1935-04-17

Mr. SPEAKER:: I have the honour to inform the house that a message has been received from the Senate acquainting this house that the Senate doth unite with the House of Commons in their address to His Most Excellent Majesty the King and have filled in the blank space therein with the words "Senate and."



ROYAL ASSENT

Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following letter:
Ottawa, April 17, 1935.
Sir,-
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Hon. Sir Lyman P. Duff, Chief Justice of Canada, acting as deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber to-day at 5 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
F. L. C. Pereira,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General.
Questions



PRIVILEGE-MR. POULIOT

Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: I rise to a question of privilege. On page 2772 of Hansard of yesterday I read this:
Mr. Chaplin: Why don't you broadcast it?
Mr. Pouliot: I have to speak loud for those who are deaf and dumb, like the hon. member.
I regret very much that those words appeared immediately after the interjection by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin), because he is neither deaf nor dumb, and I have a high regard for him. The words applied to someone else. May I add that anyone who interrupts me when I have the floor is courting trouble.



HOUSING POLICY

Mr. A. D. GANONG (Charlotte) moved:: That 1,500 copies in English and' 500 copies in French of the third and final report of the special committee on housing be printed in blue book form and that standing order 64 be suspended in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. JOHN VALLANCE (South Battle-ford) :: With the consent of the house I beg to move:
That the petition of Jean Taggart Harfield, of Mono Road, Peel county, Ontario, at present residing in Verdun, Quebec, praying for a bill of divorce from Bernard Lloyd Harfield, of Mono Road. Peel county. Ontario, and the petition of Lily Usheroff Bruker, of Montreal, Quebec, praying for a bill of divorce from Ernest Bruker, of Montreal. Quebec, together with the report of the clerk of petitions thereon, be referred to the standing committee on standing orders for the purpose of considering the suspension of standing orders 92 and 93 (3) (a) and (e) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. R. C. MATTHEWS (Minister of National Revenue):: I lay on the table parliamentary return No. 235, showing decreases in customs tariff between 1922 and 1930. This return is composed of eighty-five pages, each page four feet long. Eight officers and four stenographers have devoted two weeks to its preparation.


Mr. McPHEE:: I am glad to see that
there have been so many decreases.


Robert Charles Matthews: Yesterday the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) asked me about a return. We are now working on a return for the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Brown) which I hope will be completed by the end of the month, and then it is
IMr, Speaker.]
estimated that it will take two weeks to prepare the return for the hon. member for Temiscouata, so that I can say it will possibly be ready about the middle of May.


Mr. J. L. BROWN (Lisgar):: The return
I asked for would necessarily be included in the return asked by the hon. member for Yorkton (Mr. MePhee). It is strange that it should take longer to prepare the partial report than the other.



INSTRUCTIONS TO LONDON OFFICIALS

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon. C. H. CAHAN (Secretary of State):: In reply to a question of the hon. member for Temiscouata as to an order for return passed on April 1, I have made inquiry and find it will not be ready to-day but it will be completed at an early date, and with the consent of the house I will see that copy is given to him during the recess.



CANADA YEAR BOOK

Hon. R. B. HANSON (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Yesterday the hon. member for Nicolet (Mr. Dubois) made inquiry as to when the French edition of the Canada Year Book would be tabled. I find that there must be some misunderstanding as to the publication in question, because the Canada Year Book in English is not yet available. No edition was issued for 1934, but a combined edition for the two years 1934-35 is now in course of preparation and will be available in English and French in June. I am informed by the bureau of statistics. It is possible that the hon. member had reference to a publication entitled Canada 1935, copies of which are now available, of course.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DESROOHERS:: 1.	On what date did Mr. Eleodore Plamondon's contract for the carriage of the mail on rural routes 1 and 2, Sainte-Thecle, county of Champlain, expire?
2.	What sum did he receive annually?
3.	Has the same contract been renewed for the same amount, and for what period?
4.	Were new tenders called for in connection with the awarding of said contract?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	December 31, 1934.
2.	$750 per annum.
3.	Yes, for four years.
4.	No.

Motions for Papers



BKIGHAM, QTJE.-MAIL TENDERS, R.U. 2

Mr. HOWARD:: 1.	Were tenders recently called in connection with R.R. No. 2, Brigham, Quebec?
2.	If so, who were the tenderers, and what was the price of each?
3.	Who has been awarded the contract, and at what price?
4.	What was the cost of the former contract?


Mr. SAUVE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Raymond Leroy Lawrence, $420 per annum; Marvin Crawford, $425 per annum; Andrew Pollander, $448 per annum; Edgard Lague, $480 per annum; Oscar Demers, $550 per annum.
3.	Raymond Leroy Lawrence at $420 per annum.
4.	$598 per annum.
Since awarding of the present contract, an extension was authorized increasing the distance from 18 to 19 4/10 miles at pro rata, bringing the cost to $452.67 per annum.



LOANS TO ROUMANIA AND GREECE

Mr. SPENCER:: 1.	In what year were the loans made by the dominion government to Roumania and
Greece?
2.	What was the total amount advanced in
each case?
3.	What was the rate of interest charged?
4.	How much has been collected from each?
5.	How much interest is now due from each?
6.	Is it likely to be repaid, and in what
way?


Mr. RHODES:: 1.	Credit granted April, 1919
2.	Roumania, $20,449,083.94; Greece, $7,521,300.67.
3.	The original rate was 5'2 per cent. In 1922 4 per cent bonds were taken in respect of the debt of Roumania, and in 1923 5 per cent bonds were taken in respect of the debt of Greece.
4.	Interest collected: Roumania, $10,594,519; Greece, S3,769,146.01.
5.	Roumania, $359,542; Greece, $1,211,026.80



OMER LTJSSIER-INCOME TAX INSPECTOR

Mr. DUBOIS:: 1.	On what date was Mr. Omer Lussier of Quebec appointed Inspector of Income Tax?
2.	On whose recommendation was he appointed?
3.	Did he pass the civil service commission examination?
4.	What salary does he receive?


Mr. MATTHEWS:: 1.	1st March, 1932.
2.	Then then Minister of National Revenue.
3.	No.
4.	$4,000.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN


Mr. BLAIR:: 1.	How many witnesses gave evidence before the price spreads and mass buying committee or commission?
2.	How many of these witnesses received expense allowance or other remuneration?
3.	What are the names of the witnesses who received expense or other remuneration, and the amount each received?
4.	How many days did each witness attend the sittings of the committee or commission, and what was the allowance or other remuneration per day??


Mr CAHAN:: Return tabled herewith.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Mr. MacLEAN:: For a copy of all orders in council passed by this government between August 18, 1930, and the end of 1932, dealing with the importation of raw and refined sugar from Cuba or for fixing the price for duty purposes in connection with same; also any orders in council passed since 1932, bearing on this question.



AUTOMOBILES PROM UNITED STATES

Mr. YOUNG:: For a copy of order in council P.C. 297, dated the 19th day of February, 1931, fixing the discount on imported American cars; also for a copy of all bulletins issued under authority of the said order in council.



ST. LAWRENCE RIVER PILOTAGE RATES

Mr. FAFARD:: For a copy of all correspondence, letters, telegrams, exchanged between the dominion government of Canada and any individual or corporation, in connection with the lowering of pilotage rates on the St. Lawrence river, from November 7, 1932, to date.



WESTERN POULTRY MARKETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. ROBERT WEIR (Minister of Agriculture) :: Yesterday the hon. member for Yorktoa (Mr. McPhee) asked a question as to wher the return would be brought down setting out the manner in which the advances had been made to the sponsors of the poultry marketing scheme in the prairie provinces. When the question was first asked a letter was immediately sent to each of the three provinces asking that they send in the returns as soon as possible. In their reply they seated that they would have the returns in from two to three weeks. When we did not receive the returns at that tunc I had a wire sent to expedite them. We have now received
Shipping Act

the returns from Manitoba, the Alberta returns are in the mail, and those from Saskatchewan are expected this week. The hon. member will realize the necessary delays in getting vouchers and returns from outlying districts, but as far as the department is concerned every effort has been made to hasten them.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. R. J. MANION (Minister of Railways) :: Yesterday the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Garland) sent over to me a telegram after asking a question dealing with the matter of a supposed reduction in the price of coal by the Canadian National Railways. By the way, the acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) also sent me a copy of the same telegram, which I should have acknowledged yesterday but it had not reached me, it was in my office. I immediately had the' telegram telephoned to Montreal and asked the railway officials if possible to have a reply here for to-day, but they no doubt thought the house was going to meet at three o'clock; I expect it will be here this afternoon. I am sorry I have not an answer at the moment, but if I get it later in the day I shall be glad to give it to my hon. friend.



MARITIME PROVINCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. C. S. McLURE (Queens):: Before the orders of the day are called I wish to direct a question to the right hon. acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) or the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes): What steps have the government taken to implement the recommendations of the royal commission on financial arrangements between the dominion and the maritime provinces, known as the White commission, and how soon may action be expected in this regard?


Right Hon.   S@: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention after the adjournment to take steps to implement the findings of the commission either by a bill or an item in the estimates.



SHIPPING ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. O'NE'SIME GAGNON (Dorchester) (Translation):	Mr. Speaker, I have a question to ask the hon. Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). This year, for the first time and without any previous notice, owners of small coasting vessels trading on the lower St. Lawrence river were denied their clearance certificate by the Department of Marine. I had the opportunity, yesterday, to hand over to the Minister of Marine a telegram which I want to read to the house:
Mr. Onesime Gagnon, M.P.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa.
Conditions at Quebec small coasting vessels intolerable stop Owners calling at office continually stop Customs refuse clearance stop Give them no hope stop Many vessels laden merchants lower St. Lawrence awaiting stop People excited better see minister again and say important take decision stop Some vessels have perishable goods stop Cargo North shore no railway supply depends on small coasting vessels stop Bergeronnes Trader ready to leave to-morrow for Grandes Bergeronnes Eau mineure cannot have clearance stop All coasting vessels and owners cannot understand why taken by surprise such way stop
William Morin.
I wish to ask the hon. minister what decision he intends to take to give justice to these ship owners. I understand that he is not responsible for these conditions which are due to the stupid stubbornness of his deputy minister, Mr. Hawken, but I wish to know what he intends to do about it.
Hon. ALFRED DURANLEAU (Minister of Marine) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, I am not ready to accept the imputation of my hon. friend regarding the deputy minister of the Department of Marine. It is the customs officers who attempted, this year, to insist upon the strict enforcement of the old Shipping Act which requires certificates of competence in certain cases. Up to this day they had always been more lenient as regards the enforcement of the regulations. I must say to my hon. friend that, when I received this telegram yesterday, I immediately sent instructions to get in touch with the customs officers so that the regulations may be applied this year the same as in the past, with the understanding that these sailors shall qualify in the meantime.


Mr. GAGNON (Translation):: I thank the minister for the stand that he has taken.

Farm Loan Act



SEASONAL TARIFFS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. ECCLES J. GOTT (South Essex): I should like to ask the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) if, when the question of setting dates for the application of seasonal tariffs for duty purposes to certain fruits and vegetables is being considered that favourable consideration will be given to advancing the date for cabbages-applicable last year on June 10-and beans on June 26? Fifteen days would be satisfactory, I am informed.
Robert Charles Matthews: In reply to my hon.
friend I would say that the Department of National Revenue does not determine the dates on which seasonal duties will apply to farm produce or the produce of market gardens. This department has not the information as to the surplus on hand, the growing season or the available stock of farmi products or vegetables. The fixing of these dates depends upon the advice of the Department of Agriculture.


Mr. GOTT:: Then I should like to direct
my request not only to the Department of National Revenue, but also to the Department of Agriculture and the cabinet at large, if necessary.



CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. L. CHURCH (East Toronto):: Mr. Speaker, five or six amendments have been handed in to the clerk of the house with regard to Bill No. 5, to amend the criminal code. These amendments grew out of the discussion that took place in this house with regard to automobile traffic. I would ask permission of the house to have these five amendments printed in the votes and proceedings for to-day, so that when the bill comes up for second reading after May 20 hon. members will understand what the amendments are. This will require the unanimous consent of the house. There is a rule which provides that amendments to public bills are not published in the votes and proceedings, and how otherwise are hon. members to know what the amendments refer to?


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Shall consent be given to the amendments being printed in the votes and proceedings?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Carried.



CANADIAN FARM LOAN ACT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Livingstone Brown: Some time
ago I made a suggestion to the government which the right hon. acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) said he would take into consideration. If they have not favourably considered it I should like to renew the suggestion, which was that the farm loan bill with its various amendments should be consolidated and printed in such a form that he who runs may read. It is altogether probable that this bill will be of a great deal of interest to the people throughout the country, but if they write in to the department they will get the original bill, the amendments of last year and the amendments of this year, and I doubt if even the lawyers in the house would be able to understand it in that form. I suggest that the bill be consolidated and furnished to the public for a time at least without "ost I think we should be able to do that.


Hon. E. N. RHODES (Minister of Finance):: I can only repeat what I said in response to the query raised by my hon. friend some time ago, that we will have an office consolidation of the farm loan bill made as quickly as possible, and it will be made available over as wide an area as possible.


Mr. HENRI BOURASSA (Labelle):: And
may I add that I hope it will be in both French and English. The other day I went to the department to get a printed copy of what exists at the present time, but they had none.


An hon. MEMBER:: No translators.


Joseph Henri Napoléon Bourassa: Yes, they have one, but there were no copies left in the department, and they told me we would have to wait for the consolidation. I hope the French text will be ready as soon as the English text.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Certainly the French text
will be ready, if not at the same time at least as quickly as possible.



THE KING'S SILVER JUBILEE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. WILLIAM IRVINE (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister
Unemployment Relief

of Justice if it is the intention of the government to grant amnesty to prisoners on the occasion of His Majesty's jubilee, and if so whether there is any statement he would like to make to the house in that connection.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I shall answer the question in the affirmative, but I must say the procedure will not amount to an amnesty. We will follow the procedure laid down at the time of the diamond jubilee of Her late Majesty Queen Victoria, and again at the diamond jubilee of confederation in 1927. It will consist of a remission of one month per year on any sentence imposed upon prisoners serving sentences of six months or over. Then, I should add that in cases of prisoners whose conduct records are good an additional month per year may be allowed.



PERMITS TO MARINERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. W. NEILL (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Minister of Marine is in a position to make a pronouncement of his policy under the shipping act or otherwise as to dealing with those men who in the past had permits to run small boats in the minor salt waters in Canada, and who now find themselves without the ability to obtain permits. They will be deprived of their livelihood, and will inconvenience a great many of the public who depend upon the small services afforded by the men holding those permits. It has been decided under the old act that they are no longer eligible to get them. The situation calls for some remedial legislation or action, as soon as possible.


Alfred Duranleau: I suppose the conditions appertaining to those mariners are about the same as those mentioned by the hon. member for Dorchester (Mr. Gagnon) this morning, in the St. Lawrence river district. I shall look into the matter during the recess and shall answer the hon. member by letter.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (East Hamilton) :: Mr. Speaker, some weeks ago when

the estimates of the Department of National Defence were under consideration I asked whether the government were going to make it possible for men working in the camps to come within the jurisdiction of the compensation laws. I should like to ask the minister whether or not it is the intention of the government to bring in the legislation which will be necessary to meet the situation?


Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Minister of National Defence):: When the estimates of
the department were before the committee the hon. member raised this point and I then told him that following consideration of the matter and a discussion of it with the officials concerned it was considered probable that a satisfactory solution would be arrived at. If it is found necessary to introduce legislation the matter will have to be further considered.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, April 16, consideration in committee of Bill No. 63, to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities.-Mr. Stewart (Leeds).- Mr. Morand in the chair.
Section 2-Authority to execute and complete works.
Hon. H. A. STEWART (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Chairman, if I remember
correctly when we adjourned last night we were discussing the schedule of this bill.


Mr. MACKENZIE (Vancouver):: Correct.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are some amendments the Minister of Railways and Canals desires to propose, and I suggest possibly it would be well to follow the ordinary course of dealing with the sections, and then come back to the schedule.


Mr. LAPOINTE:: Just a minute, Mr. Chairman; Schedule A comes under section 2. I submit that at least we have the right to discuss the schedules coming under section 2 before we proceed to discuss the other sections of the bill.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: That was decided last night.

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I made the suggestion only with a view possibly to limiting the discussion on the bill, and in view of the fact that some matters might be explained. However if it is the wish of the committee to go through the schedule we will go ahead. The schedule is usually adopted last.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: But with the information supplied on the schedule the rest of the bill will not take long.


Ernest Lapointe: The schedule is the whole bill.
Schedule A, item 2-Geological surveys and investigations in the Northwest Territories and elsewhere in Canada, $1,000,000.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: No doubt the Minister of Mines will have charge of spending the million dollars mentioned in the schedule for geological surveys. Would he tell us what will be done with the money, and where it will be spent?


Mr. GORDON:: The geological surveys branch of the Department of Mines was organized as a federal department in 1842.
Since that time geological surveys have been projected throughout Canada in all provinces and in the territories of the dominion. I do not know that at any time any work has been done in the province of Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I cannot talk down the whole house.


