1935-05-22

[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. G. ERNST (Queens-Lunenburg) presented the third and fourth reports of the select standing committee on marine and fisheries as follows:
Third Report
Your committee has had under consideration Bill No. 17, an Act to amend the Fisheries Act, 1932. Representations in the form of briefs have been submitted by the different interests concerned in the legislation contemplated, and a statement of the policy of the department has been made to the committee on the matter. After consideration, your committee is of the opinion that the public interest, as a whole, would not best be served by the passing of the proposed legislation.
Your committee, therefore, has agreed to report, on division, that the necessity for the amendment to the Fisheries Act, 1932, as contained in Bill No. 17, has not been proven to the satisfaction of your committee and should not be passed.
Fourth Report
Your committee has had under consideration the following resolution, referred to your committee by the house on Wednesday, February 6th:-
_ "That,' in the opinion of this house, in the interests of the fishermen of Nova Scotia, no permits should be granted on renewed with those who own and operate beam trawlers in the province of Nova Scotia."
Your committee has agreed to report that, whereas the royal commission on price spreads and mass buying has investigated the subject matter of the said resolution and made a report thereon, which may be the subject of discussion and consideration by parliament, your committee is of the opinion that no useful purpose would be served by further investigation of the said matter by your committee at the present session of parliament.


Mr. R. S. WHITE (Mount Royal) moved:: That the petition of Lona Marie Vaughan Gravina of Montreal, Quebec, praying for a bill of divorce from Piero Franco Gravina, 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 (c) in relation thereto.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. ONESIME GAGNON (Dorchester) moved:: That the petition of the Community General Hospital, Alms House and Seminary of Learning of the Sisters of Charity at Ottawa, praying for the passing of an act to increase the limitation of the value of property they are 
allowed to hold, 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 (c) in relation thereto.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Carried.


Mr. JEAN FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-couata):: No. I strenuously object to this motion, and I shall tell the house why. We are here to enact legislation of interest to the country. We are not to be bothered or disturbed by private legislation. Since confederation it has been the tradition that divorce bills must come before this house. I do not see why private legislation concerning private property should come before us. That is a matter entirely provincial in character and which should be dealt with by the provincial government of the province of Ontario, if in fact, the property is in that province.
Sir, we are wasting most precious time over private legislation. In the province of Quebec there have been enactments to change the names of Jews to Gordon or Dunning, and in that way to make Scotchmen out of them. We are not to stand for that kind of legislation in this chamber. Last year we had some legislation incorporating a Stavisky Loan Society, in which a man named Cutten was interested, and who was praised by members of the cabinet. We have no time to waste on such private legislation. Whomever it may come from must be served with that notice. We have too much important public legislation to consider to waste our time on private legislation. That is not a threat. It is a notice to interested' parties and to those who are asking for such legislation. We have reassembled after an adjournment of five weeks, not to deal with private legislation, but to get on with the public business, and I strongly object to this motion and make this formal protest, which I shall have other occasions to repeat.
Mr. GAGNOiN:	Mr. Speaker, with the
permission of the house, may I be allowed to say a word?


Mr. SPEAKER:: As the question is not debatable I should have stopped the hon. member a little sooner. Shall the motion carry?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, on division.


Mr. ANGUS MacINNIS (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave under

Unemployment Relief Camps
standing order 31 to move the adjournment of the bouse to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, to call the attention of the house and the government to the acute situation in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, due to the presence in that city of a large number of men from the unemployment relief camps who are destitute and for whom the city authorities can make no provision, creating a situation which endangers the peace.
Right- Hon. R. B. BENNETT (Prime Minister):	Mr. Speaker, I submit that the
motion is out of order having regard to the terms of the standing order to which reference has been made. The hon. gentleman has just sent me a copy of his proposal. In looking at standing order 31, I think it is quite clear that a motion under this standing order must relate to a matter that is of recent occurrence and must not revive discussion on a matter that has been discussed. May I observe first that this is not a matter of recent occurrence.
Secondly, may I point out that the hon. gentleman suggests that it creates a situation which endangers the peace. That is a matter over which this parliament has not control. As I pointed out yesterday, it is a matter solely within the jurisdiction of the province and of the municipality which is created by the province.
Lastly, if there is any grievance which the hon. gentleman has, he has adequate opportunity for the airing of those grievances at the appropriate time when the house is moved into committee of supply.
I think, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is not within the rule but comes within the exceptions.


Mr. J. S. WOODSWORTH (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that- this is not a matter that has been discussed. It is quite true that there was some reference yesterday to the situation, but it was not discussed; there was simply a statement made by the Prime Minister. Further than that, the -condition of the camps in British Columbia was discussed at some length six weeks or so ago before this house took an adjournment, but there have been some very decided developments within the last few weeks in British Columbia. A large number of men who had been in the camps have gone to the city of Vancouver-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Will the hon. member
be good enough to restrict himself to the point of order and not speak to the facts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to point out that this matter has not been discussed before in the house and that it is of recent occurrence. I said that the situation is entirely different from what it was a few weeks ago, and within the last few days the situation has become very acute.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


James Shaver Woodsworth: I have had telegrams to that effect.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Order. The hon. member is really discussing the motion itself. Will he confine himself to the point of order, whether this motion is in order?


James Shaver Woodsworth: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I submit that this is an urgent matter. Only yesterday we heard from the Prime Minister's own lips that a large contingent of mounted police had been sent in, and if this situation continues there will be bloodshed. Surely, Mr. Speaker, when there is bloodshed threatened, when the mayor of Vancouver-


Pierre Édouard Blondin: I have made it quite clear to the hon. member, and I am sure he is not desirous of evading my ruling, that he must confine himself to the point of order and not speak to the facts.


James Shaver Woodsworth: My point of order Mr. Speaker, I repeat is that the urgency of the situation brings it within the rule. Only this morning I had a wire myself from the mayor of the city of Vancouver pointing out the seriousness of the situation, and on account of this urgency I submit that the motion of my hon. friend comes well within the rule. We cannot as a house now in session refuse to discuss a matter of such urgency without taking an enormous responsibility for anything that may transpire within the next few days. I think the motion is quite clearly within the rules. It was for just such emergencies as this that the rule was designed.


Hon. ERNEST LAPOINTE (Quebec East):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of this kind I submit that we are in this difficulty, that we do not yet know what the facts are and we have to be governed by what is contained in the motion moved by the hon. gentleman. In his motion he refers to the acute situation in the city of Vancouver, British Columbia, due to the presence in that city of a large number of men from the unemployment relief camps who are destitute and for whom the city authorities can make no provision, creating a situation which endangers the peace. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if that is so there you have the two conditions which are
Unemployment R'pliej Camps

required to make this motion one which might be discussed by the house, namely, the urgency and the importance of the situation. Those are the two conditions which are required by the rule. There is certainly great urgency and there is certainly considerable importance in the matter which is mentioned in the motion. I would refer Your Honour to section 249 of Beauehesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which says:
In doubtful cases, the question of urgency and of importance are left for the house to decide by giving or withholding its support.
I submit that this is a question as to which this house should decide whether it is urgent and important, in the language of the rule.


Hon. HUGH GUTHRIE (Minister of Justice) :: Mr. Speaker, there are just one or two matters I would like to point out in regard to this motion. The motion recites that there is an acute situation in the city of Vancouver due to the presence in that city of a large number of men from the unemployment relief camps who are destitute and for whom the city authorities can make no provision. That is the first point. Secondly, the motion says that that creates a situation which endangers the peace. Now7 this parliament has no control over either of these situations. Destitution in the city of Vancouver is not a matter within the jurisdiction of this parliament, and the peace and the maintenance of peace in the city of Vancouver is a matter for the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia.
My suggestion is that while this may be a very important question it should be presented and discussed in the parliament of the province of British Columbia rather than here.


Mr. MACKENZIE KING:: I should like to ask the Minister of Justice (Mr. Guthrie) if it is not a fact that the present administration has taken to itself special powers to deal in these times with peace, order and good government?


