should give full information about its expenditures. We should have full details concerning the salaries paid, travelling expenses of commissioners and employees, money paid for copyrights, money paid as salaries or fees to singers, musicians or broadcasters of any description.
I do not forget that upon one occasion Mr. Charlesworth used very bold language concerning hon. members of this chamber. No one in the House of Commons is afraid of him. He is our servant; in that capacity he must render an account, and so must -the other commissioners. For the reasons already given I strongly object to this legislation.
The bill should be in the name of the Minister of Marine. We remember that when the dock was opened at Saint John, or somewhere down in the maritime provinces, the Minister of Marine was not in charge of the ceremonies. The Prime Minister was in charge, a circumstance which I considered an

insult to the Minister of Marine, and one which I resented more than he did, unfortunately. Now, sir, I say it is an insult to the province of Quebec, an insult to the city of Montreal, an insult to the beautiful constituency of Chambly-Vercheres, represented in this chamber by the minister, an insult to every hon. member from the province of Quebec and an insult to the whole of the population of the province of Quebec to find that, this bill is not in the name of the Minister of Marine. Does that mean his name is not heard when council is sitting in the east block? Well, sir, someone from his province should speak for him and should lodge a protest with the acting Prime Minister, and through him to the Prime Minister, and through him to all the minister's colleagues from the province of Quebec. We must defend their rights, their authority and their prestige in the sittings of council.


Mr. CHAPLIN:: Why don't you broadcast it?


Jean-François Pouliot: I have to speak loud for
those who are deaf and dumb, like the hon. member. I strongly protest to the members of the province of Quebec because I consider this circumstance an insult to ministerial responsibility. I do not know how members of the council can be bold enough to use the name of the Prime Minister on the bill when he is absent from this chamber, when he is sick-poor man, he might be in bed. He is sick. Probably he does n-ot know his name appears on this bill. Had he known, undoubtedly he would have used the same language as I have. He would have said, "Give that bill to my distinguished colleague, the Minister of Marine.'.' He would have considered it as a usurpation of rights, and would have said, "Well, just before leaving, by doing a thing like this you make my heart grieve. I cannot understand how my colleagues, men who have been faithful to me for some time, can now do a thing like this, and I resent it even more than the hon. member for Temiscouata."
I am most serious. I have been brought up in the British parliamentary traditions of responsible government and ministerial responsibility. What do we see here? We have Polichinelles who ignore the very ABC of ministerial responsibility. I strongly protest against it, from the point of veiw of the dignity of a minister of the crown, and from the point of view of the dignity of the province of Quebec of which my hon. friend is one of the four ministerial representatives in the cabinet and, sir, I protest also as a member

Radio Broadcasting
of the House of Commons who has responsibilities to the electors of Canada because we are told nothing about the expenditures of that radio commission-that radio commission which broadcast the speeches of the right hon. the Prime Minister. Is it on account of the fact that there was so much interference when he made those radio speeches,-if I am wrong in the above statement that this has been done outside of his knowledge,-that the Prime Minister is angry with the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) because the reception was not good when he delivered his speeches over the radio in January? I do not know. There should be an investigation into that. I think there would be many interesting disclosures.
Let me summarize what I have said. Look at the statues around this building of those old champions of British traditions and responsible government, those grand old men of Ontario, Quebec and the maritime provinces who joined together to bring about responsible government in this country, and whose statues all around this building remind us of their fruitful lives in the service of their country; I wonder what all these old pioneers of responsible government in this country would say if they were living now and could see legislation like this under which expenditure is made running into the millions without the minister being responsible to the commons. I am sorry for the government, but I a.m sorry especially for the hon. minister who should have used the language that I have with respect to this matter.


Mr. DURANLEAU:: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to enter into debate with my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) for this bill merely provides that the commission will carry on for two more months in order to give the house after the recess an opportunity to study the question and decide whether a new policy should be adopted. I should like, however, to answer my hon. friend's point that this bill should not be in the name of the Prime Minister. I felt that, as the first bill providing for the incorporation of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission was in the name of the Prime Minister, and properly so, subsequent bills amending the first one should also be in his name.
As to the authority of the Minister of Marine over the radio commission, I have had occasion to give my views to this house during the last two sessions, and I think I have also told my hon. friend from Temiscouata; the statute speaks for itself, and I am sure that my hon. friend who is a lawyeT practising at Riviere du Loup has carefully studied
that particular law from the first word to the last, and knows exactly what is the authority of the Minister of Marine and of the government over the radio commission.
The radio commission was incorporated by this house, and this house has authority over the commission. It was the unanimous desire of the house that this commission should be secured against all political interference, and that is the reason why the radio commission, as far as its programs are concerned, is absolutely independent of the minister. The minister has some authority in the matter of issuing station licences, and whatever may be said by my hon. friend, I have exercised that authority. My hon. friend, probably in order to make some political capital in the province of Quebec, states that I do not exercise my powers and that that is an indignity to the province of Quebec. I say that my hon. friend is entirely wrong. I have attended almost every radio celebration in the province of Quebec. I have attended the opening of almost all the radio stations in the province of Quebec-


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Duranleau: And I may tell my
hon. friends from Quebec, even my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe), who says "hear, hear," that the words that I have used on those occasions were not an indignity to my province. I invite my hon. friends to read what I have said on those occasions. I am sure, Mr. Chairman, that my hon. friend from Temiscouata is not serious when he uses such language before this committee, and when he speaks of an indignity to our province I think he should be careful himself, because all of us from the province of Quebec represent our province as well as the whole of 'Canada, and we should always do our utmost to give the best possible representation to our province.


Ernest Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I think
the words of my hon. friend the minister (Mr. Duranleau) justify the criticism of my hon. friend from Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) because the minister admits that whenever there is a celebration he is there to take part in it, whenever there is an opening of a radio broadcasting station he is there with a speech, and he tells us that his speech is really up to the mark and rather brings glory to the province he represents in the government.


Alfred Duranleau: Pardon me, I did not say that.


Ernest Lapointe: I would like the minister to do a little more than attend celebra-
Radio Broadcasting

tions and make speeches. He should go further and introduce into this house the bills that refer to the radio broadcasting commission. True it is that when the commission was first organized the Prime Minister was in charge of the bill, but the commission has been placed under my hon. friend and he is now looking after its affairs'and everything relating to the radio commission is brought before this house through him. But he is not alone in this respect, Mr. Chairman, because other ministers as well have seen their legislation taken away from them and introduced by the Prime Minister.
While I am on my feet may I say this? I am pleased that the minister has said that when the original bill was enacted incorporating the radio broadcasting commission the house was unanimously of the opinion that politics should be kept out of it. That is why I complain, Mr. Chairman, because in the very first year of the radio commission the organizer o.f the party of my hon. friend was appointed to the commission. I have nothing to say against him, and in fact he is no longer a member of the commission, but we had quite a debate in this house over the matter. That gentleman resigned from the commission. He was the Conservative organizer for the district of Quebec in the last general election and the government replaced him with the Conservative organizer for the other part of the province of Quebec, the district of Montreal. I do not think that is fair to the house, especially when my hon. friend admits that it was unanimously agreed by this house that politics should be kept out of the radio commission. We are going to have a general election very soon, and radio broadcasting is now a very valuable instrument of propaganda during an election campaign. It is used extensively and I think that some arrangement should be made. I take advantage of this opportunity to say this, so that fairness towards all political groups and parties, on the part of the authorities who control broadcasting in Canada, should be assured. I must confess that the way the whole thing has been done for the last three years does not give me much confidence in the impartiality which we may expect on the part of those who are at the head of the radio commission, but I hope I am mistaken in this regard and that the future will prove that they will treat everyone fairly. Again however I say that my hon. friend should take charge of the bill because it is one that comes under his department and, according to all parliamentary precedent, should have been initiated by himself.


Alfred Duranleau: Only a word in answer to the statements of my hon. friend as to the two appointments to the radio commission from the province of Quebec. As to the first appointment, the matter was raised in the house two years ago and the Prime Minister gave, I think, a complete answer to the charge which was made at that time. It is true that the gentleman had been a candidate at the last election, but he had been employed by the Liberal administration of Quebec. He had been an outstanding forestry engineer under the Taschereau administration and the Gouin administration, if I remember rightly, and when he was appointed he swore that he would be absolutely independent of politics. I think my hon. friend from Quebec East will admit that this gentleman was fair to everyone when he was a commissioner and that he may well be proud of his administrative record. I am pleased to say that Mr. Maher, during the time he has been on the commission has been considered by everyone as an able business man who has fulfilled his duties in a most satisfactory manner.


Vincent Dupuis: What is the cause of his departure from the commission?


Alfred Duranleau: The hon. member
might put that question to Mr. Maher. I know for some time he had been asking to be relieved of his public duties, and he sent in his resignation, and now he is in business. As to the second appointment, I do not think my hon. friend from Quebec East represents the views of the great majority of his followers in this house and outside of this house when he challenges it.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it true he was the organizer?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend says that Mr. Cartier had been organizer of the party. I may tell him he is absolutely wrong in that respect. True it is he gave some help during the last election, but I can tell my hon. friend that for two or three years he has been absolutely out of politics, and I challenge anyone in this house to prove that within at least two years of his appointment he carried on any political activities.


Ernest Lapointe: There has been no
campaign.


Alfred Duranleau: Let me say further, he has been the pioneer of radio in this country; his competency is admitted by everyone. His appointment was received all over Canada with praise for this government and I think that since he has been in his office

Radio Broadcasting
he has shown himself to be very competent and absolutely independent of party politics.
I challenge my hon. friend to cite one instance where he has not been fair to everyone who has had something to do with the broadcasting stations under the commission.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Mr. Charles-worth?


Alfred Duranleau: The stations under the radio commission have been open to everyone, to every political party when they were prepared to pay the usual charges. When we on this side of the house use the radio commission's stations we pay the full charge, and my hon. friends have exactly the same opportunity. If it can be provided that the radio commission has been unfair or unjust to any political party I want to be told about it and I will correct the situation immediately.


Jean-François Pouliot: What about Mr. Charlesworth?


Mr. EULER:: It had been my intention to make	my observations, and perhaps	criticisms, when the Minister of Marine brought the radio estimates before the committee, but the acting Prime Minister yesterday stated in introducing this simple bill that it provided only for the continuance for two months of the commission as at present constituted, and that this was to be followed by an entirely new bill which-Sir	GEORGE	PERLEY:	I	beg	your
pardon; I do not think I said that.


William Daum Euler: I was reading	the	press,and perhaps the press was reading into the mind of the acting Prime Minister something that is not there. However, I think it is correct to say that it is the intention of the government after the recess to introduce a new bill which	will deal with	the	radio
situation; otherwise one can hardly conceive of a sufficient reason why this particular status should be prolonged for a period of even two months. It seems to me, in view of the probability that we are going to have a new bill to deal perhaps in an entirely different way with radio matters, that this is the time to make suggestions and perhaps criticisms if they are to be of value in the framing of the bill which is to follow. Perhaps I flatter myself and other members of the opposition if I say that we have any confidence whatever that what we may say will be taken into consideration by the government. but I am willing to give them credit for ordinary common sense and fairness in a matter of this kind.
In 1932 a committee was appointed by the government to consider what was proper to be done in connection with radio, with a special view to its nationalization. I happened to be a member of that committee and I have never sat on a committee that acted more harmoniously than did that one. Our report was unanimous. We recommended the nationalization of radio, and that provision should be made for the building of five great radio stations of great power to serve all the people of Canada-for there was a great deal of complaint that there was not sufficient coverage and that certain parts of the country did not enjoy proper radio reception. The bill was introduced by the Prime Minister and in a very eloquent and convincing speech he laid before the house the principles upon which radio should be publicly owned and operated. Perhaps I need not go into this particularly, but as I shall make one or two criticisms it is fair for me to say what were the .principles on which radio was inaugurated and then to point out wherein those principles have not been followed.
In the first place the Prime Minister referred to the fact that radio is a natural monopoly That is quite true, and because it was of such great importance and the channels are limited, it should not become the property of private persons. With that I entirely agree. Then he stated that radio could be of immense benefit to the Canadian people as a whole in the creation of a Canadian sentiment, to encourage Canadian talent, to educate the Canadian people along Canadian lines and to ensure-and I want to emphasize this-that Canadian radio broadcasting would remain free from foreign domination. It was distinctly understood that there should be a gradual approximation of radio broadcasting into public ownership channels; that private ownership except in the very small stations and small communities should be abolished, and that the country in general would do the radio broadcasting. As I said, we all supported this. I had the privilege of seconding in the house the adoption of the report upon which the legislation was subsequently based, and when the Prime Minister introduced his bill, some of us spoke in favour of it. I recall at that time I asked him to state whether it was his intention that there should be no political influence or bias exercised in appointments that might be made either to the radio commission or of those who would operate it, and we received a very direct promise from the Prime Minister that there would not be anything of that sort. I remember very well the leader of the opposition making the practical suggestion that in appointments of
Radio Broadcasting

members of the commission, the respective parties might be consulted and proper persons selected upon whom no reflection could be cast as having been the beneficiaries of political influence. The Prime Minister made no absolute promise that he would accede to the suggestion, but the fact remains that he did not follow that course. If a success is to be made of public ownership of any sort, whether it be the Canadian National Railways or the Canadian broadcasting commission, politics must be kept out of it and it must be so conducted that the confidence of the Canadian public may be maintained. That confidence has in my judgment been lost to a very large extent. It is not necessary for me to refer again to what the hon. member for Quebec East has said, namely, that in the very first appointment the Prime Minister, to put it mildly, made an error of judgment when he appointed to that commission a gentleman who certainly had very strong political leanings and had been a political organizer.
Mr. CASGRAI-N: A political candidate.


William Daum Euler: Surely there could have been found in the good province of Quebec a gentleman who would not be open to that charge. At the end of the first year of operation of the commission there were a good many complaints. That perhaps was to be expected. When an organization gets under way in an entirely new enterprise, it has its difficulties and must expect to receive some criticism, but some of those complaints were founded and indeed I made some of them myself. In fact, so dissatisfied was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Woodsworth) that he actually made the statement that he was afraid that radio broadcasting had become the property or was under the control of the Conservative party. I did not make that statement; I give that merely as an indication of what I have said before, namely, that there was a distinct suspicion- and I had it also-that politics did enter to some extent into the operation of the national broadcasting commission.
Another committee was called last year to deal with the objections which were raised. That committee made a report that the general set-up should be changed; that there should be a manager, and in the original report and I think in the bill itself it was provided that there should be an assistant commissioner appointed for each of the provinces. Nothing was ever done with regard to that. Then before last year's committee-and I was not a member of it-a former employee of the commission and in my opinion a very competent man, made very distinct and

definite charges with regard to the operation of broadcasting in this country through the commission. I have read some of the evidence and to my mind it has never been adequately answered by the commission itself.
The Prime Minister complained of the attacks that were made upon public ownership of the broadcasting commission. I think there is some reason for this. Practically none of the purposes for which the commission was created has been carried out to any appreciable extent. No big plan of public ownership has been adopted. It was intended, as I said before, that five powerful radio broadcasting stations should be established throughout Canada, but really nothing in that regard has been done. Three years ago we had in this country forty-nine broadcasting stations, all privately owned. One would think when the government took over broadcasting under public ownership, that number would tend to diminish rather than to increase; yet whereas we had forty-nine privately owned broadcasting stations three years ago, we now have fifty-nine stations and only seven publicly controlled or owned. I may be open to correction on this, but I think I am right in saying that except in Ottawa, Quebec city and that good city of Windsor from which our chairman comes, no attempt has been made to give greater coverage to publicly owned radio broadcasting. Private stations on the contrary have been given increased power, and the whole tendency to my mind has been not to promote public radio broadcasting, but to add more power to and to increase the number of private broadcasting stations.
Let us take for a moment a general view across Canada from coast to coast. As to this of course I have to take my information as I have heard it; I think it is accurate', but there are members who might feel afterwards like contradicting me. In Vancouver three years ago there were six duplicating private broadcasting stations. No change has taken place there, and I think I have heard complaints from some British Columbia members on this side with regard to the service. In Calgary there are three private broadcasting stations and one of those has increased its power to 10,000 watts. A promise was made in 1933 I think that British Columbia and Saskatchewan were to have two big broadcasting stations, but nothing has been done. In Winnipeg there is one station owned by the Manitoba government, and the wattage has been increased from 5,000 to 15,000. I have no complaint to make with regard to that.



19X5

[Stage Direction]
Radio Broadcasting
Mr. BEAUBIEN:: That is owned by the
Manitoba government.


William Daum Euler: Yes. It is a form of public ownership and I am not so critical about it.


Charles-Philippe Beaubien: The radio broadcasting
commission has been bucking the Manitoba government ever since that station has been in existence.


William Daum Euler: I am glad to have my hon.
friend elaborate on that. To come to Ontario, in Toronto the commission leased1 CKGW, a very fine station with the largest audience in the Dominion of Canada. Now, for some reason or another the wave length of that station was taken away from Toronto and given to Windsor, with the result that the listening in on the Toronto station under the new wave length that was given to it fell off very materially.


Mr. ROBINSON:: What wave length was
that in Windsor, because they have changed it down there three times; it is no good.


Alfred Duranleau: It is wave length
840, and it has been returned to Toronto.


William Daum Euler: I was coming to that. It
was not returned to Toronto until after the committee met last year and representations were made to that committee and objections raised. We had this peculiar occurrence that a member of the radio commission stated and it is here in the records, so I will read it:
I submit that as a matter of fact it was far better for the commission station-[DOT]
That is the publicly owned station at Toronto.
-to have this trouble than that the commercial station in Windsor, which is forced to make its living by means of its operation, should have been subject to this interference during the past season,
The trouble referred to being the new wave lengths that were given to them. In other words the publicly owned station, or the convenience of the people, yields to the moneymaking proclivities of the privately owned station. That is what it amounts to.
It was also announced not so very long ago, that Toronto was to have a 15,000 watt station, but so far nothing has been done. That would be a wise step for the commission to take.
Now, I want to return for a moment to the Windsor situation. I do it more or less reluctantly, because of the fact that my hon. friend in the chair comes from that city, and I do not propose to cast any reflections whatsoever on him. Two years ago I stated that
in granting a licence to the Windsor station we were violating one of the first principles laid down by the Prime Minister, that broadcasting should not get into foreign hands. I said then and proved, that the Windsor station is owned by United States people, the Columbia broadcasting system. They are still in control of that station, in fact they advertise it as one of the chain of the Columbia broadcasting system, and state specifically to their customers: This is a station that covers a great market, meaning the city of Detroit across the river. As a matter of fact they came to Windsor and got that station because they could not get a licence in Detroit. I make this statement which I do not think can be successfully challenged, that the station at Windsor, having one of the few channels that we have in Canada, has been deliberately given over to United States owners for United States purposes, as a money-making station for advertising the city of Detroit and the surrounding district. There was complaint in regard to that. I made some complaint here, but there were complaints from sources a good deal nearer to the government. In the city of London, which is in the very heart of the western peninsula of Ontario, there was a small broadcasting station owned by the London Free Press, which stands very close to this government. Of that I have no criticism to make. But I leave it to the judgment of the committee whether it would not have been wiser to put a big broadcasting station in the centre of western Ontario rather than on the extreme edge. The London Free Press thought so, I think, and when the licence was given for this big station at Windsor the fat was in the fire and there were some journeyings to Ottawa on the part of the people of the London Free Press. But eveiyone was made happy in a very simple manner; the London Free Press sold out to the Windsor organization, the chairman of which by the way is also the president of the Conservative association-perhaps that has nothing to do with it, but that is the fact. The London Free Press got another small station and then sold their old plant to the commission as some sort of experimental station the purpose of which is not clearly understood I am told by anyone whatsoever. Then quite properly, to satisfy the good people of Windsor who are really getting no good from the big station, which serves the city of Detroit, the commission kindly gave them a station of 1,000 watts, and I suppose Windsor and my hon. friend at the head of the table are thoroughly satisfied. I do not often make charges and no one will say I am bitterly
Radio Broadcasting

partisan at any time; but I say that in my opinion the whole Windsor situation was bedevilled by politics almost to the point of being a public scandal. And I say that this government, if it wishes to administer the work of this commission free from political bias and influence, should make a thorough investigation of how that whole situation came about in the Windsor and London district.
Now I come to Montreal. Perhaps I had better leave that to my Quebec friends, but I just want to make this point, that there has been practically nothing done in the way of advancing public ownership of broadcasting there. The commission built a fourth station, there were already three there, and they might very well have acquired one of the existing stations and not increased the competition.
As to the maritimes I know not so much, except that the Canadian National Railways station at Moncton was purchased by the commission, was tom down by them and they did not build a new one.