Milton Neil Campbell: Do the best you can.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The work of the geological surveys branch has proceeded from year to year, and I do not need to stress the importance of the work it has been doing. The geological information distributed among those engaged in the industry invariably precedes an advance of prospectors searching for minerals in the areas the geological information indicate as being favourable to the production of ores. In order that the committee .may have some conception of the importance of the mining industry, and particularly in respect to gold, with the unanimous consent of the committee I shall place on Hansard the information since 1928. It is as follows:
Statement Re Gold Milling Plants Operated in Canada, 1928-1934 (inclusive)
Summary
Province	1928
British Columbia	 4
Manitoba	 1
Ontario	   19
Quebec	 2
Nova Scotia	 4
Totals	 30
1929	1930	1931	1932	1932	19347	7	5	7	14	281	2	2	4	7	720	19	17	20	23	503	3	3	5	9	135	8	3	4	11	1736	39	30	40	04	115


Milton Neil Campbell: What are the tons milled?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the tons milled but if my recollection serves me correctly I may say for the information of the house that the tons milled as of about ,a month ago were 25,000 daily approximately. The figures are readily available and if it is thought desirable to have them spread on the record I can get them later.
Hon. members will therefore see the importance of devoting all the moneys which the dominion can devote towards stimulating the search for minerals in the various provinces of Canada and the Northwest Territories. This expansion of gold milling, of course, concerns only one branch of the industry. Base metals at the moment do not
offer a great attraction because there probably is a world over-production. The copper above ground has been variously estimated at from 425,000 to 600,000 tons. In Canada we are fortunate with respect to the mining of base metals, particularly copper, because I am told by one of the biggest operators who is very close to the industry that about seventy-five per cent of Canada's copper is produced at less than five cents a pound. That is a wonderful record, disclosing great efficiency.
In respect to this vote, in the last thirty years our universities in Canada have built up departments devoted to the study of chemistry associated with mining, and largely by reason of the stimulation that was given to the mineral industry by the discoveries at Cobalt our universities yearly graduate a very large number of young men who have

Public Works Program
chosen the business of mining as their life work. Heretofore the geological survey has in the summer time taken on their geological parties many of these young men who have passed their second year, and then on up to graduates. This has been a very wonderful experience for these young men who are headed for mining engineering or geological work. Of course, at the present time these, young men are feeling and have felt the depressed times and are meeting with a good deal of difficulty.
My idea with respect to the expansion of geological work-I do not know whether I shall be believed or not, but I think generally I shall be-is not political in any sense. I only regret that this course could not have been adopted years ago and that a little more generosity might have been shown in assisting in the search for minerals in this country. I took occasion last evening to go over the observations made by hon. members of the house in the past five years when the estimates for Mines were up and that from all sides of the house an expression of regret and some criticism that the department was not provided with more moneys to be devoted to these and kindred industries. It is the intention of the government through myself to get in touch immediately with the various universities of Canada which have science courses devoted to geological work and to mining. This may be disappointing to members on both sides of the house but I would gladly receive from any member in this chamber suggestions as to young men falling within the class to which I have referred in order that they may have an opportunity to assist in carrying out this work. I trust that hon. members will not harbour the idea that this is being put forward by reason of an impending election or for political purposes.
It is proposed, and I have gone forward in anticipation that this measure will pass parliament, to organize 180 geological investigating parties. The approximate cost of each party will run around $4,000. Then as a result of their work there will be some expense over and above that in connection with the compilation of the information. While the work of these geological parties will take in the whole range of economically valuable minerals, yet it is my desire to direct their activities more to those places in Canada where the geological occurrence is favourable to the deposition of gold. We in our country are particularly and peculiarly favoured with respect to the chances of finding gold in commercial quantities and of a richness that it can foe worked at a profit. We have across

the northern part of Canada from coast to coast geological conditions that will challenge the courage, the enthusiasm and the capacity for effort of the Canadian people for thousands of years. Perhaps it is a very good thing that the Infinite Being in laying down the earth's surface hid away there riches so that they would not all be found at once. Canada is particularly favoured in this regard. A study of the type of men engaged in this industry will show the courage which it takes and the persistence which must be exhibited in the search for minerals. There are certain people who cannot get interested in the gold mining industry until the gold brick is being poured, when they become keenly interested. They are totally unacquainted and apparently do not want to become acquainted with the hazards and discouragements antecedent to the pouring of the brick. This industry offers an outlet for many of the young men of Canada and I believe the organization of these geological parties will start a work which will be of benefit to the prospectors and bring about an even greater increase in gold mills than the fine records I have just spread upon Hansard.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am just as anxious as the hon. minister that the search for minerals should be carried on and as the minister himself has intimated we who are interested in mining on many occasions have stated that the w-ork should be furthered to the best advantage. I am not particularly interested in the discussion at the moment of present position of the mining industry as I believe the people generally have a fair idea of the conditions. If I were to discuss this matter I would probably say many things with which the minister would not agree; I might refer to the conditions brought about by the action of the present government. What we are interested in at the moment is where these parties are to work and when they are to do their work. I would point out that in the particulars of civil government estimates of the minister the only decreases shown are for a geologist and an assistant geologist. If it were decided at the time the estimates were prepared that we had too many geologists, when was it decided that we should spend a million dollars to put out 180 additional parties? I sympathize with the young men who find it impossible to get employment after leaving college, but I would point out to the minister that during the last year he has lost three of his best geologists. If there is so much unemployment why is it that these men have left the department? It is because they have found the private field much more remunerative. I do

Public Works Program
not want to detain the committee but I should like the minister to tell us something definite as to where this work is to be carried on and whether it will be carried on in cooperation with the different provinces. Is the government going to go over ground already covered by the different departments of mines throughout the dominion? Is this work to be confined to the district under the minister's department the Northwest Territories?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The last observation by the hon. member is not a very worthy one. If anyone will look over the expenditures of the last five years he will find that my district has not been particularly favoured. Apparently the hon. member is unaware of the practice of the department in connection with geological work. Care was exercised by my predecessor, the hon. member for West Edmonton (Mr. Stewart) and is being exercised by myself in the laying out of this geological work. The provinces are consulted in order to avoid overlapping.


Milton Neil Campbell: I am quite aware of that but I would like to know where the government is going to spend this money.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the hon. member will sit down for a moment I will give him the information.


Mr. CASGRAJN:: Is any of this money to be spent in Quebec and where is this work to be carried out?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the hon. member will take his seat I will probably be able to satisfy him. Parties will be sent to every province, as well as the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, wherever conditions appear favourable for the possible deposition of gold ore. No parties will be sent to Prince Edward Island as it is known that that province has nothing along that line. The exact number of parties which will go into each province has not yet been determined but I can give the committee an approximate distribution of the parties. There will be approximately twelve parties in Nova Scotia; four in New Brunswick; fifteen in Quebec and thirty in Ontario. These figures are only approximate and I am inclined to the view that more parties will be sent into Quebec. There will be approximately twenty in northern Manitoba; forty in Saskatchewan, eight in Alberta; twenty in British Columbia; ten in the Northwest Territories and five in the Yukon. This is something which I have had in mind for many years, even before I became a member of this house. I .have always urged the
different governments to promote more activity in the mineral industries but I always realized the difficulty in providing money to carry out this work. The localities in which these parties will work have not been definitely determined but anyone who has studied the geological maps of Canada will know the districts favourable to the finding of gold bearing ore. These matters will be worked out by the officers of the department. It will not be possible to complete this work this year as the field notes will have to be transcribed and published after the parties return in the fall. The work will no doubt run into next year.


Mr. McINTOSH:: Approximately how many will be in each party?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I have not the exact number in each party, but there would be approximately 900 men employed in the various parties. Besides geologists, students and graduates, those parties all carry with them a considerable number of labouring men, such as cooks, and men who carry the lines and do things of that kind.


Mr. STEWART (Edmonton):: There must of necessity be a very small proportion of this money spent on actual surveys. My hon. friend cannot get surveyors to carry on the work to the extent that he is voting this money. I quite understand there will be an investigation of ores, but that is a different matter. I am just wondering how he is going to equip 180 parties in a month's time or less to do effective work. I quite appreciate the fact that young students will be of very valuable assistance, but as directors of parties-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They would not be directors.


Charles A. Stewart: That is the point to which I am coming. The minister's intention is to do prospecting rather than survey work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Oh no.


Charles A. Stewart: Well, I cannot understand how he can equip so many parties so that they will be capable of doing survey work.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I can do so.


Charles A. Stewart: Of necessity there must be a trained surveyor and a trained geologist in charge if really effective work is to be done. I am quite in favour of the investigation, but I doubt very much whether my hon. friend can spend any sum

Public Works Program
such as this in one year and equip parties that will do effective work, which after all is the desire in spending the money. I suppose there are two purposes in view. One is to give employment, of which they have been deprived during the last few years, to those young men who are actually taking their courses and training for their life work as geologists or mining engineers. This is very valuable training for them during the holidays. But every one of those parties of necessity will require at its head someone capable of directing its efforts.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: They will.


Charles A. Stewart: It seems to me that it will be rather difficult with the present activity in gold mining to secure 180 such men.


Mr. SPENCER:: I notice there will be forty parties going through Saskatchewan-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: About that number.


Henry Elvins Spencer: -and some eight through Alberta. Is the big difference due to the fact that Saskatchewan is so much more highly mineralized?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Saskatchewan has problems apart from research for minerals which has become quite a great activity in the northern part of that province in the last five years.
I have in mind a search for water in some of the dried-out areas. Probably members from Saskatchewan are aware that before I became minister, geological surveys carried on work that was very beneficial in that regard, particularly for the town of Moose Jaw and the city of Regina, and I propose that some of these parties shall press that work in other parts of Saskatchewan. There is not any question of preferring one province to another; it is a question of getting these parties out, getting them efficiently organized and placing them wherever in Canada they can do effective geological work which will ultimately form the basis for very great activity in the northern part of this country. Incidentally I think the northern part of Canada will be the salvation of the dominion. It is just a good enough country to produce sufficient money to pay for all the mistakes-1 and there have been some-that have been made since confederation.


Mr. STITT (Nelson):: I certainly congratulate the government on bringing down this appropriation for geological surveys. As a practical mining man who goes into the field and prospects, I think I know something about the need for this sort of work. It has been said that 180 parties constitute a very

large number. I do not think it should be necessary for me to remind the committee that there is room for 180 geological parties in my constituency, to say nothing of the great areas in northern Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Northwest Territories which contain the same geological set up as does northern Manitoba. I am not going to discuss all classes of mining; I shall confine myself for the moment to gold mining. It is not necessary for me to remind the committee that gold mining has been the sheet anchor to which this country has tied itself during four of the darkest years Canada has ever experienced. Gold is a commodity that requires no sales staff and no sales talk; it has enabled this country to meet its obligations, thereby allowing us to maintain our national integrity.	.
Yesterday I heard the leader of the opposition enlarging upon the appropriation of $100,000 in the main estimates. I do not think anybody would be unfair enough to say that that is a proper allotment for this important industry that produces hundreds of millions of dollars worth of new wealth in this country at little or no cost to this government or to the taxpayers. Personally I am glad to see that all of the money in this vote is not going into piles of brick and stone in cities. Whether we like it or not, we have to look north. The future of this country lies in that great northern area, with its two million square miles of the pre-Cambrian, which is beckoning with a finger of gold, its message-"Come and get it"-and it is up to the government to lead the way. So far the lone prospector has had to carry most of the load; he has been left to do all the pioneering work. It is time that the government stepped in and gave him some assistance by way of opening up these fields, putting out these parties to make geological reports on the areas and issuing proper maps so that he may be better able to travel and know where he is going to work. Otherwise he will waste a great deal of time, for the season for prospecting in those northern areas is very short; he cannot get into the field until the end of June owing to ice conditions, and if he is very far north, he will have to hike out of there about September 15 or he will be liable to be frozen in. The minister has in his department I think the finest organization of its kind in the world, but due to lack of money so far they have been working under difficulties. This appopria-tion will give them an opportunity to do their stuff, and I am quite sure the government will receive large dividends from the investment.

Public Works Program
The once prevalent notion that the whole of the immense area north of the North Saskatchewan river was a sterile frost-bound waste destined for all time to remain a wilderness, is now largely a thing of the past, and the opportunities which the latent resources of the silent places of the unexploited north afford to the enterprising and adventurous, at the present moment challenges the attention of the whole world. The claim that Ontario would not be the province it is to-day had it not been for its progressive and courageous northern development policy, cannot be questioned. The same policy should be applied to those great northern areas. In conclusion I congratulate the government on at least awakening to its responsibility in regard to the mining industry of this country.


Milton Neil Campbell: I wish to support what the hon. member for West Edmonton lias said. I think I am fairly familiar with all the mining men in Canada.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: All of them?


Milton Neil Campbell: All the men who are
really looking for work. I do not know where the minister is going to find 180 geologists who are unemployed and who would be able to start on this work immediately.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: That is my job. I will
take responsibility for it.


Milton Neil Campbell: Further than that, the
provincial departments as I have pointed out previously are carrying out geological survey work. Is this work going to be carried on in conjunction with some of theirs, is the work they have been carrying on in different localities going to be enlarged, or is the minister going to pick out spots where he thinks there may be some gold, and let the other minerals go? What is the policy of the department? I am astounded that the head of this department, a man who knows the mining industry, and wrho has a staff of technical men, should come to the house and tell us he does not really know where he is going to send these men. But I am not so astonished at that when I find that even a few short months ago the minister found he did not need as many geologists as he had at work last year.


Mr. BRADETTE:: I am certainly in
favour of some of the activities comprised in this measure, but I would ask the minister why the discrepancy in the number of parties to be sent to some provinces as compared with others. If I were a member for the province of Quebec I would resent the fact that they 92582-180
have only fifteen there and forty in Saskatchewan, and in Ontario only thirty. Surely there are greater mining areas in Quebec and Ontario than in Saskatchewan.


Mr. CASGRAIN:: They need more political workers in Saskatchewan.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: Also British Columbia. The minister mentioned the great benefit that the gold mining industry has been to this country. There is one matter I would like his department to take up in this inquiry, that is the coal situation in northern Ontario. I do not know whether it would be possible for his department to cooperate with the Ontario department, but he knows the good work accomplished by the late administration there in relation to the lignite deposits in the James bay section. He knows also that it is impossible for us to use coal from Alberta, and almost impossible for us to get coal from Nova Scotia on account of long distances. In most cases we have to get our coal from the United States. He also knows that in order to get American hard or soft coal we have to pay more than the rest of Ontario. But in the lignite deposits of northern Ontario there are unlimited quantities of fuel. It is proved to have good heating value, but there is such an amount of moisture in it, and also the cost of briquetting makes it almost impossible for the provincial government to put it on the market at the present time. Under this vote it should be possible for the Minister of Mines of this government to cooperate, as I believe he has in the past, towards placing that fuel on the local market if not outside.
Then I see some possible complications in these activities. The minister is aware that to-day the prospectors are well organized; there are a lot of qualified geologists making prospecting their life wo-k. I should like the minister to enlighten the committee as to the procedure. Suppose half a dozen or so of these one hundred and eighty parties make some good finds, will those men have the right to have the claims registered in their own names? I see the minister smile, but there is that possibility, because under the provincial jurisdiction there is nothing to stop them staking claims they have found and registering them in their own name.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I might interject, there is just one thing that would stop them, that is the federal statute which would prohibit it; that has always been the law.


Joseph-Arthur Bradette: But overlapping the
federal statute is the provincial one. There is nothing that will stop it unless it is specially provided; they can go ahead and register

Public Works Program

those claims in their own names or the name of someone else. Surely the minister will see the chances; it cannot be avoided unless it is absolutely put in the statute that those men will have no right to have claims registered in their names.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It will give rise to no difficulty.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We were expecting more information from the minister on this item. He has done the best he could, but I for one am not entirely satisfied. He has given in his own way an elaborate statement of what he intends to do. He may have good intentions and he explains as best he can under the circumstances the way the parties are to be divided in the different provinces. But this is apparently only a guess on his part, because if we add up the figures we find that they do not come to the amount of a million dollars that appears to be required by the schedule appended to this bill.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I incline to the view that a million dollars will not be spent this year.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: K a million dollars is not going to be spent this year I do not see why we should be asked to vote it.
Now, as the hon. member for Nelson (Mr. Stitt) just said, the season for prospecting and carrying on these works is very short. We are now well on in April, and I doubt very much if there will be time to find all the qualified men necessary to head the various parties and the other men for the parties to an extent to use up the whole amount involved. There is another thing to which I would like to refer, in connection with the remarks made last night by our hon. leader relating to page 47 of the estimates:
Explorations, surveys, and investigations; for publication of English and French editions of reports, maps, illustrations, et cetera, relating thereto; and for salaries and wages of explorers, topographers and others. For maintenance of offices and museums; for purchase of instruments, chemicals, books of reference, museum equipment and specimens and related supplies;
Amounting in all to $265,502. Those estimates were made at the beginning of the session when we assembled here in January. No doubt at that time the government had a program in view and knew where this work was to be done, otherwise they would not be the good government they pretend they are. How is it that now, three months later, they come in with a program four times as large as the other? Die minister has given an explanation, it may be that he was pressed by the remarks of my hon. leader last night

and the request for explanations from this side, and so he has presented to-day in his way a statement that sounds nice but contains no precise information. We like to listen to the Minister of Mines, he is a genial friend, we should like to go to some of his meetings-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: We would have a good time anyway.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: -but this information would not fulfil the requirements of any sound business man. We want to know exactly where those parties will go. This work is carried on also by the province of Quebec, the province of Ontario and various other provinces.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Just those two provinces.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will there not be duplication?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Never.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Will the government
cooperate with the government of those provinces?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Certainly. We always do.


Ernest Lapointe: They will not employ the same men.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I understand that the number of men with mining experience who are able to carry on this work is very limited. These men must be highly qualified; they must be graduates of our universities, McGill or the Polytechnic School in Montreal, and I do not know that they are available by the dozens and hundreds. Where are you going to get a sufficient number of these men to head these parties, of which I am told about 180 are to be formed and spread all over the country? Well, I do not want to criticize the government unduly; this bill is for a good purpose, no doubt, and we want to do our best in this regard. As the preamble states, the purpose of the bill is to relieve unemployment, to bring about more normal conditions, to accelerate the recovery of trade and industry and to end the depression. We should like to know how the government are going to do that in this way. We do not find much fault with the preamble of the bill; we all agree to it, but we find fault in being called upon to vote such huge sums of money to the government, such as $1,000,000 for geological surveys, especially when the minister admitted to-day that while he knew a few parties were to be formed to be sent to various parts of Canada, he did not know the definite places to which they would be sent.

Public Works Program


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I know the definite places to which a large number of them will fee sent.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I do not want to criticize the government unduly, but I am afraid that many of the men who will head these parties, and many of the men who will be employed, will be political agents for certain friends of the government. We notice that there seem to be many parties going to the province of Saskatchewan. In Quebec there are to be only fifteen parties, possibly because the government do not expect very good results in that province.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: If the hon. member knows of competent geologists who can undertake this work, and if he cares to recommend them, I will put them on.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am going to take the minister at his word, and I should like to direct another question to him. If I also recommend other competent young men as day labourers to help those who will head these parties, will the minister accept my recommendations?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Sure I will.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then I will send him some names.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. gentleman does not want my job.


Charles A. Stewart: I rise to a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I am afraid these genial exchanges across the floor of the house are getting very close to bribery. I am fearful that my hon. friend-


Wesley Ashton Gordon: It may be bribery, but there is no corruption.


Charles A. Stewart: I would not suggest that word.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I thank the hon. member for West Edmonton for his remarks, but both he and the minister know that they do not apply to me. If the minister grants my requests it is because they are well founded. I recall that I have presented some recommendations to the Department of Immigration. When they were good they were accepted; when they were not good they were rejected.
There is another point to which I should like to refer. In the district from which I come there is a great field for work of this kind. I know that the provincial department of mines has carried on this work in a rather extensive manner, but I also know that the province is restricted in these operations to a certain extent because at present it has not very much money to spend and is unable to 92582-180i
develop this work on a large scale. In the district of Charlevoix-Saguenay, and more especially on the north shore of the St. Lawrence river, I have been told by prominent engineers there is a wide field for work of this kind. May I ask the minister to tell the committee and tell me if he intends that any of these fifteen parties who will operate in the province of Quebec will be sent to the north shore of the St. Lawrence river?