Mr. BENNETT:: That is another thing
altogether.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, whether or
not this motion is in order depends upon two or three points. First of all, it must be a specific matter and of- recent occurrence. Second, it must be of such urgency that it would require to be dealt with immediately. I contend that this is a specific matter and of recent occurrence, it having developed within the last day or two. I contend also that it is of such importance that the government should deal with it at this particular time. The government may take the position that the main-

taining of order is a matter for the city of Vancouver and the province of British Columbia but the government has been asked for assistance in maintaining order and to that extent the government enters into the question. If further disturbances occur the government will be asked for further assistance and consequently this matter very definitely concerns the government. Outside of the broad implications of the whole question I believe that for these reasons the matter should be discussed in the house.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Before ruling on this matter I should like to thank the hon. member who is responsible for this motion for having the courtesy to let me have a copy of it prior to the opening of the house, thus affording me an opportunity of giving some consideration to this important matter. I only wish that my duties were so simple that I could leave the question of urgency to be settled by the house, but unfortunately the rules place the duty upon the Speaker of deciding this matter. The question of urgency is covered by subsection (3) of standing order 31, which reads:
He then hands a written statement of the matter proposed to be discussed to Mr. Speaker, who, if he thinks it in order, and of urgent public importance, reads it out and asks whether the member has the leave of the house.
The question of urgency must for the moment be settled by me, although according to a precedent established before the recess my decision in the matter can be overruled by the house. I agree that the matter is of tremendous importance and urgency but I cannot agree with the proposer, Mr. Maclnnis, that the matter dealt with has arisen within the last day or two. The gravity of the situation may have increased recently but the events referred to are not of recent origin. The events referred to in the motion first happened when the men left the relief camps some time around April 10th last. To bring this motion within standing order 31 the matter proposed to be discussed must be of recent origin. May, page 227, as quoted in paragraph 240 of Beau-chesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms has this to say:
A motion under this standing order must be restricted to a single specific matter of recent occurrence;
I find that this motion does not come within that authority. All hon. members are aware that while this matter was not discussed formally in debate it was covered pretty fully by a statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Bennett). I should like to quote one or two paragraphs from that state-

Unemployment Relief Camps
ment. I refer the house to page 2922 of Hansard of May 21 where the Prime Minister is quoted as follows:
I have drafted a communication to the premier of British Columbia in which I have endeavoured to point out that if the province fails in its duty to prevent a condition of chaos and anarchy arising, if they fail in their duty to maintain law and order in the province of British Columbia, it will only be because they have not availed themselves of the opportunity of requesting the federal government to lend them such assistance as may be required for that purpose, for until that is done any action on the part of this dominion would he wholly illegal and would be a compromising of our own position with those who may themselves be violating the law.
I direct the attention of the house to the last part of that statement. The Prime Minister continues:
The differences and difficulties, whatever they may be, the federal government will be glad to consider with the provincial government, but it is a condition precedent to any such action that law and order be maintained by those who are responsible for it, and if they are unable to do so that they call upon the federal government for such assistance as will enable them to do so.
I quote those particular paragraphs because of the following which appears at page 248 of May, Thirteenth Edition:
Motions have also been ruled out of order when it appeared that the administrative responsibility of the government was not involved, or that there had not been any departure from the ordinary administration of the law.
The precedents quoted at the bottom of the same page are as follows:
Motions have been held out of order as the subject sought to be raised was within the cognizance of the parliament of Northern Ireland. 154 H.C. Deb. 5 s 1894; the Irish Free State, 152 ib. 2435; 154 ib. 529; a matter for the local police, 120 ib. 261; a labour dispute in which the government was under no obligation to intervene, 162 ib. 33; 166 ib. 450.
The maintenance of law and order is admittedly a matter for the provincial and municipal authorities. The subject matter of this motion is therefore, in my opinion, provincial, not federal, and the motion is on the authority just referred to, not in order. I should have pointed out previously that the statement of the Prime Minister already referred to makes it quite clear that the government has been aware for some time of the matters referred to in the motion. For some weeks past the federal officials have been kept advised of the state of local affairs by the Mayor of Vancouver and the Premier of British Columbia. These are further facts which induce me to rule that this motion does not come within the authority first quoted. I
am also of the opinion that the matter is one of departmental administration and not one for legislative action by this parliament. For these various reasons and above authorities I am therefore constrained to rule that this motion is not in order.


Angus MacInnis: I must appeal against Your Honour's ruling.


Pierre Édouard Blondin: Having decided that the motion submitted by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis) under standing order 31 is out of order, the hon. member appeals from that ruling.


Mr. RALSTON:: I was paired with the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Rhodes). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. McPHEE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Regina (Mr. Turnbull). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling and to sustain the motion moved by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Maclnnis).


Mr. GARDINER:: I was paired with the
hon. member for North Oxford (Mr. Sutherland). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ERNST:: I was paired with the hon
member for North Timiskaming (Mr. Bradette). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. ROWE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Beauce (Mr. Lacroix). Had I voted. I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. LUCAS:: I was paired with the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Chaplin). Had I voted,	I	would	have	voted	against	the
Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MacDONALD (Cape Breton):: I was paired with the hon. member for Colchester (Mr. Urquhart). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. IRVINE:: I was paired with the Minister of Marine (Mr. Duranleau). Had I voted,	I	would	have	voted	against	the
Speaker's ruling.


Mr. HEAPS:: I	was paired with the hon.
member for East Calgary (Mr. Stanley). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CAMPBELL:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox (Mr. Weese). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. McINTOSH:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Kennedy). Had	I voted, I	would have
voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. MacLEAN:: I was paired with the
hon, member for Royal (Mr. Jones). Had I voted,	I	would	have	voted	against	the
Speaker's ruling.

Questions


Mr. SMOKE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. STINSON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for South Bruce (Mr. Hail). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Howard). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CANTLEY:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. 'Cardin). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SPOTTON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. MacMillan). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SAUVE (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Seguin). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. COWAN:: 1.	Has the governor in council exercised the right of disallowance of acts of a provincial legislature as set out in sections 55, 56 and 90, of the^ British North America Act?
2.	What acts have been disallowed and what was the subject matter of the legislation?
3.	In what provinces was such legislation passed and the date thereof?


Mr. GUTHRIE:: 1.	Yes.
2.	Full information covering the years 1867 to 1920 is contained in two volumes entitled "Correspondence, Reports of the Minister of Justice, and Orders in Council upon the subject of Provincial Legislation," which are to be found in the parliamentary library.
Since the year 1920, the following provincial acts have 'beeen disallowed.
Dates of
Year Chap.	Title	approval


Mr. DUPRE (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, had I not been paired with the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. Ferland), I would have voted to sustain the ruling of the chair.


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


Mr. DUPUIS (Translation):: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. McDade). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speakers ruling.
Mr. HURTUBB3E (Translation): I was paired with the bon. member for North Renfrew (Mr. Cotnam). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


BANK ACT AMENDMENT
[Stage Direction]
Nova Scotia
1921	177 An act to vest certain lands in Victoria county in Jane E. MacNeil. .21st October, 1922
1922	14	An act to amend
chapter 81, Revised Statutes, 1900, "Of the use of roads.". 5th August 1922
40	An act to amend
chapter 12, acts of 1918, "The Motor Vehicle Act, 1918," and acts in amendment thereof_____5th August,
Alberta
Mr. G. G. COOTE (Macleod) moved for leave to introduce Bill No. 69, to. amend the Bank Act.
Some hon. MEMBERS:: Explain.


Mr. COOTE:: The purpose of this bill is to strike out from the Bank Act section 138 which provides that any person except a bank to which the act applies, who issues any instrument intended to circulate as money, or to be used as a substitute for money, shall be liable to a fine of S400.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.
92582-189}
1923	32 An act to impose a
tax upon minerals. 29th April, 1924
British Columbia
1921	49 An act to validate
and confirm certain orders in council and provisions relating to the employment of persons on crown
property	31st March,
3. Answered by No. 2.
Questions



FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT

Mr. BOULANGER:: What was the total cost, by province, of the administration of the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act, from October 1, 1934, to April 1, 1935?


Mr. CAHAN (for Mr. Rhodes):: British Columbia	 S 12,117 04
Alberta	
33,602	18Saskatchewan	
53,978	73Manitoba	
21,895	19Ontario	
58,745	07Quebec	
51,385	17New Brunswick	
5.989	36Prince Edward Island...	2,077	65Nova Scotia	
4,725	86Head office and general..	24,645	84



$269,142 09 SOLDIER SETTLEMENT BOARD

Mr. McINTOSH:: 1.	How many members of the soldier settle-board staff were dismissed since July, 1930?
2.	What was the average length of service the male members had spent in the service?
3.	How many new male members have been taken on during that time?
4.	How many of the latter are (a) returned soldiers; (b) soldier settlers?


Mr. MANION (for Mr. Gordon):: 1.	131.
2.	6-2 years.
3.	18.
4.	(a) 13; (b) 6.



MALBAIE, QUE., WHARF

Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	What are the names and addresses of persons or companies who submitted tenders for works at the Malbaie wharf, Gaspe county, in 1934?
2.	What was the amount of each tender?
3.	To whom was the contract awarded?


Mr. STEWART (Leeds):: 1 and 2. Dumont & Damours, Enrg., Riviere du Loup Centre, $25,335.60; Ludger Lemieux Limitee, Quebec, 828,998; J. T. Langlois and A. E. Michel, Port Daniel Centre, $30,679.50; Lewis Maloney, Barachois West, 831,369.70; A. J. & Alfred Maloney, Barachois West, S36,401.31.
3.	Messrs. Dumont & Damours, Enrg.



ISLAND AT ST. EUSTACHE, QUE.