Mr. VENIOT:: They are establishing
small ones all over the place.


William Daum Euler: Well, I have no objection
to small communities having small stations for their local purposes, but they are not serving the purposes enunciated by the Prime Minister as I have enumerated them. In the allotting of wave lengths-and I do not desire to be too critical; there may have been good reasons-they certainly did create bedlam in many parts of the country. I can speak for the little station in my own town, it was used by one of the churches, and there was great difficulty in being heard under the new wave length. What mortified me more than anything was to find that they had given to our little station in the city of Kitchener a wave length that the city of Hamilton absolutely refused to keep. Hamilton was able to get another, but we were unfortunate, we could not do so. I am free to admit that I am not a very great radio fan. I do not listen in a great deal, there being too much advertising and other things that I do not like, but generally speaking it is true to say that the programs are mediocre.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear-, hear.


William Daum Euler: Instead of having so many
mediocre ones it would be much better to lessen the number but have them of first rate quality.
The less said about the educational broadcasting the better. There does not seem to ae any policy at all in regard to it.

Then finally I come to the censorship established by the commission. Here is a regulation of the radio commission which I think is very interesting. Perhaps most hon. members have seen it, but I commend it to the attention of the Prime Minister. If he makes any more radio broadcasts he may be subjecting himself to possible imprisonment or a heavy fine. I am reading only the essential parts for my argument. Article 90 provides that no broadcasting station may broadcast any statements or suggestions contrary to the expressed purpose of any existing legislation. I should think that that would almost rule out anybody who dares to criticize any legislation which is already on the books-[DOT]


Ernest Lapointe: The marketing act.


William Daum Euler: -and might be particularly
obnoxious to my hon. friends in the comer, who want to put on much more radical legislation than the rest of us desire. Now I do not suppose that the commission intend to use that power arbitrarily, but it should not be there.


Ernest Lapointe: Hear, hear.


William Daum Euler: We have an election coming on. That power could even be strained to the point-and it would not have to be strained very much-of preventing anyone opposed to the present government from criticizing its past legislation, or even sending him to gaol or subjecting him to a heavy fine if he did, because fines up to $200 and imprisonment up to six months are provided. It seems to me that that power taken by the commission, is entirely too wide, and the minister should see to it that that is abolished.
My criticism is on two points. It seems to me that it is abundantly proven that there has been in some cases at least, whether by the minister or not, some political influence used either in the granting of licences or the administration of the work of the commission. In the second place the commission has not carried out the express purpose for which it was created, that is gradually to eliminate private broadcasting and to substitute public broadcasting in order to carry out the great purposes which the Prime Minister mentioned when he introduced the bill in the first place. My hon. friend from Quebec East has spoken of certain appointments that were made. I am not going to refer to that question except to say that I think it could be plainly shown, not only in connection with the personnel of the commission itself but also in connection with some of the officers working under that commission, that they are not free from the

Radio Broadcasting
suspicion that there was political influence in their appointments. As I have said I am not particularly prone to charge partisanship, but I say this because I am very anxious indeed that public ownership of radio should succeed, and in order that it may succeed there must be eliminated every suspicion of partisan influence.
To my mind the principle of public ownership has not failed, though I will say frankly *-and perhaps it will please some of my hon. friends on the other side, including perhaps the Minister of Railways,-that when I see, perhaps in the national railway's and in the radio commission, the extent to which politics has been allowed to bedevil these services, sometimes I aim inclined to say that I am not quite as strong a public ownership man as I have been in the past. Yet the principle itself is sound. It has not been the failure of the principle of public ownership in the conduct of public broadcasting; I honestly believe the failure has been in the administration. If in this legislation which will be introduced after May 20 the government propose to correct some of the things I have mentioned, and perhaps make other improvements, then I shall be very well satisfied and I wish them all speed in their purpose


Mr. BRADETTE:: I want to bring to the attention of the committee once more the matter I mentioned a week ago yesterday on the resolution of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) namely the bad radio reception in northern Ontario. I am not going to go over the ground I covered at that time, but now that the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) whose department has full jurisdiction over radio, is here I want to make him realize that at least a quarter of a million people in northern Ontario and northern Quebec are absolutely dissatisfied with the present radio reception. I have made this protest on several occasions, absolutely outside the realm of politics. I do not want politics to enter into this discussion, because all sections of the population in the north are in agreement with radio nationalization, and that they should not be expected to pay licence fees because they do not get the reception to which they are entitled. It is very seldom, even at night, that we are able to get the national programs. We do not deny that some wonderful programs are put on in the United States, but we maintain that as Canadians we are entitled to receive the Canadian programs as well.
The people in the north were unanimous in their support of the nationalization of radio, but surely after three years we should have
better reception in that part of the country. I agree almost entirely with the hon. member who preceded me; I do not think the commission has discharged the function we expected of it. More than that; we had a definite promise from the commission that it would send experts to consider the situation and that the commissioners themselves would come to our part of the country in order to survey conditions. I am sorry to say they have never paid us that visit. I am sorry also to say that although the commission have been very favourable to us and have been willing to cooperate with us, something has happened which has made it impossible for the commission to secure sufficient funds to establish a station that would give us the service to which we are entitled. The hon. member who preceded me mentioned the fact that when the radio commission was set up it was decided that five high powered stations should be established in different sections of Canada in order to give proper service. These stations are not now giving any service in northern Ontario.
We were highly elated this winter when we saw in the press that it was the intention of the government to remedy the situation in our section of the country. I am not going to read the editorials that appeared in the newspapers of New Liskeard, Kapuskasing, Cochrane, Timmins and other points in northern Ontario, but they all expressed satisfaction with the proposal. We were sadly disillusioned, however, a few weeks later, when, in reply to a question asked from this side of the house, the Minister of Marine told us the government had made no move in that direction, so far as he was aware. So to-day we are no further ahead than we were last year or three years ago. At the present time we have three small local radio stations in the north; one is in North Bay, another is in Kirkland Lake and the third is in Timmins. I have already stated that we have no fault to find with these local stations, but surely the government or the commission do not expect us to be satisfied with them because they cannot give national service. These stations are rendering a service to the three localities in which they are located; no doubt they are also serving a commercial purpose, with which I have no fault to find, because I presume it is impossible for the commission or the government to maintain these local stations; but they cannot render the service to which we are entitled, and we should not be expected to be satisfied with the situation that exists at the present time.
I want to warn the minister; he is going to have a young revolution on his hands this
Radio Broadcasting

year if he tries to collect licence fees in our section of the country, if we do not get better service than we get at the present time. Dozens of people have been brought before the police magistrates because they refused to pay the $2 licence fee; they claim, and rightly, that they should not pay because they are not getting the service. In the past it has been held that people who are taxed should be represented, and in connection with radio, whether under private or government control, if they do not get the service they should not be expected to pay the fees. Many of the people are refusing to pay again this year, for the reasons I have already given.
It is not my intention to take up very much of the time of the committee in this connection, because the Minister of Marine must be fully seized of this situation. We do not place the blame at the door of the commission; we place it entirely on the shoulders of the government, because surely during the last three years they have had time to study the situation. When the nationalization of radio was first mentioned we were unanimous in our support in northern Ontario. Perhaps we were a bit selfish; under private ownership we were not getting the reception that was given in the cities. To our sorrow, however, we found that though we were expected to contribute $2 per year for a licence fee, we were not receiving the service we had expected, while under private ownership at least we did not have to pay the licence fee. If under private ownership we did not get the programs we expected we had only ourselves to blame for buying radios, and we had no fees to pay. Surely the government must be seized of the situation; surely the pioneer population of northern Ontario and northern Quebec should receive the same consideration as is shown the rest of the country. Is this the case because there are only one or two members interested in the question? Would it be any different if there were a dozen or two dozen members giving voice to the sentiments of those people? I claim always to have been fair in discussing public matters and questions affecting my section of the country. I know the hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Belec), who sits opposite, is absolutely with me in this regard, and I am positive that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) is also with me, because in Haileybury and the rest of his constituency the people are not getting the radio reception to which they are entitled.
I should like to read some brief articles coming from my own part of the country in order that the committee may be fully

aware of the exact situation. The first is from the Northland Post of Cochrane, under date of April 111, 1935:
The radio situation in the north remains in the same unsatisfactory condition. Repeated protests on the part of every paper in the north, and efforts on the part of our local member, Mr. Bradette, have so far failed to produce any tangible results. It is time that the radio commission either put up or shut up, in the popular language of the day. Either an honest effort should be made to give satisfactory service, or else the government should exempt radio users in the north from the payment of the annual licence fee. It is neither just nor reasonable to expect the radio users in the north to pay an annual fee to the Canadian government, which is used to furnish programs to certain other sections of the country, when all that we in the north can get satisfactorily are American stations.
This is right to the point, and from a paper in my section of the country. I shall now read to the committee a resolution passed by the New Liskeard board of trade, New Liskeard, Ontario, a point in the constituency of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon).	This
letter addressed to the Minister of Labour, the radio commission and to myself is as follows:
New Liskeard, Ont., April 3, 1935. Mr. J. A. Bradette, M.P.,
Parliament Buildings,
Ottawa, Ontario.
Dear Sir:
At the annual meeting of the New Liskeard board of trade held on January 31st, the following resolution re a broadcasting station for northern Ontario was passed:
"That the proposed resolution before the Associated Boards of Trade be followed up. This resolution reads as follows:	'That the
dominion government, through the radio commission be requested to establis a radio broadcasting station at some suitable point north of North Bay or Sudbury of such a capacity as will eliminate present interference and give the radio users of northern Ontario and northwestern Quebec the service which is being received by radio owners in old Ontario.'"
Since then other representations to the commission have been made and at a meeting of the executive of the New Liskeard board of trade held on April 1st, the following resolution pertaining to a radio station in the north was passed:	.
"That the secretary write to the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, Hon. W. A. Gordon. Mr. J. A. Bradette, associated boards of trade and the town council, repeating the motion already placed on the books and conveying to them the information that regardless of representations conveyed to them otherwise, we still maintain that only a broadcasting station of the type described in our motion will satisfy the situation."


Alfred Duranleau: Would the hon.
member permit a word? As we are anxious to put through some further legislation before the adjournment which will take place tomorrow, may I tell the hon. member that to-

Radio Broadcasting
day I am issuing a licence to Kirkland Lake station increasing the power from 100 watts to 1,000 watts, and placing that station on the wave length 530. It is the view of the commission that for the time being this change will give a satisfactory service to northern Ontario. Something better may be done later on, but in the meantime we expect the change will give fairly good service. I make this statement to the hon. member in order to curtail the debate.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: I wish to oblige the
minister in every possible way, because I believe the radio commission and his department are anxious to help my section of the country. I must say however that a 1,000 watt station at Kirkland Lake is not going to remedy the situation. The only redeeming feature in the statement made by the minister is the fact that in the near future something might be done. "Might be done" will not satisfy us, either. For the last three years we have been suffering through lack of service. We have paid the government thousands of dollars for services to which we are entitled. As I said a few moments ago, and as was stated by the hon. member who preceded me, I have no quarrel with the private stations. But surely the government does not expect those private stations to give the service the people may expect. I cannot accept a 1,000 watt station at Kirkland Lake under private jurisdiction, as a permanent solution of the problem. I have no quarrel with the private owners; as a matter of fact the owner of that station is a personal friend of mine. I do say however that this state of affairs cannot remain. May I put this question to the minister? Is it true that during the course of this winter it was the intention of his department to increase the power of a station in Toronto to a point where it would give service to my section of the country, or is it true that the government intended installing a heavy relay station in northern Ontario?


Alfred Duranleau: Mr. Chairman, I
know the radio commission has before it a program which will implement the report of the committee, and will provide for the installation of a' certain number of powerful stations throughout Canada. My recollection is that a station is contemplated for northern Ontario. To answer the hon. member and the hon. member for North Waterloo, however, I must say that we are faced with the matter of expenditures. Until now, under the terms of the act, the radio commission can meet the expenses only through the revenues derived from licence fees. When they have met the expenses in connection with programs 92582-177
wires and so on, there is not very much left for capital expenditure and for the installation of powerful stations. It is only a matter of expenditure. Although we have had this program before us for some time, I did not think it advisable to authorize action, in view of the discussion which is to take place after the recess concerning the future life of the radio commission, as it now exists under the law.
I think the hon. member should be satisfied with the licence I am issuing to-day at Kirkland Lake. If my hon. friend will state positively that my action will not ameliorate the situation, I am quite content to suspend the order for this licence.


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


Alfred Duranleau: The radio commissioners contend the proposed station will ameliorate the situation, but if the hon. member will take the responsibility, as a representative from that part of the country, to state that what we propose to do would not in any way, shape or form ameliorate the situation, then I am quite content to leave the station at 100 watts, as it has been for the past few years.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Of course, I do not
believe the minister has the right to make me responsible for such a decision. There is no doubt that the increased power at Kirkland Lake will improve the situation and will improve the reception. I accept it, however, only on one condition-and I am speaking for the people in my section of the country- that the proposed action will be considered as only temporary.
I believe we are practical and logical in our representations. A few moments ago the minister stated that in the near future something tangible would be given to us. Surely his department will not say that a 1,000 watt station at Kirkland Lake would be sufficient for the great area of northern Ontario and northern Quebec. It would be physically impossible for that station to be sufficient. Surely the minister does not say that such a station would give service to the towns of Cochrane, Kapuskasing, Hearst, Timmins, Iroquois Falls, or to other sections of northern Quebec. I will accept the suggestion as a temporary measure but not as a solution. I appreciate what the minister has said, and appreciate his activity. I must urge, however, that what he is doing must be considered only a palliative, and we hope the government may find it possible to give us a strong relay station, a short wave station, or some facilities by which we may receive properly

Radio Broadcasting

the programs from the Canadian commission.
Surely the people in the northern sections must be classed as Canadians and as such are entitled to Canadian programs. At the present time we are getting programs from Mexico, the United States; even the programs from old England, come in more clearly than do the programs of the Canadian radio commission. I know the minister wishes to be fair, and I make my plea to him sincerely and earnestly. In that northern section of Canada we have a quarter of a million people who have done yeoman work in the development of Canada but who, when they turn the dials of their radios, cannot get the programs of Canadian stations. Surely the minister does not wish that condition to exist. I would gladly accept this little station-and I emphasize the word "little"-which will give only a limited service to a very limited area, on the condition that something further may be done. It would not give sendee to the population I have just mentioned. I should like the minister to tell me, if it is possible for him to. do so, and if he can do so the people in the district will be very thankful, whether we shall before the next one or two years be given the same sort of service that is given in other parts of Canada.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend understands the difficulties of the situation. It is admitted by everyone that it is a very difficult district to serve. If ever there was a case where it is proven that there is no political influence in this matter it is ini this one, because the Minister of Labour (Mr. Gordon) has been working in conjunction with my hon. friend in order to secure a better service for that district. I know that my hon. friend understands the difficulties of the situation. For the time being we are trying to give some measure of satisfaction, and later on we shall strive to give a better service.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Would the minister enlarge on that "later on"? We know when a bill is coming due, but the minister's "later on" is too indefinite, and if we have to wait for years for a better service that would be far too long for us to accept and would be absolutely unfair to our people.


Sidney Cecil Robinson: I want to make a few
remarks in defence of the Windsor station which my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who I am sorry is not in his seat, criticizes every year, owing to the fact that his friends did not get the licence that was promised to them before the late government went out of power.
iMr. Bradette.]
I have no brief for the radio commission, but I want to tell my hon. friend that a licence was granted to the Essex broadcasting station before the radio commission was established. There were two 5,000 watt stations in western Ontario. Now there is one, and there is a 100 watt station at London and a radio commission station. The Windsor station is one of the finest stations on the North American continent; the residents of Ottawa and the residents of the Soo got their best reception from this station. It is not the fault of the Windsor station that their wavelength has been changed three times. First it was 540, which was satisfactory, then it was changed to 840, which was satisfactory, and then it was changed to 1030, which has brought all sorts of confusion.
My hon. friend from North Waterloo said that this station was owned and controlled by the Columbia broadcasting system of the United States. I may tell him that Canadians hold the majority stock in that station, and only within the last few days the Columbia Broadcasting system has cancelled its contract with the Windsor station owing to the poor reception on the new wave length 1030. Before that station was established we were unable in the border cities and in that neck of the woods to get any radio at all except what came through Detroit or Cleveland or some other American station. For some reason or other we cannot get the Toronto or London or Chatham stations. That is an established fact which cannot be disputed.
My hon. friend from North Waterloo was very severe in his criticism and said that there should be an investigation of that station. He insinuated that a scandal would be discovered. I do not know what he wants to investigate, and I am quite sure that the station would welcome an investigation. I do not know what grounds my hon. friend has for making that statement, but whoever gave him his information evidently had not the facts before him. I think I have covered the situation as to the Windsor station, Mr. Chairman. The station there has cost over $150,000 a year and is employing about thirty people. It has been a benefit to our section of the country, and I do not think anyone has any just criticism to make of it.


Mr. MITCHELL:: I have listened to the
remarks of the hon. members for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) and West Essex (Mr. Robinson) on the question of radio broadcasting in this dominion. I am not unmindful of the tremendous educational facilities that

Radio Broadcasting
are at the disposal of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission, and, notwithstanding the remarks of the last speaker, I have no sympathy with the attitude and the policy of the broadcasting station in the city of Windsor. I think it is a fair observation to make, notwithstanding any opinion to the contrary, that it reflected the broadcasting policy of one of the great American chains, and while that policy may have been changed in the last week or two it has been generally understood that that Windsor station was more or less in the Columbia broadcasting chain.