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes.
Item 2 of schedule agreed to.
Item 1-Railway grade crossings-$1,000,000.


John Campbell Elliott: I see the Minister of Railways in his seat, and I should like to direct a question to him. I want to ask, with regard to item No. 1, if the minister could inform the committee-there are a number of amendments to the bill-


Robert James Manion: If my hon. friend would
permit me I shall read the amendments proposed, so that hon. gentlemen may have time to think them over. There is nothing serious in them, and the hon. gentlemen will be in a position to deal with them early in the afternoon. Of course if assent is to be given by five o'clock the bill must be considered by the Senate first.


An hon. MEMBER:: We are not sure
of that.


John Campbell Elliott: There is another question I should like to ask, apropos of the item of 81,000,000 for the elimination of railway grade crossings. I made a suggestion last evening, but I think perhaps the minister got off on another tack; at any rate he did not give any answer. Can he tell us now how many grade crossings were eliminated last year in the cities and towns, and how many in the rural districts? My point is this: In the rural sections we have a great many very dangerous crossings at which large numbers of fatalities occur every year. I should like to know how many of those rural crossings were eliminated last year, and I should like to know also if any recommendation will be made to the board of railway commissioners in this connection. I understand that this item merely adds $1,000,000 to the railway grade crossing fund. If I am incorrect in my understanding the minister will tell me, but that was what I understood last evening. Is there any recommendation to the board, who have charge of this fund, that a certain portion of this amount should be allotted to the elimination of dangerous crossings in rural communities?
Public Works Program


Robert James Manion: I regret that offhand I
cannot give the number of grade crossings eliminated last year. I do not think the number was very large, but I will get the information for this afternoon; I will have it right after the lunch hour. I did not happen to think of that, though I have looked into the question pretty thoroughly. Was there another point raised by the hon. gentleman other than the $1,000,000?


John Campbell Elliott: I suggested that a portion
of that sum be allotted to a purpose which I think has been rather overlooked for a number of years past; that is, the elimination of these dangerous rural crossings. I could mention a number of villages very close to the district I represent, with which I am familiar, where there are dangerous crossings in regard to which nothing has been done for years, and where there has been a heavy casualty list.


Robert James Manion: I shall be very glad to
have that matter particularly drawn to the attention of the board of railway commissioners. I am speaking subject to correction, but I believe there are something like thirty thousand level railway crossings in Canada, so under any circumstances it will take a long time to eliminate them all. If it is done properly the work must be spread out here and there throughout the country. However, I will remember the point made by the hon. member. In regard to the $1,000,000 for railway grade crossings I believe there is a clause in the bill which states that notwithstanding anything in the Railway Act the government may decide to pay the total cost of the elimination of certain crossings. I am informed the section to which I refer is section 10, and turning to the bill I find it reads as follows:
Notwithstanding anything contained in section 262 of the Railway Act, as enacted by chapter 43 of the statutes of 1928, and amended by chapter 54 of the statutes of 1929, the governor in council may in the case of any highway crossing of a railway determine the percentage of the cost which shall be payable out of the sum appropriated by this act to aid actual construction work for the protection, safety and convenience of the public.
The reason for the clause is that it has been found that at the present time, due to the difficult financial straits in which both the Canadian Pacific Railway and the Canadian National Railways find themselves, they oppose any proposal to wipe out grade crossings, towards the work upon which they have to contribute. That practice has been followed in the past. The board of railway commissioners may receive an application either

from the railway or from a municipality- usually it is one of these two-asking for the elimination of a crossing. They look into the case, and from the grade crossing fund they may allot up to 40 per cent, but not higher than $100,000 to any crossing; that is, they may allot up to 40 per cent of the cost of the crossing. That is taken from the fund contributed by the government, and the balance is paid either by one railway or, in some cases by both of them, and by the municipalities concerned. At the present time neither the railways nor the municipalities want any allotment placed on them. As the committee is well aware municipalities are in financial difficulties and as a consequence do not wish to make contributions. That is why I said a moment ago to the hon. member that I do not think many grade crossings were eliminated last year and that is the reason.
At the same time we wish to have the grade crossings eliminated. Generally speaking the fund will be under the control of the board of railway commissioners, and so far as we are concerned we would be only too happy if it were all under their control, because in that event we would not in any way be entering into a controversy between the municipalities and the railways. However, in certain cases, such as the one to which the hon. member has referred, due to the railways or the municipalities or both refusing to contribute, it may be thought wise because of a particular danger at a certain railway crossing for the government to give permission under clause 10 of the bill to the board of railway commissioners to grant the total cost out of the railway crossing fund. That explains the point.


John Campbell Elliott: May I indicate to the
minister the point I have in mind. A great amount of money has been devoted in the last two or three years to the elimination of crossings in cities, and with that expenditure so far as it has been possible to make payment out of the public treasury I am in complete accord. I wish *o point out to the minister however, that at the crossings which have been eliminated gates and watchmen were formerly used, and those crossings did not cause as many accidents as has been caused by some very dangerous rural crossings, several of which I could name in my constituency. It is a peculiar fact that at many of these rural crossings in many years there has been not one but a series of casualties. Those crossings are in exactly the same condition as they were years ago. I would suggest that the attention of the board

Public Works Program
be especially directed towards the elimination ot a number of those most dangerous crossings in the rural sections rather than towards the expenditure of large amounts of money to make level crossings where gates and watchmen were formerly used.


Robert James Manion: May I say at once that I agree entirely with every word the hon. member has said. The reason that in the past the cities have got most of the work lies in the fact that they have made more applications than did the rural municipalities. I must say however that I agree entirely with the hon. member's statement, and so far as I am concerned I shall endeavour to see that the idea he has expressed is carried out, because I think it is a proper one.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Perhaps it
would be wise for me to say a word at once concerning the statement made a few moments ago by the Minister of Railways and Canals to the effect that if we are to have this measure assented to by five o'clock we must make more rapid progress than we are now making. While we on this side are anxious to expedite matters as much as possible I hope the government will not attempt to crowd us into the position of having the bill passed at all costs on the score that the deputy to His Excellency the Governor General is waiting to give assent to the bills. I would suggest that the government decide at once that the assent to whatever bills there may be will be given at a quarter past six o'clock to-night. We shall know by six o'clock whether or not we have received the information to which we are entitled before this measure passes.
I wish to repeat to-day not only what I said last night but my observations on the address in reply to the speech from the throne delivered at the opening of the session, namely, that we expected the government to bring forward its program in regard to unemployment relief or for providing employment at the early stages of the session, and did not expect it to be left until the moment of adjournment. Hon members will recall I indicated upon the first occasion we were quite prepared to facilitate the program of social reform, improvements to the capitalistic system and the like, but that we insisted that these particular measures should not be used to prevent the immediate consideration of that which we regarded and still regard as the most important of all problems, namely, the question of the unemployed and the giving of employment and affording relief.
The whole session has been taken up thus far in a discussion of measures other than those relating primarily to the great problem of unemployment now existing. As hon. members are well aware the provisions of the unemployment insurance measure will not come into effect for another year or two. The legislation concerning the weekly day of rest will not at the moment affect the unemployed, nor will these other measures of so-called social reform which have taken up time and discussion. They will not affect the present unemployment situation. Hon. members on this side of the house have from the beginning of the session emphasized the importance of giving the matter of unemployment consideration before anything else, and we particularly emphasized the importance of giving the house an opportunity to discover from the government whether or not they have any policy at all, or anything which could be called a policy with respect to unemployment.
This is the first opportunity we have had to discuss what the government may have in view with regard to relieving the situation. The debate which took place on a motion to go into supply was one which surely made evident to hon. gentlemen opposite our desire to get information and to discover what the government's policy was. However we received no answer from the government upon that occasion; we were given no indication as to what their policy was, and I do submit that if the present legislation is part of the unemployment program this house should have been given it long ago.
How does it come about, for example, that we have had before us for some time the estimates respecting geological surveys, and that only now have we had presented a program of exploration and investigation with respect to the mining industry, a program which certainly could most properly have been considered under the estimates for the surveys branch of the Department of Mines. Nothing was said on this point. Did the ministry have a program of this kind in mind when they were preparing the main estimates? If they had, why did they not put in the main estimates, under the heading of geological surveys, some indication that a larger appropriation would be required? Why did they not state upon that occasion that the appropriation would serve the double purpose of furthering exploration and investigation in connection with gold and other minerals in northern Canada, and at the same time help to create employment for some of those who were unemployed?
Public Works Program

We object strenuously to the fact that under the guise of helping to provide employment and to provide unemployment relief the government is really putting through a policy with respect to an important phase of business, and is placing before us as a matter primarily of relief what ought to have appeared in the main estimates as part of the general business of the country. The same is true in connection with what is being asked for by the Department of Railways and Canals. It is certainly true with regard to the Interior. It is equally true with regard to Public Works. There are works here in the nature of public works that ought to appear in the estimates of the Department of Public Works as part of the expenditure for public works throughout the country to be voted in the regular way.
One of the most ludicrous features of this measure is the clause which is inserted to the effect that if anything occurs in the nature of an emergency the government must be free to go ahead and spend a lot of this money in a way quite different from that in which it would be obliged to spend it under the regular appropriations of this parliament. What possible emergency can there be at the present moment in the mind of the administration other than the emergency of a general election which is to come along very shortly? I mean to say that if the government is contemplating emergencies arising in connection with the expenditure of these public moneys, surely we ought to have heard about them at the beginning of the session, and when the main estimates were brought in provision ought to have been made there for them. In last year's bill for relief we had the same expression used in respect to emergency, and the same provision was made for emergency, and yet the money asked for and voted to meet these possible emergent situations has not yet in very large part been expended.
What have we this morning in the way of information from the minister with regard to this one item? One thing we have been told is that we are being asked to vote one million dollars while the Minister of Mines does not think that that one million dollars can be spent. I ask my hon. friend the Minister of Finance whether he as Minister of Finance approves of that method of voting public money, asking parliament for millions of dollars without he himself or any of his colleagues even knowing *or being able to tell parliament how the money is to be spent. As a relief bill, it is a make-believe.


Robert James Manion: May I ask what item the right hon. gentleman is referring to when he says that the money could not be spent?


William Lyon Mackenzie King: No. 2. I do not know whether my hon. friend heard it but the Minister of Mines said to us emphatically, "I will say I do not think we oan expend this million in a year." Surely then there is no emergency with respect to what may be needed in the expenditure of that money at any rate.
I do not want to take up the time of the committee unduly. What I wish to make perfectly clear is this, that the government will have ample opportunity to make the preparations that may be necessary in regard to any of this work they are contemplating; to go ahead with the preparation of their plans during the next four or five weeks; the fact that this bill does not pass to-day need not mean that the government cannot arrange for their geological parties and all the rest of it during the interval. But unless we can get satisfactory explanations to-day of what the government really intends to do I may say to my hon. friend that I do not think the bill will go through to-day.


Mr. OOTNAM:: Do what you like.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend says, "Do what you like," and the Minister of Railways said the same thing last night. He said he did not care whether the bill went through or not. I think he ought to care, and I think the government ought to care very much, when measures of this kind are brought down, that they should be brought down at a time which will ensure their being passed by parliament.


Robert James Manion: I meant that I did not [DOT]care politically because I think we could use it very much more against my right hon. friend if the bill does not pass than if it does.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Exactly. My hon. friend has just borne out what I have said, that the purpose of the bill is a political purpose.


Robert James Manion: I deny that, Mr. Chairman. The purpose of the bill is to relieve unemployment. I say that politically it does not matter to .us, but from the standpoint of unemployment relief it certainly does matter, and I pointed that out clearly last night.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Both the
amounts of money that are asked for here, moneys which the government admits it has not made up its mind how they can possibly

Public Works Program
be used within the time, and also the manner in which the bill has been brought down, clearly indicate that it is a political bill, and it is to work in this way: The government say to themselves, "If we get this bill through we have $17,000,000 which we can begin to get 'busy with immediately, having in view the prospect of a general election; and if we do not get this bill through, we can go out in the country and talk about the opposition having blocked us in the matter of unemployment relief."


Robert James Manion: Hear, hear.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Hear, hear, my hon. friend says, but I think the unemployed and the country generally will be quick to appreciate that the opposition, which is seeking to serve the country's interests is justified in demanding more than forty-eight hours from the time a bill is introduced in this house to the time it is to be assented to by the representative of the crown, to consider the provisions of the measure especially when the present is practically the only opportunity that has been given to this parliament to discuss the government's plans with respect to unemployment generally. We intend to get such information as we can from the administration as to what they are going to do for the unemployed and how they are going to do it, and we are not going to be crowded into the position of simply passing this measure regardless of what information we receive by three or four or five o'clock this afternoon. If we can get it through by then, well and good, but that will depend on the information we can obtain meanwhile. If we cannot get it through, it will just have to remain over until parliament reassembles, and in the meantime the administration can go ahead and further their plans just as they do with respect to all their departmental work. The minister of Finance himself a few weeks ago pointed out to me that they wished to send parties into the field and that he knew that all the plans had been made for that considerably in advance, and that they had taken a long time to make. That was before any supply was voted. Now either one of two things is true: Either this matter has been thought of for weeks and months, in which event the department will already have been planning for it, and we should have been so informed weeks ago, or else it is a mere afterthought which has come at this time, a make-believe policy with respect to unemployment, in which event the government will require a little time to work out the plans they are going to mature a little later. So I do
not think anyone will suffer if the bill does not pass by six o'clock this afternoon. If it is to pass by six o'clock, we shall want the measure in such form that we can approve of it.
The Minister of Railways did suggest that he had one or two amendments which he was going to propose later. I think it would be well that we should have those amendments before we adjourn at one o'clock so that we may see if they are satisfactory and sufficiently comprehensive to cover the points about which we are most concerned.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Mr. Chairman, I resist the temptation which comes to me to reply to the remarks of my right hon. friend the leader of the opposition, although I must say that I do feel sorely tempted to traverse the ground, but if I attempted to do so I would be consuming time which ought to be devoted to satisfying that eagerness for information which hon. gentlemen opposite exhibited last night and again this morning, and with respect to which I do not find any fault. I will, however, make this one observation, that I do not for a moment subscribe to the suggestion of my right hon. friend that this is a political measure. If we had thought to make it a political measure we have an example and a pattern which we could have followed by merely picking up the legislation which was brought down by my right hon. friend and his government on the eve of the general election of 1930. As a matter of fact the modesty of this appropriation in the light of existing circumstances in the country is I think a complete answer to the suggestion that there is anything political contained in the bill. The object of this measure was to make available such a limited amount of money as we felt we would properly be justified in appropriating to cover the widest possible area, not only so far as territory was concerned, but so far as the numbers affected by unemployment are concerned.
There is no disposition on the part of the government to crowd hon. gentlemen opposite, to use the expression which they themselves use, and certainly there is no desire to use the circumstance that His Honour the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General has announced that he is coming down at five o'clock. I shall be very glad to get in touch at once with the acting Prime Minister to see if it cannot be arranged that His Honour shall come at six o'clock instead of at five, so that we shall have at least the advantage of that additional hour.
Public Works Program

I am rather surprised at the suggestion of my right hon. friend that if this bill does not pass the government could still go ahead and make its preparations. Such a suggestion certainly runs counter to the whole attitude of the right hon. gentleman throughout this whole parliament. He is the one who has insisted that we stand by the letter of the document and that we must have chapter and verse for every proceeding. The right hon. gentleman is now suggesting that without any authority of parliament at all, because the government has brought down a certain measure which for one reason or another has not become law, we shall nevertheless go ahead and contemplate embarking upon expenditures of tens of millions of dollars. I am rather surprised at that suggestion and I do hope the necessity will not arise where we will have to take the law into our own hands to that extent. I trust we will be able to quench the thirst for wisdom on the part of hon, gentlemen opposite to the extent where we will have this bill passed in the Senate prior to six o'clock. At all events let me say this to my right hon. friend, and I do not say it in captious spirit or with a view to reaping any party or political advantage:	If the
bill does not pass and the government feels itself warranted in proceeding to embark upon these expenditures, my right hon. friend will be estopped from any criticism of our having taken' such a high-handed course of procedure. I can assure my right hon. friend that my colleague, the Minister of Railways and Canals (Mr. Manion), will be only too happy to see that the suggested amendments are submitted immediately so that they may be considered by hon. gentlemen opposite and the committee before we resume at three o'clock.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: May I say
to my hon. friend that my suggestion as to the desirability of the government getting under way with preparations prior to the actual carrying out of work essential even to forming an estimate, was only reechoing what the minister himself has said they have been doing already. He told us a little while ago that they have been working on this in the department. What right then had they to go ahead and work even on the preliminaries wlhen they did not have the authority of parliament? I am merely pointing out the bearing of what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes) has just said to me, I am not [Mr. Rhodes.)
suggesting this to the minister. He said that they could not even undertake the preparation of plans unless they had the final word of parliament.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I never said that.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I think that
was the interpretation the minister desired to have placed upon his words. There is a very great difference between a government laying its plans with a view to what shall be done .when parliament ultimately passes an appropriation and saying that nothing can be done in the meantime.
Another point I should like to refer to is my hon. friend's reference to the Senate. Since when has the government been receiving from the Senate the assurance that matters respecting unemployment relief totalling something like $18,000,000 will not be subject to any discussion in that house? My hon. friend has just told us that the Senate will approve of this measure. Is there some agreement between the government and the members of another house?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I am sure my right hon.
friend will forgive me but I think he will be the first to admit that it is not proper for him to put words in my mouth. I neither mentioned the Senate nor did I have it in mind.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I beg your
pardon, you used the expression "Senate."


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Hansard will bear me out. I never had that house in mind. We are dealing with matters affecting this house and that is as far as we can go. If the Senate should decide not to pass this bill before six o'clock that is quite another matter. I can assure my right hon. friend that that was farthest from my mind and there has been no understanding and no point of contact so far as I know.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: My hon. friend could hardly take it for granted that there is to be no discussion. It has been stated that some time before six o'clock this bill will be assented to. I do not think there is any doubt but that my hon. friend's remarks will bear out what I have just said. They were to the effect that this measure is not going to be discussed in the Senate. It is unfortunate if that is the case and for that reason I hope an effort will not be made to crowd an expenditure of millions too suddenly through both houses of parliament.