Jean-François Pouliot: Who owns the island shown on plan of mouth of Riviere du Chene at St. Eustache, Quebec, on which "stones and boulders have

been wheelbarrowed," as it appears on plan dated September. 1934, in reference No. 256, dated May 20. 1935?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: No information
on file.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. DONNELLY:: 1.	In the 1935-36 estimates, has provision
been made for increasing the salaries of civil servants and other employees; if so (a) how many in each department; (b) the amount in each ease.	_ _
2.	Since August, 1930, how many civil servants and other employees with salaries of $5,000 or more (a) have been pensioned; (b) have been replaced; (c) have been dismissed?
Please state the number in each department separately.


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith.


HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CANADA IN LONDON
Jean-François Pouliot: Referring to the statement of the Department of Public Works contained in sessional paper No. 269, of March 20, 1935, to the effect that that department has spent $167,206.23 from August 1, 1930, to June 15. 1935, for the High Commissioner's office in London, what was the detail of such expenditure each year during that period?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Return tabled herewith.


Mr. POULIOT:: 1.	Referring to sessional paper No. 269, and the letter attached thereto from the Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, dated March 19, 1935. to the effect that the total amount paid to the Hon. G. Howard Ferguson, High Commissioner for Canada in London, for salary, allowances and travel from the date of his appointment until the 1st February. 1935, was $164,803.78, what part of it was (a) for salary; (b) for allowances, and (c) for travel?
2.	What were the said allowances granted for?


Charles Hazlitt Cahan: Return tabled herewith. MOTIONS FOR PAPERS



SABLE RIVER, N.S., MAIL SERVICE

James Layton Ralston: For a copy of all contracts, letters, telegrams, and other documents in the possession of the Post Office Department, respecting the mail service between Sable River and railway station, and Sable River West and railway station, since March 31, 1934.



USE OF RADIO STATIONS IN PROVINCE OF QUEBEC

Joseph-Fernand Fafard: For a copy of all correspondence, contracts, agreements, and other documents, exchanged

Public Works Program
between the government (Department of Marine or the radio commission), and any group: political, economic, social, etc., associations. parties, respecting the use and rental of the radio commission's stations in the province of Quebec.



BARACHOIS, QUE., PUBLIC WORKS

Mr. BRASSET:: For a copy of paysheets in connection with all works executed by the department of public works at Barachois, Gaspe county, in 1933, 1934, and 1935; also a statement showing the prices paid at the same location during the same period for lumber and stone purchased by the department, and showing all salaries and money disbursed in connection with such works.



LITTLE CASCAPEDIA RIVER, QUE., BRIDGE

[Stage Direction]
Mr. MARCIL;
For a copy of all correspondence, plans, reports and other documents, exchanged between any department of the provincial government of Quebec and the federal Department of Public Works, during the past year, in connection with the application of the government of Quebec for permission to erect a highway bridge over the Little Cascapedia river, county of Bonaventure, Quebec.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Charles Hazlitt Cahan: In answer to an oral question yesterday by the hon. senior member for Ottawa (Mr. Chevrier) I may say that the French translation of the report of the housing committee has been printed and available for distribution at the distribution office since noon on Monday. The French translation of the report of the price spreads commission was delivered to the distribution office of the House of Commons for distribution this morning. It is now available.



VICTORIA DAY ADJOURNMENT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Richard Bedford Bennett: Having regard to the fact that
the 24th of May was formerly known as Victoria day and subsequently as Arbour day, and that many people are greatly interested in keeping the day, the government think that perhaps they would best meet the views of all if we adjourn on Thursday evening until Monday, and that Friday be a holiday.


Mr. WILLIAM DUFF (Antigonish-Guys-borough):: I object to any such motion. We
have had an adjournment for five weeks, and we certainly should carry on the business of the house without further adjournment.


Jean-François Pouliot: Always holidays, holidays! I strongly protest against it. Are we not here to work?



WESTERN CANADA POULTRY POOL

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Mr. GEORGE W. McPHEE (Yorkton): The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Weir) has presented a return in connection with the disbursement of the 850,000 given by the government to the poultry pools of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. The part that refers to Saskatchewan amounts to ten pages, eight of which deal with sums of $5 and under, for rent of halls. No details are given as to place of residence of parties who received the larger amounts. I would ask the minister to take this as notice of the question and let us have the addresses of those who received sums over $10. There are two pages of those.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day.
Hon. GROTE STIRLING (Acting Minister of Fisheries):: Yesterday the hon. member
for Prince (Mr. MacLean) asked under what vote the bait freezer at Canso was being provided. It is being provided under the vote for conservation and development of deep sea fisheries. Other applications coming from groups of fishermen or other individuals, which conform to the regulations, will be considered


William Duff: May I ask if the total cost of
the bait freezer at Canso will be paid out of that vote?


Grote Stirling: Three-quarters of the
total sum comes under the regulations.



PUBLIC WORKS PROGRAM


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Tuesday, May 21, consideration in committee of Bill No. 63, to create employment by public works and undertakings throughout Canada and to authorize the guarantee of certain railway equipment securities-Mr. Stewart (Leeds)- Mr. Morand in the chair.
On schedule A, item 9-Harbours and rivers generally, $2,500,000.
Mr. CASGRAIN:: Last night the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Lapointe) directed attention to statements made by the Minister of Public Works that certain information and details would be forthcoming concerning the
Public Works Program

amounts the government wants to appropriate, $2,500,000 for public works to be undertaken under the item of harbours and rivers. Looking at page 2817 of Hansard of 16th April I find that answering a question put by my right hon. leader the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) said:
I am certainly in a position to give details on every item.
Now we are on this item of $2,500,000 which is to be allocated and spent in the various ports of Canada. It is all very well to say we might appropriate a couple of hundred thousand for Quebec and so much for Ontario and so much for other provinces.
What the people want to know, and what we as representatives of those people want to know, is how this money is to be qpent, where it is to be spent, and for what purposes. It has always been the privilege of hon. members not to vote any large amounts of money without first knowing where they are to be spent. Last night the minister had the deputy minister in front of him, a man who has been in the department for twenty-two years and who is throroughly familiar with the facts. Then, he must have received help from his officials in Quebec and elsewhere in the province who would be in a position to tell him the various amounts required which would go to make up whatever portion of the $2,500,000 is to be spent in the province of Quebec.
Last night I made special reference to certain public works in which I am vitally interested. The minister told me he expected to be able to attend to some of those works, but he gave no specific indication as to which works would be undertaken. I am still hoping that something will be done. The people throughout the country want to know in what places in the province of Quebec the works are to be carried out, and what sums of money will be spent. I believe all hon. members from the Atlantic to the Pacific are keenly interested, and it is our privilege as members of this chamber to have precise information such as the minister promised to give _ on April 16, when the bill was under discussion. I await the answer of the minister.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I believe it is only fair to say that in addition to these works I am receiving from members suggestions every day as to works needed in their respective constituencies. From time to time these are being referred to engineers for reports. While we have now a total of $9,417,792 there are some projects in respect of which we have no report, indicating the amount of the expenditures required. Therefore I believe it is fair to say that the requests already in and those which will come in will exceed $10,000,000. I believe every hon. member will agree that it is impossible at this time to give a complete list of the particular works which will be done, their locations and the amount of money required. I am willing to give all the information available, but I regret I cannot now say in what amounts this money will be expended. In this regard I am not taking a position different from that taken by my predecessor in respect of similar votes. I have before me Hansard for 1929, and at page 2047, dealing with harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements amounting to $80,000 for the province of Nova Scotia, I find the following:
Mr. Short: I should like to ask the minister on what he proposes to expend this $80,000 and in what sections of Nova Scotia?
Mr. Elliott: I can only tell the hon. member where the general vote was expended and how it was expended last year. This is to meet the ordinary maintenance charges made up of several small items, many of which can be foreseen at the present time.
Then at page 170 of Hansard for 1930 appears the item:
Nova Scotia-Harbours and rivers generally-repairs and improvements, $100,000.
And the following discussion:
Mr. Ernst: May I ask, as a matter of information only, whether this amount of $100,000 is based upon the previous estimate of the requirements, and if so, what expenditure is contemplated and in what places?

Public Works Program
Mr. Elliott: The estimate is based upon what the engineer thinks the requirements will be in connection with works which should properly come out of the general vote.
Mr. Ernst: Are details given?
Mr. Elliott: No. We do not know, as my hon. friend will readily understand, what works will have to be done perhaps due to freshets and that sort of thing that may occur even after this vote is passed.
Mr. Ernst: It is a sort of emergency fund.
Mr. Elliott: Yes.


Mr. ELLIOTT:: May I ask a question?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I have given information along the same lines as that which has been given in the past.


John Campbell Elliott: I wonder if the minister would allow me-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Will my hon. friend please permit me to finish, and then I shall be pleased to answer him. I believe I have given information along the same lines, and all the information available, except that we have a detailed list of the requests which, as I have said, are 991 in number and are growing daily. I do not believe it should be necessary to read the 991 of them because manifestly we cannot do all the work, and we have not yet made a selection due to the fact that the list is not complete.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: When will the minister be in a position to say where the work will take place, and how the money is to be spent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know; it will be when a decision is made. We will be making decisions from time to time throughout the year, as has been done in the past.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I understand that at the present time there is no definite program made out for the spending of the $2,500,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is exactly the situation which I endeavoured to convey to the committee all day yesterday, and for that reason and for that one only I am unable to give a definite and specific list.