William Daum Euler: Entirely.


Humphrey Mitchell: Entirely, if you will. I am prepared to go that distance, and it was because of the lack of channels that existed in the country to the south of us. When the Canadian radio broadcasting commission was set in motion there was the driving force of the unanimous opinion of members of this House of Commons behind it for the purpose of reflecting the viewpoint of the Canadian people. We wanted a system developed that would reflect the viewpoint of the people of this dominion. Taking into consideration the limited vision of the average member of this House of Commons, the purpose was the inculcation of the basic philosophy of the Canadian people, expressed in the message carried over the air by the Canadian radio broadcasting commission. Recently the Prime Minister made a number of speeches over the Canadian radio commission system, and I have no quarrel with that. Nor have I any criticism to offer of the opinions expressed by the Prime Minister. Being a labour man, believing in a democracy, and having a very fixed opinion that the progress of civilization has been in proportion to the freedom of its institutions, I say I have no quarrel with a policy that permitted the Prime Minister, because of his financial ability to use the facilities of the Canadian radio commission, to broadcast his message to the people of Canada. I only wish that the leader of the opposition could do the same thing, and that the leader of the polyglot Cooperative Commonwealth Federation could also do the same; but that opportunity should not be predicated upon their financial ability to use the facilities of the Canadian radio commission. I think that that financial obligation should rest upon the people of Canada. I think that the leader of the government, the leader of the opposition. and the leader of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, and incidentally the leader of the Labour party, which is myself at the moment because I am the only one 92582-1771
left here, should be free to enunciate their philosophy to the people through the instrumentality of the Canadian radio broadcasting commission without incurring the disability of the financial obligations that go with it.
Let me say this very frankly-and it is just as well that I should say it because it is my opinion. I still think that there are a number of points of view which we are obliged to take into consideration. There are for instance the points of view of the two major political parties. There is the view of those who feel that they reflect the opinion of the farmers and again there are members of the House of Commons who have not reached the stage where they are ashamed to call themselves labour men. I do not want to say anything in the spirit of criticism, because after all the right to differ is the driving force of our civilization; indeed, it is the greatest contribution which the Anglo-Saxon race has made to the science of government throughout the history of the world. That contribution is the right of men to hold different views even though they may call one another names in passing. I have passed through the last four years in this House of Commons and, so far as I am concerned, the reduction in wages and salaries of civil servants is something that I opposed from the first, whereas some members of the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation took exactly the opposite position. Well, I have no quarrel with them on that score, but there you have a fundamental difference in this so-called political party which is supposed to reflect the new Utopia that will exist in this country. I have no quarrel with my good friends the farmers. They have been under the tremendous pressure of a fall in the price level in this and every other country and naturally they felt that if the farmers had to suffer a reduction in their remuneration, as indicated by that decline in price levels, other people should do the same. I took the opposite view; I regretted that anyone should have thrown sand into the machinery. In this regard I want to pay my compliments to the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Duff), who supported me in that argument. I have always held the view that if low wages were an essential part of any government policy then the only thing for the people to do would be to emulate the Chinese and the people of India and walk around in their bare skins, and we should all be rich. Again, with respect to the hours of labour, it has not been possible in this comer to get sufficient votes to reflect the point of view of the Canadian people
Radio Broadcasting

on the absolute necessity of reducing the hours to meet the problems that inevitably face this country. I do not wish to point out any fundamental weaknesses in this so-called new political party, but I do want to point out to the government that, with the power which they can exercise, it should be possible in the next election for the leaders of the respective avenues of thought in this dominion to express their views over the radio, free from the financial restrictions that otherwise hamper them. They should be able to broadcast the views of the people of Canada without being obliged to make any financial contribution to the broadcasting facilities of Canada. Radio users throughout the country are called upon to pay an annual licence fee of S2 towards the maintenance of the Canadian Radio Broadcasting Commission, but I think it would be a wise policy if the political leaders were allowed the use of the radio during an election. I have always contended that all our British institutions are predicated upon an appeal to reason rather than to prejudice, and that appeal should not be made to rest upon the financial resources of any party that desires to express its views on the floor of the house-views that are held by any section of the Canadian people. We are entering upon a general election in which various points of view will be presented to the people and it would be wise, in my opinion, to regard the speeches of the different political leaders, not from the point of view of party politics but as individual contributions to the political education of the nation. These broadcasts should be regarded as a public service, on the same footing as we treat our schools at the present time, and the philosophy of any political party should not be made dependent upon its ability to meet the financial obligations of the broadcasting system of the country. In this respect I think the authorities here might take a leaf out of the book of the National Broadcasting Company and of the Columbia Broadcasting Company in the United States and regard the speeches of our political leaders in the next election as a contribution to the political education of the people. It should not be predicated upon the ability of the respective leaders to draw upon campaign funds.


Mr. RALSTON:: Regardless of the method of administration whch may be finally decided upon by the government in the interim between now and the time when the projected legislation is brought down, I wish to direct to the attention of the minister the situation in western Nova Scotia. As pointed out to

me, western Nova Scotia is not getting the benefit of a proper radio service. I have before me a letter which was published in the Halifax Chronicle of April 9, from a citizen of western Nova Scotia, which I understand was sent in to the department:
I have your notice that my licence fee for $2 is due. I have always been ready and willing to pay my radio licence and was in favour of dominion control of radio but the government has not given us, in the maritimes, the service it professed to tax us for. I have been -paying my tax for years but I get nothing in real program service from your department. I shall, therefore, pay my tax under protest. The radio commission's programs, especially at night are no good to us, whatever, in these maritimes. Apart from the terrific local noises that are set up we are overwhelmed by powerful stations from outside Canada or so "jammed" that there is nothing but a howl through our Canadian station.
I want to register with the minister if I can an emphatic request that something be done to improve the radio situation in the western portion of our province. I brought the matter to the attention of the chairman of the radio commission on several occasions. He has assured me that some steps of that kind are being taken, but nothing is done and the situation portrayed in the letter from which I have just quoted is confirmed by a letter which I received only yesterday from my own constituency and which intimates that they are not getting in that section the service for which they are paying. I want to point out to the minister, as I have done to the chairman of the radio commission, that the agency through which better service can be rendered to western Nova Scotia is station CJLS, established at Yarmouth considerably over a year ago, a station, as I understand from those who know, with most modern equipment, up to date, well managed by people who know their business technically and by people who are putting on excellent programs. That station could serve western Nova Scotia well. A licence was granted to it by the radio commission, but so far it has been refused arrangements whereby it can handle the Canadian commission's programs. The result is that in the evenings at a time when radio listeners want to have that service, they do not get the benefit of the good service from Halifax or Saint John, because those stations are blurred as they come in. All they get is the good and bad programs from the United States stations, and their own station, CJLS has only the local programs which are excellent but which should be supplemented by outside programs. Listeners in that section of the country are paying their fee of $2 and are not getting any value

Radio Broadcasting
for their money. The minister may expect that those citizens will protest very vigorously against continuing to pay licence fees supposedly for the purpose of keeping up a Canadian radio commission and having supplied to them Canadian commission programs when they are not getting this service because the commission declines to make the necessary arrangements to have this efficient station handle their programs. I bring this to the attention of the minister and urge upon him, as I have urged upon the chairman of the commission, a right-about face and a recognition of the rights of the citizens of Western Nova Scotia and the ability of station CJLS to serve them. I believe a local station of this kind, which is well equipped and well run, not a makeshift or cheap station in any sense, should be encouraged. The people who have established it are enterprising and capable. Apparently that portion of Nova Scotia is peculiarly situated so far as atmospheric conditions are concerned. Nobody knows less about the technical side of radio broadcasting than I but I understand that on account of geographic or atmospheric conditions it is difficult to get stations at Montreal or Toronto and after Halifax and Saint John. Therefore there is need for a local station, and I urge the minister in the interim between now and the time when the legislation is brought down, to give favourable consideration to this matter. The commission has had the strongest representations not only from station CJLS but from more than one thousand radio listeners-in who sent in a petition some time ago pointing out the deficiencies in the present service and praying that arrangements be made whereby the commission's programs be handled by that well equipped and efficient station CJLS.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: From the discussion that has grown out of this bill and the various criticisms we have heard from all sides of the house, I think if anybody had any doubt as to the merits of the case and the work that has been done by the commission since its inception, he will be satisfied to-day that the commission has not lived up to expectations. If anybody had any doubt that the commission was going to remain long in existence, from the speeches that have been made to-day I think we are justified in saying that this bill which has been brought before the house sounds the death knell of the commission. I for one would not be willing to allow this bill to go through had we not had a certain kind of intimation or assurance from the government of the day that within the next month or two we are to have a new piece of
legislation, a new way of controlling this commission, which apparently has not been doing what it was created to do or develop.
I agree entirely with the remarks that have been made by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler). All that they have said is quite true. So far as the part of the country from which I come is concerned, I agree also to a large extent with the remarks made by my deskmate, the hon. member for SheLbume-Yarmouth (Mr. Ralston). I have had on many occasions to point out to the members of the commission the difficulty experienced by some of the people in outlying districts of my constituency of Charlevoix-Montmorency and further down along the coast in getting any station and having the advantage of certain good programs. On these occasions the answer has been that the commission would have to spend huge amounts to erect the powerful stations necessary to keep from coming into this country what was called at that time the bootlegging radio business that used to come in from the United States and Mexico.
Apparently at the present time the commission is working under certain disadvantages, and I realize that. But it was a huge undertaking, anid I do not think before this government took office anyone ever visualized the creation of such a commission that would go into the field of broadcasting operations, doing the same kind of business as some of the private institutions are doing. We have it to-day on the authority of the hon. member for North Waterloo that instead of decreasing the number of these stations and getting them coordinated, we have had the number of private stations increased from forty-nine to' fifty-nine. This all goes to prove that while the government might have been well inten-tioned at the time they started building up this commission, they have missed their aim and have not been successful in giving satisfaction to the Canadian public from coast to coast.
As to what has been said about those who were members of the commission, I think in the beginning from the point of view of our province some better choice might have been made. It was said in connection with the persons from our province who were appointed to the commission, that they were men connected with political organizations. Some have tried to say that they were not, but one gentleman was a candidate running against me in the last general election, and another, although the contrary may be stated, was assistant to the chief organizer of the author-
Radio Broadcasting

ized body of the Conservative party in Montreal when the elections were going on in that district. Although those gentlemen are amiable and apart from politics may be quite estimable, we cannot expect other than political patronage when the question of administering such a big commission as this arises. From the remarks made in the house to-day from all comers we learn-and the hon. member for North Waterloo has so stated-that there has been on many occasions quite a little bit of political patronage and advantage given this way or the other, on this side or on that, to favour certain districts against others.
Another matter that has been repeatedly pointed out to me in the city of Montreal, where I live and practise Jaw, is that in the direction of programs and also in the selection and hiring of the services of some artists, there has been in some instances discrimination. Some of them have been favoured as against others who might have had just as good or as valuable talents, but who could not get a hearing because they did not seem to be able to interview the personnel of the commission as well as others would appear to be able to do. It is pretty hard to get concrete cases in point and written documents or information as to these facts, because the persons concerned were not willing at the time to disclose the facts, being afraid that later on, should they have a chance to be employed by other companies to do broadcasting elsewhere, they would be debarred and prevented from having a chance to make a living.
Another feature which is in the mind of the people generally is that the commission has cost a great deal of money, and also that some of the expenses, such as travelling expenses of the chairman and members of the commission, have been very great and out of proportion. It has been stated to me many a time that such expensive trips were taken by the commission. I have not in mind all the places to which they went, but for instance about a year ago I understand a trip was taken by some members of the commission to Newfoundland. I would like to know what they had to do there, what they could learn there regarding better administration of radio broadcasting in Canada. Possibly we had something that Newfoundland could learn, but I do not think it was in the interests of the commission to send the members there. And I was told on good authority that those trips and excursions cost a lot of money. Before sitting down I would ask the minister, who although he disclaims being in charge of the commission is responsible for it in the house, to tell me how I could obtain,-for I should like in all sincerity to obtain it before the passage

of this bill,-a statement of all the expenses of all the commissioners each year since they have been appointed, and where they have been and the cost in detail. I think the house ought to know this. I say that because it is in the minds of the people, the country wants to know it, and the house is entitled to have an account of those expenses. I do not know if the government would like to appoint a committee by which this matter could be investigated. There was a committee last year or the year before which dealt with the organization of the commission, but I am not aware that these facts were disclosed. In order to set right complaints that have been made, before the bill passes we should have a detailed statement of the expenses of the commissioners for all their trips.


Mr. HANSON (Skeena):: Last year when
I first approached the minister in an effort to get some information regarding the radio commission, I was ruled out of order. Then I tried to get some information as to the expenditure of the commission, and its workings, but was informed that they were not responsible to any minister or anybody and the information could not be had. Then the leader of the opposition consulted with the Prime Minister and I got some figures as to the expenses of the commission, but these figures I am not able to understand. I have also consulted several auditors and they are of the same opinion. So the hon. member who asked for a statement as to the expenditure of the commission certainly has my hearty support.
As far as British Columbia is concerned, as I was trying last year to explain to the committee, we are forced to pay two dollars for a licence, and something like seventy thousand licences were paid for last year in British Columbia. But there are hundreds of people who do not pay the licence fee, and those who are paying protest because they are unable to hear any Canadian program. I have a radio in Prince Rupert and I have one three hundred miles inland where I have my summer home, and I have been unable yet to get a Canadian radio commission program on either of them. It may be that my sets are not up to date, but I am trying to get the best there is. I understand that the minister intends to improve the station in Vancouver, and I am very glad to hear that. In my room here I have dozens of letters complaining about this radio situation in British Columbia, and especially in the outlying parts. If we are to keep on paying a licence fee to the commission we are at least entitled to have Canadian programs; if that is impossible I think we should not have to pay the licence fee. I hope that

Radio Broadcasting
when the bill is brought before the house consideration will be given to these complaints, and I plead especially for the part of the country which I represent and know something about.


Alfred Duranleau: In answer to the three hon. members who have spoken last, let me say that at the present time I do not intend to answer on behalf of the radio commission all the complaints and charges which have been made before this committee. To-morrow this house will adjourn, and we have important legislation which we would like to put through before to-morrow evening. At the present time we are only asking the extension of the life of the commission for two months. The questions raised to-day will be taken up again when the estimates come before the committee. We do not admit the charges made, but we do not propose to answer them now except to say that the policy of imposing a licence fee on radio owners is not our policy; it is the policy of my hon. friends. When we came into power citizens who owned radios had to pay the licence fee. As to the lack of coverage, I have already stated that the radio commission has a program of construction including a certain number of powerful stations, one in Vancouver, one in the eastern provinces, and at other places where the service is found to be poor, and it is hoped this will give entire satisfaction. But it involves expenditure, and I can state to the committee that the amount collected for radio licence fees was not sufficient to allow the commission to build powerful stations. This matter will be brought before the house after the recess; another bill will be introduced or the matter will be referred to a committee and the whole question will be debated at length to the satisfaction of my hon. friends. What we a-sk at the present time is to let the matter stand. The extension is only for two months, and ample opportunity will be given to every hon. member to satisfy his constituents when the matter comes up again after the recess.


Ernest Lapointe: I just want to say one
word, and I need not apologize for it. We sympathize with the minister and the government in their desire to expedite certain legislation which needs to be expedited-


Alfred Duranleau: In the interests of
the country.


Ernest Lapointe: -but it will be admitted that we are not responsible for the fact that we are going home for five weeks. I want to impress upon the government, since they are going to consider this question during the recess and there is the possibility of another
bill being introduced, to give consideration to the suggestion of my hon. friend from East Hamilton (Mr. Mitchell) that on the publicly owned stations the leaders of the various political parties in parliament should be free to speak and set forth their views to the people of 'Canada. It is all very well to say: Let them pay for it; but that places those who have not financial means at their disposal in a position of inferiority. It does not seem quite fair that these publicly owned stations, organized for the people of Canada and paid for by the taxes of all people, not only the money received through the sale of radio licences but the taxes used in the ordinary way to pay any deficits resulting from the administration of the service, should be used only by public men who can afford to pay for the privilege, of broadcasting their views to the people of Canada.


George Halsey Perley: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend; I am interested in what he is saying, but I should like him to explain on what basis he would divide the time, between how many parties and how many leaders, and in what proportion.


Ernest Lapointe: It cannot be more difficult here than it is in the old country. I remember discussing the matter last year with Sir Herbert Samuel at the home of my right hon. leader, and that gentleman told us what has been done in England. There they have allocated part of the time to the various political parties, not only during election campaigns but all the time. I do not know whether they speak once a week, once a fortnight or once a month, but it is being done. Sir Herbert Samuel told me, for instance, that Mr. Winston Churchill tried to claim the right to speak as well as the leaders, because he thought he was the leader of a party consisting of himself, but his claims were not recognized. There are certainly in this country three parties which are well defined; perhaps there are four or five, but those gentlemen can arrange among themselves as to who should speak for them. Perhaps the ex-Minister of Trade and Commerce would claim to be a leader, too. At any rate I think we might arrange that at least three Leaders should have the privilege of speaking over the radio.


Mr. COTNAM:: Why not the hon. member for Temiscouata?


Ernest Lapointe: Possibly, and at times the hon. member for North Renfrew might qualify for a kind of leadership. The commission are paying the artists who entertain the radio listeners. Well, I think the public of Canada would enjoy listening to the
Radio Broadcasting

addresses of all the political leaders, and I am sure they would not charge anything for delivering those addresses.


James Dew Chaplin: The listeners would not pay anything, anyway.


Ernest Lapointe: And they should not be made to pay. I think perhaps some would pay to listen to my hon. friend from Lincoln, who is very interesting at times.


George Halsey Perley: I should like to say just one further word, Mr. Chairman. As I have said, I am very much interested in the suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Quebec East. I am not speaking for the government at all, but in my personal view it would be a very good thing indeed if some arrangement could be made for the use of the radio at election time by the various parties. I have thought it over, however, and I cannot think of any way in which we can divide up the time and have it satisfactory to everybody. I am not unmindful of the criticism of the radio commission that has come from many quarters, but I wish to remind the committee again that their task has been exceedingly difficult. To my mind that task, however, is an easy one compared with what would be necessary if my hon. friend from Quebec East should present a plan dividing up part of the time among the various political parties. My own impression is that he would receive nothing but criticism after he finished with that arrangement.
I was greatfy interested in the remarks of my hon. friend from North Waterloo (Mr. Euler), who is always worth hearing in regard to matters of this kind. The hon. member is greatly in favour of public ownership. Many difficulties have confronted the radio commission, but I still feel personally that we ought to be able to carry on this service by a commission. How it can be done I am not at present in a position to state-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


George Halsey Perley: I admit that
quite frankly. There are sections of the country to which it is impossible to give good service under present conditions. To provide only five or six powerful stations, as my hon. friend suggests, would mean wiping out all these private stations, which no one would suggest unless they received some consideration.


William Daum Euler: That would not need to
follow.