Public Works Program


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: I cannot allow my right hon. friend to quote me as having said something which I did not say and as having assumed a position which I did not assume. We are going as far as we can go and we take our responsibility in this chamber. What happens in another chamber is quite another matter. This is a practice which has been followed by all governments, including governments of which my right hon. friend has been the head.


Robert James Manion: At this Late hour, at two minutes to one o'clock, I do not think I will have time to deal with these amendments in detail but I shall endeavour to show my willingness to always cooperate with hon. friends opposite. First, I might say that these amendments have been requested by the railway companies. The government did not propose or suggest them; they were suggested principally by the Canadian National Railways. The first suggested amendment is to section four of the bill, and is to strike out all the words after the word " arising " in the sixth line and substitute therefor the words "under section nine of this act." The effect of this amendment will be that where it is found impossible to arrange for the equipment by guarantees, if through some arrangement between the railway companies and the government the government chooses to purchase the equipment and turn it over to the railway companies on a lien back to the government, they can do so. I am trying to cover these amendments as rapidly as possible and I shall1 send copies across to my hon. friends. The second amendment is in connection with section nine and is to substitute the word "repairs" for "improvement" in line two on page three. The railways prefer this word. There is also to be added to subsection (1) the following:
[DOT]-and provided further that the governor in council may authorize the Minister of Finance to reimburse the Canadian National Railways out of any unappropriated moneys in the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, the amount of any further interest payable on account of any of its securities issued under the authority of this section for the purpose of repairs of railway equipment.
The officers of the Canadian National Railways spent all day yesterday looking over the proposal and they claim that they cannot charge repairs or interest on repairs to deficit. This is to permit the government, if it so chooses, to pay the interest on whatever portion of the Canadian National Railways' allotment is used for repairs. The third
amendment is to section nine and adds the following as subsection (4):
Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the governor in council may, in lieu of authorizing the guarantee of securities to the full amounts hereinbefore provided, authorize the Minister of Finance to expend the sum or sums, being the difference or differences between the amount or amounts of securities which may be guaranteed under this section and the amount or amounts of securities actually guaranteed', for the purchase, on behalf of His Majesty, of railway equipment and to sell or lease the same to either or both of the said railways under agreement whereby the railway company or railway companies shall reimburse His Majesty the full amount of the cost of the said equipment with interest, except in respect of the first and second years covered by the agreement, at a rate to be fixed by the governor in council and such agreement shall provide that security be furnished to secure and indemnify His Majesty in respect of the debt due to His Majesty.
May I apologize at once and say that I did not draw this amendment. It was drawn by the legal officers of the railways, the Justice department and my own department. But the purpose of it in brief is this: It is to permit the Minister of Finance either to guarantee securities or to purchase securities and to supply them to the railways on lien or mortgage. It implements the other two-


Mr. POWER:: It applies to both railways?


Robert James Manion: Yes. I think if my hon. friends look them over, they will find them very simple to understand. I am merely endeavouring to give my hon. friends the facts.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: Has the Minister of Public Works any amendments to propose?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No, I think the bill as drafted is ample for the purposes of my department.


Mr. GRAY:: Like the Minister of Railways, wishing to be courteous, I give notice of an amendment I propose to move, as follows:
That section 2 of Bill 63 be amended by adding thereto subsection 2A:
2A. That in all employment arising out of the execution of such works and undertakings, whether under contract or by day labour (a) those most in need and available shall have first benefits from the employment to be created; (b) preference shall be given to unemployed and needy ex-service men and to unemployed and' needy married men with dependents; (c) in no case shall discrimination be made in the employment of any person by reason of political affiliation, race, or religious views; (d) where such works or undertakings are of a local character and the expenditure involved does
Public Works Program

not exceed $25,000, all persons employed shall be residents of the locality in which the work is to be performed; (e) it shall be the duty of the minister concerned to see that the provisions of this section are complied with and, in respect of works or undertakings done under contract, he shall .be entitled to cancel the contracts forthwith in the event of any breach of such provisions by the contractor.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.
The committee resumed at three o'clock.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Before
proceeding with the discussion of the schedule I wish to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. How is it proposed to provide the money involved in this 'bill-by ordinary borrowing?


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: Yes, by ordinary borrowing if there is not sufficient revenue in the current account. There is no special method of financing proposed.
Mr. CASGRAIN; We are on item 3, I understand.


John Campbell Elliott: Before proceeding with
that I think the Minister of Railways has some information to give me in regard to the elimination of level crossings during the last year or more.


Robert James Manion: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I had my officers make inquiry in regard to the hon. gentleman's question. On February 15 of this year, at page 856 of Hansard in reply to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie), I gave the data for the last five years. My hon. friend or anyone interested will find on that page that in the years 1930 to 1934 inclusive there were the following numbers of level crossings dealt with: by highway diversions, 469; highway crossings closed, 572; overhead highway, 94; crossing subway, 107; wig-wag signals, 25; bells and wig-wags, 201, and electric bells, 39. That amounts to roughly 1,500 in those five years.
In regard to last year, in 1934 there were altogether 32 attended to in various ways; by diversions, closing of crossings, overhead or subway crossings or protection by wig-wags or bells. As I told my hon. friend, the numbers were not large in the past year; it is a good deal less than in the other years given, I think.


John Campbell Elliott: Can my hon. friend tell
me whether or not there were any of those in rural sections?


Robert James Manion: I regret to say that I
endeavoured to find that out and could not

get it, but I assume there were. I should imagine that most of the diversions by overhead or subway might be in cities, but the highway diversions would probably be outside of cities.


John Campbell Elliott: Perhaps my hon. friend
will get that for me?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I shall gladly do so.
My hon. friend may if he chooses ask the board of railway commissioners and they would give it, but if he wishes I will ask them.


Onésime Gagnon: Will the expenditure of
this money for these purposes be made solely under the control of the board of railway commissioners?


Robert James Manion: It will be so far as the
board of railway commissioners can handle it. I explained that this morning. But there may be cases with which the cities or municipalities or the railways affected refuse to have anything to do, in other words simply saying they have not the money to put up, as happens in connection with many applications. Under such circumstances clause 10 of the bill permits the government to allocate a greater amount. It will still be done under the board of railway commissioners, but instead of forty per cent up to 8100,000 there might be in respect of situations involving small expense some change made. But it would be our desire, along the lines of the suggestion of the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott), that this money should be used rather for crossings in many small municipalities and rural localities than for a few works involving huge amounts in the larger cities.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand that
in cases where the government will pay the whole amount, the selection of the places at which the work is to be done will still be in the hands of the board of railway commissioners?


Robert James Manion: Yes, as far as I know. That is my understanding at present.


Onésime Gagnon: Shall we be in order if we make application to the Department of Railways and Canals for the kind of construction contemplated by this legislation?


Robert James Manion: No, the application should be made, as is always the case, to the board of railway commissioners.


Mr. MICHAUD:: Since the minister has
been kind enough to inform the committee that part of this vote may be used to help

Public Works Program.
out municipalities or provinces or railway companies in correcting obstructions or eliminating level crossings which otherwise would be too costly for them to deal with, I wish to direct his attention to a situation which is very inconvenient to the travelling public of Canada, because it is on the trans-Canada highway.


Robert James Manion: Would the hon. gentleman permit me to interrupt?


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Yes.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member does
not take up much of the time of the house, therefore I hesitate to make this interruption, but I am afraid that if we get into a discussion by hon. members on both sides as to individual level crossings in their ridings concerning which they wish to get something done, we shall not make much headway. I make that submission with all deference and respect, and not with any desire to shut off discussion.


Joseph Enoil Michaud: Perhaps I may be permitted to take a few minutes regarding this matter, for the circumstances are unusual and an exception to the situation which generally arises under the existing laws. It relates to twenty-six level crossings on a twenty-five mile stretch of the trans-Canada highway. This situation can be corrected only by the good will and cooperation of the two great railway systems, the Canadian Pacific and the Canadian National, because these crossings can be removed by either railway taking running rights over the other. The two railways run parallel, at some places only five feet distant one from the other. This matter has been taken up with the railways and with the board of railway commissioners, but they have deferred doing anything about this dangerous situation by reason of the cost, or possibly because of hesitancy on the part of either railway to cooperate by granting running rights to the other, perhaps owing to the cost. But as some of this appropriation can be used under unusual conditions to supplement whatever the railways would ordinarily be required to pay under the existing law, I should like to ask that the Minister of Railways be kind enough to inform the board of railway commissioners and the railways affected that they can now remedy the situation by accepting the plan which has been suggested, which will do away with twenty-three level crossings. If the Canadian Pacific obtain running rights over the Canadian National it will save the province of New Brunswick many thousands of dollars and will remove twenty-three level crossings in a distance of twenty-five miles.


Richard Burpee Hanson: I understand the position the hon. gentleman has been endeavouring to make clear to the committee, and what he says is quite right. Between the town of Edmundston and the town of St. Leonard in a distance of twenty-five miles there are twenty-six level crossings, most of them over the tracks of the Canadian Pacific. I have travelled over the road by car hundreds of times and I know the danger to traffic at these crossings. The whole difficulty could be obviated, with the exception of two level crossings, if the Canadian Pacific would cooperate and, from Grand Falls north, operate over the National Transcontinental, and not a cent would be required out of the grade crossing fund. There are two crossings that could not be eliminated, according to my recollection, except at very great expense. If by a little effort on the part of someone in authority the two railways could be brought together so that they would use the one track where they now run parallel that would be a good effort at coordination and would mean a saving of human lives, because a good many lives have been lost at those level crossings since the automobile came into the picture. I commend the suggestion of the hon. gentleman to the Minister of Railways.


Robert James Manion: I shall gladly draw the remarks of both hon. members to the attention of the board of railway commissioners.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: In connection with this discussion of bill No. 63 I wish to direct the attention of the committee to a situation that exists in the constituency of North Renfrew. Under this bill we are being asked to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities. At the moment I have on my desk a petition directed to the Minister of Railways requesting that a station be erected at the village of Beachburg in the constituency of North Renfrew. That station provides accommodation for the villages of Beachburg and Westmeath, and also for hundreds of individuals in the townships of Westmeath and Ross. This petition is signed by 185 farmers and business men in that section. The station was destroyed by fire in 1931, and since that time the management of the Canadian National have made no move to provide station accommodation for these people. They have fitted up an old railway coach at that point, but the accommodation is entirely inadequate. Because of the economic situation these people have been hesitant about asking the management of the Canadian National to provide a new station, but I think the time has come when the Minister
Public Works Program

of Railways should direct the attention of the management to this situation. Last year about $80,000 worth of freight traffic originated in that locality, consisting of shipments of live stock, grain, hay and pulpwood.
This Station is on the main line of the National Transcontinental, and the only passenger service is provided by two night trains, one going west at 11 p.m. and the other going east at about 4 a.m. This accommodation is entirely inadequate. The Canadian National come to this house and ask the taxpayers of this country to meet enormous obligations; they are looking for traffic for the road, and here is a locality that has provided an immense amount of traffic but receives no service in return. When those people wish to travel they must drive to this point at night, and very often the station is not even heated. Sometimes the transcontinental trains are three and four hours late, and the people are expected to wait in an old railway coach. Because they have aocepted the situation and have not made a vocal protest against it, the management of the Canadian National have simply ignored the needs of that locality. I notice in the daily press that the government are being asked to guarantee bonds of the Canadian National totalling $48,400,000, and I think in view of that situation the people in these localities should receive adequate service and accommodation. Previously a gasoline oar operated on this line; to-day there is absolutely no competition with the Canadian Pacific during the day-time. Formerly there was one local car east and west, from Ottawa to Pembroke, daily, and that served the people along that line. No doubt the Canadian National obtained a good deal of passenger traffic through that service, but even that has been discontinued.
While I am on my feet I should like to mention another matter. An application has been made by the management of the Canadian National for permission to discontinue service on a branch line in the Locksley subdivision from Golden Lake to Pembroke Junction, a distance of twenty-two miles. The application is to be heard by the board of railway commissioners on April 24. This branch line is part of the old Canada Atlantic system which ran from Pembroke to Parry Sound. The application is based on the business during the two worst years of the depression, 1930-31 and 1932-33. I asked the Minister of Railways to secure from the management of the Canadian National the information with regard to the earnings on that line during the good years, say from 1920 to 1930, but they said this would entail too much labour on their part

and they could not give the information. The application is to be heard in the town of Pembroke in the very near future, and I want to protest in the most vigorous terms possible against the action of the management of the Canadian National in this regard. Under existing conditions, when the taxpayers of this country are paying the piper I think they have a right to call the tune, and I think the management are altogether too arbitrary. We have a right to that information; without it the railways are not in a position to make their application and we are not in a position to present our evidence. We should know what they earned on that road in the good years. In dealing with this particular branch line they took the lean years. The business in that section of the country is to a great extent connected with lumber, pulpwood, boxwood and materials of that kind. Everybody knows that during all those years-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister says so.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: During all those years that type of industry has been affected as have other industries throughout the country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.
Mr. COTNAiM: Oh, it is all right. I have as much right to talk as any otheT hon. member. Last night the hon. member for Quebec East took up two hours of the time of this house.


Ernest Lapointe: I never did.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: Then it was the hon. member for Quebec South.


Charles Gavan Power: If you mean me, I was
talking about something which was in order, and not about [DOT] something entirely out of order, as is the hon. member.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I am very doubtful about that. Throughout this whole discussion very wide latitude has been allowed hon. members opposite. They have talked about anything they liked, so far as the railway problem is concerned.


Mr. DUFF:: Come over here and talk.


Ira Delbert Cotnam: I am talking exactly the
way I feel. I should like to make a further protest. At the present time the board of management of the Canadian National Railways propose to take up the steel on that section of the Pembroke-Parry Sound branch of the Canadian National system for a distance of fifty miles. That particular section of the

Public Works Program
road runs through part of Algonquin park. Not long ago we passed a vote providing assistance to tourist traffic. We have an enormous tourist traffic throughout Canada and the closing of that line of railway would shut off that particular section of the country. Incidentally it would embarrass those who hold lumber interests in that section of the province. I wish to protest strenuously against the taking up of the steel, when we know that the building of a small trestle costing only $40,000 or $50,000 might keep the line open to Parry Sound.


John Campbell Elliott: May I mention to the
minister that when section 6 is reached I propose to move an amendment to insert the words "by public advertisement" after the word "tenders", and in section 7 I will move to substitute the word "five" for the word "fifteen" in .the fifteenth line of that section. That is, tenders would be advertised in respect to works of an estimated cost of $5,000 rather than $15,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have been most surprised and astonished at the discussion which has taken place. Constantly we are being accused of blocking this bill and not giving the government a chance to proceed with its relief measures. Now, at 3.30 in the afternoon we find hon. members on the government benches joining us in our criticism, and giving reasons why additional changes should be made to the bill. I understand all is not well among hon. members supporting the government because we see the hon. member for North Renfrew suggesting certain improvements which could be made to the bill. Then we find the hon. member for York-Sunbury, the Minister of Trade and Commerce joining in the suggestions made by the hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: Why not?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The Minister of Trade
and Commerce suggested that the recommendations be taken into consideration. It is most amazing to find that the Minister of Trade and Commerce who sits in the councils of the nation, and attends at the round table has not been able to make his will prevail. I believe that is against all traditions of parliamentary government. This bill stands in the name of the Prime Minister; it is drawn up by the Prime Minister, the head of the country, and is one to which all ministers have been parties. They should know what is in it, but still we find the Minister of Trade and Commerce not satisfied with the measure, and asking for more.


Robert James Manion: You ought to feel better
now.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Yes, a little bit,-just as my hon. friend feels better when he addresses remarks to this side of the house.


Robert James Manion: Certainly.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: May I be permitted to
ask a question of the Minister of Marine concerning a later item?


Ernest Lapointe: Oh no, no!


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Well, if other hon. members have further questions I shall sit down.


Mr. MUNN:: May I support the observations of the hon. member for North Renfrew. I a.m familiar with the Algonquin park territory, and I realize how great a mistake it would be if the Canadian National Railways were to take up the rails on the section of the road about which the hon. member has spoken. A great deal of the tourist traffic could be directed towards the park. I shall not take up further time but inasmuch as I know that section of the country I feel it would be a great mistake to take up the rails.


Mr.   CHAIRMAN@: Shall item 2 carry?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.
Item 2 of schedule agreed to.
Item 3.-Montreal harbour improvement and deepening-$3,500,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Then, I find that item 3 is a vote of $3,500,000 for Montreal harbour improvement and deepening. Some time ago when the estimates of the Department of Railways and Canals were under discussion some observations were made respecting the ship channel at the port of Montreal, and upon that occasion a question was put to the minister by the hon. member for Laurier-Outremont (Mr. Mercier), asking if the report of the engineers who were looking into the situation in Montreal harbour had been received. I believe if I recall correctly the minister stated the report was shortly to be presented, and that upon that occasion he would make known to the house and country the situation which exists, and what could be done to relieve the conditions in that port. Is this vote of $3,500,000 to implement the report of the engineers who have looked into the matter, and what are the improvements to be made?


Alfred Duranleau: The report which was to be made by the interdepartmental committee of engineers was in fact an interim report based on incomplete data, because the
Public Works Program


Charles A. Stewart: Has it been
completed to that depth?


Alfred Duranleau: I am told by the engineers of the department that it will be completed probably by the end of June or July to a depth of 35 feet at the level of the St. Lawrence of 1897.


Mr. GARDINER:: What does that mean?


Alfred Duranleau: It means it will be dredged to 32} feet at the lowest water of 1934. It has been dredged to this depth to a .point 4,200 feet below Jacques Cartier bridge. This means that all the east portion of the harbour will have a channel of 32} feet by the end of June or July.


Charles A. Stewart: Will there be a depth of 35 feet from Montreal to Quebec?


Alfred Duranleau: There will be a depth of 32} feet at the low water of 1934 from Montreal to the sea.


Mr. GARLAND (Bow River):: What is the estimated cost of the construction of 750 feet of the Laurier pier?


Alfred Duranleau: It will be between $400,000 and $450,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: What is the estimated cost of the reconstruction of the Sutherland pier?


Alfred Duranleau: From $900,000 to


Edward Joseph Garland: I should like to have the estimated cost of each of the six items mentioned by the minister. The next item is the raising of the shore wharves at sections 40, 41 and 42, the next is the reconstruction of the wharf at sections 30 and 31, the next is the extension of the marine jetty at section 43 and the next is the reconstruction of Windmill Point wharf.