John Campbell Elliott: Would the minister answer my question now? Did I understand him to say that the extract he read from Hansard was in reference to a vote similar to this?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The title of the
vote is " harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements," and the amounts are SI00.000 and 380,000 respectively.


John Campbell Elliott: Does the minister say
that that is a similar vote to this?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Exactly, except
as to the amount. The only difference is the
difference between $100,000 and $2,500,000; that is all.


John Campbell Elliott: May I call the minister's
attention to the fact that that was for repairs and improvements, but this vote is not limited in that way at all. This is for harbours and rivers generally, an entirely different thing. Does the minister suggest that this $2,500,000 is limited to repairs and improvements?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would ask my hon. friend what he means by improvements? Improvements include an extension or an addition. The scope of the two votes is the very same exactly. It is repair's and improvements, and improvements to harbours and rivers may mean some new work, of course, and out of that very same vote new works have been built every year.


John Campbell Elliott: Then why did not the minister when he was preparing this vote say " harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements," as it was in the vote to which he has referred?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If it will give
my hon. friend any comfort I will put that in now.


John Campbell Elliott: " If it will give my hon.
friend any comfort," why does the minister expose himself to this committee the way he does? I want to call his attention to this, that what he has read as to what occurred in 1929 is quite correct, but that had no reference whatever to a vote of this kind. The vote in 1929 was limited to repairs and improvements. That is one of the reasons the minister is not making the headway he thinks he ought to be making in regard to getting these estimates through. There is a great difference between an item such as is here and the item to which he has referred, just as there is a great difference between the amounts. The minister knows perfectly well that what he was reading to this committee had no reference whatever to this kind of vote because under this vote he may go on with new works all over the country at his own sweet will, and that is the reason he is not now willing to give the information which is being asked. I say to him again what I said yesterday that it is a ridiculous situation for the Minister of Public Works on the twenty-second of May, in discussing a vote of $2,500,000 under which new works entirely, works that are not repairs or improvements or continuation of work already started, may be proceeded with wherever he likes to start harbour and river work, to say that he can give no information where such work is going to be done. He answered a question yester-
Public Works Program

day which makes it perfectly clear that the extract he has read relating to something which occurred in 1929 has no application to this vote whatever. I am surprised at the minister endeavouring to deceive the committee in that way, because that is what he was doing. He knows just as well as he knows that he is sitting in his seat now that these are not similar votes, and if he will say that they are similar votes I will be quite content if he will say " harbours and rivers generally, repairs and improvements."


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The suggestion of my hon. friend is accepted at once, and I will put in "repairs and improvements".


Mr. GOTT:: Oh, oh.


John Campbell Elliott: We hear the loud laugh that speaks the vacant mind. I want that put in on the condition that repairs and improvements under this vote will be interpreted as they have been in the past. I do not propose to let the minister get away-


Eccles James Gott: With anything.


John Campbell Elliott: Not even the least thing.


Eccles James Gott: May I suggest to the minister that the hon. member is speaking from experience.


John Campbell Elliott: 
John Campbell Elliott: Can the minister give me one instance?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I cannot give
an instance offhand, but I think my hon. friend's recollection will confirm my statement. Let us take an example. A petition comes in for the repairing of a wharf. The engineer visits the locality and finds that the wharf is in a very poor state of repair and that because of a change in conditions in that particular area the wharf would be better located a mile down the shore. In some cases it has been found that better service can be provided by such a move. The construction of that wharf would be new construction in the technical sense of the word but I submit that a fair interpretation of the term "repairs and improvements" would permit the inclusion of such a work provided it improved the facilities of a particular harbour. What difference does it make whether it is the reconstruction of a defunct structure or the construction of an entirely new work? I assure my hon. friend that my information is reliable when I say that entirely new works are constructed by the Public Works Department every year under the vote for repairs and improvements.
There is a further difference between this vote and the one referred to by my hon. friend. The votes to which he has referred were ordinary supply votes, and the rule, with which I have no quarrel, is very properly laid down that with respect to such votes there shall be as definite and as specific information furnished as is possible. I would direct the attention of my hon. friend to the
Public Works Program

title of this bill, which is, " An act to create employment by public works." This bill is to relieve unemployment, and I think it is distinct from the ordinary supply vote. Works will be constructed where needed and where relief to unemployment can be afforded, and perhaps a little more latitude is given than would be given in connection with an item in a regular supply bill.


John Campbell Elliott: The committee is endeavouring to ascertain what is to be done with this $2,500,000 vote, but we do not seem to have made any headway. I should like to know why my hon. friend included an item for harbours and rivers generally when the old item of repairs and improvements would have covered this one. What was the idea of making a change? Why should the minister depart from what he said yesterday? The change was made to enable him to put in entirely new works with respect to which, during this session of the committee, he does not propose to disclose any information. That is apparently the reason; otherwise he would tell us.	.
Then he goes on to say that this is a public works construction act and differs from the ordinary estimates, and in that regard the Minister of Railways last night urged this contention: How can we tell until the item is passed what will be the details of the works to which it will be applied? That was the argument of the Minister of Railways last night, and he waxed warm over it in an endeavour to help out the Minister of Public Works-and he helped him out to the extent of taking up half an hour of the committee's time and putting the matter further back at the end of that time than it had been when we started. Let me read to the committee the explanation of the Minister of Railways with regard to No. 5, canals, repairs and improvements, $750,000. If he has forgotten it he will find it at page 2854. I asked this question:
Can the minister give no more definite statement as to how this amount of 50,000 is to be allocated than wliat he has just given?
His answer was:
Yes, I can give a good deal-
Good-bye; I see he is leaving.


Mr. MANLON:: Let me assure my hon. friend I am not going out because of fear, but I must see someone outside.


John Campbell Elliott: The minister said:
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.

That was when they were pressing to get this through by six o'clock.
We are counting on doing the work not absolutely but approximately as this is given. As regard's the Murray canal,-
I want the minister to listen carefully to this. I really thought that his department had these details about as accurately as any department in the government, but the following are the details which the Minister of Railways gave with regard to this schedule when we were discussing the matter a month ago- and the Minister of Public Works had his estimates in as good shape a month ago as the Minister of Railways had. The Minister of Railways went on to say:
As regards the Murray canal, the estimate of my engineers is $3,750. Others are as follows:
Ontario-St. Lawrence canals....	$ 31,000
Prescott elevato*	 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
What is there in the minister's argument that he cannot give estimates for the items that make up the amounts in these schedules, on the ground that it is a public works construction bill? The Minister of Railways gave items a month ago showing how his $750,000 was made up. He said, quite properly, "We are counting on doing the work not absolutely but approximately." We asked the Minister of Public Works yesterday, whether, out of this $2,500,000, he could not give us some idea in regard to some of the things to be done, and he told us he could not. He will not disclose one item. That, I say, is not treating the committee fairly. He cannot convince the committee that he does not know where he will spend any of that $2,500,000. If he does not know now, though he was prepared to put this bill through a month ago, when does he think he will know?


Thomas Cantley: Before it is spent.


John Campbell Elliott: 
Thomas Cantley: Tedious, though.


John Campbell Elliott: Not as much so as some of my hon. friends. Perhaps the minister will give the committee some information; we should like to get it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The only thing with regard to which I quarrel with my friend in connection with this is the repeated assertion that for some ulterior reason I am endeavouring to keep back from the committee some information which it should have. That is the only thing I resent all through his remarks. I say to him that that is not well founded. I have no complaint whatever as to the way in which the committee has treated me on former occasions, but this occasion is somewhat different from previous ones. Let me say to my hon. friend with respect to the works which we knew definitely we had to undertake, that all of these were provided for in the regular estimates. We had the information with regard to these; we had the reports of the engineers and made our decision. Since this information has been accumulated, these requests have been coming in. I tell my hon. friend again as clearly, candidly and firmly as I can that we have not made a decision as to where any portion of this $2,500,000 is to be expended, as to what amount is to be expended in any province or as to any allocation of it. I think he will agree that it would be impossible to do so until the information is complete, and also for the very reason which he gave himself on two occasions with respect to a much smaller item when all he could do was to refer to similar expenditures made in the previous year. I have given just the same information.
Again, all I can say is that we do not lenow; we have not made a decision, and the reason we have not made it is that the information is not complete. We cannot make a decision until the information is complete; from time to time additional information will come in and we will undertake works in the light of the information that comes in then. I dc not know that I can add anything more. We have threshed this over and over again. If my hon. friend insists upon asking for information with respect to which I have stated my position, I cannot help it.
With regard to the information given by the Department of Railways and Canals respecting the $750,000, again my hon. friend would be as consistent as he is now if he insisted upon knowing at just what point along those canals a certain amount of money was to be spent. The items are simply a breaking up of the big item. They say: On a certain canal we propose to spend a certain amount, but no details are given as to the exact places and the exact amounts.
Again I submit to my hon. friend that this is a measure to provide money for the relief of unemployment and for the improvement of our harbours and rivers, and it must be left elastic in order that we may meet the emergencies of the works, whether they be simply repairs or improvements or new structures such as have been constructed out of the general vote in years gone by. I do not think I can give my hon. friend any more information.