Sir GEORGE PERLEY":	I suppose it
would eventually. Certainly the local difficulties in various parte of Canada are extremely hard to avoid and overcome. However, all I can say is that the purpose of this bill is simply to lengthen the life and authority of the commission for two months. The Prime Minister will be here when we meet again and in the meantime this question will be given consideration. I did not state that any new arrangement would be made, as one hon. member suggested; I simply stated that the whole matter is under careful consideration. Therefore I would ask the committee to pass this bill.


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


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Monday, April IS, consideration of the amendments made by the senate to Bill No. 15-Mr. Rhodes-to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
Pierre Édouard Blondin: Is the house ready for
the question? Mr. Rhodes moves:
That all the amendments proposed by the senate to Bill No. 15, an act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act, be concurred in with the exception of amendments Nos. 13 and 14, in which amendments this house does not concur for the following reason:
That farm property being at the present time at its lowest value, a total advance of sixty-six and two-thirds per cent of the appraised value of a farm would secure a much smaller loan than would have been secured at fifty per cent valuation a few years ago.
And that a message be sent to the senate to acquaint their honours therewith.


Mr. REID:: May I ask the minister if it
is understood that all the amendments are to be discussed in committee?


Mr. RHODES:: No, we do not go into
committee.


Edward Joseph Garland: We are
voting on this motion only?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes.


Mr. GARDINER:: I was under the impression that yesterday there was an understanding in the house, by unanimous consent, that we should go into committee and consider these amendments seriatim.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: No. I said that as far
as I was concerned I would offer no objection if, by unanimous consent, the house decided to go into committee, but unanimous consent

Farm Loan Act
was not given. Now we are at a period when we have only six sitting hours left, and under the circumstances I think it only right that we should adhere to the practice that has formerly obtained with respect to amendments of this kind. I think the motion should stand as it is.


Thomas Reid: I think this procedure is unfair, because last night it was stated that this bill would be considered first to-day. That was not done. When we adjourned last night we understood that this matter was to be debated after the house opened this afternoon.


Edward Joseph Garland: And the same thing happened yesterday.


Mr. BOTHWELL:: Before the motion is put I should like to say a few words with regard to some of the amendments made by the senate. It would appear to me that the substitution of the new section 8 is going to prejudice every municipality and every municipal government. I believe the provinces will have to take some action in order to see that this bill is not put into effect in their respective provinces, if the measure passes with the amendments as at present drafted. It is my view that the house should be allowed to go into committee on the bill and that hon. members should have some explanation from the minister as to the meaning of the new section 8.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: I am in agreement with the remarks of the hon. member for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell). May I observe that I am simply amazed at the attitude taken by hon. members in the far corner of the chamber who now object to this very important piece of legislation, but who voted for an adjournment of five or six weeks.


Mr. VALLANCE:: In view of the importance of the amendments suggested by the senate I believe this house should not be expected to accept them without first having the opportunity of discussing them in committee. The hon. member for Swift Current has pointed out the position in which the municipalities will find themselves. In one of the substituted sections I find the expression, "notwithstanding any law, whether statute or other, now in force or which hereafter may be in force in any province."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: That is in the present act.


John Vallance: Yes, I know it is. This is one provision against which I protest most vigorously, and against which I raised my
voice previously. There have been exemption laws in some of the provinces, and I do not think the Canadian Farm Loan Act is worth the giving up of those laws. I was of the opinion that we should go into committee. It is impossible for me to state my objections unless we go into committee, because I have many questions I should like to ask the minister.


Robert Gardiner: First of all, may I say-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Order.
The hon. member has spoken.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: That would be true, if the house wished to hold to the strict rule. I believe however that the hon. member for Acadia merely asked a question, and proceeded somewhat along the lines followed in the informal debate which took place last evening. With unanimous consent, I suggest he be allowed to continue.


Robert Gardiner: I thank you for your ruling. Mr. Speaker. On the former occasion I merely put a question to the Minister of Finance, and that was all; I did not make a speech. May I say first of all that the remarks of my good friend from Vancouver Centre are not worthy of consideration, so I shall pass on to something else.
My greatest objections to the amendments have been voiced by the hon. members for Swift Current (Mr. Bothwell) and South Battleford (Mr. Vallance). If these amendments are accepted, and more particularly the amendment which takes away the protection the farmers now have under provincial legislation, and the provision the effect of which is that when mortgages are placed upon farms, municipalities and school districts will not be able to collect taxes, then I must seriously object to this legislation.
I am sorry the Minister of Finance did not carry out what hon. members understood to be the agreement made yesterday, namely that we would move into committee to discuss the amendments seriatim. However, inasmuch as he has taken a different attitude I shall be content to point out the difficulties which many of us from western Canada who have had experience in municipal work have encountered in connection with the collection of taxes, in so far as loans under the soldier settlement board were concerned. I was reeve of a municipality for several years before coming to parliament, and as such was closely connected with municipal work. Then and since that time I have known of many school districts in which a large portion of the lands were held by
Farm Loan Act

returned soldiers operating under the soldier settlement scheme. It was found almost impossible to give education to the children in those areas because of the inability to collect taxes. The scheme tinder the present measure will be much larger and more ambitious than was the soldier settlement scheme, and, if the farmers take advantage of it, will eventually apply to many more farms. Consequently it will be very difficult for the municipalities and school districts to operate, if the land in question is not to be subject to provincial law when mortgages are placed upon it. So far as I am concerned I shall vote against the amendments not only because of the objections I have raised but because of further objections I have not stated.


Mr. GOTT:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kent, Ontario (Mr. Rutherford). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CAHAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. HARRIS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Jacobs). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. ANDERSON (Halton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Toronto West Centre (Mr. Factor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. GEARY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BUTCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Burns). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. ESLING:: I was paired with the hon. member for Yancouver-Burrard (Mr. Han-bury). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. PORTEOUS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Southeast Grey (Miss Mac-phail). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. MOORE (Chateauguay-Huntingdon):: I was paired with the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dubuc). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Hurtubise). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. SIMPSON (Algoma):: I was paired with the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Casgrain). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. STEWART (Lethbridge):: I was paired with the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Heaps). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Charles Edward Bothwell: I was paired with the hon. member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Embury). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. RYERSON:: I was paired with the hon. member for Norfolk-Elgin (Mr. Taylor). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I was paired with the hon. member for Rimouski (Sir Eugene Fiset). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Robert James Manion: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. BRASSET:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Ann (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I was paired with the hon. member for Cape Breton North-Victoria (Mr. Johnstone). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Lucien Dubois: I was paired with the hon. member for St. John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. SPENCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, Ontario (Mr. Fraser). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. WHITE (London):: I was paired with the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Gershaw). Had I voted I would have voted for the motion.


Arthur Sauvé: If I were not paired with the hon. member for L'Assomp-tion (Mr. Seguin), I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAURIN (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Fontaine). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.
Farm Loan Act


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Boulanger). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. LAFLECHE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Girouard). Had I voted, I would have voted for the motion.


Mr. FAFARD (Translation):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Fortin). Had I voted, I would have voted, against the motion.


Joseph Georges Bouchard: I didn't
vote in the absence of the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Pettit). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Vincent Dupuis: I was paired
with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Lucien Dubois: I was paired
with the hon. member for Saint-John-Albert (Mr. Bell). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion..


Mr. THAUVETTE (Translation):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Matane (Mr. Larue). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. DUMAINE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Lake St. John (Mr. Duguay). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Mr. GOULET (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Garland). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.


Maurice Brasset: I was paired with the hon, member for St.-Anne (Mr. Sullivan). Had I voted, I would have voted against the motion.
Senate amendments, with the exception of amendments Nos. 13 and 14, concurred in.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock. PRIVATE BILLS



SECOND READING

[Stage Direction]
Bill No. 57 for the relief of Albertine Roberte Montpellier de Beaujeu-Mr. Bell (St. Antoine).
fMr. Laurtn.)

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg) moved that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee on Bill No. 43, for the relief of Clarence MacGregor Roberts.
Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: I think it is a matter of regret that this motion has been made, that the Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole on this particular bill. This bill, as the house knows, has come to us from the senate. Tiie senate passed the bill granting the divorce. According to the usage of this house the bill came to the private bills committee of this house and that committee saw fit to report the preamble not proven. I say it is regrettable that the bill has come back to the house, and I make that statement for a number of reasons. One reason is that it is a private bill and will occupy the time of the house for an hour, thus preventing the discussion of public bills. It will hold its place on the order paper until finally disposed of. There is reason to believe that this bill will occasion a good deal of debate not only on the motion that the Speaker leave the chair but in committee of the. whole, if it should go there. I think it would be very unfortunate if we had to consider this bill on the floor of the house and discuss the evidence that was brought before the committee. It is not desirable that this should be done if it can possibly be avoided, and in what I say to-night I shall not refer, except to a very brief extent, to the evidence that was given and certainly not at all to those things which might seem to be objectionable. I shall object for certain other reasons. I repeat, it is very unfortunate that this bill has come back to this house for it will introduce on the floor of the house a matter which we might well avoid.
It will be pointed out of course that the bill has had the sanction of the senate; that is true. But it should also be pointed out that the bill when it was before the senate committee carried by a majority of four to three, and that in itself indicates that there was good ground for difference of opinion in the matter, and good ground at least for the private bills committee taking the position they did. The charge has been made that the members of the private bills committee did not familiarize themselves with the evidence, but that is not in accordance with the facts. I have reason to know that many members of the private bills committee who opposed this bill did familiarize themselves with the evidence. I think it is unfortunate

Clarence MacGregor Roberts
also that a certain member of the senate committee-and I might refer to him here since he has seen fit to discuss the matter and give it publicity-has followed the course he has. 1 know that under ordinary circumstances we are not allowed to refer to what has taken place in the senate; but when the chairman of the senate committee saw fit to give an interview to a Winnipeg newspaper, throwing reflections on the members of the private bills committee-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: The hon. member should not refer to what has taken place in the upper house.


Mr. DROWN:: I am referring to what a member of the senate committee said to a Winnipeg newspaper.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: It is clear that no reference should be made to proceedings in the upper house.


John Livingstone Brown: I bow to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but it does seem to me that when the chairman of the senate committee sees fit to give to a Winnipeg newspaper an interview in which he casts reflections on a committee of this house I cannot be very far out of order in referring to what he has said.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. gentleman pardon me? I was looking at the rule when he was referring to the statement made by the chairman of the senate committee; I did not know that he was referring to an article in the press or an interview which is an entirely different matter. I was speaking of proceedings in the other house when I requested the hon. member to refrain from making any reference thereto.


John Livingstone Brown: I have no intention of referring to anything that was said in the senate, but I think I am in order in referring to what the chairman of the senate committee said in an interview given the press. In that interview he cast reflections on the private bills committee of this house, indicating that we had not sufficiently studied the evidence, had not been reading it, and therefore should not reverse the finding of the senate committee. Now it is a matter of procedure that seems to be accepted in this house that when these bills come from the senate and get their first and second readings they are referred to the private bills committee. That seems to be the regular procedure, and if it is not competent for the private bills committee of this house to review the evidence and pass judgment in accordance with that evidence, then the whole thing becomes a farce and we might as well drop the procedure altogether.
So far as the evidence is concerned, I can assure the house that I read it myself and I know that other members of the committee read it; and when we bear in mind the fact that the bill passed the senate committee by a majority of four to three, then there is no good ground for criticism of the private bills committee because they saw fit, by a majority of eighteen or nineteen to nine, to reverse the finding of the senate committee. As I said at the outset, I do not want at this stage to go into certain features of the evidence but I do wish to refer to one fact and that is that the evidence proved that this man who is seeking the divorce from his wife at one time connived with his wife to secure a divorce, to the extent that he obtained for her a railway pass to Reno. I think he was an employee of tlhe Canadian National Railways and he may not have bought it; anyway he got it for her. Later, realizing the position in which he had put himself by appearing to connive, he withdrew the pass and then, as I understand the matter, made a pretence of objecting to her going to Reno. This of course was a foolish procedure under any circumstances. But it indicated that he was willing to secure a divorce and that he withdrew the pass and assumed an attitude of seeming opposition only because he realized-probably on the advice of his lawyer, for all we know-that he was compromising himself and that this . would work against him when the matter came before the various bodies that had to adjudicate upon the case.
It is quite true that when the bill came before the private bills committee it was indicated that we were not allowed to bring forward new evidence. That would seem to be in harmony with the legal procedure that when a case is appealed, the appeal must be based upon the evidence already submitted. I am not a lawyer, but I understand that is the situation. There was a certain type of evidence given before the senate committee that the respondents were not in a position at the time to refute. That did not, however, and does not prevent those of us who had read and studied the particular evidence in question from considering it ourselves, judging the weight of it and recalling that in many respects it was open to objection and might easily be overthrown. If we are called upon to discuss the matter before the committee of the whole house where we have to go into the case in fuller detail, then I shall be compelled-


Mr. ROSS:: What is the evidence?

Clarence MacGregor Roberts


John Livingstone Brown: I could go into it if that
were thought desirable, but at this stage 1 do not think it is. That is, I would not go into it if that could possibly be avoided, and it is only because of the motion which has been forced upon us by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg (Mr. Ernst) that we are discussing it at all. As I have said, although the legal procedure is that we are not allowed to introduce new evidence, that does not prevent some of us at least from seeing the very weak spots in the evidence that was adduced, and probably we can base our conclusions upon the evidence as it appears to us.
I have said already that this bill has been turned down by the private bills committee, the majority who voted against the bill believing they had good grounds for rejecting the evidence that was submitted. I have pointed out already that there was abundant evidence of connivance; that it is an accepted principle that when persons come before a divorce court they must come with clean hands. It may be quite true that the plaintiff in this case was not guilty of the offence which was charged against his wife, but it was abundantly proven that he was anything but faithful to the marriage vows which he took. Therefore I express regret that the matter has been brought to the notice of the house once again, and I still further regret that we are to be compelled to go into the details of the evidence as we certainly shall be if. this motion carries and the Speaker leaves the chair for the house to go into committee of the whole.


Joseph-François Laflèche: Mr. Chairman, the only interest I have in this matter is my desire to see to it that the fair name of the private bills committee should remain unassailed. A few days ago, this bill was brought before the committee and it was rejected by a big majority. I therefore feel bound to protest as far as it is in my power against the procedure followed by the sponsors of this motion.
So, I urge upon those who are desirous of safeguarding the rights of the several committees established by this parliament for a number of years as well as upon the protectors of widows and orphans, to vote against the motion.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: Before the question carries-


William Gordon Ernst: Thanks for the anticipation -before the question carries.


William Duff: My hon. friend may make something of that point, but I do not feel about the matter exactly as he does. It is to be regretted that Quebec has not arranged that divorce cases should come before the judges of that province as they do before the judges of other provinces in this dominion, but I think it is because they do not believe in divorce. I am, always have been and always will be opposed to divorce, and if there is any evidence to justify the conclusion that in a divorce case brought before the House of Commons and the Senate the divorce should not be granted, I intend to cast my vote to that effect.
As the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) has said, the procedure in this parliament is that a divorce bill is first considered by the upper chamber. A committee of that house considers the evidence, and after it has done so, under the constitution such divorce bills are sent to this house so that they -may be considered by a special committee of the commons. In this particular case this bill was considered by the senate, and, strange as it may seem to you, sir, and to me, we found that after the bill had been considered by the senate the divorce was approved by four members of the senate committee as opposed to three. I realize with you, sir, that as a member of the House of Commons I have no right, nor has any other member a right, to criticize anything that may happen in the other chamber, but I just wish to direct the attention of hon. members to the difference between the way in which the matter was considered by the committee in the other chamber and the way in which the members of the private bills committee of this house considered it.
The bill came to the members of the private bills committee. I have the honour of being a member of that committee. And may I say that outside of myself that committee is perhaps one of the strongest in the House of Commons. The members of that committee take their duties seriously. Whether it is a divorce bill or any other bill which comes before that committee, we endeavour to give to the measure under review the best consideration possible and make our findings accordingly. Much as I, and I think perhaps I may speak for other members of the committee, dislike it, we had to deal with this particular divorce case. Like my hon. friend from Lisgar-and again I am sure I am voicing the sentiments of a number of other members of the committee-we were obliged, contrary to our inclination but as our duty to the house and to the public, to read the evidence in the

Clarence MacGregor Roberts
case It is not a pleasant duty as far as I am concerned, and I cannot understand the attitude of anyone who, the committee having decided the matter to the best of their ability and agreed upon a decision practically in camera, would now compel us to discuss this thing before the public in the House of Commons.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is not in camera; it is wide open.