Alfred Duranleau: The total estimated cost of thie works just mentioned is from $4,500,000 to $5,000,000. As I have just stated, these works are included in the program of the harbour commission for the coming year. The sum of $3,500,000 will not. be sufficient to carry out all these works but we would like to carry on the most urgent ones. It may be that the harbour commission will undertake the completion of some of the abovementioned items, in the usual way, by loans from the government.

Public Works Program


Edward Joseph Garland: Could the .minister give the estimated costs of the reconstruction of the shore wharves at sections 40, 41 and 42?


Alfred Duranleau: About $1,300,000.


Edward Joseph Garland: And in connection with the wharf at sections 30 and 31?


Alfred Duranleau: Between $400,000 and $500,000.


Robert Gardiner: Is this to be in the form of a loan to the Montreal haibour commission or is it a gift from the treasury of this country. In the past we have loaned money to these harbour commissions upon which interest has been paid. While I am on this subject does the minister know what the Montreal harbour commission has paid by way of interest during the last five years?


Alfred Duranleau: Up to date the harbour commission of Montreal has paid the exchequer of Canada the sum of $36,000,000. That is made up of $2,000,000 of capital, and the difference is interest, paid mostly at the rate of five per cent. The harbour commission of Montreal is still paying five per cent on perhaps eighty per cent of the amount owing to the exchequer of Canada.


Robert Gardiner: Did they meet the interest liability last year?


Alfred Duranleau: 1 am not sure if the harbour commission has paid in full the instalment which became due I think on January 1, but up to then I am sure that all the interest had been paid.


Robert Gardiner: With regard to the first question I asked, will this be added to the sum total of the liabilities of the harbour commission to the federal government, or is this a gift from the exchequer to take care of unemployment?


Alfred Duranleau: This expenditure is
being made as part of the public works program, and it is not a charge on the harbour commission. As a matter of fact, the deepening of the St. Lawrence, and the deepening of all the harbours of Canada, has always been done at the expense of the federal exchequer, and as the port of Montreal is a national port feeding every part of Canada I think it is entitled to have its harbour deepened at the expense of the federal exchequer.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister mentioned the deepening of the harbour. What is the cost of that deepening?


Alfred Duranleau: There is no estimated cost for the entire deepening of the harbour, but as I stated to the committee a moment ago a certain portion of the $3,500,000 will be allocated for deepening.


Edward Joseph Garland: How much?


Alfred Duranleau: I could not say
exactly how much at the moment, because we intended to get a larger amount than $3,500,000, and I shall have to discuss the matter with the harbour commissioners and with the engineers who have studied the improvements to be made in Montreal harbour, also with the shipping interests of Montreal and of Canada before an exact amount is allocated' for deepening the channel.


Robert Gardiner: I should like to know from the minister just what is the reason for the change of policy which- the present government has brought into effect with regard to financial assistance for the various harbours of Canada. In almost all the important harbours in this country we have harbour commissioners to look after the business of the haibour, and from time to time they have borrowed money from the federal government to provide the necessary works in the harbours over which they preside, and the federal government has always charged them a certain rate of interest for the use of that money. So far as I personally am concerned I have never objected to the loaning of the money to these harbour commissions provided I felt the works were necessary for the welfare not only of that particular harbour but of Canada as a whole, and I am just wondering why at this late date we are now changing this policy which we have pursued for many, many years of making the harbour commissions responsible for the spending of money that is advanced to them, and responsible also for collecting sufficient dues to pay the interest on the money so borrowed and sufficient finally to liquidate the liability to the federal treasury. I cannot conceive that the policy has been changed simply for the purpose of providing unemployment relief, because after all is said and done the government of this country could well approach these various harbour -commissions and consult with them as to the possibility of providing work through legitimate construction deemed advisable in these harbours which would be of value to the country, and the expenditure could then be made under the jurisdiction of the commissioners, who would be responsible for the repayment of interest and the repayment of
Public Works Program

principal eventually. Why has the government changed that policy? It cannot be said that it is because of the unemployment situation because that could be taken care of by advancing to these harbour commissions the loans to do the work which they consider is necessary in these harbours.


Alfred Duranleau: I do not think the policy of the government has been changed. Some grants have been made heretofore to harbours in Canada, and the deepening of other harbours in Canada has been done at the expense of the federal exchequer, but even if there was a change of policy my hon. friend will admit that we have changed our policy in favour of the western provinces to a great extent.


Robert Gardiner: So far as the deepening of the Montreal harbour is concerned or any other harbour, I am quite in agreement that the deepening should be done at the expense of the federal treasury, but when we come to all these other works which the minister has outlined in connection with Montreal harbour, I submit that that is a different policy altogether from what we have had before. When we have had estimates before this house for harbour commissions in the past I have never taken any objection to them no matter where the harbour was situated because I realized this important point, that if it is necessary to construct harbour works in Montreal or Quebec or the eastern provinces the construction of such works is of just as much benefit to the western provinces as to the east. I look on them as national undertakings of benefit to Canada as a whole and not for the benefit of one particular locality. In the fourteen years that I have been a member of this house I do not remember our ever having made gifts before to harbour commissions for works in harbours. It has always been done by way of loan.


Alfred Duranleau: Under the Public
Works Construction Act of last year we made expenditures in all the harbours of Canada at the cost of the federal exchequer.


Robert Gardiner: I was probably away at the time. But that does not change the principle. If the harbour commission of Montreal feel that they need these works for the benefit of that harbour and for the benefit of Canada as a whole, I am quite willing that they should have a loan as they have had in the past, but I cannot conceive of the necessity of changing our policy at this late date merely on the assumption that we are going to provide for unemployment.

If the harbour commissions receive a loan as they have done in the past they can provide for unemployment just as well as the various departments of the government can do it. I submit that it is a retrograde policy. The former policy was a good policy and a sound one. It placed the harbour commissions on a business basis. But now we are departing from that policy on the assumption that it is necessary because of unemployment. I submit again that unemployment can be provided for by making loans to these commissions to carry on the work which they think is advisable to be done, and that would provide for unemployment just as wrell as it could be done by a department of this government, and it would be far more efficient than this method of having the work done.


Edward Joseph Garland: When was the report of the inter-departmental committee on water levels received by the minister?


Alfred Duranleau: The report is dated March 4, but I received it I think at the beginning of April.


Edward Joseph Garland: The minister has pointed out that this is only an interim report. May I ask who described it as such, the committee itself or the department? Why is it regarded as an interim report?


Alfred Duranleau: The committee was not ready to make a final report, and so it was asked to make an interim report especially on the cause of low water conditions in Montreal harbour. They said: We can make such an interim report, and that is what they did. As to the general improvement of the harbour, they were not prepared to adopt any scheme, and that is why the works we intend to carry on this year will not be affected in any way by any scheme of improvement to be suggested.


Edward Joseph Garland: Are the terms of the interim report in any way in conflict with the recommendations of the Montreal harbour commission?


Alfred Duranleau: Not as to the works contemplated under this item of 83,500,000.


Robert Gardiner: I understand the minister to say that the interim report deals more specifically with the reason why the water in the harbour has been lowered and does not at the present time deal specifically with the harbour works. Can the minister give any indication as to the reasons suggested by the interim report why the water has been lowered in Montreal harbour?

Public Works Program


Alfred Duranleau: I would be pleased to tell the committee, but our time this afternoon is very short. I can however state that the interim report deals with harbour works with no definite conclusion. As to low water conditions the report shows that since the year 1897 the lowering of water levels was 2-98 feet, practically the same in all the rivers of Canada.


Ernest Lapointe: Providence has made Quebec the deep water port of the St. Lawrence.


Alfred Duranleau: According to the
report, 1-63 feet of that loss is due to the enlargement and obstructions at Montreal, and in the river below. The difference of 1-35 feet is due to reduced supply of water from the great lakes. The report states that the reason for the reduction in the flow of water is due to the low average precipitation during the last five years on the great lakes basin.


Mr. HOWARD:: I want to make just two or three remarks on the item and also on the bill and to ask a few questions of the minister. On the cover of the bill it says:
An act to create employment by public works and undertakings.
And the words "throughout Canada" are added.


Ernest Lapointe: Nothing in Sherbrooke.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I have been looking
through this bill, and I marvel that the five members from the eastern townships of Quebec who are sitting behind the government have not taken any steps to see that that promise "throughout Canada" is carried out. I do not consider the proposition a fair one, and I think if the government had been sincere in this legislation they would have apportioned the works to the different sections where unemployment is at its worst. The government bring in a bill providing for public works and saying "throughout Canada," and there is attached a general list without details. It happens that we have no harbours in Sherbrooke; it is not a seaport. We are not finding fault with Montreal or some other places that are getting consideration under this bill; but when the government say that this is a scheme to remedy the unemployment situation throughout Canada and they neglect entirely some of the centres that have been most badly affected during the depression, making no provision whatever for them, it is time that members from the eastern townships who sit behind the government should object to such legislation. I say 92582-181
this because last year when the $40,000,000 appropriation was passed, apart from two special points none of the money was spent in the eastern townships. In any case, out of the $40,000,000 voted, only $8,000,000 has been paid out, leaving quite a balance. Now, instead of having a real program of public works apportioned throughout the length and breadth of 'Canada in those centres which need employment, the government brings in a bill to provide a specific sum and under this it seems to me that the eastern townships are being entirely neglected as is usually the case under the present government.
The first item refers to railway grade crossings. The Minister of Railways said this morning that he had nothing to do with that; that it oame under the board of railway commissioners. Two of the main highways constructed by the Quebec government run across two of the most dangerous level crossings there are, one in Bromptonville in the county of Richmond and the other in Ascot in the county of Shefbrooke. The elimination of those level crossings has been asked for years and years, and the reply has been that the money had not been voted.


Robert James Manion: Those crossings may receive attention under this appropriation.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I ram glad the minister said that, because he knows they will not.


Robert James Manion: I do not know any such thing.


Charles Benjamin Howard: We will watch and see what happens.
The next is geological surveys. The Minister of Mines is in the house; I listened carefully to his remarks and did not interrupt him. Apart from the new development in northern Quebec and northern Ontario, one of the best mining sections in this country is through the eastern townships of Quebec. At the present low price of copper, about the only copper mine that is being operated at a profit is in the county of Btanstead just a little distance from Sherbrooke. Stanstead is represented by a Conservative member in this house. Some of the families who have made some political success in the parliament of Canada, have made a good deal of their money through gold mining in the eastern townships. No statement has been made that any of these geological surveys will be carried out in that section of the country. *


Wesley Ashton Gordon: The hon. member has no reason to give up hope.

Public Works Program


Charles Benjamin Howard: 
Wesley Ashton Gordon: Yes, we have always had unemployed.


Charles Benjamin Howard: Well, to the least degree of any part of Canada at the present time.


Wesley Ashton Gordon: I would not say that.


Charles Benjamin Howard: When there are 700 families on relief in a city like Sherbrooke, which is one of the five principal cities in Quebec, such centres should receive consideration from the government. I am not saying that in criticism except to draw attention to the fact that this government is not doing its duty by that section of Quebec, and I protest against the people there being called upon to pay taxes to prevent real estate owners who cannot meet their mortgage interest from being sold out, in order to keep up the stream of money flowing in to the coffers of the present government, yet when an unemployment situation exists and a bill to remedy it is brought in, no consideration is given to the eastern townships of Quebec.


Mr. GOBEIL:: I certainly had no intention of taking part in this debate and I shall detain the committee only a very few minutes. I cannot let pass the contention of the hon. member for Sherbrooke that this government has done nothing for the eastern townships. He has very carefully refrained from suggesting any public works that could be carried out in Sherbrooke. Last year, after the public works program was parsed by this house, I

met several business men from Sherbrooke who were complaining and I put this question to them: What public building do you expect the government could erect in Sherbrooke? They could not name any, because there was not any. There is not a single dollar for my constituency of Compton, and I do not object. The only thing I could have the government build would be a post office, and unfortunately for myself the revenue of the post offices in my constituency which have not already public buildings is not sufficient to justify the building of a post office. This government is not throwing away money, it is trying to spend money where it can be spent usefully. The hon. member for Sherbrooke says that the government has done nothing for Sherbrooke. I say that this government has helped the city of Sherbrooke perhaps more than any other city in this dominion. My hon. friend admitted it himself when he made a report to the board of trade last fall and in his speech used these words, which I have already quoted in this house:
The situation is sensibly improving in our city. The 'business activity is increasing. The commerce is more stable, and unemployment diminished. This is the encouraging declaration of Charles B. Howard, member for Sherbrooke at Ottawa, contained in a message to members of that chamber last .night in submitting his report on the activities of the industrial committee, of which he is a member.
Further on he said:
In a comforting report made to the chamber of commerce, Mr. C. B. Howard reveals that our silk industries are running at full time at one hundred per cent capacity, and are closely followed by the Paton manufacturing company and all the iron and steel manufacturers.
Now I think this activity in the city of Sherbrooke is due chiefly to the tariff policy of this government, and the support whieh that policy has given to industries. I understand the hon. member for Sherbrooke is a heavy shareholder in the silk mills, and I have no doubt he gets a very nice profit from the shares he holds in these companies that are running at one hundred per cent capacity due to the protection afforded by this government.


Charles Benjamin Howard: I did not expect to speak again, but may I say this, whieh perhaps will read better in Hansard than what my hon. friend has said; these results have been attained in spite of the actions of the present government.
Further, the report he mentions was not a speech I made. He has not read the newspaper correctly, but I have no reason to correct him because it makes no difference. And wrhen my hon. friend criticizes that re-

Public Works Program
port, while it is not strictly on this subject I might say that in his constituency he could have done a little more for the agricultural industry than he has done.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I think it is in order here to offer some remarks regarding certain facts pertaining to the administration of the port of Montreal. There was discussion here some days ago regarding the painting of the harbour bridge, the contract for this work having been given under the authority of the Minister of Marine by order in council P.C. 1869 of August 18, 1934. which states, according to the papers which have just come to hand, that:
The minister observes that the Montreal harbour commissioners reporting on the tenders state:
"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."
The minister, in view of the above, recommends that he be authorized to enter into contracts with International Paint (Canada). Limited. Thorp-Hambrick Company, Limited, and Canada Paint Company. Limited, for the supply of what paint is required, and to enter into a contract with P. J. Leduc and associates of 354 St. Catherine street east. Montreal, for the application of the red lead and final field coat of paint to the bridge, in accordance with tender prices. The committee concur in the foregoing recommendation and submit the same for approval.
By the papers produced here to-day we find that four firms tendered:
L. Knight	 $30,905
P. J. Leduc and	associates	 49.500
James Pitcher	 49,900
R. F. Walsh &	Co.	Ltd	 52.232
This last firm I might mention had the advantage of having the contract the first time the bridge was painted; two coats were supplied at that time. Looking at the tabulation of those tenders we find that the tender of F. J. Leduc and associates was 849,500 for application of first coat including 200 gallons of red lead. Application of second coat $100 less than James Pitcher, $36,500. For application of extra red lead per gallon Leduc tendered $25; Knight, $8; and Walsh, $7.
Now one point to which I wish to call the attention of the house is that on the 3rd of August a letter was sent from L. H. A. Ar-chambault, secretary of the harbour commissioners of Montreal, regarding the painting of harbour bridge structural steel, in which it is stated:
It is understood that the commissioners do not bind themselves to give either one of the contracts to any or the lowest bidder or bidders in each case, the reputation, financial standing.
92582-181}
time required for the execution of the work, and similar qualification of the bidders, as well as the amount of both tenders, considered as a whole or separately, will concurrently be considered in the awarding of the contract.
And the last paragraph, which I consider most important, is this:
Accepted cheques on a Canadian bank, to the amount of 30 per cent of the amount of each bid are to accompany the tender, otherwise the tenders will not be considered.
Now when we look at the papers produced to-day we find that in the cases of Knight and Leduc they did not put in any cheque with their tender, "but willing to supply" is the remark in the order in council.


Alfred Duranleau: May I be permitted to tell my hon. friend that the security was asked for by the harbour commissioners: this committee knows these works have been put under the direction and supervision of the harbour commissioners and their chief engineer. The specifications were drafted by them and the tenders asked for by them, and the specifications stipulated as security a deposit of thirty per cent of the amount of the tender.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: That is what I said.