John Campbell Elliott: As regards the argument
that in respect of a less amount we were unable to give the full details, when the minister is spending $2,500,000 plus the items that are already in the estimates, he ought to give a little more information than if he were spending only a few thousand dollars The minister has in a very ingenious way let the cat out of the bag. He said that a great many of the works that they knew were required were already included in the estimates that are tabled. The estimates were tabled, I understand, about January 29; that is a considerable time ago, before most of the damage due to spring freshets could possibly have occurred, to say nothing of their having been known and reported to the department. Surely since then the department must have
29S4
Public Works Program

received some details that are not covered by the estimates and about which the minister could give us some information; but he says: No, the reason I can give you no information is that most of the items we know about and can tell about have already been included in the estimates that were tabled months ago. That makes it quite clear to the committee that the minister does not intend that we shall know anything about what this money is to be expended upon until parliament completes this session.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Election pot.
Mr, ELLIOTT: I know it is not agreeable to any member of the committee to take up the time of the house in trying to get the information with the minister endeavouring to show that he does not know. If he understood me as making any suggestion with regard to his being deceitful or anything of the kind, I want to relieve his mind on that score; but I do want him to understand quite clearly that we are not being deceived by this action. He does know substantially what is to be done with this money, and all that the committee that are voting it wish to know is something about what is to be done with some of it. If he will give us that information, I think we will make some headway. If he cannot give it now, perhaps he can give it a week from now. I suggest that he get in touch with his engineers and other officials and see whether he cannot tell us even approximately where this money is likely to be spent. After all, if you are going to make a contract for harbours and rivers, you must make it pretty soon if the work is to be done this season. The house may be sitting for some time. Let us not attempt to proceed in the dark; let us wait until we can get some light on this subject, and let this item stand until the minister can give us some information.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Can the minister tell
us how much of the S2.500,000 will be spent in the province of Quebec?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Requests from
Quebec are, as I have explained, about $4,000,000 out of S9,000,000, and there are 355 works requested there. On works of this kind there is generally a larger amount spent in Quebec than in any of the other provinces, and naturally so because of the long coast line on the north and south shores and the absence of railway communication in some places, the only communication being by water and these wharves. For last year out of an item of $2,500,000 we spent in Quebec $425,124.47, and that was out of a total expenditure of under $1,500,000. Therefore my
[Mr. Elliott 4
hon. friend need not worry a bit about Quebec getting its share of this expenditure. It has got it in the past and I assure him it will get it in the future.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I am not suggesting that Quebec would not get its share under this appropriation, as apparently it seems to have got a fair proportion last year.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It certainly did.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: What we want and what we are entitled to get is information as to what amount out of the $2,500,000 is to be appropriated for Quebec, Ontario and in fact for each province. Let us not get away from the answers of the minister; let us not be taken away from the question. The minister rightly or wrongly stated his case before the recess. Whether he uttered words that were beyond his control or his mind, they are nevertheless on Hansard. We must be guided by those words and those undertakings if we are to have a fair discussion of this matter. Let me read again the answer and the undertaking that the minister gave. The hon. member for Quebec East read them last night, and I think it is important to read them again. When this was being discussed on April 16 the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Stewart) said:
My hon. friend complains about information not being given. In the estimates of the department for years no details are given- just specific amounts. If hon. members desire information in regard to these items-
And we desire the information.
-it will be cheerfully given, but we ask to have an opportunity of giving it before we are condemned for not giving it.
Now that is an undertaking to give information.
Further on he said:
With regard to any of these items upon which information is desired I can only say that so far as they come under the control of the Department of Public Works we are prepared' to give information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Finish the
sentence.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Just telling the committee that last year we had $2,500,000 and spent $400,000 in Quebec is not giving information.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Did my hon. friend complete the sentence or the whole statement there?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Further on he said:
We are prepared to give all the information that the committee desires and as much as we give in connection with the regular estimates when they are submitted to the house.

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That is exactly what I have done.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: There is the discussion, and I want to take issue with the minister, along the same lines as the hon. member for West Middlesex (Mr. Elliott). Here we have a special bill, we have a special amount. The title of the bill states that it is relative to unemployment. The preamble says it is for the purpose of accelerating the recovery of trade and industry to more normal conditions, and:
Whereas in pursuance of the said act there are dominion public works throughout Canada in process of construction amounting approximately to thirty million dollars; and whereas employment can be further stimulated by the undertaking of works and projects mentioned in the schedule hereto to supplement the works authorized by The Public Works Construction Act, 1934: and whereas it is in the national interest that such works and projects should be undertaken:
Now if it is in the national interest that those works should be undertaken we, the representatives of the people, have the right to know where and in what amounts this large sum is to be allocated and where the works are going to be done. I grant that in the regular estimates you have items specified for each district and each place, amounts of 850,000, 860,000, 8125,000 as the case may be, and then at the end there is put for the province, $50,000 or 8100,000 to take care of contingencies and unforeseen expenses, repairs and improvements, and if in regard to that the minister should give the answer he has given to-day I would be ready to accept it. But here we have an amount of $2,500,000 for harbours and rivers generally; a blank cheque, giving carte blanche to the minister. I am not so much afraid of him, because I think he is fair and honest, and his officials are. But we are getting near the time of an election, and as an amount was put in last year to cover a purpose, very likely the same thing will do the trick this year. What will happen is that in some districts where it will be more advantageous to carry on works than in another district where the work is more needed, the government will authorize such work by day labour and under the supervision of a given man. I have in mind certain necessary work in my district. Is the minister going to tell me that these works are not going to be done? I would like to know if they are, because they are necessary, and I do not want it to happen that if it is more advantageous for the government or their friends, or to help any given man in any territory, this money will go there rather than to the places which are vitally interested in getting ameliorations and betterments which they have been longing for for many years. Here we have the government placing this amount at its own disposal and at the disposal of any department-because this money can be entrusted to any minister of the government to spend without the members representing the various constituencies and the country at large knowing where and how and in what manner the amount is going to be spent.
The minister did not qualify his answer at all, he said he would give the information. At page 2817 when this item was under discussion before recess the minister stated in answer to the leader of the opposition:
I am certainly in a position to give details on every item.
Well, this is the item, 82,500,000, on which members of this house have been pleading with the minister and the government for some little information; at least to have a specific amount for each province, and I would say each district in each province, and why the money is going to be spent. If the minister does not give the information it just resolves itself into this, that the government are not satisfied with what they have put in the main estimates, not satisfied with what they already have at their disposal. They have not made use of the whole $40,000,000 which was voted by a similar bill last year; I am told they have only spent about S6,000,000 of it. They are going to have at their disposal the balance of last year's vote and we are to be forced to vote more in this bill, with the result that between now and election time the government will be able at random, to suit the convenience of any candidate or any member, to give to this district or that any amount of money without any responsibility and without the safeguards with which in the old days and up to the present time the moneys of the people have been appropriated and voted for such expenditures.
This bill is quite different from the main estimates; it is a new departure, to relieve unemployment and accelerate recovery. The minister must have had reports from his officials and must be in a position to say where the works and projects mentioned in the preamble are. I think we should at least have from the minister information as to how much each province is going to get and each district; for instance in the province of Quebec how much is going to be appropriated to the district of Montreal, how much to the district of Quebec, the district of Chicoutimi, the district of Three Rivers, and the same for the province of Ontario, the maritime provinces, British Columbia and the other
Public Works Program

western provinces. I think we are not treating the government unfairly in asking for such information. Last year when a similar bill came up we had the various projects itemized and numbered from one to a couple of hundred, and then there was a special vote along the same lines as this one. We objected, I did for one, because sufficient details were ' not given. Are we to let the same thing be repeated this year? Why did not the minister use the same phraseology, the same form and detail and schedule as last year? As the hon. member for West Middlesex pointed out yesterday, what is very likely to happen next year, if perchance this government should be here-I do not think it will be, let us hope not-is that it will bring in only one item for the whole sum to be spent for public works by every department of the government. The minister says that his engineers report about 900 requests from certain provinces, but he must realize that hon. members know where some of those moneys will be spent. We know there are certain districts where repair* are most needed and where new construction, which the minister has admitted will be done under the measure, is required. He has requests before him, and he must know where the works are to be carried out. Why not let the committee have information as to these various amounts? For instance, let the minister advise the committee as to the largest amount, if he does not wish to give all the details. I understand there may be some expenditures of $1,000 or SI,500 and that there might be some difficulty in giving details, but if there are big projects to be undertaken in any province then the minister in justice to himself, to the government and to the country at large ought to give the details.