William Duff: I know it is wide open, but
as everyone knows, in that committee the same publicity is not given to a bill of this kind as would be given if it were considered in the House of Commons. What I am trying to say is that with regard to bills relating to divorce it is to be regretted that this House of Commons, or even the Senate, more mature as they are than we, should have to adjudicate on bills of this kind. However, as the hon. member for Lisgar said, the private bills committee of the House of Commons did go into the matter as thoroughly as possible. We considered the evidence; we heard the arguments of solicitors both for petitioner and for respondent, and, after considering every angle of the situation, by a majority of I think eighteen to nine decided not to adopt the preamble of the bill, and the chairman of the committee so reported to this house. It is true that this report has not yet been concurred in, but under the rules I understand that is not necessary. However, in opening cur mail this morning we found that someone had put in our box in the post office a memorandum addressed to the members of the House of Commons. As far as I am concerned I have no objection to anyone who feels he has a grievance addressing me either personally or through the mail. But there are some things in this memorandum or statement to which I object. It is signed by the petitioner, C. M. Roberts, and it refers to senate bill M. He says first:
This bill was rejected by the private bills committee of the House of Commons on March 28, 1935, after the senate had recommended that the petitioner be divorced from his wife.
That statement of course is correct, and to my mind this is very important because except under very unusual circumstances it has always been a rule of this house that when a special committee appointed by the house to deal with any matter goes into it thoroughly and reports a certain finding, the house adopts the finding of the committee. This bill, as Mr. Roberts says in this memorandum, was rejected by the private bills
committee of the House of Commons on March 28, 1935. I respectfully submit to my fellow members, and to members of other committees who expect us to agree to their findings and concur in any report which they make to this house, that the same courtesy is due to the members of the private bills committee. We rejected that bill after going into the evidence and hearing what was to be said for or against the petitioner and respondent. But that does not satisfy the gentleman who signed this memorandum. He goes on to say:
A few minutes before the private bills committee assembled, an unsigned memorandum was delivered to the members, which contained many definitely inaccurate statements not in accordance either with the facts or with the evidence taken before the senate committee, but designed to detract from petitioner's character and not only to prejudice the minds of the committee in favour of respondent but to mislead and deceive the members of it.
Now, sir, it seems to me that no person who comes before either the Senate or the House of Commons committee has any right to insinuate that members of the private bills committee were at that time or at any time influenced by letters or memoranda received by them. Consequently the petitioner puts himself in a very awkward position as far as I am concerned, and I think perhaps in the view of other members of the committee, when he signs a statement of that kind and dares to insinuate that members of that private bills committee were influenced by any statement which was handed to them or passed around in the committee. Perhaps the reason this Mr. Roberts now passes this memorandum around is to get square with whoever it was who circulated the previous memorandum in the private bills committee. But I say, and again I think I am voicing the sentiments of every member of the committee who dealt with this matter, that we were not influenced in the slightest degree by the memorandum which was passed around or which we found in our places when we met that morning.
But Mr. Roberts is not satisfied with that. He goes on to say:
The petitioner submits that a serious miscarriage of justice would result if the attitude of the majority of the private bills committee were approved by the house, and humbly brings the matter to the attention of the members of the House of Commons in order that this miscarriage of justice may be rectified.
Sir, that is a bold statement to make. Perhaps it would be as well if in some way Mr. Roberts were caused to appear before the bar of this house, because he practically says here that a serious miscarriage of justice would re-
Clarence MacGregor Roberts

suit if the attitude of the majority of the private bills committee were approved by the house. My hon. friend here says that perhaps he should be summoned in order to apologize for his statement that the private bills committee caused a miscarriage of justice when they decided, eighteen to .nine, that this divorce should not be granted. It certainly is contempt of this house, if I may put it that way. But let me go on further. The statement says:
The following remarks respecting allegations made in the memorandum in question and in the private bills committee are respectfully submitted:
1. Before the senate committee the act of adultery was proven definitely by three reliable witnesses whose evidence was unshaken in cross examination and accepted by the senate.
I have not the slightest wish to criticize the decision of the senate. I am quite willing that the gentleman who signs this memorandum take whatever comfort he can from the fact that four senators out of seven decided that the act was committed in this instance. While it is quite possible that an act of adultery was proven in this case, anyone reading the evidence submitted to the private bills committee must come to the conclusion that the gentleman who signs this memorandum should hang his head in shame both as far as his own actions are concerned and as regards his conduct towards his wife, whom he wanted to divorce. Then he goes on:
The evidence of respondent and co-respondent in denial is valueless. The record shows various instances where they have directly contradicted themselves when confronted with sworn statements made in the Montreal courts, and the fact that they deceived petitioner by going to Maine and living in the same house for two weeks is conclusive as to their relationship.
Well, sir, if I remember the evidence correctly this is only a matter of the kettle calling the pot black. As my hon. friend from Lisgar stated previously, anyone appealing to the law, even if it is in connection with a divorce, at least should come with clean hands. Then he goes on:
The evidence further shows that during the fall of 1933, the respondent and co-respondent continuously went out together-
There is not much harm in that; it does not prove anything. Evidently this man Roberts was jealous; perhaps he was not as young as his wife, and became jealous because she went out with someone else.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


William Duff: What is wrong with that? Of course the bachelors in this house may object

to that; that reminds me of a story I once heard about a friend of mine in Nova Scotia, but I cannot tell it here. I do say, however, in all decency that this should not be broadcast in this house; it should go to the private bills committee for consideration, if it is to be considered at all. Then the next clause reads:
While there had previously been some question of her husband's consent to a Reno divorce, that idea was entirely abandoned by petitioner, nevertheless, respondent proceeded to Reno against her husband's direct orders, and' secured a divorce.
According to my recollection of the evidence that statement is absolutely incorrect. I have not looked up the evidence since I received this memorandum, but if I remember it correctly this Mr. Roberts induced his wife to go to Reno. He obtained a railway pass for her and induced her to go to Reno to get a divorce, so how can he now come and endeavour to have this house reconsider the matter by telling us that his wife went to Reno to get a divorce without the consent of her husband? Then he goes on to say:
On return from Reno her effects were moved to an apartment by co-respondent and it was only some time after that removal that she took an action in separation against her husband and secured the right to a separate domicile. The co-respondent visited her practically daily at this apartment.
Quite possible this woman did move to another apartment, and as I remember the evidence she had every reason in the world to do so. I believe in another country there is a ground for divorce known as mental cruelty. If in this country we granted divorces for mental cruelty, to my mind this woman would be entitled to a divorce rather than her husband.


An hon. MEMBER:: Elucidate.


William Duff: I don't like to tell all the dirt in this matter. Paragraph 4 reads:
The report of the proceedings before the senate committee shows that that body was satisfied that the relations of the petitioner and Miss X (referred to in the memorandum) were entirely innocent and the reference in the memorandum is clearly an attempt to exaggerate a harmless incident in order to divert attention from the flagrant misconduct definitely proven against the respondent.
I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the difference between the clause I have just read and the clause which precedes it. In clause 3 this man says that after his wife moved from- his apartment the co-respondent visited her practically daily. Then in clause 4 this man refers to a certain Miss X, whoever she may be. I do not want to know her name, God knows, and I hope no one else wants to

Clarence MacGregor Roberts
know it, especially the bald headed men in this chamber. But this man admits in clause 4 that the evidence given before the senate committee, as appearing at page 17 of the proceedings-and I should like my hon. friend the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Hanson) to read page 17 for himself-shows that that body was satisfied that the relations of the petitioner, Mr. C. M. Roberts, and Miss X, referred to in the memorandum, were entirely innocent, and I hope they were. I want to say, however, that if the petitioner and Miss X could walk around the streets of Montreal, go to moving pictures, have five o'clock tea and so on, all in a harmless way, why should this man who signs this memorandum want us as members of this house to believe that because the wife also walked around with another gentleman she was committing an indecent act, if I may put it in that way? Then he goes on:
The statement is absolutely untrue that petitioner introduced respondent to co-respondent in the spring of 1933 with a view to throwing them together.
Evidently, whoever did it, there was some throwing together of some kind, either by the husband or by the wife or by both of them. The evidence of the respondent is that she met the co-respondent in February, 1933. If my hon. friends want to look into this evidence they will find it at pages 63, 75 and 76. Then paragraph 6 follows, and let us not forget that this man is referring to his wife, the woman whom he promised to love-


An hon. MEMBER:: Honour, and obey.


William Duff: She promised to honour and
obey him, I presume, but when he married her he promised to love and protect her. Here is what he says about her in paragraph 6:
The statement that Mrs. Roberts went out with the co-respondent in order to show petitioner the folly of his ways is absolutely false. On the morning of August 5, 1933, the husband saw his wife off at Bonaventure station, and gave her a pass to go to Maine for a holiday.
If he had any suspicion of this woman why did he get a pass and send her to Maine for a holiday? It does seem to me if he was of this suspicious nature he might at least keep his weather eye cocked, if hon. members know what I mean, and not get a pass for her and send her to the state of Maine. Evidently he did not trust her very far, because he states'
(She left the train at St. Lambert a mile or two out of Montreal and stayed there until next day and then went to Portland by motor with co-respondent, and remained with him in the same hoarding house for two weeks and returned with him all unknown to her husband and for the purpose of deceiving him.
He must have found out, at some time, whether at that particular moment or shortly afterwards, that she stopped off at St. Lambert. He must have found out that she was in this boarding house with the co-respondent for a period of two weeks. Although he pretends it was unknown to him and was done for the purpose of deceiving him, I wonder how in the name of heaven he found it out in the first place. The least he could have done would have been to come before the committee of the Senate or the committee of the House of Commons and state how he found all this out.
The next clause is not very important. He denies the statement that the husband owed his wife $4,000. Well, with most of us it is the other way about. I think she should be congratulated upon being able to get $4,000 out of her husband, whether it was for the purpose of going to Maine, to Reno or for any other purpose. Then he states:
She forced him by threat of suit to pay her

Well, if he owed her that money, why should he not pay it? What particular objection does he raise because he owed his wife money and she asked him for it. When he would not give it to her willingly she forced him to pay $1,000.
Then he winds up this wonderful document with some further observations. Before voting to throw this nasty mess into the maelstrom of public controversy, hon. members should hear the whole story. He states:
The petitioner is entitled' to have the facts of his ease decided upon the sworn testimony of the witnesses and to have the benefit of the affirmative finding of the senate committee before whom those witnesses were heard, and who could judge of their credibility by their demeanour.
Let me deal with that phase of the matter. Earlier in my observations I stated that I have no more objection to a decision made by the senate than would an hon. member learned in the law to a decision made by the supreme court. When a supreme court gives a decision either for or against-and it must be for one and against the other-no objection is made if either client decides to appeal to the supreme court in banco, consisting of six or seven judges. It often happens that while the one judge in the lower court has the opportunity of hearing the evidence, the supreme court in banco, without hearing the evidence, just as the private bills committee in this instance, decide to reverse the decision made by the one judge. This man has no right in any document to insinuate that because the members of the

279S
Clarence MacGregor Roberts

private bills committee did not hear the evidence given by the witnesses they are not in a position to give a proper decision. The judges in the supreme court in banco or in the Supreme Court of Canada decide cases on evidence submitted to them in writing. Just so I say we as the members of the private bills committee have an equal right to give a judgment, whether it be good or bad, on the evidence which we may read. Perhaps I would not take so strong a stand if this matter had been decided by a full committee of the senate. Had there been as many members on the senate committee which heard the evidence as there were on the committee of the House of Commons, perhaps I would be willing to forego some of my views and to agree that after all, with their wide experience, hon. members of the senate may have been right. However in View of the fact that only seven members of the senate made this decision and some twenty-seven members of the House of Commons reversed it, I say this man is not acting fairly when in the memorandum he practically states that the members of the private bills committee did not give his case proper consideration.
Here is a worse insinuation:
The petitioner does not impugn the good faith of members of the committee whose votes were cast against his bill, but earnestly submits that their good faith was imposed upon.
I will admit that the lady was present, but I insist that we were not induced to make our findings because our good faith had been imposed upon. Two gentlemen learned in the law represented the respective sides of she case, and presented strong arguments. In my view one counsel did not have as good a case as the other, and the majority of the committee decided the divorce should not be granted. When this man states that our good faith was imposed upon in arriving at a decision I submit this House of Commons should back up the members of the private bills committee. Every hon. member of this chamber, no matter how he may feel in the matter, in view of the fact that this man has made such a statement, should stand behind the committee which went into the matter, considered the evidence and gave a decision to the best of their ability.
In my humble manner, in my modest way, I have endeavoured to state the views of the private bills committee. In view of all the circumstances I appeal to my fellow members not to reopen the matter. I am opposed to divorces. So long as I am a member of this parliament and have to deal with divorce

cases, if at all possible I shall refuse divorces. In cases of trouble between man and wife I believe it is my duty and that of other hon. members to try to get these people to reconcile their differences and to live together as God and man intended they should.
' Mr. MICHAEL LUCHKOVICH (Vegre-ville): Mr. Speaker, I hope that the time will some day come when we can throw divorce out of parliament altogether and hand it over if possible to the Exchequer Court of Canada. I was one of the committee of three that was appointed to be a witness to the hearings of most of these divorce cases that are being heard by the senate committee, and I can assure you that what I hear down there is worse than a lot of the true stories that are printed in the True Story magazine.
The first objection that is made in this circular that has been sent to members of the House of Commons is that a few minutes before the private bills committee assembled, an unsigned memorandum was delivered to the members. The lawyers for the petitioner complained before the committee that the members had received a circular from the. respondent, and they objected to that, and yet they are doing the very same thing in this circular. I think that what is sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose as well. I myself feel that there has been connivance in this case. In Bourinot, fourth edition, at page 637 I find this passage:
Connivance, condonation or collusion, a ground for rejection-In such cases the Minister of Justice may intervene.
"If adultery be proved', the party from whom the divorce is sought may nevertheless be admitted to prove connivance at, or condonation of the adultery, collusion in the proceedings for divorce, or adultery on the part of the petitioner.
Connivance at. or condonation of the adultery, or collusion in the proceedings for the divorce, is always a sufficient ground for rejecting a bill of divorce, and shall be inquired into by the committee, and should the committee have reason to suspect connivance or collusion, and in their opinion it is desirable that fuller inquiry should be made, such opinion and the reasons therefor shall be communicated to the Minister of Justice, that he may intervene and oppose the bill should the interest of public justice in his opinion call for such intervention."
There is no doubt in my mind that there has been connivance all the way by the petitioner. The very fact that he sent his wife to Reno, asking her to go down there and get a divorce, is connivance -to my mind, and if connivance is a defence I cannot see how the senate committee could have passed the divorce.

Clarence MacGregor Roberts


William Gordon Ernst: Will the hon. member permit a question? Will he indicate where in the evidence there is shown to be any connivance with respect to the particular act on which this petition is based?


Mr. LUCHKOVICH:: Yes I will, but I have only five minutes more, and I shall have to do it after the Easter recess.
There is another passage in Bourinot which presents the views of Senator Gowan, who in 1888 said, as will be found in Bourinot at page 628:
-for the decisions of the House of Lords on bills of divorce have not the weight that attaches to the regular legal tribunals. The majority determines, and in a minority on a vote may be found men of learning, wisdom and experience, expressing opinions adverse to the determination, more in accordance with the eternal principles of truth and justice.
This divorce did pass the senate committee by a vote of four to three. Nevertheless there were three members on the senate divorce committee who thought fit, on the grounds I will say of truth and justice or humanity, to cast their votes against this divorce.
The circumstances of the reintroduction of this bill into the house vary somewhat from the circumstances of the divorce bill which was introduced into the house last year. I refer to the Stotland divorce bill of last year which was defeated in the House of Commons and was afterwards reintroduced by the member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier). At page 4298 of last year's Hansard I find that it was negatived1 by the house, so that we are discussing this divorce case at this time more or less on the sufferance of the house.
As far as the evidence given in the senate committee is concerned respecting the chief offence on which the divorce is based, I frankly say, Mr. Speaker, that I would give more credence to the evidence of witnesses who are not detectives than I would to the evidence of detectives, and in my opinion the evidence given in this case was of a nature which did not prove that the main offence on which the divorce is based was committed. I do not believe that was proved before the senate committee. As a previous speaker has said, there was an attempt made to show that because the respondent had gone to some place in Maine, that was evidence of the offence in question. The evidence also shows that the petitioner had been running around with some lady whom 92582-178}
he calls Miss X, and1 possibly he might have called her Madame X. The circular No. 4 of C. M. Roberts says:
The relations of the petitioner and* Miss X referred to were entirely innocent.
He has no more right to say that on his own behalf than the wife has to testify similarly on her behalf.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works) moved the second reading of Bill No. 63, to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities.
He said:	Mr. Speaker, the established
practice of this house on the second reading of a bill is to confine the discussion to the principle involved. I feel satisfied that I can safely say, in view of the action taken last session in regard to a similar bill and the discussion that has already taken place on the resolution, that the principle of the bill meets with general favour, whether or not there may be criticism of some of its sections or of some of the details. There was upon the resolution a pretty comprehensive discussion not only of the principle of the bill but of the details, and I would hope that that will have the effect of shortening the discussion both on the second reading and on the bill when it gets into committee of the whole.
I have no desire to labour the matter or to delay the passing of the second reading. I believe every hon. gentleman realizes that the object of the bill is to provide employment over a wide field and that it is desired that employment should be afforded at the earliest possible moment. I should sincerely hope that without restricting the rights and privileges of any member or limiting the discussion it might be found possible to give this bill all its readings to-night in order that the object which we all have in view may be attained. I therefore move that the bill be read the second time.
Hon. J. C. ELLIOTT (West Middlesex):: It is not my intention, after the discussion of last night, to take up very much time discussing the objections I have to this bill and which I know many hon. members on this side of the house share. I hope I made
Public Works Program

it clear last evening that one of the prime objections was to calling tenders involving large sums of money otherwise than by public advertisement. I have listened to what the minister has said and I assume that this bill will carry in some form. I desire to move an amendment with a view to making it compulsory to call for tenders by public advertisement. I do not wish unduly to hold up the passage of the bill but I do want to register a protest as strenuously as I can, reserving the right to move an amendment in oommittee or on the third reading or both and to endeavour to convince the majority of the committee that these tenders should te let only after proper public advertisement.
As regards the other objections, I think I covered them all last night. I understand that some other members on this side of the house wish to discuss them, perhaps at some length, but it is not my intention to take up the time of the house further, the understanding being that we shall have an opportunity to move these amendments at a later stage.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time, and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Morand in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before we discuss any of the clauses I suggest that the minister should give us some information with regard to the schedule. Compare schedule A of the bill this year with the schedule of last year and you will find a vast disparity between the two pieces of legislation. Last year we had a considerable amount of detailed information but none at all this year, though huge lump sums are being voted. I do submit that the minister might properly give us some information before we discuss any of the clauses of the bill.


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: I have no objection to meeting the desires of the committee in that respect.


Ernest Lapointe: I suppose that would come under section 2.


[Stage Direction]
Section agreed to.
On section 2-Authority to execute and complete works.
Mr. POWER:: On this section, and in
connection with the point raised by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), I suggest to the minister that it would be well to have the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau) here to lay on the table

certain supplementary orders in council which he promised some days ago to lay before this committee. I refer particularly, not to any of the correspondence asked for by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) but to certain orders in council which were not complete. On the orders of the day some days ago I called the attention of the minister to orders in council in which there was not the information which I believe the committee should have. Take for instance order in council under the Public Works Construction Act, P.C. 1564, page 6 of sessional paper 104VV, dated April 12, 1935. This order in council provides that Mr. Ernest Gohier, consulting engineer of Montreal, should be authorized to prepare certain plans of works at Three Rivers. The order in council recites that Mr. Gohier has already designed and successfully carried out extensive works in the harbour of Three Rivers, and therefore in consideration of this the minister recommends that he be authorized to employ Mr. Gohier to prepare plans and supervise the construction of works provided for at Three Rivers " on the terms and conditions embodied in the form of agreement hereto attached," and that he be authorized to execute with Mr. Gohier a contract in the said form. The terms and conditions said to be attached are not attached to the order in council, and the same thing applies to a number of these orders. I submit to the Minister of Public Works that this is not adequate information on which this committee can base a judgment as to whether or not these contracts have been properly carried out.
I do not wish to renew the discussion we had a few evenings ago with respect to the painting of the bridge in Montreal. It is recited in that order in council, P.C. 1869, page 21 of the same sessional paper, that a certain number of firms-International Paints (Canada) Limited; Canada Paint Company, Limited; Thorpe-Hamforock Company, Limited-submitted tenders, all at the same price, namely, $2.90 per gallon red lead, and so on. Further on, the order in council states that the minister recommends that he be authorized to enter into contracts with International Paints of Canada, Limited, Canada Paint Company, Limited, and Thorpe-Hambrock Company, Limited, for the supplying of what paint is required, but it does not say what proportion of the supplies is to be taken from each of these companies. It simply states that he is to be authorized to enter into contracts with these three companies. I assume that the supply was divided

Public Works Program
in some proportions. In the same order in council it is stated that certain firms submitted quotations in accordance with the conditions laid down " as indicated below and in the attached schedule." These companies are Southern Working Company, Limited; Federated Construction Company, Limited; F. J. Leduc and Associates; Nicole Gentile; L. Knight; R. F. Walsh and Company, Limited; James Pitcher; C. J. Pott Company, Limited. It does not say anywhere what prices these firms submitted. It then goes on to say:
After investigating we are satisfied that lowest tender for application of paint to bridge, not having been accompanied by accepted cheque, should not be considered, particularly as reports of his financial position are most unsatisfactory.
I would like to know who the lowest tenderer was, because it is not stated. It goes on a little later to recommend that an order in council be entered into with Leduc and his associates. Practically all these orders in council require some document or another to complete them, and I submit that unless we have this information before us to-night it will be very difficult for us to proceed with the bill now under consideration.
The minister may say that this bill provides for future works, but may I point out to him that in the preamble it says:
Whereas in pursuance of the said act there are dominion public works throughout Canada in process of construction amounting approximately to $30,000,000-
And the bill itself is called the Supplementary Public Works Construction Act, 1935. Therefore the two are linked up, altogether apart, I suggest, from the very natural desire which the minister may have of satisfying all the members of the house that everything which was done under the provisions of last year's act was carried out properly and in a manner which would be quite satisfactory to him and his associates, the other ministers who are now acting ministers of public works in their various departments. Before proceeding with any further argument, I would ask the minister whether there is any possibility of having this supplementary information furnished us to-night.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: 
Charles Gavan Power: Oh, no.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Well, that is my suggestion in order that we may save time, and all the information will be given. This is not the only opportunity the hon. member will have of getting all the information for which he asks and to which I say he is entitled. I have no objection whatever except that without closing off any opportunity for discussion, I would like to get on with the bill. I assure my hon. friend that so far as my colleague and I are concerned, the information will be available.