Alfred Duranleau: Now it is true that
Walsh & Company was the only firm which sent in a cheque for thirty per cent of the tender. That was an absolutely unusual demand for security. As a rule it is ten per cent, and in some cases five per cent. But anyhow thirty per cent was asked, and after the tenders were in F. J. Leduc and associates sent in their accepted cheque for $14,850. The note that appears on the schedule that we have filed is incorrect, inasmuch as on August 14 three or four days before the older in council was passed, Leduc and associates had deposited an accepted cheque for $14,850 which was exactly thirty per cent of the tender. As I told this committee the other day, I might add that the lowest tender, at $30,000 was not accompanied nor followed by an accepted cheque, and was so low that it could not be considered seriously. As a matter of fact I have a certificate that the amount paid by Leduc for wages and insurance for that work exceeds the sum of $44,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I would not object to
the hon. minister interrupting if I thought he would give further explanations than those he had given the other day. But I am basing my remarks upon the papers which were tabled this morning on the request made by the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and also upon sources of information obtained by myself over the week-end when I was in Montreal, -which sources are of such a nature
Public Works Program

that I cannot doubt their correctness. I might take the answer of the minister as being correct, but the facts are there. There is the letter which was sent all the firms on that list, who were supposed to be able to carry on the work properly, the last paragraph of which I have just mentioned, stating that no tender would be considered if it was not acccompanied by a certified cheque for thirty per cent of the amount of the tender. I hold in my hand a copy of the specifications which accompanied each letter, and on page 4 of this copy I find the same provision:
Each tender for the painting of the Jacques Cartier bridge is to be accompanied by an accepted bank cheque in favour of the commissioners for thirty per cent (30%) of the tendered price, which cheque will be handed back to the maker, should his tender not be accepted, as soon as the awarding of the contract can be decided upon, but the proceeds of which will remain in the commissioners' hands as security for the carrying out of the contract, according to the conditions of this specification, in case the accompanying tender is accepted.
The next paragraph deals with the number of coats:
The objective is to have two coats of paint applied besides that of the red lead patching. For different reasons, however, the bidders shall submit two different and independent tenders, each covered by individual guarantee.
My information-and it is also contained in the report-is that no certified cheques accompanied the tenders of Leduc, Knight or Pitcher. That is the remark of the officials of the harbour commission, or the officials of the Department of Marine who prepared the documents which have been filed here as reference No. 261. When we come to the name Walsh the word "included" appears, indicating that the cheque accompanied the tender, in accordance with their instructions.
I find this matter most difficult to understand. I hold two accepted cheques in my hand. The first is for $15,669.60, to the order of the harbour commissioners of Montreal; it is on the Royal Bank of Canada, Montreal branch, and bears the number 3107. The other cheque bears the same date; it is numbered 3108 and is for $14,671.50, payable to the order of the harbour commissioners of Montreal. The minister has just stated that on August 14, a few days later, a certified cheque was presented by Leduc, but the time to forward these cheques was when the tenders were filed with the harbour commission, as was required by the letter and by the specifications. I am informed on good authority that the harbour commission were satisfied that Walsh, who had done the work previously without losing any men, as Leduc has done,

who did the work in the required time and up to the specifications, should get the contract, because his was the only firm out of the four that tendered that had complied with the gpecifications. What happened between the time these cheques should have been filed, according to the specifications, and the time they were filed? I should like to know.
There is another point also. I am told that when the question of awarding the contracts was under consideration some person

I do not know who, or whether or not they were close to the government-went to Walsh and said, "It is of no use; you might as well withdraw your tender, because you are not going to get the contract." We have had some explanation from the minister in regard to this matter, but we would like to know why, when only one firm complied with the specifications, that firm did not get the contract, particularly when that firm had done the same work previously, and had done the following bridges as well:
Montreal harbour bridge	 1930
(Now called' Jacques Cartier bridge)
Legault bridge	 1930
11 C.N.R. railway bridges on the main line between Toronto and Niagara
Falls	 1930-1
Bridges over the Welland canal.. ..	1930-1
Bathurst street bridge	 1931
Roberval-Saguenay bridge	 1931
Sorel bridge	 1932
Hull-Gatineau bridge	 1932
4 bridges over the Beauharnois canal. 1932 Department Public Works Matapedia
bridge	 1933
Chicoutimi bridge	 1934
CaugEnawaga bridge	 1934
There was also attached to the tender a letter from the Royal Bank of Canada, dated August 6, 1934, and addressed to the harbour commission of Montreal, as follows:
Dear Sirs:
Re: R. F. Walsh Co. Limited
We may advise that the subject company have been clients of ours for a number of years and our relations have been of a most satisfactory nature.	.
According to the financial statements, which they furnish us, and' with our knowledge of their principals we would consider them capable of carrying out any contract which they might undertake.
Yours truly,
The Royal Bank of Canada,
(Signed) O. B. Thornton,
pro-Manager.
The facts are as I have stated them, according to the documents that have been filed and that have been in my possession since this morning, and also according to the information I have received from the sources I have indicated. Naturally these

Public Works Program
people think an injustice has been done them because of the fact that they were the only tenderers who, at the proper time and place, complied with all the requirements of the specifications.


Alfred Duranleau: My hon. friend has forgotten one fact; it is that Walsh and Company were the highest bidders. My duty was to protect the public interest. When I saw that security amounting to thirty per cent had been asked by the harbour commissioners, who I admit are my agents in the matter, I thought it was in the public interest to permit security cheques to be deposited by the other tenderers. After the tenders were filed, and I take the responsibility for that, I thought it was in the public interest when only one firm, the highest tenderer, had complied with the specifications in that respect. I am satisfied the work has been done properly. My hon. friend must have read in the press last week the statement made by the chief engineer of the Montreal harbour commission, following the discussion in this house, that the work had been done properly and that it had been supervised, inspected and' certified as being entirely satisfactory. I think my hon. friend should not insist when the man he is defending was the highest tenderer. I think the political complexion of that firm is well advertised by the insistence of my hon. friend.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Just before my hon. friend sits down I want to tell him here on the floor of the house that I never met these people before; I never met Mr. Walsh and I did -not know this firm until the question was brought up in this house the other day. Later a gentleman who about twenty years ago was in the employ of the office with which I was connected came to me and discussed this situation. I did not know the Walsh firm at all; until the question of this tender and contract came up I did not know they had ever painted the Jacques Cartier bridge. One fact remains;, however; when the one tender came in accompanied by a certified cheque somebody must have tipped off the other people so that they could make a lower tender. One tender is for $49,900 and Leduc's tender was for $49,500, and he did not comply with the specifications. What is the use of calling for tenders and saying that certified cheques must accompany them, if the requirements are to be changed at any time?


Robert Gardiner: A few moments ago I was inquiring as to the reason for the change of policy in regard to the treatment of the
various harbour commissions, and in his reply the minister stated that grants had been made to harbour commissions on previous occasions. Leaving out the grants made under the public works bill last year I find that the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Munn) recently asked the Minister of Marine this question:
What amounts have been advanced to the following port authorities, Halifax, Montreal, Saint John and Vancouver up to December 31, 1934 (a) by way of grants; (b) by way of loans?
I wish to speak particularly about the minister's observations with regard to grants. This return shows the following information supplied by the Minister of Marine-I shall not give the information as to loans, because that is not under discussion:
Halifax, by way of grants, nil.
Quebec, by way of grants, nil.
Montreal harbour, nil.
Jacques Cartier bridge, nil.
Saint John, by way of grants, nil.
Vancouver, by way of grants, nil.
That bears out the statement I made that I have not known of grants being made to these harbour commissions until last year. In view of this information, which 'has come to hand since I asked the question in the first instance, I should like to ask if the minister can give the committee any information as to the reasons for the change in policy.


Alfred Duranleau: I have already told
the hon. member and the committee that this policy was adopted last year at the time of the passage of the Public Works Construction Act, and was adopted for the purpose of relieving unemployment. When I used the word "grants" I may not have used a proper expression. I am sure public works in some harbours of Canada have been paid out of the public exchequer. I know for instance of one-


Robert Gardiner: Prior to the setting up
of the commission. The works were done prior to the setting up of the commission to control those works.


Alfred Duranleau: No; since the harbour commissions were incorporated I have known of some works for which payments have been made out of the exchequer. I remember, for instance, that there was some dredging done in the harbour of Quebec, at a place called the "Flybank" to allow the Empress of Britain to land in that harbour. The work was done to accommodate the first trip of the liner, and at the expense of the exchequer.
Public Works Program,


Robert Gardiner: That was dredging.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, but it was not
dredging in the channel; it was dredging in the harbour. It is an improvement, like any under-water construction. I do not think my hon. friend should complain that since last year we have begun a policy of helping the harbour commissions in order to relieve unemployment, and especially when we have changed our policy with regard to the western provinces. I have never heard the hon. member complain about the change of policy by way of grants and loans so far as the western provinces are concerned. I believe it is only fair that we should help the other parts of the country in an effort to relieve unemployment.


Ernest Lapointe: Now will you be good?


Robert Gardiner: I am in agreement, so far as the last remarks of the minister are concerned. Earlier in my observations I stated I had never made any objection to public works being conducted anywhere, so long as they were for the benefit of Canada, whether they were in the east or in the west. Any remarks I have made in this chamber since becoming a member of parliament will bear out my statement. It does appear to me however that we are not acting properly When we proceed on the assumption that we are going to relieve unemployment to a greater extent by making grants to harbour commissioners than by giving loans, as has been done in the past. That in my judgment is no substantial reason for a change of policy. I am just as anxious as the minister or any other hon. member to bring about relief of unemployment. I must say however that the past policy not only of this but of previous governments in dealing with harbour commissions has been by way of loans, placing the matter on a business basis so that the commissions would be responsible for the spending of the money loaned and for the dues and charges made to recover sufficient not only to pay the running expenses of the harbour but also to provide for interest on sinking fund. I say that is the best business basis upon which our harbours could be run. I am not satisfied with the answer the minister has given, notwithstanding the fact that the same principle was followed last year.


Charles A. Stewart: I do not wish to repeat what other hon. members have said; I rise simply to emphasize some of the points which have been made with regard to this unemployment measure. I have been looking carefully through the schedule, and
[Mr. Duranleau.)
for the life of me I cannot understand why the government did not bring down the proposed expenditures in the estimates. More than half of the $17,000,000 should have been included in the estimates, in which event we would have had plenty of time to discuss them. I cannot understand why the government have followed this course, except they wish it to appear that these are extraordinary expenditures being made in the interests of the unemployed.
Dredging is not going to help unemployment very much. True, repairs to wharves will give a certain amount of work, but I know, the Minister of Public Works knows and every other minister knows that those works could have been included in the estimates, in which event we would have had plenty of time to discuss them in committee of supply. However we are asked to accept these proposed expenditures which, properly speaking, are additions to the estimates; we are asked to accept this gesture which would have the people believe these expenditures are being made for the relief of unemployment. Other than the items which could have been placed in the .estimates I must say I can find in this bill very little help for the unemployed. It is true that the proposals offered by the Minister of Railways and Canals will undoubtedly create employment- there is some doubt as to whether or not those amounts are required, but I am not discussing that phase of the matter. Surely the government must realize that after five years in which serious conditions of unemployment have existed there still remains a similar condition, and undoubtedly we will have unemployment for some time. The government had plenty of time to include these items in the estimates.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will the hon. member permit a question?


Charles A. Stewart: Yes.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will not just as much work be provided by expenditures authorized in a bill as by moneys appropriated through votes in the estimates? What difference does it make to the unemployed whether the money is provided through items in the estimates or clauses in a bill?


Charles A. Stewart: It just
makes all the difference in the world, because the whole business is nothing but camouflage. It is put forward for the purpose of making the people believe that this government is going to give unemployment

Public Works Program
relief. In years of reasonable improvement greater amounts of money were voted in the estimates for these purposes than are now proposed as extra amounts.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In the year 1930 the largest estimates ever put through the Department of Public Works were voted on the eve of an election.


Charles A. Stewart: Quite right.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


Charles A. Stewart: I have not mentioned an election; I am talking about unemployment, and I think the hon. member understands. When he sat on this side of the house he was not one of the kindliest critics of government proposals-and I have no fault to find with that. We propose to say exactly what we think about these expenditures; we will do it here as well as in the country. All these harbour improvements could have been voted in the estimates. Items 3, 4. 6, 7, 13 and 14, including operations of nearly every governmental department, could have been voted in the estimates. But my hon. friend wants to camouflage by saying that this is an extraordinary expenditure that we must undertake to take care of unemployment. Yet all the time they have been in office they knew that unemployment was prevalent. I am not complaining about these proposals as an election gesture; I am only thankful that the amounts have not been increased very materially for election purposes. if that is any comfort to my hon. friends, but I do protest that the policy of this government ever since they have been in office has been to seek to secure money from parliament by means other than the legitimate means provided for so doing. We have no chance to discuss these items. We do not even know what is going to be done with the
831.000.	000 that is unexpended out of the
840.000.	000 that was voted last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Yes, you do.


Charles A. Stewart: I should
like to know it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I gave to this
house an account in detail of every commitment of the government through the Public Works department.


Charles A. Stewart: Is my hon.
friend committed for the whole $31,000,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As the figures show, we are committed to practically everything that was allocated to the Public Works department, about $30,000,000 of commitments altogether.	.


Charles A. Stewart: My hon. friend gave that information how many days
ago?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Fully a week ago, when the estimates were up.


Charles A. Stewart: For a whole year you have had within your power the right to spend $40,000,000 for the relief of unemployment; you have spent only $9,000,000, and even that was not expended-it was allocated.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friend is quite wrong again. That amount was expended, and the commitments and the amounts earned are considerably in excess of that. I estimate that up to the present time there has been $10,000,000 or $11,000,000 earned.


Charles A. Stewart: Out of the $40,000,000?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Out of the $40,000,000.


Charles A. Stewart: We voted $40,000,000 last year, gave the government practically a blank cheque, and on the minister's own admission there was spent of that $40,000,000, in one of the most serious years for unemployment that has prevailed in Canada, only $10,000,000. That was I presume in order that the government would have more money to spend this year. One can come to no other conclusion. I do object, Mr. Chairman, as I have objected upon every occasion, to this method of doing business. Items that properly belong to the estimates and that we could properly discuss under the estimates are being asked for under this blank cheque method. Take the statement of the Minister of Marine. He can spend that $3,500,000 any way he likes provided he does a few of the things he has intimated will be done. There is nothing definite about his proposals of expenditure and he can make any changes that he sees fit. That is not the way that public business should be done. I have been waiting for some time to say it and I want to say it now as emphatically as I can: it is not the way public business should be done, and it is not the way public business was intended to be done.
I have left out of this estimate the one million dollars for grade crossings, also the one million dollars for geological surveys, both of which should quite properly have been included in the estimates, but I have given the government 'Credit for those two items and have classed them as extraordinary expenditures for the purpose of providing em-
Public Works Program

ployment. But all the rest of the items are everyday ordinary expenditures of the government, as I see it and as anounced by the ministers themselves when making their statements to the house with respect to all these items. They may have some difficulty in allocating all this expenditure, but I for one do not want to be accused of delaying the government for one single minute from getting busy and providing the necessary employment which God knows is badly enough needed in this country, and will continue to be needed so long as this government remains in office.


Henry Elvins Spencer: I have been looking over Bill No. 113, that we passed last year voting some forty million dollars for public works and I notice that in schedule A there are no less than ten items of work to be done for the city of Montreal. I am not complaining of that but apparently only one-quarter of the money that was allocated last year has been spent up to the present time, and in spite of that we now have an estimate before us for a further $3,500,000 to be spent on Montreal. I entirely agree with those who have preceded me in criticizing the way in which we are being asked to vote this money. I do feel that the proper way was to put these items in the estimates as usual.
There is one item in particular that I wish to draw to the attention of the government, and that is the item of $500,000 for western conservation works. It does seem to me that that is an infinitesimal amount to spend on that huge project; it will not begin to meet the difficulties we are facing in the dried out areas of western Canada. I should like to ask whichever minister is responsible whether he intends to come back to the house for a larger appropriation than $500,000 for this great project.


Mr. REID:: I have two questions to ask
of the Minister of Marine. Are the deepening and dredging operations in the St. Lawrence carried out under his department, and is the work that is carried out in the western ports and on the Fraser river done under the Public Works department? My second question is this: Why is it that there is no appropriation for improvements and work on the Fraser river and at Vancouver? I protest that there is no such appropriation, and I have long protested that among many members of this house and among the officials of the department there is that eastern viewpoint and apparently a prejudice against the western ports.


Alfred Duranleau: Answering my hon.
friend's first question, all public works in Canada, including the deepening and dredging of harbours and rivers, are under the Public Works department. The only dredging under my department is that done in the ship channel of the St. Lawrence river.


Thomas Reid: We have ship channels in the west. The Fraser river has a ship channel and it is not as deep as it should be in certain spots. Will it be all right for us to make application to the Minister of Marine to have that channel deepened?


Alfred Duranleau: The Public Works
department will attend to my hon. friend's request.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The
minister did not answer my hon. friend's second question, why there is no appropriation here for Pacific ports.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I am surprised
that my hon. friend from New Westminster should complain about the expenditures made on the Fraser river. Every year, as he knows, we have out of the regular appropriation kept one dredge and sometimes two working there the whole year round, and the expenditures on that river as compared with other ports are very heavy indeed. It is proposed to continue those expenditures and to do everything that is necessary to develop the harbour. I think my hon. friend upon reflection will agree that- the expenditures have been generous and that we have gone the limit in endeavouring to deepen the Fraser river and to keep the port of New Westminster in good shape.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: What
about Vancouver?


Thomas Reid: I have no apologies to offer
for speaking on behalf of New Westminster and the Fraser river, because for every dollar that has been spent out there fifty have been spent on the St. Lawrence. More money has been appropriated in certain years for eastern ports than has been appropriated for the Fraser river from the start right up to the present time, and there are spots on the Fraser river that are not as deep now as they were twenty-five years ago. That is why I complain.


Mr. MARCIL:: I should like to inquire
if the government intends to do away with the grade crossing at Matapedia.


Robert James Manion: As I explained this morning, we have no details of any kind. This

Public Works Program
matter will be in the hands of the board of railway commissioners, and with all due deference to the hon. gentleman, I suggest that he approach that body immediately. Certainly there will be nothing done by us but what will assist in the matter.


Charles Marcil: I thought the government
was going to take the power to grant the amount necessary to do any of these things.


Robert James Manion: In some cases we may
grant more than the forty per cent for either the railways or the municipalities if they are unable to pay their share.


Charles Marcil: Matapedia is a strategic
point on the Canadian National Railways. As the minister knows, last winter the whole service between Halifax and Montreal was held up for three or four days through a flooding at this point, and I think the minister should do whatever he can to correct this difficulty.


Robert James Manion: I shall do all I can.
Item 3 of schedule agreed to.
Item 4-Quebec harbour improvements and maintenance, $1,250,009.


Ernest Lapointe: What is to be done with this $1,250,000?


Alfred Duranleau: There will be a little dredging in the St. Charles river basin and the outer Louise basin.


Ernest Lapointe: Could the minister give an estimate of the amount required for each item?


Alfred Duranleau: I understand the
dredging will be around $200,000.


Ernest Lapointe: That is for the St.
Charles river?


Alfred Duranleau: The St. Charles river and outer Louise basins. There are to be general repairs to wharves through the replacing of decayed timbers and apron paving on the north wall of the St. Charles river wharf and the inner and outer basin wharves. Borings are to be made on the St. Charles river basin and inner and outer basins and Pointe a Carey. A new roadway is to be built to the bascule bridge at the crosswalk At pier No. ,1 there is to be refacing of the concrete on the east side. At grain elevator No. 2 an office is to be built for the elevator superintendent and staff. The harbour roadways are to be repaved and the water service is to be extended to berth No. 14 and Pointe a Carey. A portable pump is to be supplied to increase the pressure for the delivery of water
to ships. Improvements are to be made to the tracks of the harbour railway while twelve new floating fenders are to be built. At Pointe a Carey the sections of the old quay wall are to be refaced. At the cold storage plant there is to be insulation of the fourth floor in the main warehouse and additional piping supplied. A roadway is to be built approaching the terminal while there is to be a diversion of the road to Gilmour's Hill. Workshops are to be constructed on the King's wharf and some resurfacing work to be done at the Wolfe's Cove terminals.


Ernest Lapointe: Do I understand that the cost of the dredging will be $200,000 and the rest of the amount will be used for construction work?


Alfred Duranleau: Construction and repairs.


Ernest Lapointe: Will this work be done under the supervision of the harbour commission or under the supervision of my hon friend's department?


Alfred Duranleau: That matter has no; been decided by the government, but I suppose it will be done by the harbour commission as agents of the Minister of Marine.


Ernest Lapointe: I want to be pleasant with my hon. friend to-day because he did not like me yesterday even with my smile. My hon. friend quoted an order in council yesterday, and in connection with the work now being done in Quebec, totalling $354,000, it was stated that the tenders which were first received in response to the invitation of the department were not considered satisfactory. Would the minister give a list of the tenders which were sent in, the amount of each and the reason why they were not considered satisfactory?