Eccles James Gott: Carried.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, it is not.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I hasten to assure the hon. member that no large projects are in mind so far as this vote is concerned. No large expenditures were made out of the vote of last year, and I can give him my assurance now that no extensive works will be undertaken out of this vote. Perhaps I could not do better than to give the hon. member the expenditures by provinces out of the vote of last year. I must add that this vote of $2,500,000 is not made on the basis of having a certain proportion given to each province. Manifestly it could not be done in that way. At the same time however we are endeavouring to maintain a fair ratio of expenditure and to treat all the provinces fairly and alike, ac-

cording to their requirements. Conditions of unemployment in some provinces may be more severe than in others and for that reason would require greater expenditures. The information I have before me indicates that up to the date of this statement expenditures out of last year's vote amounted to $1,494,843.61, and the details are as follows:
Nova Scotia	$ 330,062 86
Prince Edward Island	
58,290	11New Brunswick	
133,790	48Quebec	
425,124	47Ontario	
331,675	93Manitoba	
6,892	10Saskatchewan	
218	18Alberta	
4,224	52Northwest Territories and Yukon 2.185	29British Columbia	
132,317	29
Generally, for services and other
expenditures	 70.062	38

The hon. member suggests that in not disclosing this information there must be some ulterior motive. I admit I promised to give information, and I say now that I have given as much information as in the past has been given with respect to similar items. I am giving as much information in connection with a vote of $2,500,000 as was formerly given respecting a vote of only $80,000 or $100,000. My hon. friend will agree the difficulty in deciding how to spend $2,500,000 is much greater than that of deciding the expenditure of $80,000 or $100,000. Yet we could not get any information concerning those smaller expenditures. To-day the hon. member insists upon the most complete and detailed information as to where and how this large amount of $2,500,000 is to be spent. Hon. members want to know in what province, what district or what constituency the work will be done, the amount of money to be spent and the type of work specified. The hon. member suggests that this is an election measure. All I say to him is that if this measure as drafted is an election measure, then it would be a very poor one. If I had anything to do with the preparation of a measure calculated to win an election on the basis of large expenditures of money I would be ashamed of any measure providing for expenditures such as these divided as they are.
Let me refer the hon. member to the estimates of a few years ago-and in passing may I add that I have no faith whatever in the expenditure of public moneys and the carrying out of public works as a means of winning an election.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Public Works Program


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My hon. friends opposite tried that.


George Spotton: Hear, hear.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Hon. members opposite tried that in 1930, and we know what happened to them. The estimates in 1930 amounted to $38,074,726 and the expenditures were $32,959,620. In the year 1929 the estimates were for only $30,000,000, in 1928 $27,000,000 and in 1926-27 for only $19,000,000. So we find an estimate of $19,000,000 in the year 1926-27 as compared with one of more than $38,000,000 in an election year.
In the expenditure of moneys hon. members on this side have as high regard for the public interest and the requirements of public service as have hon. members opposite. I believe that in the past year there has been a fair ratio or balance of expenditures among the provinces, and they may expect that balance to continue in the present year. The money will not be used in the unfair manner which has been suggested. I have given all the information I can give, and I do not think I can usefully detain the committee by any further discussion. I trust hon. members will approve the item, or that in the alternative there may be a motion to strike it out, upon which a decision can be given.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister has indicated, if I understood him correctly, that out of the sum of $2,500,000 no huge amounts will be spent. I have before me a report of what was done under the Public Works Construction Act of 1934, and I find that under that act an expenditure of $24,522.70 was made. Does the minister consider that a small or a large amount? Then there were other expenditures of $6,000, $7,000 and $9,000.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: The larger item is an expenditure to operate a departmental dredge for a season.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: No, I must beg the minister's pardon. If he will follow me I shall give him the information. I have no objection to the amount of the expenditure because it was made to continue certain works undertaken by the previous government, to help a locality which needed assistance. I find the item "Baie St. Paul, construction of extension to wharf, $24,522.70." Then there is the item "Petite Riviere Romaine, wharf repairs, $5,997.53," and again "Sault au Mouton, hand dredging, $7,479.32," and "Pentecote eastward, construction of telegraph system, $9,000."
Here I have a report which was tabled some time ago indicating expenditures under
the Public Works Construction Act, 1934. If I remember well, under the bill of last year-


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If my hon. friend will allow me to interrupt, I do not want any misunderstanding. Possibly my hon. friend is correct and I may be wrong, and if I am wrong I want to hasten to put myself right. Would my hon. friend give me again that item of $24,000?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I have here sessional paper No. 333, dated Monday, May 20, 1935, return to an order of the house moved for by myself on February 20, 1935, asking for a statement showing the expenditure authorized in the county of Charlevoix-Saguenay during the year 1934-35; (a) in the regular estimates; (b) under the Public Works Construction Act, 1934, and showing the individual items and the nature of the work in each case. Turning to the items under (b) I find on page 10 of the return an item of $5,769.42 for the construction of protection work at Baie St. Paul, and this amount, was not mentioned last year in the program of items which were set out in detail in the Public Works Construction Act of 1934. There was only the amount of $117,509.50 for the construction of an extension and repairs to wharf at Pointe au Pic. The contract was given for that, and it is mentioned in the list of works on page 10 of this return. I refer to these items in answer to the minister who stated a moment ago that out of this amount of $2,500,000 only small amounts will be spent here and there where work is most urgent and necessary. I do not begrudge the expenditure of these amounts in the district I have the honour to represent in this house. They were necessary works; the expenditure was needed, and in all cases the work was done as a continuation of previous works undertaken at my request and started under the late government. But what I say is that those amounts were not mentioned in the Public Works Construction Act of last year.
The minister now says that he is going to spend only small amounts, and I want to ask him if he considers $5,769 a small amount or does he consider $24,522.70, which was spent for an extension- to the wharf at Baie St. Paul, a small amount? If he really intends to spend such large sums why not put them in the estimates so that we shall know where the money is to be spent? I will give a few other items of expenditure under the Public Works Construction Act,. 1934, listed on page 10 of this same sessional
Public Works Program

paper: Petite Riviere Romaine, 85,997.53; Pointe aux Anglais, 86,340.17; Ste. Anne de Beaupre, 86,000; Sault au Mouton, 87,479.32; construction of telegraph system, Penteeote eastward, S9.000; and there was an item specially provided last year in the main estimates, as well as again this year, for the reconstruction and renovating of the line in the district below the Saguenay river.
As I said before, I do not begrudge the expenditure of these amounts and the undertaking of these works in the county that I have the honour to represent, but I want to point out to the committee and to the country at large the condition that exists when you have such a large appropriation as $2,500,000 and the only safeguard is the statement of the minister that only small amounts will be spent here and there to cover the most urgent cases. We see that some works which were necessary, entirely new works, were undertaken out of the vote last year, perhaps not for large amounts. Some of these expenditures were for continuation of work and some were for entirely new works, although these works had been requested long ago.
When the minister says he is going to spend only small amounts here and there, I would ask him what amount he considers a small amount. Would he consider $50,000 for a new project a large amount, or 8100,000? Or will he limit himself to $15,000 or to $5,000, as was formerly the practice under the previous administration, when any w'ork over $5,000 had to be let by tender and contract? Under this administration that practice has been done away with and works costing large amounts are being done either by day labour or by contract. What does the minister consider a small amount? I should like to have an answer, Mr. Chairman.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: An answer to
what?


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The minister says that
only small amounts will be spent here and there out of this huge appropriation of $2,500,000, and I should like to know how large a sum he would consider a small amount.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I would not
want to be too small with my hon. friend. Small and large are relative terms, and when I say large amounts I have not in mind any expenditures such as half a million dollars or $300,000, such as have been asked for in some parts of the province of Quebec, or even $100,000 which together with smaller amounts has been asked for in other places.

I have not in view any half million dollar or quarter million dollar expenditures, but there might be a work that would require a considerable amount, as much as any my hon. friend has mentioned, and still I wtmld consider that a comparatively small amount.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Referring again to this
list of works carried on last year under the Public Works Construction Act, may I ask for information as to where this breakwater construction was done at Pointe aux Anglais. 'Was it along the river Penteeote or the river Riverin?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I can only repeat the position I have already taken with respect to these items of expenditure last year, and that is that we have already given more information than has hitherto been furnished in connection with the regular estimates in any other year, because not only was a statement of the expenditures laid on the table by the Minister of Finance as the act provides, but returns galore have been brought down for hon. members, from one of which my hon. friend has just been reading.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: But it does not say where the work at Pointe aux Anglais was done.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: And orders in council passed under the Public Works Construction Act of last year have been laid on the table practically every day. What I have already undertaken to do is that on the estimates of the department I shall be prepared to give full information in connection with any work that has been undertaken under that act. I submit to my hon. friend that these expenditures have really nothing to do with this schedule. I cannot be expected to bring down every day information on every individual item of expenditure under the Public Works Construction Act of last year because those items ran into hundreds, as my hon. friend knows. I repeat, however, what I have already said, that I shall fee prepared to give on the estimates all the details that my hon. friend requires.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: On the supplementary
estimates?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: But what I do say is that the expenditure under the bill of last year is scarcely applicable to the present bill.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: The reason I asked for the information with regard to Pointe aux Anglais is that there are so many names and so many districts that it is pretty hard to find out just where the work was done if the

Public Works Program
details are not given. I have recommended that certain work be done in a certain district, but it may have been done in some other bay or channel. That is why I ask for the information. It would save time if I could go to the minister's department and secure the information from his officials.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: That course could be adopted with a considerable saving of time. We have already offered to turn over to my hon. friend all the files in connection with any work done in any constituency. I think that is an excellent suggestion; it will save time and the information could be given more accurately.