Charles Gavan Power: I am sorry that I cannot agree with my hon. friend. If he wants to raise a point of order, let him do so. I think I am quite within my rights in discussing on this supplementary public works construction bill, the preamble of which contains a reference to the works now going on, the lack of information, calling the attention of the minister to the fact- that we have not as yet any information as to the manner in which last year's Public Works Construction Act was carried out. We have before us orders in council which do not give information and which I am sorry to say are extremely badly drafted. I do not want to go the length of saying that this is done by design, that it is intended to hide the information; but when one finds that almost every second or third order in council does not give the information to which the committee is entitled, I think we have a right to protest and to say to the minister: Well, if that is the way in which you are going to carry on with your new public works construction act, we want to know. I am not protesting very much-I think there is a great deal of cant and hypocrisy about all this business- against hon. gentlemen opposite now that they are in power using their political influence and power to help their friends; they would do that anyway. I am not going to make any bones about the matter; I would like them to admit it. I rather approve the attitude of the
Public Works Program,

Minister of Marine; there is not much hypocrisy about him. He comes out boldly and says: You chaps did that in Quebec; I am going to do the same thing; I am going to help my friends. I am willing to say right now that he will get a great deal of credit for saying so. I am not complaining so much about that Let them come out and admit it. I will give my hon. friend an instance. In reading over these orders in council, what do I find? These works are supposed to be for the benefit of the unemployed, presumably of the poorer categories of the unemployed, the poor workmen who have no jobs. I was looking over the orders in council which referred to Halifax. That locality is far away from my home and my reference to it cannot hurt anybody in my constituency, so I thought I might discuss Halifax, but it is an example of what has happened all the way through. On page 33 of this sessional paper 104VV, I find under an order in council of September 7. certain items of the Public Works Construction Act, numbers 62 to 70, were placed under the Department of Marine; that is to say, the works are enumerated and the administration, management of construction of the public works mentioned in schedule A were placed under the Department of Marine. On page 34 I find under the authority of P.C. 2110 that the committee of the privy council, recom-jmends that the Minister of Marine be authorized to employ the services of Mr. C. S. Bennett, acting chief engineer of the harbour commissioners of Halifax in an engineering capacity, and the harbour commissioners of Halifax in a supervising capacity, all without remuneration, in connection with the works to be carried out under items 62 to 70. Those are the same items. I turn to page 57 and referring to item 63 I find that a contract was let to a certain firm, the Western Waterproofing Company, Keefer building Montreal, for the sum of $8,724.10. Then provision is made that for engineering and inspection, approximately ten per cent, and for administration and general office expenses, the Halifax harbour commission will receive $1,150, this amount being for work which it was understood by a previous order in council the commission were to carry on without remuneration. I do not want to read all the orders in council, but I mention that.
I find that on page 59 with respect to item 67. the Halifax harbour contract was awarded to the McDonald Construction Company and that the commission received $730.43 for supervision and engineering. Then on page 61 with respect to item 66. a contract was awarded to the McDonald Construction Company and the sum of $881.50 was allotted to

the harbour commission for engineering and
supervision which they had already agreed to do without remuneration. Then on page 72, items 68 and 69, a fairly large contract was awarded to the John S. Metcalf Company, Limited, to carry on the work of a grain elevator. The Halifax harbour commission was awarded about $5,000 for engineering and supervision although the Metcalf company is an engineering company; its duty is as architects to design and supervise the work which it has in hand. Then on page 75 I find with respect to item 70 that a contract was awarded to J. P. Porter & Sons Limited, and the Halifax harbour commission was allowed for engineering, inspection, administration and general office expense approximately $18,000. Going up 1 Then on page 77 I find another contract was awarded, another of the items to be looked after by the Halifax harbour commission and by its chief engineer without remuneration: item 64, contract awarded to T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Limited, and the Halifax harbour commission obtained two and a half per cent, something like $20,000 for supervision-work which they were supposed to do without remuneration.
And this is the best of all. This is really pretty good. After the Halifax harbour commission is given I would say about $50,000, on page 84 I read this. This is after the contracts were all let. Order in council of April 2, 1935 says:
The committee of the privy council on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine, advise that in connection with the works to be carried out in Halifax harbour under items 62 to 70-
All of which were already provided for.
-he be authorized to employ Mr. E. H. James of Montreal as consulting engineer at a fee of $1,000 per month, the total amount for his services not to exceed $9,000 and to be charg-able against any of the above items.
So that we have first the Marine department with its engineers to look after these works, then the Halifax harbour commission with its engineers to look after these works without remuneration; yet on every single contract they obtained remuneration, and then, apparently not satisfied with the people of Halifax, they employed this man James at $1,000 a month. This will explain why I want certain information with respect to other orders in council.
I find in looking through this that a Mr. Ernest Gohier of Montreal was employed to look after the works in Quebec harbour as consulting engineer, after the same practice or procedure had been gone through, namely the Marine department being put in charge

Public Works Program
with their engineers, then the Quebec harbour commission with its engineers-it is as supervisor that they have prepared the plans; then Ernest Gohier is appointed at a fee of $1,500. And not satisfied with that, Mr. Bigonesse is appointed as an architect at a fee of $4,000. I find also that Mr. Gohier was employed with respect to the work in Three Rivers harbour, but they do not say at what fee. And with respect to the Chicoutimi harbour, although there the department had engineers, this same Mr. Gohier was also employed. The minister shakes his head. Does he want me to read the order in council?


Alfred Duranleau: By shaking my head
I am only telling my friend that he is mistaken when he states that these harbour commissions have engineers. The harbour commission of Chicoutimi has no engineer and the harbour commission of Three Rivers has no engineer. That is why we had to employ an engineer to draw the plans and to supervise the works.


Charles Gavan Power: That is one explanation, but it hardly justifies the minister in employing Mr. Gohier for Quebec, where they have a highly paid engineer and a very good one. Nor does it justify his employing Mr. James of Montreal to supervise the work in Halifax harbour, where the work was already done, the contracts had been let, the plans prepared. I should like to know-perhaps only as a matter of curiosity, but I think the working men of Chicoutimi and Three Rivers and Quebec and Halifax would like to know-what Mr. Ernest Gohier's fee is. The minister said a few nights ago that he is a very reputable engineer, and I am quite willing to agree with that, although I do not know anything about him; but he is getting a mighty big fee for work at Quebec done by someone else. I should like to know what fee he is getting for Chicoutimi -it is not stated in the order in council-also what fee he is getting for Three Rivers. I think if the minister were fair he would tell us. The order in council in respect to Three Rivers says:
The minister recommends that he be authorized to contract for the services of Mr. Ernest Gohier-
He has already contracted for them, and at $15,000 for Quebec. I would like to know what contract he made for the other places. I suggest that we should have this information to see how much is being given to high-salaried men.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Was Mr. Bigonesse paid for Quebec also?


Charles Gavan Power: There are two orders in council covering his work, one for the same job as Mr. Gohier is doing in Quebec harbour 

Mr. Bigonesse gets $4,000 for that-and another speaks of employing him as architect on some contract at the Quebec observatory. It recommends that "he be engaged in this connection on the terms and conditions set forth in the attached memorandum." But the memorandum is not attached. I think the workers who are supposed to benefit from this would be interested in knowing how much these men are getting. Before we proceed further with this we ought to know how much of this money is going to high salaried men. As I said at the outset, I am not protesting so much about the manner in which the contracts have been let, or making complaint about the minister helping his friends. But I do think that it is beyond reason to ask this house to vote such extremely large salaries in this time of depression. I may be all wrong, but I suggest that since Mr. Gohier is getting $15,000 for Quebec, on the same basis he would probably be getting $5,000 more for Three Rivers and $5,000 more for Chicoutimi. Perhaps he is getting only $5,000 for the two, but even that would make a $20,000 salary, which is a pretty good thing for looking after three contracts. It is a bigger salary than the Prime Minister has for looking after the whole of Canada, a bigger salary than any minister of the crown gets for running a government department. I should like, before I proceed further, to have some explanation from the minister on that point.


Alfred Duranleau: As to the public
works in Halifax, it was in the public interest that the harbour commissioners and their acting engineer were appointed in their respective capacities without any remuneration to direct and supervise the works. I can tell my hon. friend that these gentlemen are receiving only their usual salary prescribed by the statute for the harbour commissioners, and the acting engineer is giving his services without any remuneration, except his usual salary. But we have to pay the commission -not the commissioners, not the engineer,- we have to pay the commission for their employees. They put on the job three or four or five or six employees; surely the harbour commission is entitled to get out of this vote the salaries of these employees, and that relieves the commission of so much in its administration costs. There is no expense to the country, the administration expenses of the harbour commission being reduced accordingly. The harbour commissioners receive the very same salary that
Public Works Program

was received by the harbour commissioners appointed under the previous administration, and not a cent more. I hope my hon. friend understands the situation.


Vincent Dupuis: But we were prosperous then.


Alfred Duranleau: The two orders in council may appear contradictory, but actually there is nothing of the kind. I repeat the commissioners and the engineers personally receive no remuneration. With regard to the consulting engineer, Mr. James, I want to tell my hon. friend that as I had no chief engineer in my department and no assistant chief engineer, I needed the services of an outside engineer.


Vincent Dupuis: And no deputy minister.


Alfred Duranleau: Perhaps my hon.
friend will allow me to complete my remarks. I have saved thousands of dollars by that policy. When this public works program started under my department, my duty was to employ outside engineers like Mr. James and Mr. Gohier in order to secure proper execution of this program, and I am sure we have saved money in this way. As Mr. Gohier, he is representing my department at Three Rivers, at Chicoutimi and also at Quebec as I have no chief engineer. When my hon. friend says he is getting a larger salary than a cabinet minister, surely he knows better than that; he knows what are the expenses of an engineer; he has to keep a place of business, to employ a staff for the drafting of plans, specifications, details and so forth. When we came into office in 1930 I found that the Liberal administration had a man by the name of Swan who in two or three years made over $100,000 under the Department of Marine, as consulting engineer for the whole country, not only Three Rivers and Chicoutimi. My hon. friends very quickly forget what happened under their administration with regard to engineering. We have not spent half what was spent by my hon. friends when they were in power, from 1926 to 1930, in engineering fees. I will ask my hon. friend to secure the information as to how much was paid Mr. Swan by the Department of Marine and the harbour commission under the Liberal administration.


Ernest Lapointe: Can my hon. friend tell us how much Mr. Gohier gets in Three Rivers and Chicoutimi, as well as Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the orders in council; I think my hon. friend -has them.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister will permit me to reply, on four occasions I have complained in this house that the orders in council did not give the information they should give. They speak of a contract attached, with this Mr. Gohier-


Alfred Duranleau: I can tell my hon. friend that under the Liberal administration Mr. Swan was getting five per cent.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Alfred Duranleau: When my hon. friends criticize what we are doing I think we are entitled to answer that we have bettered the situation. Under the Liberal administration Swan was getting five per cent of the cost of all the work undertaken in Three Rivers, in Chicoutimi and elsewhere, and I can state here that Mr. Gohier is getting less than half what Mr. Swan was getting, because I have made a contract for a specific amount.


Peter John Veniot: Where is the contract?


Alfred Duranleau: I have not the contract yet. I did not know this matter would come up this evening.


The CHAIRMAN:: Order.


Alfred Duranleau: In five minutes I will supply the information as to the remuneration paid Mr. Gohier in connection with Three Rivers and Chicoutimi, and I can say that it is easily less than half what was paid under the Liberal administration to Mr. Swan in connection with the works at Three Rivers and Chicoutimi. Now as to the employment of Mr. Bigonesse, he is getting $4,000 for his work as architect in connection with the sheds, a work costing nearly $400,000.


Ernest Lapointe: Is he a Quebec city man?


Alfred Duranleau: He is a Quebec city man, one of the leading architects of that city.


Vincent Dupuis: And a leading Conservative?


Alfred Duranleau: I do not know, but if my hon. friend from Laprairie-Napierville cares to inquire I could mention the names of Liberal architects in Quebec who made thousands of dollars on public works in that province, and we did not complain because we thought they were entitled to their fees.
I do not think my hon. friend is serious when he contends that an architect is not entitled to a reasonable fee for the work he does for the department. As to the other building mentioned by my hon. friend from Quebec South, Mr. Bigonesse was employed as architect to draw the plans and specifications.
-Mr. POWER: For what?

Public Works Program


Alfred Duranleau: For the observatory building.


Charles Gavan Power: What did he get for that?


Alfred Duranleau: I think he is getting five per cent, which is the usual fee to architects all over Canada for drafting plans and specifications and supervising the work. I do not think there is anything in that to reproach us with.


Charles Gavan Power: For the moment I am not critcizing the minister in that regard, but I should like him to give us the information referred to in the orders in council. Mr. Bigonesse is referred to as being employed as architect for the observatory at Quebec, and the minister takes authority to employ him "as per contract in schedule attached," but he does not attach it.


Alfred Duranleau: Does not the order in council specify the percentage?


Charles Gavan Power: It specifies Mr. Bigonesse's remuneration for the Quebec harbour shed, at $4,000. I want to know what he is getting for the other job.


Alfred Duranleau: I think it is five per cent, which is according to the tariff of rates charged by the architects of the province of Quebec.


Charles Gavan Power: If the minister will permit me-


Alfred Duranleau: I want to add this:
My hon. friend says we are paying Mr. James
81,000	a month to supervise the works in Halifax. I think the expense is quite reasonable when it is considered that these works are costing a large amount. I think it is fitting that we get the best architects or engineers to supervise the work and to examine the plans and specifications. The hon. member knows what occurred in the city of Quebec in connection with the pier built at Wolfe's Cove by hon. members opposite. Since 1930 we had to make an expenditure of over 8100,000 to prevent that pier from slipping into the river. If the work had been properly planned and built under the supervision of a man of wide experience in under-water operations, probably we would not have had to spend so much when we took office. That pier was built during the years 1928 and 1929, and in the early part of the year 1930. I claim it is good policy to employ the best possible engineers when under-water operations valued at many millions of dollars have to be carried out.


Vincent Dupuis: Mr. Chairman-


Charles Gavan Power: I should like to complete
my observations, if the hon. member would not mind.


Vincent Dupuis: All right.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not going to discuss
the engineering feals which the minister performed in connection with saving Quebec harbour. At some other time we shall be quite willing to vote a few dollars with which to build him a monument to be placed alongside of those of Champlain, Jacques Cartier and others. In those days we carried out harbour works of considerable magnitude, looking to the future development of the harbour. We spent money; at the present moment I am not particularly anxious to enter into a discussion of whether or not we wasted money. The fact is, however, that we spent money and built harbours. We were not carrying out those works for the purpose of relieving unemployment, whereas in the present instance that is what is being done. I do not believe it was ever the intention of parliament that these unemployment works should provide employment for high salaried men. Such men are not to be classed as unemployed, in the commonly accepted sense of the term.
Let us return to the minister's discussion with respect to Halifax. Order in council P.C. 2110 at page 34 states that the minister-
-be authorized to employ the services of C. S. Bennett, acting chief engineer of the harbour commissioners of Halifax in an engineering capacity, and the harbour commissioners of Halifax in a supervising capacity, all without remuneration.
That is what they had. I could refer to five or six contracts, but I shall take only one of them. The details are fully set forth with regard to Halifax. P.C. 26, dated January 31, 1935, gives authority to enter into a contract with T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Limited. It states:
The minister therefore recommends:
1.	That he be authorized to enter into a contract with Messrs. T. C. Gorman (Nova Scotia) Limited for doing the work contemplated above at an estimated cost of $259,366.80;
2.	That the Halifax harbour commission be allowed' for engineering inspection and administration and general office expenses two and a quarter per cent of the contract price.
In this case that item came to about
820.000.	I have not the exact figure, but I do know the contract was let for 8259,366.80.
In connection with another contract more details are given. I have before me P.C.
Public Works Program

3223 appearing at page 75, and awarded to J. P. Porter and Sons, St. Catharines, as follows:
That the acting chief engineer of the Halifax harbour commission further reports the necessity for the following additional expenditures:
(a)	for engineering and inspection approximately five per cent, $13,959.75.
(b)	administration and general office expense, one and a half per cent, $4,397.32.
So \Ve find more than 820,000 given for work which apparently the Halifax harbour commission had undertaken to do for nothing. Then on top of that the minister employs a man at $1,000 per month. There is no other way of getting out of it. I believe the minister is a little bit extravagant in these distressing days. A few moments ago he said, poor man, that he has no engineer in his department, no deputy and no assistants which he should have. For that reason he has to go outside to get that assistance. Strangely enough, however, his engineer seems to do a lot of work, this poor unfortunate fellow who does not count for very much. For instance, I see that the acting chief engineer of the Department of Marine certified " that the work is of such a nature that it may be more beneficially executed by day labour." When we come to Quebec contracts we find he has more engineers than you could shake a stick at.
I now turn to P.C. 2824 at page 45, an item for Quebec. Perhaps I would do well to read nearly all of it. Dated November 8, 1934, it states:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 6th November, 1934, from the Minister of Marine, stating with respect to the construction of new transit sheds to replace old sheds 24 and 25 on pier No. 1 of the Quebec harbour commission at Quebec, as provided for in item No. 137 of the Public Works Construction Act, 1934, as follows: -
1.	That consequent upon the authority obtained in order in council of the 15th August, 1934 (P.C. 1801), the Quebec harbour commissioners were instructed to invite tenders for this work:
2.	That the tenders received in response to this invitation were not considered satisfactory:
3.	That fresh tenders were subsequently invited by the Minister of Marine from the following _ contractors, who submitted quotations as indicated below:-
Tlelphe Maranda, Ksq.. Que.. P.Q.. $389,989.
Romeo Vachon, Esq., Que., P.Q., $409,154.
Colonial Construction Co., Ltd., Que., P.Q., $420,149.
Joseph Nolin. Esq., Que., P.Q., $423,855.
Amedee Latulippe. Esq.. Que.. P.Q.. $478,090.
Amedee Demers, Esq., Que., P.Q., $479,489.
Abel Ratte. Esq., Que.. P.Q., $485,153.
Morton Engineering & Dry Dock Co., Que., P.Q.. did not quote.
Frontenac Lumber Co., Que., P.Q., did not quote.