Alfred Duranleau: Does not the order in council state that the tenders were considered as being too high?


Ernest Lapointe: No, were not satisfactory.


Alfred Duranleau: I think the main reason for rejecting these tenders was that they were too high. We asked for new tenders from about the same firms. There may have been some slight change in the plans and specifications in the meantime.


Ernest Lapointe: I should like to have this information for the purpose of being able to defend the minister, because some of his own friends in the city of Quebec are complaining. They claim the contract was not awarded to
Public Works Program

a certain firm because of influences which were at work to bring about the awarding of this contract to another firm which was not the lowest tenderer. If my hon. friend cannot give me this information I will not be able to defend him.


Alfred Duranleau: I can tell my hon. friend that there is nothing of the kind.


Ernest Lapointe: Is it not true that some time passed before the matter was adjusted and there were many recriminations on the part of at least one firm?


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, on the part of one firm which had not been asked to tender.


Onésime Gagnon: May I say to the hon. gentleman that the firm which complained is not a Conservative firm, as he says. The gentleman in question is in close partnership with Mr. Louis Letourneau, who is an influential friend of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) and the one who passed telegrams on election days in the past.


Ernest Lapointe: I did not know that Mr. Letourneau had anything to do with any tender. As far as the last remark of my hon. friend is concerned, it can go with what he said about the acting deputy minister of Marine this morning. It seems to be a habit of his to attack people outside of the house. The firm I am referring to is composed of two good Conservatives and my hon. friend knows that.
Item 4 of schedule agreed to.
Item 5-Canals, repairs and improvements, $750,000.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: What canals are to be improved?


Mr. MAN ION:: Last evening some hon. members on the other side asked for information and I was ready to give it, but we were not given the chance to do so. 'I have a list given to me by my officers some weeks, perhaps some months ago, before the estimates were made up, of estimates on the canals in addition to what we already have, amounting to nearly $3,000,000. or about four times as much for various improvements and repairs on the canals as the figure in this item amounts to. This is part of those various estimates, those that we figure we could arrange for. For example there are some repairs on the Murray canal, on the Ontario-St. Lawrence canals, at Cornwall, St. Peter's canal, Williamsburg canal. Then the Prescott elevator and the Port Colborne elevator are taken into account as part of the canal
	.
system. After the Prescott elevator was built, the workshop connected with it sank eight or nine inches and has to be put right. There is an estimate of $170,000 for that. I may say quite frankly that I had this in the estimates, but it was cut out of them because we were to a certain extent at any rate endeavouring to keep them as low as possible. However in the interests of relieving unemployment, that is one of the matters I would like to go on with. In Quebec there is work in connection with the Carillon and Grenville canal, Chambly canal, Hungry Bay dyke canal, Lachine canal, Ste. Anne's lock, St. Ours lock. Then there is the Rideau canal, the Sault Ste. Marie canal, the Trent canal, the W'elland canal and the Welland ship canal. I have named them, but they take in practically all the canals. After the Welland ship canal had been completed, slides took place. That is, while the channel is dug out to a certain slant, it is not sufficient to keep it from sliding in, and when slides occur, it has to be levelled up. In brief, that is the answer to my right hon. friend's question.


John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister give no more definite statement as to how this amount of $750,000 is to be allocated than what he has just given?


Robert James Manion: Yes, I can give a good deal, but I am watching the clock rather anxiously and I do not wish to delay the bill. Let me give an example. We are counting on doing the work not absolutely but approximately as this is given. As regards the Murray canal, the estimate of my engineers is $3,750. Others are as follows:
Ontario-St. Lawrence canals....	$ 31,000
Prescott elevator	 170,000
Quebec canals (about)	 147,000
Rideau canal	 20,000
St. Peter's canal	 8,000
Sault Ste. Marie canal	 1.900
Trent canal	 30,000
Welland canals	 300,000
That last is a rough estimate, approximately, for the slides which I have mentioned.
There is also one other item that may come in under canals although 1 am not sure that it does, and that is the question of a freight shed at Churchill. It may sound strange to bring that under canals, but according to the method of setting forth the estimates followed by my department for years, the work at Churchill has been taken in under "canals, improvements and repairs." Some claim that there is need of a shed at Churchill amounting to some $75,000. Whether we will erect

Public Works Program
this or not, I do not know; it depends to a certain extent on whether there is a demand or a great prospect of a demand for traffic at Churchill when the season is about to open.


Alfred Duranleau: As to works in the city of Quebec proper, I would like to cite another item which is mentioned without any estimate. It may be, if some arrangements can be made with the city of Quebec, we shall make a start on the canalization of the St. Charles river.


Ernest Lapointe: Will another amount be
voted?


Alfred Duranleau: No; it will be included in this amount.


Ernest Lapointe: But that would be a
tremendously big item.


Alfred Duranleau: A start only would
be made.


Ernest Lapointe: But some of the work
mentioned by my hon. friend in his program would have to disappear.


Alfred Duranleau: Yes, perhaps, but I
may say that works I have mentioned will not absorb the entire estimate before the house, so it may be that the other question may be taken up in order to help that canalization.


Ernest Lapointe: But the minister cannot point out which part of the program would disappear if this new item is taken up.


Alfred Duranleau: I hope all the items
I have mentioned will be undertaken.


Ernest Lapointe: The minister has a program amounting to SI,250,000. If he starts with the scheme he has just mentioned, namely, the canalization of the St. Charles river, which is a tremendously big undertaking, surely a great deal of his program would have to disappear unless another amount is voted by parliament.
Item 5 agreed to.
Item 6-Western conservation works, $500,000.


George Washington McPhee: Can we have a detailed
explanation of this?


Robert Weir: This has to do with the larger projects, that is dams and works in connection with them. It has to do with larger projects than those that were included under the rehabilitation bill. Information has been received with reference to the different projects that come under this heading and will be reported upon by the advisory committee as soon as it meets in western Canada. I hope this will be next week.


George Washington McPhee: Surely the minister has
something more definite than that. That is a very general statement in connection with an item of $500,000.


Robert Weir: Different applications have been received and projects submitted. For example in the southern part of Alberta we have the Alilk river watershed, the Cypress hills watershed, and the scheme in the vicinity of Drumheller. In Saskatchewan there is one scheme for the Frenchman's river out from Regina. The situation at Estevan is being investigated and there is one scheme in the southern part of Manitoba. But a final decision on these projects will not be made until the advisory committee meets and this information is available to put before them.


Mr. MOTHERWELL:: I am sorry I could not hear the minister's explanation about item number 6, western Conservative works-no, conservation works I mean, but probably they mean the same thing. Is it the Conservative interest that this is intended to censerve, or is it the water or what is it? However I will read my hon. friend's answer in Hansard and it will help me out of my dilemma in interpreting the whole undertaking.


George Washington McPhee: What portion is allotted
to Saskatchewan, what to Alberta and what to Alanitoba?


Robert Weir: That depends upon the advice of the advisory committee.


George Washington McPhee: Who has charge of the
distribution of the money?


Robert Weir: The Department
of Agriculture, under authority of order in council.


Milton Neil Campbell: Under the legislation
passed last week?


Robert Weir: Yes, but for larger projects than, those, that are set out in the rehabilitation bill.


Milton Neil Campbell: I did not hear the minister's answer.


Robert Weir: As I stated before, they are for larger projects than those contemplated under the rehabilitation bill.


Charles Marcil: Does it consist in damming the rivers to conserve the water, is that the idea?


George Washington McPhee: Surely we should have some more definite statement from the minister. We are placing at his disposal half a million
Public Works Program

dollars, and an election is approaching. We need to know exactly what is contemplated by the government. Surely the minister has some data before him.


Robert Weir: I have given the data that I feel is necessary on this project. As far as the election is concerned, his worry about that seems very prominent in his mind-


George Washington McPhee: Yes, knowing the hon.
gentleman as I do.


Robert Weir: I can set his mind at rest on that. The advisory committee in connection with this work will consist of a representative from each of the railroads, from the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Mortgage Companies' Association, from each of the three provincial governments, also an outstanding grain farmer and a rancher from Alberta, the same from Saskatchewan, and a grain farmer from Manitoba. It is on their recommendation that this money will be allocated to works that are considered the most valuable.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is it felt that the $750,000 that was granted under last year's act is not enough?


Robert Weir: This is for larger and more difficult engineering projects.


Mr. DONNELLY:: I hope this will be dealt with a little differently from the $500,000 sent to the Saskatchewan government during the last election. There was $500,000 sent for road work, and I know people who worked on that who had $5,000 or $6,000 in the bank. The father was supposed to be loading a couple of carloads of wheat while at the same time the boys were working on the roads for relief and others who wanted relief could not get work. There was road work going on all over and as soon as the election was over it was stopped. There was even some difficulty after the election in getting work paid for. I hope this relief is not going to be used in that way.
Under the public works program of last year we were supposed to get $675,000 as our part. At that time we were not receiving a sufficient share, as in proportion to the population of Saskatchewan we should have had in the neighbourhood of $4,000,000. I protested then and I protest now. In the same way, in this program something like $17,000,000 is to be spent, the province of Saskatchewan in order to get its fair share should get about $1,750,000 of that. We have here this $225,000 and a part of this $500,000. I do not know what other work
fMr. McPhee.]
we are supposed to get; I assume Saskatchewan will get some of the other. But I hope the minister sees that the province of Saskatchewan gets its just share with regard to this public works program.


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
Item 7-Tunnel at western entrance, Toronto harbour, $1,000,000.
Ross Wilfred Gray: At the risk of taking my life in my hands for questioning a vote to the city of Toronto I rise to voice some criticism of this vote, not simply because it is to the city of Toronto, for when one finds there is an appropriation of some $3,500,000 for Montreal and $1,250,000 for Quebec and other large cities I am satisfied that Toronto should have a vote in the estimates. Before expressing the criticism I have in mind I would like to ask the Minister of Public Works one or two questions regarding this item. I suspect that this tunnel starts from the riding of the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough (Mr. Harris) but I would like to know what points the tunnel connects.


Mr. HARRIS:: If I may interject, as the
hon. gentleman mentioned the member for Tcronto-Scarborough, let me say that this particular tunnel takes the place of a bridge which was in the original contract with the dominion government, the Toronto harbour commissioners and the city of Toronto, known as the 1913 contract which established the Toronto harbour. The tunnel is to start from the foot of Bathurst street, connecting with the island under the western gap, and is many miles from Scarborough. Nevertheless I am supporting it. But it is at the farther end of the city. The bridge might have cost about $900,000 in its day and generation, but a bridge in a very busy port like that of Toronto would have to be raised and lowered some seven thousand times during the year, because the port of Toronto now ranks as one of the greatest ports in the dominion, Montreal being first, then Vancouver, Halifax and St. John, and Toronto ranks with those other great ports, a much greater port as far as tonnage is concerned-


Ross Wilfred Gray: I asked a question of the
minister.


Joseph Henry Harris: -than the port of the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe). The tunnel is needed to give access to Toronto island, fulfilling that particular obligation, and more particularly to give access to the new airport which is being established in Toronto, which in the course of the next generation will be the greatest airport on the North

Public Works Program
American continent. The plans for this airport are completed, they are approved by airport authorities in New York and elsewhere, and they say that we will have the greatest airport anywhere on the North American continent. Croydon airport, at which it was my pleasure to depart and land, will not compare with this airport which is being established in the city of Toronto. It will be just one mile from postal facilities, from steamship and railway facilities, it will be the port with which the United States air lines to and from Buffalo will connect. It will also be the focal point for jitney service as far as air is concerned from the city of Toronto to our own fine airways system which is going to cross this dominion. But a feature is that the ownership of the airport is now vested in the Toronto harbour commission, and they in conjunction with the city of Toronto are ready to go ahead and develop the airport. They already have an appropriation of $100,000 for that, of which they have expended some $40,000 on aprons, and they are starting to establish a seaplane base at the other terminus of this tunnel. Without taking up any more time let me just say to you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Public Works and to the federal government, that the city of Toronto was promised this access in the 1913 contract. We are asking for the amount of money that it would cost to build a bridge-as a matter of fact when you take into account the maintenance of the bridge and capitalize, maintenance of the bridge would cost a great deal more than this tunnel. As far as the work is concerned at least sixty per cent of the cost will be labour, and when you take into account the materials that go into it, it is safe to say that in all eighty per cent will be labour. In conclusion, in answer to my hon. friend's suggestion, it has nothing to do with Scarborough.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I always thought that a tunnel was something under the ground. My hon. friend in his speech has been up in the air for some time.


Joseph Henry Harris: This tunnel happens to be
under the water, the western gap.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I take it that at least one of the termini is Toronto, and I would ask the Minister of Public Works where the other terminal point is.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Toronto. They
are both in Toronto.


Ross Wilfred Gray: What points does it connect? I understand there is an island or something.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The tunnel is
under the western entrance to the Toronto harbour, it connects the mainland with what I think is known as Hanlan's island.


Ross Wilfred Gray: How many permanent residents are there on Hanlan's island?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Would there be one hundred
in the winter time?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Joseph Henry Harris: Half a million visitors in the summer months.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Can the minister tell us
whether this $1,000,000 will be sufficient to complete the tunnel, which according to the press will take two years to construct?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: According to
the plans and estimates prepared by the Toronto harbour commission this should complete the tunnel. I do not know how long it will take actually to carry out the work, but I believe it can be started in the very near future. At the present time there is an enormous traffic between the mainland and the island in the summer time by ferry; in the winter that easy communication, of course, is cut off. Possibly there is not a very large number of permanent residents, but the development of the airport together with other developments that are under way and under consideration I think fully justify the construction of this tunnel, particularly as we are under obligation to construct a bridge, the construction and maintenance of which would cost just about as much and would interfere with traffic in the harbour.


Ross Wilfred Gray: I do not want to take up
a great deal of time, but I think the inclusion of this item must have given even this government cause to reflect. I think probably the promoters were as greatly surprised to find it included as some hon. members of this house must have been. Surely this money could be spent to better advantage than for the construction of a tunnel which will connect not two parts of the mainland but the mainland and a simple pleasure resort where there are very few permanent residents. Surely in the great city of Toronto there must be many [DOT] projects for which this money could be spent to better advantage. I need not enlarge on the beauties of the city of Toronto and the great harbour improvements that have been made in recent years. I know that from this very island the minister has mentioned the International League baseball
Public Works Program

stadium has been removed and built at great cost on the mainland. I know of the great amusement park that has been developed in the west end of Toronto, known as Sunnyside. That project has been carried on at great expense, and that is one of the finest amusement parks on this continent. Now it is proposed to spend $1,000,000 to connect the mainland with this little island, this little summer resort. A few weeks ago the hon. member for East Toronto introduced a resolution in connection with housing, I think largely brought about by the recommendations of Lieutenant Governor Bruce and his committee with regard to housing conditions in the city of Toronto. From page 115 of that report I should like to read a few sentences:
Our survey of Toronto housing conditions reveals that there are thousands of families living in houses which are insanitary, verminous, and grossly overcrowded.... Bad houses are not only a menace; they are active agents of destruction. The committee is satisfied from its investigations and inquiries that they destroy happiness, health and life. They destroy morality and family ties. They destroy the basis of society itself by their destruction of self-respect and their promotion of delinquency and crime.
Again I emphasize that I am not finding fault with the fact that this sum is to be spent in Toronto under this relief act, but I see the Minister of National Revenue in his seat and I ask him if, as compared with this project of building a tunnel from the mainland to the island, he does not think it would be better to .make a start in Toronto with respect to slum clearance, as advocated by the lieutenant governor's committee.


Charles Gavan Power: Give them $2,000,000.


Ross Wilfred Gray: Yes; I do not think there would be much objection to increasing that amount. I doubt if even the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough, who is always interested in matters pertaining to Toronto, would attempt to justify this expenditure. One of the penalties we pay in democracies and parliaments such as this, perhaps, is that we are bound to find no fault with an hon. member who supports something that is in the interests of his own city, but surely if we are to spend money in times like these it must be for useful public works as well as for the relief of unemployment. We can do that by making a start in connection with slum clearance in the city of Toronto. According to the report and the evidence presented to the committee here, of which I had the honour and privilege of being a member, these conditions do exist in the city of Toronto. That being so, Mr. Chairman, would it not be better to let this TMr. Gray.]
vote stand or transfer it or change the wording so as to give the government authority to inaugurate a slum clearance program, instead of proceeding with the construction of this tunnel ?
I shall conclude with this further word. In the press and elsewhere it has been stated that it only required some changes in the municipal act or the public health act in order to bring about cooperation in connection with slum clearance. According to a Canadian Press dispatch appearing in to-day's newspapers, under date of April 16, Mr. Heigh-ington, provincial member for Toronto St. David, introduced an amendment to the Ontario Unemployment Relief Act, as follows:
Subject to the approval of the lieutenant governor in council, any municipality may as a relief work measure undertake or participate in any scheme for abolition of slum areas or for housing in the municipality which may be inaugurated or aided by the government of Ontario or by the municipality itself and the provisions of this act shall apply to expenditures of the municipality for such purposes.
The provincial government have accepted that amendment offered by Mr. Heighington, who was a member of the committee formed by Lieutenant Governor Bruce. That does away with all the legal obstacles that might stand in the way of a program of slum clearance. I could speak at greater length on this matter, but I do not think it necessary; I think this committee as a whole believes that it would be to the better advantage of the city of Toronto if this amount of money were utilized for slum clearance instead of for the construction of this tunnel.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: This vote is provided in satisfaction of an obligation entered into many years ago.


An hon. MEMBER:: How many years?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: In 1913. An order in council, which dealt with the development of the harbour of Toronto and other matters, is the foundation of the action now proposed. My hon. friend suggests that we might embark on a program of slum clearance. I think he knows there a.re many difficulties in the way, if he was a member of that housing committee which made a report. The dominion government cannot walk into the city of Toronto and undertake to clean up the slums. That is something that must be done by cooperation between the provincial government and the municipal authorities. I know oareful consideration will be given the recommendations made by the committee which has had this matter under consideration, and I

Public Works Program
would hope that my hon. friend would be patient enough to wait and see whether some developments will not take place as a result of those recommendations and the possible legislation that may be founded on it. This vote cannot be switched, as the hon. member has suggested.


John Campbell Elliott: I should like to ask the minister if he happens to have with him the agreement to which he refers and the departmental references to the different other things that have been done by way of implementing that agreement, together with the amount of money that has been expended.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have not a copy of the order in council, which was PjC. 1426 of June 10, 1913. Since that time part of the scheme has been carried out.