Mr. MARCIL:: I have only a word or
two ^ to say in connection with this matter. During the past five years the procedure has been changed considerably. In the old days we could not spend an amount over $1,000 without an item appearing in the estimates; items under $1,000 were included in a general vote. No expenditure over $5,000 could be made except by calling for tenders. This amount has since been raised to $15,000 and we are now voting blank cheques. Parliament has upheld this new procedure and I have nothing more to say about it.
As far as my own constituency is concerned I am making no objection to any expenditures which might be made there. However, I must say that in every case where work has been done it has been merely repair work. There is one exception, the new wharf which was constructed at Black Cape. There was a difference of opinion as to where this wharf should be located, whether at Hewatson's Point or Woodsmen Beach, but this was left to the engineers to decide. I do not like the minister to try to put forth the impression that this money is being expended for the relief of unemployment when in fact it is being expended simply for the benefit of the friends of the government. I doubt if during the last five years more than five per cent of the money expended has been paid to Liberals, those who carried out the contracts and the workmen generally were friends of the party in power. The minister himself admitted this last year and the same procedure was followed when we were in power. I do not object to that but I want to correct the impression that these works are for unemployment relief when in fact they are merely for the benefit of the party friends in each locality. I am receiving letters every day from people in the different parishes in my constituency asking if such and such a work is to be done. I cannot give them any information, all I can say is that under the present parliamentary procedure the last man to know about what is happening in a constituency is the opposition member representing that constituency. I must tell my constituents that I must abide by the law and take things as they are.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I want to say
to my hon. friend that no member has been more persistent in making representations on behalf of his constituency than has he. I think he will agree with me when I say that his numerous communications have received careful and prompt consideration and that in every instance he has been furnished with all the information for which he asked. Many works have been constructed in his constituency and when works have not been constructed, a reason has been given. The wharf to which he refers was located entirely upon the recommendation of the engineer. We know that these things do not meet with universal approval but I think the choice of location in this instance was a sound one. My hon. friend has written to the department quite frequently and whenever he asked for information he was supplied with all that was in the department. I will not go so far as to say that we have consulted the hon. member as to who shall be employed on public works, but does he think we should do so? There are different channels from which information of that kind is obtained but any representations made by my hon. friend have received the attention they deserve. Any complaints which he has made as to discrimination or any irregularities have been investigated and as far as possible put right. I am sure my hon. friend will agree with that.


Charles Marcil: I have no objection to all that, I merely wanted to correct the impression being put forth that this work is being done for unemployment relief.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: If unemployed
Conservatives are given work, are they not relieved?


Charles Marcil: Certainly, but that is only one part of the unemployed.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: Only Tories are relieved, the Liberals cannot get any employment.


Charles Marcil: I have no objection, I only want that one fact made clear. Tliis is merely party work. It was done in our time and it will be done again but from my experience, small as it is, I predict that the minister will not be permitted to go on spending these large sums of money. The control of parliament has been taken away. I am reminded of what I was told when I took over the office of Speaker twenty-five years ago; I was told I

Public Works Program

would, be lodt if I ever departed from the rules. I am afraid that parliament has lost control over the expenditure of public money but the day will come when the people will change their minds and will insist that parliament go back to the old system of giving explanations for every dollar expended.


Milton Neil Campbell: This bill follows the act of 1934 and I should like the minister to tell us approximately how much of the vote of last year was unexpended at May 1.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Of the $39,000,000 in round figures provided for by the act of last year, I should say that on May 1 around $12,000,000 to $15,000,000 would have been earned. It is rather difficult to give an exact figure as commitments must be prepared and sent in to the chief architect by the architects on the job. Considerable time elapses before actual payment is made by the Department of Finance. I gave a statement of the expenditures under the Public Works Construction Act and I estimated the total as S10,000,000 as having been expended or earned.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to say a word respecting the statements made by hon. members on both sides of the house in connection with the money to be spent and the men to be employed on these public projects. I think it has been admitted by the government that workers with Conservative leanings will be given the preference in employment on these public works and hon. members on the Liberal side say that that is the proper thing to do.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Mr. POWER:: Not for unemployment
relief works.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Whether they be public
works or unemployment relief works, I see no difference. I think it is a sad reflection upon the whole system of government to find hon. members rising in their places and saying that that is the right and proper way to conduct the business of this country. There is an overwhelming opinion throughout the country that that is not the way to conduct the business of Canada. If public works are to be constructed, they should be constructed for the purpose of providing necessary services to the people and furnishing work to the unemployed, irrespective of party considerations. I am rather surprised and pained to hear hon. members of the opposition say they are in favour of such a system, and that they will continue the system if returned to power. I do not like to hear them say that the spoils belong to the victors.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: We did not say that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: It has been said. Those may not have been the words used but it was stated that it was proper for the party in power to give its patronage to those of the same political complexion.


Mr. GRAY:: The hon. member knows that I have an amendment which is the very opposite of that.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I should like to see the
amendment carried, but it is rather strange that while my hon. friend has such an amendment members of his own party should express views contrary to its intent. I protest very strongly against the idea, because I believe that the great volume of opinion in Canada is totally opposed to methods of that kind being introduced into our public works in this country. If it has been done in the past that is no excuse for continuing it now. I do not know just how this money will be spent; this being an election year it is my surmise that a good deal of it will be spent, whether there is a precedent for it or not. However, I want to ask the minister a question. Can he tell the house whether in connection with these contracts that are being let for the construction of these public works the fair wage clauses will be carried out? What steps is the department taking to see that they are carried out?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: Each year the
Department of Labour determines a fair schedule of wages for all classes of labour on public works in different parts of the country. They vary from one end of Canada to the other. That schedule is sent to the Public Works department and is made a part of the contract for the particular work; and more than that, the schedule is posted on the work that is being carried on, so that the employees engaged on that work have access to it.


Cameron Ross McIntosh: It varies with each district too, does it not?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: It may. The
employee can consult the list that is posted on the work and ascertain whether he is being paid according to the schedule that has been adopted. From time to time inspections are made of the contractors' books to see that this is carried out, and if any complaint is made that a contractor does not observe the provisions of the contract and does not pay the wages provided by the schedule, an inspector is sent on and he is forced to do so. In some instances, after the contractor has been paid in full and an injustice of that

Public Works Program
kind has been discovered and, as the saying is, he has been put on the carpet, he is made to go back and pay the deficiency to all employees. Let me assure my hon. friend that every possible effort is made by the government to see that a high standard of wages is maintained. It is made a part of the contract and the contractor must give his employees some means of knowing what the schedule is. He is checked up and forced to comply strictly with the provision.


Abraham Albert Heaps: I know that many evasions
have taken place in connection with these contracts so far as fair wages are concerned. My object now is to find out what machinery the department will use to see that the fair wage clauses are observed. Do they wait for complaints to come in, or do inspectors from his department or the Labour department go round and see that the clauses are strictly enforced?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: There are two
checks in that regard. The Department of Public Works has its own inspector on the work for supervision, and he keeps in touch with what is going on; and the Department of Labour regularly sends a member of its staff to visit public works to consult with the men and find out the conditions and whether there are any grievances.


Abraham Albert Heaps: With reference to patronage, I raised the question a day or two ago and I am forced to bring it up again after what has been said this afternoon. Can we take it as a fact that in public works of this kind people can be employed only from a patronage list?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: So far as this department is concerned there is no patronage list for the employment of labour on contracts. That is entirely for the contractor himself. I have no doubt that where a public work is carried on those representing any political party or organization may go to the contractor and ask to have certain men employed. I do not know that we can prevent that, nor do I think that we should. I do not know that it would be right to prevent my hon. friend in the city of Winnipeg from going to a contractor who has a contract for a building and saying, "I know A.B. or C.D.; he is a good workman and is out of employment; can you not give him a chance? Can you not find a place for him?" Surely there is nothing wrong about that, even though it is done by a member of parliament or any other person or organization. After
all, however, the contractor must decide whom he will employ, and we exercise no control in that regard.


Abraham Albert Heaps: That is all right as stated by the minister. I have no objection to anyone going to a contractor and submitting a name or names to him. I have not done that myself because it creates trouble for the one who does it.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: He has a perfect right to do it.