Cummings Construction Co., Monte Bello, P.Q., did not quote.
That as the lowest tender, which was submitted by Mr. Delphe Maranda, was still considered to be high, the minister has been in conference with him and as a result Mr. Maranda has agreed to carry out the work strictly in accordance with the plans and specifications prepared by the engineer of the harbour commissioners of Quebec, for the sum of $354,754.92, which price, in the opinion of the engineers of the Quebec harbour commission. the consulting engineer, and the acting chief engineer of the Department of Marine is fair and just.
Here is a case where the minister had three good engineers on the job so he cannot complain that he was left alone and helpless. He had the plans prepared by the engineer of the Quebec harbour commission; then he hired a consulting engineer, and the Quebec harbour commission engineer said that it was just, the consulting engineer said that it was just and the chief engineer said that it was just. How it was that the architect was not called in to say it was just I do not know. He must be a stiff-necked fellow, or he would have said that it was just.
The consulting engineer, who comes from Montreal, reports that Mr. Maranda is a contractor of twenty years' experience.


Alfred Duranleau: That is a crime.


Charles Gavan Power: Well, I would have thought that they would have asked the opinion of the Quebec engineer as to Mr. Maranda's qualifications. Why go to Montreal?


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose my hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) would object to a Montreal man.


Ernest Lapointe: The hon. gentleman says that all this work must be given to local contractors, but of course an exception is made for Mr. Gohier.


Alfred Duranleau: An exception as to engineers.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not supporting what my hon. friend from Quebec East says. I do not agree with him. I do not object to a Montreal man being there, but it was not necessary to go to Montreal to get a man to report that Mr. Maranda was a contractor of twenty years' experience and fully qualified to do this work. That report could have been made by somebody in Quebec who knew Mr. Maranda. There was no need to go to Montreal. So far as I know, all his life Mr. Maranda has been a Quebecker and doubtless he was introduced to Mr. Gohier only two or

Public Works Program
three days before Mr. Gohier made this report on him. It would have been far better to ask Mr. Tremblay or even the acting engineer of the Marine department what Mr. Maranda's
qualifications were, which I admit were extremely high.
Then the order in council goes on to ask for authority:
As the consulting engineer to the Quebec harbour commissioners and the acting chief engineer of the Department of Marine recommend that a competent architect to supervise the purely architectural details of the structure be employed, authority be granted for the employment of Mr. j. Aurele Bigonesse of Quebec as supervising architect in connection therewith at a fee of $4,000.
So there we had three engineers, and they used two strangers. But there is more about these engineers when the new contract was awarded later on to Mr. Maranda. This is a very long order in council, P.C. 322, March 18, 1935, page 81 of the sessional papers, and I shall quote only those portions which refer to the employment of engineers. I am not for a moment criticizing the government for having first told Mr. Maranda that his tender was too high, or for the minister having a conference with him and suggesting a lower tender. But now by this order in council they have recourse to the old, old game of giving Mr. Maranda an extra. That game is pretty well played out, and I expected better of the minister. When this cabinet of real politicians was formed we thought we might have a national cabinet of politicians without hypocrisy and without cant. No doubt the minister would like to be able to say, " To the victor belongs the spoils." He will support that particular kind of politics, I have no doubt, and a great many on this side will also, but we will have to get a minister who will not resort to the old-fashioned trick of camouflage by giving extras.
In any case in this particular contract they mention Mr. Gohier as being the consulting engineer. They also say that the Minister of Marine called for tenders, that plans and specifications were prepared by the engineers of the Quebec harbour commission, that a contract was entered into with Mr. Delphe Maranda, and that the engineer, Mr. Gohier -apparently he is now promoted to be engineer in chief-"reports as follows"; then there is a long report saying that the engineer recommends that a change be made in the plans and specifications and be embodied in Mr. Maranda's contract, and Mr. Maranda obtained this extra work. I do not know whether the extra amounts to $26,000 or
$181,000; it is difficult to make out. Then the order m council goes on to say:
The acting chief engineer of the Department of Marine concurs.
The engineer of the harbour commission appears to have been eliminated altogether The committee of the privy council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Marine, also concurred in the change in Mr. Maranda's contract. So I do not think the minister's complaint that he has not engineering services is really well founded, for he has three engineers on each job, or two at all events apart from the consulting engineer. Even if Mr. Swan got a lot of money I do not think the minister will be able to justify the payment of $15,000 and $20,000, and $1,000 a month in another case, to engineers when the work was already being supervised by other competent men. I suggest that to the minister, not so much by way of criticism of the past, but so that he will not carry on that policy under this new public works bill which is before the house to-night. This new bill, I submit, will not be popular in the country if in the carrying out of the work the same policy is followed that was adopted last year. I repeat that I am not criticizing the minister in regard to the general principles, if I may call them principles, which he has followed, but I am criticizing him for not having made every dollar which was spent go to the people who were most in need of it. That is the general principle of unemployment relief work, and it is a principle upon which I think everyone in this house is agreed. If the minister would only pledge himself to do that, he would get far greater support from this side of the house.


Alfred Duranleau: Answering first the
last complaint of my hon. friend about the change in plans and specifications involving an extra of $26,018-


Charles Gavan Power: I am not complaining of
that.


Alfred Duranleau: I think my hon.
friends from Quebec should not object to that.


Charles Gavan Power: I am not objecting to that.


Alfred Duranleau: We made a change
in the plans with respect to the doors of the sheds. I did not see why the Quebec sheds should not have as up-to-date doors as are used in the sheds of all the other harbours of Canada, Halifax, Saint John, Montreal and Vancouver. The plans drafted by the harbour commission of Quebec specified sliding doors but the consulting engineer, knowing
280S
Public Works Program

that they would not be suitable to the climate in the city of Quebec and would be absolutely impracticable during the hard winter season, suggested the use of more up-to-date doors, what are called bifolding doors. I think my hon. friend from Quebec South will admit that it is a great improvement.


Charles Gavan Power: It sounds convincing.


Alfred Duranleau: Moreover, he suggested expansion joints in the building, and I am informed that this is a very important improvement. If a part of the shed moves the rest will stay-


An hon. MEMBER:: Put.


Alfred Duranleau: -solid.


Charles Gavan Power: The explanation is very clear.


Alfred Duranleau: I am sorry my knowledge of English is not as good as my hon. friend's, many hon. gentlemen on the other side are laughing, but if they were called upon to express themselves in French, which is an official language, they would have some trouble.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You try talking Gaelic.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend might do better in that tongue.


Mr. GRAY:: It is not the language but the explanation.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend quoted from an order in council awarding a contract to Mr. Maranda of Quebec. Let me say that everything has been done on reports of the engineers; the changes have been carried out on their reports and I hope my hon. friends will not object to the fact that I got the contractor to lower his tender from $389,000 to $354,000, which is practically cost price, I am told by the engineers. I do not think my hon. friend would object to that.


Charles Gavan Power: I was praising you for raising it in another case.


Alfred Duranleau: We were glad to grant the contract to a man from Quebec who had considerable experience, who knew the unemployment conditions, and who I am told is doing all he can to relieve the situation there. I do not think my hon. friend's point is well taken when he says we should not employ engineers because we should give the full amount of the vote to labourers. These are very important public works and they should be properly supervised.
[Mr. Duranleau.l


William Daum Euler: In the debate last night the Minister of Public Works made reference to the natural desire that exists more particularly in the smaller communities that the work shall be carried out by the people of the community and tenders accepted from contractors in that locality. It does not always happen that the tenders are restricted to the one community or town; tenders are often received from contractors outside, perhaps in the larger cities. I should like to know whether the minister observes the practice entirely of confining the granting of contracts to people in the particular town in which the work is to be carried out or, if tenders are invited or received from other places, and they happen to be the lowest, whether the contract is necessarily given to the lowest tenderer or whether there is a tendency to restrict the giving of the contract to the people of the town itself. If the minister does intend to give the contracts to residents in the locality in which the work is to be carried out, then it is hardly fair to expect men from outside to tender when there is no practical possibility that they will receive the contract even if their tender is the lowest. I should like to have an expression of opinion from the minister on that point.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is a problem that confronts the department in each individual case. The department feels under obligation to get reasonable competition, and if you make the circle of tenders too limited you are not likely to get that measure of competition which is necessary for the protection of the public interest. Therefore in some cases public tenders are invited, and when there is, in the town or city where the work is being carried on, a contractor who is possibly not the lowest tenderer, then an opportunity is given him to take the work at the amount of the lowest tender, if he is willing to do so. My hon. friend may say that is not fair-


William Daum Euler: It certainly is not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -to the man who has been invited to tender.


William Daum Euler: It certainly is not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not a new practice in the department.


William Daum Euler: That does not make it right.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In connection
with every tender that is issued, in the form there is a provision that the lowest or any tender is not necessarily accepted, so they all tender with that information in view. That is well understood. But again I say the

Public Works Program
object is in the first instance to get reasonable and fair competition, and if in connection with fairly large works you limited it to the particular locality you might not get that competition. The circle is therefore made wider, and it is only where there is a competent local contractor who is willing to do the work at the lowest tender that he gets it. That is not done in many instances; it has been done in eight or ten.


William Daum Euler: I am amazed at the statement made by the minister. He has told the committee in so many words that they are practically using outside contractors, putting them to the expense of preparing tenders, probably putting up deposits, only for the purpose of getting the man in the locality itself down to the price of the outside man.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend has entirely misunderstood me if he says that is the object or purpose.


Mr. YENIOT:: That is the effect.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is not the motive. Public tenders are invited.


William Daum Euler: I am not trying to do the minister an injustice, but he stated that it was his purpose to get sufficient competition -that is proper-and in order to get sufficient competitive bids he invites outsiders, men not living in the locality, to tender-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Public tender.


William Daum Euler: -and then he says that if the outside man submits the lowest tender he will give the work to the man within the locality, getting him to do it at the amount of the tender submitted by the outsider. In other words, he is merely using the outsider for his own purposes and doing him an injustice. I protest against that sort of thing. It is not a fair way of doing business. The minister ought to decide to give the work to the man within the town or, if he invites tenders from outside, and they are substantially lower, then he is in duty and in honesty bound to give the work to the lowest tenderer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: some
time ago, in fact when the discussion opened, I asked a question of the Minister of Public Works and he has not yet replied. I wish to direct his attention to the general provisions of schedule A of the bill and to point out to him that to ask the committee to pass these items as they are set forth is simply an outrageous procedure. I wish in all kindness to the minister to look at these items
which we are asked to pass in blank. If ever a blank cheque was asked for by the present administration in connection with unemployment relief, it is by this bill that we are now discussing. The first item in the schedule is:
Railway grade crossings, $1,000,000.
We are not afforded a single piece of information as to where the work is to be carried out in regard to railway grade crossings. Before we pass this schedule or even clause 2 of the bill, the committee is entitled to the fullest and most detailed information in regard to the plans of the minister or of his colleagues, whoever they may be that are concerned in this, as to the work with respect to this particular item.


Robert James Manion: May I inform my hon. friend that this is an item the work under which will be done under the supervision of the board of railway commissioners. There^ fore no information could possibly be given because we do not have any. The board of railway commissioners are the people who will choose the grade crossings to be corrected.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is the first information the committee has been given in regard to this matter. We have just dragged it out of the Minister of Railways who came into the room a few minutes ago. I asked the question of the Minister of Public Works about two hours ago. We have no information whatever about this item of railway grade crossings.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think my hon. friend wants to be fair.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He suggested that we go into the schedule and I said that I had no objection whatever to doing so. Immediately the hon. member for Quebec South rose and engaged in a controversy with the Minister of Marine. This is the first question that has been asked.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: If the minister will pardon me, I have the floor. These works are under two or three or four ministers. The Minister of Marine is one; the Minister of the Interior is another; the Minister of Public Works is another, and the Minister of Railways and Canals is another. We do not know where we are at, and the country does not know where it is at. When I ask a question of the Minister of Public Works, somebody else has to reply. I asked him a question with regard to railway grade crossings and I receive an answer from the Minister of Railways. It is an insult to the
2S10

Public Works Program
committee, having regard to the fact that wc protested in a similar way last year, that we are asked to pass this bill without having all the information in connection with the items included in schedule A.
Let me ask the Minister of Public Works to compare schedule A of this bulk sales act which he brings before the committee in an endeavour to have us swallow it holus-bolus in a hurry, with schedule A of the act of last year, In the schedule of last year's act every single item of from $2,000 up was more or less itemized. It was itemized in two ways: first, in regard to the particular territory or the particular manner in which the work was to be carried out, and, second, in regard to the manner of the expenditure. Let us look at the schedule of the bill of this year. The first item is $1,000,000 for railway grade crossings. Then we come to the next one:
Geological surveys and investigations in the Northwest Territories and-
In the beneficent clarity of the administration:
-elsewhere in Canada.
Did anyone ever see a more studied insult to the intelligence of a committee of parliament than to ask us to pass an item amounting to SI,000.000 for geological surveys " elsewhere in Canada"? What is against the administration submitting this schedule to the bill-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Let me answer.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No, the hon. member may answer when I am through.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I thought the
hon. member wanted information.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister has a great deal to answer for before he justifies this schedule. I want something more from the minister, and unless we get details of these items he will never get them through the way they are now. I for one object, because this is a studied insult to the intelligence of the committee.
The next item is:
Montreal harbour improvement and deepening, $3,500,000.
We are given no information in regard to the nature of the improvements that are to be carried out there. The Minister of Marine smiles; he probably had every single detail prepared weeks and months ago, prepared after consultations, after conferences, yes, perhaps with one of those wonderful engineers whose names were mentioned to-night in connection with the orders in council and

contracts which we had submitted to us. Yet, while my smiling friend the Minister of Marine has locked up in his heart this information in regard to the Montreal harbour improvement and deepening, the committee and parliament are asked to support this moribund administration in its desire to go home for six weeks, and further we are asked to swallow this schedule holus-bolus and to vote $3,000,000 without the slightest bit of information as to how the money is to be expended.
Let us proceed further down this iniquitous line. The next item is:
Quebec harbour improvements and maintenance, $1,250,000.
This is no doubt justifiable; I am not criticizing it, but has the Minister of Marine again been consulting clandestinely with one of his favourite engineers? Has he had this information locked up in his heart for weeks? Has he had any consultations about this item? Yet, if he has, he will not tell the committee the details of this proposed expenditure of $1,250,000 for harbour improvements and maintenance at Quebec.
Then we come back to canals, and I must leave the Minister of Marine and direct my observations to my genial friend the Minister of Railways and Canals, another member of the triune partnership we have here, without a single minister being responsible. As regards canals, repairs and improvements, we are left entirely without any information as to how this amount of $750,000 is to be expended.


Robert James Manion: As long as my hon. friend continues speaking, we shall continue to be without information.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
Minister of Railways was not in his place two hours ago. He should be in his place.


Robert James Manion: I have been in and out
of the house all evening waiting for the hon. member for Quebec South to cease crossquestioning the Minister of Marine.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have just been told that the minister was in and out. He is like the present government. He is in just now, but he will be. out very soon.
The next item is:
Western conservation works, $500,000.


An hon. MEMBER:: Conservative works.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not Conservative works, conservation works. Is this under the Minister of the Interior?

Public Works Program


Mr. MURPHY:: Not the Minister of the Interior.


Robert James Manion: The Minister of Agriculture.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Where is the Minister of Agriculture? Where is the minister who is supposed to give the information? We have discovered a fifth minister, and the proper one is not here to answer for the estimates when they come before the committee.
Then we have a tunnel; the next item is:
Tunnel at west entrance Toronto harbour,

Where is the hon. member for East Toronto (Mr. Church) ? He is the only "minister" who can answer for this. Who is responsible for this item? Is it the Minister of Railways?


Robert James Manion: No.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Marine?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I will take that.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The Minister of Public Works is responsible, I suppose with the blessing of the hon. member for East Toronto. This whole bill is in the name of the Prime Minister, and he is not present. The acting Prime Minister knows nothing whatever about these items, and the responsible ministers are not here to answer as to the details of the items.
Let me take the next one:
Buildings and improvements, Department of Agriculture, $500,000.
Where is the Minister of Agriculture? He is absent; he is not here to explain this item. Does the Minister of Public Works know the details of it?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Wait and see.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Does the Minister of the Interior know the details? Does the Minister of Railways know the details? Not one of them, not even the Minister of the. Interior knows the details.
Then we come to the next item:
Harbours and rivers generally, $2,500,000.
Is the harbour of Vancouver included in that amount? Where are the amounts to be spent?


Alfred Duranleau: In Canada.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What a glorious remark by the Minister of Marine 1
What a wonderful amount of information given by him! He tells us that $2500,000 of the people's money to be voted by this committee and parliament-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: This is no laughing matter, may I tell my hon. friends. This is a proposed expenditure in connection with unemployment relief, and when I ask the Minister of Marine, who is supposed to know something about it, where this is to be spent, he tells me that it is to be "spent in Canada." That is all the information this committee and parliament are apparently entitled to get. It is entirely consonant with the extent of the information we are able at any time to extract by painful degrees from the Minister of Marine. Then I come to No. 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.
A bulk amount of money, blanketed, and no minister has yet given any details in regard to this item. Then the Minister of the Interior has a long item:
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

And this is the finest in the whole evil paragraph:
-to provide for the construction of the Golden-Revelstoke (Big Bend) section of the trans-Canada highway. $1,500,000.
Will the minister tell us how much of this is to be used for the construction and development of public buildings, and where? How much is to be used for camp sites, and where? How much is to be used for electric light and telephone systems, and where? How much is to be used for highways, bridges, streets, and sidewalks, and where? How much for landing fields and air harbours, and where; how much for trails, and where; how much for water and sewer systems, and where; how much for recreational areas, and where; how much for wharves and river protection works, and where; how much to provide for the development of historic sites, including buildings, repairs and restorations, and where these works aire to be proceeded with? "To provide for the purchase and acquisition of building
Public Works Program

sites"-how much is to be spent for this purpose,, and how much on the Golden-Revelstoke section of the trans-Canada highway? We have not been vouchsafed the slightest information from any responsible minister of the crown in regard to any one of these items.
Then next is the Lac Seul protection works, $175,000. We have not been told the nature of these works.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I know something of this. The Lac Seul protection works are very closely allied to the Seven Sisters falls.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is out of order; I did not give way. My point is that until someone interrupted me no one has yet given any information to this parliament in regard to these items.


Robert James Manion: Nobody could; you will not wait for it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It is all very well for my hon. friend to say that, but it should not be necessary; it should have been in the schedule.


Robert James Manion: That is just common ordinary nonsense.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Then what you put in last year was common nonsense.