John Campbell Elliott: I have some knowledge of the agreement to which my hon. friend refers, and I know that it will be found among the departmental records together with an account of the different interviews that have taken place since that time between representatives of the city and the department. I was wondering if the minister would have before him details as to the amount which has been expended by the dominion at the request of the city as a means of implementing the agreement which was never completed between the department and the city of Toronto. I do not think there can be any doubt about the value of the harbour in the city of Toronto, but when I look at these immense sums of money I begin to wonder, and I should think the Minister of Finance is beginning to wonder, where the money for all these tremendous expenditures will come from, especially in view of the huge debt we now face.


William Duff: Borrow it.


John Campbell Elliott: It will have to be borrowed, but I am beginning to doubt whether it will ever be repaid. That is a problem which is facing the people of this country and I am wondering how the taxpayers will view the expenditure of millions of dollars for purposes such as have been explained by the hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough. I wonder if the minister would state the departmental reason for including the expenditure in the present measure. Has it been recommended by departmental officials as something necessary in the present situation, in view of the financial circumstances of the country? Is it part of an arrangement which was originally contemplated on June 10, 1913? If in the years we have had surpluses since
that time-and twenty-two years have passed *-it has not been earned out, does the minister think this is the appropriate time to proceed to carry out a project of that kind, even if there were some obligation which had not been fulfilled by the department? What reason does the minister give for this vote at the present time? Has he any records before him to show what has been done since 1913 by way of carrying out the obligations entered into but not completed?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Replying first
to the last question, I would say that I have no memorandum of the expenditures over the intervening years. I shall be pleased to get that information and furnish it to the hon. member. I am afraid, however, I must take the hon. member back to the consideration of the main purpose behind the bill, the principle of which I thought had been accepted unanimously by this house and by practically all the people of Canada, namely that for the purpose of relieving unemployment it is desirable to undertake the prosecution and carrying out of public works rather than the expenditure of moneys for direct relief.


John Campbell Elliott: Of needed public works.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of useful,
needed public works and public services. Some suggestions have been made that unnecessary works, and works which are not self-liquidating or useful, should be undertaken. Certainly that accusation cannot be made concerning the works outlined in the bill. There is to be the development of an airport, a type of work which will furnish a very large volume of employment for a considerable period of time and is calculated to relieve unemployment. Am I to understand that because of some financial difficulties he sees in the way my hon. friend is condemning the expenditures under this bill? Does he say no money should be spent? Does he say the 818,000,000 mentioned in the bill to be expended on public works is too great an amount? On the other hand will he say it is too little? What substitute would he offer for the relief of unemployment? I repeat that the particular type of work now under consideration is the type calculated to relieve unemployment. It is useful and productive work and comes within that class which I think should meet with the approval of hon. members.


Robert Charles Matthews: May I give the information for which the hon. member has asked? I believe he inquired what work had been done by the government of Can-
Public Works Program

ada and the costs in connection with the Toronto harbour. As a former minister of public works he will recall that an agreement was made with the city of Toronto in 1913, and PjC. 1426 was passed. The works completed to date by the federal government are as follows-and T. shall not go into details-


John Campbell Elliott: May I suggest that this
is not a mere bagatelle; it is a large item. The committee cannot deal with it intelligently without first knowing the history. The hon. member for Toronto-Scarborough bases his ri^ht to have the amount voted upon an old agreement and what has taken place since that time.


Robert Charles Matthews: In a few words I shall attempt to describe to the committee the main events. In 1912 the Toronto Harbour Commissioners presented to the dominion government their plans for waterfront improvements. At that time the federal government was requested to undertake the following works:	The western breakwater
from the Humber river to the western channel; an eastern sea wall from the eastern channel to Woodbine avenue; a ship channel, turning basin and marginal way walls in the eastern harbour terminal area; bascule bridges at the eastern and western channel entrances to Toronto harbour.
The recommendation was approved by P.C. 1426 dated June 10, 1913. The works to be performed by the city of Toronto were covered by an agreement dated December 14, 1914, and validated by the provincial Iegis-ture on April 8, 1916. The work to be done by the city covered the improvement of about 800 acres of park lands, the construction of a boulevard drive from the Humber river to Woodbine Avenue via Toronto island; a bascule bridge at Cherry street and works of a minor nature.
The work undertaken by the commissioners consisted of the reclamation of industrial and commercial sites from Bathurst street easterly, including the eastern harbour terminals with an area of over 1,000 acres, and the dockage development and reclamation on the inner harbour waterfront between Bathurst and Cherry streets. The works completed to date by the federal government are as follows:	Breakwater; ship channel;
turning basin and marginal way walls. The works yet to be undertaken by the federal government as provided by P.C. 1426 are as follows:
(1) Construction of bascule bridges at the western and eastern channel entrances to Toronto harbour.

'(2) Construction of the eastern sea wall from tihe eastern channel to Woodbine avenue.
The haribour commissioners have completed the reclamation of over 80 per cent of the projected works and constructed the dock walls and slips from Bathurst street to Yonge street including the bulkhead wall from Yonge street easterly to Parliament street. They have also constructed a bridge over the ship channel and completed Fleet street as a orosstown artery from Bathurst street to Cherry street, and Keating and Commissioners streets from Cherry street easterly to Leslie street.
I shall not weary the committee with further details, other than to say that the expenditures by the parties to the agreement to date are as follows:	The Toronto harbour
commission has spent $28,600,000; the federal government $8,000,000; the city of Toronto, including their share of grade separation costs, $8,000,000. I do not wish to delay the committee, but I consider this work to be of very great importance. Out of an expenditure of over forty million dollars the dominion government has spent only $8,000,000 and the financial set-up therefore is favourable to the dominion government. At the present time it is necessary either to construct a bridge to connect the western part of the island with the mainland, or something else to take the place of the abandoned idea of the bascule bridge. The tunnel is very much cheaper than the bridge, and the city has undertaken to assume the cost of maintenance, including paving and ventilation, thereby reducing the cost to the federal government to approximately $1,000,000.


Mr. RALSTON:: Why is it necessary at the present time?


Robert Charles Matthews: Besides the question
of unemployment you have in the western part of Toronto island probably the best site for an airplane and seaplane base that there is on the North American continent. This is the considered opinion of engineers, and some work has already been done by the city of Toronto.


James Layton Ralston: We are restricting aviation.


Robert Charles Matthews: But some time soon it will develop. I shall be glad to give any other information, Mr. Chairman, but as previously stated I do not wish to delay the committee.


John Campbell Elliott: Nor do I, Mr. Chairman,
but I do think in connection with an item

Public Works Program
of this kind we should be given what we have not been given up to the present time, some satisfactory reason why this government is making an appropriation of this kind. I am .fairly familiar with what has taken place in regard to this harbour in the last number of years, and I want to say to my hon friend there are very many urgent projects demanding expenditure at the present time. We seemed to have difficulty in voting the first item of one million dollars for railway grade crossings to save the lives of the people of this country, a sum that I think was altogether inadequate for the purpose. Then there is item No. 7 for a tunnel at the western entrance of Toronto harbour. That is not a new matter. It has been under discussion, as my hon. friend very correctly said, since away back in 1913.


Robert Charles Matthews: And in recent years.


Mr. SPENCE:: Let us get on with the business.


John Campbell Elliott: If my hon. friend will
possess his soul in patience for just a minute I will get through with what I have to say in the shortest possible space of time, but I intend to say it. I do not say that it was the worst argument that the Minister of Public Works ever made, but it was one of the worst, and I have heard him make some that I would not compliment him on. He made this suggestion in regard to my remarks:	Was I, simply because I was asking
for some explanation about this vote, objecting to the whole program? I submit that that is not a wise way to take up the time of the committee.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It was not in answer to my hon. friend's request for information at all. He launched out upon an inquiry where the money was to come from and how the taxpayers were to provide it, and it was in answer to that I spoke.


John Campbell Elliott: That does not help his argument a bit.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It makes it worse.


John Campbell Elliott: It could not make it any worse, but certainly it does not improve it, and what it needed was improvement if it was to have any weight. The minister says: Because you object to this and ask for an explanation in regard to it, I take it that you are opposed to this whole $18,000,000 program.
I will tell my hon. friend what I am opposed to. I am opposed to votes like this being 92582-182
introduced as this was introduced, when the members on this side could not get a copy of the bill until yesterday morning, and then on the word of one or two gentlemen that there was some understanding away back twenty-three years ago, which was never carried out during all the good times when money was plentiful-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It is not on the word of any hon. gentlemen. It is upon the records as shown by the order in council.


John Campbell Elliott: On behalf of my friend from Toronto-Scarborough I rather resent that statement, because I take it that when he made those remarks they were made on the word of an hon. gentleman, and that is what he told us. I am not going to delay the committee, but I think, Mr. Chairman, that this item ought to be cut out or stand until such time as the committee is given some satisfactory explanation in regard to it.


Mr. EULER:: There is no doubt that the construction of this tunnel will be a great convenience for perhaps a comparatively small number of Toronto people who will use it, but it seems to me that in connection with all the items that are on this program we ought to observe two factors particularly: first, is the work necessary and useful having regard to the amount of money which is to be expended; secondly, and this is also important, will it give the maximum amount of work for the amount of money that is to be expended? I was reading at the moment an editorial from the Toronto Clobe which touches on this very question of the tunnel. It is headed, Both Tunnel and Ferry, and reads in part as follows:
In these days of obligatory economy in the expenditure of public funds, Toronto is providing for the rest of the country a flagrant example of how not to economize. With becoming modesty, Mayor Simpson claims he played a part in inducing the dominion government to vote $1,100,000 for the building of a tunnel between the city and the island; and but a few days ago he and council authorized the expenditure of $77,000 on a new island ferry boat. Either the tunnel or the boat is not needed.
My suggestion is this:	Since Toronto has
already appropriated the money and made a contract for the building of a ferry boat which will serve the purpose which this tunnel is intended to serve-


Mr. GEARY:: You know better than that.


William Daum Euler: I do not know better than that, though perhaps sometimes I do know some things better than the Toronto Globe does. The Toronto Globe says that either

Public Works Program

one or the other is unnecessary. Now if they have already voted for a ferry boat, and if that ferry boat is going to serve the purpose intended here so far as transportation is concerned, would it not be better for the balance of that $1,100,000 to be expended in the city of Toronto for other relief work which would provide the employment that this tunnel would give?


James Houston Spence: That argument was put up by the Toronto Globe for the purpose of defeating the purchase of the boat to Ward's island at a cost of $77,000. I hope hon. gentlemen will be fair with Toronto. We do not ask for much and we get but very little. There is no city in Canada which has developed so fast or which has spent money so freely as Toronto. I do not wish to take up the time of the committee but I hope hon. members will	let this	go	through.	This
tunnel is an absolute necessity as it will provide access to a landing field and furnish a lot of employment.


William Richard Motherwell: I do not pretend to know much about tunnels or the political underworld works generally. Some years ago I spent a weekend in a beautiful summer hotel on Hanlan's point and the impression I got was that there	was	a considerabledistance between the mainland and Hanlan's point. I would not care to guess at the distance as I	am not	familiar with	waterdistances but	possibly	the	minister	could
tell us.


Robert Charles Matthews: The areoplane landing field will be only a mile and a half from the centre of the city.


William Richard Motherwell: I would have had made a guess of two miles.


Robert Charles Matthews: That is not a mile and a half by water.


William Richard Motherwell: I can speak from experience and observation in this connection, both federally and provincially. These estimates are generally about one-half of what is finally required and I do not think we should be asked to vote a million dollars to build a tunnel unless we know what it is for and how much it will really cost.


James Houston Spence: It will not cost any more than a million dollars.


William Richard Motherwell: We should know whether it is to accommodate the people by means of a railway service, a street car service, a motor service, a bicycle service or a foot-path. I can remember when the former government came into power late in
rMr. Euler. 1
1921. We found a large number of these started and carried-over contracts and we had either to put them through or abandon them. Whatever party comes back to power after the elections will have this contract to take care of for an amount much larger than this estimate. I think the hon. member for North Waterloo (Mr. Euler) was quite correct when he said that this money should be spent on something more useful, something actually necessary and something which would provide the most employment.


Milton Neil Campbell: Mr. Chairman-


Robert James Manion: There are six or seven hon. members up at the same time.


Milton Neil Campbell: Is there not a tunnel at this spot at the present time?
Mr. 3TBWART (Leeds): No.


Milton Neil Campbell: I understand there is a seven foot tunnel.


George Reginald Geary: There may be a tunnel for a water pipe.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I think there is a water pipe tunnel.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman-*


Robert James Manion: It is obvious you are blocking it.


William Duff: Mr. Chairman, despite the remarks of the Minister of Railways (Mr. Manion) which he is not polite enough to get up on his feet to make, it seems to me that the expenditure of a million dollars is rather an important matter. I can remember when the Minister of Railways talked for half an hour on the expenditure of $10,000.


Robert James Manion: What was the item?


William Duff: The item was something in connection with the railways and my hon. friend talked for half an hour.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member is just depending on his memory.


William Duff: I am afraid the minister has no memory. He has had a lapse of memory while I have not; I can remember it quite well.


Robert James Manion: The hon. member's lapses are of a different kind.


William Duff: The minister has no lapses because he cannot have any. Let us get on. It is very undignified for a privy counsellor and a minister of the crown to sit in his seat

King George V Cancer Fund
and interfere with a private member of this house. I resent it, just the same as the minister recently resented some words of the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press.


Robert James Manion: I will rise this time. The next time I want a lesson on dignity I will go to my hon. friend.


William Duff: I hope the minister does for I can teach him many things he does not know. It seems to me that the expenditure of a million dollars is rather important. What I cannot understand at the moment is why the federal government should spend this amount to connect one part of the city of Toronto with an island which belongs to the city. That is not a federal matter at all and this government has no right to vote a million dollars to connect one part of the city of Toronto with another part, whether it be an open field or an island. This island is just a playground and it has no federal significance whatever. I should like the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Matthews) or the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) to tell me why this government should spend a million dollars for a purely civic purpose.
Mr. SPEN'CE: This is to fulfil an agreement entered into years ago. I was a member of the city council of Toronto in 1913 and I attended every meeting at which this matter was discussed. Surely hon. members would not want to get out of a deal which was made at that particular time, even if there was no unemployment. The difficulty was that the people of Toronto could not decide whether there should be a bridge or a tunnel, while others wanted nothing at all. The government was committed to two bridges and we are asking for only one tunnel. A bridge would cost at least $800,000 while a considerable amount would be needed to keep it up. The tunnel will cost only a million dollars and it will be there forever and will be maintained by the city. Surely hon. members will let this item through and not keep us here all night.


William Duff: It is not a matter of getting the item through, it is not a matter of what happened in 1913.


James Houston Spence: It is a fair proposition.


William Duff: I want to know what right the federal government has to ask the taxpayers of Canada to build a tunnel for the city of Toronto. This is a purely civic matter and as far as I have heard this afternoon it has nothing to do with the federal government.
92582-182}
I should like to know what right the federal government has to spend a million dollars to build a tunnel from the mainland in Toronto to a little island ten feet or a hundred feet away.


Robert James Manion: It is for the same reason that we built the Montreal harbour bridge at a cost of $19,000,000 when the late government had said it was going to cost only $9,000,000.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The province of Quebec and the city of Montreal paid their share of that bridge.


William Duff: That is a silly answer.


Robert James Manion: If it is silly enough my hon. friend ought to appreciate it. I think it is obvious who is blocking this bill. The Liberal opposition must take full responsbility for this.


William Duff: We are not willing to take the responsibility of letting the Minister of Railways say that the situation in Toronto is the same as that which pertained in connection with the Montreal bridge. The Montreal bridge was to connect one part of the St. Lawrence river with another.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No, no.


An hon. MEMBER:: That is wrong.


William Duff: I am answering the Minister of Railways. I do not intend to allow the minister to close this debate with any such remark as that.


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: It is quite obvious that we cannot finish the debate on this measure in the few seconds remaining before the time for adjournment. Therefore. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Progress reported.



KING GEORGE Y CANCER FUND


Edgar Nelson Rhodes: The acting Prime Minister (Sir George Perley) had to proceed to the Senate chamber. He has prepared a statement which he intended to make and he has asked me to read it in his stead. It is as follows:
A few days ago I referred to the King George V Cancer Fund and the appeal that is being made by Their Excellencies, the Governor General and Lady Bessborough for subscriptions to it.
In view of the great interest that has been taken throughout the dominion in the twenty-fifth anniversary of His Majesty's accession
The Royal Assent

to the throne and the desire of the citizens of this country to associate themselves with His Majesty in his deep concern for the well being of his subjects, particularly as this fund is, by the special desire of His Majesty himself, to be used to assist in the eradication of the dread disease of cancer in this country, the government has decided to recommend to parliament that the sum of $100,000 be voted as a special thank offering gift from the entire population of this country to the King George V Cancer Fund for Canada.


William Lyon Mackenzie King: I should like to say in regard to the announcement that has just been made, hon. members on this side are in entire sympathy with the action the government has taken in that regard.



UNEMPLOYMENT RELIEF

Wesley Ashton Gordon: If I may have the unanimous consent of the house to revert to motions, I wish to table the report of the dominion commissioner on unemployment relief. This is the last day under the act for tabling the report, Unfortunately, by reason of pressure of business in the printing bureau, these are only advance copies and some corrections will have to be made in them. In the course of the next three or four days final copies will be printed and I shall see that they are mailed to hon. members.
I also desire to table a number of orders in council pursuant to the Relief Act.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major A. R. Thompson, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, His Honour, the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the house went up to the Senate.
And having returned.
Mr. SPEAKER informed the house that the deputy of His Excellency the Governor General had been pleased to give in His Majesty's name the royal assent to the following bills:
An Act to amend The Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, 1934.
An Act to establish an- Economic Council.
An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.
An Act to amend The Gold Export Act.
An Act to provide for the rehabilitation of drought and soil drifting areas in the Provinces of Manitoba. Saskatchewan and Alberta.
(Mr. Rhodes.l
An Act to provide for the deduction from compensation in the Public Service.
An Act to amend the Income War Tax Act (Special Tax).
An Act to amend the Canadian Farm Loan Act.
An Act respecting Radio Broadcasting.
An Act to amend The Copyright Amendment Act, 1931.
An Act respecting the Canadian National Railways and to authorize the provision of moneys to meet expenditures made and indebtedness incurred during the calendar year, 1935.
An Act for granting to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1936.
On motion of Mr. Rhodes the house adjourned at 6.15 until Monday, May 20, 1935, at 3 p.m., daylight saving time.
Monday, May 20, 1935