Abraham Albert Heaps: Yes, but the man is foolish who does it because it only makes trouble for h|imself and he becomes an employment agent. I refuse to be an employment agent; I would rather attend to my duties as a member of parliament. What I am trying to point out-and I think the minister is skating on thin ice-is that in certain parts of the country when men want work they are obliged to go to political organizations. I do not say that this is done with the connivance or even with the knowledge of the Department of Public Works or of the minister; but somehow or other, when these contracts are let, it is known to the political party in power-as a matter of fact I have on file letters to that effect- and persons seeking employment have to go to Conservative headquarters before their names are placed on the eligible list. I object to that and I do not care what party is in power. I say that a man should be able to get a job irrespective of his political convictions, and I think that on this matter the minister ought to make a pronouncement from his seat in this house. He should protest against that practice and state that so far as he and the government are concerned they object to any of these positions being handled through any political party. It is a very simple matter. The minister can make that statement on the floor of the house and assure us that if such a thing is being done, or if it is brought to his attention, the government will put an end to it. I do not know whether he is prepared to go so far as to get up in the house and state that the government object to any party having anything whatever to do with the provision of eligible lists for submission to contractors.


Charles Marcil: I want my hon. friend (Mr. Heaps) to understand that I did not advocate anything in particular. I wished to impress upon the house the change that had taken place in conditions. I wanted to show that we had got away from the old parliamentary practice of many years ago, when parliament controlled public expenditures and not one dollar
2992	COMMONS
Public Works Program
could be voted by the house unless ministers of the crown had first of all indicated how the money was going to be spent. That is what I advocated. We have had two classes of expenditure in this country during the last five years. One has been in regard to unemployment relief. As far as I can learn unemployment relief expenditures have been among both political parties; 'both Liberals and Conservatives have been employed; but when the matter was a purely departmental work given out in the usual course of business by the party in power, of course the old method was followed that the government stood by its friends as it expected its friends to stand by it. It has appointed its friends to control these works. That has always been done in Canada and will be done for a long time to come, even if our friends to my left ever reach office.


Joseph Philippe Baby Casgrain: I want to add a few words along the line of those just uttered by the hon. member for Bonaventure. When I was on the other side of the house and when there were any public works to be undertaken in my district, when a superintendent of works was appointed, in each case I used to give him instructions to employ as far as possible all people, Liberals and Conservatives alike, that were most in need of work to earn money. I know in many places there was no complaint at all and those who were in need of work, Liberals and Conservatives, got it. But at the present time I may tell the committee that in many places where works have been carried on, for instance at Ste. Anne de Beaupre, Pointe au Pic and otheT places, only Conservatives were employed and those who were known to be Liberals were turned down. In some places I know of, for instance at St. Irenee, only Conservatives were employed to do some work and earn a certain amount of money while Liberals were in need and other people whose party affiliations we do not know, did not get anything to do. The Tories got it all; there was a wrangle among them and those who fought the hardest got the most.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would like to ask the minister who is the owner of an island which appears on the plan which I hold in my hand. It is the little circle that the minister will see at the mouth of the Riviere du Chene at St. Eustache, in the county of Two Mountains.


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know who owns the island.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am surprised that the minister does not know because it is in the

constituency of the Postmaster General and some dredging has been done there. What amount of dredging has been done there?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: As I recall the matter, my hon. friend asked for a return which was brought down and delivered to him which gives all the particulars of the work carried on there in the past and must contain the item to which he now refers. I have not a copy of the return before me, so I cannot speak from memory as to what the expenditure was.


Jean-François Pouliot: But on the return that I have and which has been carefully combed, there is no hair; the dandruff only has been left. This is why it is so embarrassing to try to get complete information. According to the return given by the minister, a sum of $32,000 was expended there for dredging and filling. May I ask the minister whether this is all the money that was spent there or whether an additional amount was spent by the Quebec provincial government for the same purpose?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: My recollection is that the Quebec government did not make any contribution to the dredging to which my hon. friend refers. It made a contribution to some works but not to this particular one.


Jean-François Pouliot: Some money has been spent there. We complained the other day about the Toronto tunnel, but this is one of the greatest extravagances of this government. Here we have an island with-i out a name and in the vicinity we see the church and properties belonging to Georges Paquin and E. Charles Girard. There is another property belonging to L'Oeuvre et Fabrique de St. Eustache. Then there is an ice shed and St. Eustache cemetery. There is a property near there in the name of the PosL master General and next to him is a property belonging to Madame Aube. I understand the island belongs to the Postmaster General. Let us see how shallow the water is around it. The readings of depth are given as: 1-7 feet, 2-1 feet, 1-2 feet, 1-9 feet, 2-1 feet, 1-8 inches, 3-1 feet, 2-3 feet, 2-7 feet, three-tenths of a foot, 1-7 feet, 1-2 feet, three-tenths of a foot. This is the channel around the island and the government has spent $32,000 for that.
There is worse than that. I am told by reliable people that that money has been spent to improve the estate of the Postmaster General and some excavation has been made. On the plan which is not signed but

Public Works Program
which comes with return reference 256, sessional paper ,No. 350, there appears this description :
Area of loose rock cleaned by hand. The big boulders on this shoal were dynamited, and' all stones and boulders wheelbarrowed, one part on adjacent island, other part on shore opposite. This shoal was cleaned to low water level in 1934 by day labour.
I would ask the Minister of Public Works -and perhaps I will give him some inside information as to what is going on in his department-whether it is not true that the dredging was the digging of that shallow water of less than one foot in some places in order to increase it to three-that was the answer given-to improve the navigation facilities for small craft around the island belonging to the Postmaster General. That is the first point. There was quite a heavy expenditure on that and there were numerous complaints from the electors of that constituency of Two Mountains that there was enough of that dredging. Then there was some filling. All the rocks and boulders that had been brought to the island to make it a fortress were taken from the island into the stream again, and that was filling. That was an expenditure of $32,000. Why is the hon. member for North Simcoe (Mr. Simpson) smiling? If an hon. member of my own party were doing a thing like that, I would denounce him instead of approving of his action by my smile. I wonder whether there is a single elector in my hon. friend's constituency who would approve such extravagant waste of money as that at the expense of the country for a minister of the crown. What surprises me is this: there is in this big file only one mention of the Postmaster General, stating that he wishes the work to be done at the earliest opportunity. It was such a scandalous work that the rocks had to be taken from the island and thrown again into the stream. Of course no one is surprised at that when one considers that S20.000 has been given as pure graft for a man who had invented that famous postal box made of a stovepipe. Well sir. the postage has been increased one cent, from two cents to three. How many cents did it take from the Canadian taxpayer to pay that fabulous expenditure of $32,000? Three million two hundred thousand cents. Sir, it is incredible. I am sure the Minister of Public Works is ashamed of it. I am sure advantage has been taken of his good faith; he has been deceived. May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will explain that expenditure? Many expenditures are necessary and money is not available for them, yet there is waste and extravagance of that kind, taking rocks from a small stream to put them on the shores of an island in order to beautify it when that island is the property of a private individual. Then when the population is outraged by that way of spending money the rocks and boulders are taken and thrown into the water, making a double expenditure in order that nothing should remain in sight of such a scandal. Will the hon. gentleman explain that?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I speak from
recollection and without having the file before me. This was a scheme for dredging the Du Chene river-


Jean-François Pouliot: A scheme all right!


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -through the village of St. Eustache. I think the dredging extended a mile or more, and the effect was to improve very much the conditions for that village and its residents. As my hon. friend states, the water was shallow in some places and the dredging was to deepen the channel, making navigation better and improving the flow of water past the village, it having become stagnant owing to the fact that the stream had filled at the mouth. Now the usual practice in such matters, where dredging is carried on in a stream of this kind, is to place the spoil along the shore and on the land adjoining. I believe that was the course adopted in this case; the spoil was placed along the side of the channel or lands of the different owners. My hon. friend says that some of the land was owned by the Postmaster General (Mr. Sauve). That may be so, but the same method was adopted of disposing of the spoil as in the case of the other owners and as is usual in cases of this kind. It was a scheme for the dredging of this river to improve it for navigation and for the benefit of the village, and not for the benefit of the Postmaster General. If the spoil was placed on his land or around this island it was merely following the same course as was adopted with respect to all the other owners in the same area. I do not know the quantity of the spoil; that is a detail for the engineers. I do not think there was anything irregular or improper in the way the work was carried out or the method employed for disposal of the spoil. I do not know anything about the boulders of which my hon. friend speaks, and I do not know whether it was an improvement or a detriment to the land upon which the spoil was placed. All we ever do is to get the approval or consent of the owners of adjoining land so that there will be no
Victoria Day

claim for damages, because in carrying on the work of the department we have found that if you dredge and put the spoil on adjoining lands there is generally a claim for damages-


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask a question?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: -or for interruption of access to the water. To avoid that sort of thing we generally get, as I have said, the consent of the owner to place the spoil upon his land, or a release from damage claims. I can only say that as far as I know the usual and regular course that has been followed in similar work was followed in this case.
I move that the committee rise.


Jean-François Pouliot: Before the committee
rises may I ask a question?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask him who was
the owner of the island from whom he got the consent?


Hugh Alexander Stewart: I do not know.


Jean-François Pouliot: Then how could the minister get his consent?
Progress reported.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Thursday, May 23, 1935