Robert James Manion: The hon. gentleman is just making a political stump speech, that is all.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend is out of order. Take the estimates of the Department of Public Works, the ordinary estimates for this year, and what do you find? You find public works chargeable to income amounting to $13,024,050, and you find every single item detailed so that it can be discussed by members of the house and the fullest information can be given when the items are before the committee. But when we come to schedule A of this year's legislation Public Works Construction Act we are asked to vote millions and millions in bulk without the slightest information. Last year, as the Minister of Railways will recall, we made the same complaint, offered the same criticism, and we got then a reasonably detailed schedule, so that this committee and, the house and the country were in possession of reasonable information concerning the proposed expenditure of public money. I say in the sinoerest possible way that when the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Railways, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Agriculture,-who is not here- and the Minister of Marine are all joined as

the great quintuplets in these expenditures which we are supposed to authorize this evening, they should give this committee the most detailed and exhaustive information in order that we may pass upon them intelligently.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend seems to have become impatient, and rather carried away by the opportunity which he thinks has presented itself of making a political stump speech on this occasion.


Mr. JACOBS:: On this political bill.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to call his attention to the regular estimates of this department as they have been prepared year after year under eyery government. The schedule to this bill contains just as much information as is contained in the estimates of the department year after year.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend complains about information not being given. In the estimates of the department for years no details are given-just specific amounts. If hon. members desire information in regard to these items it will be cheerfully given, but we ask to have an opportunity of giving it before we are condemned for not giving it.
My hon. friend speaks about the schedule of last year containing details as to different buildings. When you compare the scope of the schedule of last year with the scope of the schedule of this year it will be apparent that just as much information is given this year as was given in the schedule of last year.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: With regard to any of these items upon which information is desired I can only say that so far as they come under the control of the Department of Public Works we are prepared to give information. My colleague has given information in connection with the railway crossings-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We did not get very much.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As to the second item my hon. friend speaks about, geological surveys and investigations in the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in Canada, my hon. friend knows that the Northwest Territories are under the control of this parliament and that the other areas are to a large extent, particularly in matters of this kind, under the control of the provinces. That is why the wording is as it is. Again I say that in

Public Works Program
this bill there are only fourteen items as against over a hundred in the other bill, and these items are of an altogether different character. Where it is possible to give the information it has been given. With regard to the amount for buildings, it is the same kind of item as was in the bill of last year. We are prepared to give all the information that the committee desires, and as much sis we give in connection with the regular estimates when they are submitted to the house.


John Campbell Elliott: I am very much interested in the explanations that have been given so far as to the details of these various items-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: They have not been given ye,t.


John Campbell Elliott: I think the best explanation was given by the Minister of Public Works when he said that whereas there were one hundred and eighty-five items in the Public Works Construction Act of last year there are only fourteen in this-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Fourteen points.


John Campbell Elliott: Surely that is the best evidence we could possibly have that these iniquitous items in the schedule of last year, Nos. 75, 78 and 135, the blanket items to which this committee objected so vigorously, have just had the effect of leading on the gentlemen who prepared this schedule to think that this year they could get away with the whole of the estimates in that way. Now let us carry that a step further. Why not put in the amount of 817,940,000 and say, "for public works generally throughout Canada"? Apparently that is where we should be next year if it were possible for this government still to be in power at that time.
Mr. MacNICOL; They will be; there is no doubt about that.


John Campbell Elliott: A first class joke.


Mr. MacNICOL:: It is no joke, and you know it.


John Campbell Elliott: May I say this also-and I think it is very interesting in view of the splendid explanation given by the Minister of Marine in regard to the architects: my hon. friend will remember that last year I made a complaint, and made it again last night, with regard to the great number of departments involved in this work and the comparative absence of responsibility in connection with these various works. I was interested in a report appearing in the Ottawa 92582-179
Citizen to-day; I was reminded of it when I heard the explanation of the Minister of Marine with regard to architects and engineers. This is a summary of the report of the civil service commission, and the heading is:
Civil Service Commission Criticizes Government Policy Sharply . Points to Undesirable Effect of Ban Placed On Permanent Appointments and Promotions
This is a long report; I will read just this:
Likewise the commission is critical of the government's actions in placing outside the commission's jurisdiction the staffs of new Dublic bodies being set up, for example, staffs employed under the Natural Products Marketing Act and the Public Works Construction Act of 1934.
That is the report of the civil service commission with regard to the iniquitous effects of the system that is bound to grow up under a program of this kind, of engaging architects and engineers here and there and paying them apparently whatever salaries those gentlemen consider they should get, and what the ministers consider they should be paid.
I think the Minister of Railways and Canals should give us some details with regard to the railway grade crossings, as to the way in which this work is to be done. For a number of years I have -been urging that one of the best ways to utilize money for unemployment relief would be to eliminate a number of the level crossings that exist throughout the country and that have caused a great deal of trouble and many fatalities in recent years. I think we should have some idea as to how that work is to be done. I think it desirable that to a very large extent it should be done in the rural sections, because what has been done already has given better protection in the urban areas. In a time of great difficulty for the people living in the rural sections it would afford employment and a certain amount of relief, and I think we should have those details.
I should like to say a word with regard to these geological surveys, which have been dealt with so well by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre. Surely the Minister of Mines does not expect this house to pass this item without knowing where and how this money is to be expended.
There is another protest I want to make at this time. A night or two ago, I think, the minister said this Public Works Construction Act was passed on June 30. My recollection is that it was passed just before the house closed; it was introduced only a couple of days before. With a program of this kind is it fair to ask the house, when we expect to

Public Works Program

adjourn within a day or two, either to hold up the adjournment or to adopt the program without knowing all the details? Now that the acting Prime Minister and these various ministers are present I want to ask the government if they think the members of this houSe can discharge their responsibilities to their electors and at the same time allow this schedule to go through by six o'clock tomorrow evening. Is that a reasonable proposition, with this large expenditure? Is it a fact that this measure has been delayed while we talked about the tourist traffic and various other matters that do not mean a thing to the people of this country-including the budget debate conducted by the other side-until this time, with the idea that it might be put through without the members of this committee knowing exactly what it meant? That happened last year, and we thought we were being rather imposed upon then, when we had 185 items covering the public works construction program. It is true that a number of those items dealt with large amounts with which they should not have dealt. It is true that extracted from some of those large amounts, as I mentioned last night, were sums to build wharves, breakwaters and other things that should have been submitted to the committee in a separate list. Under this program almost anything can be done unless these sums are allocated. What I say, and I take full responsibility for it, is that these items should not pass this committee until we get details reasonably similar to those furnished last year. Do the government think that is an unfair request? Last year if it was intended to construct a little building costing 86,300-and some buildings cost much less-it was considered advisable to tell the committee where that building was to be constructed and what was the need for it. Do this government think they have increased in popularity and in the confidence of the people to the extent that this year they can get away with a thing like this? They know better than that.
I repeat, Mr. Chairman, that the members of this committee will not be discharging their full responsibility by allowing this bill to be put through in this way. So far as I am concerned, and I think this is the general view of the committee, unless we get details somewhat similar to those that have been given in connection with public works until this year, ever since we have had a public works department, I say this schedule should not pass.
fMr. Elliott.]


Robert James Manion: The hon. member who has just spoken, and particularly the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, apparently have worked themselves almost into a sort of intoxication-and when I say that I am not referring to spirituous intoxication-in regard to this terrible crime which we are committing in passing or proposing to pass such a bill as this in the dying days of the session. Hon. gentlemen opposite, including the leader of the opposition and half a dozen others, have boasted on many occasions that if we asked for 850,000.000 or 875,000,000 or $100,000,000 they would give it to us at once, but they said, " Don't ask us for a blank cheque." Now we ask them for 818,000,000, and they are still troubled.


John Campbell Elliott: May I ask a question?


Robert James Manion: 
Robert James Manion: object to it. I do object, however, when hon. members opposite take their holier-than-thou attitude and seem to think we are committing a crime by not giving details which they never gave and which no government has ever given. I say they are stooping to humbug of the worst sort. I will tell them now that so far as I am concerned if this bill is held up by tomorrow at six o'clock, when we leave here, they may take the responsibility.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: Yes, they may take the responsibility. If there is no money spent on railway grade crossings they can take the responsibility.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Robert James Manion: If there is no money spent on geological surveys in connection with one of the greatest industries which we have-


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: You spent only about $3,000,000.


Robert James Manion: We have much of it to spend yet, but we passed it in a regular Dill which has nothing to do with this one.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There was enough to spend.


Robert James Manion: Geological surveys are
most important. One of our greatest industries in Canada to-day is the mining industry. If the bill is not passed this most important work will not be done. Then, we come to the amount for the Montreal harbour improvement and deepening. The Liberal member who spoke for the buying of railway equipment in Montreal can take the responsibility if this bill is not passed.
Then we come to the Quebec harbour improvements and maintenance. The hon. members for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and Quebec South (Mr. Power) can take the responsibility if the money is not spent in Quebec harbour.
There is an item fo* the tunnel at the western entrance to Toronto harbour. The Toronto Liberal member may take the responsibility for that. And in connection with the other items, right down the list, hon. members opposite will have to take the responsibility. So far as I am concerned I do not care whether the bill passes or not, except in this way, that I believe that had it been three or four times as great it should have passed as quickly. My hon. friends opposite mean nothing at all when they stand up in this house and say, "Take $50,000,000 or $100,000,000, but do not ask for a blank cheque." It is
f\Ir. Manion.l
the responsibility of hon. members opposite, if the work is not given to the people in different parts of Canada. My hon. friends can take the responsibility, and they will certainly get it so far as I am concerned.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say to the minister who has just spoken and to his colleagues that, if the government are unable to give us before we are asked to pass the bill by six o'clock to-morrow night, the reasonable information which we have requested, we are quite prepared to stay here the rest of this week and the rest of this month.


Robert James Manion: We will probably take you at your word.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: We are preprepared to remain here continuously until we get the information from the government. If the government are considerate of the unemployed, and if it is urgent that the money be voted, they will perhaps consider the convenience of the unemployed and the country, rather than their own convenience in the matter of the adjournment.
May I point out just how unreasonable in its present position the government really is. Let us turn to the main estimates as they were presented to this parliament and see what the government proposes for the geological survey. We find at page 47 of the main estimates for the fiscal year 1935-36, what the government is asking for as this year's appropriation for geological surveys. These are the words:
For explorations, surveys, and investigations; for publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, etc., relating thereto; and for salaries and wages of explorers, topographers and others, $190,060.
According to the estimates, that is an increase of $8,750 over what was asked for in the previous year. Let us now turn to the schedule in the bill. Item two of the schedule is as follows:
Geological surveys and investigations in the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in Canada, $1,000,000.
The words "in the northwest territories and elsewhere in Canada" might as well be stricken out, because they are embraced in the general item for geological surveys and investigations. What is the position? We have in the main estimates, placed before parliament in the present year, an appropriation of $190,000 only, for the expenditure of which the government must give a full explanation; and we have in this one item in the schedule an amount of $1,000,000 for exactly the same services. There are the words-geological surveys and investi-

Public Works Program
gations. In the main estimates the amount was
8190,000,	and in schedule A it is 81,000,000. I ask hon. gentleman is it reasonable that this house: should be asked to vote 81,000,000 vvithout any explanation in detail as to how this money is to be spent, when explanations in detail are given in the main estimates? And what is true with respect to the geological surveys and investigations is equally true . with regard to the other items in the schedule.
Last year we had exactly the same situation to face. A little earlier in the session the government attempted to bring in its request for additional supply for relief purposes in the form of lump sums. We indicated very plainly when it came to the bill for relief purposes that, unless vve could get the specific amounts in connection with the items, and reasonable information given, the government could not expect us to pass those items without very considerable debate and discussion. Well, the government found it possible to give us the details. We are just as anxious as hon. gentlemen opposite to make provision for all that is necessary in the way of providing employment and unemployment relief, and I would suggest that, between now and the time we meet to-morrow afternoon, the several ministers who are asking for appropriations under this particular schedule get together the details they know will be expected and have them ready to give the house when we take up this measure again. As has been pointed out, this schedule is really a supplementary estimate affecting six different departments of the government. In respect to some of them, it not only duplicates but actually increases the moneys voted in the main estimates. In the case of the geological survey, for example, the amount is increased five times.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Do you object to it?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I object to not getting information, most distinctly so. I object to voting one million dollars for any purpose without an explanation from the government.


Robert James Manion: With all due respect to my right hon. friend, we have had no chance to make any explanation at all.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I point
out that in the main estimates there is printed an explanation in very considerable detail. The total appropriation for the Mines department, for instance, is in the main estimates, given under three or four headings. An explanation of the geological survey is given in considerable detail, with reference to salaries, wages and the like. When, in committee of supply, the minister is asked for
information on those details he has his deputy in front of him with a prepared statement with respect to all the particulars. There is not a deputy minister on the floor of the house to-night although six different departments of the government are affected by this bill, and not a minister is in a position to give the details.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am certainly ii a position to give details on every item.


Charles Murphy: I am prepared to give details, and my deputy has been prepared to come here for over an hour, but he has not had the opportunity yet.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I have no
doubt the minister will be in great need of him to-morrow. I just wish to repeat that, so far as we are concerned, we are quite prepared to sit on here steadily until the proper information is given, I suggest to the government that they get the information which will enable us to pass these items before there is an adjournment of this house.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I suggest to my hon. friend that the opposition and the house are entitled to full information with respect to these items, but I submit to him with the utmost deference that we have not had the opportunity to submit any information which we have every intention of giving, and which we are prepared to give. My hon. friend from Quebec South (Mr. Power) took up a very considerable portion of the evening, as did my hon. friend from Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), and on one or two occasions when ministers rose offering to give information hon. gentlemen opposite said, "I have the floor." Now I submit that if it is information that is required, all that is necessary is for the right hon. gentleman to say: Item No. 1, what do you propose to do with that money? When he fails to get an answer, then it will be time to complain, and not when the ministers have not had an opportunity to give information owing to the length of time that has been taken in speeches. I assure my right hon. friend that the information will be given in extenso if the ministers are furnished with an opportunity to give it.


Charles Gavan Power: I have not yet received
the information with regard to last year's expenditures, although I spent an hour or two asking the minister to table the orders in council with respect to the expenditures of last year. I asked him a week ago to give me that information. I asked him on Jan-
Public Works Program

uary 21 of this year to give me the orders in council with respect to that expenditure, and he has not yet given them to me. How can we expect to be able to get all this information that is required about these items when we have not been able to get in three months an account of the money that has already been spent? I submit that I was perfectly justified in asking the minister to give me the information. Not only that, but he could not tell me the salary he was paying to one of his prize engineers. He said he did not know, and I believe him. He said after a while that he could get it in five minutes, but four hours have passed since then and I have not got it yet.
Mr. DfJRANLEAU:	I have got it now.


Charles Gavan Power: May I congratulate my
hon. friend?


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friends
opposite have been addressing the house for two hours and have not given us a chance to give any information. I have been paying to Mr. Gohier in Three Rivers, under contract in due form, the sum of 810,000 on a $400,000 job.


Charles Gavan Power: What about Chicoutimi?


Alfred Duranleau: Wait a minute. I have been paying him $10,000 when my hon. friends opposite were paying to Mr. Swan for the work at Three Rivers five per cent. My hon. friends can laugh, but during 1929 and 1930 these gentlemen on the other side of the bouse, Mr. Chairman, paid about $100,000 to Mr. Swan only for the work in Three Rivers, and about $100,000 to the same man for the work in Chicoutimi, and that man had a contract with those two harbour commissions for the life of the commissions at five per cent on all the works they would perform. We are paying to Mr. Gohier, under a specific contract for a work of $153,000 at Chicoutimi, S4,000, which is less than one-half what my hon. friends were paying to Mr. Swan at both Three Rivers and Chicoutimi. My hon. friend from Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) is laughing.


Ernest Lapointe: That is the only privilege I have.


Alfred Duranleau: Next time, Mr. Chairman, I will bring down the figures paid by my hon. friends to Mr. Swan, under agreements executed under the Liberal regime, and this will put an end to the criticism of my hon. friends.


Charles Gavan Power: In the meantime, will the minister give me the contracts I asked for?


Alfred Duranleau: They are here.
Section stands.
Progress reported.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Edgar Nelson Rhodes: May I say to my right hon. friend that whether or not it is wise to have a prolonged adjournment, the fact is that we have carried the motion for adjournment, which will mean that automatically this house adjourns tomorrow evening at six o'clock. That matter having been determined, I respectfully submit that it is idle to discuss the question now of continuing so far as this bill is concerned and not having an adjournment. But I can assure my right hon. friend that there is no desire so far as the government is concerned to deny the fullest information to the opposition if they will only permit the ministers to make reply with respect to the several items. If the house is agreeable I should be quite content by unanimous consent, if it is so desired, that we adjourn until eleven o'clock to-morrow morning, which would give us two extra hours for the purpose of securing full information on this bill. We desire to get royal assent to-morrow afternoon. This suggestion that we meet at eleven o'clock to-morrow may not meet the views of the house. It could be done only by unanimous consent, but I submit it in good faith and with the object of accommodating the house in getting the information it desires.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: two before an adjournment or the close of the session. So far as I personally am concerned, I am quite agreeable to falling in with the suggestion made by the Minister of Finance, of having the house adjourn until to-morrow morning at eleven o'clock. If that is done, however, I submit that we shall expect the ministers to be in a position to give us the full details required with respect to the different items that are mentioned in the schedule. A general reply to the effect that money for geological survey is to be used for geological survey purposes will not suffice to justify the passing of the measure in this form. I think we ought to have the details in the form in which they were given last year, and the form in which we would expect to find them in the estimates. I express my own view with respect to meeting in the morning. It has to be by unanimous consent, and I do not wish to impose an obligation on anyone else. But if it will help to meet a situation for which the government is wholly responsible, for my part I am quite prepared to cooperate to that extent.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I thank my right hon. friend for the manner in which he has met my suggestion. I am not complaining about his search for information; that is right and proper, and he and his associates are entitled to complete and full information. I submit that we can start in with the different items in the schedule. I do not think we can give further information than is given with regard to the railway crossing fund, because under the set-up in connection with the expenditures under that fund we are following the procedure which has been followed since the beginning of the operation of the fund. I assure my right hon. friend that the ministers will all be here to-morrow morning, prepared to supply the necessary information.


Charles Gavan Power: Will they have full details of the, 130 estimates?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: In that connection let me say this-and I do it in good part. The house is entitled to full information with respect to all expenditures, but I would point out to my hon. friend that we have not completed our main estimates, upon which full information can be elicited with respect to all expenditures.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Not these.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: These have not been made; that is the point. Hon. gentlemen will be entitled next year to information with respect to expenditures made under this vote, but
they can get full details when the ordinary estimates are under consideration and when the supplementary estimates for this year are brought down. So that they are not denied information. I submit that that information has no bearing on this bill, the expenditures under which are designed solely with the object of meeting the necessity of providing for unemployment relief. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, to test the house, I move that when this house adjourns it shall stand adjourned until to-morrow at eleven o'clock. That motion can be entertained only by unanimous consent.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Speaking about following procedure that is customary and proper, I hope the government will be prepared to adopt, regarding these particular estimates affecting public works, the procedure followed with respect to public works generally, of having public tenders called for where the amount to be expended is in excess of 85,000.


Robert James Manion: We will deal with that when we come to it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, April 17, 1935